Well let's be fair. Following up a cult classic like Road House is no easy task. Now subtract Swayze from the equation and you get a monumental task. So with Patrick not on board whose bonehead idea was it to proceed anyway and make this piece of garbage? I am going to blame the director who didn't even provide 5 minutes of decent footage throughout the entire film. I was actually shocked they got Will Patton (Armaggedon) to jump on board. Johnathon Schaech did an OK job with the lead but the writing was atrocious. Turning down his partner brunette bombshell (Crystal Mantecon) in the film's first 5 minutes made me want to eject it right there. But I stuck with the film hoping to catch a glimpse of that great cheesy humor that worked so well with the Double Duece. No such luck. The cover of the DVD is hilarious, they show these two stacked blondes who make one 10 second appearance in the film. Costar Ellen Hollman actually puts in a decent performance as well. But again the effort is futile in a piece of garbage and disgrace such as this. Has Jake Busey ever been cast in a decent film? Could they not pull at least a few actors in from the first film for some kind of nostalgia treatment? Even one of the old bouncers or two, or Jeff Healey for a performance would have been nice. Take this film out of your Queue immediately. -LostFlix


"Direct-to-video" is a phrase that never sounds promising to the consumer unless its a direct-to-video sequel to something that went direct-to-video in the first place. Despite this, studios have insisted on releasing numerous direct-to-video sequels over the years to cult hits. I don't think it even needs to be mentioned that these sequels rank among some of the worst titles of all time, including THE HITCHER II, STARSHIP TROOPERS 2, and CRUEL INTENTIONS 3. It's fitting that ROAD HOUSE 2 was helmed by Scott Ziehl as he was also the man in charge of ruining the Cruel Intentions series. Like his entry in the Cruel Intentions trilogy, Ziehl takes elements that made the first ROAD HOUSE a great guy flick, and rehashes them with no success whatsoever. This is no sequel, this is a remake all the way. Various lines from the original are repeated, plot points cut and pasted, and scenes are replicated almost shot-for-shot from the first one. The one thing that could not be duplicated were the amazing fight scenes, which made ROAD HOUSE what it was. Here, we get clumsily directed fight sequences that are either too short or too long and seemingly planned out and shot within an hour. Compare that with its predecessor's fight scenes that look like they took months and months to prepare. Ziehl is capable of directing action as he did well with the 2001 remake of EARTH VS. THE SPIDER, but none of the talent shown there comes through in this mess. It's not completely his fault, as the screenplay is very, very poorly written and clunky. I don't care if something goes direct-to-video, a good script is still required. Someone should keep that mind while continuously churning these low-budget, direct-to-DVD movies out. Skip it entirely. 1/10


This in-name-only sequel to the classic ROADHOUSE has a DEA agent (John Schaech) coming to the rescue of his uncle (Will Patton) when the uncle is badly beaten up by a local drug gang, headed by that Wooden Indian of an actor Jake Busey. The gang wants to take over the poor guy's bar for nefarious reasons. Patrick Swayze is sorely missed here. Schaech is an indifferent actor and not convincing as an ass-kicking lawman. The fights here are intermittent and not nearly as powerful or vicious as the fights in ROADHOUSE. The finale is equally weak. Some good-looking women keep things afloat for a bit. There is a terrific fight between a Daisy Duke-type who turns out to be handy with both fists and weapons, and a nasty-looking babe of Busey's who is handy with sharp implements. There's also a scantily dressed gal at the beginning who is a fellow agent of Schaech's, but unfortunately she never reappears in the film. Too bad. She does a brief lap dance for Schaech that had my full attention. If nothing else, ROADHOUSE 2 kicks off with a strip club scene that comes darned close to what a real strip club looks like, a rare circumstance in any movie. The rest is snooze time.


SPOILERS: The original Road House is one of those movies that I know is clichéd and unoriginal, yet it's done so well, I'm embarrassed to admit I really like it. Turns out many of my friends, whose movie opinions I respect, think the same way. So when they attempt to make a sequel to it and it's as if it was written by some high school kids who were given the rights to do a sequel, it's just bad; really, really bad.

Oddly, Johnathon Schaech is listed as one of the writers and I can only hope his WGA membership is revoked. The writing was just bad and all the writers of this film should retire for complete lack of originality and some of the worst dialog in this millennium. Schaech already appearing to be the king of the straight-to-DVD sequel (8mm 2, Poison Ivy 2) and now after seeing this and 8mm 2, I'm thinking his acting ability is non-existent. He was awful, just awful.

And it's not the terrible fighting scenes that make this movie terrible, but take it from me, they're bad. Every fight scene is a slowly delivered punch (yet still making the "wiff" sound in the air) that is then blocked by the opponent, who returns a punch that sends the first guy to the ground. This is repeated throughout the film, worse than any bad 1970s cop show. Or the fact that many of the people involved in the fights seem to have a mouth full of cherry kool-aid for some reason. And we're supposed to believe Will Patton is a fighting machine; his fight scenes look so amazingly fake I was honestly embarrassed watching.

It's the complete lapses of logic in this ridiculous movie that make it terrible. For instance: Johnathon Schaech's character is in town for a day and already tells some girl he barely knows who he has no idea what side she's on, "I'm with the Feds, but don't tell anyone." The female villain, who fights the good girl in one fight scene with acrobatics that rival any super hero, yet is easily held down by the Will Patton, "old guy," in another scene by simply holding both her hands while he utters some ridiculous line ("stab me once, shame on you, stab me twice, ain't gonna happen" whew, that's bad) and then head-butts her. Jake Busey's villain shoots at the feds while caught in the middle of a drug deal, yet no DEA agents or anyone simply go to his place and pick him up after, in fact, he's simply let go because "this is the sheriff's territory." Busey wants the bar because it's "in a great location" for drug deals, yet his own house appears to be just as good apparently offering all the perks the bar is supposed to have. Johnathon Schaech's character is supposed to be the son of Patrick Swayze's character in the original, yet Swayze's character's last name is Dalton and Schaech's isn't (nor is the supposed brother of Swayze's character). And Johnathon Schaech looks about 50 in this movie. I looked it up, he's 17 years younger than Swayze, but he looks awful.

But my favorite absolutely stupid scene in this movie was the most stock fight scene ending in movies: the villain is knocked through a window on a second floor and as they pan down I'm thinking "please don't tell me he's impaled on something..." and sure enough, my worst fears were realized.

Actually, I could go on for another half hour about the things I hated about this movie. Suffice to say, let's put an end to these ridiculous straight-to-DVD sequels to theatrical movies, at least the ones with Johnathon Schaech.


Dark Harvest 3: Scarecrow: 1 out of 10: In Einstein's theory of relativity time is of the perspective of the one that views time. (Or so I've heard) In other words this movie feels a lot longer that an hour and change. Even on fast-forward (And you will be reaching for that fast forward button) it clocks in somewhere around eternity.

If you are familiar with Lionsgate's own version of Project Greenlight (This is where they buy a home movie but a fancy cover on it and sneak it into the horror section of your local Wal-Mart) you will not be surprised by the complete and utter lack of entertainment value contained within.

The line reading (I refuse to call it acting) is uniformly awful. This is a collection of deadbeat dads and strippers pretending to be in a movie between cans of Schlitz. The camera work is drunken father shooting vacation film quality and while the special effects are okay the scariest effect is the breast augmentation scars in the nude scene.

The story is awful, the sets are from a haunted Halloween put on by ADHD middle school students and once again the line reading (remember this is not acting anymore than sinking to the bottom of a pool is swimming) is distracting beyond mere words. Avoid.


It used to be that video distributors like Sub Rosa and Brain Damage Films would release low-budget, shot-on-video horror films to a select market of gorehounds that ate them up with glee. That's acceptable to me, because you could see these movies from a mile away with their shoddy box art and cheesy titles.

Now we have Lions Gate getting into the mix, only they have decided that it'd be better to sucker in poor saps by putting a "professional" looking cover on it and charge the same price as one of their higher-budget, professionally made features. Do not be suckered in by this! Granted, if you've seen Dark Harvest 1 or 2 than you already know what to expect with 3 but there is a place for movies like this and it is not on a video store shelf beside professionally-made features.

I am a fan of independent cinema and have watched several low budget, shot-on-video productions that were still a worthy rental but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The "acting" (if you can call it that) was abysmal. It was amusing to laugh at the horrible line reading for a minute or two, but eventually it was too much to take and became unbearable. The story is bad, the dialogue is worse, the acting somehow manages to be even worse. The only possible saving grace to this would be one disemboweling scene that still manages to be awful but is an award winning effect when compared to the blood splatters after a girl is slapped or the mannequin decapitation.

It took me three tries to make it through this entire movie and I only did so because I paid good money to rent it and felt like I should at least finish it all the way through. Stay away - stay far, far away from this one.


OK i gave this a three A three! It deserves only one star no questions asked.

If your going to look at the movie seriously and take it as a legit B-Horror movie than yes it will get one star. But i believe it is apparent within the first minutes of the movie what we are dealing with is a piece of crap.

With this movie me and the buddy i was watching it with could of turned it off and put on something more "Hollywood" but instead we just decided to rip this whole movie apart from start to finish. We laughed so many times it was almost if i was watching a comedy.

The acting is terrible..... The effects and death sequences are so bad.... The Story complete crap.....

But the fact they are trying to make a serious horror movie..Priceless!

The most memorable part for me is when two of the characters are walking in a supposed "dark basement" which is clearly lit, and they pretend to not be able to see bumping into bones hanging from the ceiling bahahahaha just terrible.....

So if you want to laugh at how crappy this movie is, along with the fact it was made in 2004 than see this movie....

Wait why am i writing so much? no one knows about this movie...i doubt anyone will even read this hahahaha.


I couldn't spoil this piece of crap if I wanted to. After watching Dark Harvest 1 I thought "this has got to be the worse movie ever made" then I watched Dark Harvest 2 and that made 1 seem a little better. Then I watched Dark Harvest 3 or tried too. The only thing I have to say is "when is this going to end?" Very bad acting and really bad special effects the only good thing about this movie was the boob shot. Don't waste your time of money on this piece of crap... And now I have to write 3 more lines to get this to submit. I was going to sing a song but I can't think of any right now. But the movie finally ended (though it had an ending that might mean they are going to make another one of these)


As you may remember I have seem all three of the trilogy of trash and the first movie is the only one even remotely close to be watchable. Part two was low grade sewage and this installment is slightly better then two, but still one steaming pile of something I removed from my backyard last Monday. The premise doesn't make sense, why did the moonshiners murder that poor old lady and even in 1921 I think someone would notice a bunch of oily guys where a sweet little old lady once lived. Second, that scarecrow is pathetic compared to how cool they looked in the first movie. It's just old clothes and a burlap sack. Let's face it, the series is garbage and should be forgotten about. THE NOOSE!


I rented this movie under the impression that it was "Scarecrow 3:Dark Harvest", thinking it was a continuation in the Scarecrow Slayer series (another extremely laughable and all together awful series of movies). I wasn't disappointed though. It was just as awful, if not worse, than what I expected. I was laughing throughout the entire movie. Every piece of bad acting, poorly shot and cut footage, and terrible special effects is what makes this movie worth renting.

The special features include a pathetic view into the cast and crew's six months of filming.

Favorite line, "The sins of my forefathers! They've trickled down to this very moment of time!"


This is just about the WORST piece of garbage I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. The story was embarrassingly amateurish, the graphics were horrible, and the acting... I've never seen worse acting in my entire life. A kindergarten class could come up with a scarier, better written, and more entertaining concept than this. I pity anyone who wastes their time on this film, as well as the actors who agreed to doing the job. It was obvious that they were not given appropriate direction. The writers must have spent their time at film school in the "back room" playing peaknuckle. A lot of professors wasted a lot of time on these two. I would be truly embarrassed to admit that I knew them.


If it were possible, I would have given this sorry excuse for a movie a ZERO star. It was by far the worse I have ever seen. It was as if it were a home movie that some bored highschoolers decided to make as a joke. The "acting" was horrific. The "actors" didn't even react to the fact that they were being murdered.

Honestly, I bought this movie by mistake. The Spanish title said Jeepers Creepers 3, so I thought hmm maybe it'll be OK. Wrong. It was honestly the worst ever. I didn't get past 20 minutes of the stupid movie. I skipped through chapters and nothing interesting ever seemed to happen.

The cameramen were also terrible. It was like a home movie. I would NEVER recommend anyone to watch this. Terrible terrible moronic movie.


I absolutely hated this movie! I was 9 when I saw it. It is the only movie I have ever walked out of in the theater. My mom, dad, and I all looked at each other during the movie and knew we were wasting our time. This movie stole approximately 45 minutes of my life. Everything about it was ridiculous. The entire premise was too warped. Being 9, I was always easily entertained. This movie proved that I couldn't subject myself to anything and still be entertained.


This is the first film I've watched from the Italian Ed Wood, Demofilo Fidani aka Miles Deem. The above title was superfluously added later on since there exists another similarly titled 1961 movie starring Richard Basehart which was Hammer Films' Michael Carreras' one and only stab at the Western; the genuine Italian title was originally translated as HIS NAME WAS SAM WALBASH, BUT THEY CALLED HIM AMENalthough it was actually WALLACH in the Italian variant which, of course, implies a tribute of sorts to Hollywood actor Eli!

While certainly not unwatchably bad, instances of clumsiness and ineptitude abound so that I was often cracking up into howls of laughter: a horrid number by a would-be irresistible French chanteuse; a totally irrelevant bar-room brawl; actors doing somersaults when being shot; an aged villager doing an impromptu dance routine; ineffective use (indeed abuse) of slow-motion; and, easily the most preposterous, seeing Gordon Mitchell and Lincoln Tate play two gunfighters (sporting the actors' own names!) hired by the villain to kill off the title character and then never having them appear in the rest of the film at all!!

Lead actor Robert Woods is just that even down to ineffectively whispering the Amens over the bodies of his victims. Supporting actress Simonella Vitelli (actually, the director's own daughter!) as the villain's broad is quite a looker but, unfortunately, she doesn't get to do much in the film  despite having a change of heart towards the end. The main musical theme is actually pretty good but, again, the title song is, in itself, quite lousy.


This is one of the films that killed the "spaghetti" western. It not only loses something in the translation, it is a total chaotic mess of editing as well. Either chunks of it have been edited out and or re-edited for an English language version. In any case, it makes little or no sense, period. It makes the "Trinity" and the Eastwood "Man With No Name" films look like John Ford/John Wayne by comparison. Nothing in this film is original. Somewhere in there is a beginning, a middle, and (finally)an end. Except for the end, not everything is exactly in that order. Robert Wood seems personable enough. The rest of the cast, especially the women, should have made better career choices.


Savage Guns (video title) is a dirt cheap, bottom of the barrel spaghetti western in which the survivor of a massacre hunts the bandits who killed his brother and left him for dead, catching up with them in a town controlled by their crooked boss.

Despite plenty of violence, this manages to be both dull and colorless with bad characterizations and almost no imagination or humor.

Lead actor Robert Woods lives up to his name with a wooden and uncharismatic performance that fails to generate any warmth or sympathy whatsoever. In other words, the viewer never really roots for him despite the fact that he's the protagonist.

The worst scene (in my opinion) is the annoying dance hall scene where a woman sings in a heavy and terribly unsexy German accent. It was the worst scene in Blazing Saddles and the worst one here!


At it's core, this is a fairly typical revenge Western, heavy on the spaghetti, and if you follow it as such, the protagonist comes through successfully defeating the main villain. However there's so much going on that has no bearing on the story that you have to wonder what the film makers were thinking about. I'm referring to stuff like the way Miss Rosie's singing number just pops up out of nowhere and the boxing match in the middle of town. OK, they have a loose connection to the influence villain Mash Flanagan has, but why all of a sudden does he turn up with an alias - Mr. Donovan.

On the flip side, I thought it was pretty innovative how the camera shot showing the wounded Wallach's view of the trail might have been filmed by someone with an actual bullet in his shoulder. And wasn't it great the way Donovan's girl uses the old headache routine when he gets a little frisky? Don't let me forget either the great stunt work by the gravel pit bad guys as Wallach guns them down as part of the finale.

Still, there was one thing unaccounted for, and I kept waiting the entire movie for it. Whatever happened to that trio of hoods that Flanagan/Donovan hires near the start of the picture? You know, the guy Martel that a funeral parlor wanted to hire for his gun prowess, the devil's henchman Mitchell with the rifle, and the knife thrower Lincoln Tate. Each had a five thousand dollar bounty on his head, and they were supposed to protect Donovan from the guy who survived the massacre of the opening scene. They were never heard from again! I like to think that maybe Donovan just had them killed and kept the 15K all for himself.


This showed up on a DVD a buddy of mine bought for me. They had it listed as "The Savage Guns" which was an entirely different movie. Obviously the folks who packaged the DVD never bothered to look at what they were burning on the disk.

Anyway, this movie is about as bad as they come. The sound track is a combination TV Batman/Early James Bond/Spaghetti western. Lots of galloping around to this music. It appears that the guy has to gallop between scenes to burn up some time and give the sound track folks something to do.

English is dubbed over the Italian and it really shows. I wish it had been just a little bit worse and then it would have had some of the campy feel of the Ed Wood films. AS it is, it is just plain awful.


Ever have one of those sneezes that seems to build up forever? You gasp and you convulse and you grab the nearest paper product in preparation for the world's greatest hanky-blower...and then it fizzles. "Frankenhooker" was the cinematic equivalent of that lost sneeze. Now, I'm big on B-movies, and I always look the other way when a boom mike pops onscreen or an actor speaks his or her lines with all the enthusiasm of Gerald Ford, but this one really let me down. The cover of the video, for instance, IS the tag-line of the whole movie. Using parts from murdered New York prostitutes, Dr. Franken rebuilds his deceased fiancee, only to have her run amok in Manhattan as a sort of superprostitute with a bad attitude. After an hour and a half of build-up, this fairly funny ten minutes seemed a little anti-climactic.


Well, don't bother. This film looks so tired, the acting is so old-fashioned, and the plot and characters so drab, that it should be studied instead of watched. It is really a horrible waste of film; Stereotypes, clichés, nonsense, and amateurish film-making. I watched it in unbelievable awe with my mouth wide open. How could such a film be made, and more interestingly, how could anyone find it funny or watchable? Old, tired, sloppy... a junior-high skit, at best. There is nothing watchable there, except for a study of very ancient film. Not good film, just ancient. This is not Abbott and Costello or Laurel and Hardy. This is nonsense. The acting is so bad that maybe it is worth it to watch just for the laugh. Some films are so bad that they are good. But, this one goes all the way around the corner and back to bad again.


Johnnie (Bert Wheeler) is a would-be songwriter; Newton (Robert Woolsey) is a would-be inventor. Both work at a cigar stand in the lobby of an office building. Johnnie wants to sell a song to Winfield Lake, a song publisher who also owns the building. Lake's secretary, Mary (Betty Grable), is Johnnie's sweetheart. When Lake turns up dead, circumstances conspire to make Mary and Newton think that Johnnie is the killer. They conspire again to implicate Mary, who goes to jail. But who really shot Lake? Who is the Black Widow, the blackmailer who had threatened him? The other characters in this wacky murder mystery are: Lake's suspicious wife, a self-satisfied private detective, a seemingly slow-witted janitor (Willie Best), Lake's auditor, a songwriter who thinks Lake is stealing from him and another who thinks everyone is stealing from him. It's up to Newton and his truth machine to reveal the real killer.

The baby-voiced Wheeler and the cigar-chomping Woolsey strike me as an arbitrary pairing, but they made several movies together in the 30s and some of them were funny.

Not this one. George Stevens, who went on to have a distinguished career, directed this dismal comedy with a tedious murder mystery plot. But two scenes are good, and both feature Wheeler and Betty Grable singing the excellent "Music in My Heart," written by Dorothy Fields and Jimmy McHugh. The first time, they sing it walking up a staircase (after which they dance back down). Later, Wheeler and Woolsey are on stilts so that they can see and talk to Mary, who is in a jail cell on a high floor. Wheeler and Grable sing to each other through the bars.

"The Nitwits" has a few laughs, but the level of comedy is best illustrated by Woolsey's line: "Sonny, you've got the brain of a six-year-old boy. And I'll bet even he was glad to get rid of it." It's watered-down Grouchowho didn't use the superfluous "even" when he said it.


When you read the comment on this film, that it's smart and funny political comedy based on true events - the only true word here is that it's a comedy. If you're told it's insider movie about Russian politics - it's not. There's probably only 2% in the movie from what really happened in Russia during that election-campaign. In reality of the 1996 it was thousand times more interesting to follow the situation and that was a real funky election-campaign. Well, there were PR-advisers from the US working in the Yeltsin's staff, but their role was just minimal. The whole campaign was totally different from what is shown in the movie, it would be much funnier showing all the president's people riding across the country with paper boxes full of cash, and the celebrities giving the shows to support Yeltsin all over the place - at least that would be true. I give it three only because of the respect to Jeff Goldblum, Antony LaPagglia, and Liev Schreiber. And about the machine guns on the streets of Moscow. I was living in the place that had the highest amount of hard crime in Russia in the middle of 90-s and never seen a man with the gun on the street.


OK everybody is so enthused by this film I hardly dare add a negative review but I just did not enjoy this movie.

I have to say first I saw the film in Russian language overdub so I will have missed some dialog, but not much.

Nice things first. There are some hilarious moments (the Elvis impersonator for instance). Actors seem well casted, also the Russians. Efremova is great and Goldblum is very good. Which brings us to the downsides of this movie. First of all. There is hardly any story and the end we know already: Yeltsin wins. So no drama or suspense. They tried to solve this problem with an emerging affair between the actors mentioned above, but that story kind of evaporates.

More importantly, the film does not represent reality. The Russians at the level of politics and society portrayed in this movie are not funny, they are a serious and dangerous lot. I am willing to believe that flying in some spin-doctors from the states helped Yeltsin win his campaign, but the real interesting questions that should be addressed are: who financed the campaign, what did they get in return, how was the opposition handled apart from airing some commercials?

So what we have here is a film, loosely based on reality (but strangely avoiding anything that could make the film either historically relevant or just a very good political thriller) without plot or subplot.


The creators of this movie must have sat down one day and said "let's make fun of the Russians and at the same time show people how advanced we (Americans) are". The movie portrays the Russians as an inferior people who are unable to understand the brilliant ideas put forward by the Americans. It is true that American campaigns are probably more professional and more based on expensive studies than campaigns in any other countries are. However, this movie goes to far and it exaggerates the differences between East and West. To me it looked like a propaganda movie made during the Cold War.


let me get started with a terrible storyline and an awful control system. good animation but not too good graphics. that is why I'm giving this game 4 of 10. THIS GAME REALLY NEEDS AN Improvement IF YOU ASK ME!!! i would remake it and make this control system better so jaws is not so damn hard to control. if i made it to improve it i would make those graphics look better than on the movie. it will drive anyone crazy when you are getting killed so freaking easy. i played this and got killed by a diver when he had one of those flick knives in 2 hits. the dolphins will kill you so much that the shark will be begging to go to the bottom of hell. this game sucks some fat ass. sorry about all the cussing i think I'm done now. it just that this game sucks so bad that it should be taken off the store's shelf. i dare you to play the garbage and you will probably get so mad by dieing so easy so Don't PLAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There's not that much to say in the end. One would have expect much more from a director who made way better movies in the past. It just seems like he did it without actually caring. The actors are doing their job (though Belmondo is far from amazing), but you just don't get hooked. In a word, it's boring. This is even more disappointing since I heard several time that this movie could be considered as a reaction to all the big American blockbusters, which are considered to be a threaten to the French exception by those who just can't admit they should turn to another job. I tell you, if that's the best reaction we're supposed to get, boy, I'm going to be really depressed soon...


Afraid of the Dark left me with the impression that several different screenplays were written, all too short for a feature length film, then spliced together clumsily into this Frankenstein's monster.

At his best, the protagonist, Lucas, is creepy. As hard as it is to draw a bead on the secondary characters, they're far more sympathetic.

Afraid of the Dark could have achieved mediocrity had it taken just one approach and seen it through -- and had it made Lucas simply psychotic and confused instead of ghoulish and off-putting. I wanted to see him packed off into an asylum so the rest of the characters could have a normal life.


I would not be giving away too much of the film to tell you that there are many, many, many, MANY scenes of Lucas (the young protagonist) walking and looking at things! Yep. And you'll be happy to know that the first third of the movie is pointless, meaningless, and pretty much ignored for the rest of the film!

This movie is populated by dull people who do dull things, and the dullest person of them all is young Lucas, who is going blind and needs an operation. You see, he has delusions, terrible delusions! He thinks a killer is preying on blind women! He walks around a lot and acts like an insufferable jerk!

Patience does NOT pay off with this film. By the end, the plot and events are just as confusing and lethargic, and it is very hard to care one way or the other about what any of the nightmarish images meant. Nothing is made clear, the film moves at a snail's pace, and it left me with the same effects of a hangover.

Judging from "Afraid of the Dark," the British don't make stupid thrillers like the Americans do; they make boring ones.


i am still not sure what the hell this movie is about. i guess the boy was afraid of becoming blind and began imagining all sorts of strange things. this does not explain why he wanted to kill his new baby brother , however , or the unrelenting boredom found within this film. while watching this movie you will wish you were blind so you did not have to see this experiment in futility. skip this steaming pile and opt for anything else at the video store ..... anything else.


This movie changes its way a third of the way in.its totally pointless boring and stupid.i hated this movie so much that i will never watch it again.some bad films can be really funny. this is just a British art house picture that should never of been made.1 out of 10


Another example that we should stay away from trying to do spectacular action movies in Sweden, it doesn´t work, except for Widerbergs still unsurpassed MANNEN PÅ TAKET. Stormare does the best he can, I suppose, and some scenes are mildly effective, but the plot is FULL of holes. Why does Hamilton continue the attack on the base, knowing that his wife is held hostage? It was fun to see Mark Hamill, but his Bad Guy-part was very underwritten. I´m constantly amazed that relatively big Swedish movies like this get made without a sensible, functioning script. 1 out of 5.


If this is the best Commander Hamilton movie, I have no curiosity about the others.

A movie actor's greatest tools are his eyes, but when Peter Stormare wants to show great emotion, he closes his, so for five or six seconds we get to admire his eyelids while his feelings remain unknown behind them. Lousy acting technique.

Stormare also flinches sometimes when he fires a gun, turning his head away and clamping his eyes shut. Watch carefully. James Bond can rest easy with competition like this.

There are some interesting supporting performances from other actors, but not enough to hang a whole movie on. The cinematography is good-looking, doing a fine job of capturing the Nordic cold. Even the Sahara winds up looking cold. Perhaps Hamilton carries his own climate with him.

There are some individual good action sequences here. Unfortunately, the only sense of humor on screen belongs to the villain, which turns the hero into a big pill. James Bond's jokes may not be particularly good, but at least he doesn't look constipated all the time.

One positive point in the movie's favor is that the psychotic, contorted, vicious hatred of Israel in Guillou's books has been left out. What has been kept in is worship of a noble, heroic PLO, that he shows us functioning in Libya without the dictator Khaddafi's knowledge or supervision. This fantasy is hard to believe, since Khaddafi actually threw the PLO out of Libya for four years at a time. And at the end of the film, Hamilton gives the PLO a very disturbing gift. Where will they use that gift? Hamilton doesn't care.

We're a long, long way away from "For Whom the Bell Tolls" here.

Commander Hamilton will remain a local phenomenon. While Henning Mankell's books sell well around the world, Jan Guillou will never have the same success.

As for this film, bleeeeaaahhhhh.


This film just doesn't work. No two ways about it. I saw it for the first time back in '98 when it was released and I didn't like it. I just bought it on sale a couple of days ago, 'cause I thought "whatta hell, I'll give it a try". I don't regret for the money I put out for Hamilton, but the fact remained the same.. this movie is pointless, dull and uninteresting.

Stormare is usually a delight, but that's when he's making films in the US. Back home he doesn't do the trick. Sure the movie is well made (if you forget the odd stock footage here'n'there), but in the end the only thing that REALLY lifts Hamilton above one star garbage, is Hamill's turn as the bad guy Hawkins. He seriously has fun with the character and is also responsible for the only two good moments in the movie.. "Swedish intelligence, huh? Now there's a contradiction in terms" and when he allows Hamilton to have a word or two with his wife over the phone towards the end of the flick. And that's really pretty much it.

** / *****


This is without doubt the worst film in the Hamilton saga and the worst actor to do Carl Hamilton.Peter Stormare just cant pull it off,with his psychotic looks and no style at all.He may be good to do killers and psychotic maniacs like in "Fargo" or "8mm" but in this type of roles,he is just useless.

Lena Olin's presence did no use for this film.She couldnt save it from being what it is:an americanized copy of big budget action movies like "Goldeneye","Die Hard 3","Broken Arrow" etc.This film has nothing swedish in it but the actors.Its clear that some norweagian upstart director with McTiernan as model director has made this.

Mark Hamill's presence is only laughable. 2 out of 10


Yes. It takes a Norwegian to ruin and slaughter two great books and a concept that would work well on film - this film truly is The Worst Swedish Film Of All Time. I hated it so badly that I even considered walking out on it, something I have never done. But it was so awful i was almost compelling. I just had to sit through to the end. Much like some early-80's Stallone action reel, this one REALLY takes Swedish action back to the stone-age. So full of logical errors and stupid mistakes it is almost amusing - but who could ever see anything good in the terrible acting, Mark Hamill's surviving a mine-field or the dumb-ass, useless and irrational action?

Let me ask you: aren't we through with clocks ticking down to zero, the hero escaping in the nick of time and two friends become enemies reuniting by the end? STUPID!!!!

And one more thing: the product placement in this film is unbelievable. While other countries have understood that it shouldn't be so OBVIOUS, the Swedish film industry apparently hasn't understood at all: just look at the credit card Hamilton uses to open a window? Or or or.... this film really makes me mad.


Two page boys working at a radio network go from trying to solve murders to performing in black-face in between work shifts. Jack Moran and Sidney Miller star in this whodunnit from 1945. Lots of fast talking, everybody yells at everybody, and the two page boys call the police detective "Marty" (played by Ralph Sanford). It's a real "shortie" at 59 minutes, and it has the feel of being adapted from a play, since it mostly takes place in a radio station soundstage. We don't really care about any of the characters, which is probably why its hardly ever shown. No big deal. This was Phil Karlson's second film as director. We're not given any clues as to who might be knocking people off, so we just kind of follow the police detective and the page boys as they all try to solve the mystery first. I'll say no more so as not to give away any spoilers.


I'll admit that this isn't a great film. It practically screams "low-budget" yet oddly I still found myself liking the film because although it lacked quality it abounded with energy. It was like the Little Engine That Could and a movie merged into one!

The film takes place at a radio network and concerns some of their low-level employees--two page boys (one very pushy and brash and the other one a wuss) as well as a new receptionist. All three have visions of radio stardom but must for now content themselves with their lowly jobs.

Into this story appears a murder that seems somewhat out of the blue. I didn't know that this was a murder mystery film and was taken a bit by surprise. However, like most B-mysteries, the cops are lamebrains and it's up to our pushy hero (Moran) to try to save the day. Throughout all this, I had a hard time deciding if Moran was obnoxious or endearing. I'm still not sure!!

There is a moment in the film that is high on the 'cringe factor' and that is when the two pages try out for the roles of radio comedians. They show up in black-face and do a 3rd or 4th rate imitation of Amos n' Andy. Apart from being very insensitive, it also wasn't funny. Fortunately the producer of the show they were trying out for seemed to feel the same way.

Overall. it's easy to skip this film and I wouldn't blame you if you do. However, the weird and frenetic pace of the film actually seemed to make up for the artistic deficiencies of the film and I am glad I saw it. A good film? No. But one that is still worth a peek for fans of old Bs.

By the way, perhaps I just don't have very good taste, but I thought BOTH female singing divas really had poor voices despite how everyone in the film is captivated by their warblings. Listen for yourself and let me know what you think. I just couldn't believe either was allowed to sing on film--even if it was just for lowly Monogram Studios.


This is a bottom of the barrel type of B-film from one of the poverty row studios, Monogram, in the mid-'40s, the kind that filled out a double bill.

Only reason I watched was to see what JACKIE MORAN was like in a leading role as a page boy at a radio station who attempts to solve a murder. He played Phil Meade in GONE WITH THE WIND only two years earlier and this was one of his last teen-aged roles. He's no Mickey Rooney.

The script is as hapless as the production values and is full of cliché ridden situations with a cast of uniformly untalented individuals. WANDA McKAY is the switchboard girl who is "discovered" by a radio producer and SIDNEY MILLER is the nerdy friend of the hero who's afraid of his own shadow.

Mercifully, it's over in an hour when the murder is solved after a round-up of all the suspects. Terribly overacted, the only quiet performance of any interest is given by JON GILBREATH as Tex, the cowboy, but he bites the dust after too brief an appearance.

There are several songs, but all of them are forgettable, as are the lame jokes and dialog.


This is a awful re-make of a very good movie called "Up In The Air" starring Frankie Darrow, Mantan Moreland and Marjorie Reynolds. I was only able to get through about 20 minutes before turning it off. Almost all the lines are identical, I have no idea why they would re-do the movie. I totally disagree with a previous post that dislikes the songs ( there the same also), In the original the singing is first rate, I'm not sure if Marjorie Reynolds actually did her own singing, it's hard to tell since the vocals were usually added later, and the songs are very good, surprising in a "B" movie. If you get the chance see the original it's available on DVD. You'll be pleasantly surprised.


You gotta be a fan of the little man but I found Burlesque on Carmen dull, unimaginative and totally not funny.

Chaplin is retelling the story of Carmen and plays a big role himself as Don Jose. It's a story about men and the women they love, although it's unclear why one would love such a woman as Carmen, as she is playing the men against each other.

As I said I didn't think much of it. Chaplin made dozens and dozens of better movies so you can leave this one on the shelve.

Oh and I'm curious what the difference is between this movie and the 1915 version... or is it just an IMDB mistake?

On the whole: 3/10.


This movie starts out with kids telling each other urban legends such as the poodle in the microwave and getting something extra at a chicken place. Unfortunately, it then turns to your basic anthology movie. The first being about a janitor with a bit of a secret. This one is okay at best. Then it gets worse as the next story about this kid obsessed with dead flies is on and it goes on and on and on. It is way to long and not all that interesting to begin with. After that you get the typical shock scene and it ends. You need more than this in an anthology movie. You need at least three stories and one shouldn't be so long it becomes dreadfully uninteresting especially considering you can see how it is going to end a mile away.


The Willies starts late one night as brother's Josh (Joshua Miller) & Kyle (Jason Horst) are camping outside with their cousin Michael (Sean Astin), they decide to pass the time by telling scary stories...

First up is Michael with a story entitled 'Bad Apples' in which a young boy named Danny Hollister (Ian Fried) is bullied at school, however the sinister new janitor Mr. Jenkins (James Karen) decides to help him out...

Next up is Kyle as he tells a strange story called 'Flyboy' in which an overweight bully with a worrying fascination with dead flies gets what he deserves in a horrible twisted way...

Written & directed by Brian Peck The Willies didn't do much for me & I doubt it'll do much for you either. The script is strange as far as episodic anthologies go, instead of the usual three or four stories it only has two main tales & a few bizarre 'urban myth' type mini scenes at the start, these consist of the person who orders food from a fast food restaurant only to find a dead rat in her chicken, a man who dies of a heart attack on a ride & someone who tries to dry her poodle off in the microwave only for it to explode. I have no idea what the purpose of these scenes are but they add nothing to the film, as for the two main stories they are both weak. For a start they are too long which is a huge mistake in these types of films, usually the stories in anthologies are short, sharp & quick with a nice twist at the end usually involving people getting what they deserved. However in The Willies the stories last for the best part of 40 minutes each which is longer than the average TV episode & I must admit I found both stories very boring, they have very little going for them & seem to be aimed at children. The first story is the better to watch as a whole but it has no twist ending as far as I could see while the second one has a nice 'just deserts' ending but the build up to it is weak & drawn out for no good reason. I really like horror anthology films so The Willies comes as a disappointment, frankly it lets the genre down.

Director Peck was obviously working on a low budget & as a whole The Willies is pretty tough to sit through, there's plenty of continuity errors & it's poorly made. There's no atmosphere, there's no scares, there's no gore, the special effects are poor & it features unnecessary shots of a dirty toilet several times. Overall it's a pretty unappealing film to sit through.

Technically The Willies is rough around the edges to say the least, the effects are far from special & it has an extremely drab & grainy look to the picture. The acting is poor, no ones going to win any awards thats for sure.

The Willies is a poor film, it's not scary, it's not fun, it's not entertaining & it only features two overlong stories. Definitely not recommended.


Grim instead of amusing, mean-spirited instead of playful, boring instead of interesting. It won't give you "the willies", but it just may gross you out or send you to sleep. And it will certainly make you wonder: "what were they thinking?" (*1/2)


George Burns returns as the joshing Almighty after enjoying a big success with 1977's "Oh, God!", an upbeat fantasy made successful by a sudden need in the 1970s to switch from devil-driven thrillers to comedic redemption (although it made money, the original was more in line with the "Topper" comedies of the '30s than a return to feel-good religious cinema). Here, God appears to a young girl (Louanne, who had earlier starred in a stage production of "Annie") and asks her to spread his Divine Word, causing her nothing but trouble from grown-ups in the process. Peculiar, family-oriented film appears to be warm-hearted enough, and Burns gets to chime in with a nice barrage of wry jibes, but the writing is half-slapstick and half-seriousness, with the adults of the piece considering putting little Louanne away, all of which makes God seem more like a troublemaker than an elderly friend. Louanne is another problem: a perky kid with wizened little eyes, she is untrained for screen-acting and occasionally seems awkward. The medium-budget production has a gloppy, TV-movie appearance, with few graceful touches. The final scene mimics the climax of the first "Oh, God!" in that it brings a wistful sentiment to the mix, which is welcomed. It's the most subtle moment in the movie. ** from ****


Oh,God! Book II is more of a bad remake of the original than a sequel to it.It is not all that funny,its plot plays too much

like a rejected situation comedy pilot,and the use of the slogan "Think God" is a different variation on the idea that worked so much better in the original.John Denver had not returned for this movie and that made a BIG difference.George Burns,as

wonderful as he was playing God,does not have the same chemistry with the little girl that he did with John Denver.

I would give this movie a rating of 3 out of 10,but only for

George Burns;the rest of the cast is nothing special.

If you loved the first one,don't bother to see this one.


Lance used to get quality support work from James Cameron. Heck, he even had his own tv show (Millenium) for a coupl'a seasons. Why is he doing this? Couldn't he find some better way to pay his bills?

I love a good low-budget movie. Some of them you can laugh at simply due to their ludicrous premise, their textbook stereotyped characters, or often times because the actors are related to the director/producers. But, this movie has no redeeming value. I didn't laugh. I didn't cry. I only had this sick feeling in my stomach. That feeling was quickly identified as pity. At one point, Lance Henriksen was an A-list support actor. He's been in Terminator (he was going to BE terminator before Arnold showed up), Aliens, AliensIII, classic B-movie Pumpkinhead, among so many others! I wanted to send him money after this. Maybe we should start a support Lance fund or something.

Then again, for making this thing...maybe not.


(r#64)

Unredeemable, merit-less, and above all dreary trash. You know a movie is going to be bad when its sole star power is Lance Henriksen. The French title for this movie says it all: "Inexplicable". How can you possibly make a movie this unbelievably bad in this day and age? Whatever Jonas Quastel's trick is, it worked. This is über-trash, I'm talking 'Manos'-level crap, meaningless, unwatchable, not-even-so-bad-it's-good, cinematic bile of the highest order.

Lance Henriksen IS Harlan Knowles, a character who could have been interesting if he wasn't so utterly devoid of characteristics or personality. He, along with a bunch of morons, goes on a field trip to search for an evil Sasquatch which is believed to have attacked a plane which crashed out in the woods, or something. Not much else happens. There's some soft-core (meaning: Teletubbie level) nudity and some blatant rip-offs of "Predator". After 92 minutes of utter pain and another ripped off scene, this time from "Blair Witch", the movie finally staggers across the finish line and ends. As a bonus, we only see the monster itself for about one or two scenes in the entire movie.

There's really not much to say about this film. All you need to know is, this is a very bad movie and not even worth viewing as a "so-bad-it's-good" flick. "The Untold" is to entertainment value what Orlando Bloom is to character acting. Avoid it like arsenic.


Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen) brings a group of people to a mountain to help find his missing daughter (Erica Durance). What they don't know is that she was killed by a sasquatch (Taras Kostyuk) and it's still out there... waiting for them.

It was a late night when I poped this into my DVD player. I seriously wish I could go back in time and stop me. Most people will tell you that films like "House of the Dead" or "S.I.C.K: Serial Insain Clown Killers" will be the movies you wish you've never seen. Wrong. This will be.

I've seen a lot of crap, but this is the only crap that's haunted me. How I wish I never watched this! The acting actually isn't so bad. It's just the writing and the directing and the pacing and everything! I am actually a fan of Sasquatch films. But not this one.

Please, listen to my warning. Don't watch this!


Developing movies that are based on actual events involving cryptozoology or the supernatural has always been a challenge for directors and screenwriters. You have to mainly reconcile reported testimonies, conflicting info sources, and Hollywood creativity to produce something the audience can get into. Unfortunately, for SASQUATCH, none of these things seem to take place.

The movie starts out in typical film noir when a research team crash lands somewhere in the Cascades via airplane. From there the research team disappears, and despite attempts from law enforcement officials and local rescue parties they remain missing for some time. While one of the passengers is walking, infra-red-like images are splashed on the screen (a la Predator) which subtly hint that the legendary Sasquatch is the cause of the passengers' fates.

Cue Harlan Knowles (Henriksen), CEO of BioComp Industries and father of one of the crash victims. Knowles puts together his own search & rescue team with the explicit mission of finding his daughter and the rest of the research crew, along with the invaluable technology lost during the crash.

After Knowles' tailor-made rescue team is put together, the entire movie traverses down the path of uncolorful characters, dizzying cinematography, and a totally unoriginal plot line. I literally had to keep myself from falling asleep during this movie as it attempted to frighten me out of my wits. The only member of the cast that held his own was Henriksen, which doesn't make up for the lack of depth presented in all of the other characters. The over-done sound effects were annoying as well; basically, I didn't know if I was watching a movie about Bigfoot or grizzly bears.

Neither was the plot line all that great. It was too underdeveloped as the viewer is mainly subjected to typical fright music found in anything similar of the genre. Obviously you didn't have to be a genius to figure out who would be pulling off all their clothes by the middle of the movie, or who'd be the first unlucky soul to get mauled by Mr. Sasquatch. As far as good points, there are none, and therefore I gave this movie a 2 out of 10.


One minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say " It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris "

Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?

THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind


The Untold... Is one of the worst films I ever saw. The story really seems original, but it was badly bestow on screen. Lance Henriksen, a good actor, ended up in this crap. But, hey he made a lot of low budget films... you need to pay the bills, you know? Kidding. Lance is a great actor, but he ended up with this bunch of silly actors. Seriously, Andrea Roth was there just to have a nudity scene, and other actors... well they were just there. There was constantly a fade out-fade in editing, and that makes me sick! That was the most horrible move that just keeps on coming and it really makes you angry. It was also very predictable, boring and slow. It has a bizarre tempo that goes just... wrong.

Can't say more... don't rent it, or buy it. You can watch it, if on TV.


This looks decidedly like "the amateur" hour. How this piece of trash was ever released is beyond me: the acting, the story, the characters, the supposedly special effects, etc...it's ALL wrong. Why Lance Henriksen accepted this will remain one of the great mysteries of cinema. Maybe he was in dire need for money or maybe be was under the influence of some illegal drug.

It is pointless trying to explain you what this movie's about. It deals with the big foot legend but done in the worst possible manner. In fact, this stinker smells like a direct-to-video release.

Avoid at ALL costs! 0* out of 10*


Hey all, I just wanted to give you all a few crazy facts about this movie. I was actually one of the Make-up FX artists that help create the "beast" for this movie and I have to tell you the original creature looked absolutely amazing. I remember when we got the first photos back from the set we were all talking about how much of a shame it was that this creature was in a movie that would probably be pretty poor.

What actually happened though was that Jason Palmer did the original make-up for the Sasquatch, but for some reason they had to go back and re-shoot much of the creature. The sad part was that Jason passed away a few weeks before that and so the re-done creature was no where near as awesome as the original one.

For me it was quite sad because this was Jasons final movie, and he sort of got cheated out of his final fame due to the bad re-shoots. Anyway, I thought you guys may find that a tad interesing, and if you would like you can head over to mmmyeah.com and check out some "behind the scenes" photos.

Later, Jeff


I think that this is one of my top ten worst movies I have ever seen! There's like fade out every two minutes. If this was on TV, they would have a preview every 2-3 minutes. But there is a seen I personally enjoyed: which is when the blonde goes to take a bath in a pit of boiling water with a man watching and for about 10 seconds you see her whole body with no towel on! That was the best scene in the whole film because you see sasquatch starring at them but the last 10 minutes is when we see his whole body. Plus, most of the deaths are off screen and just the scream or roar. And I was expecting the Sasquatch to die. But he dosen't shoot him and only 4 or 5 people die in the whole film I was expecting 8-10 people to die. Don't watch this movie. I give it an F-. Don't waste your time.


Bigfoot movies tend to be bad, so I'm not inclined to watch them. However, there were some good commercials on The Sci-Fi Channel, so I decided to watch. A climbing expedition heads into the Pacific northwest to find a a fallen airplane carrying the daughter of the expedition's leader (played by Lance Hendrickson), and have brought a revolutionary DNA detector that could be used to prove the sasquatch's existence. And it actually generates some suspense at first. The sasquatch is unseen, but sees the mountain climbers' body heat (like the alien in "Predator"), and I did wonder when it was going to strike. The acting is passable, as is the background music. The dense wooded location is well-used. And when the creature is finally seen, the costume is not bad, though nothing great. But as the film grinds on, it becomes increasingly annoying and absurd. Most of the characters are unpleasant people, rude to each other and only in the expedition for money and publicity (except for Lance Hendrickson's character), so that it's impossible to care about what happens to them. And their behavior become increasingly stupid. One man shoots the creature (not fatally), then gets drunk and sits alone in the dark. One female camper puts on a slinky silk negligee before crawling into her sleeping bag, then barely escapes being dragged into the woods by the sasquatch, without getting her hair and make-up messed up. Then, the survivors conclude that the sasquatch is really after the DNA detecting machine and will let them live if they leave it behind ("a creature knows what threatens it"). Obviously, the instinct doesn't apply to these actors, or they wouldn't have appeared in this movie. And the ending is so stupid, you'll want to kick the TV screen. If it weren't for the script, it would have been a decent horror film.


A plane carrying a rich scientist's daughter goes down in thick wilderness. He assembles a group to go and find her and the others, but the rescue party soon suspects that something is stalking them. Then ulterior motives for the expedition are revealed and that only adds to the already existing tension.

The movie is a decent idea and a take on the popular Sasquatch legend was bound to wind up on film sooner or later. However, the film's direction breaks a fundamental rule of horror/thriller directing and that is showing too much too soon. Of course the audience knows there is something stalking the characters, just read the title! But showing what should have been the film's kicker that early just ruins most of the suspense and, as a direct result, much of the fun. The film also lacks a good atmosphere and there are almost no landscape shots that show the expanse of the wilderness, but there are plenty monster point-of-view shots that add nothing to anything. They actually knock off 'Predator' quite shamelessly. The low-budget horror film 'Wendigo' did what this film tries to do much better.

Some of the character tensions and a non-cliché ending manage to make up for this rise above the crap pile, but it is still poor and given the premise and potential, very disappointing. --- 4/10

Rated R for some violence and profanity, but it's pretty tame compared to most R-rated horror.


Well, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive?

So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable.


A big waste of time is all you'll get out of this bag. I rented this hoping for a suspenseful movie with maybe a few believable scenes, but boy was I ever dissapointed. I think the title should've been "Camping 101", or something to that effect. Well, anyway, stay the hell away from this film. It numbs you to death. Don't be afraid of big foot, be afraid of this crap!!


An airplane transporting some scientists and a prototype of a DNA machine, a powerful and revolutionary invent, fall in a jungle in Pacific. The insurance company sponsors a rescue expedition, commanded by Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), the owner of a huge corporation, which owns the prototype, and father of one of the scientist. There, the group finds the rests of the plane five miles far from the expected location and the machine and the remains of the persons. Further, they realize that a Sasquatch, a kind of Big Foot, is chasing them. This movie is so ridiculous that I do not know what I am doing, spending my time again in this garbage. The direction is awful, the actors and the lines are horrible, copying parts of `The Predator' and even `The Blair Witch Project'. To summarize how bad this movie is, its best scene is when Marla Lawson, the character of Andrea Roth, is wounded, and the guide of the expedition says that she needs to have an injection of tetanus vaccine. Andrea undresses her jeans, and the guide says: 'Nice butts, but the shot needs to be in your arm'. Ridiculous! My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): `Sasquatch, O Abominável' (`Sasquatch, The Abominable')


This is Jonas Quastel debut as a director and to be honest, it shows. It looks like he threw in every type of camera trick that he learned in film school to try and add some style to a badly written script, which he helped write! Film has Lance Henriksen and a group of others searching the pacific northwest for a plane that crashed that his daughter was on and also a special machine his company has built that he wants to also retrieve. The first 5 minutes of the film is either blurry or shaky or out of focus! Quastel tries to capture the "Blair Witch" mode with these type of shots and they grow tiresome very quickly. And there is also the POV shots that are right from "Wolfen" and "Predator". These shots are from the point of view (POV) of the Sasquatch. The editing is very choppy at times as a scene seems to shift right in the middle. I have heard this film was shot in about 12 days and I suppose instead of "Starting back to one" they just restarted without stopping and edited the scene together. And the rest of the film is fade-outs from one scene to another. They're are so many scenes that fade-out that I lost count. Now, the nude scene with Andrea Roth. Its not her. you can easily see its a body double. And you know your watching a bad "B" movie when in the middle of the pacific northwest a hot chick decides to go to the nearest hot spring and bathe! ********SPOILER ALERT********

And the Sasquatch himself is not bad when you don't really see him and he's just a blurry image behind some trees or bushes but when you finally see him at the end your of course disappointed. First of all, he's not that tall. The actor who is playing Sasquatch is only hairy in certain spots on his body. Its a partial suit! And he's bald! I have heard that a make-up person died during filming and maybe that explains why the costume looks hastily made. Some of the sound effects that are coming from the Sasquatch are nothing more than the familiar lion roars that we have all heard in other films. I do have to admit that Henriksen is not to bad. Yes, he's working with bad material but he has one of those interesting faces that can actually enhance certain moments of the film. People keep saying that a good Bigfoot film has never been made but I disagree. I have always said that "The Creature From Black Lake" is a good film and I highly recommend that one. I'm a sucker for a Sasquatch film but this one is just to amateurish.


I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both "Legend of Boggy Creek" (1972) and the first film entitled "Sasquatch" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. "Harry & The Hendersons" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did "Bigfoot" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of "Jaws" or "Predator". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said "bald!") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between "Swamp Thing" and Chaka from "Land of the Lost" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in "Predator", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of "In Search Of" 3/10


*This comment may technically contain "spoilers" but it sure doesn't contain surprises*

My cousin and I rented this the other day hoping to get a good laugh at a typical amateur crappy excuse for a horror movie. Unfortunately, we didn't get too many laughs, and we certainly didn't get too many scares either.

Plot outline: A plane containing a company head's daughter and some weird piece of technology crashes in an area where our furry friend lives, so the company head assembles a team of personalities, rather than skilled hunters, to recover it.

For the first 3/4's of the movie, things get pretty boring. It mostly consists of shots of Big Foot lurking in the trees with the party members occasionally hearing him, and passing it off as nothing. We also see several shots of the party through Big Foot's point of view, and he apparently sees in thermal vision.

To set up the plot, we have to watch sequences of the group sitting around the campfire talking about possibilities to justify the sasquatches existence and actions. "maybe he can dodge bullets...if he sees them coming". Sure enough, we later see he can. "There are many uncharted lands that the sasquatch may live in. Maybe this is one of them that was over-looked". And obviously it is. "Maybe the Sasquatch is angry because the plane hit one of his family members". And sure enough, thats the case. Along with those scenes, there are a couple of "Oh my god its the sasquatch oh wait its just you!" scenes, and sadly, they are among the scariest.

Then, finally, people start dying. Well, 2 people at least. Plus, the bodies of past victims are discovered. The death scenes are pretty lame. It mostly just leaves it to our imagination by showing the Sasquatch grabbing them, then cutting to a different scene, but first, we are treated to some horrible screams off camera.

Then at last, we get to see the protagonist's final showdown with the monster. I gotta admit, I found it pretty exciting while it lasted. But alas, it's pretty short lived, and after we are treated to an ending that makes a half assed effort to seem cryptic. Then, some closing text with a rather boring conclusion.

I can't say I recommend this movie. It's not quite bad enough to give the Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and its definitely not scary enough and boring to enjoy as a horror movie. Just don't bother with it.


I can't believe how bad this "film" is. For starters, the movie deals with the legend of Big Foot and a group of people having a close encounter with the creature. The premise is interesting and having Lance Henriksen in the cast (ALIENS)gave "The Untold" a promising outlook. Unfortunately that's as interesting as it gets. This looks like a direct to DVD release...or so I guess. This is basically a production-less affair with probably the worst editing (with a constant "fading to black" in between every scene!!!)I've seen in my life and acting that will sure make you cringe. Why Lance Henriksen picked this is completely fathomless. And the movie takes cues from just about any other genre movie, from "Blair Witch Project" (The video scene) and "Predator", to "Alive". This is supposedly based on true events, but the only truth to be found herein is just how BAD this movie is. I'm usually not a harsh critic and believe me, I DID try to enjoy this trash but eventually did NOT. Do yourselves a favor and steer clear from this DVD.

I'll try to put it mildly: This movie is PURE garbage and it made me want to take my gun and shoot my neighbors... or ask BLOCKBUSTER for a refund!!!

And Lance, shame on you! 1* out of 10*


As I am a fan of hospital and medical shows, I have found this one gripping and sometimes humorous (especially the scenes with Dr Whitman) which brings a bit la light relief. However, I was looking forward to the last episode because I expected that the bad ones would be punished and the good ones reinstated. Instead of that, the hospital management are making even more fools of themselves in an unbelievable manner and it's getting worse and worse for the good ones. You can't help wondering what the unions are doing or doesn't Rob, Donna and Maria know what unions are there for ? Besides, never seeing the outside, trees, grass, sunlight is a bit oppressive. Anyone understood what the last words were ? i.e. the answer Rob Lake gave to Mrs Strawberry's children question "Why are you telling us all that?" It was very frustrating not to be able to understand it.


I was hoping this would be of the calibre of Das Boot and echo the stark realism created by acclaimed German Director Leni RiefenStahl in her documentaries, sadly I was monumentally disappointed. The story line is implausible and defies credulity. An RAF airman is shot down and somehow finds his way to a hospital in Dresden. Anna a nurse whose father runs the hospital and is about to become engaged to a doctor she works with falls in love with the airman and they make love. The next evening at a lavish engagement party the airman turns up disguised as a German officer and dances with Anna. Although well directed and acted, to me it is soap opera of the lowest order.


This film took up three hours, including commercials, on the History International Channel last night. But it felt like three weeks. It wasn't the cheap, stagy and unintentionally funny depictions of the bombing of Dresden. It wasn't that the film is stripped of almost all context surrounding World War II. It wasn't even that the bombing itself was often made to appear as nothing more than a major inconvenience for a goofy love story. No, it was the wooden featureless characterizations that sucked the life out of the story. Oh, and the fact that if it is possible for a movie to be obsequious, then Dresden is that movie. Perhaps a better title would have been DRESDEN--AS URIAH HEEP WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED IT.

It is especially the latter point that so irritates. Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime? The makers of this movie believe so. But in the typically emasculated way that Germans have come to approach World War II, they can't bring themselves to say so without braying about "peace" and "no more wars--anywhere" like they're Mother Teresa. And, also typical of German obsequiousness towards the British in particular, there is an unwieldy effort to grovel before "Britishness", while loading all the "guilt" for Dresden on to one person, Arthur Harris.

Did I say one person? Well, not quite. At the beginning of the movie, there is an exclamation from the leading character, Anna, with whom we are all supposed to sympathize. "Damned Americans!", she screams, while watching as far off bombs fall. And a few minutes later, a radio voice intones warnings about the "American Terror Bombing" being inflicted upon Germans.

Note the word, "terror". Got that? It's really the Americans behind the inhumane targeting of German civilians. No matter that the American strategy for almost all the war in Europe was the "precision" bombing of industrial and war manufacturing sites. No matter that it was the British who enthusiastically adopted "area" bombing of civilian targets in Germany--before the Germans had themselves even targeted English ones. No matter that the Americans bombed during the day, suffering more casualties in the process than the British, in order to hit precision targets, while the British bombed civilians under the cover of night. No matter that the Americans, essentially, were brought into the RAF's true terror bombing campaign kicking and screaming against it. No matter that most American officials, from FDR to Gen. Dolittle, opposed targeting civilians, while Churchill and his generals couldn't wait to do so.

No, in DRESDEN, both the Germans and British, except for "Bomber" Harris, are innocent of a doctrine, it is intimated, created by the evil Americans. And only the might and power of a love story between a German nurse and a downed British bomber pilot can adequately explain the "truth" of the atrocity. Right.

Oh, by the way, for the younger and likely less well read readers of IMDb, the first and still so far only major literary effort to give a thoughtful voice to Dresden's bombing was the pacifist novel penned by Kurt Vonnegut--an American POW in Dresden at the time of the bombing. I guess Germany's ZDF couldn't find a pretty nurse for Billy Pilgrim.


Dresden had great expectations because of its spectacular theme and its high budget. I was really looking forward to it and I really wanted it to be good... but it is not. The only good thing are the special effects that are very well done, but, like in a really bad Hollywood blockbuster, everything else is missing.

It is poorly written, the screenplay tries to fulfill genre-rules with standard suspense/love- story elements but there is no depth or originality at all. It's way below average. The next thing: It is also poorly directed. It has this uninteresting TV-directing-Style with lots of close-ups and wanna-be-great-action by fast editing where actually no action or suspense is. The actors are not bad but there is no performance that is touching in any way.

I don't know... they obviously try to do a typical TV-movie and not a film for the cinema, where its alway good to have some edges and a clear visual style. But why do they try to fulfill typical commercial Hollywood-rules? it really feels like the screenwriter did a weekend- class with some American scriptwriting-guru and then delivered this mess. Is there no producer who is responsible for the project who has an interest in dramaturgy/ visual style or plain in simple this magical cinematic moments that make some TV-Movies great ?!? Do they think that an TV-audience is stupid and doesn't need to get a high quality- movie experience? The Downfall was a very good example for a good TV-movie but there was probably some executive or producer who knew what he was doing.

Don't waste you time with this one, rent "downfall" instead...


I only saw the first part of this and concluded that I wouldn't miss anything if I didn't watch the second episode. The cinematography was OK, but apart from this, the plot was just as commonorgarden and run-of-the-mill as any other war story. The actors and actresses play their characters without any passion, and the make up is really bad (Heiner Lauterbach with his white hair and Kai Wiesinger respectively, as if some dyed white hair could give them more dignity and common sense). I mean if you've watched more than two or three movies about WWII (as most of us have) then you'd only go to the trouble of seeing a third or fourth one if it promises some new insights or twists in the plot. But Roland Suso Richter seems to afraid of doing so, you can almost smell his fear of not living up to the bourgeois and jejune expectations of the conservative ZDF TV channel while watching this movie. Millions of Euros were spent to perpetuate boring and unimaginative German film-making. These millions of dollars could have been spent to make three or four independent movies, but no, let's give to some director who'll make a film that tells people that war can be explained by rational means. My advice: Read Joseph Heller or Kurt Vonnegut instead. They'll tell you what war is like! Or give me one million Euros and I make a better film than this load of BS! And another thing: Why is it that German movies only get to be nominated for the Oscars when the movie deals with WWII or the Holocaust? Probably because that is the only thing German film-making is good at. And that should get us thinking, shouldn't it?


What a bloody nuisance! You can't get on subjects like these with TV budgets and some smartass director who can't tell the difference between a Lanc I, II and III. All the silly clichés are well in place; on the character and human level the story is so schmaltzy and unbelievable it hurts. And all those responsible get carried away with joy for the brilliant ratings. Tech details: rubbish. Lancs flying that close would have kicked each other out of the sky by the dozen. Single engined night fighters attacking line astern: ridiculous. As I said: made up by a director who I bet never even heard the name Lancaster before that project and some kid 3D guys who turned Lancs into waddling ducks. But these are minor things compared to the overall mediocrity of this film. Although it might be too harsh I dare say this hurts the memory of those who died on both sides. TV crap, entertaining the dumb masses who don't care anyway. Shame on those responsible. Use your brains next time. And enjoy the profit you made from it.


Although unusually in colour for a second string oater, the vivid clothes of the lead females fails to bring any life to the flatly directed screenplay. The "plot" revolves around the Youngers newly released on parole attempting to go straight but being pursued by a vengeful ex-Pinkerton man (a scenery chewing Fred Clark) and a femme fatale determined to involve them in her bank robbery schemes whether they want to or not. As Cole Younger, Wayne Morris is big and hunky enough but his " cool" demeanour and wooden acting skills undermine things. The standard of action is frankly, no better than a Gene Autry or Roy Rogers TV episode with Colt .45's that never need reloading and uncanny shooting skills that allow a horse rider to shoot from the hip and wound a man from at least 50 feet...oh dear...


This is one incredibly standard western, that features some bad acting, dull storyline and silly action.

Biggest problem perhaps is how incredibly formulaic this movie is. It features all of the usual clichés, yes even a bar fight and the movie really doesn't has any surprises in it. It makes this a dull and a weak western to watch, also not in the least because it's such a poorly made one.

It's obviously a small production and the movie looks like it got shot in 30 days. The directing and editing can be called bad and all of the action sequences featured in the movie are incredibly silly. It perhaps almost becomes a bit humorous to watch, for all the wrong reasons.

Its story also isn't that interesting. It's a pretty friendly western (so also no blood), in which for some odd reason everybody seems to be against the Younger brothers, who in this movie are being portrayed as good and very friendly guys. The story gets sillier and sillier as it heads toward its ending. The Younger brothers really existed and were part of the James-Younger gang, of which the famous brothers Frank and Jesse James were also part of. Of course they were not as friendly in real life as portrayed in this movie. It just was custom for an early '40's to have likable man characters in it. It wasn't really until the Spagethi-western age really that the main characters became rotten criminals themselves really. Strangely enough that approached has always worked out better than those early western's in which the main character is on the good side of the law.

Thing that does make this movie original is the fact that it was shot in color. This was something pretty unique for an '40's western and still gives the movie something extra. You can wonder though, why they shot this western in full color. The movie is still done in the style of a black & white early western after all and I actually believe that this movie would had been a bit more credible if it got done in black & white instead.

You could easily do without this western.

4/10


This is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting "Survivor"-ish plot.

But it does not work at all.

To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's "Short Cuts".

Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick "Lear" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of "Lear". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.

And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as "Lear" and the rest of the film.

"The King Is Alive" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films "Italiensk for begyndere" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful.


The movie is being televised as I write.

I simply forgot how horrible an experience I had watching it in the cinema.

The whole idea of the movie is flawed. The fact that intelligent Europeans and Americans stranded in the desert forget all concept of morals and civilization within a couple of days is laughable. The madness of Lord of the flies was longer in the making.

Details that annoy are plenty. One is the single African god-like character that mysteriously survives the horrible climate and have done so for ages without losing his mind and he seems to have no supply-problems either. Ridiculous. So too is the rescue attempt from the tour guide, an Indiana Jones look-alike, whose rescue attempt ends in tragedy and death a 5 minute walk from the hut. Then there's the choice of Lear, imposed onto the group by a guru-like joke of an artist. He reminded me of my hippie high school art teacher.

The worst thing though is Levrings choice of Lear. Obviously is an intellectual brain-fart. How that ever was going to be an pass-time is never clear to me.

Positives are few and far between. It's a beautiful movie, but that's never important.

High school intellectualism. Weird for the sake of weird. It's a complete waste of time unless you like thrashing useless art movies.


Imagine a GILLIGAN'S ISLAND set in the African desert in modern times. Add people nowhere near as jaunty as the Skipper or Marianne--and enough angst to fill a German psychiatrist's office. Throw in a plot that manages to be interesting only episodically and literary parallelism that never delves deeply enough to truly satisfy. Season with a truly morose topic that's been exploited since the first world travelers found themselves very, very lost.

If THE KING IS ALIVE weren't a product of the reigning czars du jour of Dogme 95, would this film be garnering as much attention? Dogme 95 is to Hollywood as Danish modern is to rococo. A byproduct of digital technology, this Scandinavian movement seeks--quite dogmatically--to strip away artificiality in film-making, by using more natural elements and returning to the essence of storytelling. PEARL HARBOR, for instance, is the Dogme Antichrist.

Director/co-author Kristian Levring's saga ponders interpersonal relations and human nature when placed under the fire of a life-threatening situation. Eleven people aboard a bus riding through the Namibian sand dunes suddenly find themselves stranded in the remains of an abandoned town. An African local who does not speak their language serves as observer and narrator (whose insights are among the film's most trenchant). As the strongest heads off for a five-day walk to the nearest village, the others stay behind, surviving on dented-canned carrots and circumambulating their likely future as vulture chow. Former thespian Henry decides that this rather unappealing crew needs a diversion, and hand-writes KING LEAR from memory. He assigns roles, and the group passes many days learning lines and rehearsing, in an effort to divert their attention from the seemingly inevitable.

Gradually the cast begins to lose it, and the savageries of their natureor, William Golding might say, human naturebegin to surface. If you've ever seen LORD OF THE FLIES, you know that these things can get ugly, that being in a lifeboat situation can turn even Mother Teresa into the PMSing termagant of Calcutta.

The film was shot using an international ensemble of American, English, French and South African actors, who, the Dogme dogma dictates, develop themselves and their roles quite organically. THE KING was also filmed chronologically, adding a sense of realism to the ever-increasing desperation of its characters. After up to three hand-held cameras shot in digital, results were transferred to 35mm film.

The performance that compels most comes from Jennifer Jason Leigh, who plays a boho Pop Tart trying to bolster the spirits of the group in any and every way she can. Henry (David Bradley) is another finely played character, whose passion for his life's work ultimately saves the gang from utter despair. It's hard to feel too sorry for the otherscruel wives and their oafish husbands, hirsute old womanizers, sulky French intellectuals, wealthy men who have more important places to be than marooned in the Namibian desert. Beckett might hate this question, but why is this group riding a bus together through remote Africa in the first place? Life-threatening morbidity! Utter despair rendered in graphic detail! A relentlessly tedious pace! Enjoy.


A ragtag collection of Western tourists in Africa suffer the misfortune of their plane breaking down, so they're compelled to hop on a bus to travel across the Namibian desert to reach the nearest jumping-off point back to civilization. Not surprisingly, the driver's compass ends up not working, and they find themselves way off course, coming to a stop at a deserted ghost-town that had been a barracks during the fighting in WWII. They find some kerosene (useless in terms of re-filling the tank of their bus), a storage room full of half-poisoned carrots in tin cans, and a native hermit who views them with indifference. The one fellow amongst them who appears to have something on the ball in terms of survivalist techniques goes off to get help. They are to remove the tires from the bus and burn them if he's not back in five days: hopefully, someone will see the black smoke.

Does this sound interesting? Well, sure, even if it sounds a lot like *The Flight of the Phoenix* or any number of films in the "deserted island" genre. Which is why it's surprising that *The King Is Alive* is Number 4 (if anyone is still counting) in the ongoing "Dogma 95" series, which, if I remember that ridiculous "Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity" correctly, proclaimed that "genre films" are strictly verboten. Oops. Well, anyway, you can tell it's gonna try and be all arty and stuff in order to compensate for the fact that it's a genre flick. Yep, it doesn't take long for one member of the group, a wizened old stage actor, to start scribbling down -- from memory! -- the various roles from *King Lear* on, well, rolls of paper. The idea is that performing the play will help while away the time. All of which really goes against the absconded survivalist's advice to stay optimistic (didn't the old actor ever do a dinner-theater performance of *The Odd Couple* just once in his life?), quite apart from such an activity being a colossal waste of precious time and energy.

This movie is so bad I really don't know how to continue. It's so monumentally stupid, so full of absurd situations and characters that it beggars rational criticism. It may be a timely moment to offer Full Disclosure: I despise this so-called Danish film "movement" to an almost irrational degree. I think my face even turns slightly red at the mere mention of Dogma 95. First of all, if the name of your movement has the word "dogma" in the title, you've already lost me; secondly, in this particular instance, the movement's insistence on the abnegation of individual artistic achievement is a recipe for arch hypocrisy when you consider that the filmmakers here are plundering one of the greatest works of the greatest INDIVIDUAL writer who ever lived. (But, doubtless, the Dogma crowd believes the Works of Shakespeare were actually penned by a consortium of Elizabethan bigwigs like the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, Walter Raleigh, and the Queen Herself.)

Hell, I may have forgiven the whole enterprise if it had played the scenario for farcical purposes (attacking the precious Dogma -- now THAT would be subversive!). But the movie takes itself very seriously, and soon devolves into the clichés attendant upon the genre in which it unmistakably belongs: people turning against each other; the men growing beards; the inevitable deaths of a few of the principal actors. All with a straight face. "Is this the promised end?" Well, not quite: we also have to endure the abysmal transfer of DV. For this is another Rule in the Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity: hand-held digital video only. Some friendly advice to the Danes: your "movement" is in trouble when your finished product has worse visual quality than an average high-school graduation home video. Professionalism belongs in an artist's bag of tricks, right alongside his own individuality. "Artisan" and "artist" are kindred words, Mr. von Trier: not every jackass with a $100 hand-held can be a filmmaker. Pass it on. And by the way: allow your Dogma directors to be credited for their films, while you're at it. The fact that the writer of *The King Is Alive* receives credit, while the guy (or girl) actually filming it doesn't, is just a wee bit hypocritical.

Contemptible. 1 star out of 10.


Well, they sent it on TV between midnight and 2:00 am - it seems like the right time to watch it, and then go to bed afterwards ...

No, it was not really living up to my expectations. I think the Dogma concept is good, because the film then gets closer to what's really happening between the involved characters when you cut all the unnecessary effects and mood-making music out. But then again, this concept requires some interesting action between the characters.

I cannot say, that I know King Lear (the Shakespeare version) very well, if I had known the play, I would probably have been able to predict much of the film.

Well, a crisis can bring the best and worst sides of a character on display - and we certainly see some bad sides. Oh yes, the paint of civilisation and culture can be very thin, and behind this paint you may find an animal.

If you then compare it with "Italiensk for begyndere" (Italian for beginners) or "Mifunes sidste sang" (Mifune's last song), you see the same but opposite thing: A crisis can certainly bring people to view their life in a more constructive way. And if you dare do, you may win.

When the film had ended, I thought to myself: "Oh that's why I haven't seen it before ..." The film has its own beauty. The quality of the work of the cameraman, actors, etc is good. But the script could need something more. A plot maybe wouldn't hurt.


I went to see "TKIA" with high expectations, which might have influence on my opinion on it. I have seen all of the Dogme films, and this TKIA, is by far the worst. The story intertwines with themes from Shakespeare's play: King Lear, but never succeeds in capturing the audience and making them care. The directing of the actors is very loose, even for Dogme style movies, and results in poor undefinable acting. The story lacks any dynamics whatsoever, and I lost interest very shortly. There are some scenes in the film which are there to shock the viewer, but I don't think they enhanced the story at all. Mifunes sidste sang and Festen are both Dogmefilms that proved to be well directed, and had good storylines, so I shall look forward to better Dogmefilms in the future. Perhaps Aake Sandgren's "An Invisible Man-Dogme 6" will prove to lift the quality again. For he is, like Vinterberg and S.K. Jacobsen a skilled and educated director.


This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Can somebody please explain the plot of this movie to me? Yes, I know the bus ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, after the driver never noticed that his compass wasn't functioning, but what then? And how did it end? Maybe I'm to stupid to understand this movie, but to me it was an absolute waste of time.

My recommendation? Do not bother, there are far better movies to be seen. This movie ranks with my other all time low-low's (Going overboard - Adam Sandler and Fire on the Amazon - Sandra Bullock)


"The King is Alive" is a flawed and contrived mess of a movie which comes off like a self indulgent auteur's excuse to transport a bunch of actors to a Godforsaken Namibian desert where he can play major-Dogme-domo and film his selfishly conceived, silly, overwrought drama with utter disregard for the real forces of human nature, market appeal, common sense, and even good art. In other words this is one dumbassed flick and if you don't believe that, your penance is watching it. Only for filmheads, critics, dilettantes, and the like. (D)