My age: 13

Keats, played by Damon Wayans, and Archie Moses, played by Adam Sandler, are the best of friends and have been for a year. What Moses doesn't know is that Keats is really Jack Carter, an undercover cop, who is waiting for the right time to bust Moses and Frank Colton, a major criminal who Moses is involved with. When Colton and Moses find out that Keats is a cop, Colton wants to kill Moses, but he gets away after shooting Carter in the head, which does not kill Carter. Moses is found by the cops and is taken for proof of Colton's wrongdoing. But when the cops, including Carter, are about to escort him across the country on a plane, all the other cops are killed and Moses and Carter are alone in the desert. Carter has to stay alive as well as take Moses in.

A fairly average action-comedy, Bulletproof has a fair plot but a lot of the film is just plain stupid. For a comedy, I found most of the jokes entirely unfunny. But as an action movie, it has a few fairly good action scenes. Not being a good fan of either Adam Sandler or Damon Wayans, I found the acting and therefore, the characters, well below par. The climax isn't really great, and the film is so unrealistic. It is not entirely bad, but also not too good, and it is far too short. Running below 85 minutes, I though there was another 15 minutes left before it ended, but there wasn't, and the film felt too short. Overall not a complete waste of time, but I still wouldn't recommend Bulletproof.

Australian Classification: MA 15+: Medium Level Violence, Sexual References, Medium Level Coarse Language

Rating: 56 out of 100


Drug runner Archie Moses introduces his friend Rock Keats to his boss, drug kingpin Frank Colton. Unknown to Moses, Keats is actually an undercover police officer. During the bust on Colton's factory, Moses accidentally shoots Keats in the head. He survives the wound & later arrests Moses. Dodging Colton's hired assassins, the duo must overcome their mutual hatred to survive.

Adam Sandler's films are usually a hit-&-miss affair, with his comedies either loved by his fans or hated by everyone. This one is not as stupid as his other films, but still cannot overcome a lazy script. The direction is incredibly patchy, with fast-paced action sequences giving way to slow comic exchanges between Sandler & Damon Wayans. Some of the action scenes  flying a plane with no engines, a car chase at night through a forest  are quite absurdly contrived. The acting is the standard for this genre, with Sandler & Wayans making a good pairing. In short, the film is dumb but fun to watch.

Grade: C+ Review by M. K. Geist


Bulletproof is quite clearly a disposable film. The kind where bullet riddled good guys and bad guys are splatted everywhere, so much so that you really aren't supposed to see them as human. The yawns between the lines from Wayans and Sandler are extensive indeed. They try hard but , alas and alack, persona itself does not a good film make. Jimmy Caan plays a nifty villain but he's always had that redneck edge at the ready. My favorite's scene is the repeated clips of a TV ad in which Caan reveals the virtues of America can be shown to the world by having 2 cars in every garage. Aside from that it's a buddy movie with guns for brains. Pass on this one.


I haven't for a long time seen such a horrible film. I hoped that at least Adam Sandler could be funny... hopeless. Seems, like some teenager have written it's script and he's daddy pushed this so far, that someone agreed to shoot it. (Movie)World could be better place without this, whatever it is.


I saw it on video. Predictable, horrid acting, film flubs. What more can be said, this movie sucks. The actors are annoying to say the least. This was suppose to be a comedy, but there was only one funny moment, other than that is was painful to watch for me.

1 out of 10. PASS!


This movie came highly recommended, but I am not sure why. I am not really and Adam Sandler fan though, apart from in 50 First Dates where he departs from his usual angry man routine. Damon Wayans is an undercover cop and Adam Sandler is the guy he pretended to be friends with for a year in order to bust him. Naturally Sandler is rather angry about this betrayal. Cue angry shouting and silly facials from the king of variety. They end up on the run and of course they become friends again after a big misunderstanding (involving Sandler shooting Wayans in the head - he survives thus he is Bulletproof). Need I go on? You will work out what is going to happen if you do watch it anyway. When our DVD player kept pausing (hey it was $80 from the supermarket OK?) it was commented that the player knew the film was boring and was refusing to play it.


im sure he doesnt need the money for a life saving operation or transplant. in all honesty i think this review qualifies as a better movie than 'bulletproof'. thanks for listening.


We screened this movie in a club as an example of how classic literature can become twisted into some of the most awful movies of all time. Just the fact that the back of the box proudly proclaimed the plot to be set in the "techno-futile" future should have been enough of a hint. I think that word describes the movie itself, because no matter how much technology they tried to use to save this movie, the effort was completely futile. Not to mention that our club advisor told us that it allegedly couldn't get a distributor for two years.

This cinematic failure is littered with cheesy, cliche dialogue that's worse than angsty teen poetry. Beowulf's character changes halfway through in a way that is in no way credible, and whenever he's in an action scene, he's constantly flipping like a hyper gymnast. There is even, as they say, a "token black guy" whose attempts at humor are completely out of place. And, of course, the daughter of the leader of the outpost Grendel is terrorizing is a total vixen. A vixen whose breasts are exposed throughout the entire movie. A vixen who wants to fight the creature, yet she never puts on armor. And her weapon of choice is a little carving knife. And despite their dire situation, she still dresses up for dinner, in a dress with a see-through skirt that exposes her short-shorts underwear. There are a couple scenes that could pass as soft core pornography, and in the second scene they even reuse footage from the first. I thought the portrayal of Grendel was bad enough, but then came the end of the film, which featured a display of CGI that might be decent for the 80s, but is totally ridiculous for a late 90s venture. I could go on, but you all should watch this film for the fully laughable effect yourselves.

The other club members and I did manage to have fun watching this by taking a cue from MST 3K and mocking it the whole way through. I'm still reeling from an extra's weapon: a perpetually spinning pizza cutter on a pole.


I've heard many things about Beowulf, maybe because i'm from Romania and a good part of the movie was filmed here, in my country. And i expected a lot from this film. At the end, i was disappointed. It is not as horrible as other users said, but it's definetely bad. It's all about a monster killing people in a 6th century castle and Lambert the one who comes to kill him. Lambert is good, as he is in all his roles, but the rest of the characters suck, and the action isn't too good either. Plus maybe the only thing that could've saved this film, the special effects, are also very bad, the monster looks awful (not scary, but awful). Oh and another bad thing: the music. The movie tries, and manages to create the 6th century atmosphere. But all the action sequences are presented on rock music, which is very very bad. I mean action on rock works perfectly on a movie like Charlie's Angels - where that's the perfect way to shoot your action. But here, that was a very bad idea.

Vote: 4 out of 10.


The future of fantasy never looked so dark! Christopher Lambert gets to fight the evil demon Grendel in this grim looking trashy fantasy-epos. "Epos" I said? Er... there's only one location, so you can't really call it an epic adventure, can you? The location is a medieval/futuristic 5 inch tall castle, so how did they manage to cram in all the actors? Oh, I get it, those where special effects. A miniature. Silly me.

Here's some reasons why you might want or NOT want to watch this motion picture:

- Lambert gets to do his sword-swinging tricks over again like he did in Highlander.

- The sets and costumes are amazingly cool (if you're a 12-year-old).

- Rhona Mitra has a voluptuous pair of knockers which she likes to show off through-out the whole movie.

- ...er, Christopher Lambert has white hair...

- Every time they start fighting, this over-the-top raving techno-soundtrack gets going. So why are these medieval slayer-dudes fighting while they should be dancing.

- They don't have electricity in this castle but they do have speakers installed which seem to work fine. So where's the amplifier? I guess they borrowed it from the techno-dj who delivered the soundtrack.

- Watch it for the climax in the end which features an outrageous demonoïd CGI creature coming straight out of any Playstation 2 survival-horror game.

If all this got you interested, then go watch it (at your own risk), but don't tell anyone I told you to. I strongly suspect Pinhead visiting the set while shooting, because this movie has no soul. Anyway, if you want to see beautiful Rohna Mitra really show some skin, then watch Paul Verhoeven's HOLLOW MAN.


What. Uh...

This movie is so dissociative and messed up that I literally lost a bit of my sanity after it was over. I will never be the same person again. I'm trying to put my finger on what, exactly, is so completely insane about it... It's not just the hilarious techno music, or the "outside of time" medieval/Blade Runner/wild west/Highlander setting, or the weird CGI "Grendel" monster that looks like a man made out of animated sausages, or even the "Grendel's mother" monster, which looks like some Alabama table-dancer who grew claws and tentacles when she stayed in the tanning bed too long. All of those things are weird, but what's really the strangest thing in this movie is the acting. I simply can't explain. This script is obviously, hellishly silly, but the actors exude deadly seriousness through it all. Lambert is always weird, and usually kind of boring, but for this one he's gone into Dolph Lundgrin territory: I can't help but just start laughing every time he talks.

I will give this movie some credit for being completely scatter-brained and crazy as opposed to conservative and boring. I'll always take a bizarre disaster of a film over an utterly mediocre one.

Warning: if you are planning on watching Christopher Lambert as Beowulf, be prepared to spend several hours thereafter wandering the streets in some kind of nightmarish, hyperactive-catatonic daze. It's true. When I was done with my Beowulf spirit journey, I woke up in the middle of the Siberian tundra in a puddle of blood and milk. There was a dead wolf lying next to me, and I later found I had a handful of human teeth in my shirt pocket. My VHS copy of Beowulf was sitting on a hastily-constructed stone altar nearby, enshrined with candles and wilted flowers. The tape told me to walk. I rose and I walked.


Ha ha! First of if you've never seen a "Dimension Film" your in for a real treat! Known primarily for SUPER LOW BUDGET Horror/Slasher films, "Beowulf" was no exception.

However, this video was more in the style of ultra-cheesy. I missed the K-R-A-F-T label on the side.

Consider the Anachronisms! (something out of place and time)

We had: candles, armour, swords....

Yet we saw: telescopes, Soled Shoes, Cigarette lighters, Loudspeakers, Electricity, Body Bags, aluminum foil tins,, and spoons/forks.

Not bad for something that takes place in like the 8th Century!

This is not a horror film, is a horrible film. Its very laughable. Its really a comedy made to look like a horror film! I couldn't stop laughing!

Christopher Lambert ("The Highlander Series") -- must have really taken a tumble in his career if he's working for "Dimension Films."

I've learned my lesson though. I'll be looking at the film studios on the videos, a LOT more closely now.

RATED NO REELS OUT OF FIVE. If you want a good laugh though, its hard to pass up on this piece of work!

This move had some cleavage in spots -- I especially liked the blonde bimbette!

Wayno


This movie is painful. That's probably the best way to describe it. It's 93 minutes of your life that you will never be able to get back. Well, actually it's more like 86 minutes because there is no way anyone would want to sit through the credits in this stinking pile of dog feces. Immediately you can tell the movie is from the producer of "Mortal Kombat", due to it's thumping and annoying techno soundtrack. This drains the few laughably enjoyable moments this movie can give you. The rest is drained by the completely uninteresting and annoying characters, the "Freddie Prinze, Jr. School of Acting" acting abilities of all involved (including the miscast Christopher Lambert), and the non-existant directing. Did I leave anything out? Of course I did. Let's not forget about the suicide-inducing script, with it's unitentionally (??) funny dialogue. Oh, yes, and let us also talk about how they shamed the original poem with this sad and useless futuristic/medieval translation. The costumes and weapons (were those giant pizza cutters I kept seeing?!?!) are just plain stupid, that's the best way I can describe them. And the last culprit of the night is the always awful CGI. When will filmmakers learn that CGI sucks? When will we see the wonderful effects used in the 80's? Probably never, but films like this and "Star Wars, Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" make us wish that they would bring them back. In closing, avoid this movie like the newest Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie. Then again if you like Freddie Prinze, Jr. movies then you deserve to sit through this horrid excuse for filmmaking.


Renting this direct-to-video film, I was not expecting an amazing piece of cinematography. (Not to say just because a film is in cinema it will.) Only very loosely following the story retold in the epic poem, this film provides a unique take on the tale of monsters and super humans. The general photography can be summarized as conflicted, with its mixture of mediaeval and post-apocalyptic (reminiscent of Mad Max). With a rock and techno soundtrack to boot, one comes away feeling a bit off. The fight scenes, though unbelievable, are entertaining, and Christopher Lambert possesses some of the most interesting weapon combinations I have ever seen on film, though often a tad unfathomably inefficient. The special effects used for the monster Grendel are surprisingly effective and are one of the few highlights.

Christopher Lambert delivers an average performance as Beowulf. It will be nowhere near as memorable as Highlander, but at least it wasn't as poor as Fortress. The supporting cast is rather neutral.

If you're looking for a good action-adventure story with a complex and engaging plot, I would not suggest this film. However, if you want a flick that is of little substance, full of campy battle scenes, and a somewhat predictable plot, find a copy of this.


The original review I had planned for this movie was perhaps a little over-harsh, so I'll preface with the good: Sleepy Hollow is a perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza or sleepover movie, the kind you watch with a good group of people when the mood is light and no-one's really focusing on the movie. The visual elements are beautiful, and it is kinda fun, in parts. But horror, my friends, it is not. I made the mistake of watching it expecting something to shiver at with all the lights off. If this is your intention, send me a personal message and I'll offer you a list of alternate recommendations. (That's a serious offer, by the way. True horror fans deserve better.) Now my complaints, complete with SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Why bother even making a movie "based" on a classic story if you're not even going to attempt to stay true to the sense, feel, tone, or theme of the original? Listen carefully between the lines of ill-written dialogue and you'll hear the slow churn of Washington Irving rolling over in his grave. I will even accept the Big-City Detective bit, but... Ricci drawing warding-hexes around the bed? Come, now. Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", but it's historical BUNK. I don't care what neo-pagan axe you have to grind, but in the 18th century, "witchcraft" meant selling your soul to the Devil in exchange for diabolical powers; this whole fluffy white-witch goddess-worship "an'-it-harm-none" approach to witchcraft dates back, historically, about as far as the British Invasion. (Parties interested in real old-school pagan practices are referred to James Frazer's "The Golden Bough", if you don't believe me.) This creates such a discordant element thrown into the context of the film that the very framework of the Sleepy Hollow legend is shattered. So we wind up with a totally different story altogether. If that was Burton's idea, I wish he'd warned us in advance. Also, I wish he'd come up with a better story than the rather pedestrian one witnessed here. And he might as well have dropped the Irving pretensions altogether. And, at any rate, the movie isn't scary. Not once. Not at all. The warped tree came close, but was more than counterbalanced by the laughable effect of the Hessian's farce-comedy bellowing. And finally, yes, I too wanted Christina Ricci for Christmas, but God clearly never meant her to be a blonde.


surely this film was hacked up by the studio? perhaps not but i feel there were serious flaws in the storytelling that if not attributed to the editing process could only be caused by grievously bad, criminal indeed, writing and directing.

i understand the effect burton wished to achieve with the stylised acting similar to the gothic fairytale atmosphere of edward scissorhands, but here unfortunately it falls flat and achieves no mythical depth of tropes but only the offensive tripe of affectation. ie bad acting and shallow characterisation even for a fairytale.

finally not that scary, indeed only mildly amusing in its attempts. the use of dialogue as a vehicle for plot background was clumsy and unnecessary. the mystery of who is the headless horseman would suffice, no need for the myth about a german mercenary, although christopher walken did cut a dashing figure but not that menacing - seeing the horsemans head makes him seem far friendlier that a decapitated inhuman nine foot tall spirit as in the original legend.

no real rhythm or universal tone was ever established and not a classic in burtons oevure. stilted and clipped as my parting shot...


Several things become apparent after the first few minutes of this film. First, the scenery and special effects are incredible -- the best, and if everything else worked as well, its austere presence might have made it a great film.

But as soon as the actors open their mouths, you suddenly realize that you are sitting in your den watching a movie. The story itself is full of cleché and melodrama, and the dialogue is some of the worst I've ever seen. And as if that weren't bad enough, they made a fool out of the protagonist, and in my experience, you don't want to do that unless the film is a comedy.

Bottom line: I had a hard time getting into it, and I wouldn't recommend it.


this film had a lot of potential - it's a great story and has the potential to be very creepy. but of course tim burton doesn't really do creepy films, he does wacky cartoonish films. and i usually like tim burton's stuff. but i thought this film was really weak. the best thing about the film (and it is actually worth seeing just for this) was the art direction - the film has an amazing intangible quality to it. the script was not good. it was boring in parts and confusing in other parts, and there was no building of characters. i never really cared that people were having their heads lopped off by a headless being. i thought johnny depp had a good thing going with his approach to the character, but given that the script was weak he couldn't go too far with it - and i was very irritated by the attempts at a slight accent on his and christina ricci's parts.

anyway, it is sadly not a great film and not worth seeing unless you are interested in the art direction.


I have in the past loved Tim Burton. I loved Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, and even Mars Attacks. But I hate this movie. The costume drama scenes in the beginning were the sort of poorly done, stodgy things that used to plague historical drama 25 years ago. Then there were all the head-cutting scenes, which just left me cold, and that's the sort of thing that ought to mean something, I would think. Yes, there were some nice bare trees and foggy evenings and the horseman jumping out of the tree was a nice special effect, but on the whole the movie was just boring and pointless.


Adored by fans for his unusually charming creativity and by Hollywood for his softball, user-friendly movie-making techniques, Tim Burton tipped the scales too far in formula's favor with his new upset of a cinematic legend, Sleepy Hollow. Following the quest of Ichabod Crane  played by Johnny Depp, delivering this dreary film's only shining point  to the heart of the mystery surrounding a town's seemingly random and gruesome murders by a fabled headless horseman, the story plays out as if it were purposely trying to be repugnantly predictable. Contrived as a children's bedtime story, humdrum character introduction is laced with intended-upon exciting non-engaging chase scenes which, with undeveloped characters fleeing for their lives, produce about as much fright and thrill as The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Toss in an endless bundle of old trees for ambience and a wide-eyed, big-busted blonde love interest (Christina Reechi) and Burton has himself a movie that takes the age-old legend of Sleepy Hollow and succeeded in making it like a Disney movie without the charm or captivation. Dialog was choppy and ridiculous, severed heads were aplenty, and there were enough plot-revealing monologues to embarrass the likes of James Bond. Even with the backing of Emmanuel Lubezki, the most sought-after cinematographer in Hollywood today, the wonderful acting of Depp and Burton's astounding name-recognition, Sleepy Hollow is nothing to lose your head over.


A movie this dumb should never see the light of day. The acting is lame, the violence is just all over the place, the sneaking ending is just plain stupid.

It's all about a lawyer who saw a murder done by the R.I.C.C.O. squad. No one has never seen him, not even the hit men themselves. So he and a beautiful lady are on the run trying to find the leader of this R.I.C.C.O. squad, before they find them.

Then the movie goes on to a romance, gun shooting, and voodoo. Now how in the hell did voodoo come in this. Never see this film if your life depends on it. Trust Me!!!!!!!!


R.I.C.C.O. is the STUPIDEST film ever made. I can't believe my father bought this crap. This film should da never got made. If this film was wide known, trust me it will be on the #1 spot for IMDB's worst.The acting is horrible it's scary,which it is why it's horror. This piece of s*** had no horror in at at all. It's an urban action,which is funny, because I could of swore it was a comedy. When people got shot I couldn't help but laugh. I am the only person who reviewed this and I hope that I am the last. With this vote only I hope it make it to the #1 spot at the worst!!!!!!!


I went into this film really wanting to like it - it headlined a film festival earlier in the year, and boasted an all-star cast. But (and you could tell there was a "but" coming) it's a failure of a film. Outstanding character acting by Sarandon and Walken is destroyed by editing and the antics of the supporting cast. Turturro's performance is lackluster, and most of the comedy is overplayed. The recurring puppet shows are pointless, and a few scenes are completely out of place.

That said, there are some wonderful moments sprinkled in the film. A genuinely touching stage moment, several of the seductions, and a few of the comedic color actually work out. Unfortunately, they're overshadowed by the diffuse, incoherent script and some bad acting.


While I'm normally a big fan of John Turturro's work as an actor and director, ILLUMINATA is a great disappointment. Although the film has some charming moments, overall it falls flat. Worst of all, the film is confusing. Where is the movie set? Italy or an Italian troupe in New York? Why bother making a historical film if it fails to convey a setting? If you want to see a well-made, inspiring historical film also about theater, go see Tim Robbins' THE CRADLE WILL ROCK. This movie has many pluses, including a fine performance by John Turturro.


Best around the middle, when most characters get horny and go after someone they haven't had before. It is around this point that we get to see Susan Sarandon's majestic breasts (even if through a veil). Strangely enough, Beverly D'Angelo who isn't shy about nudity doesn't show any at all, while Aida Turturro  of all people  does. On the other end of the spectrum, the less said about Walken playing a homosexual the better. The film itself has little plot; the dialogs from the theater play and the "normal" dialogs cross over often and that's not the sort of thing I'd consider a good idea. Life in the theater: who cares? Occasionally the dialog has something going for it, but the film drags in stretches.


I don't mind the odd artsy film. But when they are larded with arcane symbolism and murky dialogue and when it's obvious they were done for the filmmaker's ego rather than the viewer's benefit, I get upset. I'm not a stupid person yet I simply didn't understand what this film was trying to say. Or do. Film is a magnificent form of human communication. Why do some filmmakers use it instead for obfuscation?


It's partly bad luck for "Illuminata" that it comes out after "Shakespeare in Love" as it deals with virtually the same themes of life as art, art as life and the Magic of the Theatre and the same archetypal Foibles of Theater Folk, but a whole lot more ponderously.

There are scenes that come alive, as a play develops and gets reinterpreted by a writer's life, but there's a whole lot of Orson Welles-ish ego in this produced by/directed by/lead acted by John Torturro as a vehicle for his wife Katharine Borowitz (with an adorable cameo by their son).

Each actor gets his/her moment literally in the spotlight, but there's so many "masques" or set pieces that seem like 19th century parlor games. Bill Irwin Talks. Susan Sarandon gets to be a diva. Christopher Walken gets to be a different kind of villain - a gay critic. The women have to disrobe unnecessarily because this is an Art Film.

The art and set direction are marvelous, though quite dark. This should get an award as the Best Use of a Jersey City Theater as A Set Ever In a Movie. (originally written 8/21/99)


This movie treads on very familiar ground -- the confusion of art and reality in the life of actors. It does not have anything particularly novel or interesting to say on this subject and is in fact rather dull. The final scene in particular is interminably tedious. Seeing the audience crying at the "moving" acting they are seeing on the screen made me ask "who do they think they are kidding?"

Nevertheless there are some good performances and interesting scenes, particularly from some of the minor characters. Ben Gazzara plays an old and slightly touched actor, who gets a whole posse of policemen clapping his performance when they come to arrest him.

Christopher Walken again plays an over-the-top wacko. Remember his character "The Continental" on Saturday Night Live; an aging eurotrash satyr chasing a young woman around the furniture and trying to get her into bed? He does an identical turn in the film, chasing his young (male) prey around an antique table and plying him with champagne.

Overall this film was both enchanting and irritating, but mostly irritating.


'Illuminata' has expanded the limits of John Turturro's mediocrity from second rate actor to third rate director, writer and producer. This film was dreadful. It is disjointed and flits from scene to scene with little flow or meaning relevant to the main story line.

We are served with a smorgasbord of fragmented scenes, each a non sequitur to all the others. The only thread that seems to run through them is that they occur in the lives of the members of the same theatre repertory company. The few scenes that do matter to the plot are so convoluted that you frequently can't tell if the dialogue is from the story or the actors running their lines for the play within the story.

If this story were a person it would be a schizophrenic with mulitple personality disorder. It couldn't decide if it was a drama, a romance, a comedy, a tragedy, a sex farce, or a parody of theatre. It came closest to being bearable as a sex farce.

 Turturro was lifeless and impassive as Tuccio, supposedly a complex and passionate writer whose play gets its big chance when the currently running show needs to be cancelled due to the illness of the lead actor. Susan Sarandon gave a good performance as the aging actress trying to seduce Tuccio for a role. Unfortunately, she found it necessary to go topless which only goes to illustrate that the hardware of aging sex symbols is much better left to the imagination. Christoher Walkin gave a delightful performance as the uppity theatre critic who makes impassioned overtures to a member of the cast. Beverly D'Angelo and Ben Gazzara also had minor roles.

I gave this film a 2. Other than Walken's vignette, there is really not much to recommend it except that the puppets used in the opening and closing credits were phenomenally lifelike and beautiful. Avoid this movie like the plague that it is.


The story is: a turn-of-the-century troupe of actors, along with producers and theatre-owners, have very complicated relationships. A resident playwright has written a psychological drama. He wants to get a good production on stage, but can't unless he convinces a pariticular reviewer to revisit the production, and give a positive review. If his production does not go on, then the troupe will put on The Doll House, recently written by Ibsen. Many different relationships among the principals are explored; none of them interesting. But the involvement of the characters with one another lead to giving the play by the resident playwrght a second shot.

This movie is purely an excuse for the director and his friends to get together and put on a movie. The story lines are incoherent to anyone who isn't a buddy of one of the stars. The only reason I didn't leave the theatre after about a half hour is that a fat lady was resting a full meal atop her stomach at the end of my row.


I liked all the Lilo and Stitch movies. The TV series weren't that great, but I put my opinions of the series aside when I watched this movie. And I must say... It was bad.

One thing I found disappointing was the animation. Yes, you heard it. The animation. I found its quality greatly degraded since the first movie. Its quality was only as high as the TV series', something which I did not expect at all. If you're looking for eye candy, don't expect anything much here. Also, the animation failed to portray any serious moods. Even in the supposed sad scenes, I didn't feel anything for the character, another downgrade from the first movie.

The next, was the absolutely horrible voice acting. I found it very, very unconvincing, and wondered why, Disney, with all its riches and glory, couldn't afford voice actors with real talent. The voice actors' skill were just as annoying as the one in the series. I tolerated the one in the series because, hey, who wouldn't be tired out when made to voice act for so many episodes? Heck, I don't even know how many episodes there are (Theoretically, there are 624, but I just can't believe that). However, I thought that the voice acting would improve in the movie, and I was put down in the face by the truth, that what they could do in the series was already their best.

Next, was the horrible script. It was cheesy beyond redemption, and the writers just try too hard. They try to put some jokes in, but I just found them annoying. Maybe it wasn't the voice acting, but the cheesy dialogues that ruined the sound section. (On the upside, the soundtrack wasn't too bad, and matched the mood quite well.)

Fourthly was the problem with the storyline. I predicted everything, and the storyline was what made the characters so unoriginal and unlikeable all of a sudden. You have the aliens get new positions and responsibilities inouter space. After the initial hype, they realize that they actually didn't like it and miss their old life.

Meanwhile, the evil villain gets broken out of jail after a very 'action packed' action scene and breaks in to Jumbaa's lab to steal his experiment. The experiment was then cloned into 100 others and the hamster wants to conquer Earth. When the main characters find out, they try to stop the evil hamster but gets confronted in some cheesy final showdown against the experiment and owns him in an extremely lame excuse for trying to make the series to look cool. The characters then give up their new privileges and return to Earth to resume their life. Seriously, how many other movies has used that ending already? The that storyline was extremely short and formulaic, so don't expect too much from it.

So Disney has failed in sound, graphics and storyline. The only charm of the series was the original characters, and how they managed to retain the 'feel' of the characters, but even that wasn't able to save the movie. I tried to like it, I really did, but I give it a rating of 4/10. Another Disney failure.


I have now seen quite a few films by Pedro Almodóvar, but this would have to be the most disappointing so far. This film seemed to lack the zaniness that is usually everywhere in his films, and the story just never got me interested. Many Almodóvar regulars appear in this film, so it's not like there was a lack of on-screen talent, but this film just seemed more serious than his other films. If there was a comedic edge to this movie, I certainly couldn't find it, and it made for one surprisingly weak movie.


This is my first Almodavar film. I'll confess we chose it mainly because we knew this had the enticing prospect of Antonio Banderas in gay sex scenes.

Unfortunately, that is about all that this film has to recommend it. I consider myself a fairly sophisticated viewer, I like European films, "art" films, and I am generally able to recognize a quality film even if it is not to my particular taste.

But this film was a complete blank to me. The plot was ridiculous, the characters lifeless, the box called it a "hilarious comedy" but I didn't laugh once. Loosly and awkwardly constructed, with a lot of pointless dialogue. I don't get this at all-- it seems like an amateurish effort. Can someone enlighten me?


Remember when Rick Mercer was funny? 22 Minutes was a great show when Rick Mercer was on it and Made In Canada was a great show once too. Talking To Americans was such a funny special too. But like my friend said "Rick Mercer woke up one day and wasn't funny any more" I think that day was when Rick Mercer Report went on the air. What is the point of this show? Rick Mercer reads wacky fake headlines, shows pictures of bad sheds that people mail in and then spends about 20 minutes of the 30 minute show going somewhere and just talking to people hoping to say something witty or clever enough to get on TV and maybe even make somebody somewhere laugh. We're supposed to be interested in seeing Rick Mercer visit a gymnastics team and then try to do some of their moves, and then suck at it on purpose while trying desperately to be "funny". Rick Mercer got old or just lost interest or just ain't funny any more. Even his classic rant bits have lost all their bite and humor. You can say that about CBC comedy in general though because how many years have they been sticking Air Farce on TV to deliver the same kinds of useless jokes?


The comments already left for this show are way more funny than the show itself and they are all accurate. I feel exactly the same way, that I am very disappointed at how far Rick Mercer has fallen when he used to do some really great things on This Hour Has 22 Minutes but now he is just clowning around, going places and talking to people. He does some bits in the studio about things going on in the news but they are never funny at all, just really sad and predictable jokes about headlines. Most of his show is him going somewhere to talk to people, for example this week he is going to a rodeo and the video pieces are all of him making funny faces and acting scared of the wild horses, etc. He used to be funny but has gotten way less funny since leaving This Hour Has 22 Minutes and that show is also not funny at all any more. Now that Air Farce is off the air (finally thank goodness!) Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes have got to be next in line for the axe, just old tired predictable comedy that almost nobody finds funny any more. It's sad really considering Rick Mercer used to be the funniest man on Canadian TV!


It's 2 stars only because they put a lot of work in making this game look good. I played plenty of good and bad games and I think this game has the dullest story I was ever forced to listen. The best thing they could have done is to let you skip the conversations (but no, you must listen to them talking for 10 minutes) and just continue doing the same things over and over again. Climb the building, save the citizen, go kill some dude. IT'S ALL THE SAME! Ubisoft should really hire someone with some imagination.

I'm a huge fan of Prince of Persia series (first 3). The story was good and you wanted to know what happens next all the time. I don't even hate Prince of Persia 4. But I think anyone who was in charge of developing the story for Assassin's Creed should be banned to write another thing for the rest of his life.

Boring story and same missions over and over again! If just one of these two things was good the game would be worth playing.


This is hands down the most annoying and frustrating game I have ever encountered. Every time you turn around the game takes control of your character or creates invisible walls that you can't walk through. The cut scenes leave you in control of your character's movements, but only to a slight degree. Also, you have to play the game for about 2 hours just to get past the intro/tutorials. It's terrible! I am afraid if I play this game any more I will end up breaking something. This game sucks. The graphics are good, but nothing special, the game play, however, is awful. To say I hate this game would be a huge understatement. I got it on sale, but I want my $20 back. What a waste!


This game was terrible. I think they worked too hard on the visuals and didn't do much with the gameplay, which is the most important part. I mean, the visuals look incredible, but is the game really "fun"? NO! I mean it's like "hey let's jump off buildings" and all I'm doing is holding up and A/X. The game play just isn't there, and I don't agree with what Ubisoft did, because they had this hot girl (the producer of the game, Jade Raymond), and they were like "OK we've got this hot girl, let's pimp her" and if you go to gaming websites, you're not gonna see gameplay stuff of Assassin's Creed, you'll see her face with a microphone and it'll be like "We interviewed Jade Raymond about her favorite cookies!" It's like man, shut the F*@K UP WHO CARES?! Apparently...a lot of people do, because they bought the game and like it...I mean compare this game with Super Mario Galaxy. A Wii game that really doesn't abuse the Wii Remote, but STILL is very innovative and delivers in the most important part, GAMEPLAY! They were able to do a bit of everything with Mario Galaxy, the graphics were still stunning, the music in the game was orchestrated and sounded amazing, and THAT'S a game that deserves game of the year. NOT Assassin's Creed, man, it doesn't even deserve to even be a NOMINEE for Game of the Year. The hype around this game where it was like "oh it's the next generation of gaming"....really? I think not! So let me get this straight here, because I think the people liking this game are only liking it because they're Jade fans, so I'll tell you guys, JADE WILL NOT MAKE OUT WITH YOU OR ANYTHING IF YOU LOVE OR DEFEND THIS GAME! If you want a REAL game on the PS3, get Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, if you want a REAL game for the Xbox 360, get Call of Duty 4 (and a ton of other games too), and if you want a REAL game just in all the systems? GET SUPER MARIO GALAXY! I know this comment will be hated by many, but seriously, pressing two buttons for doing all this cool stuff, is that REALLY a fun game? The only reason why other games make it more complicated is because after it'll end up being more innovative and fun. And this game just isn't it.

1.3/10 A LIVING HELL!


This could have been the best game ever!! But the game makers just screwed up after 3 assassinations and the ending!! This is a combination of Prince Of Persia, Hit-man, GTA and Age Of Empires II (Saladin).

Yes these four games mentioned above are considered to be one of the greatest games ever made.

You combine the four and you get this game!! It has all the good aspects of the four games like acrobatic skills, stealth assassinations, open world and the HISTORY!! For the first 3 assassinations you feel this game is greatest!! But after the third, things seem to get so repetitive, that you only hope for the GAME to END.

I have played this on a PC and the PC version is horrible with glitches and the stupid side missions are senseless.

MY advice to all. This is a good game but get it EITHER for the XBOX360 or PS3. DON'T get it for the PC.

Lastly, this game came from the creators of Prince Of Persia. Surely the producer is hot, but the game is not hot and it is NOT better than the four games mentioned above!!


Sure, the concept had already been done with Alf and the Charmings: thrust modern society onto one or more out-of-place characters. But I loved both shows and watched them religiously until they ended in 1990. When I learned about Scorch, I was actually very hopeful for something new, as new TV in the 90's so far hadn't impressed me (but at least Star Trek: TNG and the Simpsons were still going).

What I got was a big disappointment. The acting was awful, but considering the ridiculous dialogue and wholly unbelievable writing, I can't blame them too much for what they had to work with. There were a few humorous moments, but most of the deliberate jokes seemed forced in their delivery. The whole production work on the show seemed too low-budget for what was on TV at the time. In the 80's it would have fit right in.

Still, it was the first episode and had to introduce the characters and establish the entire premise of the series, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. The second episode wasn't as bad, and I started to get my hopes back that once it got into its stride, the show would improve. Sadly, my VCR ended up not recording the third episode aired, I never got to see it, and the series disappeared from the TV listings after that. All I have now are the first two episodes recorded off the air onto a VHS tape.


This should have been a moody, gritty, movie which lingered in the memory as an exposition of relationship where the dominant personality only survives because the personality being dominated sees no hope of change.

The acting was intense and skillful, the dialogue worked but the movie was irritatingly ineffective: too many distance shots that suggested lack of focus rather than a broader picture. Poor flow. The first 5 minutes could have been missed out altogether.

I suspect that, with a different edit, this movie could have been compelling.

In its current form it is flat, formless and tremendously disappointing.


This filmmaker wanted to make a movie without having a story to tell -- and did so. Really awful jumble of unlikely/unexplained coincidences and unidentifiable plot line, all without character or clear motivation.

We get cliché snapshots instead of characters. One in particular is the diminutive and beautiful crime boss, who projects an overdone "tough guy" persona and casts a cartoonish shadow of intimidation over the actual tough guys who have been brought in to work for her. Nothing much startling to look at in the film except for one shot when the boys hit the road and one of them carries a tiny suitcase (as in, the smallest from a complete American Tourister set) in a bright, sky blue, without explanation or apology. Otherwise it's standard visually -- one other exception is a compelling shot of a beautiful bridge in CT.


My, my, my: Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance must have been desperate for work to have lent their talents to this turkey. A horribly muddled story about satanism in modern day Greece, Land Of The Minotaur (aka The Devil's Men) is a misfire on more-or-less every level imaginable. It has precious few scares (always a slight flaw for a "horror" movie, don't you think?); weak performances; countless scenes where characters foolishly wander off alone or turn down the opportunity to remain in the safety of a group; and some rather irritating editing techniques which add nothing whatsoever to the proceedings. I got prematurely excited at the prospect of Cushing and Pleasance working together 17 years after The Flesh And The Fiends - but this film isn't worth getting remotely excited about; it's a huge let-down and rather an embarrassment for its much worthier leads.

In a remote region of Greece, outsiders such as tourists and archaeologists keep going missing, and local priest Father Roche (Donald Pleasance) suspects that something sinister is afoot. He writes to his friend, New York private eye Milo Kaye (Costas Skouras), asking him to fly out to Greece to help him get to the bottom of the mystery. In the meantime, three more visitors - Beth (Vanna Reville), Ian (Nikos Verlekis) and Tom (Robert Behling), who are all personal friends of Father Roche - go missing while snooping around nearby Greek ruins. Milo eventually arrives in Greece, but is initially dubious about Father Roche's beliefs that the missing people have been snatched for satanic sacrifices. Milo and Father Roche are also joined by Laurie (Luan Peters), the girlfriend of missing man Tom. Together, they uncover the activities of a Minoan devil-worshipping cult headed by creepy Carpathian exile Baron Corofax (Peter Cushing). These crazed cultists have been busily sacrificing their victims to a statue of the minotaur. Furthermore, they seemingly cannot be killed by normal means, so Father Roche has to use a variety of religious artifacts in his fight against them.

Land Of The Minotaur should have been much better than it actually is. The plot is so wacky and improbable that it has all the hallmarks of an enjoyably goofy cult/camp favourite. But the handling is just awful. Director Costas Carayiannis has no idea how to link the narrative together cohesively, so the whole thing progresses like it was being made up on a day-to-day basis. He also has no idea how to coax convincing performances from his cast, so they are left to embarrass themselves in either dreadfully hammy (Pleasance, Cushing) or dreadfully amateurish (Skouras, Peters) performances. What's worse is that the narrative makes no sense. Why would Father Roche seek help from a private eye who is utterly flippant about his beliefs? How does Roche know that the sacrifices only occur during a full moon? How can the minotaur statue speak? Why is one one of the sacrificial victims instructed during a vision to stab Father Roche, only to herself be stabbed a few scenes later before getting a chance to carry it out? And - most baffling of all - why does Father Roche drag Milo halfway around the world to help him when all he needs is a crucifix and and some holy water to dispose of the bad guys? These questions - and more - will pop into your mind during Land Of The Minotaur.... but, alas, there are no answers to be had. Frustrating, dumb and disappointing!


The Devil's Men represents what turned out to be one of the last gasps of the occult obsessed horror scene of the 70's shortly before Halloween came along, tore up the rule book, set fire to it and kicked it screaming through a plate glass window.

To cut a long story short a couple of enterprising Greek film makers fancy their chances of nailing together a new film franchise featuring the unlikely double act of womanising, wise talking American investigator Milo and stuffy but kind hearted priest Father Roche. An exiled nobleman is mixed up in some satanic jiggery pokery - offering up tourists as sacrifices to an extremely unfrightening effigy of the minotaur and only Milo and Roche can stop him!

Or something like that.

The reality is however horribly dull, frustrating and loaded with wasted opportunities. I strongly suspect that the fledgling film makers blew most of the budget on getting Donald Plesance, Peter Cushing and Brian Eno (for the soundtrack) onboard and hoped that would be enough to sway audiences in the English speaking world.

It isn't. The Devil's Men looks beautiful with assured, camera-work and fantastic locations. Eno's score, though basically just a one chord drone that he probably cranked out in an afternoon is suitably atmospheric and the movie is laden with cracking 70's crumpet including that Austrailian sort from Fawlty Towers and uber hottie Jane Lyle of Island of Death infamy. But there the positives end. Cushing sleepwalks through it, looking like he has a corn cob up his bum and Pleasance fusses about trying his best, but never quite getting things right. To make matters worse the character of Milo is appallingly flimsy and unlikeable.

Okay, so it doesn't look that good. But from there the film simply refuses to go anywhere. There is an insinuation that the local villagers are possessed, but to be fair to them, they never really do anything very much other than shuffle about looking glassy eyed. Perhaps they were just tired? Just when you are sure things will come to some kind of a head Milo and Roche interrupt the Baron's satanic party with laughable ease, sending him on to meet his maker. The statue of the minotaur falls silent and hey presto! Satan is defeated.

Yeah right.

The inane optimism that The Devil's Men might be the first of a series of films is hammered home by Father Roche's final line mere seconds before the ridiculously rushed ending.

"Who knows Milo? Perhaps one day I may call upon you again to help defeat the Antichrist."

I'm sure you'll be putting that call in any day now Donald.


Donald Pleasance and Peter Cushing united in one horror film; that always sounds like a terrific plan. Two of the most versatile cult actors of their generation, who previously already starred together in terrific genre outings like "The Flesh and the Fiends" and "From Beyond the Grave", pairing up in a mid-70's satanic themed exploitation flick. How can this possibly go wrong? Well, unfortunately, it can. To my deepest regret "Land of the Minotaur" can hardly even be called mediocre, and that in spite of the cast, the exotic setting, the appealing title and the potentially great sounding premise. In a remote little area in Greece, more particularly near an archaeological site, multiple tourists vanish because Baron Peter Cushing and his docile followers keep feeding them to a fire-breathing Minotaur statue. Cushing, who never looked more bored and uninterested in any role he played before, owns a giant medieval castle and apparently in Greek this means you also own the complementary archaeological ruins and an underground network of caverns. That is of course quite handy if your hobby is the kidnapping of random campers and amateur archaeologists. When three of his young friends also mysteriously disappear in the same area, Father Roch - the priest of a couple of towns before) - decides to investigate. "Land of the Minotaur" is a boring and extremely slow-paced horror effort that never really undertakes any major attempts to generate a satanic atmosphere and doesn't bother to elaborate on all the potentially fascinating elements and pagan trivia details. The titular Minotaur, for example, is an intriguing creature of Greek mythology with the head of a bull and the body of a person, but for some inexplicable reason the script never deepens out the significance. Instead, the film focuses on tedious and overly talkative sequences and loud inappropriate music altered with experimental noises. The only reason to even consider giving this major disappointment of a film a chance is because of Donald Pleasance. His portrayal of rude, bossy and old-fashioned priest who criticizes everything that represents modern youth is powerful and reliable as always.


Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance are legendary actors, and director Kostas Karagiannis was the man behind the successful Greek Giallo-esquire thriller Death Kiss in 1974; and yet when you combine the three talents, all you get is this complete load of drivel! God only knows what drove the likes of Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance to star in this cheapie devil worship flick, but I really do hope they were well paid as neither one deserves something as amateurish as this on their resumes. The story focuses on a group of devil worshippers that kidnap some kids, leading another group to go after them. The pace of the plot is very slow and this ensures that the film is very boring. The plot is also a long way from being original and anyone with even a passing interest in the horror genre will have seen something a bit like this, and no doubt done much better. The obvious lack of budget is felt throughout and the film doesn't manage to overcome this at any point. This really is a depressing and miserable watch and not even a slightly decent ending manages to up the ante enough to lift this film out of the very bottom of the barrel. Extremely poor stuff and definitely not recommended!


How can you go wrong with a film that mixes the sophistication of Peter Cushing, the determination of Donald Pleasence and the bust of Luan Peters? Easy, you give them a terrible script to work with.

Peter Cushing, in an evil role, leads a Satanic cult that has captured a couple friends of Donald Pleasence. Donald plays a determined but aloof priest that desires to locate his friends but needs the help of Fred from Scooby-Doo to locate them. He summons the help of a New York bloodhound, who dresses just like the hero of the cartoon, in his task. Meanwhile, the girlfriend of one of the missing people, Luan Peters, joins the search. If all this sounds interesting, then you, like myself, were mislead.

It doesn't take long for the trio to sniff out the baddies but their methods of bringing the bad guys to justice are foolish. Also, women will find this a crapfest. Every time they get on the bad guys trail, our two male heroes tell Luan to stay at the hotel even though she can handle herself better than the squeamish priest played by Pleasence.

STORY: $ (The script really lets us down. No tension is built. No worthwhile dialogue is given the stars and you'll need both hands to count the number of times Luan Peters is told to stay behind and let men do men work. If you're interested in seeing a minotaur on film don't bother. We get a statue of a minotaur that spits flames).

VIOLENCE: $$ (There are some attacks and a few sacrifices, but those of you who drool for gore will be letdown).

ACTING: $$ (Even though there are three of my favorite actors in this film, there is nothing redeemable here. Peter Cushing doesn't have much screen time, Donald Pleasence is clearly aware that he is on the set of a stinker and Luan Peters is ill-used. This should have been much better given the talent involved, but then again, the Yankees lose a game here and there too).

NUDITY: $ (Luan Peters takes a bath but you see next to nothing. She isn't as obliging here as she was in The Flesh and Blood Show).


Low budget junk about bloodthirsty cultists in Greece headed by Peter Cushing. Its up to priest Donald Pleasance to stop them. Crown International released this crap in 1978, and it was "dog-of-the-week" on one of the episodes of Sneak Previews with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. I forget which of the two "dogged" it, but I see the point. Crappy movie has the worst Peter Cushing and Donald Pleasance performances I've ever seen. There is a monster on the video box. No such beast exists in the movie. Instead you get a statue, but at least its atonomically correct. (Woo hoo!)

The cultists look like the Klu Klux Klowns...if a group could exist. Skip it.


While walking to buy cigarettes, the professional dancer Daniel (Tom Long) is abducted and forced to have kinky sex along many days by three hooded women. When he is released, the director of his company Isabel (Greta Scacchi) has already replaced him in the play and his girlfriend gives a cold reception to him. The disturbed and humiliated Daniel leaves the dance company and travels obsessed to seek out the abductors. Daniel has sex with many women that he suspects that might be the kidnappers.

"The Book of Revelation" is a weird movie with a promising beginning that loses the initial power and becomes a sort of too long erotic soap- opera or soft-porn chic. The production is classy, the cover of the DVD is awesome but the characters are not well-developed and the trauma of Daniel seems to be excessive since most of the men would fantasize with the dream-situation that he was submitted  to become sexual object of three sexy women. The melodramatic development with the illness of Isabel does not add any value to the plot; the open conclusion is very disappointing and there are no explanations for the motive of the women or the title. It is very clear that the screenplay about a man's feelings was written by a woman. It was good to see the still beautiful Greta Scacchi again and her make-up in the end is impressive. There is a saying in Portuguese that could be translated to English as follows: "If the rape is inevitable, relax and come." Daniel should have done this and spared me of watching almost two hours of a pointless story. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "O Livro das Revelações" ("The Book of Revelations")


Here's a couple of paragraphs out of an essay I wrote for university about TBOR.

"The Book of Revelation is an erotic thriller about sex, power and a talented dancer's struggle to regain his sense of self after being unfortunately raped by three cloaked women. The three women that violate him all have distinctive marks on the bodies; one has a giant birth mark on her buttocks, another has a butterfly tattoo on her lower stomach and the ring leader has a small circle on her breast. So he lives his new life in search of these markings, and to find them on these intimate places he does what any sane man does when he needs to see as many naked women as possible to solve a mystery, he has sex with them. An hour and ten minutes into the film and you feel like he has almost had a piece of every woman in Melbourne.

The film is a giant chunk of pretentious celluloid; it is like grandiloquence drips from every frame. At only one point towards the films final climax does Kokkinos give a scene the same energy and strength as her debut feature Head On had in droves. As like many films funded by the government bodies the film takes it self way to seriously, the script and its execution appear to be chores rather then gifts and unfortunately for the talented thespians, their brilliant performances (particularly Tom Long as the fractured protagonist) are stuck within the confines of a pompous wan k fest."


Many questions arise about the making of this film. The first of which is: Why make a film that plays out as little more than an awkward female fantasy? It's one thing to leave an audience with issues to discuss about a film's intent, it's something entirely different to go into the process of writing a script which fails to adequately address real human issues before they are rendered on the screen.

Why the outrageously melodramatic and often comical soundtrack? Why the excessive and frequently clunky dialogue? Why is the lead character's girlfriend one of the hooded abductors? What purpose is there to turning the lead character's freedom from abduction into a joke by having him complete his "mission"? (This is a classic Little Aussie Film moment. Resort to quirky comedy at the most inappropriate moment.) Why so many scenes where absolutely nothing happens? (This accounts for approximately 15 minutes of the film, which is at least 30 minutes too long.) Why, if a man is imprisoned for so many days, does he not endeavor to make a serious attempt at escape?

The Director, who co-wrote the script, has failed on many counts to deliver a satisfactory story.

Dave Garver, Australia.


Sure, I like some indie films. A lot, actually. I don't always understand them, and that's okay. Not all of them were meant to be understood, especially by mainly main-stream people like me. I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I'm still puzzled why 'Book of Revelation' is called that. I love those end-of-world stories and the only thing I could see similar to the end of the world and this film was the torture it took to get through this. I'm not talking about the subject matter; perhaps I've been subdued from all the other torture/porn I've seen. It was just the incredibly slow story, one hour 15 minute material stretched for nearly two hours. (Major spoilers lie ahead) Hetero-man dancer gets abducted, seduced and raped six ways from Sunday, or in this case 12 days, by three hooded women. Upon his release, after his somewhat distraught dancer/girlfriend barely flinches (other than dropping a glass) after wondering which she missed more: him or the cigarettes she originally sent him for upon abduction. Still in a state of reasonable shock, he refuses to talk, and she goes on to work without so much a hug as if nothing happened and he takes a well needed shower. Problem. As much as he's tormented through the flashbacks to his, uh, "attacks," he's as equally aroused. Granted, I haven't been bound and used as a plaything, but I doubt I would really "be in the mood." Oh, I forgot, and how does he try and solve this crime? Sleep with as many women as he can to try and spot the birthmarks or tats the criminals had. I see where they're going with it  show a gang rape from the male POV. Fine, twist notwithstanding, you could never feel for this guy. Only saving grace was the good acting of the LifetimeTV Dancer/Cancer Instructor. But even she couldn't save the film.


Book of Revelations starts very well. Daniel, an egomaniac dancer is kidnapped, abused and sexually raped by three masked women.

After that, nothing else really happens. There is some hint of rediscovery but the movie gives nor explanation nor a real ending. Daniel reactions after the abuse are very basic. He quits dancing, has sex with every women around and finally starting a relation with very simple and common woman.

I have seen a good share of art-house movies but this has something missing in it.

The main leads are fine; but some characters does not seems to be completely defined.


Well it certainly stunned me - I can not believe that someone made another Australian film that's even more boring than Somersault. The story is implausible, the characters, with the exception of Friels' and Mailman's characters, are unlikeable and wooden, Tom Long possesses a VAST array of facial expressions: happy and not happy, and the "sex scenes", which could have been very confronting and disturbingly erotic, would have been at home in a low-budget porno flick.

This is the first movie I have seen in 30 years of cinema-going that has had me on the edge of my seat....ready to get up and leave.

The best thing about this movie is the promotional poster.


Firstly, the title has no relevance whatsoever to the movie. It started off fine with good development but got annoying when he couldn't tell his girlfriend what had happened to him. Even his attempt to tell the police failed, which just added to the annoyance value. There were too many pregnant pauses in the movie that seemed more like filler than anything worthwhile. The plot never revealed who did this crime to him although a good plot would have allowed disclosure. The ending was nothing short of "hey we've run out of budget let's stop it here NOW!!"...If I'd written a novel that ended this way I'd top myself. TRASH TRASH TRASH!!


I have to agree with what many of the other reviewers concluded. A subject which could have been thought-provoking and shed light on a reversed double-standard, failed miserably.

Rape being a crime of violence and forced abusive control, the scenes here were for the most part pathetic. It would have been a better idea to cover short glimpses of what was happening and let the audience imagine the deed. And the victim's laugh with the cops, when he aborted his police complaint, seemed as genuine as that of the cops. No awkwardness, no hesitance to merely join in. I don't know if this was bad acting and or bad directing but someone missed the point entirely. As for his half-a**ed supposed search for his attackers, pathetic. They should have skipped most of the sex scenes - another monumental failure in themselves, and had him meet Colin Friels when he first went to the police. The story could have then been drawn forth with good dialog and the occasional flashback - and saved by the superior acting and presence Colin Friels - the only reason I watched this movie - brings to any project he does.

The only concrete revelation of this movie, is, it was crap.


This looks like one of these Australian movies done by "talented" students and funded by the government. It is chock full of smart shots of colors and shapes and verbal excursions into Freudian psychology to be appreciated by art students and teachers alike, but in general it is perceived a stupid mockery of good cinema, good storytelling and generally good taste. This what happens I guess when art students become so obsessively indulgent. "Pink Flamingoes" is miles ahead one the same subjects. Some porn movies from 70s are far more watchable and inspiring. Book of Revelation is not entirely without merits, but as an overall experience it is well below average B-grade.


I was also disappointed with this movie. For starters, the things that happen to him don't seem too terrible to me (Sorry male chauvinist PoV). As is pointedly said by one of the lady captors: "Most men would _pay_ to be in your position". To which he replies "But this is not _my_ choice". OK, OK, fair point, so how bad was it really? Please let us know. But now the kicker: He does not let _anyone_ know, until after the movie-end (unseen). Not his girlfriend, not is mentor, not the police, not anyone. In stead, he comes up with the brilliant plan of f*ck*ng every girl he knows, so he may recognize the tattoo (or something) of one of his captors. I thought he'd just had enough unpleasant sex during the 12 days of his captivity? Isn't it time to take a little break from all that? For me, his, to put it mildly, ill advised actions broke the "suspension of disbelief" of the movie. I took out a book while watching the last half hour out of the corner of my eye.


Anna Kokkinos' success with' Head On' now begins to look like it depended totally on the script and Alex Dimitriades great lead performance. The degree to which this latest, "The Book of Revelation" is both derivative , pretentious and utterly unoriginal ( except for Tristan Milani's fine cinematography) seems to bear this out. .

Alas, there have already been quite a few Aussie movies dealing with such themes , some reviled for 'sexism' (and/or explicit sex scenes) in the 1970s and 1980s and beyond and maybe they're worth looking at again after this piece of fluff. Of course, setting the whole thing in the world of ballet and making it all achingly slow (and in its choreography, like a 1960s Dutch Ballet experimental number) does suggest Great Art if you've not traveled around much-and then only if you never progressed beyond Art Theory 101.

Add to the pretension, appallingly arch dialog ( "you will do as we command...") and the whole shebang falls onto its well funded face. Then there are the 'sexy' bits : straight from Dario Argento.

Given the lovely but truncated performance by Colin Friels - how about a real city primeval thriller ?

All in, all ,with 'The Book of Revelation' , the feminist project has been set back yet another decade - and with the willing and deeply imitative (of male writers like Henry Miller, William Burroughs, even Bukowski) collaboration of some collective in Melbourne, Oz, suffering from a form of educational -and ideological- amnesia! No revelations await us here.


I'm shocked that all the "hated it" ratings are sixes and sevens, still above average. To me, this seems a case of "the emperor has no clothes". I understand this film was produced on a very low budget in the early 70's...Regardless, it became a struggle to sit through and watch. The DVD I saw did have some subtitles, but about 75% of the speech is not subtitled. Some of it is hard to understand. The Jamaican patois was cool to hear, but you struggle not to 'tune out' after awhile. Some of the shots were nice, and the realism was there, even if some of the performances were not great.(Jimmy Cliff did a good job) The plot is not bad, but quite predictable. In the 1:43 film, the highlights are Jimmy Cliff(Ivan) singing for a scene, and a couple of shoot-outs and a fight. Probably 15 minutes or so. The rest is pretty boring. BTW, near the beginning of the film, there are some weird cuts with the Ivan character that seem like a editing mistake, which made me laugh for a bit. One reviewer said this film has been cut so many times, that there are few copies of the original 1972 theatrical version out there. The ending was kind of interesting, showing how the media from a young age influences people, it could also be a general comment on the white man's/colonialism's influence on Jamaica. Other main themes are poverty, corruption, church, ambition... In closing, the soundtrack is definitely worthwhile, the film much less.


TV director uses astral projection to kill people taking the form of the blue man.

Dull uninvolving horror film that kind of just sits there before your eyes and makes you wonder why you are watching it. I sat through the film to the end and I really can't give you more than a cursory account of what the film was about because I kept finding my attention diverted by other things.

I can't really recommend this. I think my feelings are best summed up by the fact that I paid a dollar for the DVD as a double feature and I feel kind of ripped off.


The use of "astral projection"(wandering soul), to exist outside of body, with the result inflicting horrible death(..crushing the insides of victims leading to broken spine and ruptured organs)on those close to the one with such ability, is the threat of ETERNAL EVIL, providing Karen Black(..as Janus) with another "unique" character to fool around with as a woman who influences a commercial director, Paul Sharpe(Winston Rekert) tired of his waning marriage and dull career. In actuality, she's dying and needs his body, her spirit potentially harmful to his wife and son(..his son has a "special friend" who talks him into things, even poisoning himself at one point). A detective, Kauffman(John Novak) investigating the unusual homicides concerning those killed by the benevolent spirit, links Paul to the deaths and through him uncovers Janus. Soon both realize that Janus must be stopped or she'll simply move to another human host. What Paul doesn't know is that his new secretary is Janus' lover, both were actually older intellectuals featured in his documentary of astral projection called WANDERING SOUL.

Director George Mihalka(My Bloody Valentine)certainly creates a weird atmosphere with this movie which contains a rather bizarre premise. It seems that Paul's boy can see the spirit moving in the shape of a "blue man", manipulating the kid into disorderly conduct. Black, despite the star treatment, rarely is shot close up taking advantage of her face which can produce the type of malevolent evil her character warrants. Instead, she's shot from afar, her voice dubbed, and she never quite establishes herself with the proper menace which is an opportunity lost, in my opinion. For some reason, despite the intriguing(..if oddball)idea of astral projection causing a spirit to kill folks from within, the film just never takes off. The soundtrack is very "Yanni-ish" and the lighting(..and sound), while at times moody and effective, often is quite murky. The pacing is a problem, also, as the story mules along. The cast is rather limp, especially Rekert in the lead, his performance erratic, at best. It doesn't help that there are few characters(..except Paul's wife)we could care less about, and what really hurts is that Paul himself isn't exactly the most lovable person in the world..he can be quite difficult and moody, his unfulfilled career a reason for such behavior. Black should've been a more prominent figure in the film, yet remains mostly in the background, talked about in dialogue between Paul and Kauffman, but rarely does she get a chance to amuse us with her histrionics, which is a shame.


"A bored television director is introduced to the black arts and astral projection by his girlfriend. Learning the ability to separate his spirit from his body, the man finds a renewed interest in his life and a sense of wellbeing. Unfortunately, the man discovers while he is sleeping, his spirit leaves his body and his uncontrolled body roams the streets in a murderous rampage," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The synopsis isn't entirely correct, as it turns out.

Anyway, the movie opens with a dizzying "out-of-body" example of handsome director Winston Rekert (as Paul Sharpe)'s newly discovered "astral body" experience; it also foreshadows an upcoming dogfight. Young Andrew Bednarski (as Matthew Sharpe), being a kid, draws pictures of "The Blue Man", as his murder spree begins. Handsome detective John Novak (as Stewart Kaufman) discovers the victims are connected to Mr. Rekert. Mr. Novak's investigation leads to the supernatural; a prime example of which is Karen Black (as Janus), with whom Rekert fears he is falling in love.

Several in the cast perform well; but, "The Blue Man" winds up tying itself up in a knot. Aka "Eternal Evil", its unsatisfying story tries to be far too clever for its own good.


This is a good plot concept, so why-o-why is it such a poor film. The acting is terrible and every shock is signposted so far in advance that it is almost laughable by the time it reaches you. Spend your time and money elsewhere, this is not worth watching.


I never figured out what the attraction of Karen Black was. She always had those beady eyes and kind of an odd look about her. She seemed to often be eccentric or cast as the "other" woman. In this one, she is the psychic adviser and expert on the occult to a crummy producer of bad commercials as he learns astral projection. He is a mean sucker, even without the new baggage. Apparently this is the avenue to immortality, because if you get good at it, you can inhabit the bodies of future generations. I believe Star Trek had a plot like this with Jack the Ripper hanging on for several centuries. Anyway, this guy is really dangerous. He has a nice family and makes them miserable. He begins to murder friends, just because they have an unkind comment for them, or he doesn't like them. You can see the ending coming from the back row in left field. It's a very harsh, humorless movie. Most of it must be taken as truth. Why are some called but few chosen? I found it long and not very satisfying.


AALCC informs us that 14-year-olds can be pretty obnoxious and vicious. To those who don't know that, the film performs a public service. Otherwise, it's a lot of flashy videography with little or no reason for being. I will allow that the camera-work is sometimes striking, but also that it can be madly self-indulgent at other times. The actors occupy screen space and screen time, but do not compute as compelling human beings. I suppose the e-mail that flashes across the screen throughout means that you have to figure out which character has which moniker, but I simply couldn't tell enough differences to do so, and really didn't care anyway.


I wish it were "Last Dumb Thriller". But thrillers are like that. They are like children: numerous, illogical, and often annoying. They want so desperately to be taken seriously but what is there to take seriously about a child's behaviour or a thriller's plot? Having seen this particular child - I mean... thriller - I understand why reviewers refer to it as "a hitchcockian thriller"; they might as well have called it "idiotic" for that's what "hitchcockian" means in the movie dictionary (look it up, if you don't believe me). Even the soundtrack is old-school Hollywood which is a mistake: it doesn't fit a late 70s film and makes it look phony. Besides, how dare they steal De Palma's idea of stealing from Hitchcock?! The story is absurd. Scheider's wife is killed, and her killers are never an issue. Instead, first his former employers follow him around, and later decide to kill him. Why do they decide to kill him? No explanation. Perhaps because the FBI is a dark, dark organization ("X-Files") which is very trigger-happy about knocking off its former employees for pension-funds reasons. Or perhaps because it's fashionable to want to kill Scheider in this movie; everyone seems to be after him. And while the poor unsuspecting viewer is trying to figure out the mystery by logically assuming that there is a major conspiracy, in reality the killer is... Janet Margolin! Yes, the woman occupying Scheider's living quarters; the one that briefly hinted she was "depraved". Why does she go after Scheider at precisely a time when his wife was murdered and he is feeling paranoid - and followed by his own ex-employers - and not a few years earlier or few years after the wife's murder? A pure hitchcockian (look it up again in the dictionary, in case you forgot what it means) coincidence. And how about that brilliant motive of hers...! Her grandmother was forced into prostitution when she was a fresh-off-the-boat 15 year-old virgin in NY, and then syphilisized by a bunch of horny Jewish men, one of whom - tah-dah! - is Scheider's grandfather. As a result, Margolin has been playing a hooker in her spare time (among other things) in order to kill off all the descendants of the men who so cruelly syphilisized her once-virginal grandmother. How hitchcockian (look it up) is that? The finale then shamelessly rips off the Mount Rushmore scene from "North By Northwest", except that the love-interest is a killer and she doesn't get saved.

The movie also offers some dubious/off-kilter dialog and some not-so great acting. Check out the silly and obvious way in which Napier follows Scheider at the cemetery. Let's also not forget the moronic plot-device of Napier reaching for his jacket and holding his hand very suspiciously - but it wasn't a gun! How brilliant! Napier in the tower: now, there's another string of illogical behavioural patterns. J. Demme was, is, and always will be a director without style, without flair, and the man who directed "Philadelphia". Let's give him another Oscar!


Jonathan Demme is such a character-oriented director that, to see him pulling a Brian De Palma (which is to say, aping Hitchcock), it is nearly predictable when he fails to work up much suspense within this tepid mystery. Working from a screenplay by David Shaber, from Murray Teigh Bloom's novel, Demme attempts to strike a chord somewhere between Alan J. Pakula's paranoia dramas and Hitchcock's dangling-participle thrillers. Roy Scheider stars as a retired Secret Agent mourning the murder of his wife who is now busy dodging bad guys who are out to kill him. Takes off right away, but the script is full of flimsy threads and any excitement dies out quickly. There's a visually impressive climax at Niagra Falls, but Demme gets little out of his cast, and even less out of this bummer of a story. ** from ****


Congo is another multi-milion dollar adaptation of Crichton's works. Like Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Sphere, etc, the film raped the book of its true meaning and essence. I'll make this short and to the point. The scenery is beautiful. The actors, well it's the best they can do. The script? Try congesting hundreds of pages into an hour and half movie. You get a mess in the end but how neat of a mess is what counts and Congo falls somewhere below that. There were some silly moments, like why did the killer gorillas decide to jump into the lava? And Amy, raised by humans, surrounded by humans, yet can intimidate dozens of killer apes around her? What sort of twist of common sense is that? Which brings me to this. If there was an annoying character in every movie, Amy ranks of one here. You see Amy is this naive little female ape who can talk with a special backpack and harness strapped to her. Neat idea, but it gets annoying after awhile hearing her talk. Congo is worthwhile to see, and not deplorable, but certainly not a memorable film either.


It's hard to tell if this ham-brained B-movie adventure is a spoof, a homage or just plain bungled, but it doesn't work whichever way you look at it. Based on Michael Crichton's so-so novel, it's a nutty mixture of lost cities, giant hippos, monster monkeys, naff visual effects and corny dialogue. The first thing that scuppers this tosh is the gorilla that can communicate in sign language, and needless to say the film doesn't get any better from that point on. Making all this old rope somewhat worthwhile are Tim Curry, turning in a feverish slice of ham and sporting a bizarre accent that defies identification, and Ernie Hudson, who also seems to know that this is all a load of old rubbish.


I'm really not too sure why people are being so complimentary about this odd movie. Having said that - I did actually sit through the entire 2 hours and can't say it wasn't entirely un-entertaining.

I think the key problem is that Frank Marshall is not a true director and this is clear in the film - he is an experienced producer, so will have seen a movie made many a time, and will understand what goes into the process. But I think this is quite different to being able to truly direct a movie - the direction was competent, but somehow flat and direction-less. Marshall has more experience as a unit or second director, and this came through, I feel, in the finished product - it appeared to be a group of sets that failed to really have any continuity in its feel or its character.

Fun, watchable, but good? No.


This is just one of those movies that continually make you groan and that I wished was over. The problems are many and the good points are few. I feel the main problem with this movie is that it has what amounts to a cheesy plot and they try to make it out to be a epic movie, which a movie about super evil monkeys and smart ones that sign just is not epic, it is cheese. When you have cheese you make the movie more fun. Granted, the final scene with the monkeys and that laser was very nice to watch and more of things of that nature was needed. Instead the actors are doing such a serious job that you feel the movie just has a corny plot amid all the serious tension the movie is trying to set up. The plot revolves around a woman trying to find what happened to her missing ex-husband while also searching for some sort of legendary diamonds. She uses these two guys who trained an ape to do sign language and now wish to return her to the wild as cover to get into the country and begin the mediocre adventure of a lifetime. The only things that make this movie somewhat tolerable is Ernie Hudson's character and the laser attack at the end.


It is a shame that such a great book was turned into such a terrible movie. I could not wait to see this movie after reading the book....it really did not do it justice.


Poorly acted and poorly directed, "Congo" unsuccessfully tries to recreate the feeling of "Jurassic Park". But the truth is, the book wasn't all that great either. Still, the movie's first problem is that Tim Curry's character was added; the second problem is that the talking arm was added; the main problem, though, is that the cast members don't create realistic characters. I guarantee that this movie will not make you think that there are killer gorillas anywhere on earth. Also starring Laura Linney (happy birthday, Laura!), Dylan Walsh, Ernie Hudson, Grant Heslov, Joe Don Baker, James Karen and Bruce Campbell; I'm guessing that they don't wish to emphasize this movie in their resumes.


As an avid cinema go-er i felt that whilst i was ranking my favourite movies i felt it only fair to rank my most hated films.

I'm afraid i really have nothing positive to say about this movie. It is in fact one of only two films that i have ever walked out on. In fairness I went back and watched the movie again to give it another chance and sat through it only to wish that i should have stayed away.

The sad thing is the movie has a really decent cast and crew...but then even the brightest stars in Hollywood cant bring a dead duck of a script to life.

Stay away...Save yourself from this truly woeful 'film' 1/10


A group of people goes deep into the jungle for various reasons, and finally find a lost city (where apparently King Solomon's Diamonds are) and a race of super-gorilla's... Now, you know you're in trouble when you put fine actors like Linney and Curry in one movie that stars... a talking gorilla, and that is just the beginning. Okay, what else...?

For an action/adventure movie the film is... well, lacking just that. The first hour (!) of the movie they aren't even in the jungle, just trying to get there, with subplot after subplot (something about a local military regime, whatever), and when they finally do... it's just no fun anymore.

The effects of the movie are only so-and-so (and really bad compared to the earlier Jurassic Park movie).

Now, the ending... The father not caring for the death of his son, but just interested in the diamonds? Uh-huh... only in the movies folks, only in the movies.

A complete waste of talent, this Chricton (Jurassic Park, Twister, ER) adaptation. 2/10.


After a string of successful 'a man and his monkey films', which included the seminal "Every Which Way But Loose", "Every Which Way You Can" and "Peter's Friends", the genre fell on hard times. In an effort to rejuvenate this once celebrated area, director Frank Marshall brought Michael Crichton's acclaimed novel to the big screen.

Think 'Gorillas in the Mist' meets 'Tron' minus the box-office clout of Bruce Boxleitner. This is one mans doomed love affair for his talking monkey. Not helped by bad accents (Tim Curry struggles with a Romanian), a baboon of a screenplay, hungry hippos, skydiving primates and Bruce Campbell. Ape-Sh*t.


publicity got me to the theatre

advice will take you away from this waist of time.

very bad everything.

do you really want to see a monkey talking with a technological device?

X


I'd give this film a zero if I could. How anyone could rate it any higher is beyond me. Until I saw Rollerball, this was my pick for worst film ever from a major studio with a real budget (claiming Mangler 2 or Leprechaun in the Hood as the worst ever isn't really saying much, those are supposed to be bad)

Tim Curry's mom must have needed surgery or something for him to agree to this non-sensical garbage. I'm really not sure what happened here. The novel was great, the director Frank Marshall had a solid track record with Alive and Arachnophobia (perhaps they should have changed the title to 'Africa'), the cast was good and the budget was there. You'd think someone would have bothered to read the script.

You'd be better off watching Battlefield: Earth again than wasting your time with. Congo makes you long for the return of MST3K


"Congo" is based on the best-selling novel by Michael Crichton, which I thought lacked Crichton's usual charm, smart characters and punch. Well, sorry to say, but the same goes for the film.

Here's the plot:

Greed is bad, this simple morality tale cautions. A megalomaniacal C.E.O. (Joe Don Baker) sends his son into the dangerous African Congo on a quest for a source of diamonds large enough and pure enough to function as powerful laser communications transmitter (or is it laser weapons?). When contact is lost with his son and the team, his daughter-in-law (Laura Linney), a former CIA operative and computer-freak, is sent after them. On her quest, she is accompanied by gee-whiz gadgetry and a few eccentric characters (including a mercenary (Ernie Hudson), a researcher with a talking gorilla (Dylan Walsh), and a a nutty Indiana-Jones-type looking for King Solomon's Mines (Tim Curry). After some narrow escapes from surface-to-air missiles and some African wildlife, they all discover that often what we most want turns out to be the source of our downfall.

 The actors in this movie were not talented. Dylan Walsh acts like a pathetic crybaby, especially at the end; Ernie Hudson is unconvincing (is it no wonder he went on to star in TV films?) and Laura Linney is nothing special. I think I can safely say the only talented actors in this film had very small roles: Joe Don Baker and Tim Curry, an always enjoyable actor (although sometimes scarred for life by constantly being reminded of his "Rocky Horror Picture" days).

 This movie also had some other problems, including awful direction style, cheesy dialogue and a just-plain-boring plot, which was completely hashed when compared to Crichton's novel.

 Not even Stan Winston's creature effects could save this movie from being a disaster. I am deeply disappointed in this movie; there was not even a campy quality to redeem itself with. It was just plain awful, cheesy, boring and ridiculous, and proves to be one of the worst Crichton book-to-film productions.

2/5 stars -

John Ulmer


Let's see: there's a civil war, a lost city, a talking gorilla, some regular gorillas, a previously unknown species of killer albino gorilla, the most powerful laser ever known to man, a *lot* of diamonds lying mined and loose in the sand, attack hippos, an active volcano, and a hot air balloon packed in a suitcase in a downed plane. That's not too much, is it? I've had more coherent fever dreams ("... and then the Romanian guy picked up a bunch of diamonds, because this was a lost city that he had been looking for or something, but then the mean gorillas that we had seen before came out of nowhere and ate him. Now somehow the talking gorilla was back from visiting the regular gorillas, and, as a kind of earthquake or volcano started, the woman industrialist/doctor built a gun using a laser and this big diamond she had just found in her dead fiance's hand..."). It's a blast if you're looking for more ammunition against the pernicious influence of Michael Crichton in American entertainment (and hence world entertainment), and if you keep firmly in mind the extent to which this cynical and half-hearted attempt fell on its face at the boxoffice. But, sadly, the men responsible -- Crichton, sceenwriter John Patrick Shanley, director Frank Marshall -- probably never lost a dime. Shame on them, and I mean that. 1/10


The book, while not particularly great, was decent, but this movie completely changes it. A lot of the elements of the story are consistent between the book and the movie, but Dr. Ross' character goes from a creatively written character who lives for money and ends up causing the volcanic eruption with her greed to a heart-on-her-sleeve damsel in distress who won't do anything if she even catches the slightest hint that it might be less than noble. When movies change the book that much but keep the same name, it should be a crime.


Anyone who has seen the piece of steaming smelly poo called Congo understands my title. And I feel for you. This movie wasn't just bad. It was painful. The book was stupid, the script was even dumber and the cast was terrible. Dylan Walsh? Rumor has it Julia Roberts dumped your ass cause this movie blew so bad. Huge diamonds? Killer gorillas? Talking gorillas? Hmmm. Sounds like a hit! OH! Tim Curry's accent is so bad in this movie I would prefer being deaf! I recommend this movie to bulimics looking to purge after a heavy meal or Kavorkian patients who just need that one more reason to die. If this is faithful to the book, I would say lets have us a good old fashion Footloose book burning and destroy every copy. If future generations look back and find this garbage, how would we explain ourselves? Listen to the others who hated this movie! Don't watch it! Run away! DO NOT WATCH this movie! If you think it is full of action or suspense or cool effects, YOU ARE WRONG! If you think it blows more cock than Nicole Ritchie, you'd be right. So if you still are going to watch Crapo..,.I Mean Congo, I say do it after you just took 50 Tylenol PM.


I love bad movies: Showgirls, Plan 9 from Outerspace, so on. And this movie fits right in. Don't believe anyone who tells you this is good film. It's downright awful. Tim Curry's accent moves from German to Portuguese to Hungarian. There's a person in a gorilla suit who is supposed to be able to communicate using a glove that interprets the ape's sign language. There is a scene with a killer hippo that moves around a river like a Great White Shark. There are people hopping up and down Mt. Kilimanjaro as if there were escalators installed on it. This thing is laughably ridiculous. So ridiculous I was rolling on the floor. It is totally implausible. I loved every minute of it.


If you can make it through this flick without laughing out loud at the screen, you are a better filmgoer than I.

Count the logic lapses, common-sense leaps, and credibility stretches... betcha need more than two hands!

P.S.: If one more film uses a location that is clearly UCLA, and claims that it is a different university (in this movie's case: Berkeley), I'm going to lose it.


This was a highly-hyped movie prior to its release, but turned out to be a dud. I never talked to one person who ever liked this movie. I agree: I didn't like it, either. Perhaps one big reason it wasn't a box office success was that it had nothing but unappealing characters in the story.

For awhile there - I don't know if this is still true - I hadn't any movie in which Laura Linney or Dylan Walsh played anything BUT annoying characters.

That, and a stupid story, make this film a big disappointment, especially considering that big buildup. Did the filmmakers, with dialog this dumb, really think this was going to be a hit?


CONGO is probably the worst big-budget movie of the 1990s. It is so bad that it is watchable over and over again. A bunch of folks with different agendas probe deep into darkest Africa, where they encounter a temple of riches just like in KING SOLOMON'S MINES -- but with cannibalistic gorillas guarding those riches. On their side, the humans have a "talking" gorilla named Amy who helps save the day at one point or another. So much for the plot. The dialogue throughout is witless, the acting almost uniformly atrocious, certainly campy (Tim Curry and Ernie Hudson are both on hand to assure the ham factor), and the special effects abysmal. Wait until you see the cannibalistic gorillas. And the lava! Oh yes, did I mention there's a volcanic eruption to top off the big finale? Laura Linney of all people is along for this bumpiest of rides. What could she have been thinking? This is right around the same time she appeared with Richard Gere and Ed Norton in PRIMAL FEAR, a movie that helped guarantee her stardom.


I just watched Congo on DVD.In most cases I love these kind of movies but this one is different. It made me write my first comment for a movie on IMDb. I was amazed how such a team of experienced filmmakers could come up with this movie as a result. You can see there was a lot of money for this production but you can't make a good movie if you don't have a good script. And as a producer Frank Marshall gave us plenty of great movies to watch; he never should have tried to become another Spielberg. This one shows how hard it is to make a good movie, maybe you've got all the ingredients but if you can't cook stay out of the kitchen. If Can make a suggestion don't spend your money on this one. If you want to see it watch it on television first and make up your own mind.


This is one of Crichton's best books. The characters of Karen Ross, Peter Elliot, Munro, and Amy are beautifully developed and their interactions are exciting, complex, and fast-paced throughout this impressive novel.

And about 99.8 percent of that got lost in the film. Seriously, the screenplay AND the directing were horrendous and clearly done by people who could not fathom what was good about the novel. I can't fault the actors because frankly, they never had a chance to make this turkey live up to Crichton's original work. I know good novels, especially those with a science fiction edge, are hard to bring to the screen in a way that lives up to the original. But this may be the absolute worst disparity in quality between novel and screen adaptation ever. The book is really, really good. The movie is just dreadful.