I attended the premier last night. The movie started out with a bang (perhaps due to pre-premier excitement). The audience laughed for about 15 minutes, then most of us spent the rest of the time fighting off sleep. This movie can not be compared to _Spinal Tap_ or any of Guest's work, unless you want to say _Sons of Provo_ is a wanna-be gone awfully wrong. It just fell flat, it died, it was painful. The story went nowhere, the jokes were bland, even if you were a Mormon and could get all of the inside jokes, it felt like a waste of time. There were two redeeming qualities: Kirby's acting was spot on! And the songs were very clever (for an LDS audience only). So, my recommendations... Avoid the movie. And if you are Mormon, buy the music CD.


I was invited to an early screening of the movie about four months before it was released. I had to watch the film and later fill out a packet on my thoughts. It was THE hardest thing to sit through on earth. The show just crawls by, and you quickly begin wishing you were dead. The thing is, there are two types of Mormon films. The good ones with actual good stories, and the crappy ones that just plain stink. Saints and Soldiers, now there is a good movie. But, with these wannabe-comedies, the writers and the actors just try too hard. Basically, they try to be funny when they are not. No wonder why there is such a small target audience for these films; they're filled with 'inside jokes' that aren't funny to begin with, and they just try to poke fun at average things. It's the story that makes the movie, and the stories for these movies are just weak. I bet you can guess what my packet looked like when I was told to fill it out after the movie. ;)


Alice Dodgson,a New York doctor gets her license suspended when she treats one of her patients with an unapproved drug,resulting in the patient's death.Without a job,Alice is forced to go to Jamaica,where she tends to the brother of a wealthy white landowner.The brother thinks he's a zombie and is deeply involved in the local people's voodoo practices and rituals."Ritual" is a mediocre horror flick.The action is pretty dull,the plot twists are silly and there is no suspense.There is a bit of gore as someone is killing off white people with a machete,but not too much.The cinematography is decent,however the acting is truly woeful.Definitely one to avoid.4 out of 10.


I can barely find the words to describe how much this piece of trash offended me. Why is it that American filmmakers always go out of there way to portray Jamaicans as a bunch of backwards ass bush babies and worse yet, cast people to play Jamaicans who sound utterly ridiculous when they try to imitate the accent? We are not all extremely dark, we do not all walk around carrying machetes whether for work OR PROTECTION, we do not walk around naked in our homes and we do not practice VOODOO!! We are doctors, lawyers, architects, Businessmen and women, musicians, actors AND FILMMAKERS. I am sick and tired of watching all of these portrayals of Jamaicans as a bunch of dreadlock wearing Rastafarians who do nothing but sit around all day smoking weed on a beach or shooting guns in the air (When we're not living in our tree houses). YES, we wear clothes. YES, we have electricity. No, weed is not legal on the island AND CHANCES ARE WE SPEAK BETTER English THAN YOU! The worst part is, this isn't just me being angry and bitter, these are actual answers to questions that most Jamaicans who have traveled overseas have been asked at some point. Read a book before you assume what's it's like in another country and worse yet, decide to make a movie about it.

WELCOME TO JAMAICA! The land where all we do is murder white people and beat our bongos drums...Tales from the Crypt has officially sickened me, along with the entire crew of people who worked on this garbage, especially the writer.


This turned out all right and looks interesting. However, as it goes on the attempts at creating emotions between the characters is so inept that it really turns the horror off and is an insult to serious viewers. The story this is based on "I walked with a zombie" is probably much better although unfortunately I haven´t seen it yet. "Ritual" looks so exciting and could have been a great movie about zombies and voodoo but in reality it has turned out very poorly which is a shame. It´s hard to say what is wrong with it. I guess there are just too many inept scenes and it is hard to believe, for example, in the lovestory between Alice (who is called Alice Dodgson like the girl who supposedly inspired Lewis Carrol to call his heroine Alice) and the younger brother. Absolutely nothing has been built up between them and then in the end they get married. Anyway, this looks great, and it was worth a look - but the movie is just so poorly performed. 3/10.


Tim Curry was the reason I wanted to see this film, and while of course his appearance is always entertaining, he's basically wasted in it. The rest of the cast doesn't fare too well either, in this remake of an early zombie movie that has extremely graphic effects that are totally unnecessary. To quote a popular axiom, sometimes less is more.


This film was the one of the first, of the 70s women-in-prison film genre. This movie was incredibly violent, with lots of sadistic torture being inflicted on the inmates. The film takes place in the Phillipines, which looks like a horribly ugly country. No doubt, the producers used this factor to their advantage, to emphasize the gruesome situation that the prisoners were in.

Blaxploitation movie queen Pam Grier, has the starring role in this movie. She plays Blossom, a renegade who gets thrown in the vile women's prison, on trumped-up charges. Her boyfriend, played by Sid Haig, tries to rescue Blossom. He and Blossom are part of a political guerrilla faction, and Blossom's incarceration was orchestrated by the corrupt, Phillipino government.

Pam Grier and Sid Haig, stand-out amongst the otherwise lackluster cast. The film itself, put way too much emphasis on violence perpetrated against the prisoners. Their captors just used them solely as objects of their sadism. This got boring real fast. This movie could've used more interesting plot-lines, and subtlety. This is not one of Roger Corman's better pictures. The many women-in-prison films that followed this one, were much better all around. I'd recommend The Big Bird Cage, only to Pam Grier fans.


This was the typical women prison movie. I thought the women were very sexy and the outfits were great. All the camera did was focus on the women and the women were always in provocative poses for the camera and they were always scantily dressed(which I loved). This is your basic prison/breakout movie of the 70's. All I can say about this film is that it's extremely cheesy, but the women are gorgeous and their butts are great!


Some of the reviewers of this film were extremely "generous" with praise. I personally was disappointed, because due to those reviews, I was optimistic as the opening credits began to roll.

The all-too familiar story line goes like this: Deformed boy and his father live out in Louisiana swamp. Local boys ridicule and torment him. Local boys start Gruesome's, oh sorry, I mean Victor Crowley's cabin on fire with him in it. Dad attempts to rescue his son, formerly known as Eddie Munster meets the Elephant Man, but accidentally puts a hatchet through the kid's head instead. Victor becomes a murderous ghost who hunts down unfortunates who enter his domain. Oooo... scary.

One thing I appreciated about Hatchet was that it never took itself seriously and some of the gags even made me laugh. The thing is, I've grown tired of the Hollywood-polished, B-horror slap-sticks. I like to laugh and I enjoy a good scare, but this film didn't deliver a solid dose of either. As for Crowley being the next Michael, Jason, or Freddy... Pumpkinhead has a better chance.


Any horror film that casts Robert Englund (Freddie Kruger!) then kills him in the opening 5 minutes before the opening credits have even run should be instantly viewed with nothing but suspicion.

Tony Todd (Candyman!) as a swamp tour guide (his James Earl Jones voice impression is hysterical by the way, I don't know or care if he was trying to be funny but I was laughing at it). Sadly his role was all of 5 minutes long as well. More reasons for suspicion and quite rightly so.

Mercedes McNab (AKA Harmony from Buffy & Angel, I had to look her up to see what I remembered her from but she gets semi-naked!), Marcus the token black guy (Not Another Teen Movie) is filling a comedy role that really isn't required in a horror movie unless it's intended as a spoof.

Joel Murray (Bill Murray's brother & Pete from Dharma & Greg) plays Shapiro, the guy shooting the gonzo video with the 2 cute girls. As they take a "Spooky Swap Ghost Tour" the 2 lead male characters meet up with some other folks and get run aground on rocks and have to leave the boat. So their now all isolated in the swamp at night in the rain.

Once the real story of Victor Crowley has been told (his make-up looked like Sloth from The Goonies) we have established he is dead (well you aren't coming back from being hit in the skull by an Axe!) Once the old guy is attacked, despite pulling her gun and having a very clear shot it takes Marybeth more than 30 seconds to actually start firing at a guy who is hacking an old man apart with a hatchet. Is she stupid? Thats 29 second too long! In terms of plot there really isn't one (I don't class undead psycho as a plot, sorry) and the pacing is really bad as well. You have a killing, some running away, some light relief then some slow dialogue before beginning the cycle again.

After an extremely long scene investigating a wobbly bush with a raccoon in it Victor appears again (with some sort of power tool) and kills the dark haired porno girl, he also manages to slice the tour guide in half with a Shovel? Once Misty is left on her own to keep lookout for Ben I felt it was pretty obvious she was going to be the next to die (I was right but you don't get to see it).

Film makers? Rain will NOT extinguish burning gasoline, OK? Idiots! Obviously after the 2 near misses in the cemetery Marcus was next to die and Ben was hurt in the foot with the spike but they managed to find a boat after impaling Victor on the spike.

She's pulled into the water by something unseen, he's trying to save her then she's suddenly pulled into the boat by Victor and is screaming and the movie abruptly ends.

Yeah, just like that. No clue if Ben was dead (he seemed to be missing an arm) and no clue if Marybeth was going to survive and what happened with Victor.

It's an awful ending and no doubt my verbal attack at the film makers got the last review deleted. So much for free speech, eh?


I read the recent comments and couldn't wait to see the movie. however, after sitting through 80 minutes of predictable "suprises" that didn't even make me jump and unrealistic villain, i was left hugely disappointed. I thought cartoons were the only movies that were still only 80 minutes long. I thought this might be because of the edits to make it 'R' rated, but the original only contained ten more minutes of "Kill Bill" type blood. When blood sprays out like hoses, reality loses appeal. Add in the killer who's supposed to be a "ghost" but can rip someones head off from the jaw (ala King Kong with the T-Rex), lives through everything and has an ending similar to that of the sopranos finale and you quite possibly have the most over-hyped movie in the last year. After watching the movie i felt like i had seen countless movies with the same plot and method and also felt largely unsatisfied. I dunno what everyone else saw in it, but if you want a good horror movie this weekend, see Halloween, it's definitely worth the $10. When it comes to Hatchet, let's hope the next one IS based on the Book.


This is one of the worst films I've seen for years. The storyline has potential that is never realized. The actors are a poor choice, but considering the screen writing, their talent isn't wasted. I really wanted everyone dead as quickly as possible so I could get out and watch something else. Unfortunately, I did stay to the end and had a laugh at the murmurs of people moaning about how crappy this is. There wasn't booing, after all, this is England, just gentle moans about how crap that was. Then, I look on IMDb and see 288 people have given it 10 out of 10. I really just cannot see how those people are able to give that score. They must be a PR company working with the distributor. There's a hilarious set problem towards the end of the film, when in the graveyard and the hick attacks, look out for the dodgy scenery that rocks when touched (supposed to be a brick wall) - the blood effects are waaaay OTT - the film feels like everyone is making a spoof horror except the Director.


It's important to check your expectations when you see HATCHET. The *buzz that has been generated on this site far surpasses the real impact of the movie. What may help someone about to see the movie is to realize that it is --not supposed to be scary--. It is pure camp and an attempt at fun. It is not --funny--, just campy. Don't expect something like SHAUN OF THE DEAD; nor something like Friday THE 13TH (Part II through infinity).

HATCHET does possess passable actors. The cinematography is straight Ed Wood. Creature effects and make-up are silly - probably on purpose. Gore and blood is something between Romero and DEAD ALIVE. HATCHET is a movie of betweenness. It's between SHAUN OF THE DEAD and LESLIE VERNON. It's between campy and comedy (there's a difference). It's between ultra violent and violent comic book.

Instead of "capturing the essence of American Horror," or whatever other silly jargon that has been used to describe the movie, it tries to capture something between seminal --American-- Horror like Friday THE 13TH and new Horror like SHAUN. It thankfully stays away from Torture Horror.

In the end HATCHET is between a bad movie and a decent movie.

*I think it is happening more and more that people involved in movies are flocking to sites like IMDb to rate and comment on the movies that they are involved with. At very least there is campaigning going on for people associated with the associates to leave positive feedback and ratings. There is no other reason for this movie to have stared out in the high 7s with 600 votes and quickly fall after wide release. This movie is on just better than the HorrorFest releases and should not be so bloated.


Let me just give you guys some advice, if your going to watch this movie just to see a bunch of unlikable characters get slaughtered in a dozen different ways then you are going to love this movie because everyone dies a horrible death, beyond the gore however there is not much else.

where should i start: -the characters do not appeal to the audience as there are no back stories for any of them, there for i didn't feel connected to any of them, in fact i didn't like any of them, and i was so sick of them that by the end of the movie i was rooting for the disfigured creep to kill them all.(which he did by the way)

-bad acting; i mean i didn't get it, take the Asian tour guide for example, first he spoke perfect English then after their little tour boat thing sunk he somehow got an accent out of the blue, then later on went to speaking normal English.

-one of the worst endings for a horror:(if you can call it that)after the monster/human mutant thing kills almost everyone, he is killed by the last two remaining idiots, or so they thought! the monster/human thing is finally killed when the beauty and the geek stick a pole through its heart/nick(it was hard to tell)and presumably it died right in front of them(within arms reach) but later on it comes back and kills them(wtf) i mean why didn't it just kill them when he was right next to them. Arghhhh! i mean it was just way too retarded,it was like the writer didn't know where he wanted the story to go.(or he was a few minutes short of 80 min so he added some more retarded twists to the movie so people can get 80min worth of crap instead of 75min.

what i didn't get was why didn't they just kill the damned thing while it was unconscious, instead they just walked away from it like idiots and left it so it could come back and kill them. the only reason i gave it a 4 was because of the gore which was actually the only thing that i watched this movie to the end for, that and to watch them all get killed.(no, i'm serious)


is it just me or have all "horror" movies become nothing more than titties, slapstick, and an over the top villain who cannot be killed. this movie had no point. whatever happened to the days of a person being able to escape from the killer as in hostel. and at least make the killer a little more realistic. victor crowley was the worst killer i have ever seen. he reminded me of a demon spawn between quasimodo and leatherface. it was over the top that while victor was lying there on fire no one thought to finish the job. and the ending was the biggest disappointment of all reminiscent of the soprano's finale. i had to agree with the fella behind me when he blurted... WHAT THE F***! if i could give the movie a negative score i would have taken care of it.


Saying this movie is worse than asphyxiating on your own diarrhea is a generous understatement. The only thing more pathetic than this reprehensible piece of garbage of a movie is the shmuck getting paid by the producers to register a bunch of accounts to post fake appraise.

If watching a poorly-acted, suspenseless, snoozer of a movie about Sloth from the Goonies kill people in a fashion that completely ignores every law of physics (pulling on an unrestrained person's legs, causing them to be ripped from the torso) is your idea of a good movie, then knock yourself out.

No carbon-based lifeform with a functioning occipital lobe would consider in a million eons that this movie is scary or entertaining.


A terrible movie that is amateurish on almost every level - a boring and derivative screenplay filled with stereotyped characters played by embarrassed actors for a director lacking the most rudimentary understanding of his craft. The whole thing stinks. It plays like a slasher movie from the early eighties, down to the crappy score and ketchup SFX, but without the childhood nostalgia that is required to look fondly on such dross. One of the worst horror films I've ever seen - definitely the worst that received a mainstream theatrical release. I've never walked out of a film in my life - had I been unlucky enough to see 'Hatchet' at the theater, it would have been a first. Avoid at all costs.


am a hardcore horror/thriller fan...when i was searchin for good horror flick to scare me on my weekend night..grabbed HATCHET..with impressing BLOOD STAINED HATCHET movie poster added to average ratings in IMDb..but i was wrong after watchin this crap...no characterisation..sick dialogues,with sexy babes bared boobs. i got the feel of watchin porno certainly..and the substory which so called main theme or suspense of the story SUCKS big time....and here comes the CLOWN wearin funny mask to scare..THINK users rated this movie went nuts ..it deserves 1 out of 10 i give 2 for bare boobs babes n soundtrack it has...


Like "The Blair Witch Project" before it, "Hatchet" has garnered its own fair share of publicity from the bottom-on-up (as an avid reader of Fangoria Magazine, the full-page ads are hard to miss); even after its middling theatrical run, the film is bound to subsist solely on the hype surrounding it, and will probably turn into a cult item at some point. With a MySpace URL and a mighty (if puzzlingly subjective) promise of preserving so-called "old school American horror," "Hatchet" will draw a lot of curiosity seekers with its DVD release (where that claim is emblazoned on the disc itself). Perhaps it was the large-print blurb from Ain't It Cool News on the ads that caused me to approach the film with some trepidation (it seems that Harry Knowles and his minions will approve of any film for VIP passes and free food), but "Hatchet" makes me question what writer-director Adam Green's idea of "old school American horror" really is: based on the evidence here, it means the insipid, late-'80s rip-offs of "Friday the 13th" and "Deliverance." The characters are obnoxious stereotypes (black Chris Tucker type, Survivalist Chick, Topless Bimbos, Requisite Old Couple, Asian Tour Guide) whose interactions are marred by painful, trying-to-be-hip dialogues and mostly obvious stabs at humor (not quite as bad as "Cabin Fever," but still); the script has too much padding (the "rustling bush" scene, for example), and "Hatchet" winds up as typical as any postmodern slasher of the last decade, with its only distinguishing trait an expertly-calculated hype machine. I'll give it some faint praise for the gore--if you can wade through the padding in between kills, the red vino is definitely a thing of wonder, and the only real reason to watch this.


Harry Knowles has a quote right on the front cover of the DVD stating"The Next Icon of Horror" Really?!?!?!? I have heard a lot of hype surrounding this one but wasn't totally convinced. However I am a die hard horror fan and will give just about any horror movie a chance. No matter the budget or the rating cause ya never know where your gonna find the next gem. Not here.Not Hatchet. Hatchet is poorly conceived,poorly acted and un funny. Just because you have the actors who played Freddy Jason and Candyman and a Buffy chic topless with tons of gore does not make you an expert on horror.Sorry. I don't even want to describe the plot because it is so idiotic. Honestly my money is on Rob Zombie. There is a man who knows old school horror. Forget this trash.


I first heard of this movie at the "Flashback Weekend" in Chicago 2007 for the "Nightmare on Elm Street". Robert Englund was really talking the movie up and he was great in his part of "Hatchet". The same can be said for Tony Todd. Knowing this is a low budget first time director / writer it delivers every bit as much as the big budget and also cameo laden "Holloween" (2007) remake/re-imagining.

Technically it falls short in a couple of places. The alligator attack seen was shoot too dark. When it happened the dark head of the alligator against the swamp clamping on to the black pants became almost invisible. The mood music in the swamp scenes was too loud in volume and canned, like a bad sitcom. And just like "Holloween" (2007) someone is smart enough to have a gun, but of course shooting the killer is only a pause button for the killer. The ending, well, as soon as I saw where it was going I knew what was going to happen, not very original.

The highlights of the movie are the characters and their interactions. Unlike "Holloween" (2007) we got to meet the people and care what happened to them. Ben (Joel Moore, who is also the lead of "Spiral")the sulking lead and Marcus ("Not Another Teen Movie")as the best friend and funny man to root for during the movie. Shapiro (Joel Murry "Dharma & Greg"), Jenna (Joleigh Fioreavanti) and Misty (Mercedes McNab of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Series", "Angel: The Series" and "The Addams Family" movies) give a convoluted reason for topless women. Mr. and Mrs. Permatteo played by television regulars (Richard Riehle "Grounded for Life", Patrika Darbo "Step by Step")as the older couple that you know don't stand a chance, even the tour guide Shawn (Parry Shen) is a fleshed out character. I hope to see more from all involved in this film, but I think it will play better on home video than in the theater, sorry.


I don't understand what the big hype was about this film. All the horror sites were saying that this movie had all the essentials of an 'old American slasher' flick that it would satisfy your needs. -- Even though this was similar to an old American slasher flick, my needs were still not satisfied.

My big problem with this movie is that we are now in the 2000's, not the 1980's. 1980's horror is the past and should stay in the past. Horror movies have changed so much that older movies now look cheesy and unrealistic. Even though they are fun to watch, they don't offer the same realistic blood thirsty gore that the recent films offer.

Hatchet is cheesy, unrealistic, and down-right awful. If we wanted to watch an old American slasher flick, i can just go back to the Friday the 13th series, Nightmare on Elm street series, or the Halloween series. I must admit, the movie is better than some of the horror movies being released but it is among the worst. The jokes are not funny and the actors are horrible.

I would personally stay away from this movie and never look back.


This movie is one of the worse examples of hype. People who read IMDb comments might be tempted to view this total waste of time, as I was, by false tag-lines like " A throwback to 80's horror" and what-not. This movie sucks, from the acting to the directing to the story. Horrible, all across the board. And I really like GOOD horror films, I am not at all a snob. This sucked. For reference, I loved The Grudge 1 and 2, Black Sheep, Planet Terror, Texas Chaisaw Massacre The Beginning, The Others, The Ring, Jason X, Slither, Planet Terror, and really hated The Ring 2, Texas Chainsaw Massacre(re-make)Wolf Creek, The Hills Have Eyes(re-make)Hostel 1 and 2, and this movie. Gore doesn't trump fun or originality.


another eli roth in the making. self promoting, bad script writing excuse for a horror director. victor is as far from the new horror icon as mary poppins (reference to the Disney score). what is going on here? you have marilyn manson opening and closing this piece of crap and chitty chitty bang bang all through it. can this even be called horror? horrible, yes, but horror is a stretch. David lynch should sue them for stealing the elephant man prosthetics. please stop these fan boy want to be directors now. the video directors already have enough competition breaking into the film industry. getting online and talking about how great your movie is does not make it true. stop the insanity. i work in the industry and yes these films are fun to work on, but rarely ever entertaining to actually watch.


A washed up reporter called Bart Crosbie (Pat O' Brien) blackmails gang boss Heinz Webber (George Colouris) for the money to pay for his son to have a life saving operation. In return he agrees to turn himself in for the murder of his editor, whom the gang killed in order to prevent an incriminating story being printed about them.

Typical poverty-row b-pic of the time directed for far more than it's worth by Terence Fisher, who within months of making this would become one of the leading British horror film directors at the Hammer studio. The script is far-fetched and teen idol Tommy Steele (guitar in hand) was drafted in to sing a poor rock and roll number called "The Rebel" at a coffee bar that acts as a legitimate front for the gang's activities.


Stodgy drama starring Pat O'Brien as a washed-up reporter who turns up at his ex-boss's house to ask for money to fund his son's operation, only to find him dead on the floor. Since O'Brien knows the identity of the culprit, he offers to take the rap in return for the money he needs. A decent premise is wasted on a film that pretends it has surprises, twists and turns, even though it really doesn't. Performances are rotten across the board, the movie dresses itself up as a hard-boiled American noir but the mix of dodgy accents doesn't work, and the story is hardly gripping. And it contains possibly the least attractive screen kiss of all time.


Being stuck in bed with the flu and feeling too rough to get up to find the remote, I actually watched this abomination from start to finish (how many people can say that? And for any who can - what's your excuse?). My God, has there ever, EVER been such a total mess released by a major studio? There is not one second of genuine tension in a supposed "thriller"; the script is inept and ludicrous; the sets look like they were leftovers from a low-budget TV movie; and the cast ... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!!! Sally Field gives what is without doubt the worst and most embarrassing performance of any Academy Award winner in history. Her irritating nasal whine and stupidly perky behaviour in what is meant to be a life-threatening situation are truly asinine. It's a wonder she didn't use all her future earnings to buy up and destroy every print of this turkey. Michael Caine, who now pontificates endlessly on the art of screen acting - even running master classes for would-be thespians - should be taken out and shot (preferably by one of Telly Savalas' henchmen). Angela Cartwright, an actress I usually like (and whose name isn't even in the opening credits, poor soul), is ten years too old for her role, and her horrible matronly yellow prom dress must haunt her nightmares to this day. Slumming it are Karl Malden and Shirley Knight - hopefully they collected a big pay packet to assuage their involvement. The whole film is a series of bad scenes, but one that especially sticks in my mind is the explosion which results in the "ceiling" (if an upside-down ship's deck can be termed as such) collapsing and a load of empty cardboard boxes falling through! Ooh, how scary! Really, really, terrible.


...but other than that, there's almost no redeeming social value to this sequel to the original Poseidon Adventure. Where the heck are all the people from the original, including the rescue crew? Michael Caine undergoes his most humiliating performance to date (although he later trumps himself with Jaws 4 down the road). Slim Pickens is just embarrassing as a stereotyped Texas, and generally you just have to wonder, "Why did they bother?" Irwin Allen's last stab at cashing in on the disaster craze, I guess.


I accidentally caught this in the middle flipping channels. I immediately recognized almost everyone in the cast, "groovy" haircuts aside, and wondered what kind of film could attract such a cast of both past and future stars? Having not seen the original, I guessed it might be the Poseidon Adventure, since it was obviously on a ship in distress. Was I wrong! I cannot for the life of me imagine why any of these great (or promising) actors and actresses would allow their name to be associated with such trash. There is no story, the performances all looked forced, the characters a parody of the usual disaster movie roles that are suddenly brought together by an event, and start pontificating about the real meaning of life at the level of bumper sticker philosophy.

It is only worthwhile to see the unusually awful performances by such greats as Sally Field, Michael Caine, et al. They must have needed the money badly. Can we blame the director?


Maybe here in Sydney we are all poop side down and as a result we get to lap up floaters like this s-eek!-uel in classy theaters. Released here in 1980 this hilarious all-tar drama was greeted with howls of delight at the session I attended. In fact the audience were so into the ludicrous antics on screen it played like a Rocky Horror session. Within 5 minutes we all knew it was a real disaster: the tug boat scene where you can see the buckets of water tossed in from off-set. after that it was every patron for himself and the cinema rang with advice, cheering for bad acting and oo-waah reactions. The gunfight in the hold among the crates is especially idiotic and allows drunken viewers with friends in altered states also watching to contribute appropriately. I call these films with Michael Caine his holiday house films as I always reckon he agrees to do them because he has seen a house he likes and doesn't want to spend his savings. Like Jaws 3 or 4 or whatever it was called.


Sequels, well there are many reasons to make 'em but what went through Irwin Allen's mind to come up with such a boring idea is beyond all logical matters. There are so many open answers to this movie that it is ridiculous...like The Poseidon which is a monstruous ship with passengers on is drifting on the sea and just Michael Caine with his miniboat and an evil Telly Savalas discover the boat...well, at the beginning the French marine are circling above the wreck with their helicopter but as a sinking cruiseship is a daily thing, they just fly away... What am I trying to say??? Hmmm, Michael Caine goes on board with sally Field and he might pick up everything he sees (diamonds)if there wasn't a Telly Savalas who is looking for weapons on the ship...my God, why in fact am I wasting my words on here? It's ridiculous and knowing that both Field and Caine were involved makes you think what went through their minds when reading scripts....certainly not diamonds....


Wretched. Talk about botched. BEYOND THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE is bad in every respect. Salvagers Michael Caine and Karl Malden decide to tow the wreck of the eponymous ocean liner with a really creaky tug boat. They're challenged by ruthless Telly Savalas and his gang of machine-gun toting goons. This part sequel, part remake has Caine, Malden and ANOTHER group of Poseidon survivors making a similarly dangerous trek out of the sinking ship. Among this group are Shirley Jones, Slim Pickens, Peter Boyle, Shirley Knight and Slim Pickens. Jack Warden plays a blind man. Surely, you'll wish you were blind after seeing this mess. Sally Field is particularly annoying as a stowaway on board Caine's tug.

Disaster master Irwin Allen not only produced this one, he decided to direct it as well.


Awkward disaster mishmash has a team of scavengers coming across the overturned S.S. Poseidon, hoping to loot it before it goes under for good. Irwin Allen's sequel to his 1972 blockbuster "The Poseidon Adventure" arrived in theaters SEVEN YEARS LATER! Never mind that nobody cared anymore, why give us such a shoddy production, filled with dim characters and miscast actors, only to trash the memory of your biggest hit? One might end up feeling really sorry for Michael Caine, Sally Field, Peter Boyle, Jack Warden, Karl Malden and Shirley Jones were it not for their lost-at-sea expressions (good for a few stray laughs). There's a moment when saintly Jones is tempted into taking some treasures just for herself and she timidly starts stuffing her pockets that is an unintended hoot. The film was a career bungler for all concerned, most especially Allen, who never quite recovered from this. * from ****


This film is in a dead tie with the original for worst film ever made. I think this one may be slightly worse, if anything. SPOILER ALERT!!! Here are these survivors on a ship that's been capsized for a long time. Improbable? No - IMPOSSIBLE. The whole premise is so laughable as to not be funny. There are some pretty big names in the film, and even they couldn't save this sorry thing. I find it truly a waste of good celluloid. After seeing this, I also unfortunately decided that it had been a waste of my time. Don't bother with this one. Or the original for that matter! I gave it a 2, mainly because they throw votes of 1 out.


4 Oscar winners, Karl Malden, Sally Field, Shirley Jones, Michael Caine. Great character actors Telly Savalas and Peter Boyle. 1 hour 54 minutes of sheer tedium, melodrama and horrible acting, a mess of a script, and a sinking feeling of GOOD LORD, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?

Irwin Allen was just trying to cash in on the popularity of the original classic disaster film with a grade D minus script, the actors were obviously just in it for the paycheck as well,... the horror, the horror!

How insane are the characters that Caine, Savalas, Malden and Field are playing? Go into a potentially deadly sinking ship that's 1. on fire 2. Hot from steam 3. Slippery from water and oil, 4. boilers that are exploding every 5 minutes, etc., all for the love of money? Greed? 5. They have very little equipment, not even a pair of gloves or work boots in sight, much less a grappling hook, rope, etc.

Stupidity!

What were they thinking?

Peter Boyle overacts so much that I just wanted to smack him! Stop it! And what's the deal with the bad toupee? Also, there is no way you can believe his character was a WW2 veteran.

Caine, Field and Malden find all that gold and money and they are happy--whoopee! We're rich! (We may not live to spend it, but hey...)

And yee haw, it's the great character actor Slim Pickens!

Survivors galore! Jack Warden and Shirley Knight, too!

The final dramatic sub plot about that scary plutonium never really went anywhere, it's like they forgot, sort of? Lots of holes in the script.

This film has an illness that the strongest pill couldn't cure. I'm surprised Alan J. Smithee's name wasn't on the script, I'd be embarrassed to have penned this one!

Oh the insanity, Oh The humanity! Oy Vey!

The Horror, The Horror!

It's like a bad two hour TV movie.

At least the sets were made from recycled material from the first movie.

The script needed to be on the compost heap...


...a good script or director couldn't fix.

The original 'Poseidon Adventure' was a story of human courage triumphing against terrific odds and personal tragedy. The survivors were led by a charismatic figure of great spiritual strength who would take anything God threw at him.

The follow-up tries to recreate the mix but fails through a formulaic script and pedestrian direction. Irwin Allen may have been a great producer of disaster flicks, and done a fine job directing the action scenes in 'Towering Inferno', but he just can't bring any human depth to his characters. If the characters aren't credible any danger they face also falls flat.

The script also tries to copy the original too obviously. So we have Peter Boyle doing the Ernest Borgnine thing by being tough and obnoxious (but he has a tender heart); Karl Malden is the Red Buttons moderating influence (and is terminally ill for good measure); Slim Pickens does the comic relief for Shelley Winters, and so on.

To make the story more contemporary we have a rogue arms dealer ready to flog weapons-grade plutonium to the highest bidder. A really nasty piece of work who ruthlessly abandons wounded men (the actors playing his henchmen were presumably paid as extras because they don't seem to have any lines) and has a woman shot in the back - what a cad! Thank goodness the French rescue services made the hole in the Poseidon's hull twice as large as in 1972 (and on the other side of the propeller shaft) so he could he get his goods out. And while we're on the subject, how did they get the crates *to* the... oh, forget it.

I actually paid good money to see this when it was released. Given the film's current reputation this may seem odd, but it actually got quite mixed reviews at the time. Some said it was junk, some said it was as exciting as the original. Never mind, nobody can be right all the time.


I was totally disgusted with this unnecessary sequel to "The Poseidon Adventure" a movie which I have given a great comment about.

This film is unbelievable from the word GO! I agree, why were no other rescues boats around and helicopters? The one that rescued the original survivors had just flown over the boat that Michael Caine & Sally Field are on. THAT WAS THE ONLY RESCUE CREW? Hard to believe.

The acting is generally poor and the show looks cheap. I really hated the waste of talent from some good actors.

Don't watch this film unless you must catch Sally & Michael as lovers.

gord


I went to see this 3 nights ago here in Cork, Ireland. It was the world premiere of it, in the tiny cinema in the Triskel Arts Centre as part of the Cork Film Festival.

I found "Strange Fruit" to be an excellent movie. It is a bit rough around the edges, but for a low-budget movie that is to be expected! In general the acting (particularly from the main lead Kent Faulcon) is wonderful, the cinematography and direction excellent, and the script hugely entertaining and thought-provoking, with some nice set-ups and witty dialogue.

The ending was a bit sudden, with no conclusion given to characters and events once the finale came to its gripping end ... but perhaps that's what the filmmakers were going for? It certainly did make the movie more unsettling. I did like the fact that the main character never came to terms with his mother on screen: it leaves you wondering whether or not he ever will, as in real-life sometimes these things are never settled. This was a good choice, to leave it unresolved rather than sentimentally wrapping it up!

Taut and suspenseful throughout, "Strange Fruit" is a hugely ambitious debut and I have high hopes for what the writer/director Kyle Schickner will unleash next. He - and his colleagues - are a talent worth watching.

I hope "Strange Fruit" gets a wider release soon, as more people deserve to see this movie, an above-average thriller with some original and insightful twists on homophobia and racism in America's Deep South.

Highly Recommended: 7/10


I too had waited a long time to see this film. As far as I know it has never been released in Australia so in the end I found a copy on the net and ordered it through there. Weeks after my order confirmation it finally arrived and I was extremely excited to finally be sitting in front of my TV ready to watch a film that sounded so interesting and controversial and filmed in an area of the world where so many good movies are. What a disappointment. Within the first few minutes I realised I'd ordered a B Grader but was still full of expectation. I convinced my son (18) to watch it with me as I love sharing when I find a movie of value with good underlying statements and/or story lines. About half way through he got up and said he couldn't stand watching it any longer, it was so predictable and amateurish. I agreed but watched to the end. The acting was atrocious even for B Grade standards. The stereotyping also predictable and I feel for the good folks of Lake Arthur, Louisianna who must've cringed after seeing the film depicting them in such a way. No doubt some racial prejudices still exist in many parts of the world not just the States but really, in this day and age I doubt they'd get away with all the ridiculous alibi's presented in this. I had to double check the date the film was made as their attempts at gimmicky filming of the more gruesome scenes was something I'd expect from a high school student's first attempt at making a film 'indy' like. I'd like to see this film put into the hands of experienced scriptwriters and film makers, its an old tale but one that could still pack a punch if dealt with professionally. So disappointed after such a long wait and with such high expectations. The soundtrack was probably the only thing I enjoyed.


This is a movie with an excellent concept for a story but that got sidetracked but a large number of clichéd sub-plots, hackneyed and unrealistic portrayed characterizations and performances, and some frankly implausible (and highly coincidental and, not to mention, convenient as plot points to move the story to its inexorable finish).

The lack of anything that marked the lead as actually gay, other than some coincidental references to Crow Bar or that he's gay, was troubling. It wouldn't have hurt to actually show him do something, even if it was just meet a friend for drinks.

It's worth checking out and has it's merits. There isn't much, even now a few years after the movie was released, in the way of movies that feature both a lead that is gay, or a significant gay plot line, and that is also about African-Americans. For that, it's worth checking out. I wouldn't look too hard for it and I wouldn't waste my time looking for it to own. This is a rental, and not a premium rental at that.


Horrible writing, directing and acting! The writer/director has portrayed Southerners, especially Southern law enforcement as ignorant, backwoods, homophobic and racist (a very popular, yet ignorant, stereotype, that the film industry loves to perpetuate). The acting (or overacting) and the writing came across as amateurish and low budget. The plot line is the same old stale Hollywood story of the mean 'ol racist and homophobic rednecks who are ultimately defeated by the enlightened people from "Newwww Yoke Ceety".

I was raised in the small Louisiana town where this movie was filmed and looked forward to seeing the film but was immediately disappointed during the first few minutes of the movie. The start of the film depicts a gay bar located in the "swamps" of Louisiana. How ridiculous a concept! There are a lot of gays and gay bars in south Louisiana but no gay bars in the "swamps" or small towns of Louisiana. We then are introduced to the sheriff who uses the phrases "homuh-sex'l" in the worst southern drawl and overdone performance ever. Then there is the scene where the local police are watching porno on duty in the police station. I could go on and on about the horrible cheesy acting or the stale stereotypes or ridiculous scenes.

This director and his crew were welcomed into this small friendly town and shown true southern hospitality. The townspeople of Lake Arthur, and the state of Louisiana were only to be insulted and degraded in the final editing. The good people of Lake Arthur were excited and enamored with "Hollywood" being in town not knowing that in the end, they would be portrayed as ignorant, racist and homophobic country bumpkins in a low budget amateur movie that went straight to DVD. My advice: skip this one or watch it on late night Cinemax if it ever makes their rotation.


I think I've finally seen the Worst Movie Ever Made, and it hurts me to say that. As a big fan of indie cinema, gay or otherwise, I had high hopes. Several minutes into the film, however, the sheriff appeared and has my vote for the worst actor of this or any other century. His performance, and the dialog he was forced to perform, caused me the unusual step of stopping the DVD in its track. Hours later when I screwed up enough courage to press the play button again, it was no better.

Aside from the sheriff and his cartoon-racist deputies, the film has an attractive cast for whom I felt genuine sympathy since they had such a miserable script. The idea behind the film is fine - using lynching of gay men in the "New South" the same way it was used on black men in the Old South, leaving "strange fruit" hanging from the trees.

With an accomplished writer and director, we might have had a movie. Instead we get fake detective work, platitudes about homosexuality, and a cliché with a the one good white man trying to save the day.

I have no doubt that racism still flourishes. The FBI is currently investigating a white school bus driver in the back woods of Louisana who forced the black kids to get to the back of the bus. But this town is a cartoon, and it is hard to believe anything you see or hear.

There a few subplots in a weak attempt to try to make the main character more three-dimensional, but for the most part, they also fail miserably.

For the truly masochistic, the DVD contains some deleted scenes that will leave you running for cover.

The is probably the first movie that makes me believe that writer/directors should have to pass a test and get licensed before they can make a film. Although I would look forward to seeing several of the cast members in better films, I would be hard-pressed to witness anything else from this director.


This opens with the company credits informing us it`s by World International Network . I knew I`d seen this company credit before but couldn`t remember where , but knew it was at the start of a really bad movie I`d seen so I seriously thought about changing channels , only thing was I`d seen every film on the other channels which is one of the problems of being an IMDB reviewer . What the hell I thought it won`t really matter if WANTED is good or bad because I`ll still be able to review it for this site.<br /><br />As I expected WANTED wasn`t all that good . It`s a plot I`d seen so many times ( Too many times ) before involving a fugitive on the run , a bit like THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series without the shirt ripping . Jimmy crosses the mob in an entirely contrived way and goes on the run and in an entirely contrived manner finds himself working at a catholic reform school . Have you noticed an oft used description in the last sentence ? " Entirely contrived " is the answer . Let me repeat for the hard of thinking that this is an entirely contrived film where everything relies on coincidence . Another problem I had was the reform school run by the church - it`s far too compassionate and kind , I`m led to believe these type of establishments make Alcatraz look like a country club , I`m saying this is a fact but when the head priest looks like the spitting image of Donald Rumsfeld you do feel there`s a large amount of sugar coating going on .

To be honest despite the ridiculous plot twists etc WANTED isn`t really a bad thriller though it`s a terribly good one either . I never really had the urge to switch it off no matter how contrived it became which is an under hand compliment to the movie


This movie about a man on the run for killing a mobster is the kind of film you can watch entirely on fast forward, once you know who's who, and not lose a thing. It has an attractive cast but the plot is a virtual writer's guide to cinema cliche, and boy does the dialogue clunk!


Pretty terrible, but not entirely unwatchable. Another review mentioned "predictable" - and that's almost an understatement. You can make a game out of guessing what the next line will be. Every character is either stereotype or archetypical. The good guy in a bad situation, the struggle between older and younger priest on acceptance and discipline, the repressed, sexually/emotionally deprived woman returning to the small town after failing in the big city, engaged to the hotheaded, feeble minded beau from youth, the unredeemable bad guys, two "lost boys" looking for a sense of family - they're all here, and none of them with even the remotest spin of something new. From the first few minutes you can figure out exactly what will happen by film's end. The story isn't entirely lame, but direction, acting (even from a cast with some talent) everything is thrown together without skill. As to the storyline, we've all seen it before in a movie called "Sister Act." This is also one of those films where inattention to small details show up in an even more glaring light. (As example: the nurse and our hero drive into town but park several blocks away from their destinations (post office and hardware store) - yet both walk across empty parking lots for no apparent reason. Or the passage of morning to night during a scene that seemingly should occur in no more than half an hour. The movie is filled with that kind of stuff and then tags on an improbable denouement.


The most impressive thing about 'Anemic Cinema' is its title: an anagram which is very nearly also a palindrome. Unfortunately, it only works in American English, since in Britain 'anaemic' is spelt differently.

I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes.

Back in the early 1960s, the second season of 'The Twilight Zone' opened each episode with a shot of revolving concentric circles in black and white. There's an image in 'Anemic Cinema' which is so similar, I wonder if 'Twilight Zone' borrowed it from this film. The main difference is that the revolving image here is a black and white spiral. Indeed, if ever there was any movie that deserves to be described as a spiral, this one is it. Throughout 'Anemic Cinema', we're treated(?) to shots of a revolving disc containing words (in French) moving in a spiral. The effect is vertiginous, and the texts -- about incest and Eskimos -- are nearly Dada in their meaninglessness. I did laugh at one clever sexual pun.

The emperor is naked, folks, and this movie just barely rates 2 points out of 10. Au suivant!


So this guy goes into a psychiatrist's office for his first appointment. After the paperwork is done, the psychiatrist says "I'm going to show you ink blots. Tell me what you see in them." "Well, says the patient," looking at the first one, "I see a man and a woman having sex." On seeing the second one, he says "I see two women having sex." On seeing the third, he says "I see two men having sex." On seeing the next one, he says "I see two men and two women having sex." The psychiatrist puts down the the inkblots. "So," he says, "We'll start by discussing your monomania." "MY monomania?" says the guy. "And you with all these dirty pictures!" That's how this movie strikes me.


If Corky St. Claire in WAITING FOR GUFFMAN had directed the citizens of Blaine in a horror movie with comic undertones the result would have been very much like THE MILPITAS MONSTER.

To be generous, this was the longest hour and twenty minute movie I've ever seen. To call the pace glacial is to be kind.

Almost nobody associated with this project ever made another movie with the exception of Ben Burtt, who did the really admirable (considering the budget) special effects. He went on to do sound for movies like MUNICH and several other big budget projects. The narration is by veteran voice-over actor Paul Frees, who probably donated his efforts.

When you're watching the opening titles and see the Milpitas Unified School District listed as one of the producers you know you're going on a long, strange trip.

Pollution at the down dump in Milpitas, California, becomes so toxic that it creates a monster. Remember that this is 1975 and ecology was a hot topic. Just a few years previously moviegoers had been treated to GODZILLA VS. THE SMOG MONSTER.

So far so good. The monster is a winged creature at least fifty feet tall and has the capacity to tear the town apart. Instead it steals garbage cans.

Central to the premise is the idea that this monster can prowl a small city and leave eight foot long footprints behind but not be noticed by anyone. There's a nicely conceived scene where it walks through the middle of a carnival at night but somehow nobody notices.

The only person who sees the monster until the final scenes is George, the town drunk. All through the movie I hoped, hoped, hoped that George would be torn to shreds on camera but this didn't happen. Drat. In fact, nobody gets killed. George supposedly sacrifices himself to save Priscilla (he's tied to a helicopter to lure the creature- George smells worse than garbage and the monster is attracted to the scent).

The nominal leads are a group of high school students. There's pretty Priscilla and her nondescript boyfriend and some "bad" boys who (surprise, surprise) whip themselves into shape to help defeat the monster in the final scenes.

The monster is involved in four main set pieces. He attacks a Browning-Ferris garbage truck and leaves it beside an elevated highway, but nobody notices. He walks through the carnival, again unnoticed. He tears up a building (nice miniature work) and nobody sees him but George. Then he attacks the high school during a dance and grabs Priscilla and carries her off just like a certain very tall ape has done several times, most recently this past winter.

There are plot ideas that come out of nowhere and are dropped. Local citizens picket at City Hall because they want their garbage cans back. An elaborate secret weapon for tracking monsters is flown in by private jet, examined, and forgotten.

So why did I watch the whole thing? Because these people were having so darned much fun. I had the idea that the firemen were firemen, the businessmen were being filmed in their own offices, Priscilla may well live in that suburban tract house, and scenes of people in their yards may well have been in their own yards.

They may not be great actors, but they are real people. Nobody is stunningly good looking. In fact, I'd estimate that four out of five of the adults on screen wear glasses. Since this is the mid seventies we see some really bad clothes and some of the men have awesomely bad facial hair. One dignitary being interviewed before a meeting at Ciry Hall has such a loud tie and sportcoat that you think he's on his way to play Marcellus in THE MUSIC MAN.

And that got the movie two extra stars. Zero for the story. Two points for the sometimes decent special effects. And two points for the fact that people in the community actually got together and did this. They can actually say they've performed in a movie; despite lots of stage experience and working behind the scenes in live television I can't say that, and I'm happy for them.

Remember those great old movies with Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland? At some point somebody would say, "Let's put on a show! Aunt Edna has all those old clothes in the attic, and we can use Uncle Ned's barn!" Then they'd do 'neighborhood shows' with sets and costumes that would cost well into seven figures if duplicated today.

That's the spirit that the good people of Milpitas had for this project, and bless them for that.


I'm giving it a three instead of the lower number it deserves because of its history. A full-length movie made by high school students! It shows, too, but that's part of the charm and appeal. Get ahold of some of the stuff George Lucas did at UCLA; this is better. Maybe due to being a group effort.

A monster made of toxic waste and too much garbage--these kids were way ahead of their time!--starts ravaging the town of Milpitas during a high school dance. The monster destroys randomly, leaving garbage and smelly footprints.

The movie has local TV and radio people, the Milpitas mayor, the Samuel Ayer High School principal, and a whole bunch of the high school students and their parents, not to mention the mayor's daughter as the ingénue.

Dumb? Yeah! Fun? Yeah! Great screen writing? C'mon, they're untrained high schoolies! Copy that comment for the acting, cinematography, directing, et cetera.

Milpitas is right next to San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley; maybe one of the graphics geniuses there will update the video somehow. Now THERE's a challenge.


This is a VERY bad movie. However, I read that it was made by a high-school teacher so maybe I should give it at least a TINY bit of praise for it's ambitious (yet awful) special effects. Here is the plot: a monster emerges from a pile of trash and pollution in the town of Milpitas, California and embarks on a destructive rampage. I'm about to spoil the "big surprise" about what the monster looks like, so please read the rest of this at your own risk. You have been warned! The monster looks sort of like a giant, two-legged fly wearing a gas mask. In some scenes, the monster is an actor wearing a costume. In other scenes, the monster is created by stop-motion animation. The acting is terrible. The dialogue is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The plot is predictable. Stay away!


It is real easy to toast, roast, flay, and otherwise burn this film for all of its abundant flaws. It was made by high school students and faculty and a whole community; it shows! Sure, I could examine the script which is just ridiculous. A monster created from the garbage of a growing Californian city starts eating garbage and taking garbage cans all over the city. Soon this huge beast with wings no less begins to destroy buildings and even plays the "beauty and the beast" act with a young high school girl. Fortunately for her there is a gang of guys, her former boyfriend nicknamed "The Penguin," and the town drunk out to help her. The direction is awful, the production values just dreadful, the acting non-existent, and the pace sluggish. The movie is hard to sit through - period. However, that being said, it is also a miracle of a film when you consider that this thing was crafted by an entire community. You can see all the collective effort from the actors, the actual mayor and actual firemen and policemen, to the area location shots used. I also was really amazed at all the local businesses credited at the film's end with helping to finance or contribute in some way to the film. When you look at the film from that perspective, it is indeed quite an achievement. I didn't know anything about it before I sat down and watched it. Now that I have found out something about it, I am impressed. But make no mistake - I have no...NO...desire to sit through it again.


This is the result of the town of Milpitas California making a home movie and subjecting the rest of the world to it. Legendary in some circles as the biggest cinematic turkey this movie is rightly thought of as a bad movie. Part comedy, part giant monster horror movie this movie is full of non actors not acting. the plot has something to do with a giant monster being created from the garbage and pollution in the area and going on a rampage. The monster, which we don't see until the final 20 minutes, is rather cool looking but isn't cool enough to warrant watching the preceding hour of boredom. Frankly even hardened bad movie lovers are going to have a tough time getting through to the end. This is a stinker.


I've heard that this move was put together by a bunch of high-school students. As a high-school art or theatre project it's not too bad. Unless you lived near milpitas in the seventies or knew someone involved in the making of the movie, this is pretty awful. Most of the actors are clearly not actors, but locals who volunteered. Bob Wilkins (the original host of Creature Features on KTVU in Oakland appears, but only for about a minute). Some of the monster effects are done with stop motion animation and some with a man in a monster suit and each works okay on it's own, but there is no continuity between the two. Watching without dialog, you'd assume that the movie had 2 monsters. I guess the most unsupportable aspect is that even the main characters, who I assume are the kids behind the movie, cannot even pretend to act. These kids must have been involved in theater in some way to want to do this project, but they display zero believable emotion in front of the camera.


In the past 5 years I have rented some bad movies...completely on purpose. See I aspire to be a movie reviewer, and as we all know there are horrible movies released every year. Anyway, about 3 months ago I rented this one. I watched it all the way through...and cried profusely. This is one of those movies that is so freakin bad it makes you want to puke. It actually put a sick feeling in my stomach. I've seen lots of bad movies (Mystery Science Theater 3000 anyone?) but this one takes the cake. The plot was hard to follow, the lighting horrible and the sounds almost inaudible. If there was a negative rating on the scale here this movie would be at -11 for me. This may seem odd, but I highly recommend it. It's something you have to see for yourself...but don't say I didn't warn you. I don't think this review could get any more precise so I'm done now.


The parallels between this film and "Captain Walrus" (an independant film shown at the Team Projection Film Festival in 1994) are so blindingly obvious that any praise for "Sally Marshall Is Not An Alien" must be viewed with the knowledge that it is riding on the success of another work.

In Captain Walrus, two young boys (Geoff and Roger, played by Dean Turner and Brett Allen respectively) examine the bizarre behaviour of their new neighbour Britney (played by Louise Farley). As the two boys watch through their telescope, they observe the repeated visits of a man in uniform who they call Captain Walrus (played by Peter Sargent). However, the emphasis in Captain Walrus is on the pointless and somewhat power-hungry actions of the neighbour Britney, and less on the friendship between the two boys.

A critical success at the film festival, the plot of Captain Walrus has obviously been appropriated and rehashed in order to give the Australian Film Community another notch on the belt with regards to children's product. Although Sally Marshall is not an Alien is a fine film, and a credit to its producers, its inauthenticity leaves something to be deserved.


Reading the other two comments, I had to wonder if I had seen the same movie!

Perhaps life is drastically different in Australia, but, wow - call it sci-fi or fantasy, but people just don't act like this.

I couldn't pass up this review without commenting on it myself.. it gets better after the first half hour, but I doubt most could make it that far..

Yikes.


Veber is not renown for his outstanding directorial skills. In fact nobody cares as long as they got the laughs, quite a few here to be honest, scattered in the whole process, thanks to Depardieu's half-wit characterization and the dialogue Veber puts in his mouth.

But this is not enough to make a great comedy since there's no movie outside of the usual Veber premise: a tough guy is doomed to team up with a very naive character. In L'Emmerdeur, La Chèvre or Les Compères there was a real story going on over the fire vs. water proceedings. Le Diner de cons, although it was a play, managed to create a real suspense about the next catastrophe Pinon would cause. In Tais-toi the backstory about the vengeance is both redundant and too weak to arouse our interest. Plus the heavies are lame both on screen and in the script.

Now what's wrong? Veber wraps this up creating no action, no rhythm. Instead he uses systematically and overuses ellipses (maybe he met William Goldman in Hollywood) and the 'music' really stresses that lack of nerve and a backbone in the story.

So you'll have to be content with Depardieu's performance.


I attended a screening of this film. Travolta came to do a Q & A after the film ended. It was a small screening room in Tribeca. Out of courtesy to him I did not walk out which I wanted to do. This is film-making at its worst. To start the script was poorly written. The writer writes in one voice. The dialogue was stilted and clichéd. How this writer/director got Scarlet Johansen, John Travolta and Lions Gate Entertainment to back her on this is the only brilliant thing she accomplished in this fiasco.

I do in fact recommend this film to all aspiring screenwriters, directors and filmmakers. Because when you are told that you are wasting your time and it will be impossible for you to reach your goals. Hey...just look at this crap and say to yourself...if they can make this then anythings poosible.

PS- Travolta did a great Q&A though...he was at ease, spoke freely and was a down to earth nice guy. The director/writer stood on the sidelines. When John tried to engage her in the conversation she stood back like a piece of wood and never joined in. I looked at her and I thought...how was this person able to successfully "pitch" to agents, studio execs, top talent ...when she can't open her mouth at a screening of her own film. The conclusion from a few of us in attendance was that she must have strong family connections in the business.

After you watch this you should follow it with Guy Ritchie's zero star masterpiece "Swept Away" with the most unintentionally funny and worst performance by wife Madonna. She's so bad and looks so bad in this film I figure this was her his way of getting back at her for all the abuse he takes from her at home.


What a waste. John Travolta and Scarlett Johansen deserved better than this. To start at the beginning, JT was horribly miscast in the lead here. The role called for someone who could convince as a broken-down anti-hero, someone who could look haunted and defeated. Billy Bob Thornton would have fit the bill, or even Al Pacino, but JT is just too alive, and looks to be having too much fun. Also, surely someone who has been through the mill to the extent JT's character had would have suffered some physical effects? The character presented to the audience looked as if he could start as tight end for the Oakland Raiders. Scarlett faired little better role-wise. Where was the pain and conflict of what should surely have been troubling development? And as for the "plot" ... well, none of it makes sense. The characters leap from one frame of mind to another seemingly without cause - and certainly without explanation. The pace of the film also leaves something to be desired, namely, pace. This is a very slow film, not that I have anything against slow films, as long as they are heading somewhere. The pace only picks up towards the very end, when it shifts from a slow dirge to a frantic race to pack in as many tired clichés as possible. In this it succeeds - the only thing missing being something involving a small dog. 3 out of 10 for this one purely for Gabriel Macht's performance - he was the only member of the cast who was a) well cast and b) able to convince in his role. All in all, a terrible disappointment and a real waste of a couple of hours.


This movie is an incredibly self-indulgent character piece that assumes that the mere impression of a story is as good as an actual story. It was utterly painful to watch and had I not been suckered in to buy the DVD because of John Travolta and the positive buzz, I would not have finished watching it.

This film lacks anything resembling an interesting premise and seems to rely on weighty (and frankly, heavy-handed) characterization. There is one altercation scene between Purslane and Bobby Long in which a TV is destroyed that, when played out, is incredibly flaccid and ill-timed.

I found myself caring less and less about the characters as I watched it. It was probably very fun, film-school-wise, to make it. But it is just awfully boring to watch. A indulgent and pretentious film school project you should not waste money on.


This overheated southern Gothic "mellerdramer" has a few decent moments --but is too often spoiled by a novice director piling cliché upon cliché, and a star who apparently decided to take it upon himself to turn the picture into his personal showcase, rather than allowing writer/director Gabel to update Inge or Williams as a sort of contemporary "Midnight Cowboy" meets "Lolita" tearjerker.

Close your eyes, listen to the exaggerated southern accents, and try to decide if you're witnessing a feature film, or an acting class -- full of eager amateurs.

Johansson is for once tolerable (i.e. less pouty than usual) -- though by no means good, Macht is decent, though a little too pretty-boy cute to be believed, and Travolta chews the scenery as never before (with the help of a decent editor and some directorial restraint, his performance might have been really touching; as it is, he -- and almost everyone else -- is too unlikable to ever move us past the point of boredom or revulsion). Kara Unger is perhaps best of all; had her role been developed beyond a few lines, she might have even found herself with a Best Supporting Actress nomination.

Pic is almost saved by Leonard Cohen-style growling theme song, decent production design and locations, and continual reference to literary works (which has earned the otherwise standard screenplay reviews such as "poetic.") Also helpful are a few old pros in the cast like Sonny Shroyer, and perhaps most importantly, Soderbergh cameraman Elliot Davis -- whose fine work will no doubt be credited to the first-time director, who, ten or twenty years from now, may actually learn how to direct.

But probably not.


The director does not know what to do with a camera... too many options and she always always always picks the wrong one... she let travolta take charge... and he controls the movie from the beginning to the end... the characters are not developed... maybe because we need to watch them singing... no pace at all, sometimes too fast sometimes too slow... miscasted: travolta OK... johansson, she is too grown up to be a 18... even if she is really 20...

the happy ending? well it looks like that there must be one, so the story is sad but not too sad... travolta doesn't know how to play a guitar but the director doesn't look she cares too much that he is totally out of synch...

the idea is the only thing that is great... but how she developed it? well, it is simply full of stereotypes and lines heard too many times...

too bad, another missed chance...


On the cusp of being insufferable. Somehow I stayed just slightly interested, but was it because I truly wanted to know what the "secret" was (which, I should say, is pretty damned obvious) or because I hoped Scarlett Johansson would put on a more sexy outfit? This movie is poor and what's more it's a disgrace to all the lonely, alcoholic Southern literature professors out there. Travolta wants his Oscar so bad he is willing to cry drunkenly in the bathroom after urinating blood. Sorry, pal. . .you were more believable is "Staying Alive." Not everyone can pull a Peter Fonda in "Ulee's Gold." If you want the against-type brave anti- hero Oscar you have to, um, actually act. . .not just pout on screen. Stop this director before he/she (name is vague on gender) directs again!


There is a phrase by the experimental filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky, who says some films are structured like a camera mounted on the head of a dog who goes down an alley, sniffing everything along the way.

That's how this movie is. The structure is "Kurosawa started out as a baby, then he became a kid, then a young man, then a movie director, then he started making 'masterpieces', then he grew old, The End." The word 'masterpiece' is used a lot in this film to describe Kurosawa's output, without explaining *what* makes his films so good/great. Just because the off-screen narrator reading a script says that a film is a masterpiece, are we supposed to kiss his rear-end and accept that a certain movie is one of the great works of art of the 20th century? And one more point. The voice of Paul Scofield is used as the voice of Kurosawa, when excerpts from the director's memoirs are being read off screen. He brings pear-shaped Shakespearean tones to the text...but why him?? If you were making a documentary about Billie Holiday, would you use Dame Judi Densch as her voice????


Rocketship X-M should be viewed by any serious movie buff for the following reasons:

1) It is one the first -- and the few -- movies not to have a happy ending. Doubtless the effect was more profound in post-World War II America than it would be today, but nonetheless the sad ending adds to the film's message.

2) It is also one of the first movies to deal with space travel in a serious fashion, using space as a valid setting for drama. The lack of scientific background notwithstanding, the movie stands on its own as dramatic fare. It's not so much a space drama as it is a drama set in space.

3) The anti-nuclear war message is delivered in a serious manner that is not lost in sfx involving large grasshoppers, men, or animal. The effect of Martian society from nuclear devastation is starkly and frankly presented. The fact that the survivors from the expedition crash land and as such are unable to preach the lesson learned on Mars adds another element of sadness to the tragic ending.

Sterno says take a ride on Rocketship X-M.


I first saw this when it came out in the theater. Though only 13 at the time, I was an avid reader of "hard science" science fiction stories. The technical gaffes of the film are burned into my memory.

Some of the following may have significant spoilers.

Even as a youngster, I knew the premise is silly. The rocket takes off for a lunar mission, in a cosmos where there is always a gravitational effect on the crew (though loose objects float as in zero gravity) and because of that, the "cabin" (the area with the controls, whatever they called it) was gyrostabalized to maintain the "correct" orientation (so that when they landed, why didn't they land standing on their heads?) and where, at least in near-earth space, the rocket engines had to be running continually -- with propellant combusting away without an oxidizer. When the engines quit, the rocket stopped _dead_ in space, and couldn't start going until a PhD chemist determined it needed at a little oxidizer. This time, the rocket recalled it had momentum, and the next thing our heroes know they're near Mars (even a 13-year-old nerd knew such a minimum-energy trip would take over 200 days).

They land, find the air was breathable (though at the time scientific data revealed that the pressure, even if the atmosphere were pure oxygen, would be too low to do any good). They decide to camp outside the ship, and even build a campfire. They come armed, even though they were supposedly going to the Moon, where firearms wouldn't be needed.

They get a sight of a collapsed civilization, encounter stray martians who look just like people, develop an anti nuclear war philosophy, and those who survive try to get back to the home planet, and die in the attempt by crashing on the Earth! To do that would require such a long orbital period, they'd have died of starvation long before approaching their destination.

The film it preceded, Destination Moon, used real science most effectively (even though their "rescue" with the Oxygen Tank forgot about the moment arm from the tank's center of gravity to the output nozzle). This film showed woeful ignorance of even the most basic science. Only the most technologically illiterate should think of it as a science fiction film: it's on a par with the old Flash Gordon serials where their rocketships took off from their bellies and climbed in spirals, and whose engines were always on.

The story on this one I considered banal, and I can recommend this only as a film to be shown to students for them to pick out technical gaffes.


I like this movie and have watched my copy twice since acquiring it a few weeks ago. But you have to view it in the right context.

I haven't checked on the dates, but I bet this movie came out after and certainly around the same time as the Collier and Walt Disney popularisations of the vision of spaceflight being promoted by W.Von Braun. This is reflected in the attempt to seem factually correct and scientific. However, whilst certain ideas are put across ( step boosters, for example ) roughly correctly, other things are hilariously wrong.

For example, we are told that a rocket ascends to an altitude and then turns ninety degrees to enter space...like reaching the top of a flight of stairs and turning onto the landing! Then we are told that by turning in the direction of the Earths rotation the total velocity of the ship is increased accordingly.

This is an hilarious misunderstanding of what really happens. Most space launch centres are located as near the equator as possible where the Earth and anything on its surface is rotating at roughly a thousand miles per hour, including any rocket departing to space, in an Eastward direction ( the same as the rotation of the planet ). Of course, if the ship turned to travel westwards once in space, its speed in relation to the surface of the Earth would be greater, but it would add nothing to the actual velocity of the vehicle. Decsribed in this movie as "air speed"!

Similarly, we are told that the travellers only feel free-fall, or "weightlessness" when they reach some thousands of miles from the Earth, outside of the planets gravitational field. Again, comically incorrect. Most crewed spacecraft travel no higher than a couple of hundred miles up, but as long as they ( and, their contents, including crew ) are travelling at an adequate velocity that their momentum in an outward direction balances the pull of gravity inwards, they will orbit in free-fall. Of course, travel far enough from Earth and even a slow object will coast outside the Earths gravity well, but in order to leave Earth orbit, outwards ( towards the Moon for example ) requires the attainment of "escape velocity", around twenty one thousand miles per hour. So the vehicle will have already attained "orbital velocity" ( and "weightlessness" ) by definition.

But the movie has vastly more hilarious stuff than this. Someone decided it would be more fun if they missed the moon due to a technical problem, fell asleep for a few days and then woke up to find they had accidentally gone to Mars! The captain then ruminates to the effect that this must have been divine intervention! At which point, any pretence to being scientific is torn into little pieces like confetti and thrown upon the wind amid the merry dance of an increasingly barmy plot.

The strength of a film like this in fact is in illustrating "how far we've come". Not least in attitudes to women. The patronising drivel heaped upon the female crew-member is both hilarious and also shocking.To think that such attitudes were so recently "normal".

As I said at the start, I find this film very entertaining, as a late night, lights out romp through the romance of travel in outer space, from the perspective of the days before it had actually happened. An antidote to the cold routine of spaceflight as it has now become in the Twenty First Century.

I won't reveal the ending. It is both brave and shocking for a movie of this vintage and character.


Wow, this was a real stinker. This early sci-fi flick has nothing going for it than pure camp. There's so much scientific mambo-jumbo in the dialog it's laughable. The female character played by Osa Massen is just a plot device for the male characters to serve sexist remarks during the entire length of the film. Watch this one with your girlfriend I guarantee it will make her blood boil.The only good thing is the musical score which expertly build the moods of the film. The special-effects are rather crude but not bad considering the vintage of the movie. With some good B-stars in the lead roles,the acting isn't too bad. But the lines they are given must have given them quite a challenge. The challenge of not laughing their heads off.


Minor spoilers

First I must say how rare and charming it is to find a movie with such basic messages in it: nuclear war will inevitably destroy all of civilization, and women are for making babies. It is absolutely incredible how well formulated the plot is to hit in these two points, as with a golden hammer. Essentially, everything about this movie annoyed me. The casual sexism, the character whose sole trait was coming from Texas, the mysterious choice of dying Mars orange, and of course the flawed science of it all. Then the martian woman screaming as if she had just noticed that she was blind? What was that? However, I will give it credit. The fifties did spit out some sillier things. But not much...


I bought "Rocketship X-M" on DVD in a two-pack with "Destination Moon." Now I see why the distributors did that: no one who had ever seen this movie would buy it on its own.

I cannot fathom what school system turned out the reviewer who claimed that RXM is "great in its predictions of how space travel would take place..." Launch straight up, and then do a 90-degree right turn and circle faster and faster until you reach escape velocity... I don't think I recall that from the Apollo program. Never mind that the astronauts should be weightless once they shut off the engines, gravity changes directions every time they pass through the hatch to the engine room. Going to the moon, but "missed" it? No problem, it's just a hop-skip-and-a-jump (with a helping hand from divine providence) and you'll be at Mars! And OK, if you want to put life on Mars, given the state of planetary knowledge in 1950, it was a forgivable convention for the sake of the storytelling, but can you make them look at least a LITTLE alien? These Martians looked like extras from the cast of "10,000 B.C." I can accept some scientific mistakes, but this wouldn't pass muster with an above-average second-grader.

And that's aside from the screaming plot holes: 12 minutes before launch (as you're reminded of constantly by the nagging P.A. voice saying "X minus so many minutes") the astronauts are giving a press conference! I guess the time crunch is why Dr. Eckstrom didn't change out of his coat and tie before launching into space. And how handy that, even though they were planning to go to the moon and had pressure suits for that, they brought hiking gear (and rifles!) just in case they ended up at Mars. They're lucky they landed anywhere, since apparently the method they had developed for landing was to have Dr.E look out the window and tell the "pilot" (Lloyd Bridges) to tweak down the throttles every now and then. Note to the designers of the XM-2: how about giving the pilot a window seat?

Ditto the previous comments on the casual sexism that had eye-candy Dr. Lisa (Osa Massen) doom them all by repeatedly screwing up her fuel calculations, but hey that was the early '50s. She was there to fill her sweater, not a useful function.

"Rocketship X-M" is notable for being one of the first of the first films to say "ohmigod we're all going to blow ourselves up with these here A-bombs", but one can note that about it without wasting 77 minutes watching such dreck. By the way, that message might have had a bit more impact had there been some money in the budget for actual sets of the Martian city ruins, rather than just matte paintings.

I can appreciate "good" bad sci-fi, for the unique way the "future" used to look, and for the inherent (if condescending) humor you can find when when we look back on the naivety of audiences 60 years ago, but this film must have been insulting even then. "Rocketship X-M" isn't even suitable for an MST3K-style lampooning. Sometimes, bad is just... bad.

Anybody want to buy a DVD? Used only once, I swear.


Although it can be VERY tedious at times, this movie is really not all that bad. The acting is fairly well done, if stereotypical, and the production values are pretty high considering some of the Sci-Fi movies that were to come later in the decade.

My biggest problem with this film are some of the very outdated characterizations in it. There's the guy from Texas, the "professional" scientist, and worst of all the woman scientist who finally realizes her womanhood. For a film seeking to make a statement about mankind, it loses some of it's impact by reducing its characters through sexist stereotypes.


To call "Rocketship X-M" a science fiction classic is due more to its release date (1950), its savvy ability to capitalize on the publicity for "Destination Moon", and the appearance of actors who would later star in television as Sea Hunt's Mike Nelson, Rockford's dad and Wyatt Earp.

The movie itself is bad enough to be good fodder for MST3K and is best viewed with commentary from Joel and the robots. This is the type of movie best suited to added riffing from the MST3K characters; something preachy, slow-paced, poorly scripted, and full of painfully bad acting. While unintentionally funny stuff like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" don't lend themselves to satirical commentary (because the movie constantly upstages the hosts), really bad and dull movies like "Rocketship X-M" are ideal. So add some stars to the rating if you are watching the MST3K version.

The basic story has the crew taking an unplanned right turn at the moon and ending up on Mars. What they find on that planet are the remnants of a human-like civilization devastated by an atomic war. Only one Martian is shown in close-up, a normal looking woman who is blind or at least has no pupils in her eyes. The men look like the "goons" in the old Popeye cartoons, they scamper agilely around the cliffs and throw boulders at the crew with amazing accuracy-especially if they are supposed to be blind. Of course none of this is ever explained as doing so would require some sign of logical analysis from the writers of the screenplay.

The scenes on Mars are presented in something called "Sepia Color" to distinguish them from the rest of the B&W movie. If this has you thinking "Wizard of Oz" you will be disappointed because it is just black and white stuff with a slight brown tint added to the print in post-production.

In keeping with the moronic sexism of the movie, the icy female scientist screws up her fuel calculations-both coming and going. Her failure to measure up to the men causes her feminine side to surface and she and Mike Nelson coo sweetly to each other as they face their doom (insert sound of gagging here).

The real stars of the movie are the reporters at the command center. So much so that MST3K was inspired to specially salute these unheralded heroes. The intrepid squad of "newsies" are featured for the first 10 minutes of the movie, then take stations about 12 inches behind the technicians and monitoring equipment in the command center. Later they are called upon to ask the moronic questions needed by the mission director to expound on the movie's already too obvious message.

The DVD has an extremely low audio level, is not captioned, and is accompanied by a trailer. Although you will be thankful that it is only 77 minutes, it is still about 60 minutes too long as any 30 minute episode of "The Twilight Zone" has several times more content than this entire movie.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


I completely understand the historical significance of Rocketship X-M, but that doesn't make it a good movie. To begin with, the plot (or what there is of it) is dull and lifeless. Five astronauts blast off for the moon  they get knocked off course and end up on Mars (huh?)  cavemen-looking Martians throw rocks at them  they return to Earth and meet a fiery death  The End. Believe it or not, but this pithy plot description makes it sound much more interesting than it really is. To make matters worse, John Emery's character, Dr. Karl Eckstrom, feels it necessary to give long drawn out speeches on everything from the nature of man to the dangers of nuclear weapons. It's just a thrill-a-minute (sarcasm intended).

Looking back at Rocketship X-M almost 60 years later, I would call the portrayal of women funny if it weren't all so sad and misguided. There are a number of examples I could cite, but there's one exchange of dialogue just after take-off between the male chauvinist pilot Floyd (played by the irritating, plastic-haired Lloyd Bridges) and Dr. Lisa Van Horn (the only female crewmember and the constant object of Floyd's often creepy attention) that illustrates the film's attitudes toward women quite nicely:

 Floyd: "I've been wondering, how did a girl like you get mixed up in a thing like this in the first place."

 Dr. Van Horn: "I suppose you think that women should only cook and sew and bear children."

 Floyd: "Isn't that enough?"

I think Floyd should have stayed behind with the cavemen!


I'm seeing a pattern here. If you see a movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000, chances are if you go to IMDb.com there will be hordes of lovers of the film, yet it was picked to be on that TV show because it was sooo bad. I'm sorry but I read a lot about Rocketship X-M as being some landmark sci fi film that stressed realism. Well if that is the case I could write for several paragraphs about how even with 1950's knowledge this movie is utterly flawed. Gravity might be the first obvious observation, or as MST3K did as a skit "selective gravity", also what about when they are plunging to their death and they are just standing there looking out of the window, um would'nt the ship being upside down effect that scene? I would like to think that they started with good intentions and that it ran over budget or something but I think this movie was just plain cheese as in the from under type. Just compare this to "When Worlds Collide" which was released in 1951 to see the true place where this movie ranks, there's no comparison. The movie gets a 2 or maybe 3 on its own, its not even funny to watch on its own. It gets about a 5 or 6 as a MST3K episode as there is no action or much to make fun of, just bad, bad, bad, oh did I mention, it's bad.


You have to hand it to writer-director John Hughes. With enormous success behind him in the misfit-teenager/high school vein, he managed to branch out into other areas of comedy, finding in the bargain a great ally in comedian-actor John Candy. Here, goof-off adult Candy becomes a better person after agreeing to babysit his brother's wiseacre kids; it's a surefire formula designed to please both cynical teens as well as their parents, and it isn't any wonder the film was a winner with theater audiences. Still, Hughes relies almost completely on Candy's charm to put the scenario over, and one may eventually grow tired of the repetitious gags with the star front and center. The kids are sitcom-smart, the other adults shapeless blobs, and Amy Madigan is too intense, too hyped-up playing Uncle Buck's girlfriend. Later became a TV series, which is befitting since the material was already television-perfected. *1/2 from ****


Of the four main players in here - John Candy, Jean Kelly, Amy Madigan and Macauley Caulkin - the only one I've never heard about (at that time) was the one that annoyed the heck out of me and ruined the film. Well, she must have done a decent job of acting to make me want to throw her and the VHS into the garbage pail. I am referring to Kelly in the role of teenage brat, "Tia Russell." Ironically, six years later she played a stunning and extremely likable role in the person of "Rowena Morgan" in "Mr. Holland's Opus."

Candy, as usual, is fun to watch as "Buck Russell," or the title character, "Uncle Buck." Few actors were better at playing a lovable, hapless slob than Candy. I enjoyed his character in here, but I cannot watch that spoiled teen girl more than once. Also, in the first few minutes of the film, the little boy "Miles" (Cauklin) says the word "G-damn." How bad is that, having a six-year-old kid saying the Lord's name in vain on film? These Hollywood people are such sickos. No wonder many of their child actors turn out to be mentally screwed up, Caulkin being a case in point.


Big fat slob 'Uncle Buck', played by John (eats-a-lot-of) Candy, visits the sane members of his family for a week in order to baby-sit two cute kids (Gaby Hoffman and MacCauley Culkin) and a pretty but snobby teenager (Jean Louisa Kelly). The shenanigans begin when Buck makes breakfast and then tries to sleep in a bed two sizes too small for his blimp of a body.

Mostly dull, but peppered with two or three funny scenes including Buck trying to get a word in edge-wise on the telephone with his angry girlfriend (Amy Madigan) and his meeting with a very disgusting clown.

Candy looks like he weighs 600 pounds.


Full disclosure: I was born in 1967. At first the premise tickled me -- after all, if you were a teenager growing up in the age of Reagan, a trip down memory lane was worth a laugh or three. Pop Rocks, Atari and Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots? Loved 'em, not *despite* the fact they were goofy, but *because* they were goofy and silly and fun. But when VH1 decided to make the series "I Love Last Tuesday", I knew enough was enough. Goes Hal Sparks have nothing better to do than read from a teleprompter how idiotic Slinkys are? (Wait, let me check... hmmm, no. No, it appears he doesn't.) Snarky, snotty uber-hip posturing has its place, but enough already!


Let's face it, this is a pretty bad film.However if you go in ready to make fun of it you can survive the experience.Okay, you'll scream in agony a lot.African jungle fun in a dopey kind of way.

Tom Conway (who spends most of the film wearing a funky chapeau) is using the local witch doctor and mad science to create a "perfect" being.It looks like a varmint that has been on a six week drunk and is in a sack dress.Ugly is being kind.But it won't kill for him because he's using a good girl as his subject.He needs a bad bad girl.

Marla English and Lance Fuller are two petty crooks in search of African gold.Acting lessons for Ms English should have been at the top of the search list.She's a bad girl and lets everybody know it in a performance worthy of a junior high school play.Mike "Touch" Connors is the white guide English & Fuller con into leading the expedition.

English & Conway finally meet and it is a match made in hell.She is the perfect subject to become his voodoo creature because she'll do anything (stress anything) to get what she wants.You will do anything to stop the agony of this movie at this point.

What made this movie interesting for me was Conway wearing that funky tribal hat/headdress/floral piece!Still trying to figure out what kind of dead animal it was.Guess he thought if he pulled it down low enough over his eyes nobody would recognize him.

Truly bad cinema.


This 1950's howler is so bad it's unintentionally funny. Tom Conway portrays Dr. Gerard, a scientist who is turning natives into a monster using voodoo. His poor wife, played by Mary Ellen Kay, is being held captive by her wacko hubby who has no time for her but threatens to kill her if she leaves him. Along comes Marla English as a greedy murderess who has already killed a man to find treasure in the jungle. Her idiot boyfriend, portrayed by Lance Fuller, is along on the safari. They hire "Touch" Connors, (later renamed Mike Connors, of Mannix fame) as a guide. English is a terrible actress, but hey, no one else in the cast were turning in academy award winning performances either. "Touch" (I'm sorry, I can't even type the name without cracking up, I mean, what the...) gave the only half way decent performance of the bunch and that's saying a lot. The monster is only seen briefly, and the ending is predictable to say the least. I would say this movie falls into the "it's so bad, it's almost good" category of movies. It's good on a rainy night when nothing else is on the tube.