One of two movies I have actually thought about asking for money to stay until the end. Most movies have at least one thing that is worth staying for, even if it just to laugh at how bad it is. I never found it for this movie. Nothing was good, from the script, to the very bad effects. The worst movie I have ever seen.


Hello people,

I cannot believe that "Shades" from That Thing You Do took this role. I don't think Cory Feldman would have taken this role. This movie was a fuming pile of dung. Save your money and time, and see every one of the top 250. I swear I wanted to slap the lady at Blockbuster silly for permitting me to rent this. Stay away!!!!!!

Mr. Hipp


you will likely be sorely disappointed by this sequel that's not a sequel.AWIL is a classic.but this movie is about as far from being a classic as you can get.what a joke.special effects that aren't very special,horrible dialogue,non acting.and a laughably ridiculous subplot quickly and unconvincingly,(not to mention fleeting)tacked on with about a third of the movie left.did i mention the story is less then lame.there's no way this was supposed to be serious horror movie,yet it's to stupid to be funny in any good way.the rating it currently has(4.8/10)is too generous if you ask me.my rating for An American Werewolf in Paris:a 3.5/10


This is a title in search of a movie. It's a pitch that sounded lucrative to some studio executive and the rest be damned. When this film was made there were still two things that CGI did not do at all well: people, and fur. Furry people were thus not destined to look good when rendered by computer. This is the only example I can think of where effects for a well-funded sequel took a giant leap back landing well behind those of the original movie. For the record, the design of the werewolves doesn't help a bit. The film-makers apparently couldn't decide between quadruped and biped, tried to do both, and wound up with a creature that looks equally awkward either way. The transformations are anatomically nonsensical and the end result with a relatively high forehead and short snout looks like a cross between Ron Perlman and a hyena. But back to the crass part. This is a movie which exists PURELY to cash in on its forebear. I am not a fan of Landis' original film but boy, does it look good in light of this. If you thought some of Landis' humor was forced try some of the excruciating attempts here. The bubble gum scene, the corpse humor, the dog that...you know, you'll just have to watch that bit yourselves. Thomas Everett Scott is on vacation in Europe with friends and decides to take a break from acting the "ugly American' and bungee jump off the Eifel Tower in the middle of the night. This leads to him rescuing a young woman (Delpy - Julie it's not worth this just to become a star in America. Ask Rutger Hauer) from jumping to her death. She turns out to be part of a cult of werewolves who are plotting to...I'm not sure, something bad. Ghastly French stereotypes, gaping plot-holes, a muddled ending. No matter, the studio cared only that the title would likely fool millions of "American Werewolf in London" fans into handing over their cash. For the most part, happy to say, they were wrong.


There is really but one thing to say about this sorry movie. It should never have been made. The first one, one of my favourites, An American Werewolf in London, is a great movie, with a good plot, good actors and good FX. But this one? It stinks to heaven with a cry of helplessness.


An American Werewolf in Paris wasn't really that good compared to the original.The original didn't use computer effects for the werewolf and they looked more realistic .The werewolf effects in this film looked too cartoonish.most of all,the movie did not have enough for me for a horror film to enjoy.


This film probably would have been good,if they didn't use CGI (computer generated imagery)for the werewolf scenes.It made the creatures look fake and the werewolves looked cartoonish.CGI is great for certain effects like the dinasours in Jurassic Park or Twister.But when we see a film where the creature must look completely real,CGI is not the way to go.Look at An American Werewolf in London.No CGI.Just makeup and a mechanical creature and what you come up with was more realistic than what was shown in the sequel.This film did offer a few gags that was fun to watch and the humor in this movie seemed to have drawn me in but it's nothing more than a film that I thought was O.K.And that's not good enough.In my opinion,An American Werewolf in Paris doesn't hold up to the original.


An American Werewolf in London had some funny parts, but this one isn't so good. The computer werewolves are just awful: the perspective is all off, it's like seeing them through a distorting mirror. The writers step on the throat of many of their gags. American boy says to Parisian girl, "Is there a cafe' around here?" Instead of just leaving it at that, they have to have the girl sigh and respond, "This is Paris."


Jeff Speakman never really made it beyond the lowest ranks of martial-artists-turned-actors (lower than Don "The Dragon" Wilson, for example), and with vehicles like "The Expert", you can see why. There are three major problems with this movie: 1) The plot - or should I say plots - are all over the place, there are some characters who get a lot of screen time but serve little purpose, 2) There are only 4 fight scenes in total, some of them completely unrelated to the main plot and some taking place in the dark, 3) The music score is overzealous and overbearing. Strange as it may seem, this is really the most annoying thing about this film: the score persistently tries to convince you that you're watching some sort of grand epic, instead of the low-budget limited-action film you are indeed watching. With all that said, at least there's James Brolin around to lend a touch of credibility. *1/2 out of 4.


Oh, well I thought it should be a good action, but it was not. Although Jeff Speakman stars there is nothing to watch.Only two fight for almost 1,5 hours, yak.A lot of talking and everything is so artificial that you could not believe it. The plot is clear from the beginning. If you want good action don't rent this movie.


THE EXPERT, starring Jeff Speakman, is the definition of DULL!!!

Dull, characters, dull situations, dull direction, dull actors, dull cinematography, dull music.

I don't really understand this movie. Is it supposed to be an action movie? It's almost as if Speakman wanted to be in a serious movie but the level of acting and writing found in THE EXPERT is below your average TV drama. And there are some typical "Speakman pummeling bad guys" scenes here and there but the main aspect of the movie relies on some sort of believable drama, which is totally wrong for Speakman or is so badly directed that it just doesn't work with the action star. In the end, this confused movie looks and feels very nondescript and bland. The worst aspect of THE EXPERT is the music. The composer is a Jerry Goldsmith wannabe, with his pompous and melodramatic score, which simply doesn't belong in this kind of (dull) movie. It's as if the producers knew they had a very dull product on their hands and they asked the composer to make the film feel more compelling and dramatic with his score, which makes the entire movie look even more confused, goofier and dull.

Don't waste your time watching this, even if you're a Jeff Speakman fan.


I think I would probably not hate this movie if I spoke Polish. I selected the English version at the first menu, but it gave me Polish dialogue with English subtitles, just as the Polish version did. Maybe the dialogue was so disjointed because the person that did the subtitles could not translate it into English very well. To exacerbate the issue, some of the dialogue had no subtitles at all. The acting was pretty bad, especially the female lead, who was melodramatic about everything! One scene that bothered me was when a German woman was caught stealing and as the mob was jostling her around, her shirt opened and the director showed close-ups of her naked breast for the next 15-20 seconds. I couldn't see how her breast added to the drama of the scene or the film. Maybe the director was trying to increase the numbers of teenage boys in the audience. Much of the film takes place in an extermination camp liberated by the Americans. First, the "American" uniforms did not look anything like U.S. Army uniforms. Second, none of the extermination camps in Poland were liberated by the Americans. I would think that a Polish film director who turned 19 in 1945 would know better than an American born in 1966 that all six extermination camps were liberated by the Russians. All in all, it's just not a very good film if you don't speak Polish.


I'm not in favor of death penalties but in this movie, it couldn't happen fast enough. Just to end the movie. I don't understand why this movie is rated as high as it is. It fooled me into a bad night.


It is difficult to imagine how the engaging Dan Brown novel "Angels and Demons" could misfire as badly as this film version. Here are ten reasons why the film was a failure. Due to the spoilers, please do no read on unless you have already seen the film.

(1) In the film, there was no love relationship between Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra. Worse still, there was not even any chemistry between the two leading actors.

(2) The breathtaking locations in Rome, as described in the novel, were not realized visually in the film. I am aware that director Ron Howard encountered difficulties in filming on location. But there are superior photographed depictions of Rome on The History Channel than in this film where the Eternal City was presented in eternal stock film footage. The great art works described in the novel were only briefly depicted in the film. The magnificent Bernini sculpture of the "Ecstasy of St. Teresa" was only momentarily glimpsed, and the West Ponente relief in Vatican Square was not visible at all.

(3) The most tasteless choice made by the film-maker was in the depiction of the deceased pope who actually resembled the beloved John Paul II. In the novel, the pope is clearly fictional with no resemblance to any real pope.

(4) One of the most colorful (and important) characters of the novel, Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN, was cut out of the screenplay.

(5) There were numerous instances when the lines of dialog were inaudible due to extraneous background noise.

(6) There were moments when the faces of characters were not visible due to the shadows and chiaroscuro film lighting. This technique worked in "The Godfather" films, but Ron Howard is no Gordon Willis.

(7) The College of Cardinals was quite a motley crew with one of the electors speaking in a Southern drawl. This dude would have been more at home on a Texas ranch than in the Sistine Chapel.

(8) The crucial relationship of the Camerlengo and the deceased Pope was not defined in the film. This relationship was central to the theme of science vs. religion and the relevance of the Illuminati to the plot against the church.

(9) In the novel, the character of Hassassin was an unforgettable villain. In the film, that assassin character's role was a cardboard cutout villain.

(10) As a whole, the filmmakers did not trust the workings of the successful novel.

In the novel, Langdon makes an impossible fall out of the sky and into the Tiber River. In Ron Howard's film, it was the movie itself that landed in the Tiber.


Personally, the book was a very well written, amazing, thrilling piece that was not brought to justice to the movie. Watching the movie at 12.01 in the morning to see that major parts of the book were left out frustrated me, seeing that it affected the "different" outcome of the movie. There was something to be desired out of this movie, but all in all, it lacked in plot.

For someone who has NOT read the book, I could see how this movie would be seen as inviting and entertaining with its controversy and suspense. However to a dedicated reader who has read it seven times, I did not see the strong connection between the two: both the movie and the novel.

With major characters missing (such as Maximilian Kohler) and the abrupt turn in plot with the survival of the last cardinal in the preferiti, the plot of the movie was slightly strewn thus leading to a different take in the conclusion of the story. The Hassassin too was portrayed as a common white man, compared to that of in the novel where he was portrayed as a Muslim; his motives in the book are predominately based his ties with the Illuminati, however, in the movie, his motives are based on money and seemed more like work than some personal tie to the task at hand.


I went to see this movie tonight, trying to keep an open mind. I had hoped to enjoy a movie that I expected to be different from the book. There were considerable differences from the book, much like the changes made in the DiVinci Code. I went to see the DiVinci Code with the same thought process and managed to enjoy the film, in spite of, the changes from the book. It was still enjoyable, filled with action, and the process of deciphering the symbols was interesting and mentally stimulating. Unfortunately, Angels and Demons disappointed on almost every level. Throughout the movie, symbols are found and figured out quickly, without any interest for the viewer. They blow past the various Immuminati symbols so quickly that we had no chance to get a look at them and appreciate how they work. The final Illuminati symbol, which was the most interesting and creative one in the book, was replaced with the crossed keys symbol. In my opinion, that was a missed opportunity to focus on and spend a little more time on the symbols, which is what the Langdon character is all about. Overall, this movie is a very poor interpretation of the book, and fails at the attempt to be an action movie / thriller. 4 out of 10


Why did they not follow the book ... I am really sad and disappointed. I was so looking forward to seeing this movie, however, if you have read the book (maybe recently) it might be very difficult to remain objective. My wife had not read the book, and she loved the movie.

Reasons for the disappointment are: 1) Cern's involvement ... gone with the wind, such a shame, there is a very small part at the start, where the antimatter is created, but even that does not stick to the facts (why not, the fact that Vittoria's father was burned with the first Illuminati brand, which is how Langdon got involved would have been a perfect start to the Movie_ 2) Story-line between the (deceased) pope and Camerlegno completely gone ... this completely screws up the motive for the stealing of the antimatter 3) Story-line between Langdon and Vittoria Vetra completely non-existent

All-in-all, too flaky storyline, and cannot understand that Dan Brown allowed them to put his name against it. Maybe I should revisit this film in 10 years time, when I cannot remember the excellent book anymore (fat chance on forgetting the book I am afraid)

Really sorry for the negative review, which was spoilt by expectations


The implausibility of the plot has been noted by several commentators, particularly the immense amount of trouble Fr McKenna would have had to have gone to, and the sheer impossibility of some of the calculations he would have had to have made, including that Langdon was going to decipher each clue in minutes. McKenna is branded; a few seconds later he is giving orders, and a few minutes later, he is running (literally) around in charge of operations -- in real life, he would be in shock. And, as usual in thrillers, the assassin doesn't kill the heroes, giving as his only lame explanation that they were not on the list of those to be killed, as though every other innocent bystander he shot was. I have always used Independence Day as the hallmark of a truly awful film (US President commandeers jet plane and beats off aliens, ha ha), and this effort runs it close. For such an implausible film, Angels and Demons contains a remarkable number of predictable incidents. Who didn't laugh knowingly when the assassin went to get his reward in the Volkswagen? I felt like shouting, "You are going to be blown up". Who didn't know that the heroine was going to find a body in the lab? Who didn't spot the baddie? Technically also, the film was awful. The dialogue was more often indecipherable than clear, while the races across Rome to the next church were accompanied by deafening music. Moreover, many scenes looked like mud. The one redeeming feature was the shots of Rome and what looked like the Vatican -- an achievement, because I am sure that the Vatican officials would not have wanted this dross shot in and around St Peter's -- and the interiors were convincing. Rome is a magic place, and I enjoyed seeing it fleetingly.


Ron Howard and his "editors" only had one job to do... Follow the guidelines of the book which was "rich", "mysterious", "moving" and highly cinematic in its approach!

What they did? They changed EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING! What is left is something that has no right being called "Angels & Daemons"!

I really love the book and find it very hard to see it being treated this way!

I wonder what was the opinion of Dan Brown himself for "this" film.

I really have no patience to sit down and right the 1.000.000 changes they made, it is pointless.......


Firstly I loved the book, more so than the more popular Da Vinci Code and although the DVC film was not well received, I liked it and bought the DVD. However, there is no chance that I will ever want to watch Angles and Demons ever again.

The film barely resembles the book, in fact only the general premise of the story is there.

From the very start of the film I was disappointed, in the book Robert Langdon receives a call and fax from Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN. Who finds the body of Father (can't remember the name) and then requests Langdon to come, using the super fast plane... In the book the only people who knew about this technology that the Father and Daughter team had created were themselves and the camerlingo... In the film however, there was a massive team involved... so the tension was never there... how did they find out etc.

Leaving out or rather changing this whole part of the story was a massive mistake and was in my mind what made it a poor movie... it changed everything that happened from then on, when the Camerlingo was confronted in the pope's locked room, it should have been Maximilian Kohler who shot the video from his wheel chair, the commander rushed in to get the camerlingo but was shot by Olivetti, in the film it was the commander in the room and Olivetti was shot... (err I think I got this right, but I was bored and can't really remember the events in the film)...

There was no love interest between Vittoria and Robert and in the book she wasn't at CERN when he arrived and was indeed was flown in from her research work. In the book all four of the preferratti were killed, but in the film the last one of the four survived the fountain. In the book Vittoria was kidnapped and Robert had to rescue her and it was they that killed the Assassin at the Church of the Illuminati, not blown up like he was in the film by the Camerlingo. The bit where Robert was confined under a stone coffin was not there, saved by his Mickey mouse watch alarm. OK in the book we are led to believe that Langdon bailed out of the helicopter, fair enough to say that this was a bit far stretched, but it was important in the film, because he had to race back with the film... There was no mention of how Vittoria and her adopted father became involved, this was also important in getting to know the character of Vittoria.

In all one of the worse films I have seen, I would have left early, but my brain went numb and I lost the use of my legs temporarily. A really really reeeeeeaaaaaaalllly poor attempt and not one of Ron Howards finest, in fact, how he will get work again is beyond me!!! I want my money back!!!


I'm a historian. This movie is so wrong it hurts. Tried to watch with an open mind, but if you're going to delve into a movie or anything for that matter of this nature at least do some homework regarding history, locations, church protocol, et cetera. Stop playing to the dumb audience, please. There are those of us out there that actually put on our shoes and venture out to the theatre when something of this nature, worthy of a theatrical release comes to town. A little research, all I'm asking. But then again, the book it's based on is somewhat of a joke in itself. So basically, they took a novel with many errors and decided to make it into a screenplay, pour millions and millions and millions of dollars into it and make an incredibly promoted world distributed theatrical release and at no time have anyone take the time to do a little research on the lot of it. I know several of my colleagues who would have done it for just the credit alone or at least given it to a body of students as an assignment for several weeks to research various aspects or just pay someone knowledgeable a couple of bucks just to run through it because trust me, there are plenty of starving historians out there who would have jumped on the opportunity if it had presented itself.


Recension: Angels & Demons

The movie is directed by Ron Howard. He has had also made famous movies like The Da Vinci Code & Cinderella Men. He directed also the famous TV-series 24. The most famous actors are Tom Hanks(The Da Vinci Code,The Green Mile, Forrest Gump,) & Ewan McGregor(Cassandra's Dream, Moulin Rouge, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace,).

In the begin I was shocked because they changed the beginning from the movie so big. Because they changed the father of Vittoria Vettra(Ayelet Zurer) in someone else, Silvano Bentivoglio(Camren Argenziano). Another Change is that Robert Langdon(Tom Hanks) never goes to the CERN. It was nice that they could film on location in the CERN.

Then movie goes on, They are spectacular car races in Rome. An I also like the part in Chirstian Archives very much when they destroy the work of Galileo, it was funny. It was also funny that they where locked in the archives the second time they get in, Robert Langdon destroyed half of the archives and when they bust out, the electricity get on

I found It very stupid that Robert Langdon not went in the helicopter, but that the Camerlengo(Ewan McGregor) gets in alone, another detail is that in the movie the Camerlengo is an adopted son from the pope. In the book He is the real Son of the pope.

When I should give the best acting performance then I should say Pierfrancesco Favino who plays inspector Olivetti. The worst acting was from the assassin, who was played by Nikolaj Lie Kaas, I think he was underachieving, because in Adams Apples he played Faboulous.

I think the whole movie is underachieving because director Ron Howard made some many stupid changes. I would rate the movie by 4/10.


I went into the movie expecting a little action mixed with a strong story line. I understand that changes between written works and movies must be made...for many reasons.

The changing of the relationship between the scientists ( they were father - daughter in the book) The Director of CERN was eliminated thus causing the scene between the Carmelengo and the Director to be changed to the Carmelengo and the head of the Swiss Guard in the Pope's office.

Ron Howard made sure to get his dad inserted as a Cardinal with a hayseed accent but missed all the symbolism. Both Lagdon and the Carmelengo ascended to the heavens in the helicopter with Hanks character landing in the river and the priest landing upon the chapel in what was described as a Christ-like image.

At some point this film needs to be remade by a director who is up to the job


An EXTREMELY fast paced,exhilarating, interesting, detail rich book. Its a huge shame that the film had none of these qualities. not only was Tom Hanks' mild mannered portrayal or Robert Langdon Laughable, but the name changes to key characters, huge deviances from the original story line, and poor Irish/Italian accent from Carmalengo Played by Ewan Mcgregor, made for the worst book to film EVER.

As a huge fan of A&D the book, i had high hopes for a more lavish, true to book detailed movie, where it would start and finish just as the book did - leaving me wanting more.

All the film really did was depress me within the 1st 10 minutes.

what was impressive was how the... sorry! i couldn't even finish that sentence without laughing.

in short - Vittoria was the token hottie, a very second to Audrey Tatou and there were some very nice Alfa Romeos.

i would recommend reading the book to understand that, if Ron Howard must insist on making ANOTHER book to film, i would be happy saving my £6.40 for a KFC zinger meal and some chicken wings - far more entertaining and deeply more satisfying!


This critique tells the story of 4 little friends who went to watch Angels and Demons the movie on the first night it came out, even though it was a school night, because "Angels and Demons is worth it." Two of the four had read the book. Of those that didn't, a guy, was wearing pink skinny jeans. This was the least eventful part of the evening after watching the abhorrent Angels and Demons.

The movie starts out in a lab where the antimatter is being created while another process is going on. And apparently someone knows about it or something. Notice how very confused I am.. I don't get what happened: they were just making the antimatter. Vittoria finds her own father dead... WHAT? The Illuminati symbol sent to Langdon is a PRINTOUT, not a burn on someone's chest. They take out the X-33 scene. They take out Maxmillian Kohler. They, pretty much, take out CERN and the symbology connected to it. They take out the Hassasin and replace him with some religious, British dude. They take out the Illuminati Diamond. They take out Vittoria's near-rape scene. They take out Langond's fight with the Hassasin (now British dude on crack). They take out the press dude following them around. They take out the death of the fourth cardinal. They take out the fact that the Camerlengo becomes pope. They take out the Camerlengo's grand scheme. They take out Langdon's being in the helicopter and landing on that island toward the end. They take out the fact that Vittoria's father was a scientific priest. They take out Langdon's fun and most unfortunately, they take out Vittoria's sexual appeal.

Other than the movie COMPLETELY losing focus of the details, the movie is acted HORRIBLY. One must admit, though, there were some good things. For example, the Sistine Chapel recreation must have been extremely difficult and it was extremely well done. The explosion scene was MIND-BLOWING. Other than that, SCREW THIS MOVIE FOR RUINING THE BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ IT.


I had neither read any of the books nor seen the first movie so after receiving passes to a preview show, I had no expectations.

'Angels and Demons' was a muddled, convoluted film lacking direction or any believability. There was very little character development and I never found myself caring about the plight of the protagonists; the reverse was true, I was more interested in seeing how the antagonists would succeed as the first half of the film was almost exclusively focused on why the Illuminati are who they are.

The film jumps from location to location with little explanation or reason and expects the viewer to believe that everybody in the movie is an ally when they first meet. Any analytical mind will realize this is highly improbable.

The climax is extremely cliché and leaves you asking what happened and wondering why nobody considered some of these points, it feels very tacked on and unnecessary.

The actors are not particularly believable in their roles, mostly because I found it difficult to believe that scientists, professors, and men of the church would act in the manner that they do without regard to the consequences of their actions. Events that happen are not plausible in the slightest and the pace of the movie is questionable with the characters jumping around while on a tight schedule and I had to question how the protagonists manage to get from location to location on time, every time.

The most pleasing part of the film is the cinematography, I found it a beautiful film to watch but it was such a mess, that I found it would not be worth paying to view in theatres.


Angels and Demons: 3 out of 10: Clearly something bad has happened to Ron Howard. I don't know what exactly, but something has gone very wrong.

Howard has always been a decent workman director. While he will never be mistaken for an artistic savant both Cinderella Man and Apollo 13 were excellent films, Parenthood was pretty good and even Angels and Demons prequel/sequel The Da Vinci Code was a fun romp. In addition none of his films have been downright awful. (Note I have seen neither How the Grinch Stole Christmas nor his newest film Heidi Montag Says No to Plastic.) Whats more Howard managed to hold this quality is such devise genres as star driven Oscar bait (A Beautiful Mind), star driven costume drama (Far and Away), star driven revenge fantasy (Ransom) and comedies about prostitution and mermaids (Night Shift, Splash).

Angels and Demons is at its center a poorly directed and shot film. Scenes are too dark, camera angles are all wrong, the actors block each others shots and the whole affair is often out of focus. This makes the telling of an already confusing story even more muddled.

Dan Brown gets picked on a lot but I found The Da Vinci Code a fun readable romp (so sue me). The movie version of the Da Vinci code kept the same where are they going to next vibe of the book and added an attractive cast and attractive location shooting.

Angels and Demons however takes place in the claustrophobic confines of Vatican City and since Howard wasn't allowed to film in many of the real locations we end up with a lot of running around a CGI back lot. The entire film is as if Rick Steves did a Vatican City special and instead of actually visiting the Holy City and pointing his camera, Rick had to use Lego bricks and a second hand art book with all the tits erased.

While the Da Vinci code had what I still think is an intriguing central mystery (again sue me), Demons and Angels story consists of a plot by the Illuminati (roll eyes now) to destroy the Vatican. Their idea was to take positions in schools for the deaf around the world and raping every student in the ass repeatedly. Oops my bad; apparently the Vatican doesn't need any help on that one.

Anyway their plan is to infiltrate Europe's Large Hadron Collider, kill the head priest, and steal three vials of Anti-matter. This begs more than a few questions. Can the Hadron Collider create anti-matter? Can you capture the anti-matter once created? Why is the EU collecting it? (Perhaps they fear a Godzilla attack?). Why is the head of Anti-matter gathering a Vatican priest? Now once they get the anti-matter they are going to use its incredible destructive power to take over the world no just kidding; unfortunately the Illuminati haven't quite grasped that Pinky and the Brain level of sophistication just yet. Instead the current pope has just died and it's conclave time. The top seeded cardinals for the final four pope tournament are all kidnapped and the Illuminati are killing them one by one Seven style. They being good sports however are leaving clues at every murder like some Latin themed Riddler. Oh and the last kidnapped Cardinal has the anti-matter and if he isn't found in time Rick Steves will have to go straight to Venice next year to see decent frescoes. If only there was some Latin themed Batman to save the day? Okay the story is truly awful and it is poorly told, but maybe this is one of those films saved by great performances. A true character study (Okay you know where this is going). Tom Hanks gives an incredibly wooden performance and simply looks awful (he is also to old to play the character by about twenty years. ) his love interest Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer has zero chemistry with either Hanks or the screen. Ewan Macgregor plays the Pope's personal assistant/cabana boy as an Irish man who looks like he is about to break into a musical number at any moment providing no one steals his Lucky Charms.

On the plus side Stellan Skarsgård puts in a fine turn as head of Vatican Security and as far as we know no deaf children were raped during the making of this film which puts it ahead of its Vatican critics in at least one area.


In a way, you have to respect Arachnia. It's clearly meant as a tribute to the big bug movies of the fifties, and while the special effects look terrible; at least the film doesn't feature CGI. However, on the other hand; you can't respect the film too much because it's a load of rubbish. The acting is terrible, the special effects (as mentioned) are impossible to take seriously, and once you've seen one giant spider being blown up; you've seen them all, so it gets boring rather quickly. The plot follows a bunch of people who are unlucky enough to be in a plane crash after a meteor shower. They go to the only house in the area; which just happens to be a house where a man has a huge spider he used to use as a circus attraction. Coincidently around the same time, the meteor shower has caused more giant spiders to rise from underground. All the characters in this film are poor caricatures; none of them have anything even resembling a third dimension and they will soon begin to thoroughly bore you. You've got to feel for director Brett Piper as he clearly didn't have much to work with for this film; but that doesn't make Arachnia worth a damn, and overall there are better giant bug films than this, and therefore Arachnia doesn't get the seal of approval from me.


I picked this up because, having spent time in the Albany region of New York, I knew a couple of people in the movie and I happened upon it by chance. The attempts at comedy are lame, the compulsory girl-on-girl scene is sickening, the plot is nonexistent, the acting is among the worst I've ever seen, and don't even get me started on special effects. I realize this is a very low budget film made by a small independent company, but if you're going to do a sci-fi horror flick with giant bugs, don't make the giant bugs completely unbelievable. People want to see giant bugs. That's half the fun right there. And if you're going to make the giant bugs completely unbelievable, at least get the actors to make some sort of tongue-in-cheek allusion to that fact ("You idiots! These aren't them! You've captured their stunt doubles!"). Be prepared to waste two hours of your life that you'll never be able to get back.


36/100. This is not to be confused with the decent Arachnophobia, this film is a very low budget and cheap rip-off of that movie. This one is so bad, it actually does have some entertainment value on that level. There are numerous unintended (I think) laugh out loud scenes. I wasn't expecting much from the film, and it was actually worse than I had imagined it would be.

It's a cliché ridden and predictable direct to video mess. Fortunately, it doesn't take itself too seriously. The acting, as expected, is not quite Oscar caliber. The special effects are poor, worse than I would have thought they would be. Poorly edited and the score is intrusive.


I watched this movie based on the comments of a few that said that is was bad but funny. But you need to be warned that this movie has the worst special effects ever produced. They make 1950s science fiction movies look like works of art. This is funny at times, but annoying for the most part. And to compound the problem with the seriously pathetic special effects is the total lack of logic that characterized a majority of the events depicted. One of my favorites is where three of the characters drop hundreds of feet into a tunnel created by the arachnia and arrive to find it fully lit. Apparantely the arachnia have also managed to hook into the power grid. Very impressive. But this is just one example. And for what its worth, the music sucks, the acting sucks, the two cute girls are annoying, the obnoxious guy is annoying, the so-called handsome lead man is a geek, and the black girl who fall for him is a fool. Her father is the worst actor I have ever seen. I am not sure the brief moments of humor can possibly make up for the experience.


This is one of those movies that you watch because it's bad. Such a movie that you watch just to see it's shitty craftsmanship. Supposedly a horror, I cannot imagine how anyone can be afraid of a claymation bug, especially one that is translucent in nature where you can see the actor's legs behind it.

Even with no budget, a little bit of attention to detail and even an attempt at making this movie believable would have sucked the fun right out of it, as they would have had to replace all of the actors and the entire story with it. If I had nothing to make fun of while it was playing, I would have stopped it after 10 minutes, and put on some quality show like Spunge Bob Square Pants (HAR HAR HAR).

I Strongly recommend that Brett Piper get with Quintin Terrantino and Really pump out some feces.

:)


I usually love these movies. Give me a good old B movie any day but this one was simply awful. The acting(?) was terrible almost to the point of my turning the movie off completely. I thought I saw the all time worst but this one is right up there with Attack of the Killer Tomatoes! In all honesty - it was the acting that did this film in for me.

I found the actor's to be clumsy and the lead male/female were extremely dull. This movie had absolutely nothing going for it. I may be asking a ridiculous question here but why the nudity and sex scene? Did the producers think nobody would watch if they left them out? I think they were probably right! Oh where is Price and The Tingler when you need them?


My wife and I watched this after DVR'ing it off of Encore action this past week. It has to be the worst horror flick either of us had ever seen. Predictable dialogue ( my wife and I were guessing the lines before they were spoken), hokey special effects, a screenplay that drifted all over the place. I think the part that was the most annoying was the stereotyping of the various characters in the plot, not to mention the gratuitous sex scene between two of the young heroines in the movie, neither of which had any real purpose other than to bare certain parts of their anatomy for the cameras. This movie should be categorized as comedy, not horror as the villains of the movie (spiders) were stop motion animated and not believable in the least. I can't say that I would have done a better job making a film myself, but it was very amateurish and wasn't even a "B" movie, somewhere closer to a "d" movie, or "f" if that is possible. I think even Science Fiction 3000 would have to pass on this one!


This...... Movie.... Is..... Horrible!!!!!! You won't believe this hunk of junk is even a movie!!!! Critters4 was better then this!!! And Critters4 was pretty frigging bad too!!! A bunch of stupid teens crash in a desert, find an old run down bungalow, and end up fending off horrifically badly stop motion animated spiders. Pardon my french, but the acting was bad as hell!!! The person who wrote this probably didn't even know what a spider is, because he had the spiders living in a colony serving an alien-queen-ripoff queen spider! SPIDERS DO NOT LIVE IN COLONIES!!!!!!!!! THIS "MOVIE" IS A PIECE OF CRUD!!! At the end, the marines suddenly pop out of no where and kill all the spider without even being called!!!! If you see a copy of this movie at a video store, douse it in gasoline and throw a match at it!!!!


I was entertained to see that some of the reviews here were topped with **SPOILERS** the joke in my family is that the only part of this movie that isn't given away on the back of the box, is given away in the title. Perhaps I am just a dense American 17-year-old who wouldn't know art if it bit me in the leg, but I prefer movies that have at least some words. This movie makes the second half of 2001: A Space Odyssey down right chatty. This movie is just so slow it isn't even art, it is merely boring. We follow this creepy guy who is following this boy around Venice. The end was incomprehensible until I read the end of book. A movie shouldn't make you refer back to the book, it should be able to stand alone. This movie has no way to stand. It doesn't even have the bones of a plot to lean on.


The opening of MORTE A VENEZIA resembles a Duran Duran music video with classical music and this is the highlight of the movie

" In terms of what Theo ? "

In terms of everything , but especially excitement . I doubt if there's ever been a more sluggish slower moving movie than this one . Yeah okay it's a European art house movie so I wasn't expecting Charles Bronson to massacre hordes of bad guys but even so I did expect some substance if not an actual plot

The film revolves around Professor Gustav Von Aschenbach visiting Venice . Gustav visits Venice and goes on a gondola , Gustav eats in an expensive restaurant , Gustav looks out of his hotel window and if it's excitement you want Gustav has a flashback

Bad enough if this was the entire movie but it gets worse because Gustav notices a pretty boy teenager . So you've got a middle aged academic lusting after some teenage boy he has seen , some old queen is becoming obsessed with a stranger . Great idea for a movie ? I don't think so either and thank gawd it remained a yawn fest instead of some sleazy precursor to gay porn

I notice a lot of people who praise this movie have tried to intellectualise it . I can only be monosyllabic and unpretentious in my view and say that the only subtext I could relate to was the physical and emotional disintegration of Gustav but it wasn't caused by the effete beauty of the teenage boy - It was caused by watching such a boring and ostentatious movie


This program was shown in an early morning time slot on SPACE, a cable sci-fi station. I am amazed that anyone would pay for this or broadcast it; it is incredibly amateurish.

The entire show is a sequence of short monologues or scenes performed on a set that looks like a closet with a bunch of circuit boards taped to the wall. There is very little continuity between scenes, and no plot. A typical scene revolves around some lame joke or special effect and is only a minute or so long. The dialog makes little sense and the special effects look like Photoshop filters. The actors are all adults, but I have literally seen high-school plays with better writing and sets. This program is an embarrassment.

Perhaps each scene would work as an interstitial; a filler between shows instead of commercials. Stringing all the scenes together makes the limitations of the material extremely obvious.


Kazuo Komizu, who hasn't made one decent film, directed this "notorious" shocker and should be ashamed that it was a hit upon its Japanese release.

Yes, it does feature scenes of rape, gore and dismemberment, but so what? It has the style of a bad American porn film shot and badly photographed by Ed Powers ("Dirty Debutantes") and is incredibly slow.

It seems to have earned its notoriety based on its roster of anti-social acts.

There is a huge difference between this and horror that is well produced.

Just because someone likes their cinema a little wet does not mean they'll accept crap like this. On the contrary, that kind of fan (myself, for example) tolerates even less crap than the average punter out there because he's seen so much and has become overly discerning. It's a shame production companies don't realize that.

One reviewer here (ZombieKilla81) commented that the film's "near obsession with gang rape" is one of the factors that killed it. I disagree. The subject matter is never the issue. The issue is how that subject matter is treated. In ENTRAILS OF A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN, it is treated so unimaginatively that it is boring.

Personally, I like graphic depictions of psychopathic behavior (with an intriguing context) if the material is well directed, freshly photographed and aesthetically pleasing. This Nikkatsu horror/pink hybrid is woeful.


This is one of those movies I watched, and wondered, why did I watch it? What did I find so interesting about it? Being a truck driver myself, I didn't find it very realistic. No, I've never used a 'lot lizard', nor have I ever seen, nor heard about one traveling around the country in a brand new seventy thousand dollar RV, either.

Same thing about a pimp whom has never sampled the lady in question (until the end of the movie, and well, he still really didn't...), and only getting 50 bucks 'a cut', when the prostitute gets $200.00 (well, $150.00 after his cut, yeah...).

I still laugh at the lot lizard comment Ivey made (them's Lot Lizards, they'll screw anything with 20 bucks, and some are men dressed as woman... or something equally as weird), meaning, we're better then them, as we may still be prostitutes, but we get paid BETTER.

Other then that, it's just a story of a young woman whom wanted something more from life then a dead end job while living at home (she's 18, remember?) and embarrassed by her mother basically doing the same thing (dead end job). At least she had a roof over her head and a job. She turned FIVE tricks on the road... I wonder if the $750.00 she made was worth it? I'd guess not.


Really, average is the only word that comes to my mind when you see this.

The acting was average (maybe a bit above average), the camera usage was average (actually below average. The picture was so shaky and the colors were grainy and blurry.) The plot was a good one but moved at such a slow pace and wasn't put to good use.

This could've been so much more if it didn't go at a snail pace and we saw more into the characters backgrounds.

All we see are flashbacks here and there of Alice and how her home life is so "bad" (her mother is a working class woman trying to make end meet for her and her daughter.) We see a flashback of her of when she was in high school and her friend says to her "tell your Mom to make some better food" and "everybody says it's your mom." Yeah that's embarrassing but why would you run away from it.

I could definitely see if her Mom was a drunk or somebody was abusing her but nothing was wrongwith her home except she was embarrassed by it. How immature!

We're not even given a glimpse of what the couple's lives have been like (except that they've been prostituting for awhile and the woman, forgot her name, gave her baby up when it was 9 months old.) This really could've been so much more. It could've had Alice who was abused by her drunk mom go down to Florida with her friend but then becomes a prostitute. Or something along the lines of that other then the real plot of this movie (that is) Alice, a girl with a home life of probably 90% of America's population (WORKING CLASS) runaways to Florida but then gets sidetracked by turning into a prostitute.

I don't see why it won an award at Sundance (it must've been up against some really weak competition to have won that one award.)

Also to me, Alice's Boston/New England accent seemed forced. It didn't seem genuine. (I should know, I was born and raised in Boston, but now live in Georgia.)

4/10 Not really worth your time in my opinion.


i have one word: focus.

well.

IMDb wants me to use at least ten lines of text. okay. let's discuss the fine points of focus. i don't know about the rest of you, but in my first year of film school they taught us a lot of useless crap, like 'you'll all be famous avant-garde filmmakers someday'--but they also taught us how to do this crazy thing called FOCUSING the lens! it was amazing! you give a little twist and wham! everything is clear as a bell. the person who shot what alice found needs to learn a few things about the finer points of focus. lighting, too. this movie is not only completely out of focus, it's also lit like the corner of someone's basement.

don't even get me started on pacing or plot. they could have trimmed about ten seconds off the beginning and end of every single shot.

but who cares about that anyhow? there is not enough lurid in this movie to make up for the utter lack of regard to film's best friends--FOCUS, and LIGHTING.

words to the wise.


Now, I loved "Lethal Weapon" and "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", but I cannot believe Shane Black wrote this pile...or that David Morse and John C. McGinley are in it. I screened it for a film festival. Awful. Everyone was laughing. It's preachy and heavy handed...not to mention stupid. Also, it's surprising how little L.A. looks like Cambodia. The entire idea of time traveling through post-traumatic stress disorder is kinda dumb. Imagine "Born on the Fourth of July" mixed with "The Butterfly Effect 2" (I used to sequel as the example to really show how bad this movie is) but directed by Michael Bay's 2nd unit director. That bad. The 2 stars are purely based on the production value.


It's been over 30 years now but I still remember that this movie was the worst I've ever seen. I would have thought that in this length of time something worse would have been filmed but I was mistaken. I just finished watching "STARSHIP TROOPERS" and it came mighty close but it was still more entertaining than " POOR COW ".


The best scene of "The People Across The Lake" is the genuinely creepy, nightly opening-scene featuring a house, a murder & a lake. After that, it's pretty much downhill from there on as far as the horror is concerned. A family (mom, dad, sister & younger brother) is fed up with the (mildly) dangerous environment of suburbia, and decides to go and live near the titular lake. From then on, the film features too much lame happy family-related doo-doo near the lake, with occasionally some corpses popping up here and there. The couple of scenes where they discover the bodies, are pretty convincing (in terms of creepiness), but they are in shrill contrast with the rest of the goings-on (featuring just every-day-life stuff of the family settling in). The truth to the matters (the mystery as to who's doing the killing) is learned too soon, leaving only the family unknowing and the viewer yawning during the unexciting finale (featuring a discovery in a basement and running around the house), like if this made-for-TV thing suddenly remembered it was supposed to be a horror film. It's not really badly made; the content & story is just not interesting enough. The only highlight in the cast is Barry Corbin, though his performance/character is just a bit too goofy to be taken serious. Blond cutie Tammy Lauren (the daughter) might be a recognisable face for avid horror junkies too, as she also starred in "Wishmaster" (1997), and made-for-TV outings like "I Saw What You Did" (1988) & "The Stepford Children" (1987). She hasn't got much to do in this film, though. Skippable, but watchable, if anything.


This movie includes 2 well known actors I have previously enjoyed watching. There actions are great and each action is heart felt. But it makes me think these 2 were thrown into a speech/drama class at college for the first time and told for one to act dominating and constricting to the other in a room without allowing her to leave and the woman to be truly innocent and treat her with enough mind-humping to drive the audience into tears for her release.

The only good part IS the acting abilities, the plot has the same ruse as Hitlers influence and I started to hate the protagonist for that. But all of this could have been done within 15 minutes in my opinion, so to drag it out for over an hour was just pure punishment for all who watched it.


Closet Land is a nasty piece of work with superb actors. Nothing more (or less) happens in the movie besides the unending abuse of an attractive woman prisoner by a sadistic police official. The setting is minimalist. This might be considered soft core S&M porn because the drama is devoid of all reference points such as time, place, and political context. Since what happens is cut adrift in a fantasy futuristic environment, the abuse becomes purely personal. The pornographic aspects are justified by being a warning about the evils of totalitarian government, but because there is no real context for the torture of this young woman, we come away disturbed but having learned nothing.

What is the point? That torture exists in the world? That abusing prisoners is bad? That dictatorships abuse innocent people? We know that already. Closet Land has echoes of such works as Darkness At Noon and Ionesco's Rhinoceros, but both those works were made by competent artists whose work had historical context and depth of meaning. This work is amateurish and the dialogue sophomoric. A definite thumbs down.


This is possibly the hands down worst movie every made, that actually took itself seriously. And not as a result of the acting, because being an actor, I have to say that Rickman and Stowe had to be at their best, just to escape needing electro convulsive therapy after the principle photography wrapped. Being one of the 57 people that actually saw this movie in theatrical release, I have to say I have never before or since experienced a movie where the movie ended, credits rolled, the house lights went on, and no one moved from their seats. About five minutes after the house lights went up people started coming out of their comas to look around, and I think most of us thought, okay we get it, that was a joke, right?, they are going to show the real movie now. Eventually, after the ushers handed out disguises, and we swore an oath of secrecy to never admit we were there, we felt that it was safe to leave, praying that we would not be seen leaving the auditorium. I have seen some pretty bad movies in my day, (I have Cinemax for goodness sakes), but I am still bitter that I will never, ever be able to recover those two or so hours of my life that I lost watching Closet Land.


I classify this as the worst movie of all time.

If there ever was a movie I would wish upon my enemies, this would be it. The plot is ridiculous, there are only 2 characters, and the coincidences between these characters just completely strain belief.

These factors combined to make this an extremely boring movie.

My wife and mother walked out on the movie about 15 minutes in. I figured that a movie this boring and slow *must* have some cool interesting plot twist, and a was quite disappointed when nothing exciting materialized.

I briefly considered sending the filmmakers a bill for my 2 hours of lost life.


Out of 15 people I loaned this movie too.. NO One finished it.. It was so Awfully.???????? Not good... Just awful. She sits in a chair the whole movie. She's in a Closet. The Chair she's sitting is nice. I can't think of anything more to say. But 10 lines of text. To print this up. My friend Nick thinks this is a great movie.,, because,,, he can give it to his friends,, and not have to worry about THOSE calling him back. He's passed it around as a gag movie for 10 years. Which is how I got it.. Then.. I tried to get my friends to finish this extremity's awful awful piece of crap... To no aval.. no one could finish it.. Takes boredom to a whole new level. They could use this in Iraq INSTEAD OF WATER BOARDING... PLEASE SEND COPIES Guantanamo BAY CUBA. Makes great Xmas gift.


Dr. Lucio Fulci (Lucio Fulci) is a director of gory horror movies who is starting to feel the effect of having filmed too many bloody scenes. He visits his local psychiatrist to see if he is losing his marbles; this proves to be a bad idea, since the shrink is actually a crazy murderer responsible for a spate of grisly killings. Seizing the opportunity to make Fulci his fall guy, the loopy nut doctor hypnotises the horror hack into thinking that he is responsible for the recent series of murders.

On the surface, Cat in the Brain appears to be a fantastically gory treat from spaghetti-splatter god Lucio Fulci. Chock full of chainsaw dismemberment, axe attacks and various other bloody killings, the film certainly spills enough claret for even the most hardened gore-hounds. But when one looks closer, it turns out that many of the gruesome scenes are lifted from earlier movies (mostly Fulci's own 'masterpieces'); remove these from the equation and one is left with a nifty basic plot idea that is totally wasted, some welcome nudity, and dreadful performances from Fulci himself and David L. Thompson as the psycho shrink.

As the film progresses, it develops into an incomprehensible mess, with the 'borrowed' gore footage inserted randomly, with no attempt at working it convincingly into the story. If you've seen Fulci's Touch of Death and Ghost's of Sodom, or Mario Bianchi's the Murder Secret, then you've already seen the best bits of Cat In The Brain before.

After much bloodletting, the film wraps itself up rather quickly, leaving the viewer feeling bewildered and somewhat cheated. Watch the film if you're a Fulci completist, but I would suggest seeking out the films from which the 'good bits' were taken.


I am a big fan of sci-fi movies. So, when I saw this movie in the EPG, I thought I was in for a pleasant evening. What a disappointment ! Such a poor display of "special" effects I could not imagine in 1980, but in 2005 ? Come on, why would you do special effects of an helicopter flying in the desert when you can film a real one for a much lower price (I guess) ? And those killer "muppets"... well, I could do better than that in a couple of hours in the garage. You can expect to have a low budget on a movie, but I don't think it's reasonable to have a low movie for any budget. As for the "star" of the movie (I use a lot of quotes tonight...), Lou Diamond Philips, the guy is not even remotely an actor. Maybe he should have stayed to the martial arts movies. All in all, an awful movie. Maybe I am in a bad mood tonight. Then again, maybe not. A sincere 1 out of 10.


What do you get when you put Lou Diamond Philips, Todd Bridges, Barry Corbin with a bad toupee, and an alien all on a train? You get a very bad movie called "Alien Express" or "Dead Rail" that would be more entertaining on Comedy Central's old series "Mystery Science Theater 3000." You name it, this awful movie suffered in areas of acting, plot, storyline, and special effects. In fact, the exterior passenger train shots looked like the production staff used a common HO scale model in front of a painted background! The rest of the special effects goes downhill from there.

The plot is very predictable and is similar to two 1970's movies called "Horror Express" and a disaster movie called "The Cassandra Crossing." At least "The Cassandra Crossing" had a better cast, an engaging storyline, and real train scenes.

If you want a good laugh and a movie to mock at a "B movie" party then watch this; otherwise, "Alien Express" derailed long before departing from the station!


This is fairly typical for the Sci-Fi Channel: one-dimensional characters, a ridiculous plot, and terrible special effects. We've got some alien sock puppets loose on a train, and Lou Diamond Phillips does his best with what little he's given to eke out a performance. And save the day. Everyone else in this is utterly dispensable; the ex-wife who goes through the time-honored cliché of first disliking Lou, then of course comes to love him again at the end. The obnoxious State Senator who gets munched early on, and a gaggle of dull security guards who run around a lot. Then there's an eco-terrorist who is in this movie for absolutely no reason whatsoever, except to provide us with 3% more running around. He spends the whole middle part of the movie hiding in a box.

The special effects really deserve their own paragraph. We start with a meteorite that flies through the air, trailing flames behind it, at about 100 miles per hour. According to the physics of this movie, if you exceed the posted speed limit in your car, atmospheric friction may cause you to burst into flames. Then it lands on the hood of a car, coming in horizontally. Sort of like a velcro ball landing on a velcro floor I guess. It really doesn't damage the car much, just bends up the hood a little bit. Later on Lou gets in a helicopter and goes chasing after the train. Even though the train only had a two minute head start, it takes a good half hour to catch it. The CGI is so bad that the helicopter looks like it's as big as the hills it's flying over. Then it flies into the side of a mountain - this effect must be seen to be believed. It looks like they took a jar of gasoline and threw it against a wall, then superimposed the flame effect over the helicopter. About 10 times too big. No wonder the helicopter couldn't pull up in time, it was carrying five tons of nitro glycerine. Then the eco-terrorist eventually blows himself up, but instead of exploding in all directions like most explosions do, he explodes upwards like a cannon aimed into the air. Then there's the whole deal with not being able to stop the train because that would allow the little aliens to get off, but it appears that the aliens can actually fly faster than the train is traveling, so why this would keep them on the train I have no idea.

Overall, if you've got a couple of hours that absolutely need killing, and it's down to this movie or reruns on the Food Network, well, come to think of it, some of those chefs are kind of cute. Usually these movies have at least one or two things about them that make it possible to sit through them; maybe there's a sexy girl, some T&A, or a character that actually has some personality, or some suspense or, well, something. I really didn't see any of that here.


It is way beyond me how this script was ever sold much less produced and distributed. The dialogue was so bad it was sickening. The train and helicopter scenes appeared to have been done on flash cards by high school students. Lou Diamond Phillips must have hidden under his seat when this --- this "movie"? was shown at a private screening afterwhich he most likely left by the back door. The only emotion it aroused in me was pity for the cast, they had to "bite the bullet" to get through this one. I couldn't stand to watch all of it, it was so predictable that it was funny. Who knows maybe it will be picked up by one of the networks as a situation comedy.


Watching ALIEN EXPRESS inspired feelings of awe, shock, pity and, yes, sheer terror. To think that actors who have done good work in the past should come to something like this. The horror, the horror.

Tell me if any of this sounds familiar.

A train especially built for a political campaign is on it's way to Las Vegas for a big rally for the candidate, a Senator from Texas (Barry Corbin, the only actor with roles both ALIEN EXPRESS and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN in the same decade). At a railroad crossing in Utah a meteor incinerates a car waiting for the train to pass.

The train stops. Local law enforcement is summoned. Oh, can it be? The Senator has a lovely young lady (Amy Locane from CRY-BABY and MELROSE PLACE) who just happened to have once been married to one of the officers answering the 911 call. Lou Diamond Phillips (STAND AND DELIVER, LA BAMBA) is the ex-husband.

Meanwhile eeeeevil aliens have managed to stow away on the train.

The train leaves. Lou gets his buddy to pilot a helicopter so that Lou can drop onto the moving train (about 70 miles per hour) so that he can save the day. As the buddy's reward, he crashes the helicopter into the mountain.

Which is another example of how poorly written ALIEN EXPRESS is. The cop hero's sidekick must die, we all know that. But he's supposed to die near the end of the third act, usually while saving several lives.

Once on the train, Lou manages to lose his shirt so that he can channel Bruce Willis in DIE HARD by wearing a wife beater t-shirt. Yeah, Lou is 46 years old but he hits the gym. The part he's playing isn't worth bothering with, but he's in good shape.

The Senator is going to have an afternoon delight with Miss Utah, but aliens intercede and both he and the woman young enough to be his granddaughter pay the ultimate price.

Soon we have bomb threats, multiplying aliens, and of course the train goes out of control and speeds toward its date with destiny while Lou and Todd Bridges (DIFF'RENT STROKES) try to save as many lives as they can.

There is exactly one surprise in the entire movie. Early in the story a couple lift wine glasses to their thirty-fifth anniversary, with hopes for thirty-five more years together. The dude gets banged up, but he and the Mrs. both live. Maybe the writers just lost track of them.

This is the kind of movie that you'd love to be a fly on the wall. These actors who have done better work (and, really, deserve much better than this) are probably just happy for the work. Did they actually think they were working on something worthwhile, or did they cry (and/or drink) themselves to sleep at night? At the end of the story the (fairly numerous, all things considered) survivors gather in the last car of the train, which is unhooked. The other cars go over a cliff but the one containing the protagonists stops just inches short of the cliff.

Lou and his ex are reunited. Happiness reigns. I'd have thought that the first thing they'd do was get off the train so they'd have solid ground under their feet, but I digress.

Someone looks out the window and sees a shooting star. Look, make a wish. Then another. Then more and more. The Earth is being bombarded with meteors that will crack open and creepy crawly hand puppets with big teeth will be everywhere.

It's gotten to a point that seeing the words "The Sci-Fi Channel Presents" on an "original" movie tells us that we'll be glad we have Ti-Vo so that we can fast forward through the next two hours. Or, better yet, just go ahead and erase it two minutes into the story and spend that time more wisely.


*THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS... OR MAYBE NOT. THE WARNING IS THE SAME FOR ALL*

Dang it. Just when I thought that SCIFI Channel had used all of its ridiculous ideas for movies, they give us THIS. Actually, the plot itself it's nothing we haven't seen in movies like Snakes On A Plane, Deep Blue Sea, etc... That means, a monster/animal/menace of some kind is lurking in a close environment threatening a bunch of people. In this case, an alien in a train. Wow.

I must say that, when I first saw this thing on cable, I couldn't stop laughing. No SCIFI film had prepared me for this; it was so incredibly pathetic I couldn't believe it! The actors are all a bunch of stereotypical-genre characters. But since they're not so famous (to say the least), I wasn't expecting much of them. Except Diamond Phillips. No comments there, but I think the guy was desperate to find a job. The problem was something called 'special effects', horrible even for SCIFI Channel standards. That model/toy they made us believe it was a real train (not to mention the model/toy helicopter, bigger than a train's wagon), the meteor coming HORIZONTALLY from space, the 'baby' alien (a sock puppet, and I ain't kiddin'), the regular aliens who looked pretty ugly... while they were static; when they started "moving", it was awful, the explosions (the terrorist blew up LITERALLY! And what about the exploding helicopter! Just how many barrels of gas was that thing carrying?), the insane mathematics used (they couldn't even solve a school problem right!)... And I won't talk about that doomsday-like ending, by that time I didn't know if to keep laughing or to start crying. If I remember right, I did both.

It's an ideal movie to have a good laugh, alone or with friends. But be warned; it's so ridiculous at SO MANY levels... and you need a heck of a lot of suspension of disbelief...


We all know that special effects cost money, but it seems as if they could have used the money they saved writing the script to get some better shots. The train is obviously a model in most moving shots, the helicopter is obviously computer generated, the alien looks like the one from the end of Spaceballs, except it's a decade later and Spaceballs had an excuse.

The only smart thing they did was blur all of the special effects to make them harder to see.

Not even the actors could compensate for such a poorly written script and it's pretty obvious they didn't really try either.

Please, don't waste your time. Please.


I did my best to watch this two hour fiasco. It combined the awful special effects and plot of the original "Blob," with an execrable boosting of the (outstanding in the original) screenplay of "Runaway Train." The only explanation for this movie is that someone needed to take a huge tax deduction and figured they'd combine it with a shot at hosting a casting couch. What an incredible stinker! Lou Diamond Phillips is anxious to show us why he will take any part, no matter how bad. Barry Corbin continues his career as a typecast creep, a U.S. Senator from Texas and plays it well. He should next do the lead role in the story of Trent Lott or Jesse Helms. The women in this flick all seem to have gotten their roles as consolation prizes in the Fay Wray Memorial screaming contest. Special effects are unbelievably bad. H.S. kids in film class in North Dakota could have done a better job. The writers must have pulled a heist at the cliché bank to accumulate this many. I couldn't watch any more without being forced to sit in the Clockwork Orange chair. I have no idea how it ended, except obviously, 119 minutes too late. Ugh! Caveat emptor.


Not a terrible movie... But there are monster scenes where you will be rolling on the floor laughing - not a good thing for a action/thriller. The acting is generally pretty decent for a SciFi channel movie. Barry Corbin plays a credible US senator, and Lou Diamond Phillips again gives us a decent military/police/sheriff/agent/marshal figure. The special effects are well, "special" - for example, the external train shots are very obviously a model train.

Goofs: A meteor strikes a stationary car in the opening scene. The car bursts into flames but does not budge an inch. After the impact, the meteor is lodged in the top of the car's hood - impossible from the low angle that the meteor came in at.

Spoilers...

A good portion of the movie's events are predictable, from the helicopter crash ("Pull up, pull up!"), to the fact that the annoying people get it in the end, to the classic blown bridge over a 1000 foot gorge awaiting the train, to the sequel set-up at the end.

The scenes showing the aliens attacking are hilarious. They are vicious cute puppets and move at lightening speed - remember the Monty Python rabbit? Spoiler Goof: In one scene four people shooting clip after clip cannot hit a single creature because they move at lightning speed. Later in the movie Todd Bridges rigs up a mini flame thrower which he uses to dispatch a number of creatures at close range. On several occasions, Lou Diamond Phillips is able to easily grab creatures with his bare hands.


I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, having spent a few (fantastic) college weeks in Barcelona myself. The premise is right on cue--a confused & disordered young individual enters a world of equally confused & disordered young individuals. But the director's weak swats at symbolism, philosophy and social commentary were completely off the mark, and it leaves us, the audience, feeling confused & disordered. Bravo.

Perhaps if this movie had been presented as a European "American Pie" flick, then I'd be able to turn off my brain and go along for the ride. But right off the bat, the director piques our deeper senses by introducing the symbolism of the twisted highways and the dichotomy of the "inner self" vs. the "public self" (one's "mother tongue" vs. one's "secondary language"). Furthermore, it dives boldly into the subject of racial/national stereotyping. Off to an interesting start, eh?

WRONG. That's as far as it goes. These interesting topics are hardly mentioned again except at the contrived epilogue-type ending which seemed to be the director's way of floundering to get back on topic. It reminded me of a meandering speech which goes nowhere, but the speaker ends by saying, "So in conclusion, I hope you see how this relates to my original thought!"

Furthermore, as other reviewers have pointed out, the cynical jab at stereotyping betrays itself. If the point is to ridicule the use of national stereotypes, then why did the director introduce a cockney-speaking, beer-swilling English brat as a caricature of prejudice? Why did the director portray the American as a neanderthal (literally banging his chest & making ape noises at one point) whilst the Europeans tolerate him superciliously? Why is the British girl the one who sinks to uttering slurs (calling French people "frogs" and butchering the French language) while everyone else is above all that? The answer is that this isn't a deep or well-thought out film. It's simply an Anglophobe's retort to the Anglophiles. But really it's no different from the prejudice it seeks to ridicule! Now there's a funny irony to consider.

OK, philosophy, artistry & socio-political commentary aside, I was still very bored by this movie. There is one very funny gag which involves deceiving one of the girls' boyfriends, but aside from that I was hardly entertained at all. The only reason why I watched it through to the end is that I'd like to brush up on my French & Spanish. (You see, we monolingual Americans may be stupid, but we do try.)


I have seen previous movies from Cédric Klapisch, and therefore expected a quality movie with psychological depth. Having been an Erasmus student myself and having visited several friends studying abroad, I know very well what it means to spend some time abroad and mix with different cultures at the same time. Yes, it is great fun! Because of that I thought I should not miss this movie. Unfortunately I was disappointed to find that L'Auberge Espagnol fails to satisfy in many ways: the characters are stereotyped, the events are trite and the story is shallow. Although there are quite a few familiar situations, they are irritatingly cliché and do not go beyond the trivial events. This made the movie uninteresting to watch, and gave me a strong "been-there-done-that-don't-you-have-anything-to-add?" feeling. Apart from that, the movie lacks a firm story. It sometimes looks more like a documentary or 'real-life' show than a seriously made movie.

However, I can imagine that if you haven't studied or travelled abroad, this might be fun to watch.


L'Auberge Espagnole is less funny and less interesting than any episode of Dobie Gillis. Where is their Bob Denver? Do they even have a Dwayne Hickman? A French man moves to Barcelona to attend classes. He moves in with some other students who are no more interesting than himself, and they do and say uninteresting things. This movie is unbelievably bland. The only bright spot was a pretty French girl who played a Belgian lesbian. She places her hands behind her head and reveals shaven underarms, not the usual tufts of dark, smelly hair. But bare armpits does not a good movie make. L'Emmerdeur was funny, so was La Cage aux Folles. L'Auberge Espagnole and Le Placard makes you wonder what is going wrong with French comedy.


Pretty, stereotyped, good looking cast, the story loops in a wide and confusing arc, leading you down a number of garden paths (without attendant fairies) before plummeting to an end that feels you leaving - hollow.

If you are after a film that has climax or ends with a satisfying thump, this is going to be a disappointment. Inspite of the main character's notionally overt sexuality I felt that he was androgynous, lacking a clear male persona, rather like his lacking of a clear French persona. Even though he is notionally laid naked (or rather sat naked) at the end of the film, the viewer is as unaware as the character as to motivations - that little thing called plot. Probably a stereotypically English speaking point of view, at least if you take the side of the film.


Irwin Allen's first venture into all star spectacle was one all star disaster. The Story of Mankind contains some of the most incredible casting decisions of all time. Virginia Mayo as the blond Cleopatra, Dennis Hopper chewing the scenery with Napoleon, Peter Lorre dining on the scenery for weeks as Nero, Marie Wilson as Marie Antoinette as a roadshow Marilyn Monroe, that's just some of them.

The film also is known for being the last film which featured all three of the Marx Brothers though they all have different roles. Chico plays a monk who is Christopher Columbus's confidante, Groucho euchres the Indians out of Manhattan island as Peter Minuit, and most astonishing of all, Harpo Marx as Sir Isaac Newton who discovers gravity when an apple conks him on the bean.

Holding all these portrayals together is a story where mankind itself is being judged. A super H Bomb is about to be discovered and let loose will do in the world's population. It's Judgement Day a coming.

But mankind has its advocates and detractors. Speaking for the prosecution is Old Scratch who's been bringing the worst out in man for centuries in the form of Vincent Price. But man has his good side as well and who better than Ronald Colman to demonstrate man at his most civilized best. Colman and Price plead their case before The Judge played by Cedric Hardwicke.

In those three individuals you have some of the finest speaking voices the English language ever knew. When the film is on them as they each bring out the exhibits for their case it's a pleasure to listen to. Then when the focus is on the individual stories, you want to scream in agony.

What was Irwin Allen driving at, I'm still trying to figure it out. Was he deliberately camping it up with some of these casting decisions? If it was satire, it just doesn't get off the ground.

This was Ronald Colman's farewell film and while it's hardly something I'd like to go out on, I can't think of any man who could have stated the case for civilization any better.

So when you see The Story of Mankind, fast forward through some of the exhibits and treasure every moment the advocates are before the judge.


When I was 8 years old, and going through my Marx Brothers phase, my father read in the TV Guide that they were showing the Marx Brothers film, "The Big Store" late on Friday night, and set the VCR to tape it for me. When I woke up on Saturday -- due no doubt to a misprint in the TV guide -- my father and I discovered "The Story of Mankind" had been recorded instead.

"The Big Store" was probably one of the least funny of all the Marx Brothers movies and nevertheless it stands as one of the century's finest works of cinema when compared with "The Story of Mankind." I can almost justify TV Guide's error, in that the Marx Brothers -- Groucho, Chico, and Harpo -- appear in both movies. Although in "The Story of Mankind," they are divided up into a series of unrelated scenes: Groucho plays Peter Minuit, Chico plays some guy talking to Christopher Columbus, and Harpo plays Isaac Newton????? Harpo's scene lasts about half a minute; Chico only has two or three lines; Groucho's scene is at least funny, but horribly racially insensitive by today's standards. The rest of the movie doesn't bear mentioning. They trotted out some of the finest actors of the day, and made them recite total garbage. What a disappointment.

TV Guide, I sent you a nice letter, I'm still waiting for an apology.

For the record: "The Big Store" has a wonderful bit of physical comedy with the Marx Brothers on roller skates, and a couple of songs by Virginia O'Brien. I was really looking forward to seeing it.


I can't understand why many seem to hate this.

This movie ties together many of the overlapping settings of the historical and Biblical epics of the fifties, using set pieces, props, and costumes similar to those seen in other movies. Here, however, the story attempts to run through all of human history, with a frame story about the human race being on trial, with a guilty verdict meaning h-bombs will go off all over the world. The prosecutor is the devil, played with fiendish glee by Vincent Price. OK, so it's a little hokey calling the defender "The Spirit of All Men," but I think that's one of the things that gives this movie a sense of period charm. The Spririt of Man is incidentally played quite well by Ronald Coleman, in his last film. It is also the last movie in which Groucho, Harpo, and Chico Marx all appear, but not together. Groucho plays Peiter Minuet buying Manhattan from the Indians, in a scene played purely for campy humor. Chico isn't funny at all as a monk who thinks the world is flat, and Harpo, we are told, is meant to be Isaac Newton, discovering gravity. Most of the other performances are well done, though.

Other hokey things are that the trial is supposedly taking place in outer space, which is depicted as a region of clouds and blueness. There is something called "The Great Clock of Outer Space," which, when striking midnight, may signal the end of the world.

But at its heart, the movie addresses the problems of WMDs and the eternal question of whether Man is basically good, or basically evil; and poses it in what I think is an interesting way. Also, anyone who likes the look of costume epics of the fifties should like the look of this movie.


I'm an atheist. To me history and truth mean a lot.

This film is made after a novel published in 1921, which is still being updated up to this day as if it was a history book. Well it's not. The movie is about the novels 1950s version. Some actors were GREAT but that doesn't cover the plot.

In short man invents a super-bomb so God and his friends hold a tribunal to see if they must intervene. The devil analogy persecutes man, and for defense we have the spirit of man. What is the spirit of man anyway? And why was the first defendant Adam? Eventually you just get US Christian propaganda in a 5th grade history book of the time. Though other religions are mentioned, only European Christianity is explored.

First we get the caveman story. The women are scrawny stereotypes of damsels in distress. Real cave women were as strong as men and just as resistant. Hard times, hard life, adapt and survive. All this is watered down by mid-century stereotypes.

Next we get Egypt's first pyramid construction. Today we see a different story and know that there were a lot less deaths and regular citizens at work as well. Loosing mentioned amount of many lives in the process would have been a national disaster and nobody after would try to beat it. As if there was only ONE pyramid build.

The part about Moses and one true god was as if the Spanish inquisition was asking nicely. Inquisition itself was never even mentioned in the movie.

Helen of Troy's evil grim was so vile that I didn't see why so many were even interested in her. In reality they were just soldiers, following commanders orders, who were "discussing" a political issue of power. She was just an excuse.

The Cleopatra story was were I saw this film was to inaccurate and filled with propaganda. Here brother was a LOT younger. She was not obsessed with poison, was quite educated to restore library content, and was politically competitive to drag beaten down Egypt out of dirt.

The part with Nero and praying Christians in a cave were disgusting. Yes, Rome burned down. Yes, there was persecuted Christianity. But the way they portray it was as if the Coliseum build itself and there was no Vespasian to rebuild Rome.

Attila the Hun appears in a short seen and than we jump to King Arthur. The crusades are mentioned with minimal bloodshed. And there is no mention of the crusades east to Russia that ended in an ironic battle. The knights just went home and started jousting for fun of it. A LOT of stuff is put down like no indoor pluming, hygiene and plagues.

Then they cover Joan of Ark, where she always has to much makeup and looks like a princes. Territorial politics were replaced with an unjust court. The sidesaddle alone on a stool makes me want to ask how someone could follow here. At here burning I wanted to yell "Hura! Now die already! Cheap special effects, where is the fire?".

By the time they mentioned Leonardo I already got fed up with the movie. Columbus, Spanish slaughter of America, yelling Queen Elisabeth "kick the Spanish armada" and so on and so on.

The ONLY reason I wanted to see this movie was the fact that it was the last one with all 3 Marks brothers. And all they got was the scene with Manhattan and Indians. Amusing, but no more than a smile.

The witch-hunts are mentioned briefly, as well as plagues (after renascence). When they start portraying revolutions, things gut power-hungry and anarchistic. The US revolution was pursued by the French revolution. Oppression and incompetence are bad, but you can't just blow the old way up out of anger, you must replace it with something. So they replaced the French monarchy with new French monarchy. So we get Napoleon and his ambitions to go to India by land. But they replace his motives with unity and band him for only the title "Emperor". The conquests in Europe, defeat in Russia are sacked to Waterloo.

The US civil war, the English rich inventors (Tesla not included). "Mister Watson, come here, I want you" almost made me laugh for teenage reasons. Technological hard work was watered down to the final discovery and comedic misuse.

Eventually after 85 minutes we come to world wars and organized crime, but none of its horrors. Adolph's words "I invade Russia. This is my last territorial demand" were hilarious. It was his LAST territorial demand.

To build suspense God puts a countdown clock to doomsday on the "wall" for the final words. All mighty cant pause the universe for a second? There was no need for the persecution speech but the defense made one last throw.

Last we see the man of tomorrow as the final defense. Apparently a paradox man, because the bomb was to go of today. His toys are a music box in the shape of a gun and a pencil box sword. Now that is so wrong Pens and pencils drew so many weapon blueprints that its kill count surpasses the atom bomb. And making music out of a weapon? Deluded egoistic generals make music out of weapon fire. So the man of tomorrow is already a monster.

The way I see it, all the defense had to do was blame the devil as the true conspirator for mans demise and case closed. And honestly, compared to all barbaric stuff our ancestors did centuries ago we are pretty humane at painless backstabbing these days.

To summarize all I will just quote "Firefly"s episode "Jaynestown": "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of son of bitch or another. Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need".


Leave Ed Wood alone. To call "Plan 9 from Outer Space" the worst film ever made would be to deny this abysmally vulgar heap of Hollywood guano its rightful title. This pretentious fusion of witless whimsy and bathetic sociopolitical "commentary" actually does seem to be formed along the lines of "Plan 9," with badly-staged scenes of down-on-their-luck actors on cheap sets interspersed with what appears to be footage of battle and crowd scenes cribbed from higher-budget epics. But whereas "Plan 9" occasionally manages to be funny when it means to be and reasonably entertaining overall, this tacky pageant is appallingly lacking in basic showmanship, with scenes ranging from offensively unfunny (the disgusting burlesque of Groucho Marx stealing Manhattan from the Indians) to low camp (Hedy Lamarr attempting to impersonate Joan of Arc hearing her "voices") to tedious (Dennis Hopper doing absolutely nothing with the role of Napoleon) to the unexpectedly poignant performance of Peter Lorre as the psychotic Nero. Give the worst director trophy to Irwin Allen, for turning so much into so little.


Making a film based on a true story, particularly one as incredible and horrifying as the 1972 Andean plane crash, is hard for even the best filmmakers. But the Mexicans behind this forgettable and cheap exploitation flick don't even try! The actual names of both the survivors and the casualties of the Uruguayan air force plane crash have ALL been altered, the crash itself is obviously staged in a very slip-shod manner, and the cannibalism aspect has been unnecessarily and gorily played up. Shockingly, it made a ton of money on both sides of the border. Thankfully, thought, it has mercifully been forgotten. But the same people behind this would later give us the equally revolting GUYANA: CULT OF THE DAMNED!

This cheap horror exploitation flick necessitated the making of ALIVE some fifteen years later. That film was a masterpiece. SURVIVE!, to put it mildly, is not.


I couldn't. I was bored, not just because the acting was terrible and the tragic story was simply a b-movie whose plot was all about the cannibalism, but the fact I was watching a subtitle foreign film, which doesn't bother me at all, but was STILL dubbed.

The "special effects" were awful. As the back of the plane splits off, you can see the model is hollow as it "breaks away" in the phony snow. Most of the movie takes place on a sound stage that clearly is not real and almost looks like a play, as the "sounds" of snow blowing all over are heard but not actually scene.

"But how what will they eat? They have no food" one military person (It's never clear what this guy does or why he's in charge) says, which I'm sure no one ever said in reality or even thought about food, since they were concerned if the people were alive, not how they'd eat. It was simply a stupid line written to point out that, yes, they will have to eat the dead bodies to survive.

When they finally decide to eat the bodies, one man finds one shirtless body, who despite being in the snow for however long, is not remotely frozen, in fact, his flesh is very flexible and fresh. He cuts the fresh meat off his back, that again, is not frozen or even cold it appears, and this scene goes on for five minutes. That's where I had to stop. The remake "Alive" was a far superior film about trying to survive in a horrible situation that I'm sure the real survivors praised whereas I can't imagine any of them had anything nice to say about this version. It was simply about eating dead bodies and everything else was secondary. Avoid.


One of the worst things a film studio can do is exploit the tragedies of others, commercializing a 'shock' or 'gore' factor in order to sell tickets to be able to buy their Birch a new diamond necklace. Another worst thing is to totally misrepresent the true facts of an incredible saga by fabricating events, dialog and images to the director's own liking. Lastly, one of the worst things a film studio can do is to use bottom-of-the-barrel actors and shoot it all on a sound stage that was rented for fifty cents a day. All three of these travesties the makers of this film are guilty of. This is, hands-down, the worst movie I have ever seen, and I've seen thousands. A score of '1' is too good for this waste of celluloid. Not only should the filmmakers be ashamed for making it, they should be ashamed for negatively exploiting the heroes of this story, which are the people who experienced this tragedy firsthand, both the living and the dead.


Lance Henriksen has a knack for being the top name in a B-movie, even in this case starring along side Charles Napier, Master Control Program, and Joe Don Baker. As always he does a great job of being the bad guy, but the plot is just bad (don't even get me started about the ending). And the editing is so horrible it might actually be a thing of beauty. Is it just me, or does it seem that Joe Don Baker was spliced into the movie at the last minute? Also, anytime glass is broken in this movie, the editing is so anti-phenomenal. Lastly, after watching this, I figure David Warner is dying for Tron 2.0 to finally get the green light.

Unfortunately for Felony, this will be the third movie I give the rating of 1/10, joining Iron Eagle IV and No Mercy.


'Felony' is a B-movie. No doubt about it.

Of course, if you take a look at the cast lineup you might have some high hopes for its entertainment potential. This film is stuffed with all of those wonderful character actors that you grew up with, the ones with the faces you immediately recognize even though you probably don't know their names. It's amazing that the filmmakers were able to get all of these people together on one project, almost like they decided to do a B-movie actor reunion. The cast even includes a couple of really first-rate actors: David Warner, who most people will recognize from 'Titanic' (although my favorite of his roles is Jack the Ripper in 'Time After Time') and Lance Henriksen, who many will remember as Bishop in 'Aliens'. These two actors have done some excellent work in their long careers and made some very fine films.

However, as impressive as this collection of actors is, their talent is never fully manifested on the screen. The writers of 'Felony' spent a lot of money to assemble a dream-team cast and then missed their golden opportunity because of one important factor, the common denominator of all B-movies: a silly script.

We start with a silly premise. The bad guys are caught on tape committing a gruesome murder and they relentlessly pursue the film crew in order to acquire the videotape and destroy the evidence. But honestly, why bother? In the time it takes them to track down the film crew, a thousand copies of that tape could be made and circulated to every law enforcement agency and media outlet. The criminals don't seem to realize how futile their effort is, and they talk as if stealing and destroying the one original videotape is going to solve the whole problem. Silly...but I suppose if the bad guys were so logical there would be no movie.

Then there is the dialogue. It is at times silly, at times cliché, and at times unbelievable...everything you have come to expect from a B-movie. Of course, I have always believed that strong performances can overcome a lot of weaknesses in the material. This cast includes actors who are definitely capable of strong performances, and although a number of the cast members are not good actors at all and have achieved B-movie status quite deservedly, one still might be hopeful that the stronger part of the cast would be able to infuse some life into their parts. However, it's disappointing to see that few of the actors in this film really seem to take the movie seriously enough to give it their best shot. There's not much inspiration evident in these performances, but then again it's an uninspiring script. Now, I'll admit that some of the more colorful actors in the cast do manage to add a certain amount of pizazz into the delivery of their lines, but honestly, even the very fine actors I mentioned earlier seem mostly disinterested and uninvolved with the story.

Speaking of the story...even if the acting had been of a high enough caliber that it made the dialogue seem a little less cheesy, it still would not redeem 'Felony' from the fact that its writer commits the ultimate faux pas of low budget action movie scripts: a plot with as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese. You can watch this movie a hundred times and you still won't figure out how everything adds up. In an effort to create suspense and always keep the viewer guessing, the writer throws in all kinds of surprises and unexpected twists into his script and ends up with a jigsaw puzzle, but when you get to the end you find there are a bunch of pieces that just don't fit anywhere and others that are missing. I admire a good thriller that keeps me guessing, but creating plot twists that exist just to confuse you and which are not consistent with the rest of the story is amateurish. There was so much that was never explained that I felt extremely frustrated at the end. If you decide to watch it, be prepared to be confused.

I haven't even mentioned all kinds of other silly things about this movie, but I won't bother. The funny thing is that despite everything I've said, I have to admit that I can't give 'Felony' 1/10 stars. Although I can't exactly put my finger on why, I actually found this film to be somewhat likable. The silliness can actually be fun at times if you are in the mood for it. Plus, I really like some of these character actors, and even though their performances are somewhat lackluster considering their talents, I still got a kick out of seeing them.

Now, I realize I have been rating this film from the standpoint of a serious moviegoer. It's entirely possible I have completely missed the point. It could be that the filmmakers' intention all along was to make a B-movie. Maybe the silliness is all completely intentional. If that's the case, and if I were to rate it on those terms, I would have to say that 'Felony' is a classic in the genre of tongue-in-cheek action flicks. B-movie fans will love seeing all of their favorite actors together in one film, will get some chuckles from the script, and will be entertained by the healthy dose of guns, explosions, and chases.


With several name actors (Lance Henrikson, David Warner, Joe Don Baker), why was Jeffery Combs given the lead? Henrikson would have been a perfect fit for the lead, as would Warner, Baker or even others in the movie such as Charles Napier. Combs was miscast in this, and did a poor job of it. Everything he did seemed fake or contrived.

The script is poor. Meaning that if Lance Henrikson (or another) had the lead role, he might have saved the film (removed it from my "waste of time" category), but it still would have been a bad movie. The screen play was completely lacking. The director should have recognized this and helped the movie along.