After spending half an hour examining Rumors, a gay bar located outside Tupelo, Mississippi, SMALL TOWN GAY BAR shifts focus to the murder of Scotty Weaver in Bay Minette in order to demonstrate the risks run by the interview subjects. But there is a problem here. Bay Minette isn't near Tupelo, as the film implies. It isn't even in the same state. It is actually about three hundred miles away in coastal Alabama.

Director Malcom Ingram doesn't exactly rush to point out this fact, nor does he bother to mention that while Bay Minette itself is little more than a wide spot in the road, it is actually about two deep breaths away from the major metro area of Mobile, Alabama--which has a noticeable gay community, quite a few gay bars, and even a congregation of Metropolitan Community Church. If Ingram is disingenuous on these points, one has to ask if he is on others as well.

Speaking as someone who was born, raised, and continues to live in Mississippi, I have to say that I find most of SMALL TOWN GAY BAR a lot of hooey. Neither Meridian nor Tupelo, the communities upon which Ingram focuses, are as rural, small, or as isolated as he would have you imagine, and gay bars are indeed more common in the state than the film implies. That said, Ingram rather blithely ignores the fact that the absence of a gay bar does not mean an absence of a gay community, and in doing so he demonstrates a rather profound ignorance of southern culture, which tends to hold those who frequent bars--be they gay or straight--in low esteem.

SMALL TOWN GAY BAR is, in my opinion, an instance in which a film maker came to his subject with a personal agenda in hand and then proceeded to film the agenda. Do gays and lesbians living in rural Mississippi face major, sometimes frightening challenges? You bet they do--but that's no excuse for fiddling with reality to such a degree. The DVD includes a commentary track and a number of deleted scenes, but I found the feature film itself so ridiculous that I didn't waste any time on them.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer


What garbage, is there actually no part II? If this movie actually ends the way it did, everyone involved with this movie should be ashamed. This movie is nothing close to a movie like Outbreak, which was actually a fairly decent movie. This movie was rushed in hopes of being able to gain a few easy dollars. I started watching the movie under the assumption that it would be bad, but I never imagined it would be this bad. This movie was nothing more then a way to exploit the fears of the American people for profit! If you have not seen this movie, don't bother. Movie is full of poorly developed characters and poor acting. I really hope the production of this movie was only a couple of weeks. Stay away! Don't be fooled by the hype!


The C class cast and poorly transitioned scenes, complete with terrible acting have led me too believe this would make a good TV only release such as the FX presentation of a smallpox outbreak. At my local blockbuster however, about 9 copies are held on the shelves, none of which were checked out when I rented the title (I wonder why....) Anyway, this title was almost ridiculous in the "fear factor" the director was going for. The whole "death count" on the bottom of the screen completely contradicted the plot at times, such as when the chopper was going over Angola, and the toll was speeding at a breakneck pace from 23 million to 24. However, as the movie ends, (possibly several hours or even a day or so after the chopper has landed) the death toll counter is reset back too what it was at the moment the chopper was approaching the area. The movies end left a huge whole in th entire plot, and god knows nobody is waiting for the sequel. Anyway, do not rent this, I only advise watching this if you have obtained the title with no monetary loss, and you are in the mood for a cheesy suspense movie.


Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America: 3 out of 10: This movie is both funny and sad. The funny part is fairly obvious as this certainly isn't a sober look at a possible impending crisis. This is a modern version of The Swarm. And much like those killer bees (and the so called killer bee crisis that prompted them) Bird Flu has joined a pantheon of media inspired end of the world scenarios (SARS, Y2K, Global Warming) that simply refuse to actually come about.

The sad part is the blatant attempt of the filmmakers to inspire panic. Disease pandemics historically were fairly common after all people didn't all die in their forties from heart disease. Even recent pandemics such as AIDS mirrors the old fashioned VD crisis (Think syphilis) that used to kill more soldiers than bullets.

The flu pandemic of the early twenties was a nasty business killing millions but honestly life went on. I wonder if our over dramatic media and their power hungry government allies would allow life as normal today.

The movie itself swerves wildly from fairly competent scenes (Triage in grand Central Station) to the ridiculous (Rednecks try to ambush national guardsman in Manhattan).

The scenarios themselves are fairly useless as the filmmakers can't seem to decide exactly how contagious the bird flu is or for that matter whether the symptoms are an Ebola style crash or simply a long illness. Indeed one scene will show everyone in bio-hazard suits and the next will have nobody even wearing a mask.

The film also patently refuses to actually give any practical advice regarding what to do in a Bird Flu crisis. (Outside of wash your hands, what no duct tape?) The acting and directing are competent for a TV movie but the script is all over the map. Last the movie has a strangely non-exponential death total running on the bottom of the screen. Just like the Swarm did.


I watched this movie on TV last night, hoping for a realistic account of what could happen if there were an outbreak of some highly transmittable disease. I was disappointed, and I think the movie was garbage. It did not seem real to me. Some of the acting was awful, in particular that of the doctor. She was about the worst I've seen. The whole thing played like a CNN 'worst case scenario'. Even the obligatory disaster movie human relations bits didn't seem sincere. I have seen some disaster movies, in particular those weather ones, which are actually so bad they are amusing. This one is almost as bad, but it is not even amusing, it is tedious and boring.Don't bother with this one.


Clearly, Andreas Bethmann would like to wear Jess Franco's crown whilst coveting (at least cinematically) the old workhorse's wife, Lina Romay. Romay plays a corrupt, salacious, masturbating prison warden in this modern, ambitious W.I.P. film. With some exceptions, many of Franco's films are ineptly produced and directed in a slipshod, hurried manner. Shots don't always cut together and the sound mixes can be horrific. While watching "Angel of Death 2" (aka "Prison Island Massacre") I asked myself if Bethmann is deliberately trying to replicate Franco's patent shoddiness, or is he just naturally shoddy like his mentor? Is this movie deliberately bad, which would be self-defeating, or is it simply bad by neglect? After a hitchhiker is forced to give a gunpoint blowjob, her rapist fills her mouth, then fills her vagina with some drugs. Minutes later, she is hauled into a clifftop prison for reasons not explained and subjected to the leers and rough handling of staff and other inmates. As this is a WIP film, there are lesbian scenes galore and plenty of violent behavior. The gore is bloody and sadistic, too, with delights such as teeth pulling and scalping (courtesy of Olaf Ittenbach). The acting is pretty awful and the fight scenes are lame, but there is a love of sleaze in every frame and an understanding of what trash fans enjoy. Unfortunately, the flat script makes for a flat movie. So, despite numerous atrocities, hardcore sex, and a guest appearance from Jess Franco, the experience is an empty one. But isn't that what most Jess Franco movies are?


I thought this was an extremely bad movie. The whole time I was watching this movie I couldn't help but think over and over how bad it is, and how that was $3.69 down the drain. The plot was so jumpy. They did an excellent job at the beginning of explaining who dated who in high school, but they never really explained anything after that. Was it a supernatural thriller? Was it a regular thriller? Apparently you can decide for yourself, because they didn't see the need to explain. I understood basically what happened, I think. What I got confused about was all of it prior, what was the deal with the bloody noses, phone calls, etc.? Was this guy coming back? Was the wife channeling "Carrie" or something? Who knows? You certainly won't after watching this movie.


I'd picked this one up time and time again in the rental store, wondering if I should give it a shot. Today I broke down and gave it a whirl, and I probably shouldn't have.

While the writer/director did give the film a respectable effort, it fell far short of engaging. The characters, while you wanted to feel for them, just didn't have enough development or depth for you to get truly involved with them. Sara's sexual outbursts got tiring-- fast. I don't mind sex in films, and I don't mind bitchy characters, but being a "bad" girl doesn't mean you're prone to excitedly ask people at random if they'd like sexual favors. By the time what happened to the characters was revealed, I was bored, and ready to fast-forward to the climax, the end, anything exciting... and nothing delivered. The things the folks in the story eventually inform you of seems forced and unrealistic, and just wasn't played quite right. If they'd have thrown a bit more anguish in there, I might have been interested. This should have been a more of a suspense/drama film, and should have stuck to the title "Jon Good's Wife" rather than the whole "red right hand" and horror film-like cover. Hell... this should have had suspense, period.

Either way... watch this on a rainy day or a late night when there's nothing on the television. Though this isn't as great as I'd hoped, I would go for this over some infomercials.


Jon Good's Wife (simply one of the worst titles for a film ever), or The Red Right Hand (another absolutely awful sounding title that means nothing & has no relevance to the film) under which I saw it, is set in 'Salem, Massachusettes 1978' (incidently the year I was born which was quite possibly the best thing to happen during those 365 days) where five old college friends meet up for a school reunion, gay-boy fagot Roger Mather (John Kuntz, is that surname for real? Just say it out loud...), Martha Alden (Kim Brockington), Rebecca Lawson (Jenna Stern) & her boyfriend Jake Stabler (John Doe), Alan Hobbes (Michael Kevin Walker) & his wife Sandy (Megan Rawa) plus John Good (Marc Ardito, why is the spelling of 'John' different in the title?) & his wife Sara (Abigail Morgan). From the word go there is an uneasy tension in the air & when someone mentions their 'missing' friend Calef (Jason Winther) lots of unpleasant memories come flooding back. Then comes the phone calls, the mysterious nose-bleeds, hallucinations & guilt as the true horror of the events all those years ago finally comes to light...

Produced, executive produced & directed by Kurt Gioscia who also wrote the thing & Kurt St. Thomas who gets the art direction credit too & if that wasn't enough they both act in the film as well! Personally I thought Jon Good's Wife was awful, I mean she can't cook or anything! Ha ha ha, only joking! Seriously though I didn't think much of the film overall, for a start it's pretty slow going & the entire first 30 minutes is solid snooze material of the reunion consisting of lots of catching up with each other & dull character building exposition. The film never explains itself, what's with those weird nose-bleeds for god's sake, the mysterious phone calls, the almost inconsequential death of one of the group that might or might not be natural & what the hell was Sara all about? She comes across as some nosey, sex crazed, dirty talking, shameless, bitter blackmailing know-it-all whore who apparently sleeps with just about every man she meets! Some of the dialogue she spouts wouldn't be out of place in a porno & it just seems totally at odds with the rest of the film which plays out more like a drama than the horror/thriller it was supposedly meant to be. Then there's the ending, if there's a worse way to end a film then to just leave literally everything hanging in the air with no closure whatsoever I have yet to see it. The whole thing was very predictable as well, I mean is anyone watching this not going to know that when they all mention their friend Calef went 'missing' there wouldn't be more to it?

Directors Gioscia & Thomas make an infuriating film, on top of the predictability & annoying climax there is a retrospective narration by Alan which I simply don't understand as he has no more or less significance than anyone else & at what point in time is he narrating from? The reasons behind this narration is never made clear or elaborated upon. There's no tension because the whole things so by-the-numbers.

Technically the film is OK but nothing special & some of the locations & clothes didn't look particularly authentic to me, this never convinced me it was taking place during the late 70's. The acting was alright & what about actor John Kuntz last name? I suppose if his wife was standing next to him we could describe them as a couple of Kuntz, right?!

I really didn't think much of Jon Good's Wife (a blow up doll would have been better! Ha ha ha) & I'm not sure who it would appeal to. Forget about any gore, horror, violence, scares, atmosphere or excitement, in fact forget about everything that would have made this film watchable because it ain't here. Not recommended.


It's not often I feel strongly enough to post something about a film. This was, however, simply the worst movie I have ever seen. The performances were laughable at best, at worst they were, well, there's no other word for it, awful. Especially the lead female who's random sexual come-ons have to be seen and heard to be believed. Honestly, the plot is nonsensical,the dialogue appalling and the characterisation...there is none. I'm surprised it's not an Alan Smithee film. I can't stress this strongly enough... avoid at all costs.How do movies like this ever get made? This is no budget film-making at its very, very worst.


I don't think I've ever gave something a 1/10 rating, but this one easily gets the denomination. I find it hard just to sit through one of his jokes. It's not just that the jokes are so bad, but combine that with the fact that Carson Daily has zero charisma, can't set up or finish a punchline, and you've got a late night comedy recipe that will really turn your stomach.

I have watched the show, never in its entirety, but many times still. It just creeps up on me after Conan. I usually watch a minute or two just to see if Carson daily is still the worst talk show host ever.

Actually if you ever do see him interviewing a guest, it's just that, an interview. I feel so sorry every time he has a guest on and their confused smiles try to mask their body language that's screaming, "get me the hell away from this freak!" I do recommend watching the show, not for a laugh, but to ponder, how he got on the air and what he's still doing there. Watch as much as you can, I think you will find its complete awkwardness...interesting.


Carson Daly has to be the only late night talk show host that isn't a comedian. What was NBC thinking! He's not funny! The writing is horrible to! All of the sketches are painful to watch. The current new karaoke isn't funny at all, especially since he tells you what they are going to sing before they sing it! The escalator interviews is just stupid and needless to say not funny at all. All he jokes, especially during the monologue, are the least clever, dumbest, not funny jokes ever put on television! I mean, anytime he makes a Jessica Simpson joke he ends it with "because she's stupid," which cancels out any funniness that was in the joke, which was already very low. Any 3 year old could have come up with any of the jokes and sketches they put on this lame excuse for a show. Seriously, don't watch this show, unless you're on the edge of suicide and want something to push you over the edge.


Nothing Carson Daly has EVER said or done on this show has EVER made me laugh, or even smile a little. I DO NOT understand how this show has survived for so many years.

Even the "funny" band member is just like one of those kids in high school who thinks nobody is good enough to even look at him. Daly and that dude are just arrogant frat boys. It seems like they don't even try to be a little funny.

AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL show.

It makes my soul cry.

I just cannot stress enough how AWFUL this show is. Don't watch it. But if you absolutely have to, I recommend clawing your eyes out and clogging your ears with cement beforehand.


Before Last Call w/ Carson Daly, my local NBC affiliate aired much more worthwhile programming after Late Night w/ Conan such as second city TV, 3rd Rock From the Sun & Carline in the City reruns, and some stand up comedy. These days there is nothing worthwhile to watch because all I get to see is Carson Daly and his awful show. He is not a comedian, he is not an actor, he does not deserve to be famous because he isn't a good speaker nor comedian.

On his June 21st show, he tried to use an internet meme called the "Rickroll" on his show. He failed hard. That event confirms that Carson Daly is awful.


He seems to be a control freak. I have heard him comment on "losing control of the show" and tell another guest who brought live animals that he had one rule-"no snakes." He needs to hire a comedy writer because his jokes are lame. The only reason I watch him is because he some some great guests and bands.

I watched the Craig Ferguson show for a while but his show is even worse. He likes to bull sh** to burn time.I don't think either man has much of a future in late night talk shows.

Daily also has the annoying habit of sticking his tongue out to lick his lips. He must do this at least 10 times a show. I do like the Joe Firstman band. Carson Daily needs to lighten up before it is too late.


For a while when I was in-between jobs I had a habit of watching all the late night talk shows. For a while I had a good selection: Conan, Leno, Letterman, Ferguson, Kimmel...

Until I reached the 1:30 a.m. time slot. The time between Conan and X- Files, on SciFi. And the only show on at that time was (and curiously still is) Carson Daly.

His show intrigued me at first. Youngish, casually dressed, and with the hip pedigree of an MTV host, I thought Carson would bring a younger aesthetic to late night. I couldn't have been more wrong.

He has no comedic timing. His jokes are plainly unfunny, and his monologue a painful affair of self-conscious babbling. I began to think he simply wasn't capable of delivering comedy (and I am right, he isn't), but it became obvious over time that the writers on the show must have had it in for him. The writing was idiotic and much too overreaching and the skits screamingly bad. And towards the end of the show being in-studio, the writers had Carson drinking alcohol on the set with gusto on every show, an oblivious Carson grinning from emaciated cheek to emaciated cheek as he sloshed his way through interviews.

Zero interview skills. None. He tries to be friendly/chatty, but ends up being boorish and rude. He talks too much. He cuts off his guests. He asks them rude or embarrassing questions -- if he can find a question to ask them at all. And as someone had already pointed out, the guests literally stare at him or squirm in their seats, clearly uncomfortable.

Now the show has left the studio and looks as though it were shot on one handy cam. Even still, Carson refuses to take the hint from NBC. At one point, Carson didn't even get a camera man, he had to film himself for an episode! Wake up, Carson...that handwriting is all over the wall.

I see the show is produced by Carson. I can only imagine that is the reason it is still on the air, he pays for it himself.


Maybe the best part of the show is the fact that it creeps up right after Conan O'Brien and Late Night's fans are all of a sudden unsuspectingly watching Carson's show. Carson Daly can't hold a candle to Leno, Letterman, O'Brien or any other late night talk show host, and Last Call seems to miss more than hit in this hit and miss genre. The shows only redeeming quality is that it's so short. But, I wouldn't call it crap. Carson Daly is sincere and doesn't hide the fact that his show isn't great(that honesty is actually helpful here), while some of Last Call's skits and material seem to be stolen, they still find the mark sometimes. Actually, some of Carson's montages have been quite entertaining, and the skits occasionally have their moments of decent comedy.

As an interviewer, Carson is okay, even with only one guest, not exactly late night material but still above the level attained by a high school AV team. However, he doesn't have the quick wit that makes Conan so hilarious. I do not like his musical guests, but that's more because I am not a fan of that kind of music so, I'm not holding it against him.

On to the house band. I don't know Joe Firstmans band and wouldn't compare them to the CBS Orchestra, the Tonite Show Band with Kevin Eubanks or the Max Weinberg 7. Even Cleeto and the Cleetones are better. But, Firstmans band mates do still the show in my opinion. Especially the Alto Sax player that sometimes shows up (he has long dark hair and sunglasses and is always playing in the upper register), if anything, watch the show for him, I do.

In summary, this show isn't even worth a full bag of kibble n' bits. But it does have an audience, and appeals more to the younger "mtv generation". If you don't have cable and are up at 1:37 am, there really isn't much more to choose from and, surprise surprise, there is worse out there in that time frame. So, if you're waiting for Poker After Dark to come on, 30 minutes of Last Call wont kill you during the wait.


Again, we're getting a melange of themes well covered by so many previous films. The good and the bad son story, courtesy East of Eden. The American marine hero story, who doesn't consider himself to be one due to what he knows. And the grieving wife potentially falling in love with another man story.

The mere fact of those stories being that ubiquitous isn't so much of a problem though. Because theoretically they could still be better presented and dealt with each time around. No luck this time though, as all three of those threads ultimately fall flat all the same.

As the bad son never really gets to talk to his father, so that conflict is never resolved properly. Apart from the father kind of starting to appreciate the bad son thanks to the latter renovating the kitchen of the grieving wife. Now, how satisfying is that.

Next, the surprisingly homecoming marine suspecting his wife of unfaithfulness conflict never gets resolved. Because he never really talks to the man under suspicion, namely his own brother. So once more we're handed a loose end here.

And finally, the American military heroism hypocrisy theme, where the marine is publicly considered a hero when, due to the dirtiness of war he went through, he shouldn't really be called one as to his own standards, that third theme falls flat just the same. Because the movie ends right when, for the first time, he's just able to talk to his wife about what he went through. Where the real story would actually begin at that very point, namely his process of recovery, how that would look like and how he would finally face the family he'd have some major guilt to admit to. All that, all the really interesting bits are passed over and getting ignored.

So while story wise this film is a serious, and I mean serious, disappointment, I'd still give it points for the impressive cast. Although no film should use Maguire for a voice over, because that belongs to Spiderman. Especially a grown up Gyllenhaal seems to fulfill all the expectations he aroused as a young and aspiring actor. So much that I'd in fact love to see him entrusted with a really deep and demanding lead role of proper profile.

So while the cast really seems to do what they can, I consider this film totally forgettable otherwise. A shallow and ultimately pretentious, utterly unsatisfying tear squeezer indeed. Message du jour to the writers: we know the wounds already, see the host of Vietnam films. You want to earn some credit, show us a believable healing.


When the opening shot is U.S. Marines seriously disrespecting the U.S. flag, a movie has a tough road ahead, but unfortunately it was downhill from there. There is a military adviser credited, who is also apparently a retired U.S. Marine, making it even more baffling that this incredible breach of protocol, and law, went unnoticed. Even more baffling is the way they simply glossed over how a Marine is reported KIA, then buried, in very short order, without the slightest explanation of how they identified the body, or if there even was a body. The U.S. government is still finding the missing from WWII, and it takes months to identify the remains. Military shot down remain MIA for months or years and are only declared KIA when the remains have been positively identified, or after years of red tape. Here we are expected to believe that it happens within a matter of days or weeks. Maybe this happens in Denmark, but not in the U.S. Clearly none of the people involved ever had the slightest involvement with, or respect for, the U.S. military.

Beyond that, there are a number of other utterly laughable moments when characters come up with zingers out of nowhere. There must have been some really extended meetings between auteur and actors as they struggled to find their motivation for such hogwash. Having a script that worked might have helped, but this one seems to have been made up on the spot, working from Cliffs Notes. There's no way to know if the script was this awful originally, or if it was the auteur, or the middle-management kids at the studio who bear responsibility. Either way, this is an awful movie that should have never been made.


... a recommendation! Gloria Grahame runs the kind of orphanage where discipline is imparted with a meat cleaver, orphans are hung on meat hooks to punish them and the bodies are kept in the deep freeze so that they can be brought out for when social services call. That the orphanage is strapped for cash we know because Gloria puts all the orphans to work, and also because there don't seem to be enough clothes to go round - especially for the older nubile female orphans (age range appears to be 12 - 30 ish). The new arrival, however, turns out to be more than a match for Gloria - and has indeed just taken out her own mother & mother's lover (in a witty claw hammer and arson opening scene). Predictably, Gloria ends up on a meat hook herself. This one was made for about tuppence but was/is a HUGE HUGE HUGE hit on the grindhouse circuit. My DVD cover promised "disturbing and politically incorrect scenes", and it sure wasn't lying. I believe it is regarded as the Citizen Kane of orphanage set torture porn movies. 4/10


I saw this at a drive-in when I was 9. All I remember are a few scenes (the ones where the main character Elle is being chased by a guy in a mask) and being scared spitless. Seeing it now, my opinions have changed. It's a pathetic "horror" film about an ophanage run by Gloria Grahame (sad) and dealing with a young, talentless girl Elle who is sent there after her mother, the town tramp, was beaten to death with a hammer (graphically shown). The film has adolescents (actually actors in their 20s) being beaten, tortured, killed, starved, attacked with meat cleavers, raped etc etc. The brutal hammer murder is the opening scene and then it gets worse and worse. There is NOTHING to recommend about this crap. The plot is stupid, all the dialogue is bad and the acting...the less said the better. How did this sickie get by with a GP (now PG) rating? It would get an R now. Worthless. One last thing...a truly repulsive twist ending suggests incest!


This is what happens when you try to adapt a play from the theater. Look at the end of the picture, totally theatrical.

With a reminiscent of Les liaisons dangereuses the final steam-less speech try to make us think that the whole (and deep) theme of this matter was the manhood. Who cares by this point? It was about manipulation. And so the audience feels after this movie has ended.

Young directors: A play is told with the words more than actions. A film is the opposite most of the times.

And I'm not talking about the gay theme, overly exploited without a point ('cause there's no explanation of this topic considering the so called "philosophic" or presumptuous basis) to the level that this film should have been called Grand Gay


"Grande Ecole" is not an artful exploration of mixed sexuality but, if you're in need of it, a movie for an X-rated channel. Although I suspect there's nothing in this movie to spoil for a willing viewer, the plot is simply an excuse for male-to-female and male-to-male couplings set in the unconvincing context of a competition between a Parisian school for future CEOs and a major school for those seeking higher degrees in the liberal arts. There's likewise a frisson of cultural clash between high status and lower status French youth, plus a societal conflict involving native Frenchmen and Arab immigrants from North Africa. All that's missing is a female-to-female coupling, which could easily have been arranged with no more than a slight twist in the plot.

The acting is at a somewhat higher level than in the usual pornographic movie -- but "Grande Ecole" is, to be blunt about it, no more than pornography with artistic aspirations. I'm not offended by the sex. It's just repetitive and, before long, boring. Where's the Hays Office when you really need it?


This film was nothing more than exploitative gay cheesecake. It was not an "art" movie; just an excuse to show several gratuitous, exploitative, over-the-top scenes with extensive male genital nudity. There was a locker room scene involving over a dozen naked men. The camera zooms in on the men's asses and penises as they are portrayed for several minutes with their dicks in full screen view. There are several scenes in this film showing penis after penis. It gets redundant REAL fast and makes it impossible to take this film seriously. I was wondering if I was watching a Playgirl video by mistake. If these same scenes were filmed using women (ex: totally naked and showing their vaginas repeatedly) it would be quickly dismissed as just softcore porn and an excuse to show a lot of eye candy...which is all that this film is. Any artistic merit got flushed down the drain of the gay ghetto mentality. The themes of class distinction, homosexuality, longing-desire, etc. were simple and superficial; no more developed than what one would expect from a first year philosophy student. Just cut to the chase and rent a gay porn instead.


I saw this film at the New Festival in New York. It was by far the worst film there. It's use of uncircumcised full frontal nudity and a wishy-washy script and direction that neither commits to a re-make of 'Maurice' nor decides it's a Neil LaBute flick, left me feeling 'Why would anyone ruin a perfectly good cast like this?'. It lacks irony and fills the vacuum with sentiment, which causes the times when the movie turns on itself to make you want to wipe your face as your mind and heart search for what could be going on in the film but isn't. I wish the director and editor had re-edited the film because maybe there's more story there that could be released from an otherwise unpleasant experience.


I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4/10


Not a terrible film -- my 10 year old boy loved it, and he would be the target demographic, so I guess they hit the spot. Pretty dull for an adult though.

Hard to relate to animated lego characters, even mod high-tech ones.

I thought the choice of the three great virtues of the Bionicle world was a bit odd -- unity, duty, and destiny. Am I the only one who thinks those sound just a bit fascistic? Especially destiny. What about freedom, equality, justice, etc.?

Oh well, it will sell Lego. Kind of dull for a movie, but not bad for a 74-minute advertisement. Could have been a lot worse.


Antonio Margheriti, director of the enjoyably cheesy cult horror Cannibal Apocalypse, helms this Gothic-flavoured giallo starring gap-toothed 70s icon Jane Birkin (as well as her massive-conked French lover of the day, Serge Gainsbourg).

Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of such treats as a tasty bi-sexual French teacher and a terribly unrealistic killer orangutan, Seven Deaths in the Cat's Eye ends up a dreary mess which is a struggle to endure.

Pretty schoolgirl Corringa (Birkin) returns to her family's Scottish estate after many years away, only to discover that a maniac is murdering her relatives one by one. Using the whole array of 'spooky old house' tricks (hidden doorways, dark corridors, creepy graveyards, candlelit cobweb covered rooms), Margheriti cobbles together a confusing tale which at times promises supernatural goings-on, but ends up with a lame cop-out ending that is unimaginative in the extreme.

'And where exactly does the cat fit in to all of this?', I hear you ask. Well, a rather pudgy moggy witnesses each murder thus justifying Margheriti's rather cool sounding title.

'Gory, stylish fun' claims the DVD cover; 'Boring pile of dung' says I.


What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.


Linda Lovelace was the victim of a sadistic woman hater, Chuck Traynor. I don't understand how having sex with a dog (which is animal abuse, as well) can be found to be entertaining or funny. Linda Lovelace was a virtual prisoner who was coerced into making these films. I know some people will criticize this comment but I feel strongly that these types of films fuel the fire of hatred and further misogynistic feelings towards women. This society continues to portray women as sexual objects as opposed to human beings. We call ourselves "civilized" however I feel we have a long way to go before we can ever scratch the surface of being civilized.


THE ATTIC starts off well. The somewhat dreary story is helped greatly by the two main actors and there's a semblance of a character study going on here but the film goes downhill fast when Carrie Snodgress' character buys a monkey. Not one of those cute little monkeys. She buys a real big chimpanzee!!!

This sudden plot device basically kills the movie. It's just not conceivable for a woman like the one Snodgress plays, who has a hard time doing anything because of her domineering father, for her to, out of the blue, buy a chimpanzee. I mean, come on! Forget about it!


Slow, odd film that drags and plods (I mean really PLODS) along to its disappointing climax. You may expect some sort of punchline at the end, but there is none. Both Milland and Snodgress give awkward performances; in fact, the film's weirdness may actually be the only thing it has going for it. The generally atmospheric score has some absurd parts (like the music that plays during the first appearance of a monkey), and there is a truly awful fantasy scene involving....a gorilla. (**)


Oh, I'm mostly not the kind of person to give a movie less than 5 points. Mostly, just because of the effort from actors and directors.

3/10 for Keyman from me. If anyone thinks the main character (or whoever) deserves an Oscar, I deserve the Nobelprize for peace.

Seriously. I can't believe this movie made it to Europe. The acting was horrible, the plot was awful and what about the '70's horror-music. Give me a break.

"Popeye" eg. What about him? Why is he there, he has nothing to do with the movie.

And what about the Keyman's talking. One time he can't say a decent word, the next time he's getting all talky-talk. He also nearly dies when he wakes up and some sunlight shines thru his bunker. But when he's walking down the street, the sunlight doesn't seem to do anything.

Watch this movie only of you're on the edge of dying of boredom. I regret myself for not watching my roses grow, which are in anyway more entertaining than this piece of...


No,I'm not a radical feminst bashing the hentai and yaoi genre,I just find it really boring and pointless.My god,I was MADE to watch this for initiation from some stupid punk and my my,even an MST3K movie has a storyline,not to mention that this HENTAI crap is what's giving Anime a bad name world-wide (watch out Sailor Moon!).Sadly,people don't realize that not all Anime(or any other Asian style) is sleazy porn.Death to the stereotype!!!

*starts casting Ultima*


before seeing this film, the 1998 version was my only experience of this dickens story. i didn't enjoy that film very much, but this 1974 adaptation moves on in a particulary tiresome fashion.

the actors don't shine, the main couple michael york and sarah miles are especially wooden cases. the only character of real interest for me was anthony quayle's intelligent jaggers.

the so called plot is ridiculous, but the story itself is a great one. it's a real lesson on how your distorted values and obsessive principles can destroy you. live with an open mind and don't care what other people say, you are what you are, if others can't take it, **** 'em. pip was told this early on, but he didn't listen.

the girl adopted by the weird old lady reminded me a little of the old kaspar hauser story, not in that same horrible level, but in the way she molded the child to create the executor of her personal vendetta against the entire opposite sex she thought had deceived her. pip's childhood didn't appear much better. the ending didn't seem to fit the rest of the story's style. the sets looked cheap, and coming to imdb i'm not surprised to see that this was indeed a tv-movie (which i had no idea of when i borrowed it from the library).

live and learn. so many good movies, so little time. that's why the reviews are here. so YOU wouldn't have to waste your time on this sort of movies.

3/10


Everything about this movie is bad. everything. Ridiculous 80's haircuts. Ridiculous moustaches. Ridiculous action and fight scenes where you can actually see that the adversaries do not even hit each other. Bad, bad, bad 80's music. Repeated scenes of people running through woods. A bad guy with a silver plastic hand and silly hair. Stupid dialogue. The acting is nonexistant. Everything looks extremely cheap. This movie even surpasses "Plan 9 from outer space" in its utter badness.

It's not "funny bad" it's just bad.


This Canadian "movie" is the worst ever! Stunningly amateurish. When the bad guys rob a boat, we see two women with machine guns and one of them says, with a very low voice, "We're robbing your ship!" She blinks and is totally shy! Very intimidating. ROTFLOL!!!

The two karate chopping heroes are 40something year old, five feet tall twin brothers! They're really bad actors. In fact, everyone involved in this production is a non-actor.

There are so many continuity mistakes in this cheap production that it's amazing. In one scene, the guys are wearing one type of swimsuit. In the following shot, they're wearing completely different swimsuits.

Absolutely terrible! A must see for any fan of bad movies. I have it on VHS. It's very rare. I cherish it.


I...I don't know where to begin. Dragon Hunt might just be the worst film in cinematic history. Even Anus Magilicutty was better than this, as it was intentionally bad. Showgirls? No, it had kitsch value and was technically a well made film. But Dragon Hunt takes the cake, and eats it, then vomits it back up and feeds it to a homeless man. It's that much of a travesty.

The acting, if it can even be called that, is rough. It doesn't have the charm of improvised acting, so it must be scripted, but it's recited with an almost malicious tone of poor quality. Several lines were delivered in a way that shows the actors (or basically, those people on screen) either regretted being connected to this film or were thinking of a particularly humorous joke from Saturday Night Live, which they had watched prior to getting in front of the camera. I could write another three paragraphs on the quality of acting in this film, but you and I both don't want to hear it.

The make-up and special effects (which, with most films, is the only good thing) was laughably bad. The antagonist, whose name is so ridiculous I can't remember it, has a Mohawk glued to the top of his head. Yeah, glued to his head. And you can tell it's glued on too, if you look at the spot where it meets his pockmarked skull you can see a plastic strip, not unlike the ones on fake eyelashes. Thankfully he's pretty much the only example of make-up no-nos in the film.

There's also some terrible character development, to put it lightly. The women, who are strangely rough handled by the supposedly benevolent fugly brothers (and I mean, they are really pushed around), are not only ugly but...gasp...they don't know what they're doing! In one scene they turn on their apparent lovers, join up with the even uglier bad guy, and then snort some coke. Apparently they managed to get their hands on some really good cocaine, because they started shaking and laughing EVEN before all of it went up their nostrils. Great timing girls! Plus they wear some truly horrible stuff, clothes that belong solely in the late 80s and early 90s.

Overall this movie, this film, this waste of film I should say, is also a waste of time. Watching it will hurt you, and will require the suspension of not only your belief, but also of your entire brain. If you want to get stoned with your friends and have some good laughs, see if you can get this film (you'll probably have to download it) otherwise, don't even think about it. Hope I was helpful.


Why is it that Canada can turn out decent to good movies in every genre, other then action? I caught Dragon Hunt on TV the other day and it was like a train wreck. I just could not change the channel, it's sheer stupidity sapped my willpower. Its pretty telling that the cast IMDb "credits" with this monstrosity apparently never worked again.

Bad acting, bad writing, bad narration, bad music, bad hair, bad cinematography. It just goes on and on. The movie really has nothing to recommend it. If you're looking for bad action films to enjoy by laughing out, there are a tonne of other films that won't require you to scorch out your retinas afterwards.

I hope this film didn't get money from the government for financing, otherwise I'm never paying taxes again.


This is by far the worst thing I have ever seen on film. My uncle's home movies have more talent in them then this piece of crap.

The plot summary is basically that these twin kick boxers are playing some sick survival game with a man and his private army on some island. The man has a very cheap paper maché looking hand.

The acting is atrocious in this movie. There are scene changes at the drop of the hat. For instance, for at least 30 seconds we see some guy humming a song to himself which adds NOTHING to the movie. This has the worst dialogue I have ever heard of in my life, I don't think this movie could get any worse then it already is. I would describe it as a want to be chuck Norris action film gone wrong. And I hate chuck Norris.


You know, I was very surprised when watching this movie. It aired during the day once when i was sick, and having nothing else to do, I continued watching. This is by far the WORST MOVIE EVER! But to my surprise I kept watching. I sat there saying, this is terrible, but yet didn't change the channel because I was so amused at how bad it was. Maybe It was the guy that looked like Big tom from survivor or the dreadful moustaches and mohawks these characters had, that kept me watching. However, the girls weren't half bad, but if that's what you want, there is far better. Oh, and there's "NINJAS" and "PAJAMA BOYS!"

So if you like ninja's, bad acting, hilarious(and terrible) dialogue, and two twins who are five feet tall and killing everything in their sight, then this movie is for you. It's so bad it's good. However, I just had to give it a 1 out of ten. I couldn't have put a 10 on it up there with Lord of the Rings.

ENJOY!!!!!!!!! :)


I have seen this movie several times, it sure is one of the cheapest action flicks of the eighties. So, I think many viewers would definitely change the channel when they come across this one. But, if you are into great trash, "Dragon Hunt" is made for you. The main characters (the McNamara Twins) are sporting great moustaches and look so ridiculous in their camouflage dresses. One of the best scenes is when one of then gets shot in the leg and is still kicking his enemies into nirvana. This movie is really awful, but then again, it is a great party tape!


This movie started off great; the first 30 minutes are very funny and clever with some interesting characters. That's the good news. The bad news is that the film then gets too repetitive and then it gets downright stupid.

What we wind up getting is a Santa Claus with "magical" powers with a lot of New Age baloney thrown in the mix. It's just ridiculous and hardly the kind of "Christmas movie" I would expect from Jim Varney's "Ernest."

To be fair, it still had a decent amount of laughs and is profanity-free but just not a film I could recommend.


'Ernest Saves Christmas' is comedian Ernest's Christmas special film. In this film, Ernest has to find a successor to Santa Claus in order for Christmas to continue. Along the way, he meets a young girl who is a thief and who ends up stealing something very important of Santa's (I won't tell you what that is; you'll just have to watch the film for yourself). Like most Ernest films, there is a lot of slapstick humor involved.

This film is probably one of Ernest's best films. It's funny, and it has some important lessons to learn regarding friendship and family and not being afraid to show love. It's not the best Christmas film around, but it is a good one to get you in the Christmas spirit. It's a little bit sad that the film is a little dated now.


The first Robocop had a sense of cynical wit and a sick sense of violence. It was a fine line to walk, but Paul Verhoeven pulled it off and the film did so well, they made a sequel. How awful. (Possible Spoilers ahead - though anything that could spoil this is beyond me).

Irvin Kershner is not the director for this type of film. He clearly did not understand the wit of the original and as a result the massive over-the-top senseless violence looks really bad - and worse is very distasteful. Even worse is the musical score. Leonard Rosenman was an old man from another era and the heroic, light music does not match the images on the screen at all! What was he scoring?! The Great American Hero?! Worst of all, he completely eliminated Robocop's theme from the first film, which was so memorable and perfect. Can you imagine a Superman film without John Williams' fanfare, or Indiana Jones, etc.? How could he do that?!!

The plot is just a collection of ideas that don't gel. In beginning we see Robo "stalking" his old wife. Fine, good idea. But, they completely drop it after that. Then, there is this a stupid idea of the company reprogramming Robo to be nice. That's thrown in for 10 minutes and then is immediately dropped. Or, the silly idea that the repulsive 10 year old drug lord reminds Robo of his son - Once again, a weak motif that is shown briefly twice and dropped. This may work in a comic book, but not on film and Frank Miller was unfortunately too inexperienced at the time and threw every idea in along with the kitchen sink. It doesn't work as a whole.

Some people here seem to be praising the corporate bashing in this film and the privatization of the police. That is the best part of the film that is consistent with the first. However, in the original, the old man was a tough business man out for a profit, but ultimately fair in the end. In this film, he is just pure evil in his lust for money and power. You can't just change characters like that for no reason. And Nancy Allen's character is useless in this film, whereas in the first she was essential to Robo's search for himself. She is as gratuitous as the violence in this film.

And the violence, yes the violence. I enjoy many violent, bloody films when they serve purposes and are meant to tell a story. Irvin Kershner seems to get off on human beings being blown to bits, shot to pieces, children lusting for death and torture and peoples' desire for drugs. He doesn't know when to stop. Do we really need to see every last innocent bystander (even people trying to help others) get shot up???? It is inferred when we see the bad Robocop shooting repeatedly! Instead Mr. Kershner proves he has very little taste for this type of work and creates an abominable mess that is a terrible piece of pop art and worse, a disgusting message of violence for any young person watching this film.

No, this film isn't meant to be message-y and I certainly don't watch Robocop movies or Alien or Predator movies for that reason. However, when you go too far and cross the line, much of what you do must be put into question. And as for this film, in the words of the evil kid drug dealer's last words as he dies, "It still sucks".


I was a huge fan of the original Robocop.

But to say I was disappointed by this first sequel would be an understatement.

The problems are many.

Glossy though the film may look there are plenty of bloopers on screen for all to see, wires, cameramen etc, something I find wholly unacceptable from someone of Irvin Kreshner's pedigree.

Robocop has become a robot. There is no spark of humanity to be found in the character here. A true disappointment when one considers that his "soul" had returned by the end of the first movie. Here his attitude shows no human side and makes him hard to sympathise with.

Caine is a poor villain. OK I know Boddiker from the first film was better than the average, mainly thanks to Kurtwood Smith's performance, but the usually solid Tom Noonan creates a character who you couldn't care less about one way or the other.

What's happened to the Old Man????. I appreciate that he didn't get to where he is by being "nice" but the change in his character here is nothing short of dumbfounding. In the first movie it's made clear he despises Dick Jone's tactics and attitude and yet here he's no better than Jones. It makes no sense.

Doctor Faxx is a poor replacement for Bob Morton's charismatic, if unpleasant, OCP resident genius.

The action sequences, save the sequence where Murphy is stuck to the side of Caine's truck, are harsh and nasty and repel rather than entertain.

And finally. What is with the musical score?. Don't tell me Poledouris couldn't have done it simply because he was working on Total Recall at the time. A series (TV or Movie) soundtrack is part of its personality. Part of its character. When you remove that it harms the familiarity of the characters we're watching. So it's bad enough but shame on Leonard Rosenman. His score here is lurid, camp and downright cringe worthy.

The story has its moments to be fair. There's a lot of originality in here. But it tries too many new things to take in with one film. Hob is a well realised villain and the only truly dis likable "villian" in the move, Thumbs up to Gabriel Damon there.

The final showdown between Robocop and Robocop 2 is fun as well.

But for the vast majority of its overlong running time this is a serious disappointment.


For most people, RoboCop 3 is the film that really is the big disgrace for the Robo series. It has few fans, and most people hate it for it's shameless commercial PG-13 approach. Now, I'm not going to say that RoboCop 3 is any good. Frankly, it pretty much sucks. But as far as being a properly shot and executed film, it surpasses this piece of circuit chaos. Yes, the truth of the matter is that RoboCop 2 is the worst of two bad and unnecessary sequels to a near-masterpiece. So what if RoboCop 3 turns Robo into a cartoonish super hero in a ultra mainstream production for kids to enjoy - at least it's doing it openly. I don't know where RoboCop 2 begins and ends, I don't know what or whom it's about, I don't understand what's going on in it, I don't understand which jokes are deliberate and which aren't, I will go insane if I try to understand the characters, I see nothing of any value in anything anybody is saying, I can't believe anybody looked at the shooting script and figured it would work and I can't believe that Irvin Kirshner saw the finished result and figured that he liked what he see. He probably didn't by the way, neither Miller, nor Weller nor Allen did. It's not hard to see why.

Now, RoboCop 2 has it's fans, I know this. Mostly they belong to this league of absolute anti-pretensions, dismissing anybody who expected any depth, or subject matter from the first film, as academic Roger Ebert Sith apprentices. It's just a lot of fun, a good piece of action and great entertainment, the argument goes. Yeah well, I guess if you just don't listen to what any of the characters are saying you could fool yourself that we might as well have Arnold in the suit instead of Weller. Don't get me wrong, I like a good action film, with pure entertainment value as it's only - most satisfying - virtue. But RoboCop 2, sir, ain't no such thing.

Look at the first couple of scenes. This horrible actor makes Robo repeat that he's just a machine, and then goes into this operatic speech about how he could never be a man, where-after Murphy's wife (who's suing OCP for robot-stalkings) walks in out of the blue and have this sad little moment with him, and then is never heard of again! I surely would like to go in to this film scene by scene, because every one has these kind of absurdities in them. It's like a twelve year old fan boy has done the screenplay, the characters act totally random and first say this, then say that. OCP wants to stop crime with a new Robo, especially this drug called "nuke" but then it seems they really just want to become this big capitalist empire and control the entire city  politics are abandoned I guess, understandable given the comic relief mayor, The villain (played by Tom Noonan, who did a better version of this in Last Action Hero and that's saying a lot) is an addict, but is still used for this machine. The woman behind it all has an agenda which is impossible to understand.

Speaking of twelve year olds, this film has the infamous role of "Hub", this mad kid who swears and kills people, played by a child actor. I'm not going to be all moral about it, it's a free world and if you want a psycho kid in your action movie, go for it. I don't know how much of Frank Miller's original vision was put into this, but the credits at least acknowledge him as conceiver of the "story". And, if I zoom out, I could see this as being quite a cool character. It's grim for sure, to have a maniac killer kid but then again this is the world of RoboCop and who would be surprised? This whole business with the OCP trying to become this giant monopoly over everything, is properly dystopian and good as well. Also, the idea of RoboCop getting in touch with his wife and kid, having them embedded into the story somehow - would also be great, and as far as I can see a natural and logical step if they now had to make a RoboCop sequel.

But, of course, these are just ideas. As many people have already said, the screenplay is 100% mess. The kid has one scene (the torture scene) where it's hinted that he in fact is just a stereotype messed up kid, and then we have this unimaginable scene where he is dying and gets all soft and friendly towards ol' tin head. Why doesn't he just take up his uzi and try to take him down with his last breath? Isn't that what his character would do? Does he give his life a little second thought there on his death bed? Not necessarily, given that his last words are "it sucks", so why? It really makes no sense, and this can be said about everybody, no everything, in this film. IS there a strike in the police force? IS RoboCop machine or man? What's the deal with turning Robo into this community service machine for 10 minutes? I mean, sure, it's pretty funny I wouldn't deny that. But why build it up, and then discard it? And why the hell is Allen so criminally underused? and what is it Weller has an obvious urge to express with his character and yeah, well, the threads are many and the mess is enormous.

This review is just as messed up as the film. The only reason I give an extra star up there is because of the actors from the first film, I'm sure they had good intentions with it. I mean it's something somewhat stable, some kind of anchor in this sea of bad movie making.


I recently picked up all three Robocop films in one box set, rather cheaply and the only reason I did this was for the special edition of the superb first one. I have seen Robocop 2 before but not for 17 years, the year it came out. I have never watched it since because I can still remember how disappointed I was when I discovered how appalling it really is. Its a complete mess really, it has all the signs of a troubled production with so many sub-plots going on at the same time. It has a very uneven tone also and it is also one of the nastiest films I have ever seen. I don't mind a little violence, the first one was incredibly violent but this one is just plain nasty. Also the SFX is terrible even for 1990, say hello to bad stop motion. Also having a drug dealing, cursing kid as a villain is just a little too much. Peter Weller at least had the common sense not to return for the next one. The only positive thing I can say for this film is it does have a couple of nice gags, like the thank you for not smoking one and the kiddie baseball team robbing an electrics store. To quote the kid who plays the villain "It sucks"


I really don't understand who this movie is aimed at. From just the absurdity of it, not to mention the ridiculously bad acting, cheesy dialogue, and the fact that the villain is a child, I'd assume this was meant to be a children's movie... but I think there may be more swear words than Pulp Fiction, not to mention constant references to drugs and general mayhem and killing-so which demographic is it trying to please? This movie is too schizophrenic, like trying to combine Country music with Heavy metal, in the end no one is going to like it because it's a bloody paradox. I would recommend this movie because it's so funny (in a bad way) except the actors are so patently unbearable that I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.

I'm completely serious when I say that I could not watch more than 15 minutes of this. Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiible


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Old Detroit is back, with the giant Omni Consumer Corporation continuing to swallow everything in it's path as construction of the new Delta City continues and a new menace to contend with in the shape of Cain, a cruel drug lord with delusions of Christ-likeness, peddling a deadly new addictive on the streets called nuke. As he continues to struggle with the memories of his former life haunting him, the tin plated hero sets out to bring this villain down- only to wind up getting chopped into pieces of scrap metal. With Robocop out of action, a ruthless OCP business-woman proposes plans for her new android- a stomping, snarling beast of a machine that needs an equally nasty test subject to power it- which Cain fits perfectly. After a brief glitch in his system, Robo returns to bring justice to the streets and settle the score with Cain.

The original Robocop is a film that always manages to astound you each time you watch it, no matter how many times you've seen it, one of those films that just can't be done again. That said, it's not surprising a sequel was made- it's even less surprising that that sequel really pales compared to the original. Empire Strikes Back director Irvin Kirschner has crafted an unpleasant, slightly incoherent and overlong film that can't capture the magic of the first film, no matter how hard it tries. And it certainly does that, the funny ads from the first film running none stop, the corporate satire aiming to be that bit sharper and the action roaring as fast and furious as before, but with blood/gore even meaner than the first film. The first film earned a name for some nasty, blood-soaked violence (including a man's genitals being blown off and a man being blasted to pieces) but while that was more memorable the violence/gore on display here is of a more sadistic and gratuitous nature, with a very unpleasant and mean-spirited tone to it.

But overall, the film leaves you with a feeling of general apathy- why are you watching this when you could be watching the original again instead? **


Violent sequel to RoboCop was directed by Irvin Kershner (Never Say Never Again, The Empire Strikes Back) will never be as good as the original, because it is almost humorless, and it is extremely mean, and should have been rated NC-17, because of scenes with infants being involved in gunfights, people threatening to brutally murder very young infants with REAL automatic weapons, and even scenes with a 12 year old using lots of explicit profanity, giving drugs to lots of random people, shooting and graphically shooting up and killing policemen and SWAT officers, opening fire on police officers when lots of small and young children are present, and a whole group of children using strong profanity and beating up the store owner (who is a very old man) of an electronics store and stealing and destroying lots of items there. This film gives new meaning to the term "appallingly mean", but the effects and action sequences are exceptionally incredible. Overall, an OK movie.


Unfortunately producers don't know when to leave well enough alone, or are into recycling to the point that every scrap of trash that Hollywood generates is up for rendering into Alpo. It seems that every sci-fi action adventure flick must endure a sad list of follow-up films, and Robocop is a tragic example. The first film, under Paul Verhoven's direction was a wild, stylish ride, even finding time for a little social commentary on what the dark side of bio-tech is capable of turning us into. This film has none of that, aside from maybe telling us that drugs are bad for you and could make you do things you'd regret when sober. Robocop 2 lacks the vision, the profoundly scary vision of what we are becoming, and instead clumsily takes us on a boat ride into how nauseating drug dealers and their victims really are. Social commentary be damned. This one really bit the big one for me. If you don't care for anything but the SFX, go to it, my friend. Otherwise don't waste your time with this yeastless sour cake, and preserve the first film's accurately measured, heavy-weighted pumpernickle hot out of the oven. It's that simple.


Following which, the touted update goes and shoots itself through the head. Rather apt, considering the sorry state of this movie, a sequel to a film which patently didn't need one.

What really irritates about Robocop 2 is that the makers obviously didn't understand why the original was so good in the first place. Robocop (7) was a witty, vibrant satire of bad action movies. Robocop 2 is just a bad action movie.

Thin on dialogue, particularly towards the tedious, shoot-out finale, it attracts little interest and possesses none of the energy or spirit of the original. The spoof ads, now a little tasteless ("Warning: continued use will cause skin cancer") seem merely there as an afterthought. And calling a new designer drug "Nuke" is nowhere near as subtle or as funny as the original's family board game, "Nuke em!"

The stop-motion animation  the weakest element of the original  is used more extensively, while this humourless sequel fails to include a credits sequence, which makes it look even more cheap and hurried. Ah, humourless? You might say. But what about the funny mayor, or the way Robo is reprogrammed to spout platitudes? Yes, these are attempts at light relief, as is Robo tightening himself up with a screwdriver ("we're only human") for the film's punchline, but none are likely to induce laughter. Like the rest of the film, they're staid and moronic attempts at entertainment.

The third and final film in the series (imaginatively titled Robocop 3; 5) saw Peter Weller leave, to be replaced by Robert John Burke, who does well in a undemanding role. With toned-down language and violence, it was an obvious plea to the kiddie market, a Robo action figure much plugged throughout. With it's social conscience too overstated, and Robocop's new-found arm attachments and jetpack getting too silly, the final film was never destined to be a masterpiece. Yet fluid direction by Fred Dekker and a flowing pace make this one enjoyably throwaway viewing.

Robocop, then, is the film proper. Robocop 3 is the sequel which you could watch if there was nothing better on. Which leaves the second movie hanging in the middle, an unwatchable dirge of a picture. A franchise vehicle that has nothing to say, save for the pound signs that rung up. Irvin Kershner is no Paul Verhoven, just as comic artist Frank Miller and partner Walon Green aren't the writers that Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner were. A tragic waste of a good, if limited, concept. 4/10.


It's a shame that they didn't trust the original enough to build on it.

But "RoboCop 2" takes the great ideas, imagination and characters of the original and replaces them with all the stereotypes that sequels have to offer.

The beginning commercial was cute and so was the scene that follows (reminiscent of the beginning in "Guys and Dolls"!) but aside from a flash of thought here and there, this is one film that is a slow, dirty slog down into the middle of nowhere.

Ideas are introduced then dropped, interesting characters from the original hardly get any screen time here, most of the new characters (Cain, Juliette Faxx) are so boring that they wouldn't hold up no matter what the movie, and then there's the tone.

In the Blessed Original, Paul Verhoeven knew how to direct with the kind of attitude where if you cranked up the attitude and the sensibility of a good pulp comic, even the most repellent violence would be entertaining. Kershner (although he DID direct a "Star Wars" sequel) doesn't. And scene after scene either makes you cringe, look away or just tune it out altogether.

And what's with RoboCop?? HE should be the main thing here, right? But there's whole scenes where he doesn't even show up, and what scenes he is in are so half-thought and shakily written that you don't know or care if he's part-human or part-cyborg - since he's all-boring.

Never have I seen such a rapid fall from grace. Why does Hollywood make such bad sequels? On purpose? Why; did the film-makers have a bet going?

Only one star for "RoboCop 2"; the FX are good but the story doesn't even try to match them.


A pointless cash-in with nothing to contribute except nastiness, this is a definite case of sloppy seconds for Robocop. Irvin Kershner's numbing, plot less and tired mess of a sequel is watchable and even mildly entertaining in a dubious, unpleasantly trashy way, but it has virtually none of the original's flair, emotion, intelligence or excitement. Instead we have just another empty spectacle of a blockbuster whose only reason to exist seems to be to nauseate the viewer with relentless violence, which is far more brainlessly gratuitous than anything in the original. Omni Consumer Products, who made the original Robocop cyborg, have turned into more of a totalitarian force than ever second time round, what with the suspicious Nazi-esquire banners, stormtrooper guards and tanks for hire at the end; as for the anonymous Old Man (Daniel O' Herlihy), he's less of a benevolent protector and more of a hideous Mr. Burns type, surrounding himself with moronic lackeys who genuinely believe that putting the brain of a murderous psychopath into the body of the all-new Robocop 2 is a good idea. Oh, and the first Robocop gets a look in somewhere amidst all of this mess, though you wonder what on Earth a fine actor like Peter Weller saw in the script. The droll Tom Noonan has nothing to work with as the villain, while Nancy Allen is badly wasted as Robocop's partner. There are some hilarious moments throughout; the opening 'Magnavolt' commercial, for instance, but this is a poor follow-up to the truly great original.


This movie is a fine example of what happens when a studio wants to get a sequel to a fine movie out of the gates at all cost. Only with this movie, it truly is a near miss. Everything seems in place for Robocop 2 to be a worthy followup to the groundbreaking first movie. The complete original cast (apart from the casualties, naturally) returns and gives it their best. Too bad a hackneyed script and an incompetent director as good as neutralize their efforts.

Irvin Kershner might have been the ideal go to guy for George Lucas to direct the Empire Strikes Back. For a pedestrian filmmaker like Kershner there isn't much to ruin in Lucas' charmless film series. A worthy successor to a classic like Robocop would have needed either Paul Verhoeven to return, or a director with enough brass to give his own spin on it. Kershner doesn't know how to give his own spin on anything (Lucas hired him for that) and he's surely no Verhoeven.

So what we get here is a movie that goes through all the motions to replicate the first movie, but with none of the freshness, humor or daring the original had. Kershner probably thought he could top Verhoeven by adding more gore and gratuitous violence, but instead he reveals how much he was at work as a director for hire instead of a passionate filmmaker. And that's a shame, since everything was in place to make this another classic. As mentioned the actors give it their best, but Phill Tippet delivers some groundbreaking stop motion effects and there are some great ideas in the story by Frank Miller, who was born to write a Robocop movie. If only the studio had hired a director who was competent enough to make all the potential come through.


This was okay, but really a bit disappointing because I expected more laughs. Considering the storyline and the lead actor (Bill Murray), it should have been a lot funnier than it turned out to be. Only part of this made me really laugh, such as when Murray lost control of his semi and was speeding down the road at a weird angle. (You have to see it, to appreciate it.)

The supporting cast was anything but likable people. Just look at a sampling of the names: Matthew McConaughey, Janeane Garofalo and Linda Fiorentino. Yecch! McConaughey's role in here as "Tip Tucker" was just downright annoying. He was the worst.

Other that those people, the movie had some charming moments but overall it is not recommended. It's another Disney flop.


The over-riding problem with this film is that it can't possibly use Bill Murray to the best of his abilities, simply because of the co-star.

If this was a road movie with another comedic actor, it might work. Even if they were both trying to get the elephant across the country, it would at least allow for them to share some amusing dialogue. As it stands, Murray is left talking to an elephant who cannot answer back with witty banter. Essentially, it means that Murray is talking to himself, and this makes the film more boring than it could have been had he had another character to bounce off.

Kids would enjoy this movie,simply because of the elephant, but anyone wanting to watch Bill Murray's biting delivery and enjoy an excellent script needs to look somewhere else.


LTL is the kind of formulaic, hopeless comedy to be enjoyed by the sort of sheep that stop and listen when they come across a band playing in a shopping mall.

I remember Murray promoting LTL on Larry King's crappy CNN show, where he said something like "if this movie doesn't become a hit I'll stop making movies (or comedies)". He wasn't being nearly as jovial as one might think; he must have felt that LTL was a sure-fire hit and that its failure would mean his status as a star had markedly fallen - hence a sort-of ultimatum live-on-air to his fans to spend their hard-earned money on a dumb elephant comedy. (The comedy being dumb, not the elephant...) Or maybe he simply realized during the shooting (or when he saw the final cut) what a turkey this was, so he tried desperately to convince everyone how much optimism he had regarding LTL's quality. "Go see it, it really is good!" Actors are prostitutes inter-bred with car salesmen.

LTL is the sort of lousy project that comes from the "Friends" school of comedy; their motto: "If you ever run out of ideas - or if you never had any in the first place - then stick an animal into the plot and that will at least inject an element of cuteness". Cuteness = a sad substitute for lack of funny gags. The other motto "Friends" had was: "always include pointless, dull sentimentality", which this movie so predictably ends with, when Murray rather pathetically says: "what they forgot to tell you is that you never forget an elephant". Maybe not an elephant, but I certainly managed to easily forget this turkey, which I saw many years ago. I was suddenly reminded of it when I saw a scene from it on TV today (hence this equally pointless review).

Murray wastes his talent on this turkey (disguised as an elephant), but he isn't nearly as uninteresting/bad as McConaughey (or however that man's name is spelt); one would think that M.M. would have an easy time playing himself, i.e. a hick, but he is so painfully unfunny and unconvincing that I could barely stand to watch him make such a jackass out of himself. It was cringe-worthy. To round off this nonsense, we have that generation-X buffoon, Garofalo, in a rather useless role. Then again, everything about LTL is useless...

After LTL, which bombed as far as I know, Murray went on to become more of a "serious actor". What is it with these comedians and their inferiority complex? Is it all just about getting awards, i.e. "recognition from their peers" (read: votes from their moron colleagues)? This piece of crap marked the end of a string of good and great movies Murray made in the early- and mid-90s, such as "Groundhog Day", "Quick Change", "Mad Dog & Glory", "Kingpin", "What about Bob?" and "Ed Wood". Recently we've had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing him in garbage/mediocrities such as "Hamlet", "Lost In Translation" (you just can't get away from these "ultra-talented Coppolas"), and "Broken Flowers". Compare those two batches.

One guy described LTL "funny as heck". Now THAT'S the kind of audience this movie was hoping for... Shopping malls and trailer parks...


This *should* have been an amazingly funny movie...but it falls flat on its face. (In fact, I stopped watching it halfway through, which is something I rarely do...) -- Bill Murray plays Jack Corcoran, a second-rate motivational speaker who is bequeathed an elephant by his father (whom he had presumed to be dead before he was born) ; he then has one week to get the ponderous pachyderm across the country. His adventures on the way are only mildly amusing at best. Janeane Garofalo's considerable comedic talents go largely untapped. Anita Gillette is impressive in her small role as Jack's mother (who has a lot of explaining to do), and Pat Hingle stands out as a former circus associate of Jack's father. -- Perhaps the second half of the movie was better than the first, but I find that hard to believe...


I have always liked Bill Murray in films like Lost in Translation, and the trailer for this film looked really good, but the result was very disappointing. Basically Murray plays Jack Corcorin who has recently found out that his father died, and he is expected to hear his will. He finds out that his father was a clown, because he left a large shoe, his squeaky nose, and his main inheritance, an elephant! The only way that Jack can get rid of this elephant is to travel 4000 miles in four days and give him to a safe zoo for $30,000. Also starring Pat Hingle as Vernon. There are small tiny moments of humour, such as a truck's front bending forward, and Murray screaming, but overall, it's pointless. Pretty poor!


Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan).

The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.

The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long.


Robert Downey Jr. in a 17th century wig and dress was enough to make me shudder, but I couldn't believe a great actor like Sam Neill actually took a part in this movie. The whole thing was unbelievable. I especially like Merivel's "cure" for the crazies. They dance...and hey presto! everyone's happy and they're all better! I guess I just didn't like the character Merivel too much. Therefore, watching a whole movie about his supposed transition from a whoring buffoon into a great physician was grueling.

Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I didn't think the plague as well as the famous fire of London took place simultaneously.


I really wanted to like this film. The second film in the series had this silly, drive in movie feel to it that was fun (of course, I was also drunk). I watched this film with the highest expectation of a similar experience of high cinematic hilarity, a-la- Mystery Science Theater 3000. I WAS WRONG!!!!! This movie is a god awful waste of film, and I LIKED THE SECOND ONE!!!! From the effeminate villain with the David Bowie fright wig, to the tacky, obnoxious female villains with laughs that could strip the paint off a garage door, this whole thing was just a painful mess. I actually felt bad for Sue Price, because the material was beneath an actress of her stature (that pretty much says it all). An awful, awful film (that's not a recommendation).


This is going to be my first review on IMDb and I'm glad that the standard rating is 1 out of 10 because then I don't have to change anything...

First there are awful movies. Movies you can make a laughter out of, like Island City, Battlefield Earth or Conan The Destroyer. That is totally acceptable. They makes a great party enhancer. Then there are the worst movie ever. I cannot believe how utterly crappy this steaming pile of dog turd was.

I found it on a second hand store on VHS and bought it quickly because I like sci-fi, Terminator, post-apocalypse and stuff like that. Everything on the box art was very promising. Then I loaded in the tape quickly when I got home and the first thing that I noticed was... WHAT? There was maybe 10 minutes (or more) of switching between present clips and flashbacks in a very annoying blue effect, with sounds that makes you puke. And it just continues over and over. Then some "acting" kicks in and you wonder why you were ever born in a world, where this abomination of mankind actually exists... And then I realized, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO PREQUELS. I didn't think about it first, but the title says "3" in it... And I was horrified. But as I actually in great pain and agony watch it to the end, I thought nothing could ever make me feel worse about myself and this universe... But then a little text showed up saying... "Next..." and... NEMESIS 4?!?!?! NO PLEASE NO!!!!!!!!


I got this thing off the sci-fi shelf because I remembered seeing the first of the series when I was a kid. I'd rented the second one and it was a decent "B" sci-fi. This one was out right obnoxious. The "special" effects on the cars looked like something my 4 year old cousin could have done. The two assistant female cyborgs were so terrible that I literally cringed every time they came on the screen. The plot left so much to be desired that it made me sick. I don't know what anyone was thinking when they agreed to be a part of this movie but I'm sure that they'd have done better to have left it at 2 movies. The movies in this series are going from good to decent to terrible. I only hope that no terrorist groups have access to this movie as it makes an excellent torturing device.


Perhaps the worst of the "Nemesis" films (and that says A LOT!), this mess features so many flashbacks to part 2 that you might as well say that you've seen them both, even if you've only endured this entry. Making matters worse are two wisecracking cyborgs who have absolutely no entertainment value. In other words, they are a perfect fit for this endlessly boring cinematic mistake.


Nemesis 3 is the worst movie what I have ever seen!!! I think that Nemesis 3 was only 30 minutes long. And that movie was so boo-oo-ring. When that movie ends and I saw word: NEMESIS 4... I thought I will...NOT watch that movie never again.


There's something about a movie that features female bodybuilders that gets me in front of the screen every time.

I've seen "Pumping Iron II", "Aces: Iron Eagle III", "Raven Hawk", and even the TV movie "Getting Physical", which featured some big names in the sport. They were tolerable in their own ways (mostly, because they featured Rachel McLish. ROWWR!!).

Then I went and watched "Nemesis III: Prey Harder", on the sole basis that it featured such luminaries as Sue Price, Debbie Muggli, Sharon Bruneau and Ursula Sarcev. Love the ladies, always will, but after this I'm kinda glad I missed the first two "Nemesis" flicks.

Well, the first one, anyway. Most of the footage here is lifted bodily (and kicking and screaming, I would guess) from "Nemesis II". Actually, that one looked marginally entertaining from the evidence supplied here.

But even though Price and company flex and pose, they don't get much of a chance to do anything else (like, say, ACT!). In fact, this whole film is an exercise (Get it? Ha-ha...) in oblique story-telling, ambiguous characters and open-ended movie-making (in terms of filming as well as the story-line).

Nothing makes much sense but even if it did, there would still be issues - such as making such small parts for such larger-than-life women as these. What a crime.

Of course, it was written and directed by Albert Pyun, so what did you expect: cohesion?

One star only, in consideration for all the hard work that Price, Muggli, Bruneau and Sarcev obviously put into their bodies, NOT the "craft" work done within the movie itself.

Thanks, ladies.


A plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm--including the CEO's daughter--goes down in thick forest in the Pacific Northwest. When the search and rescue mission is called off, the CEO, Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. But just what is Knowles searching for and trying to rescue, and just what is following and watching them in the woods?

Oy, what a mess this film was! It was a shame, because for one, it stars Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite modern genre actors, and two, it could have easily been a decent film. It suffers from two major flaws, and they're probably both writer/director Jonas Quastel's fault--this film (which I'll be calling by its aka of Sasquatch) has just about the worst editing I've ever seen next to Alone in the Dark (2005), and Quastel's constant advice for the cast appears to have been, "Okay, let's try that again, but this time I want everyone to talk on top of each other, improvise non-sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible".

The potential was there. Despite the rip-off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib The Blair Witch Project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing Predator (1987)), Ed Wood-like exposition and ridiculous dialogue, the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. The monster costume, once we actually get to see it, was more than sufficient for my tastes. The mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if Quastel and fellow writer Chris Lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. The monster's "lair" had some nice production design, specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive Jeepers Creepers (2001). If it had been edited well, there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective.

But the most frightening thing about Sasquatch is the number of missteps made: For some reason, Quastel thinks it's a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene A, then a few lines of scene B, then back to A, back to B, and so on.

For some reason, he thinks it's a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue, whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway.

For some reason, he doesn't care whether scenes were shot during the morning, afternoon, middle of the night, etc. He just cuts to them at random. For that matter, the scenes we're shown appear to be selected at random. Important events either never or barely appear, and we're stuck with far too many pointless scenes.

For some reason, he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there, or it needs to just be cut out, because it's not that important (the monster's intelligence and "humanity" could have easily been shown in another way).

For some reason, there is a whole character--Mary Mancini--left in the script even though she's superfluous.

For some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft-core porno scene, even though the motif is never repeated again.

For some reason, characters keep calling Harlan Knowles "Mr. H", like they're stereotypes of Asian domestics.

For some reason, Quastel insists on using the "Blurry Cam" and "Distorto-Cam" for the monster attack scenes, even though the costume doesn't look that bad, and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog, a subtle filter, or anything else other than bad cinematography.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I really wanted to like this film better than I didI'm a Henriksen fan, I'm intrigued by the subject, I loved the setting, I love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level--but I just couldn't. Every time I thought it was "going to be better from this point until the end", Quastel made some other awful move. In the end, my score was a 3 out of 10.


The original Airport (1970) was a classic of its kind, and the first two B-movie follow-ups (Airport 1975; Airport '77) were watchable fun at best, amusing camp at worst; but this crass and inept final entry lacks any entertainment value and displays a shocking contempt for its audience. It's unendurable and not even good for laughs.

All of the three "Airport" sequels were theatrical releases made by Universal's television wing but this one is beneath even the modest standards of a TV movie of its day, with cheapjack production, grotesque casting, visual ugliness and tasteless, unfunny "comedy". The project was clearly doomed by the "creative" efforts of Universal executive Jennings Lang who personally produced and is given a "story" credit.

Everyone starts somewhere, and writer Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) might have provided an element of self-burlesque, as had the previous films (especially the notorious Airport 1975), but there is nothing worth spoofing in Roth's turgid, incoherent script and even the comedy Airplane! left this crud untouched.

What makes The Concorde: Airport '79 particularly offensive is its insulting misuse of professionals. The worst victim is the supremely gifted Cicily Tyson (Sounder; The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman), pitilessly reduced to a vomitous subplot involving her escorting a frozen heart transplant on the unfortunate flight.

A special kick to the groin is reserved for the wonderful George Kennedy, who is the true lead despite being buried in the cast list. The official mascot of the "Airport" series and the only actor to appear in all four movies, Kennedy had more than earned the starring role and his turn in the Captain's seat would have been the only possible reason for this entry other than the squeezing of one last buck. Kennedy provides the only warmth and real humor in this mechanical muckup, briefly putting aside the bravura machismo and revealing a genuinely sweet and tender side to himself, and his lovable and heroic character of "Joe Patroni". Unfortunately we are never allowed to forget how fat and old and over-the-hill Kennedy is, and overage pretty-boy Alain Delon relentlessly calls him "Porky Pig" as part of a buddy-bonding that falls completely flat. Even Kennedy's Parisian romance, the only humane part of this plane-wreck, turns out to be merely a set-up for a hateful joke at Patroni's, Kennedy's, and the viewer's expense.


This movie is scary at times, perhaps no more so than when a naked George Kennedy tells his hooker girlfriend he wants a little more sugar. Thankfully his nakedness is covered by a blanket, but the image is still more horrifying than anything you're likely to find in, for example, Schindler's List.

The dialog in this film was inspiring; it inspired me to watch another movie. In one scene, when a stewardess remarks about male pilots, Kennedy asks, "Why do you think it's called a 'cock' pit?" Charming.

And yes, contrary to what some have written, this film is very, very bad.


All the Airport movies are stinkers, but this one is the biggest turkey of them all. The formula was different for this one because it focused on TWO disastrous flights and a lot of plot occurring on the ground, while the other movies focused on just one disastrous flight and less plot on the ground. The stunts with the Concorde are worth watching for the laughs, although the special effects aren't as terrible as I'd expect for a movie of this quality made in 1979. George Kennedy's sexist remarks are disgusting and his rendezvous with a prostitute in Paris is totally unnecessary (and made me gag a little). Poor Martha Raye was relegated to a role where she did nothing but relieve her bowel over and over in the Concorde's bathroom. There are no big stars in this movie compared to the previous films, giving you one more reason not to watch this one.


The real star of the last of the Airport films is that big supersonic carrier the French created called The Concorde. If you bear in mind that the whole film is dedicated to showing what that needle nosed plane could do in the sky, than the whole film kind of makes sense.

But if you're expecting some serious drama here, than by all means take some of the evasive action the Concorde shows here when some nasty folks try to shoot her down.

Susan Blakely plays a television news reporter who also happens to be the mistress of military industrial tycoon Robert Wagner. One of Wagner's aides just happens to bring her information on some of Wagner's dirty business dealings, selling arms to folks not friendly to the USA. When the source, Macon McCalman, is killed in front of her and she's nearly done in by a hit-man whom she escapes from of course she confronts Wagner with the information. And of course he denies it. But right before Blakely boards The Concorde, McCalman's widow Kathleen Maguire hands her the necessary documents.

But on the way to Moscow with a stop in Paris, Wagner and his minions try to put the big bird down. But the fearless crew of Alain Delon, David Warner, and George Kennedy is up to all their tricks. It's quite a bag full as you'll see if you want to watch the film.

If you're an aviation enthusiast, you absolutely won't care about the plot. It's like the film Le Mans with Steve McQueen which has a legion of auto racing fans who have made it a cult item. Maybe Le Mans is better at that because they just didn't bother with any kind of story.

Among the passengers is a pot smoking saxophonist played by Jimmie Walker, a distraught mother accompanying a new heart for her child, played by Cicely Tyson and Martha Raye a woman with a weak bladder who spends the entire trip from Washington to Paris in the loo. She's actually the best one here.

Robert Wagner must have been psychic though because I'm sure on the strength of this film he got the part of Doctor Evil's number two in the Austin Powers series.

I'm sure all concerned got a big pay day out of this film, but it seems to have killed the Airport saga of movies.