The only reason I am giving a second star is for the first half of the movie. This was a good rendition of the story. I enjoy seeing a few fictional characters added to add some color to a well known story. But the second half was horrible!!! Yes there were violent aspects of this story. But the writers of this movie chose to only include the violence and forget about the good things God did for the Israelites. Towards the end of the movie Scott looked as though he were getting messages from the big giant head instead of talking and hearing from God. This rendition had some HUGE problems with deviation from scripture. And big surprise, there are no favorable deviations! Their portrayal of Moses as this screaming naked lunatic who did all of this against his will is totally false. It showed a Moses who had to scream in order to get God to talk to him. WRONG The scripture says God spoke to Moses all the time and not just after a temper tantrum. They got the people's complaining right, but failed to show that God spoke to Moses at Sinai in an audible voice that the followers could hear and believe.(Chapter 19). They also forgot the pillar of fire and cloud which guided them in the day and night.

What was the whole Joshua thing? The righteous peace loving Jew who would not fight until Moses threatens him? WRONG (He was known as a great warrior) What about the great speech that Moses gave the army telling them God had helped them enough and now they were on their own?? WRONG (They only won through God's help as shown in their own scenes with Moses lifting his staff)And what was that sorry looking Ark of the Covenant? Instead of overlaying it with gold this movie was on a tight budget and attached little gold chips to it! Oh yeah, it was a "molten calf" not a straw one with little chips tacked on. Someone forgot that they came out of Egypt with a huge amount of gold tribute from the Egyptians. You wouldn't know it from this sorry looking bunch.

By the way, the part about them slaying the Israelites after the golden calf incident says "men" and does not mention women and children which the movie delighted in showing the viewers. Oh yeah - Manna wasn't the only thing sent from heaven - don't forget the birds for meat. Also, the Bible mentions Jethro bringing Moses his wife and children and then says Jethro went back to his own land. It does not say that Moses gave up his family.

Oh well, if you know nothing about the real story, read Exodus for yourself. If you know the real story, you will hate this version.


I watched this series out of curiosity,wanting to see if they could possibly and with ALL this modern technology,out do Cecil B. DeMille's classic epic of 1956, starring Charleton Heston,Yul Brenner and Sir Cedric Hardwicke. Of course, I was let down. Yes, they had all the Biblical characters correct, but they didn't give us any of the spectacular theatrical scenes, that held your interest throughout the first movie. If you going to have a mini-series, you have to have some "rivoting" scenes, the "Burning bush", Parting the "RED Sea",drowning "Pharohs Armies", "building Sethi's Pyramids", could have been done with todays' technology on the scale of blockbuster movies such as "Lord of the Rings" or the Matrix. Obviously, they didn't want to leave a LASTING impression of "faith and sacrifice", which is much needed in these trouble times.


I had high hopes for this movie I even gave up a night of watching Stargate for this movie. I found it had a rushed feel about it and a lot of the key biblical moments and facts were missing. I might be a bit jaded and spoiled for the 1956 version, as I have watched that one every year for the last 20 or so years. I doubt this one will make it to the realm of yearly classic, as the other one has. If you have not seen the 19546 version, you might like this one but, I seriously doubt it and urge you to skip this one and go rent or buy the classic one. This has some nifty special effects but that is not what I look for when telling a movie like the Ten Commandments. I was kind of looking to see how they told the story, and the writers did not do a good job with this one.


This movie deviated from the Bible and fell so below the bar of the 1956 movie. I hate that they replaced the 2006 movie over the traditionally seen 10 commandments. Moses looked like a criminal in this movie, not like the kind looking man Charelston Heston in the 1956 movie. I will not waste my time again watching this movie. They tried so hard to modernize this movie in order to keep you on the edge that it was more like a soap opera (and not a good one at that). I'm pretty sure that younger ones out there who never paid attention to the original 10 commandments may disagree with me, but to each his own. Also, it took them 10 years to make the first 10 commandments, it probably took them 2 months to make this one. The special effects were not as amazing as the first one and after all these years with so much technology, you would have thought they would have done better now.


If you are a Christian or a Jew hoping to see an accurate Biblical (or Torah) portrayal of the events in Exodus, you will be disappointed by this movie. In typical Hollywood fashion people who are not even in the Bible have been "created" for supporting characters and play a large role in the movie. Jethro's role is changed completely and he becomes nothing but an untrusting father-in-law instead of a Shepherd priest who gave Moses excellent advise. God is largely removed from the movie, and instead viewers are given the impression that Moses had to figure things out for himself. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This movie is a typical Humanistic twist on Biblical things and attempts to put most of the responsibility on Moses for trying to understand what God wants and what he should do. Those who know the book of Exodus well will see not only inconsistencies in the movie, but outright glaring changes to events. Most importantly, they will see a near total absence of God's dialog with Moses, which determines everything Moses does after the burning bush. Far from being alone as portrayed in the movie, Moses is guided by God with detailed and direct communication.

Even Hallmark apparently can't acknowledge God's direct role, and without his spoken words to Moses many events make no sense. To compensate, Hallmark has actually changed some things. For instance, after the golden calf God plagues the people and they must look upon a symbol of a serpent to live. Hallmark creates a civil war instead and the Israelites pick sides, then slaughter each other. Moses side wins of course.

There may be minimal value in this movie to unbelievers since it may cause them to seek answers, but believers should stay away. The twisted events and changes make this a danger to anyone who doesn't know their Bible. Read Exodus for yourself, there is no substitute.


With a name like "10 Commandments" you would expect a film to be representative of the account in the Bible, specifically Exodus. Not so here. This is standard procedure with any Biblical Hallmark-made film. Remember "Noah"?? That was utter fiction and one of the worst films ever made. At least this film had "some" truth to the original story. However, Menerith, who was a major character in this movie - half-brother of Moses, is not in the original story. Other characters were absent, not to mention important events were completely eliminated. So what, you may ask? Because this should be representative of the actual story; otherwise, some might and do believe that is the way it actually happened. In today's age, people get their religion from movies instead of Church and reading the Bible. Also, it is a great error. See Revelation 22:18-19. The script is already written. Why change it? Other than the account in Exodus itself (which should be the main focus), you have the Cecil B. DeMille film to compare it to, which is clearly a far better presentation.

The night it first aired, my wife was anxious to see it. I told her not to get her hopes up because it was a Hallmark-film. She looked puzzled and said, "Why? Hallmark makes good movies". That might be so, but they butcher the Bible. I'm sorry to say that I was correct. Not just the story, but the acting as well. With today's technology, you should be able to make a wonderful Biblical movie. I'm still waiting...


I appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essence and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silent, cruel, disciplinary void.

In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, angry, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. OK, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy.


I as a Christian am outraged after seeing just the first half of this picture. The film's website says they researched the movie before writing but I believe they forgot to consult the ultimate source THE BIBLE. I sat with two different versions of the Bible and could not find half of what happened or was said in this picture. It was like they made up what was not in the Bible and changed what was in the Bible to what they thought modern film viewers would want to see instead of the truth. I personally am too young to remember the 1950's Ten Commandments but it can't be any worse than this. I have written to the network and can only hope they publicly apologize for this travesty.


I got this movie as a buy one get one deal at troma.com with The Ruining (which isn't much better). The main reason I wanted it was to see Star Worms II: Attack of the Pleasure Pods, the DVD is a double feature with that movie. I really didn't know what Actium Maximus was at the time, and when I saw the trailer I got scared. It looked awful. But hey, what can you tell from the trailer? Well, apparently I could tell a lot. This movie honestly made no sens to me. The special effects were so terrible you cannot tell what in God's name is going on. I understand Mark HIcks had a extremely low budget, but come on. And it is sad, because in the interview he sounded like this was to be an epic film and meant more than you could see. But sadly, watching the film is one of the most boring hour and 15 minutes of anyone's life. It is so utterly painful to sit through. I really can't even explain the plot to you because I didn't understand it at all and I have sadly seen this film two times! Apparently they used some type of puppets for the "alien dinosaurs" like they did in Star Wars. But these special effects are awful, I can't stress it enough. And most of the time bad special effects are okay but this film needed them badly. It takes place on some futuristic planet where alien dinosaurs battle each other and bad actors in hooded sweatshirts run around, and they look like they are in the kkk. And some box with a blue light on it is the president. I know in the interview Mark Hicks said something about making this a television pilot, well, I can see why this didn't make it to CBS or NBC. There are two good things about this film. 1. the music is actually pretty good, it has an epic score that sticks in your head for days. And 2. Lloyd Kaufman's introduction is as always hilarious. Overall, don't waste your time but check out Star Worms II: Attack of the Pleasure Pods!


OK, what to say about Actium Maximus...

There are some bad movies that are so horribly awful they circle 'round to awesome. There are bad movies that just suck in their own right. There are good movies, and so-so movies, and movies that are just fun. Then there's Actium Maximus. You can't make a spoiler for this movie because to do that you would have to understand the action enough to comment. This particular movie is worse than Turkish Star wars one and the sequel too. Those movies are so bad they circle 'round to awesome and they make you feel drunk even if you're stone cold sober. Actium circles 'round from bad to awesome, but then it doesn't stop there, it takes another trip to badville, then 'round again to awesome, then finally it sets up a little feudal kingdom on the border of "Bad" and "stock footage of paint drying while a harpy screams incoherently." If you are into self punishment this movie is for you. It actually will cause your brain to hurt.


This was a shockingly bad movie and I literally gasped the first time seeing the Blue Screen puppets. Imagine the worst Blue Screen special effects you ever saw, make it somehow far worse, and then combine this with poorly made, rubber and Play-doh puppets that look like something from a semi-retarded pre-school art class. Then add some screeching, Yngwie Malmstein-esquire, melodic-metal guitar solos stuff that is way too loud and lasts way too long. The overall film is absolutely awful and makes "Feeders" look like "Rashomon." Its one of the worst movies I've ever seen, with every quantifiable metric spiraling dismally downward, much like a waterlogged turd in the perpetual, slow whirlpool of a broken Rest Stop toilet. Still, though, a film like "Actium Maximus" is not to be missed by the bad movie conesseuirs out there, even if only by looking up clips on YouTube or someplace. This movie is a bit of an eye opener, if you can stomach the ride. I think this director may be mentally ill, though, which is a bit debasing. Watching him discuss the project, you get the sense that he truly believes that he's created something wonderful. I guess he's the "Star Wars kid" of gonzo filmmakers. What a mess. :-)


I just don't understand why anytime someone does a show about one of the largest metro areas in the country (Houston, Dallas, Austin/San Antonio etc.), they portray the average person as someone who wears wranglers/cowboy hat , talks with a drawl, has zero fashion sense, and drives a truck on his way to either the "saloon" or his next hunting trip, rodeo, skeet shooting or country music concert. I have never even seen a small town cop driving a police-truck...anywhere in Texas.

The funny thing is this is not done for artistic reasons or comedy...they are actually serious and I guess believe the average person is too stupid to know the difference. The bad scripts and equally bad acting give that away. This show makes goofy shows in the past like Knightrider look like high-brow entertainment. At least Knightrider had the talking car.


First of all, no one with any law enforcement experience (Not ER or EMT, but real law enforcement) takes this show seriously. Walker would be drummed out of any police force in the US for his illegal and totally unprofessional tactics. On top of that, he is a comic book character---no acting ability, incredibly trite lines, no character development. The fact that Alex Cahill loves him shows just how dumb blondes really are. And Trivett is the ultimate clown in black-face. Come on---if you think Walker is a heartfelt show without bias, then explain why JT is treated as a dolt, always is the subject of Walker's jokes, never is allowed to be the one to solve the crime, and never rescues Walker, who should be dead 50 times over for the stupid things he does. While it may be true that many criminals are even dumber than the detectives who go after them (and believe me, most cops are dumber than dirt), the smart ones Walker comes up against never seem to get the point that once Walker is captured, the jerk needs to be put of his misery. But then again, Norris produced the show as well as starred in it, so how could he willingly get rid of himself or even show how stupid his tactics are. As if six guys are going to wait around to take him one at a time. What a terrible series! It is more demeaning than any of the hokey westerns like The Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Cisco Kid, and Wild Bill Hickock, though I would imagine that most of you on here are far too young to remember those shows. But like those shows, in the same way as those shows, Walker TR is just as insulting and just plain silly.


The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.

Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.

Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.

PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!


This show is the worst show ever! Norris and his family write it, produce it, direct it, etc etc. The only reason I ever see it is because my goofy wife likes it. How many times can Norris fly though the air from plain sight to land a kick on an obviously blind villain? No trees, no building, just whoosh.....thin air. He ALWAYS solves the case or is the best at whatever skill there is. No co star ever gets the glory. Its all Norris. Its truly apparent that Norris is awful stuck on himself and will not allow anyone to one up him in any scene no matter what the content. Terrible acting, terrible script, terrible series.


This TV show is possibly the most pathetic display of crap on TV today. Horribly predictable, obscene usage of slow motion photography, cheesy story lines. Chuck Norris is an abomination who should never have been allowed to be filmed in anything. The way he chooses to make each episode into a public service announcement is really annoying. His acting sucks so bad that it makes a person cringe with embarrassment. I will give the series some credit though...it does get entertaining at times, but not enough for it make any difference. With all the negative points this series has, i still prefer it over reality TV, it can't really get any more worthless than that.


Walker Texas Ranger is one of the worst shows produced in the past 10 years. The script for James 'Jimmy' Trivette, Walker's sidekick, is about as pathetically written of a part as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek TNG, and is played with about as much conviction.

On this show, people don't respond the way people respond to things in real life--everyone is polarized--everyone is either a completely good guy or a completely bad guy (unless Walker himself has a 2 minute talk with them and then they change instantly). That's not how life works, that's not how people are. This show doesn't take place in this reality.

The plot lines are about as realistic as Murder She Wrote, a show where an arrogant old lady can just walk into people's houses without them getting angry, and she can demand that police officers do what she wants and they bend over backwards for her. With Walker, everyone on the show, including the "bad guys", act like he's the sort of hero that myths and fairy tales are made of, and time itself bends to his whim. The lines that sometimes come out of people's mouths on this show are beyond ridiculous. It's as if the scriptwriter for the part of Wesley Crusher (for the "serious" parts) and the scriptwriter for Bob Saget's funniest home videos (for the "humor" parts) got together and wrote all the scripts for this show.

This show is for people who think that good always prevails over evil. It's for the elderly. It's for wishful thinkers. It's for people who want to be guaranteed to always have a happy ending. It's for people who want to drift away into oblivion. It's for people whose drug of choice is their television.

I cringe every time I see even a commercial for this show. My opinion is that it is THE worst show to be on television in the last 10 years.

I used to like Chuck Norris, but this show has forever tainted him in my mind. I can't even watch his older movies without thinking of this show.


This series is formulaic and boring. The episodes are the same thing every week, simply with slightly varied settings. Some purely evil character does some dastardly deed, Walker goes after him, and it ends in a Karate match. The villains are super-cliché super-stereotypical evil villains, the good guys are all pure, honest and saintly, and the story lines are simplistic and unrealistic. After about 2 episodes, the show becomes totally unwatchable by all but the least discerning fans. Certainly not Norris's best work. His other work may be cliché but it usually does not drag on for weeks. If you enjoy formulaic,boring, repetitive clichéd snooze-fests, then this is for you.


I'd never thought that I would be caught saying this: But I think "Dog the Bounty Hunter" is more entertaining than this 90's era cop drama. Walker is very melodramatic and actually set a standard of the genre of "High Octane" cop shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, and so forth. I'm not saying all these shows are bad, but they aren't good either. I like the karate chop action that Walker dispenses on the enemies of justice, and the diverse cast of characters as much as the science tech of the CSI series. But there are some elements that I hate in a show like this. Stereotypes/Countertypes! That's right, Stereotypes/Countertypes! Unfortunately, this is a show for the moderates of Red State America who refuse to part with the old prejudices of yore especially when it comes to crime. For example, there was an episode in which a kid with psychic powers ventures into Dallas where he encounters group of kids in Goth/Punk clothing and they start harassing him. Now! This is exactly what Middle America perceives the Goth/Punk culture. I mean come on, how often do people that dress like that rob and steal from people just minding there own business. Whenever there are Blacks and Latinos in the plot it's always about gangs in some impoverished neighborhood. Okay! Not everyone who's a minority is a desperate recruit of a gang surrounded by crime, drugs, poverty. Again, this is what Middle Red State America sees of these people. Finally, Why is the Trivette the bumbling sidekick, can't you make the sidekick an equal ass-kicker?


This has got to be the worst show I have ever seen. I always liked Chuck Norris in Films, but why do we need to make these shows politically correct by adding a black side kick who is as threatening as Shirley Temple in Little Miss Marker. I also thought the show was limited because how many times can you kick a guy in the face and make it interesting. I know an African American who looks like this Trivette guy and he gets his butt kicked about once a week he is all attitude.

Chuck Norris is the man and he deserves all the kudos he gets, I think this show started great but lost steam as time went on

They should have dumped Chucks side kick


Great acting, great production values, good direction.

But the script starts out with great pacing and interest in the first half and then falls apart in the second half. We're clear on character and motivation for the first half but then the second half leaves many questions unanswered.

The conflicts raised are compelling but the follow-through is weak. For instance, we're very clear that Rudyard Kipling is pro-war but we don't know if that philosophical stance changes through the course of the film.

This is the sort of picture that makes me want to look up the facts in history books. I don't feel I can rely on the film to get a clear idea.

The depiction of the war itself is heart-breakingly accurate, though the women's lack of enthusiasm doesn't reflect the war hysteria that swept Britain at the time. Perhaps this is historically accurate; like so much in this film, I simply don't know.


**SPOILERS** I rented "Tesis" (or "Thesis" in English) on the strength of director Alejandro Amenabar's later effort "The Others". Based on what a brilliantly measured and horrifyingly effective creepfest that film was, I assumed his earlier efforts would be of a similar quality and I was in the mood for some good horror. Instead I wound up with the most tedious, preposterous excuse for a lame-brained slasher movie I've seen since the German film "Anatomie" (which this one kinda reminded me of).

The plot has potential but it's thrown away within the first 20 minutes. It revolves around innocent-n-pretty psychology student Angela's (Ana Torrent - a Jessica Harper deadringer) thesis on the subject of violence in films. Through some far-fetched circumstances too dumb to go into here, she winds up in possession of a 'snuff' tape on which two men torture, mutilate and kill a young girl for the camera. Angela, and her horror-buff friend Chema (Fele Martinez) are both shocked yet intrigued by the tape and decide to get to the bottom of who's responsible for it.

This leads to... well, nothing.

They never really give a reason for why they want to find the girl's killers (since they resolutely refuse to contact the police throughout any of the unfolding events, even when their own lives at risk) and the mystery itself is as limp as Graham Norton in a room full of bunny girls. There is only one proper 'clue' (the type of camera the killers used is discovered) and that's a) a really weak one and b) wheeled out in the first 20 minutes. The rest of the so-called 'unravelling' just occurs through blind luck, increasingly ridiculous plot twists and a SLEW of awful, transparent and thoroughly pointless red herrings that are chucked in merely to pad out the running time.

Seriously - Amenabar might know his stuff about ghost stories but he's clearly never read a detective book in his life. The key to a good whodunnit is to have a large cluster of potential suspects and to eliminate them one by one with clever deduction and the gradual discovery of more and more evidence, before moving in for the final twist. In "Tesis", *POTENTIAL SPOILER AHEAD* the killer's identity is guessed correctly by the amateur 'detectives' almost instantly and then we get 100 minutes of the writer trying feebly to throw us off the scent until he runs out of ideas, throws his hands up and says "OK, ya got me, it was him after all"! As for any kind of logic or motive behind the crimes - no such luck. You're watching the wrong movie if that's what you're after.

The only thing that drags "Tesis" down further from just being a dumb, badly written thriller is the way it actually tries to make some ludicrous, muddled-up 'point' about violence in films. I have no idea what stance it's attempting to take on the subject but it seems determined to cram in a ton of misguided, confused psychobabble, in between the rest of the gibberish, and say "look at me! I'm political!". The final scenes, in which the "point" of the movie is supposedly hammered home, are so utterly absurd and puerile, one can't help but wonder if Amenabar feels embarrassed now when he watches this. If he doesn't, he certainly should. This is total 'amateur night at the slasher house' stuff.

Overall I can't believe I wasted two whole hours (it felt like at least six) on this, just hoping something might happen. The urban legend of 'snuff films' (and that is basically all they are, despite the way this film tries to suggest they're some kind of criminal phenomenon sweeping the world!) is an area that can be so tantalisingly exploited in good horror films ("Videodrome" anyone?) but it's so easy to step over the line into childlike 'wouldn't it be cool if!' territory with it (ie: "My Little Eye")... "Tesis" hits an all-time low for the 'snuff movie' genre. On every level, this one is better left dead and buried. I'll award it a 1 out of 10, for some nice lighting, but that's all it's getting.


Some years back, this film had been scheduled for broadcast on TCM UK as part of a Tod Browning retrospective  but what they actually showed was the 1937 remake!; my brother had watched it (and, in hindsight, it followed the original pretty much scene-for-scene, even down to the set design)  though no classic, he said it was a far more satisfying viewing experience than the incredibly creaky earlier version

This being the first collaboration between Browning and Bela Lugosi, I had high hopes for it  but these were quashed when it became evident after the first reel of tedious conversation that the film's main concern was to appease the still-novel sound technique, and consequently the result is stagey and extremely static. The thriller plot isn't exactly exciting either; even less appetizing is the ostensible British-Indian setting (with the characters' affected accents and upper-class demeanor  not to mention the over-use of corny idiosyncratic idioms such as "I say", "rather" and "now look here"  rendering the whole risible more than anything else)!

Apart from this, there are a few unintended howlers: Margaret Wycherly (as a fake medium) pleads with Police Inspector Lugosi (if anything, his undeniable screen presence is already evident) to give her some time to 'work out' who the culprit of the double-murder really is (the evidence points to her own daughter, played by Leila Hyams!)  she hears a tapping and is deluded into thinking that the spirit world has genuinely made contact with herbut then Lugosi enters the room and, in his unmistakable accent, straight-facedly tells her "I knocked twice  you didn't hear me!", at which my brother and I almost fell to the floor in convulsions of laughter!!; the editing is really sloppy, too: during one high-angle shot of the main set, a mike is seen being rapidly pulled up out of camera range  and even worse are a couple of instances where a person walks off-screen, ostensibly into the next shot, to another part of the setbut each shot is held on the other actors for an absurdly long time, so that it appears to take forever for this person to walk just a few paces!!

THE THIRTEENTH CHAIR marks the third non-horror Browning Talkie that I've watched  even if both this and MIRACLES FOR SALE (1939) deal with murder and occultism and could, therefore, still be linked to the genre. Much has been said about the director's apparent slackening with the coming of Sound: however, flawed though they may be, the 4 straight horror films he did throughout the 30s are infinitely better than the rest  which I've always found stylish and bizarre enough to suggest that Browning wasn't as much at sea during this period as has been suggested


Early talkie feature based on a popular stage play. A murder has been committed and a bunch of people hire a medium to conduct a séance to see who the murderer is. While the lights are out there's ANOTHER murder...so it's someone in that room.

What follows is an obvious, dull and creaky murder mystery. Most of the cast overacts to a ridiculous degree. They act like they're on stage (where you have to overdo things) and it looks silly on screen. Most embarrassing is Bela Lugosi (two years before "Dracula") who REALLY overdoes it as a police inspector. Static direction by Tod Browning (who was always overrated) doesn't help.

For Browning and Lugosi completists only. I give it a 3.


OK, so this is horror? I get horror - but I don't get horrific. Black & white is artistic but too much black is overkill.....enough said about the lighting. The story - a serial killer ....... lot's of these around. It's been done in the past and yes, it will continue to be done.....but I hope not. My question is , when will the audience tire of reliving this maddening dilemma? I guess the director thought he would do something different - portray killing children. Well that's been done before too. SO I guess he had to go to shock value.....have them killed in the darkest of fashions. Okay ..... the audience was shocked......sickened....disgusted.....numbed. And getting up out of my seat , I felt all of these things. So was the director successful? Yes! Absolutely! These are the things he wanted me to feel and I did. Now what do I do with the feelings? And more importantly, what is the "message" here? With the amazing talent that Francis Xavier was "gifted" with.....could he ever consider applying it to making films that speak of, dare I say, coming out of the darkness? I was left in the dark after viewing this film, my soul was assaulted....is that what this craft is about? There are many such films out there - they make the bucks I'm told. So what's up with the people that want to see all these deploring visuals? What is going on in this world that people will pay to be horrifically shocked? Would I see this again.....not ever.


OH MY God I am lost Now I know everything this guy does is Pointless R J A wrote at August 13th, 2006 (posting no. 881): What an awful experience. It looked like a bunch of 3rd graders stole a video camera, borrowed some old editing software from 1995, and played a joke on each other. Trash RGC wrote at August 1st, 2006 (posting no. 747): This movie is a piece of @$#@#@. It sucks Calling this a movie would be misleading. This was a group of friends having a good time and videotaping one another. The storyline was very hard to follow. The attempted artistic camera angles detracted from the story and in to themselves made the entire time a dizzying experience. The acting although comical was very amateurish. The concept is OK, I guess. Perhaps next time, the producers should raise some capital and hire actual professionals and try again. I must say that I'm sick and tired of so many thinking that making a good movie is easy. It is not easy... This fact seems to be lost or ignored by many that believe that without any training/experience and talent that they can make a good product. I guess in the end they will learn just how difficult it is I am so disgusted I HAVE NO COMMENT Chrisite wrote at August 5th, 2006 (posting no. 762):


As much as I love trains, I couldn't stomach this movie. The premise that one could steal a locomotive and "drive" from Arkansas to Chicago without hitting another train along the way has to be right up there on the Impossible Plot lines hit board. Imagine two disgruntled NASA employees stealing the "crawler" that totes the shuttles to and fro and driving it to New York and you get the idea.

Having said all that, it's a nice try. Wilford Brimely is at his Quaker Oats best, and Levon Helm turns a good performance as his dimwitted but well-meaning sidekick. Bob Balaban is suitably wormy as the Corporate Guy, and the "little guy takes on Goliath" story gets another airing.


I would agree with another viewer who wrote that this movie recalls the offbeat Melanie Griffith/Jeff Daniels comedy, "Something Wild," in which a rather eccentric free-spirit hooks up with a conservative and very orderly young man, and the two pose as a couple and basically, her personality gradually has an effect on him. He looses up and learns to enjoy their short-lived tryst. That is exactly what happens here, except insert convenient store-robbing eccentric, Alex (Rosanna Arquette) in Melanie Griffith's role, and super-cautious teen, Lincoln (the name is no coincidence, played by Devon Gummersall) in Jeff Daniel's part. This movie even shares the same twist and abrupt genre change where the creepy, violent boyfriend suddenly shows up in the end and things end up quite badly. Only, here, instead of it being Ray Liotta playing a throwback to 1950s film goons, it's Peter Greene.

The story is about a teenage kid who is in his own little world. He has some sort of fascination with death following his brother's suicide, and his parents have disconnected, too, behaving quite strangely (the mother is convinced Christmas will be arriving shortly, despite it being August). Then, on a night out with the "guys" (one of whom is played by Jason Hervey of the Wonder Years) trying to buy them beer, he runs into Alex who decides to kidnap him and his friends car (with his permission of course), and they take off for mini-adventure across the deserts of the West Coast, robbing convenient stores in Robin Hood sort of fashion and of course, indulging in the routine self-discovery as each asks more about the other's life. But, Alex has left behind a partner in her trade of theft, and he isn't going away easily. Although, we're not consistently reminded of him or anything as in repetitive flashback or cutting over to his point of view. At least this much was done cleverly.

'Do Me a Favor' (aka Trading Favors), is a mostly underdeveloped story of criminal mischief and self-discovery that lags quite a bit for the first half of the film, but delivers the goods a little to late once Alex and Lincoln arrive at her home out in the middle of nowhere. By the time the filmmakers give you enough stimulation, the film is unfortunately, almost over. I would recommend that if this is the sort of story you're in the mood for, and despite Rosanna Arquette always giving a good performance (even in a poorly written film), I would still recommend catching this in its best form, "Something Wild."


The most obvious flaw...horrible, horrible script. This movie had a potentially good story, but it was ruined with bad dialogue, continuity problems, things that were never explained, gaping plotholes, sub-plots that went nowhere, and just plain stupidity. Not to mention the awful, cliched directing of Sandra Locke. Not even two great performances could've saved this movie. So it didn't matter that Devon Gummersall and Rosanna Arquette give horrific performances. The thing is, they're better actors than this movie would have you believe. The best of the Arquettes, Rosanna Arquette (Silverado, After Hours, Desperately Seeking Susan) has some fine moments - like a great scene in the beginning when she painfully pulls her handcuffs off - but gives an overall weak performance, by her standards. And Devon Gummersall (Dick, When Trumpets Fade, and the brilliant My So-Called Life) is much worse, acting with no conviction or emotion what-so-ever. But I won't lay blame on the actors, who have been good in other roles. The script is awful, and the bad direction doesn't help. Do me a favor...avoid this movie.


"Music and lyrics written and performed by Charlie Daniels"... 'nuff said. Just don't be expecting anything along the lines of "Devil Went Down To Georgia", ol' Charles sorta talk-sings through one song early in about the Whiskey Mountain (duh) and that's it for lyrics. Hey though, fans of arty rape scenes will get a kick out of the Polaroid montage (my second-hand copy is classified as a FAMILY film) and who doesn't love interminable scenes of rednecks gawking at purty wimmen? The box art made the movie look a hell of a lot weirder than it was, with the promise that "you can lose your life-- or your mind!", but mostly it's two couples trekking through the sticks and "acting" natural. Love that hermit.


A less than redemptive hunka junk that is mercifully free from the ravages of competence. Some Northern idiots come to the deep South looking for some confederate rifles stashed on the legendary Whiskey Mountain. They are menaced by scary hillbillies, in a wide nod to 'Deliverance'; but it turns out that the hicks are fronting for a Northern marijuana-trafficking badass. This is brought to light so early that it doesn't even qualify as a twist. The women are locked up and raped into catatonia; rather than rescuing them, the guys run down to town to get the sheriff, who is lazy and doesn't believe them. I think if my girlfriend were being raped I'd kind of take the shortest route to the hideout anyway. It's OK though because as soon as they show up to tenderize the baddies the girls get all cheery and hop around, if only trauma were like this in real life. Also featuring a backwoods guy with a beard who cackles a lot. Not exactly bursting at the seams with ideas.


One of the worst movies ever made... If you can get through this movies without falling asleep, then you are doing pretty good, considering no matter how hard you turn up the volume you cant hear what the 'actors' (?) are saying and if you can acually see whats going on from the terrible film (I mean hell if you cant find anything that works better... use a Home movie camara... AT LEAST YOU CAN ACUALLY TELL WHATS GOING ON!)

It is beyond my imagination how people get a movie like this to slip through the cracks, and escape on video... and further more.. how do people making this not know how terrible it is... good god... (!)

After what I have just told you... If you are waiting for me to give you a summary of this piece of trash movie, there is nothing to tell... a group of campers on motorcycles get lost in the woods and a bunch of people terrorize them... or somthing to that... whats more so an action movie than a horror... this 'movie' (?) is of NO interest... if someone acually likes this I litterally feel for you....

Absolute Trash... not even one of those cheap funny flicks to watch go rent.. 'Plan 9 From Outerspace' and have a ball


At Beaverview Cheerleading Camp, the goody-goody two shows Lucky Ducks cheerleading team must get in cahoots with the 'tough' bad girl cheerleading team of The Demons to beat the dastardly Falcon team who always seems to win at this camp I guess. This being a typical clichéd '80's teen (lame) sex comedy who do you think will win? But what the film lacks in originality it more than makes up for it sheer bloody awfulness. Oh and insanely bad dance numbers and the obligatory Japenese businessmen who want to buy the camp (on the condition that male cheerleader, Tommy Hamilton, stays with the camp of course). Simply awful, forgettable, and sadly has a surprising lack of nudity.

Where I saw it: HBO Comedy

My Grade: F (yup I did indeed give it to them)


This movie is too stupid for words. Even if you consider it to be a parody on movie-making, if you consider it to be completely camp, even than you're wasting your time watching it - for you've seen it a hundred times before. But maybe you are a big fan of high shrieking girl voices, you're still loving Barbie and Ken and you can stand this typical '80s electric guitar background noise... Well, than you'll have a chance.


"Flashdance" meets "Meatballs III" or maybe it should just be called "Meatballs IV". This is my friend Wesley's all-time favorite movie, largely because he still has a thing about J.V. cheerleaders. As someone once said: "This is fine-more than fine-but as you get older you need to branch out. Whether you want to or not, society demands it".

"Gimme An F" has cinema's greatest J.V. cheerleader Mary Ann (played by Beth Miller), who looks like a sweet-faced Alicia Silverstone from before her "Clueless" days. Wesley hates Miller's other film, the horrific "Teen Wolf Too" made three years later, where she plays a fickle southern belle much like Martha Smith's character in "Animal House". Personally I admire Miller's range as the two characters could not be more different and she is convincing as both.

Anyway, Mary Ann is a naïve novice cheerleader from Moline (a member of "The Lucky Ducks" squad) who comes to Camp Beaverview for cheerleading instruction. She's befriended by Jenna (Karen Lee Kelly), the leader of the tough girl squad-appropriately named "The Demons". Jenna becomes protective of Mary Ann after her main rival takes an instant dislike to Mary Ann.

Later Mary Ann gets a crush on Tommy Hamilton, the head instructor. Tommy is spending his summer wrestling with the dilemma of having to grow up and move on, which is a problem as his only skills are teaching cheerleading and performing elaborate dance routines in the shower, for the enjoyment of viewers who get off on that sort of thing. Phoebe (Daphne Ashbrook) is Tommy's long-suffering girlfriend, she has a well-adjusted attitude and an experienced perspective. She even tolerates Tommy's flirtation with Mary Ann-trusting that Tommy will not actually take advantage of young Mary Ann.

While these four characters are solid and their relationships have a nice charm, the supporting cast is almost as weak as the material they have to work with. Which is a shame because had they brought some actual comic relief to the production it would have been a decent film. Jennifer Cooke plays Pam, a social climbing and terminally peppy instructor who is carrying on with camp's money-hungry owner Bucky. And there is another couple with a thing for the characters from "Mad Max". Since nothing is very funny you are left with only a cute semi-romance and some great dance routines.

An attempt is made to create some suspense by slowly leading up a final competition but unless this is your first movie experience the outcome is never in doubt. And there is a back-story about some Japanese businessmen Bucky wants to get money from, but it goes nowhere dramatically or comically.

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


I only wish there was a grade lower than F to give it! i scored it a 1 in the vote tally.I am grading this not even as a regular film,but as a T&A film,and this is the worst,lamest,crappiest and most awful movie i've seen.the acting,story and music are all terrible,not to mention there isn't even any nudity for the T&A connisuer.it's about a male cheerleader and the viewer is made to sit through many painful scenes of him doing cheers.avoid this piece of trash at all cost! this is the worst of bad 80's teen cinema.


This is on my TV right now... but only long enough for me to finish panning it in this comment. The previous comment let me know that this movie will not get any better, no matter how much I hope and pray. I will concur this movie is a colossal waste of my time, and would be of your time...it is not going to get any better! I can't believe this screenwriter is doing Atlas Shrugged! I hope he has improved a million-fold! I see some other credits on his resume that have had good reviews, but I'm still not convinced. If you are familiar with his work, please post something here, because I really want to see Atlas Shrugged, and would hate it if this guy turned it into the garbage that this movie turned out to be.


Steven Seagal is back! Here with his third film released this year. Of course as a one time fan who has become increasingly disgruntled I can say it comes as no surprise that this is pretty lame. Firstly the film made headlines because of apparent problems in production due to Seagal. He would turn up late on set, change the script, crew etc and generally cause problems for the director, Don E Faun Leroy (his lack of talent his trouble enough!). This also happens in their second collaboration the upcoming Mercenary which promises to be just as bad as this garbage. This also marks a big turning point in Seagal's career because this film is the first of his to really dig out the stock footage. There was a little in Ticker but this film takes the biscuit. They borrow bits from, The Order (A Van Damme movie, Seagals biggest rival in DTV movies!) No Code Of Conduct, Undisputed, and also an entire action sequence from the little known Peter Weller starring vehicle Top Of The World. Interestingly the car chase stolen from Weller's epic, made almost 10 years ago and ironically probably cheaper than this garbage, is actually by far the best action scene of the film. I was shocked enough when Dolph Lundgren had a brief stint in the stock action video world, which thankfully he has escaped from. Seagal though is the leader of the DTV action market currently, with Van Damme and Snipes his main rivals. Seagal still manages to sell movies and for the life of me I don't know how. Surely the fans must be getting bored of this awfulness, longing for a return to the likes of Above The Law. The story here is totally lame. In fact the film has so many plot holes it doesn't bare thinking about. For example at the end of a film there's a little girl that Seagal apparently knows at an orphanage who he gives a necklace to. Why I don't know but we never see her at all in the rest of the movie, or hear her mentioned. Seagal has a girlfriend in this movie who at the beginning of the film is with a psychic and she becomes haunted by visions, which by the end of the film are never explained and mean nothing. The film is so ridiculously glued together by a series of meaningless pap that it becomes headache inducing.. This is by far Seagal's dumbest movie! Seagal himself is as wooden as ever, however to his credit he doesn't get dubbed in this one as far as I could tell. Seagal does however feel the need to talk like he is a gangsta rapper, making me long for the days he would don his Brooklyn/Italian-American accent, in his classic early films. He also has a painfully unfunny double act with Treach, who I assume is a rapper. It is funny how producers seem to think that the combo of Seagal, plus hip-hop star seems to work, because his team up with DMX in Exit Wounds was his most successful film since Under Siege. Clearly though if no one has heard of the rapper, it won't work. This is an action film though and so the action itself must be judged. Unfortunately the action that didn't come form the NU Image back catalogue is strictly routine. There are a few small fight scenes with some classic Seagal aikido but when 90% is performed by his stunt double, who really does have a rigorous work out in this film, it really doesn't impress much. There are also some standard gun fights which really only have some nice violent and bloody squibbage going for them. All in all this is a painfully boring experience and once again I'm left giving the same verdict: Seagal has lost it! I keep asking the years old question now, "why do people still watch his movies?" That is all very well and good as a question but the sad bastard that I am continues to watch his films in the deluded hope he may do something good once again. Chances are slim, unlike Seagal's ever expanding waistline. *1/2


It's been 3 months and you know what that means...A new Seagal movie. Seagal has really been on role making horrible film after horrible film. Each time every movie getting worse and worse, he's really amazing! I don't really know what to say about TYD, first it's a piece of crap, the story makes no sense at all, secondly he uses stunt men in all his fight scenes, and last but not least a lot of the footage is taken from other movies! It amazes how this guy continues to find work, he comes to the set late and leaves early and because of that his films are full of plot holes and stunt men. Why do we continue to buy his movies, why do we continue to have hope that maybe just maybe he will make a great movie?


STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh

Harlan Banks (Steven Seagal- not quite as bad an actor as Kevin Costner but.......aaaaahhhh, you get it) is a modern day Robin Hood (listen close, you can hear Brian Adams music playing in the background...no, not really), the kind of guy who steals ill-gotten blood money from drug dealers and uses it to keep run-down orphanages open. But now he's been approached to drive a getaway van in a heist from Las Vegas in one of those last things before retirement type jobs. But, of course, it all goes wrong and he winds up the patsy for the big guys at the top and in jail. Here he meets a guy named (although you wouldn't know it from paying attention to the movie) Ice Cool (Treach), who he forms a friendship with and ends up breaking out of jail with. Once free, he's out to prove his innocence, locate the missing money and, naturally, get even with those who framed him!

Of all Seagal's recent straight to video films, Today You Die has that look about it most of all that it belongs in a cinema, even with a rap star as his co-star like his previous cinema films Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds. Yes, it seems when he's not making films about looking after the environment he's pretending to be black and co-starring with rappers. But TYD is not a cinema film and that's a luxury The Great One is never going to be enjoying again until Under Siege 3 materializes (if ever!)

The film opens with a slick, polished look that commands attention but it all quickly goes down hill from there. Once Seagal hits prison, the plot quickly loses it's coherence. Indeed Treach's character just seems to pop up out of nowhere without any introduction as his sidekick and from there you quickly lose interest in it.

That's it. I know I've said it before but I think I mean it this time. I don't think I'm going to be giving any more of these straight to video Seagal films any time. I honestly have no enthusiasm to watching Shadow Man at all. In fact, I can honestly say that I've not really enjoyed ANY of his STV films up to this point, and Today You Die is certainly no exception, an apathetic, boring effort all round best avoided by all. *


Poor action films are the graveyards for aging martial art stars. In such films they struggle to maintain that dangerous demeanor that made their early work successful, but they all end in failure. Seagal is too old for this type of role but he wont let go...no matter how silly he looks. Some hope his current work will somehow bring back the magic, but there is no magic left. The late '80s and early '90s belonged to Steven Seagal and his work made me a fan. I could see him fit nicely in a slot on The Sopranos where his overweight body, jowly features and sullen attitude could have found a home. I wonder what the return is on his run of direct to video films?! Since he produces them I'm assuming the $$$ is more than satisfactory. If this is the deal we will be subjected to poorly done Seagal action films well into his late 60s and 70s.....


Harlan Banks is thief at the top of his game, but, after a successful career, he has decided to settle down with his woman and retire. However, he decides to take one last routine job in Las Vegas. All he has to do is drive the car and it seems simple. Unfortunately someone tips the police and after a hectic car chase he winds up in the slam only to escape and take revenge on those who betrayed and got him there in the first place. A typical action-fest ensues.

Steven Seagal plays himself (surprise!) wearing a trench-coat and sporting his beloved Colt 1911 along with his usual bone-breaking aikido. The Colt and aikido have always been with him, but the first I recall him with the trench-coat is in 'The Foreigner.' It isn't particularly impressive, but it does add a little notch to Seagal's lethal arsenal of badassness. Or it covers up those extra pounds he is packing. Look at it however way you choose. His main buddy throughout the film is played by Treach (another new thing, a rapper in an action movie) and they both uncover a little conspiracy of bad-guys, on both sides of the law, and give each evil-doer his due.

The film's main problem is that is it painfully, and I truly mean painfully, unoriginal. Seagal just follows a clockwork plot throughout the movie and even that manages to get more and more dull as the film progresses. Then it goes from dull to utterly ridiculous in the final scene as people who seemed to be dead on killing each other suddenly, for no reason, start to talk. Groan inducing in every sense of the word. The only real positive thing here is the decent opening - a car chase in Las Vegas complete with flipping police cars and generally entertaining mayhem, but after that brief highlight you've seen it all before. 3/10

Rated R: constant violence and profanity


Ho Hum. Just another flick with Steven Seagal pretending to be some spiritual being, but bashing heads and killing like it was nothing. He, of course, justifies it in the end by donating the money to an orphanage., How sweet. Lay the world to waste and we'll ignore it if you take care of a little girl. Jeesh! This time, he is partnered with Ice Cool (Anthony 'Treach' Criss). Gotta have someone to lay all those cringe-inducing lines on, man, and there are plenty. The dialog is pure crap.

They go after bad guys Nick Mancuso and Kevin Tighe, two people that were born to play the scumbags.

He's squeezing Mari Morrow and impressing soap star Sarah Buxton. How cute.

I guess if you gotta have some July Force excitement, this may suffice. If nothing else it will help you get your degree in Seagalology.


I ran across this movie on a local TV channel last night. Frankly, I have never heard about this movie before. Simply, I lost track of Seagual's recent movies, for each one is worst than the previous one. Here, again we have a dull Seagal as if he was insisted by his girlfriend to make this movie and he accepted forcefully. The plot is ridiculous, acting is below zero, and there is no single aspect the movie is not falling apart. I simply don't have any idea why Seagal did this movie. Man, it is even worst than "Out for a kill"! If you watch this movie you will start feeling sorry for Seagal. He seems to be running out of ideas, enthusiasm and money. Avoid this movie and do something worthwhile.


I usually spend almost as much time writing my reviews as I do watching the film, but with Today You Die, I feel that doing so would be a criminal waste of my time.

So here is a five minute rant about how bad this film is.

There was a time in the mid-80s when a single look from Steven Seagal was enough to crack your ribs; a full on scowl could knock you off your feet. If he actually got a hold of you, he would snap you like a twig.

These days, although he is still capable of doing considerable damage, he no longer looks the part. He's gone to seed and just doesn't know when to call it quits. He walks like he's dumped in his pants yet somehow still manages to look constipated, and he has put on weight. His trademark long ponytail has gone, but his hair still looks stupid. How this man keeps on working in the movie industry is beyond me.

Today you Die is the usual Seagal mix of bone crunching fights, car crashes, gun battles and pyrotechnics. Seagal mumbles his way through the dull script, delivering his lines with zero enthusiasm or believability. In this third-rate action flick, he plays Harlan Banks a thief trying to go straight, who is conned into partaking in a $20,000,000 robbery. He gets caught, goes to jail, escapes, and seeks revenge. Yawn.

There are some pretty good car chases and gun fights which intersperse the boring stuff (of which there is a lot), but reading other comments on IMDb has revealed that these were actually borrowed from other better movies. Seagal is also body-doubled an awful lot in this one.

Seagal turns in one of the most dreadful performances of his careerand that's saying something, considering the lousy 'acting' in some of his recent efforts. Most hilarious is his totally embarrassing attempt at Ebonics (African American street slang). 'I da man, fo' sho'no, actually Steven, you sound like an arse! With a ridiculous script and plot lines that go nowhere, this film is a waste of time, money and effort. And the final moment, where Harlan Banks saves a Children's home from closure is enough to make you blow chunks.

Damn, I just looked at the clock. I was enjoying trashing this steaming pile of dreck so much, I went way over my five minutes. It's time to post this comment and get to watching something decent.


Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.

Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.

Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.

However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.

Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please?

At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.


this is only the second time i have been moved enough to write a review. unfortunately, both times they have been for movies that can be described with several 4 lettered words that can be defined as faeces or excrement. the other movie of such calibre was masked and anonymous.

anywa, onto the review.. there are several key things wrong with this movie which i will describe below.

1) steven has lost the plot (i.e. in all his other movies, family / friend gets killed. steven gets angry. steven kills people. the end).

2) steven has run out of money (there was a good car chase scene at the start, but i think he blew his budget on that and couldn't afford a decent script writer or editor).

3) steven no longer appears to do his own action. instead, the (from memory) 2 fight scenes were shot neck down and from the back, so you couldn't actually see his face. most likely a stunt double. i'm guessing chuck norris.

in summary.. worst seagal movie ever. second worst movie i have seen in recent history, and i've seen a lot of bad movies.


Steven Seagal is a thief who specializes in robbing wealther drug dealers, giving to the poor and unfortunate..heh, Harlan, the Robin Hood. Anyway, Harlan wants to go straight for his girl, Jada(Mari Morrow), so he takes on a job as the driver of an armoured car for a Max Stevens(Kevin Tighe, wasted in an underwritten role). Max intends to have the millions for himself and his unscrupulous associates, with the intent of using his loader, Bruno(Robert Miano)to bring him the money, but Harlan has other plans. Escaping the police, hiding the money, and ditching Bruno(who had a loaded gun pointed at Harlan's head threatening to shoot him if he didn't drive)after evading capture by ramming a huge dump truck, Harlan passes out. Charged with the murder of police among other things as a result of the damage caused by the high-speed chase, Harlan is imprisoned and many wish to know where the money is. Harlan joins forces with an inmate, Ice(Treach), a leader of one of the many gangs in the prison, breaking out with the plans of finding Max and eliminating every member of his corrupt entourage. Soon DEA agent Rachel Knowles(Sarah Buxton) becomes part of this scenario thanks to her boss, Saunders(Nick Mancuso)who claims there's drugs involved. Also injected into the plot is Harlan's desire to save a children's hospital about to close and Jada has mysterious dreams regarding Max.

Seagal and Treach cut up with each other speaking in gangsta, while Buxton spends time trying to help Harlan, uncovering the possibility her boss is in cahoots with Max. Mancuso's character is an odd duck, allowing Rachel much leeway despite the threat she is to his career. Tighe shows up for five or so minutes tops, which is a shame. Seagal's Harlan escapes prison and finds each and every rich associate of Max's, inevitably discovering his whereabouts after cracking a few skulls, snapping some wrists, and breaking some bones. Treach speaks in his rapper speech and Seagal tries to answer him in kind, providing some unintentional laughs. As you'd expect, a lot of people get shot and Seagal doesn't break a sweat. It's interesting seeing Seagal in prison, among the convicts, helping Treach out when a group of "Eses" plan to take him out.


Today You Die starts as honourable criminal Harlan banks (producer Steven Seagal) is hired by sinister businessman Max Stevens (Kevin Tighe) to drive a security vehicle with $20,000,000 of cash in the back from point 'A' a Las Vegas casino to point 'B' him, sounds simple right? Well what Max forgot to tell Harlan that the money is stolen & that he has just become the getaway driver in an armed robbery. Bummer. Things get even worse for Harlan when the local cops catch him & chuck him in prison for a long time, however Harlan managed to hide the money before he was caught & with a nice $20,000,000 at stake & unaccounted for Harlan has to watch his back as the crooks want it as do Government agents. Harlan teams up with Ice Kool (!)(Anthony 'Teach' Criss) in prison & they both manage to escape at which point Harlan goes looking for some revenge...

Photographed & directed by Don E. FauntLeRoy one has to say that the shot in Eastern Europe straight-to-video action films that Steven Seagal specialises in these days aren't getting any better & Today You Die is a good case in point. This is a terrible film, simple as that really. The script by producer Danny Lerner, Kevin Moore & Les Weldon gives Seagal a new sort of character to get his none existent acting skills around, that of a criminal rather than some Government agent/cop/soldier/one man army cliché he usually plays. In fact if you were being charitable you could say Today You Die is a rip-off of Mel Gibson's excellent thriller Payback (1998) where he too played a really nasty piece of work to such good effect. While Payback was a superb uncompromising hard edged film noir type action thriller Today You Die isn't & pales into insignificance by comparison. Unfortunately here Seagal is terrible, he has no on screen presence or menace either & the audience is never quite sure whether he is meant to be a bad guy that we hate or not. For instance initially his character's is set up like a modern day Robin Hood as he steals from the rich drug dealers & scumbags to give to the poor (as well as keeping a tidy profit for himself) which is just ludicrous in itself but then it has Seagal turn around & murder a lot of people which contradicts the likable criminal with morals that the film went to such lengths to set up in the first place. The story is full of holes, for instance Agent Knowles is contacted by the on the run Harlan & is then reprimanded by her bent superior for meeting him & it turns out that he found out by tapped her phone. In that case why didn't her boss use the information he had to catch Harlan? The story is the usual dull predictable bland fight over lots of money with surprise surprise the investigating Government agent is actually a bad guy! Wow, I didn't see that coming I must say...

Director FauntLeRoy slows everything down to a snails pace & Today You Die feels like it goes on forever, the action scenes & set-pieces are also severely lacking in entertainment value. The infrequent fight scenes aren't great, most are either shot in shadow, very quickly cut & edited or with the camera played behind Seagal's character to try & disguise the fact that most of the stunt work done here is by a double. Again Seagal looks fat & out of shape & uses long baggy overcoats to try & hide it, it doesn't. There's a pretty cool car chase through the streets of Las Vegas in this at the start & I thought that Today You Die might be alright but it seems the whole sequence was stolen from another action film called Top of the World (1997) which is about a Las Vegas casino robbery, as well as using footage from that film Today You Die also edits scenes from the Charlie Sheen action film No Code of Conduct (1998), the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film The Order (2001) & the Wesley Snipes prison based action film Undisputed (2002) so quite how much of Today You Die is original footage is anyone's guess.

Technically the film is alright, considering it's edited together from four separate films as well as it's own footage it's just about competent & consistent enough. All the footage of the US locations are obviously lifted from the films already mentioned with all the original footage shot on the cheap in Bulgaria. The rap style music that litter Today You Die is awful by the way. The acting is poor & Seagal just mumbles his way through his lines as usual.

Today You Die is a really bad film made up from other bad action films, Seagal looks old & fat, the action scenes are average at best & most of the story is fairly random & it doesn't come together at the end that well at all. One to avoid unless your a die hard Seagal fan, if such an animal even exists...


I have just seen Today You Die. It is bad, almost very bad.

1) The direction and editing are awful, just awful. Almost made me turn off the movie, Fauntleroy (the director) has no idea what he is doing, he seems to be filming things at random and some scenes don't make sense at all. Also, I hate it when the same scene is used again in the same movie, in this movie some scenes were used 3 or 4 times. Pretty bad.

2) The dialogue is sometimes good, sometimes awful. I like the fact that they wanted to make Seagal's character and Treach's character seem like they were in a similar relationship to the characters in Lethal Weapon, but it did not work simply because some of the dialogue DID NOT MAKE SENSE, and I speak English very well, it's not that I did not understand the words, it was the fact that the jokes and dialogue lines had no meaning whatsoever.

3) The script is pretty bad. Why do they always try to complicate DTV action movies? Seagal's wife in the movie has psychic abilities, why? Is it useful to the movie? NO. Seagal eliminates a whole bunch of people who work for the guy who betrayed him and he knows these people without having ever met them in the movie. STUPID. The story sometimes goes off track and the jumps back without any reason. The story is messy and pointless sometimes. They should have kept it simple and it would have worked.

4) In some of the action scenes it is not Seagal, it is his stunt double. You can tell because they only film him from behind and never show his face. He also beats the guys with movie martial arts, not real ones like the aikido Steven knows. The stunt double uses cheesy kicks and punches.

5) Steven is good in the movie. 90-95% of the lines are said with his real voice. The rest is dubbing but it is not that bad. This was good. Also Steven seems to be enjoying himself in the movie and is more into the action that he was in Submerged. He likes Treach as a partner; at least he does not seem to dislike him. Also, he seems to have been in better shape than in some of his recent movies. I hate the fact that he wears clothes to hide his body, but in the same clothes that he wears on the DVD cover he looks more than OK and he should have wore those clothes for most of the movie not the stupid long leather coat.

I really think that Seagal was willing to make a good movie. The fact that he came late and took off early from the set ON TWO MOVIES directed by Fauntleroy does not look like a coincidence to me. I think he realized that the crew were amateurs or only in it for a quick buck and he did not give a damn anymore.

In the hands of a better company and crew this might have been a damn good action movie for Seagal. Something like Out for Justice or Above the Law. I honestly believe that. But the people who made the movie are not very good at their jobs or they did not have enough money to do the job properly. Too bad since I liked Steven in the movie and Treach was cool (Ice Cool ) too, but the rest was bad. Hey, at least this gives me hope for Black Dawn and Shadows of the past. I think that Mercenary might be just as badly handled. But hey, Steven seemed to be back into the same mood he was in while making his better movies and at least THAT is reason enough to watch the movie.

I liked it, but it could have been SO much better. 4/10


Today You Die was the 4th Seagal movie in a mini marathon I just held. Wow, I don't know where to start. He seems to mumble his lines more and more as time goes on, and the scenes between Seagal and Treach where they seem to improv are embarrassing. And what did his girlfriend's dreams have to do with anything else in the plot? I can't recommend this to anyone but the most die hard Seagal fan, and even then you are better off with his earlier work. Of the 4 films in my marathon (Submerged, Into the Sun, Foreigner and Today You Die) Today was the worst. A previous reviewer mentioned this but the usage of stock footage was quite obvious.


I love his martial arts style, it is quick, close up and oh so fast, but it seems like his movies are becoming more and more crime based lifestyle quality and less meaning...I thought he was out to bring forth a deeper message. At least some of the movies had a hidden meaning or agenda this one had some good redeeming qualities of the character but the rest was so far off. I was very disappointed. The martial arts is also suffering. I am hoping to see a more devoted Segal in his future films. This movie also lacks in keeping the story line going, there are too many gaps so the thought is lost. Too many things are cryptic without a solution.


To start off, I love Steven Seagal, the man is a genius. But recent movies leave me to wonder, Is he trying anymore? His latest movies show almost no effort on Seagal's part. In Out of Reach, its too obvious that his lines are dubbed over. . What Seagal does in this movie is not only a slap on the face to his fans, but even more to Jean-Claude Van Damme and his fans. In the 2nd scene or so, when he prepares to zip-line into the drug dealers penthouse to steal the jewels and money, it shows him set-up the gun and hook it on a neon sign. Your might be saying to yourself, 'Yah, so what does this have to do with Van Damme?'. Well that scene was stolen from a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie called the Order. Rent both, watch both, compare both and you will lose respect for Seagal. Not only was Today You Die garbage, but it was, dare I say, an insult. Seagal's Aikido moves are still good, but why isn't he doing great movies like Marked for Death or Above the law, hes still got the moves and the attitude, I'm just left wondering 'Why Seagal, Why?'. There are such idiotic scenes in his newer movies that have nothing to do with the storyline, and such idiotic story lines on top of that. I hope the up-coming Black Dawn movie will be another Exit Wounds or Beyond Justice, because these last chain of movies he made, especially Today You Die, really made me wonder if he has the stuff to make more great action movies like Double Team. Please, don't watch this movie unless you hate Seagal, if you love his movies don't watch this, it WILL make you question his future in the action film genre.


TDY is probably the single worst piece of trash to ever hit the straight to video selection. They take a scene from The Order starring Jean Claude Van Damme and this angers me because Van Damme is a personally favourite for B movie comedy. Segal has done some fine work in the past but he has dropped very low in my books and he will probably never pull out another undersiege or marked for death unless he sits down and has a very good brain storming session with himself.

It also annoys me how he didn't do many of his own stunts like he has done in previous films. In conclusion of all this if you are prepared to see a movie fit for a trash can or woodchipper, then rent today you die.


I love watching steven seagal movies not because of the action of the great plot holes but just because it makes me laugh

oh it makes me laugh so hard this movie totally got no point and is ridiculous compared to this movie Pearl harbor rocks!!! and Ben affleck need no acting school at all just to give a impression how bad it is

first off all there so many goofs and bad acting its just getting worse like when steven is try to get out of jail a chopper lands at first the security notice and they led them land when they fly away all of the sudden a guard start shooting

or when he killed that guy in the car he and treach both walk away you can't see no oil on the ground behind him steven notice that there is oil without even watching treach trows a lighter and the car blows up

and there are plenty of more goofs Steven uses his basic action when someone is pointing a gun at him he grabs it and shoot him totally bullshit!!! like some gangster would let that ever happen.

the acting is also very worse at the fight scene in the jail outdoor place you can see steven clearly wait to come in action just rewind it a couple of time and you notice the bad acting

its just makes me laugh i hope one day it comes to the cinema's here in Holland then i'll go there with as many friends as possible just to laugh my self to death


Ah yet another Seagal movie.In no less than a few mere months arrive to populate the video store shelves.As bad as Submerged?No.But that is not saying much.Like perfume on a pig.

Seagal is professional thief who wants to quit,but goes for one last job only to be double-crossed by his boss.He lands in Prison and is befriended by a Gangster who helps him to break out and seek payback.

Its good to see Seagal finally not playing an agent,cop,or what he usually plays.We actually get a USA Location in Las Vegas it seems. Then an eastern European territory as usual. There is no wire-Fu either here.Don Fauntleroy does an okay job.

However most of the action and fight scenes with Stevie are clearly doubles.Scenes from other movies,a lack of realism and logic in even tiniest situation.Seagal and Treech make a so-so team inspiring(unintentional) laughs one minute.Sighs the rest.

Several notable faces turn up to slum it.. sleepy Kevin Tighe is a long way from his emergency days.Nick Mancuso shows up in sleepwalking mode to take a check.No more rappers.Please? At this point the action scenes and plots are more predictable and recycled generically more than ever.Its a stale scene that Seagal needs to get out of or hang it up.He should have gotten out a while ago.


Stephen Seagal plays the role of a dude who gets talked into driving an armored car for a bank hold up and drives into everything that comes across his path. However, the police seem to appear on the scene very quickly and Seagal smells a rat who gave the police advanced notice. The story gets into many twists and turns and the money from the hold up has disappeared and nobody knows its new owner. Poor Seagal gets a bit framed into this hold up and naturally he is out looking for the person or persons who are trying to put him away for a long time. In this film, Seagal tries to be a good guy but the forces of evil are against him. Unfortunately, this is not a great film and rather boring and too long.


Really? Is this necessary? How can somebody make such a film? Disgusting!!! Seteven Seagal with funny hair and fat like an elephant. Stunts all the time, cars persecutions with an annoying soundtrack. Not to mention the Ending. Completely nonsense with the presence of the little girl.

Steven Seagal wants to be Robin Hood!!! Well, at the beginning a fortune teller answers something, nobody has asked. Seagal's wife has nightmares and she can see the future. They must be kidding. Steven Segal passes out after a car persecution, and I know he can't act. It was terrible. Nothing can save that film.

I lost 90 minutes of my life! See you


The film quickly gets to a major chase scene with ever increasing destruction. The first really bad thing is the guy hijacking Steven Seagal would have been beaten to pulp by Seagal's driving, but that probably would have ended the whole premise for the movie.

It seems like they decided to make all kinds of changes in the movie plot, so just plan to enjoy the action, and do not expect a coherent plot. Turn any sense of logic you may have, it will reduce your chance of getting a headache.

I does give me some hope that Steven Seagal is trying to move back towards the type of characters he portrayed in his more popular movies.


What a crap that movie is. The script is simply non existent. The movie at times seems like a music video. But it cannot even be that since the soundtrack does not really match. Pathetic way of combining action and rap. One might think it being a recipe for a successful flick... here it fails miserably. Dialogues in this flick just killed me. The scene when Harlan is interrogated by some policeman is merely pitiful. Generally speaking, recent Seagals films are hardly watchable. What the hell happened to the guy? I know he's old but can't he get "Hollywood" to drop him a decent script or something? Is he running out of dough for his escapades to India that he takes on anything they serve him?


Honestly, this is a very funny movie if you are looking for bad acting (Heather Graham could never live this down... it has three titles for a reason- to protect the guilty!), beautifully bad dialog ("Do you like... ribs?"), and a plot only a mother could approve, this is your Friday night entertainment!

My roommate rented this under the title "Terrified" because he liked Heather Graham, but terrified is what we felt after the final credits. Not because the movie is scary, but because somebody actually paid money to make this turd on a movie reel.

Horrible movie. There are a few no-name actors that provide some unintentional comedy, but nothing worth viewing. Heather Graham's dramatic climax also was one of the most pathetic and disturbing things I have ever witnessed. I award this movie no point, and may God have mercy on its soul.


I got hold of this film on DVD with the title Evil Never Sleeps, it gives front cover billing to Carrie Ann Moss, but she plays such a minor character that I didn't really notice her in the film.

I'm afraid that I consider this one of the worst purchases I have ever made. The dialogue was stilted and the delivery wooden, I found the acting to be disconnected from the plot. Graham's performance to me was of someone who's wondering whether she's left the gas on at home.

All in all both my wife and I found this film painful to watch, and it is not a valuable addition to my collection, watch it at your peril, but spending 90 minutes having your fingernails pulled out would probably be a better way to spend your time.


I was looking through TV Guide last night and saw a movie starring Heather Grahm on, who I liked in movies like Boogie Nights, and Austin Powers, so I decided to watch it. It started out ok, but you could tell the story was lacking, and at about half way through, it started to deteriorate. I do not remember this movie being in the theaters, and I'm sure if it was, it wasn't there long. The acting was stale and unconvincing, the dialogue was silly and predictable, and the story was confusing and stupid. Definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I like movies like the ones this has been compared to like Fight Club, but this one doesn't come close!! Heather Grahm has done much better things since. I gave it a 2 out of 10 but thats because I clicked on the wrong number, I meant to give it a 1.


This film has it's heart in the right place, but unfortunately, it isn't much of a film. It is more of a documentary under the guise of a narrative. Bamako is basically a newspaper op-ed piece put on celluloid. However, your average well-researched op-ed piece is far more cogent and concise than anything presented here. The filmmaker is trying to relay to the viewer the hardships of African life, in particular the country of Mali, due to the unethical practices of the IMF, G8, and World Bank, by using the setting of a mock trial against the aforementioned. There is an extra 10 minutes dispersed throughout the film that makes a half-hearted attempt at a narrative plot, and a bizarre Hollywood Western-style shootout scene, where the director seems quite pleased with his own cleverness (hence, the frequent Godard comparisons).

Of course, as the film begins, what and who is on trial is never explained, but as we know by now, the French refuse to spoon-feed their audience.

There are many impassioned arguments made, but they are often long-winded, delivered in a shrill monotone (one that becomes quite easy to tune out after awhile), and very light on specifics. The last point is the most frustrating of all since there is a very well-reasoned specific case to be made against the institutions on trial here. Unfortunately, all we get in 2 hours is that the IMF and G8 are evil oppressors and should forgive 3rd-World debt. We are given no more than the occasional hint to the specific reasons why the organizations on trial are guilty, but never a clear case. The mock-trial arguments and the footage of the surrounding village makes the suffering of these African residents clear, but one wonders why we must sit through 2 hours of it, when a far more precise picture could be painted in a 20-minute Newsweek article, or Bill Moyers episode. In the end, there is something very important to be said on this issue, it simply isn't presented very well, or very clearly, in this pretentious, indulgent piece.


Abderrahmane Sissako may have known what he was doing when he made "Bamako," but the rest of us can just sit back in mystification and confusion trying to figure out what that purpose might have been.

The nominal "plot" involves a young African singer who's planning on leaving her unemployed husband to find work in the city. But far more of the screen time is taken up with what the publicists for the film describe as "a mock trial against key financial institutions" dealing "with the overwhelming economic hardships of Africa." That's all well and good, I suppose, but when the arguments and ideas are put forth in as undramatic and pedantic a way as they are here, they lose both force and impact. Put another way, if the director had found the means to actually incorporate issues such as the injurious effect of colonialism on the African people and the problem of African debt into anything even remotely resembling a compelling storyline, the film might have achieved the intellectual and emotional resonance it now so clearly lacks.

The topics the movie is dealing with may be relevant and important, but trying to pass off what amounts to two hours worth of speechifying as an actual, honest-to-God movie is not likely to garner much of an audience for one's message.


Endless repetition about the evil World Bank, IMF, Globalization, and the Americans are blamed for all of Africa's problemsand the movie is long, about two hours, but it seems longer. The French actually occupied Mali, the country in which the movie takes place, for centuries, but are only peripheral bad guys.

One doesn't learn enough about any of the characters to really care what's happening to themthey are completely marginal to the preaching, which goes on and on and on. There's no plot, no character development, no humor (except for a few pokes at Bush and Wolfowitz, but that's almost cheating it's so easy) and the production values are mediocreno redemption there.

It is amazing that a movie can spend two hours preaching about such a big topic and convey utterly zero real information. The Irish ballad "I was dying, and then the famine came" has more content.

The movie is boring, the sub-titles are tough to read, there is no real content about the subject of the film, and the propaganda is relentless.

Skip this one.


If this film won the Lumiere Award for Best French-Language Film, then what kind of garbage is coming out of France these days??

The subject matter is an important one -- how the African economies are kept as economic hostages by the international organizations that are supposed to be helping them, namely the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. About 40% of the governmental budgets of several African nations go to payment of Western debt, while their people suffer from disease, dehydration and illiteracy.

... but the subject matter was treated in the most dry manner that could be conceived by man -- dryer than the Sahara that surrounds the country of Mali in which this film takes place. More monotone and action-lacking than any documentary I've ever seen (and I'm a fan of the genre), one "witness" after another comes forward in this "trial" that is "captured" on film that condemns the World Bank & IMF. Some critics may site the colorful visual asides within the film, but they were out of place and had no complementary soundtrack when they were on the screen. They belonged better in a coffee table book than in this film.

Even the characters in the film say something like "This trial is boring" and "When will it be over?" Everyone in the theater laughed. Were those people on the screen reading our minds??

Danny Glover had a brief appearance in this film. It is a televised movie within "Bamako" and it was set within Morocco or Mali. It was also more ridiculous than any spaghetti-Western I've ever tried to avoid. The only redeeming part of these five wasted minutes was where a Caucasian bad guy accidentally shoots an African woman carrying a baby and shows no remorse whatsoever. Perhaps it was to symbolize the insensitivity of the World Bank and how it is unintentionally killing Africans.

And one last technical parting shot, the subtitles were difficult to read with so much light colors on the screen and not enough black outline to the subtitles themselves.

I've already summarized the movie for you. Don't be fooled by the hype. No need to see this film. You'll never get these two hours back in your life.


Flockhart's performance is very disappointing. It seems she is trying to make up for her lack of emotion by substituting obscenities. Why the R rating includes 'sexuality' is beyond me. There is no nudity or steamy love scenes. The plot is old and tired.


Another movie from Swedish hillbilly country, which is always the Northern part. If black people were shown this way, there would be shouts about racism and for good reasons.

This is a farce and you are supposed to laugh at the "clever" farce clichés. But it's mostly tiresome. A gangster comedy, with the bad Russians (as always) and the bad (and stupid) Finns. And most stupid of all is of course the Norwegian, according to Stockholm prejudice.

Andreas Wilson is the only one who tries to make a performance reminding us of reality. This is not funny. This is not even exciting. A burlesque too raw to make you interested in any way.


Although I rarely agree with filmkrönikan, I have to say that this film while not awful, just didn't make me care at all... and it all just seemed to be out of place... it had its moments... three or four ones that made me snicker... but most of the time I was just sitting and wondering why? why did the characters do this? even Hot Shots characters felt more thought out and fleshed out...

If you want to see a nice norrlands-film then watch Pistvakt. There it was more than random ethnicities that just walked around shooting each other on the Swedish tundra...

I am so disappointed...


My only reason registering to this site was for the opportunity to write a comment to this movie. I felt that I had to get rid of some of my anger by writing it off me.

The movie "Babas bilar" must be just about the worst film I ever seen. I really do believe that the script may have seen to been able to become a pretty good movie or at least OK, but somewhere on the line something happened. What makes it even more odd is the fact that the cast appears to be quite alright on paper. Put to practice both script and the cast fails to deliver. There are to much action, it happens to much things and you can't help wonder why it happens. And then the cast, the actors make such a poor effort that you almost start to cry.

If you have to much time at hand I would say you can see it. If not - don't.


Hey, I know Angel isn't the kind of show that gives people a happy ending, and I know they couldn't just make everything perfect, but I couldn't believe the ending to Angel. I absolutely love the show, it's possibly the best show ever. However, I really hated this ending, as well as the whole way the 2nd half of Angel season 5 went (similar to Buffy season 7). My favorite characters deaths were pretty much pointless and did nothing for the plot. Cordelia was one of the best characters on the show, and once she and Angel were finally going to get together she turned all evil and into a demon. I wanted so badly to have her back, don't get me wrong the episode where Cordelia comes back is fantastic, but I was still really mad she was gone. Then on earth was up with Fred dying, right after she finally got with Wesley? There was no sacrifice, it was pointless, it did nothing whatsoever for the plot, and blue haired demon girl is an awful, useless character. They spent way too much of the end centered around her. Another big problem is they didn't connect the elements well enough. I know those dudes in that black thorn wanted to bring about the apocalypse, but there wasn't even a date set for when it was supposed to happen. The apocalypse should have been carried out and discovered throughout the entire season, rather than just mentioning there are some evil dudes an hour before the season ends. One of the biggest problems is every character who the audience cares about is either dead or has nothing to live for. My three favorite characters died, and Angel, Spike, and Gunn (who I'm not sure even survives) have no office, aren't even back to their helping the helpless, are in the middle of a huge battle, and have lost everyone they care about. Angel and Spike are never redeemed, they lose the girl they care about, and just about everyone's dead, and they still have to fight this weird evil army. I get the whole you never stop fighting, but it was stupid to end it right in the middle. Couldn't there have been some redemption, with knowledge that there would always be many more battles to come. I don't get why this episode is so highly rated, because I think the Buffy ending was 10 times better, and I wasn't even a giant fan of that one. Why did they have to slip at the end, season 3 and 4 and 1st half of five were so amazing, then they went and messed up the show.


I was a fan of Buffy and hoped it would come to a proper end when Angel got only one more season. But when the end came closer I was exited to see that. And what did we get? This episode called "NOT FADE AWAY" was the very last one.

I was so disappointed by this episode. This is absolutely the worst way to this series. Why couldn't it get a happy ending? Why did have a few of the main characters to die? Why did Angel not become a human and was reunited with Buffy again? No. Angel has to sign this bloddy piece of paper that he'll never become a human. How stupid.

And the end is a cliffhanger.

What could have been worse? The Buffyshow began so great, such as Angel, but the hole Universe ended so crappy. Somebody should put a spell on the man who wrote the screenplay to this episode and make sure he get's lost in hell.

So don't bother watching this, it's so bad, it hurts! Totally 1 out of 10.


Any fan of Russian cinema will have great difficulty in believing the sub-par performances phoned-in by Mashkov and Bodrov Jr., and will perhaps be utterly perplexed by Bodrov Sr.'s hackneyed and confusing script, which is coupled with uncharacteristically weak direction. Most of the characters wander through the movie as though they have no idea who they are or what they are doing. It is also sad to see that Jennifer Jason Leigh's acting skills have not advanced one iota since FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, and her screen exposure is mercifully limited. This is a terrible mafia movie; so much so that it makes the GODFATHER III look like a winner in the genre. To see the key Russians at their best, check out Bodrov Sr.'s work on PRISONER OF THE MOUNTAINS (which also features Jr.), Mashkov's turn in VOR (THE THIEF), and Bodrov Jr.'s new criminal in BRAT.


This movie came very close to being a good flick. The direction needs to be a bit smoother to progress from one piece to the next to make it more plausible. In particular: The main character's need to escape is not explicit enough. Is he trying to kill himself? Is he trying to escape? His life does not seem to be that bad, so it makes it more difficult to swallow that he wants to leave his life so much. Also, it is not very clear how much "in love" he has fallen with Jennifer Jason L. If the movie was reworked with some more attention to these details, it would have been Great. On the other hand, for an indy flick, it's pretty good! Maybe if you have a couple of drinks, to dull the logical thinking, it would be more fun...


I wanted to see this movie because I liked "Kavkazskij Plennik" ("Prisoner of the Mountains") and "Brat" ("Brother") with Sergey Bodrov, Jr. and "Vor" ("The Thief") with Vladimir Mashkov. Well, unlike the other movies, "The Quickie" was a total waste of time. The story that makes little sense, very uneven acting (Lesley Ann Warren was especially bad), really awful dialogs, poor cinematography, what else could go wrong? I find it amusing that in practically every American-made movie, when the same-language-speaking foreigners (Russians in this case) are left alone, they prefer to communicate with each other mostly in broken English (and when they happen to speak Russian, for some reason translators feel obligated to add a lot of "f**ks" in the sentences, which have no profanity, literal or non-literal). At the same time, native-English-speaking actors choose to speak in broken Russian. Why is that? Getting back to the story, most of the subplots of the movie (e.g. betting the house, inviting Latin American paramilitaries, etc) either make no sense or do nothing more than confusing the viewers. It is too bad that Bodrov, Mashkov, and Leigh (all good actors in my humble opinion) got themselves involved in this disaster.