Like its near contemporaries "The Great Race" and "Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines", I always associate this film with my childhood especially at New Year. On New Year's Day we'd visit my granny and after lunch, while the adults talked, the kids would watch TV where invariably one of these three crazy race films would be on.

For that reason alone, I really wanted to mark "Monte Carlo Or Bust" well but I fear I can't, the child not being father to the man on this occasion. By which I mean I can see all too clearly its faults and while I was tempted to smile occasionally, in truth I really wanted all the competitors to get to the end of the race long before they actually do.

Of course it's dated by its stereotyping of nationalities and woman as the weaker sex and I also didn't much care for one or two stray, admittedly mild vulgarities which occasionally surfaced. More than that though, the cast, despite hamming it up outrageously just don't sell the film enough. Tony Curtis, in a trial run for his "Yank Abroad" turn in the TV series "The Persuaders", seems too old to be playing the young gallant, Terry Thomas just isn't dastardly enough, Eric Sykes is unbelievable as a dirty-minded Lothario while Gert Frobe as an overdone Teuton, is just weird doing camp comedy when you remember he was Bond's best villain Goldfinger. If anything the Englishers come off best - Susan Hampshire is at least engaging as a "bright young thing", suitably gamine as a posh flapper and although chained to the leash of the script Pete and Dud offer the most amusement as stiff upper lip army types, although even then the "Carry On" team did this so much better in "Carry On Up The Khyber Pass".

Director Annakin tries everything to evoke the "Golden Silents", with lashings of slapstick, mistaken identity capers, speeded up camera shots, would-be dramatic stunts and some light romance, but there's no real tension for such a famous race and anyway the race-off at the end seems like another swizz.

Actually I'd have given it another mark if they'd stuck to the alternative title "Those Magnificent Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies" but in truth the animated series "Wacky Races" did this so much better.


A Lassie movie which should have been "put to sleep".... FOREVER. That's how I'd describe this painfully dreary time-waster of a film. So mediocre in every aspect that it just becomes a dull, uninteresting mess, this is one of the most forgettable movies I've seen. It isn't even an achievement as a "so-bad-it's-good" or "so-bad-it's-memorable" movie. The idea of Lassie turning bad is intriguing but so little actually happens, and so slowly, that you feel your life slipping away while sitting there, watching the non-actors read their lines off cue cards waiting for their measly paychecks.

It's an empty, hollow shell of a movie. Seriously, it's not worth wasting your, or your kid's time on. Unless you're both heavily medicated. That's all I have to say.

Avoid, avoid, avoid! It will drive you barking mad! Hahahah, get it? BARKING! Hahahahahahaha!

Sorry, I've had a rough week.


Pretty bad. This film about a grizzled(and frankly rock stupid) old prospector and his dog'Shep' i.e., Lassie, as well as an annoying kid whose name I can't recall at the moment. At the beginning of the movie, the old prospector has DELIBERATELY buried himself in some sand so that the poor dog will have to dig him out. Why? Did he hate the dog? Anyhoo, somehow or other this idiot has managed to strike gold, and goes to tell his partner. But the man has died, and his sleazy other partner is happy to assist old Jonathan in digging up the gold. The geezer tries to leave is dog with the dead guy's son, but not even the retarded mutt wants to stay with this kid. There's quaint old preacher(for quaint read smelly), and the oily guy finished off the old guy(surprise, surprise) and tries to steal all the gold. Plus he poisons the dog and tries to kill the kid, too. So I suppose its okay that a devilish and crazy Lassie..err...SHEP does this the guy in at the end, although its pretty disturbing in what is basically a children's movie. There are extremely stereotypical(to the point of racial slur) 'Native Americans' who speak without using verbs(as in, Me Make Camp Fire type speech). And that's pretty much the extent of the cast, because apparently Lassie's salary was too big for them to hire anyone else. Kind of dull. not very interesting, and a tad too dark. Not a great movie in any way.


All but the youngest Americans are probably familiar with the iconic call of "Laaaaaa-sie!" from little Timmy, or whatever the kid's name was, wailing his little tow-head off for his border collie friend. These same Americans may or may not be familiar with the fact that Lassie made the leap from television to movies (or was it the other way around? I'm clearly too lazy to do any research here), and The Painted Hills is one of those. It is irresistible to make a "this movie has gone to the dogs!" pun, so I won't (even though I technically just did). But in a way, it has. Lassie (playing Shep, man's best friend) gets top billing. THE DOG GETS TOP BILLING. Now, I'm not familiar with how actors or their agents negotiate contracts, but here's how it plays out in my mind:

MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, Lassie, in the credits, it's gonna be, "and with Lassie as Shep!" LASSIE: Rrrrowf! Grrrrrrr. MOVIE MOGUL: Ha, ha, kid, calm down, calm down! LASSIE: Rrroo rrrrooo roooo. MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, I think I see. Co-lead billing? LASSIE: Rawrf! Rawrrrrff rawrf! MOVIE MOGUL: Oh God! Let go of my arm! Top billing! Top billing for you, now let go of my arm!!!

So, the dog gets top billing, and with the rest of this shell-shocked cast, I suppose it's understandable. We get lovable old grumpus Jonathan the prospector, his young, whiny and apparently orphaned friend Tommy, sketchy loser Lin Taylor, and lovable old religious grumpus Pilot Pete. The meat of the plot here could be summed up in a few sentences, so I'll save you the actual pain of watching the movie. Jonathan is a prospector with a dog named Shep, and his partner dies while he is at his claim. He gets a new partner named Lin who becomes obsessed with the gold, and Jonathan for some reason gives Shep to whiny little crybaby Tommy. Lin kills Jonathan, Shep sees it, and Lin tries to kill Shep. Then Lin tries to kill Tommy. Then Tommy whines, it gets cold, and Shep carries out an elaborate plan to get revenge on Lin, which he (or she?) does. The end.

Unless you have a deep, unsettling need to see a Lassie movie (even then, there's got to be a better Lassie movie than this), just avoid The Painted Hills. When it's not dragging on, marveling at Lassie's limited ability to 'act' (similar in style, perhaps, to Keanu Reeves - always the same facial expression, only the body moves), setting up the obvious using several minutes of film, or insulting Native Americans everywhere with its white-actor-in-facepaint "Ugh! How! Me Running Bear!" stereotypes, The Painted Hills is fit only for Lassie fetishists or people who have some kind of connection to prospecting through their days as a grizzled old prospector lookin' fer that consarned vein of glittery gold!


Along with his turn in the super-sleazy 'classic' THE TOOLBOX MURDERS (1978), this is considered the ultimate bad Cameron Mitchell horror effort. It's a little too slow-moving for my tastes, has zero likable characters in it and not much action until the very end, but Mitchell's dedicated central psycho performance as vengeance-minded whack-job Vincent Rinard is fun. Not Anthony Perkins good, mind you, but definitely fun enough. As a spoof of the shallow conceit that is Hollywood, it's only so-so; as a horror movie it's also only fair. And even as just a simple vintage exploitation picture, it's just OK. I'm a big fan of the unnecessary gratuitous dance sequence, so I was also thankful for the appearance of the Gazzarri Dancers, who just rule. Five of them do a crazy hair-thrashin', floor-slidin', hip-shaking' go-go dance routine to "Don't Cry, Look For the Rainbow" by the T-Bones. Watching these ladies bounce around with huge smiles on their faces in their fringe-covered bikini top and parachute pants ensemble is a defining reason why I give this a slightly higher rating that usual.

Former movie make-up man Vincent Rinard ("The best since Lon Chaney!") goes after people at Paragon Studios. A flashback shows how Max Black (Berry Kroeger), a jealous and drunk studio executive, flung wine in Vinnie's face right when he was about to light a smoke. He's engulfed in flames and dives into a pool, but not before scarring up one side of his face and losing an eyeball (not to mention his sanity). Now employed by the "world-famous" Movieland Wax Museum in Buena Park, California, Vincent uses a special serum (described as a mixture of truth serum, nerve medicine and special "vitamins and minerals"... Watch out Centrum!) to paralyze victims. They disappear and the dense detectives on the case (headed by Scott Brady) act baffled as new 'statues' are put on display in the museum. Vince talks to himself ("I'm a terribly nice man!"), chain-smokes, mumbles, hisses and describes how he gets "excited" by the sound of a woman's scream.

He also has to deal with a bunch of back-stabbing scumbags and self-absorbed witches, most of whom will deserve what's coming to them. There is also Nick (Hollis Morrison), a boozy, inept museum tour guide who sees a 'statue' blink, but doesn't go to the cops. Aside from Max (a real Grade-A jerk... who doesn't even die!) and the stupid cops, the other two lead roles are women and both are pretty atrocious. Marie Morgan (Anne Helm) is not your typical innocent heroine; this tramp has been engaged to no less that five different characters in this movie (!), including Vince, Max and two of the wax dummies/missing male stars (I guess she never had time to make a go at the one missing girl). For some reason, she also begs and pleads in her irritating baby-voice for Vince to give her a 'replica' of the head he's designing of the newest missing actor (and fiancé Number 5) Tony Deen (Phillip Baird). She doesn't know that Vince has already jabbed a syringe in the back of his neck, but I love it when Mitchell dryly agrees with her demands "so you can completely retreat for reality." He also wants her to 'pose' for him, which means she's eventually held prisoner in a box. Unfortunately, the box has a hole where her head sticks through so we have to continue getting aurally assaulted by her high-pitched whines.

The other "woman" is Theresa (Victoria Carroll), one of the aforementioned go-go girls. She's first seen proving she is thoroughly rhythm-deficient by jiggling on stage in a lime-green fringe bikini. Theresa is tolerable before she talks, but when you realize her grating presence combines the abrasiveness of Lorraine Bracco with the airhead mentality of the Landers sisters, you wish Vincent would inject her with the serum as soon as possible. Unfortunately, we're first subjected to a scene of her making endless demands to the studio head honcho and running around in the museum trying to avoid Mitchell. She and the rest of the characters are completely unsympathetic, but function as a way to poke fun at the Hollywood system in general, I guess. And I'm probably giving this movie more credit than it actually deserves. The pluses are few and far between, but include (other than Mitchell and the dance routine), colorful, slightly stylized lighting and a bizarre ending that seems to suggest that Rinard will be severely punished for his crimes by spending the rest of his life in his own personal hell... Married to Marie!... Yikes, now that is scary.

Also in the cast are director John "Bud" Cardos (also the production manager) as a police sergeant, James Forrest as a film director, Virgil Frye as a statue, Rini Martin and Kent Osborne as a bartender. Many of the people who worked on this one (including executive producer and script-writer Rex Carlton) also worked on the Al Adamson movie BLOOD OF DRACULA'S CASTLE and other atrocities.

My Score: 4 out of 10


Definitely not a good film but nowhere as bad as some would paint it to be. Nightmare in Wax tells the story of a man, having had his face disfigured in a typical flashback scene, wreak his vengeance on those directly responsible and those indirectly for the losses in his life - most notably the love and companionship of a beautiful young actress. Cameron Mitchell plays the artist with his typical flair, albeit limited flair. Actually, I thought he gave one of his better performances. What exactly does that mean? Mitchell wears an eye patch, endlessly smokes cigarettes, wears a motley tunic, and talks to his creations in wax. They are not your ordinary wax dummies, but rather people still alive controlled by some serum that makes them lose control of all neurological function. They become zombies in effect. I thought the premise here was inventive if nothing else. It has some ludicrous explanation, but does serve the plot. This is a film of the 60s to be sure with some psychedelic camera-work by Bud Townsend and company. The acting is mediocre but Mitchell, Scott Brady, and Barry Kroeger give interesting turns. The wax figures of Hollywood's bygone era are done very effectively and most of the location shooting was very credible. The end of the film dissipates into something not quite real - either another example of 60s cultural cinema or the end of the scriptwriter's creativity. I'm banking on the latter. Despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the film. The opening scene showing an actor being needled was effectively done as was a police chase on the waterfront.


This is a treat for fans of Z-grade movies. Here you will find writing and acting bad enough to rival anything Ed Wood ever produced. Veteran bad movie actor Cameron Mitchell is a former makeup man from "Paragon Studios" who, after a nasty acid-in-the-face incident at a social gathering, becomes an embittered Mad Scientist (tm) with a rubber scar on his face who takes revenge by kidnapping Paragon actors and turning them into living statues in his Secret Laboratory (tm) handily located in the local wax museum. Or are they zombies who do his bidding? He's not sure.

Happily, many of your favourite movie clichés are here. Check out the villain's lab! Are those mysterious steaming vats of liquid? Test tubes of coloured water with no explained purpose? Yay! And what ho, do we see spare arms and legs arranged kinda casual-like on a wooden rack? You betcha! Marvel at the bumbling detectives acting with straight out of Plan Nine! Now, enjoy a stupidly tame car chase, and hear more dizzy bimbo screaming than you could possibly want. Raise an eyebrow at the screwy plot line, made even more opaque by the totally meaningless ending that seems to have no connection to the rest of the movie.

Cheesy trash and much fun for the bad movie connoisseur.


Legendary Cameron Mitchell turkey about an actor/makeup man who is burned by the head of a studio when a drink is tossed in his face as he is lighting up a cigarette. Reduced to a scarred mess and wearing an eye patch Mitchell works at the Movieland Wax Museum . He also kidnaps and kills people using a solution which paralyzes them so he can turn them into displays. Genuinely bizarre bad movie that defies description. Watch as the various wax figures try not to move, watch as the entire tobacco out put for several Southern states is consumedwatch as things just get weirder and weirder. Its an awful train wreck of a movie and you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. A classic bad movie that will amaze you even as it leaves permanent scars on your psyche.


Cameron Mitchell plays an actor who is dating a young actress who used to date the head of a movie studio (she's too young for both of them!). At a party, when he's lighting his cigarette, the studio boss throws a high alcohol content drink in his face, and he catches fire. In the hospital, his face is entirely bandaged and he still lights up a cigarette! He becomes the resident sculptor of the Movieland Wax Museum and Palace, where he also lights up cigarettes!

Mitchell recovers, more or less, having really poorly done burn makeup on one side of his face that looks like gray spackle and tape, and an eyepatch. When Mitchell isn't smoking, he's killing people. Well, he only kills people sometimes, since he prefers to inject them with something that puts them in a sort of waxy coma. If he doesn't administer it regularly (and he never seems to remember), they start to move again a little, although they're in a sort of hypnotic zombie state. Not all his sculptures are people, though. He evidently does have talent as a sculptor.

The ending, which seemed to have been struck from a much poorer print than the rest of the movie, is really absurd. They seemed not to know what to do, and went back to the title for an idea. Apart from the oddly grainy final shots, the rest of the movie is in fairly good shape, except for the audio in some scenes which sounds like it was run through a blown speaker. Definitely not one of the better wax museum movies.


The movie opens with beautiful landscape shots of the Northwest countryside. Fenceposts jutting out from soddy earth, a freight train crossing fields of hay in the distance, billows of clouds, small structures by the side of the road, a motel or a diner in the middle of nowhere. Over this plays a languid but mysterious Twin Peaks piano arrangement and it's all adequately moody and atmospheric in an American Gothic sort of way. Through this however director Jon Jost keeps interleaving awkward frames, blocks of letters, opening credits with annoying swooshing sounds, color frames that announce "BLUE", numbers that count towards the "12 Steps to a Conclusion" announced in the opening credits. It's obvious by the first couple of minutes that, though Jost is more than capable to capture landscape and ambiance, he doesn't care for it. He has neither the affection for Pacific Northwest open expanses that Terrence Malick does in Badlands and neither the time or inclination of Twin Peaks David Lynch to weave mystery and intrigue around a given location.

The rest of the movie is more Jon Jost frustration with experimental tricks that serve their own purpose. The use of split screen is interesting, I like in particular how we get the first image of Ricky Lee split in two, one is recounting childhood memories that matter only to him, the other is cursing and banging his head against the wall, and over the course of the movie the second Ricky Lee prevails, the macho laid-back hipster with the shades who is hopelessly self-involved and stupid. On the other hand the stop motion animation and choice to play most of the movie in voice-over narration does not work. It does at times because Jost writes as good as he shoots static shots of the smalltown American Nowheresville but Beth Ann's monologues, delivered in the most flat nasal monotone imaginable, a voice that sounds like Stephen Hawking's computer speech program crossed with a horse whinnying, are so grating to the ear it kind of defeats the purpose of trying to pay attention.

Each of the couple relate to us their past experiences, their small triumphs and follies and doubts and past relationships that went nowhere. They say very little to each other and what they say they say with blank faces. But they hump like rabbits. That seems to be their only channel of communication left open, perhaps the only one they can trust with any safety. Jost clearly picks his main characters in Frameup among the naive and delusional, those baited by an American Dream turned sour, but he doesn't place himself above them. He's not condescending or smug in his portrayal. They may be misguided but they are graced with moments of humanity, awkward though they may be. We're called to empathize and show affection rather than point and laugh. This is the most successful Frameup becomes; the movie's characters come alive even when their expressionless faces do not, even when Jost gets in their way with his stilted framing and obtrusive camera games.

Then we go back to angry rants about the destructive effects of money played over an inserted shot of a dollar bill, we get a weird psychedelic sequence where Jost's camera glides under big leafy trees that soon turn beetroot red as Beth Ann repeatedly muses about the "redwood trees" in the voice-over, we even get a sudden about-turn towards plot and genre as the couple of Beth Ann and Ricky Lee, smalltown losers with nowhere to go and nothing to hold them back to their dead end lives, arrive in California and decide to rob a 7/11. The movie doesn't soar to an emotional crescendo in the aftermath of the botched 7/11 job such as one might expect from a 'couple-on-the-run' road movie, it slowly screeches to a halt and you look out the window to see it hasn't really got anyplace in particular. Parts of the ride have been hypnotic and parts almost touching and funny, but everything else has been mostly annoying.


Well, I've read the book first and thought: wow would this be cool to see in a movie, than I started searching and found there was already a movie made of it... I bought the movie a week ago on DVD and watched it.. they did it awfully wrong! at first this kid Hapi,who isn't any character in the book, then the mix between the two books ('the river god' and 'the seventh scroll') than Nicolas needing funds while in the book he himself is actually the funder, the whole thing about the Hyksos is wrong also.. Taila is supposed to have invented the lightweight-chariot.. the whole thing about the tomb is also very wrong.. there is supposed to be a channel that has some kind of vacuum-suction around it.. the tomb itself was made in a maze with only a possibility to pass if one knows the rules of the ancient boa-game. There was nothing in the movie about Nicolas being English and Royan was a Coptic-Christian in the book, not a Muslim..This list is endless.. There were only a few things good about the movie, the actors which played Royan, Nahood, Taita, Boris, Mick and Tessay were well-chosen, the rest were just parodies of the characters in the book, Rasfer was the worst, it didn't get even close to the character that was in my head while I wrote the book.. It is such a shame that such a great book is mutilated in such a bad reproduction... I wonder why Wilbur Smith ever gave his permission for this..


After reading both _River_God_ and _The_Seventh_Scroll_, I can't begin to express how disappointed I was with this film. While I agree some poetic license may be admissible, this movie is at constant variance with the books, doing an incredible injustice to the exciting, plausible and wonderful stories written by Wilbur Smith. I can only believe that the writers, director and producers of the movie have never even heard of Mr. Smith, let alone read his work. Smith's vibrant characterizations are converted into wooden stick figures, all historicity is ignored or discounted, the realism of the books has been changed to include phantom monsters more appropriate to a cartoon. And why is an Egyptian henchman speaking Spanish? Geesh, no wonder the movie was made into a TV miniseries! Did Wilbur Smith have any input into the making of this movie? I can't believe that he did. Terrible, terrible movie. If you've read either or both of the books, don't waste your time or money watching this money. You will be sorely disappointed, I assure you.

Only a moment of supreme generosity persuaded me to give this movie a ranking of '2', and that only because of the beautiful, sometimes spectacular, photography.


It is a truism that it takes a lot of effort to make a bad movie - this one is no exception.

I am no lover of yanks but their amazingly simplistic view of the world and their ability to reduce everything to black and white as well as make events (even fictional ones in novels) fit an agenda that bears little or no relationship to complexity of any kind is irritating in the extreme.

Wilbur Smith is descriptively verbose but weaves intricate tales that deserve more than has been delivered by this awful mishmash of a movie.

Sad really for those who will never read Smith. They will be left with a less than decent portrayal of his Egyptian series, which has to be said is gigantic in its exposition.

The Indiana Jones movies were snappy. To attempt to replicate that by manipulating Smith's novels into this production misses out by a country mile.

Pathetic except for the photography and Art Malik.


I know that Full Moon, or any other film studio for that matter, could never recapture the fun and cheesy sci-fi feeling that was the original `Trancers.' And with the last two entries in the series having Jack Deth in medieval times instead of futuristic Los Angeles, it became quite obvious that there really was little hope in reviving the Trancers series. Breathing new life into a film is one thing, but taking our main character out of his element and putting him into the past, well, it didn't work! So now with Trancers 6, Full Moon has breathed so much new life into the series that we don't even deal with Jack Deth any more. We now deal with his daughter, Jo. Jack is in her body and must go into the past and fight the Trancers one more time.

*MINOR SPOILER: FIRST SCENE OF THE FILM REVEALED*

	To prove how bad this movie is, you only need watch the first two minutes of the film when the original Jack Deth appears on the screen. But it's not actually Tim Thomerson. It's clips of him and sound bytes strung together (trust me, you can tell they're strung together) horribly to provide the viewer the last of the true Jack Deth humor. And from this point on, things only go down hill. Having this girl, Jo Deth, as our main character while Jack Deth is supposed to be in her body, is the worst idea in the world. Having this cute young woman act as a rough and tough man isn't the right track at all! It doesn't work and it really comes off as foolish.

	I'm not going to go into the aspects of special effects and makeup because most reading this know what Full Moon has become: A really, really, low budget enterprise. I don't know what to say about this movie, except I really wish Full Moon could be like it was in the days of Demonic Toys, Puppet Master, and Trancers 1. Back then, while the special effects weren't great, the story telling was. They made serious b-movies for serious B movie and horror fans, and that just doesn't take place today with the new Full Moon Studios. I yearn for the good ol' days, and truly hope, that Full Moon can pull itself out of this horrible slump that they're in right now.

	Trancers 6 gets a 2 out of 10.


Okay, granted, I am a fan of low-budget horror, which along with it, does come the occasional piece of garbage that even the most diehard fan of campy flicks can not bare to stand witness to...TRANCERS 6, directed by DEMONICUS's Jay Woelfel.

First of all, the TRANCERS series, started back in the mid-80s by Charlie Band and his Empire Pictures, is basically the franchise that it is because of Tim Thomerson and his excellent portrayal of Trancer hunter Jack Deth. Well, low and behold, due to the sinking budgets of Full Moon features (which, despite what people have said, have actually brought along very high quality features, such as HELL ASYLUM and DEAD & ROTTING), Thomerson did not return for the sixth installment.

Full Moon writer Courtney Joyner returns once again and delivers another below-average screenplay, which features Jack Deth (played by Thomerson...in flashbacks, which are extremely poorly inserted...he has a different hair style like every time he is shown, and some `shemp' laying on a table) going down the line into his daughter's body. Well, from here on out, you have "Jo Deth" acting like Jack...but its a shame that she really doesn't give off the same screen presence as Jack Deth did.

The film, shot on 16mm, is, simply put, an embarrassment to the TRANCERS name...no offense to anyone at Young Wolf Productions. I mean, I respect you guys for actually wanting to jump forth and do a TRANCERS film without Tim, but with a little more time (despite it being filmed since December of 2001), it could have been better.

However, check out Full Moon's DVD of it, which is a double feature with the original TRANCERS, and features trailers for the last 10 plus Full Moon features.

Overall, I would probably have liked the feature more if it wouldn't have the TRANCERS name, but like anything, you can judge it by someone's opinion and you must check it out for yourself!


This movie was terrible...How can somebody even think that this movie was like the ones back in the "good old days" when Tim Thomerson was not even in it. And to make things worse, they used clips from old trancer movies. Thats just terrible. NO trancer movie is complete without Tim Thomerson.I love Fullmoon films, and i have been watching them since i was 4 years old. I have been through everything they have done and this movie almost made me lose it. Now i got a couple of lines to fill so i will keep going. Their way of breeding new trancers is completely stupid as well as way to send Jack back in time. What happened to the TCL Chamber. AND finally! What happened in the end of trancers 5 where lina says and i quote "Jack Has given me something special" AND her and some other broad looks at her stomach. I don't know...maybe a BABY is in there. There were so many other places of going to, but fullmoon S'd the Bed


Another Day - this movie requires you to watch it another day to understand it. I thoroughly enjoy watching Shannen Doherty and I was quite interesting in seeing how well Julian McMahon and Shannen appeared together following the roles they played in Charmed. I can certainly PRAISE the acting skills throughout the film, even the directing - but the plot...what happened? I am at a loss for words because I am still confused. I have to stay loyal to the actors who really did a good job considering the madness of the plot. I also have to recommend you watch it because despite the plot-madness I would still watch it over and over again.


The new celebrity deathmatch is terrible. They kill off the popular people and make the low budget celebs win. I mean...Andy Milonakis? Lil' flip? Lil flip and Lil Wayne should of both died.Lil' flip sucks. the fight between Lil' Jon and Lil' bow wow and Lil flip was MAD corny and short. They should of just kill off all of them. Why did Tobey lose to Jake and Christian lose to Adam? they are better actors and superheroes. They also spend too much time on talking rather than fighting which can bore the viewers. Everything seems rushed for some reason, they can't just make a long fight? the old deathmatch is way better.


World War I gets a glossy, sepia-tinted makeover in Jean-Pierre Jeunet's relentlessly whimsical "A Very Long Engagement". Jeunet's trademark style consists of mechanical, almost clockwork-like narrative construction garnished with lavish, chocolate box production values and seasoned with faux-naive humour. It's an approach that worked pretty well with his previous picture, the romantic fantasy "Amelie", thanks in no small part to the inimitable contribution of Audrey Tatou in the title role. Applied to vastly more sombre material, Jeunet's method backfires rather badly.

Tatou crops up again here in a variation on the same sort of sweetly off-beat character as Amelie. She's Mathilde, an orphan who lives quietly with her aunt and uncle in an idyllic rural setting, determined to trace what became of her child sweetheart Manech (Gaspard Ulliel), several years after he went missing in the War. Manech was one of five soldiers court-martialled for self-mutilation in 1917 at 'Bingo Crepuscule', and sent over the top into no-man's-land as a punishment. He's presumed dead by all but Mathilde who cherishes the hope of finding him. The film follows Mathilde's dogged quest to find out what really happened, and as she delves deeper she uncovers a sad, even shocking story of high-ranking corruption and inhumanity. Mathilde must filter the facts from the fictions that arise from various conflicting, overlapping or incomplete accounts of what seem to be Manech's final hours.

All this should be poignant and gripping, but it's more often simply confusing thanks to the visual and verbal clutter with which Jeunet pummels his audience. There's simply too much going on at any one time, including an intrusive narration that adds precisely nothing to our appreciation of the story and characters. Without a moment's respite from informational overload, I felt denied the space to reflect on Mathilde's quest or the room to engage with it on my own terms. Jeunet's unceasingly busy camera spirals and swoops and circles, caressing every surface contour of his exquisitely designed production, but it singularly fails to penetrate to the soul beneath the story's skin. The result is deeply uninvolving, and worse, grotesque. The First World War was a particularly dark hour in human history. Imagine it re-created as one of those picturesque commercials for a well known Belgian lager, and you have the measure of this film.


This movie has been advertised for over three months in Greece as the biggest Greek production ever. Well, it could be, but... When you hear of a big production you expect to see something new, something different. What you get to watch here is a movie with no reason of existence. George Corraface looks like he didn't really enjoy making this movie. His acting is so simplistic, that looks almost amateur. The sound, especially when some of the Turkish actors speak English (dubbed?), is full of hiss. The, thankfully few, special effects showing Istanbul and Athens in the late 50's and early 70's are more like digital paintings than computer graphics. Finally, we see the same boy from 1959 (age 5) up to 1968 (age 14), but in a miraculous way he becomes a teenager five years later.

So much for "the biggest Greek production". At least one would think that there would be some kind of interesting script to qualify for such an expensive production. And all one gets is a love story between 7 year-olds, who meet again 40 years later. Oh, there is a political side, too. A couple of ironic remarks about the Greek "junta" of '67-'74, so childish that seem almost forced.

There are, of course a couple of good things in the movie: most of the actors are great, mainly Ieroklis Michaelidis, the very good scenery and the magnificent music by Evanthia Remboutsika; but they are so few for such an expensive production.

Bottom-line: Is it so bad a movie? To tell the truth I don't know. I just know that in no point does it justify its huge (for Greek standards) budget.


Here's example number 87,358 of Hollywood's anti-Biblical bias, so typical of them.

Early on, Ray Liotta's wife has did and women are being interviewed for the position of housekeeper. The first interviewee is an old-fashioned-looking (dress, mannerisms, speech) who immediately lays down here strict rules, stating that "there will be two hours of Bible study ever day."

This is said, of course, to make it sound like reading the Bible is the worse punishment you could ever inflict on someone, especially a kid. Once again, the Bible is equated with stuffy, mean-spirited people. That woman, of course, is dismissed immediately.

Naturally, the liberal black woman (Whoopi Goldberg - who else?) is the one who is hired and, voilà, saves the day!

Yawn.


Not bad performances. Whoopi plays the wise/warm role quite well. Still, the storyline and situations can not be believed (forced PC stereotypes). At times it is good Jews and Blacks vs. the evil White Christians (ho-hum). A typical Hollywood fantasy. The film does have its moments, but it is not one that I would recommend to go out of your way to view.


I saw this movie and was bored out of my mind! I am a fan of Peanuts, but I can't understand why Charles Schultz let this disaster be made! Spoilers ahead.

I can't believe Snoopy would let his friends sleep on the ground outside in a dangerous situation and go out to a bar and swig a few cold ones without standing watch! The story was complete nonsense, even for comic strip characters. It takes them toooo long to get to France, plus once they get to France I had a feeling that the writer (I still can't believe it was Schultz) didn't know what to do once they got there.

Peanuts is best made in 30 minute episodes, not 80 minute movies.

Go home Charlie Brown, you are at your best there.


I'm rating 'The Decline of the American Empire' just about below average since it wasn't terrible, but also not great. I liked the very open conversations from people so incredibly selfish and ugly inside and out. That was probably the most original aspect  a dialogue-laced sexual small film with people who are extremely far from models. That aside, it seems ironic that these French-speaking Canadians have a movie about a neighboring society that, well, is in 'Decline' when their own actions are their own demise. A group of women friends and male friends spend half the movie laughing it up on their infidelities and acceptance of such behavior and the other half "intellectually" speaking of how powerful they are for their speech and actions. These are the normal targets in typical sitcoms the main characters make fun of at parties occupied mainly by college professors. Sadly, it's not their "intelligence" or mastery of "history" that disturbs me. It's their pedestal made of ego and mightier-than-thou attitude that pushes me away and not one character could I relate to, nor like. When one cries, I couldn't care less  it's your bed. When one complains, I barely flinched. What made me skirmish was one character, uh, peeing red. (Another example of playing with fire.) Sure, I understand it happens to some people, but it was hard to watch. And I sincerely hoped the he washed his hands as he had no problem going right back to cooking for everyone. On the complete opposite end of the noses-up educators, they introduce a stereotypical nomad. This made me cringe as no one seemed real; everyone was as shallow as their laughter on society. Unfortunately, with no one left to root for, you're left as empty as these character's souls.


History and experience over the past couple of decades has shown us that intellectuals talking about sex is about the unsexiest and unintellectual thing anyone can do, but this wasn't quite as obvious back in 1986. Basically, the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort, security, and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves--which they hide from themselves with more sex. This drive is linked to "the decline of the American Empire", as expressed in an early interview within the movie.

So the idea is that relatively detestable people talk about sex, and that that talk is supposed to reveal how detestable they are as people. Arcand at least keeps giving it drive and momentum by doing interesting things with the camera such as isolating most of the characters in single frames, revealing their ultimate loneliness, and cutting rapidly between them, showing how they are more at war with each other than they are at agreement. And to give Arcand credit, this is pretty much what intellectual life is, a constant struggle with other intellectuals to stand out, even when everyone knows that standing out means standing alone.

But yeah, the characters and action are unsexy and kind of pathetic. I think this film is much more an aspect of its time than it is something meant to last, which makes it kind of dated. It's also the exact type of mental buffing in dialog and references to people like Susan Sontag that makes art-house films so unpopular around the populist entertainment moviegoers. In all, I'll take it anyway--it has its place basically among the exact type of people the characters are--it's just that it's not really interesting or important to anyone who isn't those characters.

--PolarisDiB


A lot of people in the cinema enjoyed this film, but it only made me feel misanthropic. If smug "intellectuals" bantering about their irritating sex lives, sounds ok to you, watch it. I felt bored, but glad I did know people like that. The premise of the film was that, as with all societies or great civilizations, they are eventually doomed to fail. According to the female historian character, who bores us with this fact, America is showing signs of it's decline (Admittedly she goes into greater detail than me). The next part of the film is concerned with the vacuous, fatuous and asinine behaviour of her friends and colleagues, and the various miseries caused by their libidinous behaviour, with a vague attempt at humor. A lot of people liked this movie where I watched it. I could not relate to it.


A movie that tries hard to say something and generally fails. Like the fatuous academics that populate the movie, it meanders aimlessly, substituting endless (it seems like forever listening to it) conversation for some action or plot direction.

Sadly, it's one of the best examples of canadian cinema I've seen.


Sex is a most noteworthy aspect of existence. It is perhaps the most interesting activity there is between birth and death. LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN studies human sexuality in a dry and boring manner. Actually, worse than being simply boring, seeing nude 40-year-olds is, well, unpleasant.

I guess there is some shock value in having adults as old as our parents talk about sex, but after twenty minutes, this stops being interesting. Perhaps if the characters were all 20 years younger, the film would be more visually captivating.

LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN is not worth the time.


I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.

If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth your time.


THEIR PURPLE MOMENT

Aspect ratio: 1.33:1

Sound format: Silent

(Black and white - Short film)

Two luckless nightclub revellers (Laurel and Hardy) are unable to pay their bill, provoking violent retribution from a hot-tempered waiter (Tiny Sandford).

Typical L&H scenario, less substantial than some of their best work from this period, but worth a look nonetheless. Stan takes center-stage this time round, caught up in a financial dilemma after holding back part of his wages to fund a night on the town, only to find out - too late! - that his aggrieved wife (Fay Holderness) has replaced his stash with worthless coupons. Some of the prolonged closeups of Laurel as he slowly becomes aware of the unfolding disaster reveal his genius for characterization and mime. 1920's morality is represented by Patsy O'Byrne, playing a hatchet-faced busy-body who takes great joy in alerting L&H's respective spouses (Holderness and Lyle Taho) to their husbands' bad behavior. The ending fizzles, but the movie still has much to recommend it. Directed by James Parrott.


I saw this on the Sci-Fi Channel so I knew it would be bad to start with but I was surprised at how much worse it was than expected. The CG effects on the dragon were terrible, even for the Sci-Fi channel and the writing was pathetic. I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be that stupid as a joke or if it just came out that way. The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it's so terrible it's almost funny, especially the part where Patrick Swayze's knight character goes home to his Knight father who has retired after losing his legs and is now bed-ridden in his armor for the sole purpose of letting the audience know he was a knight. The majority of the movie focuses around an enormous dragon egg that hatches into a not-so-enormous baby dragon with some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. This was just awful.


This movie starts out great, and sucks you in. Most acting is good until Patrick Swayze (with his Texas Twang- everyone else sounds British-like even the Muslim) shows up, and proves that he can't act. You can live with that until the first fight scene where all they all fall to pieces. Why does Patrick Swayze fight baddies with an ax when he just stuck his sword into the ground 5 minutes ago.

There's further misplacing of swords a few minutes later, and people knowing about other people they shouldn't know about. Other reviewers mentioned "Troubled Production" and it shows.

At the end I just didn't even care about the fight scenes, sure, the CGI Dragon was weak, but the storyline was the biggest letdown.


This movie started with some promise: big name cast, good looking sets, but then it fell apart.

Most of the time it can't tell whether it's a serious movie or a comedy. One minute they're talking about how there's no joy in killing and the next there is a fight scene set to funny music and funny banter.

Some of the acting is pretty bad, mainly from Patrick Swayze and Piper Perabo. She also gets some groaner lines like, "When I marry, it will be about love." Ugh.

But the worst thing about this movie is that it's just boring. Not enough action, not enough humor, not enough plot, not much of anything really. Just a lot of clichés and cheesy moments.

Also, a movie with "Dragon" in the title should contain a lot more dragons than the few (and pathetic CGI dragons) that appeared in this movie.

Can't the SciFi channel show *any* good movies?


Wow! That James Purefoy looks exactly like Thomas Jane!

That's the most profound thought I took with me after having seen the rather underwhelming George And The Dragon. For a fantasy comedy, the story was very dull and the effects unspectacular.

The problem wasn't the acting. James Purefoy makes a good knight, and his various side-kicks are not bad characters. I even thought Patrick Swayze in this role was a pretty good idea, too. Flat-chested Piper Perabo also had some nice potential. I even liked the kid.

But the story and everything that happens, and the *way* it happens, was just "eh". Not interesting. Compared to another recent fantasy comedy, Ella Enchanted, which was actually funny, this movie comes up terribly short. I'm sorry for the decent actors who were in this yawn-inducing trudgery.

4 out of 10.


This is the one movie that represents all that is bad in the movie business. The actors are pathetic and the script is awful. The special effects, if there are any, are so badly done that it would have been better to do it with cartoons instead. Besides that it's great! I think the creators of the movie meant it to have humor, but the only time i was laughing was when I saw Patrick S. with long hair and the colorful costumes that every one had. The scenes at the end were good but they were not a part of the movie. In the end you will ask yourself "why did I waste my time and money with that crap when I could have watched the plants growing or the clouds moving". I don't think that I am some critic or anything but this is a truly lame movie! DO NOT WATCH! DANGER OF STUPIDITY OVERLOAD!


I want to believe all new horror films coming out of Japan these days are edgy and make for enjoyable watching.

Spider Forest is neither.

It is seldom that I finish watching something and end up teed off for the waste of time, but Spider Forest was an exception in this regard. I was very teed off. The makers of the film succeeded on one level; throughout the film I could not stop because I wanted to see the answer to the mystery spun by the storyline. I could not stop watching. That's why I was so angry when the film finished... they dragged me all the way through 2 hours of tedium for this POC? WARNING: Spider Forest is another one of those Japanese "ghost" stories, though you don't realize that going in.

I never want to see a Japanese ghost story again. They're phony and contrived. "It's a ghost story" has become like a big rug under which to sweep any and all unresolvable plot holes you have in your story-telling.


I have an affection for these twists on British social norms and it is rare that one loses me. But Our Betters did lose me a bit. It's a tale of social climbers and their joy at breaking the rules but personally I found it a little dull.

I liked the duchess though she whines a little too much and Constance Bennett amiably fills the role of Lady Greyston, a role that Bette Davis could have played backwards.

But the movie comes the life in the third act when Ernest joins the party. He is so lively and fun (and in truth probably wears more makeup then Lady Greyston). He gets the last line of the film and it's a gas!


This is not great cinema. The film is cliche ridden and in many places it is a copy of the original Carrie. The parallels with the original film are striking but with an added improbability about the telekenetic powers being congenital.

I can't say that I disliked the film because it at least passed a couple of hours ... but these were passed as one would read an undemanding book on a long train journey. That book would not be great literature but would absorb one for a while and be forgotten soon afterwards in that it would blend in with the numerous other cliche ridden books. Likewise the film was okay whilst it lasted but is perhaps forgettable. At least I think it is. I cant remember much about it now!!


**Could be considered some mild spoilers, but no more than in anyone else's review of this film.**

I knew that nothing could conceivably live up to the absolute brilliance of the original "Carrie," which was more of a film about social criticism than it was about setting the gym on fire. Carrie White was "victim" epitomized, and her story conveyed the helplessness that the truly exploited must feel.

Whoever conceived the "Rachel" character for "The Rage" must have completely missed the subtleties of "Carrie." For the audience to genuinely share the victim's rage, s/he must be a sympathetic character-- a true outcast who is more a victim of circumstance than of his/her own vices. Rachel is entirely too unpleasant to convey any sort of the emotional depth and connection of Sissy Spacek's "Carrie." And she looks and acts like she should be right along-side the 'attractive and popular brigade' that she ends up torching. She, like the rest of them, has a soul that is every bit as corrupt, whereas Carrie was a complete innocent.

It just doesn't work. There's no satisfaction in seeing the pretty children-- not even the "Home Improvement" boy-- getting offed in this movie's climactic scene. And it's so unnecessarily gory! There was no actual bloodshed seen in the burning gym!

And there is one person in particular that this movie should NOT have had the audacity to kill off... but I won't say who it is. If you've seen the original "Carrie," it's the sort of character who dies unjustly.

At least they DID create the connection to Carrie appropriately; it's explained as it should have been. But that, and the arm tattoo, which was done rather nicely, is just about the only thing this movie has going for it.

Yet another hideous "Scream" knock-off, and it taints the reputation of one of the most compelling films ever made.

Rating: 1 out of 10. I wasn't expecting much, but I was still horribly disappointed. An unsympathetic character, a series of irritating pop-culture references thrown in for no good reason, and an ending scene that pales in comparison to "Carrie"'s gravestone shocker.


One of the scariest movies I have ever seen was Carrie (the first one!). Now, as with other movies, they have totally ruined the Carrie franchise with The Rage: Carrie 2. From the beginnning, the movie plods along like geriatics in a beat-up van. There are hardly any scares and this movie is chock-full of all the various high-school sterotypes (i.e. the football jock, the bitchy cheer-leader, the followers and of course the black nailpolish wearing misfits). Another sad thing about this show is that you know what's going to happen the moment you see the opening credits. Sure, sure, girl gets humilated thourghly and then turns into crazed psychic murderer...yawn...

Been there. Done that.

Even the actors look like they were forced into doing this movie. Emily Bergl is as frightening as a cabbage patch doll while Jack London... let's just say i didn't pay to see wood act. Apart from the actors, the flasbacks serve more to irritate than to link up with the first movie.

Bottom line, If you can beam objects around like Carrie, then for the love of God beam yourself out of that theatre......


I'd never walked out of a movie before this one. I'd entertained the idea a couple of times, but this time I did it, snuck in to see the end of another movie, but had to come back and see the end of the Rage while I waited for my friends. They told me I didn't miss much while I was gone, either. I was generally offended by the entire movie, in such a grand way that I can't even describe it. My gut instinct told me to get myself out of the theatre. It was a visceral reaction to a horrible movie. The plot centered around the cruel actions of some reprehensible teenagers against vulnerable and troubled others. There was no ray of light, no resonsible or likeable person to provide contrast. I found that even the "good guys" of the movie did nothing for me, were silly, stupid, whiney, or just plain ineffectual.

The repetitious, graphic suicide imagery was way overdone, unnecessary, and disgusting. (Not in a "I'm easily grossed out" way, but more in the portrayal of disregard for humanity way). And besides the repetition of that scene, in slow motion, from so many angles, the other visual aspects, (interesting camera work, etc) had potential, but just became annoying sometimes. I am a person who loves movies and tries to find good things about them. Usually I can find some good things to counterbalance the not-so-good of any movie. I'm not saying that this movie had nothing good, but I am saying that, whatever that may have been, I can't remember it with all the other crap that drove me mad. I'm really sorry about that, too. Maybe the best parts were the clips from the classic original.


The ending made my heart jump up into my throat. I proceeded to leave the movie theater a little jittery. After all, it was nearly midnight. The movie was better than I expected. I don't know why it didn't last very long in the theaters or make as much money as anticipated. Definitely would recommend


Ok, I did think that it would be horrible. But when I saw it.. I was proven wrong. Emily Bergl did a superb job as did Jason London. Sue Snell was under-used and under-written. The meanies were ok, Dylan Bruno and Rachel Blanchard are definitely the stand-outs. As for the things the teens do and how people claim it's all wrong. Whatever. My friends and I use the term "swank" a lot and I have driven a car and had someone steer as I changed. It's pretty much all there. I've just never been at a after-game party in a house that big with it's very own light show.. The deaths are good. The best involves a pair of glasses, a spear gun and a pool.. all in that order. I must say, there will be people who hate it.. but I'm not one of them.


Following up the 1970s classic horror film Carrie with this offering, is like Ford following the Mustang with the Edsel. This film was horrendous in every detail. It would have been titled Beverly Hill 90210 meets Mystery Science Theater 3000, but both of those shows far exceed this tripe. This film was scarcely a horror film. I timed about 3 minutes of gore and 90 minutes of lame high school hazing and ritual. Wow, what a surprise, Carrie's weird friend commits suicide! Wow, Carrie misconstrues her love interests affections! Wow, the in-crowd sets up Carrie! Wow, the jocks have a sexual scoring contest! What this film needed was way more action and far less tired teen cliches. This film is totally unviewable.


If this awful film moved at a snails pace it would at least be moving.Watching grass grow would be more interesting. It was painful to sit through and I only stayed in the theatre to see how all the cruel teens would die.Where is Brian DePalma????


I thought that this movie lacked the building dramatic suspense the first movie had. This is hard to accomplish when the film takes place over a week. The original movie lead up to the final climatic scene over a period of a year and it still was less violent than the sequel. One good thing about this film was the movie went by relatively quickly, because the plot seemed rushed. When Rachel's best friend died there was no funeral mentioned in the movie. Another bring down was the involvement of Amy Irving. All her scenes brought down the movies pace. The dialog in this movie was terrible. It in no way reflected the way kids talk. In conclusion this movie could have been a hit but fell apart after the opening scene.


The most enjoyable parts of this film were the clips from the original movie. The acting was poor and the premise of sexual scorecards was revolting. The effects were marginal at best. There were no stand out performances, Amy Irving was put in this film to try and get a part of the Halloween H20 audience. The original was much more enjoyable and gratifying. I am sorry to say that this is not going to be one of the years 10 best...so far it is at the bottom of my list. Don't bother with this one folks!!


Be warned by the line on the back of the box that promotes a story involving "over sexed jocks". There isn't a thing redeeming about Carrie 2. The plot is absurd, the acting terrible, and the ending all too predictable.

I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting to be entertained. I wasn't. The only way I could rationalize watching this movie was because I was at a relative's house while waiting for my car to be fixed. Unless in the same predicament stay well away from this film.


I would have given this movie a 1, but I laughed so hard, so many times, that I had to give it a little credit, in the off off off off chance the film was Supposed to be funny. A movie so bad you'll think chimps wrote it. You'll wish chimps had written it. Dialogue so canned that only it and the cockroaches will survive the coming nuclear holocaust. The movie Exaggerates its awfulness by intersplicing scenes from the Original Carrie (a really good film) into scenes from this one. Like intersplicing scenes from Taxi Driver into Baby Geniuses. Do not rent it alone, as you will NOT enjoy the experience. You will need someone next to you to confirm the badness of what you are viewing. Worst actress of the Millenium goes to poor poor Amy Irving as the stone-faced, monotone, disastrously wooden school counselor. Worst movie of the year so far (see also _Arlington Road_). --FRINK-3


Would you be surprised if I told you this movie deals with a conspiracy? No? How about if I told you the ringleader was a shadow puppet. What? You don't believe me? ... OK. Yes, I made that up. It's too bad, this movie could have used a sense of humor. I understand Charlie Sheen doing this at the time - another movie equaled more money - as for Donald Sutherland and Linda Hamilton ... why? Don't even get me started on Stephen Lang. He was so much fun as the Party Crasher in 'The Hard Way' and now this junk.

Ah no matter. Everyone involved should feel ashamed. If you aim to make a bad movie and succeed - it's twisted - but I seriously doubt that was what they were aiming for here. Flat out, the story stinks and we're actually supposed to take this yak seriously. Makes you wonder if this movie even had a glimmer of hope. Seriously, I doubt it and in an industry so tight with the purse strings how this got green lit in the first place is beyond me. Maybe even more scary is how this dog pile made it's way to theaters!?

Oh ... Sam Waterson, how great you are in Law & Order. Why are you here? Demoting yourself to the role of the President of the United States who might I add gets to be shot at by a remote control biplane controlled by the gonzo assassin. Then again this is a masterpiece of work from George P. Cosmatos who's "directing" credits include Rambo: First Blood Part II amongst other gems. Hmm.... case in point?


Funny thing. Charlie Sheen, Donald Sutherland, Sam Waterston, and Stephen Lang have all had incredible performances. Who can forget Sheen as the callow naif in Wall Street, or Sutherland as the the cynical Korean War surgeon in MASH? Waterston and Lang have both also had successful TV and film careers (Law and Order, Killing Fields, De Niro's Tribeca, etc). So what in the world would any of these fine actors be doing in a stink bomb like this?

Shadow Conspiracy's plot of a Washington coup d'etat is not really that bad, unoriginal maybe but not that bad. Sure it's been done (Seven Days in May - a fine film!), but with a little tweaking, it could still have been entertaining.

Shadow Conspiracy's main problem is in the execution. Early in the film Sheen, political strategist extreme, ridiculously and implausibly resolves a potential public relations gaffe by blackmailing a Congressman. Later, gunplay with Lang's mute hitman tearing up half of what is supposed to be Georgetown is explained on the news as "gang wars". Has anyone remotely associated with this film ever lived a day in Washington? Sheen is about 20 years too young, way way too young, to be so senior in a White House Administration. Sheen's response to avert a political crisis is so ladened with false machismo, he looks as though he attended the David Hasselhoff school of acting. And when was the last time gang wars spread to Georgetown? We're talking about a section of Washington where citizens voted against having a Metro stop so that they could maintain their exclusivity.

I agree with another reviewer that this film would have been unbearable without the fast forward button. I taped it off HBO a year ago and then took 3 separate viewings to plod through it.

In summary: Don't buy this film. Don't even rent this film. If you see it at Blockbuster, run away as fast as you can.


I would have liked to put 0.5 but unfortunately I can't. Who can write so bad scripts (I saw the movie five seconds and knew the "bad boy" would be Sutherland - needed to pay his taxes, when you see how good he was in Redford's movie, "Ordinary People" and others ! -).

Though I don't like it, but I had no choice, I saw the movie in French, but I know that hearing the real voices of Sheen, Sutherland and Hamilton would have not change things, except maybe making it more pitiful.

What makes me sick is that people earn their living making this bad stuff (I forgot to speak about Mr Waterson, far away from the Woody Allen's movies he once used to play in).

We had another movie on another French channel : a silly James Bond with Brosnan (I am not talking about the real Bonds with Connery(please it's the end of holidays, wake up !).


I clicked onto the Encore Mystery channel to wait for the movie I wanted to see, Island of Dr. Moreau. I caught only a few minutes of Shadow Conspiracy. An old man runs to meet Charlie and grabs him by the arm. Suddenly, an Assassin in a bright rain coat taps the old man in the head (with a side arm) from across the street. After waiting for "C" to turn around and look, the "A" tries to shoot "C" and clearly misses. "C" was a much easier target, the old man couldn't have run far. Duh! There is a chase and "C" is on an elevator "A" is on the roof, so he tries to shoot the cable, which is parallel to the "A". He hits and severs the cable, impossible. Later, this time with a specialized rifle, the "A" lines up on "C" from maybe 50 meters, but is to stupid to notice a motorcycle coming up and taps the rider instead. How does Charlie get his parts? Does Daddy go to the producers and say "Look, my kid needs work..." It reminds me of his stupid Sit - Com. All the actors are good except, yup ... you got it. I usually have to endue 2 or 3 minutes of that waiting for C.S.I. to come on. Let's see, what can I do for the next hour. I know, I'll trim my toenails! Much better use of my time.


This film was reeeeeeallyyyy bad! Was it meant to be a comedy as I couldn't help laughing the whole way through it? what a waste of two hours! Donald Sutherland was wooden not that he was alone, everyone else was just as bad...and how miscast was linda hamilton???


This 22 minute short, short of a precursor to the later much better "Rock and Rule", features two folk singer mice who are going nowhere. The female mouse, Jan, signs a deal with the devil to become a hit rock star. So it's up to Daniel Mouse to save her soul. Made in the late '70's this has all the trappings of said decade (crap music, crap clothing and hair style, awful folk tunes) This cartoon is featured on the Second disc of the 2-Disk Collector's Edition of "Rock and Rule", it also comes with a Making of that runs almost as long as the show itself.

My Grade: D+


I have to say that this movie was really quite awful. the acting was average the pacing of the movie was terrible as well as the soundtrack and cinematography.i found that i was bored in most parts of the movie and the cliché lines did nothing for me. the two boys that played the main roles looked terrible at times and did'nt pull off the emotion that was needed in the movie. the little girl was creepy at times and looked like a doll which was scary. the ending wasn't satisfying although the movie to be over the ending didn't make me feel anything for the characters. this movie was boring and did nothing for me, I recommend this movie to no one.


We don't know if Darlene loves all three gentleman, certainly they are wary of one another, yet they live together. Viewers might surmise that the feelings of rivalry between the gentleman and the feelings of all of them toward Darlene might make for an unbearable home life.

In the eerily beautiful rural Brazilian landscape (emphasized by the frequent use of polarization and the use of Kodachrome stock), anything might happen, and the alternatives for any one of them. save perhaps Ciro, may not be alluring enough to encourage them to change their circumstances. They seem to bear the intolerable because it is familiar-the unknown frightens them into complacency toward a fate which is more challenging than their characters can utilize. Thus it crushes them, rather than strengthening them. The web in which they are caught is made of the sanguine filaments which bind us all. Perhaps the sadness I felt after watching this movie has to do with it's portrayal of the inevitable fading of our youth's bright colors in the unforgiving light of time. The three children will enter the world fated to relive their parents lives to one or another degree. Well filmed and portrayed, the story is tragic in it's essence. Walt Disney it ain't


Although this film has had a lot of praise, I personally found it boring. There are some nice Brasilian sunsets and the characters are believable, but the story of how they interrelate, even if very unusual by our standards, is not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long. The central woman takes up with one man after another in a close knit way and putting the interests of her children first. As the tolerance of the various men is stretched, we see their characters develop. The story unfolds with dignity and aided by excellent acting. It is a rare glimpse into the Brasilian hinterland, far from the city, but hardly exciting enough to keep one's eyes open for.


This program would be useful for training hardened felons basic human emotions. Beyond this purpose, the show has no value other than to fill bandwidth that would otherwise go unutilized in the electromagnetic spectrum. I feel a greater sense of suspense and anticipation listening to a computerized voice chip endlessly droning out the products of a random number generator. Fortunately, the helpful and frequent music cues will tell viewers how they're supposed to feel, in case they are unable to fully internalize the predictable and shallow plot line. I did find Amy to be a superficially positive character, as she is a role model to young women that they can serve in traditionally male fields. Unfortunately, her totally subjective approach to the law is guided solely by whatever capricious personal guidelines Amy elects to employ, resulting in Amy's trials more closely resembling appeals to the personal mercy of a tribal despot than a true administration of justice. This show is unpalatable in any amount, although this is to some extent mitigated after two episodes by the brain's god-given filtering processes, by which the show will thankfully leave the same imprint on the viewer's memory as a television tuned to a dead channel at maximum volume.


This game is from a genre of games that tried to capitalize off of the whole Myst-inspired trend--walk around, talk to people, solve puzzles. The puzzles themselves are absolutely horrible, but I'll stick to the acting itself, which is only slightly better. If you're looking for a convincing performance from any one character, you won't find it here, but this game is worth buying if only to witness the truly hilarious performance of Christopher Walken. His acting is so horrible in this game that it seems like he's imitating someone who happens to be impersonating him. He's a caricature of himself.

So buy this game if you're masochistic, a Walken fan, or simply want to hear the F-word a lot.


I kept waiting for this film to improve, but, alack, this is the worst kind of escapist movie: a spun-sugar confection that sinks under the weight of its own ponderous self-importance. The pace stumbles on like a legionnaire stranded in the Sahara. The absence of good dialogue leaves the appealing stars with little to do other than look good in white linen. Irons plays yet another moneyed charmer who's had a touch of the sun. Kaas is a pleasing singer but not much of an actress. Luckily, the script does not often call on her to emote away from the jazz club microphone. All the enviably relaxed, pretty, unnecessary characters take turns masticating the scenery with an air of weary sophistication. The whole exercise comes across like an interminably long Ralph Lauren ad.

If you're past forty and believe Francophilia is the key to sophistication, you may well mistake this piece of cardboard for a baguette. Well, if you liked this movie you probably felt smart for appreciating Godard's leaden Éloge de l'amour, and you may even have sat through Le Divorce without cringing.


I do not see what is the whole deal about this movie. Patricia Kaas sings, yes, and that makes the film charming, but singing is not enough. I mean, if you want to get all benefits of this one, go buy Patricia's CD and enjoy! The plot is simple (if to omit the "dreams"); the main characters seem to love each other instantly, and as well instantly forget their other acquaintances. Relationships appear almost "mandatory", and the little "detective story" thrown in just makes things worse. What at first appeared to be a perfect movie ending, is first screwed up and then comes out as just a dream. I measure movies by how well I would remember them, and for this one, I already started to forget the details.


Well...I like Patricia Kaas. She is a beautiful lady and an extremely gifted and versatile singer. Her acting in this film is more than competent and from my point of view about the only redeeming feauture of this film. She very gently captures the essence of the lonely singer with a very serious helath problem. However what I tremendously dislike about the film is the shameless product placement for a well known French chain of hotels. The other thing is that the story seems to meander for way to long without really deciding what the film is about and what it wants to be. On a positive note you may argue that the film is not predictable but you could also say it's plainly boring because of the lack of cohesion. There are some nice shots in the film bujt you can't help thinking that all the parts just don't add up to anything at all. It really is a pity bevcause Kaas really shines in this film.


This is the type of film that makes you question your past admiration for a particular director before you stop and remind yourself that there are very few people whose body of work doesn't contain a few clunkers.

The casting in Lelouch's films is of utmost importance because he puts the viewer into such intimacy with the characters. The actors have to bring real screen magic to live up to the intensity. Otherwise it is just hollow.

None of the actors in this film had any of that screen magic, in my opinion.

Jeremy Irons and Patricia Kaas fell far short as the leads. Irons is a talented actor but he was wrong for this part. Lovable rogue didn't suit his strengths. His brand of charm also hit a false note for me here. Iron's persona is too decadence-tinged to fit into a Lelouch love story.

Although I would hesitate to pass up any opportunity to hear an English accent, I also think an American actor would have worked better in this role. So many of the songs that Kaas sings are so closely identified with the Americanness of the particular lyricist that it seemed kind of discordant to then have Jeremy Irons playing the love interest -- even though logically it really didn't matter. It still screwed up the flow of the movie somehow. At least for me.

Of course, it would have had to have been the right American. I think George Clooney would have been great in the part. And he would have brought the screen magic in spades. Brad Pitt could also have done a really good job delivering his particular combination of charming and edgy.

I was also very disappointed with Patricia Kaas. In reading about her, I've learned that she has a hugely successful career as a singer and many fans, so what do I know, but I found her screen presence as a singer very boring. She was actually a much better actress in her speaking scenes than she was a singer in those scenes in which she had to interpret and sell a song. Nothing she sang moved me. She was pleasant but bland.

In contrast, someone like Kate Hudson, who is not a professional singer and has only voice-coach French still would have handled this part a million times better. Not to mention all that stunning French talent out there that could have been tapped into. It was wrenching watching Patricia Kaas take up screen space when there are so many charismatic French actresses who could have been cast instead.

The music was so important in this film, it could not really work without the music working. And since Kaas delivered so poorly in this respect, the movie never really had a chance.

Lelouch sealed the fate of this movie when he cast Patricia Kaas. JMO.


I saw this film while I was in France and I must say that it confused me. It is a story of a jewel thief and a young singer who each end up in Morocco at the same time, run into one another and form a connection. Simple enough? Well, the problem is that this is the sort of film that has ambiguity in both chronology (the film is not played entirely in order) and in reality (did what i just saw really happen, or was it only a dream?). Given those parameters, as well as the film being bilingual, it was really hard to follow, and I was not sure as to what happened at the end. I imagine some deep artsy types could understand this film better than I could, and it may require more than one viewing to understand.


I didn't hate this movie as much as some on my all time black list, but I consider it a total wast of film. Jeremy Irons, Iron Jeremy, Ron Jeremy. Think about it. Scene one is very good, all the rest are crap.


I had never heard of Dead Man's Bounty when I saw it at the DVD store a few weeks ago, and I thought I had stumbled upon an unrecognized gem, since it had Val Kilmer in it in a truly unique role. Sadly, it wasn't more than ten or fifteen minutes into the movie that I realized that this is a disaster of epic proportions. The first clue you will see of how genuinely awful this movie is comes near the beginning, when you have a bunch of dirtbags in an old saloon laughing like a bunch of hyenas in a scene that goes on about five times too long. It's unbelievable how bad it is. And sadly, it doesn't get any better.

Val Kilmer is featured prominently on the movie's cover box, maybe to trick you into thinking that he has a role in the film, but unfortunately his bizarre role as a dead man is overlooked in favor of focusing on a bunch of half-wit crooks and the most inept conceptualization of a unique town sheriff that I've ever seen in a movie. He's played by Boguslaw Linda, who is unable to or uninterested in covering his Polish accent, immediately making it impossible that the movie is meant to take place in the American old west.

Does Poland have this type of frontier past? I don't know. My knowledge of Polish history is not my strong point, but I can tell you this, The Sheriff, as he is known in the movie, is the worst representation of law enforcement that I can ever remember seeing in a movie. He is introduced in a truly ridiculous scene where he is wearing some kind of blindfold and a roomful of men take turns punching him in the face. Before they start hitting him, he explains that they can each hit him once, and then, after the first round, they will each hit him again, and if he can identify who is throwing the punches, they lose. What the hell is this crap? I am completely at a loss to explain why a scene like this would ever be put into any movie.

Throughout the movie, the Sheriff continues to appear more and more beaten and bruised and drunk and battered, until ultimately he does nothing but show up occasionally, stumbling on screen and mumbling "notwithout...the law" You see, there is a lot of talk and preparation for a hanging, the details of which are as meaningless as the rest of the movie.

It takes place, by the way, in a town that consists of nothing more than two ramshackle wooden buildings facing each other across a flattened bit of dirt that is more of a path than a road. My understanding is that it is a part of Poland that is supposed to look acceptably enough like the American southwest, where none of the characters, except maybe the dead guy, could possibly have come from.

I have heard that Val Kilmer accepted the role because he was intrigued by his unique role, and also by director Uklanski's minimal use of dialogue in favor of a reliance on cleverly timed juxtaposition of images in unique visual montages.

Yeah, whatever.

Seems to me that Kilimer was unable to overcome what must have been the truly satisfying feeling that he must have gotten when he was offered the role. Personally, I would really feel that I had reached quite some level of success if someone approached me and offered me probably a few hundred thousand dollars to come and lay still for a while. I like to think that he didn't even read the script for this mess, because if he did I am at a total loss to understand why he accepted the role.

At any rate, the movie opens with a man bringing in the corpse of a man, played by Kilmer, seeking the reward. Soon he finds himself embroiled in a ludicrous love story involving the town prostitute, the alcoholic Sheriff, and lots of mayhem involving a series of stupid, stupid characters.

There is also a extensive and preposterous lack of understanding of American rituals. In one scene, a man cuts a cherry tomato in half and squishes the halves into Kilmer's eyes (for what reason, I can't imagine), and then later, a man makes a short speech over Kilmer's corpse, in which he explains that he was "one of the finest men we ever had," and then he proceeds to lop his head off with a shovel. What the HELL??

Not convinced yet? Here are some more reasons not to watch it. In one scene the Sheriff appears to be covered with ash, except for the perfectly clean areas around his eyes and what can only possibly be described as bright red lipstick. A man gets a head wound that drenches his head and body in blood. In a daze, he cauterizes it with gunpowder. Smart. Near the end, the Sheriff appears to have a broken arm. Sitting at the bar, he puts a rope around his neck and connects it to his injured arm, and uses his good arm to pull on the rope, lifting his shaking beer glass in his bad arm to his mouth, rather than using his good arm to drink. Also smart.

Why doesn't he just use his good arm? I have no idea. That, like everything else in the movie, makes no sense whatsoever, like the title. Summer Love? Are you kidding me? Avoid this mess at all costs.

In the meantime, here's something for the IMDb Goofs page

Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers) : This movie got made. HA!


I wish I would have read more reviews and more opinions about this movie before I rented it. A waste of money. A waste of time. Very little dialog. The dialog was hard to understand in every way. The storyline and plot were both weak. The only thing that was nice at all was the cinematography.

The characters were interesting. At the same time you will spend so much time trying to figure things out, because of the lack of dialog, that you will be rewinding the movie a lot.

Do not watch this movie. It was a mess and will leave you feeling like a mess.

You will say, what the heck was that, when the movie ends?


As most of you, I've watch a lot of great movies; In between those we often either voluntarily or mistakenly also find those movies that are so pointless that we think of reasons as to why anyone would make it. This is exactly what I can say for Dead man's bounty....

The very least I can do is try to "warn" some of you. If you enjoy being entertained by a motion picture because of the story, acting and intensity than you might want to chose something else. Now, it's not all bad.....In fact, if all you want is creative film editing, and unique angles along with original music ambient than you might think it's OK. As someone that values movie plots, acting and being entertained by a film, the truth is I thought this movie was so terrible beyond words. I could easily find a spot for it on my list of worst movies seen in a while.

As for having Val Kilmer in this, the truth is he was casted probably as a favor to the director; As a fan of some of Kilmer's films, I can't understand what his motive for this was. The movie seems part western part romance.........In the end, I'm sure most of you can agree with me that it simply is a rude waste of our time. In case you haven't seen this movie, my recommendation would be to avoid it completely.


Sure, you get to see some boobies, but if that's all you're looking for in a film, you get more mileage from youtube. I just paid a dollar from redbox because I saw Val Kilmer's name. Bad move. Plot didn't thicken, dialogue was shoddy, characters undeveloped at best. Somebody said cinematography was alright but don't expect too much. This movie moved very slow and ended without grace. Blacklist. I spent much of the movie wondering if some event or color scheme of things was symbolic. I never actually rewound to figure it out because nothing was ever explained in the end. No twists. It also left many questions that as it turns out, I had no desire to hear answered. One of the worst movies I have ever seen.


I mean, come on! Now my countrymen have started to make westerns! Is it not enough that our cinema sucks already? Now you need to infect English-language movies with Polish acting and no sense whatsoever? Please, stay away from this movie, do not waste your eyes on it. A 5-year-old baby could make a movie that makes more sense. I am from Poland and I am ashamed this title might actually be watched by you. Please, I am begging you, do NOT watch this movie and if you do, do NOT judge Polish people and Polish movies based on what you see there. We had some good movies in our history and we had some bad ones but this one - it is like nothing worse that I have seen in my entire life. Keep away!!!


This is said to be the first Polish western and is written and directed by Piotr Uklanski. Known in the U.S. as DEAD MAN'S BOUNTY, this film uses some strange visuals to tell a story that is short on dialog. Val Kilmer plays a corpse and some scenes are through his dead eyes. Some awkward visual situations are actually comical in a sick way. My favorite is a young man building a gallows chops off one of his own fingers and actually hangs himself testing the strength of the rope. A cowboy known only as 'the stranger'(Karel Roden)finds a dead man(Kilmer) that he thinks is a wanted man. He takes him to the nearest town to collect the bounty. He ends up losing the corpse and the potential bounty in a gambling game with the town's drunken sheriff(Boguslaw Linda)and has the few townsmen turned against him when he has a dalliance with the barmaid(Katarzyna Figura). He manages to escape sure death and leads the small posse on a dangerous 'wild goose chase'. One scene has the stranger tending to a scalp wound by cauterizing with gunpowder and a match. The corpse rots chained to a hitching post as the sheriff finds out that there is no bounty to be had. This movie also known as SUMMER LOVE has a haunting theme song sung by John Davidson. Nevertheless this western is like watching a train wreck. There is just something that tells you not to look...but you do.


The only reason I rented this movie was that Val Kilmer rarely stars in a bad movie. There is of course a first time for everything. In many ways, this movie proves that oaters aren't as easy to make as we think, especially by foreign directors. The only one who got by with it was probably Sergio Leone, but even his movies lacked that something indefinably innate to our American psyche and panache. American actors in Clint Eastwood and Henry Fonda did help . I can see now why they changed the original title from "Summer Love" to " Dead Man's Bounty". That itself tells me the producers and director didn't have any core understanding about a western other than those standard shoot'em up scenes and violent themes. I suppose we can say the same about American directors attempting to make a Polish movie while failing miserably in the process.


Dead Man's Bounty (the film's American title) has the look and feel of a classic Italian western. The cinematography, costumes, and sets look great. The cast is rugged, not a pretty face among them. At the beginning I was preparing for a pretty cool movie but what I eventually witnessed was an absolute disaster.

The script was perfectly dreadful. There was no suspense whatsoever and very little action or worthwhile drama.

Despite looking great, the cast spoke (English) with heavy European accents that were often unintelligible.

The final nail in it's coffin was the broad streak of pretentiousness that paints most of the picture, focusing heavily on the character of the barmaid who's featured in a couple of very awkward sex scenes. Also her speech near the end was pretty repugnant!

The only novelty comes from the stunt casting of Val Kilmer in the role of the dead man, continuing his recent string of DOA performances!


I do NOT understand why anyone would waste their time or money on utter trash like this... Don't get me wrong -- I LOVE a good Western -- Notice I said "GOOD" -- this is just trash

The acting is horrible -- Val Kilmer must know someone or owed a favor or something for them just to use his face and name in this ridiculous piece of crap...

To those of you who enjoyed this movie, I am making a list of you're names to ensure I do NOT watch anything you suggest -- our tastes are definitely different, yet it is your right to voice your opinion, no matter how far off base it is.

I gave this movie a 2 just in case they do throw out all of the one's and not count them.... Just bad in all area's...


And also a wonderful beginning, a real quick start. It keeps you yearning and waiting for is about to come. Unfortunately the high adrenaline dries off quickly, but most certainly after half the movie is over.

And it's a shame, because this movie has really good ideas and explores many of them thoroughly. But that is also one of it's faults. By exploring too many things, it get's mixed up into to many things, so in the end you're too confused to follow any plot or characters. It's very dark and moody, but that doesn't help much, if it's also genre hopping just to try to fit any- and everything in it's story!


and it's only January, still I'm sure of it!

By far this is among the worst Swedish movies I've ever seen and to be honest Swedish movies ain't that good in general. It have been claimed to be "original" and perhaps it can be seen as that for people who never seen a English speaking movie, for us who have been to the cinema the last 10 years it can't help but to feel like Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein have been sitting down one weekend going through the most successful movies from the last years and tried to squeeze it all together in to one Swedish package. What can I say the outcome can just be...poor. First of all the story is just weak to begin with, even worse when it's not just a poor story it's a wish to combine to very poor stories - first a failed try to make Swedish action á la Matrix and then combine it with a really bad moral story. And if you thought it could not be worse you'll notice all the "cool stuff" that just have been thrown in there for absolutely no reason at all more than in a bad way trying to show that Sweden also can do Hollywood movies - which we can't nor should try to. For example the main plot is tried to made deeper by letting youths play a computer game called Storm having absolutely nothing at all with the story or for example how there is a internet side about "Storm" while all the sudden it just is the main characters consciousness - really I don't think even Stein or Mårlind can see a point with three quarters of the movie, more than just trying to show off poor extra effects. For the actors, I've got to admit Eric Ericson does a pretty good job except he does the same job the whole movie through, even tough Storm tries to be a movie about the personal development of DD he does not change one bit in his way of acting. Jonas Karlsson, well to be honest I thought he was a fairly respected actor but judging by Storm... really he just have to be ashamed of this movie, his character and his scar. Lastly Eva Röse is just beyond critic, both her character and her acting. The only reasons Storm succeeds of not getting a 1/10 is for Eric Ericson and, what can I say, at least it tries..


What offends me most about the critics following this film is the mentioning of 'originality'. This film does not contain ONE innovating element. If, by 'originality' you refer to pathetic action scenes, overacting, gluttony in violence, blunt humor and a script beyond intellectual belief. Then, 'originality' is something Swedish film can do without.

How Röse and Karlsson can agree to 'act' in this poor excuse for a film is a mystery to me. And how Eva Röse after the making of this film can be seen at breakfast-TV promoting it just disappoints me.

This film doesn't contain a story, the script is illogical, stiff and last but not least, just plain bad. These two young directors have put together a quite disgusting boy-fantasy containing violence, comic-strips and trivialized psychological portraits. I wouldn't be surprised if the scene of DD masturbating in the kitchen over a micro-wave dinner actually is put there to describe the everyday life of these two overgrown cinematic nerds that pose as directors.

I wouldn't show this movie to my worst enemy.


I happened to catch this on TV, and wanted to watch because I remembered the Spin magazine article upon which the movie is based. I was very disappointed. First, if James Belushi is the lead actor in a movie, it should be a sign that it's not exactly an A-list production. Gregory Hines was a world class dancer, but sadly not a great actor.

In fact, all of the acting in this film is either flat or hammy, which can only be blamed on the director, who is this film's weakest link. Charles Carner seemed to be trying to ape Oliver Stone's "JFK" in portraying the alleged conspiracy to cover up the "real" child murderer(s), but without the benefit of a good script, an A-list cast or, it must be said, the talent. It just doesn't work.

It's a shame that such a worthy topic for a film did not get better treatment.


Actually, I am not narrating the main plot in this comment but with just 2-3 sentences I can make it a spoiler. OK here are these-

Speed is just a 85% conversion of Hollywood flick Cellular into Bollywood by using the software Vikram Bhatt. Title has no match with the story, only it goes in the thriller direction. Just that!! It doesn't deserve even a single star for its imitation, imperfect casting, poor standard and predictable story. Undoubtedly now I can say that Viram Bhatt is slowly vanishing away from his director status as no any matured audience will appreciate his recent works including this. Beside him, Aftab Shivdasani too making his outlook as cartoon-comic type. Who knows how long will he last in the film industry more? Sometimes the standard in the performances and cinematography look like lower than a C-grade movie. But most supportive role was played by Zayed Khan which was somewhat identical with Chris Evan's role as Ryan in Cellular. With innocent face Sanjay Suri has no contribution in the movie as he has nothing to impress. That's why those who have already watched Cellular I advise you never to waste your time again with this imitation sack.


This is a rip-off from Cellular.

Bad casting...

Bad direction...

Bad Music...

And the list goes on...

well there was no direction since story, scenes and setting were lifted straight off of other movie.

Even fight sequence is copied. One with the mace was from Kill Bill and another one with fire hose was from either a Jet Li's or Jackie Chan's movie (i am not able to recall the name of this movie)...

Stay away from this cheap imitation and try to see the real thing...

Cannot expected something original from any of the Bhatts any more!!!


Wait till you watch this one.... I mean even after reading this review. No other movie till date has sucked more than this one.... One thing i wont understand is that, when you are ripping off some English flick why to add your own creativity? With the amount spent for making this movie the producers should have considered buying rights for "Cellular" to be dubbed into Hindi and released the movie. They might have gotten some profits that way i guess. If there was a chance to rate this movie with a 0 i would have done it and the most pathetic performances come from Tanushree Datta and the girl who played the sidekick to Aftab. I don't know if my problem is that i have seen Cellular much earlier than this movie..... but that cant be a reason to support this movie... i could go on for hours but neither i have the time to discuss about this useless crap of a movie not i want to remember those awful scenes from the movie.....

please stay away from this flick.


Welcome to the world of Vikram Bhatt, the man who was once successful and got several hits with small actors like KASOOR, RAAZ and also the multistarrer AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA and his one film with Aamir GHULAM

One sneak peak about this films are that all are Hollywood remakes and some decent ones like the once which worked

SPEED is a remake of CELLULAR and that too a terrible one

A look at the stars, we have the once saleable but now out of work Urmila and Sanjay Suri, then we have the flop Aftab, Ashish Chaudhary, Zayed Khan and others

The film could be a decent thriller but many problems are there The storytelling has several cringeworthy scenes like Zayed hijacking a Mobile Company and many more and the stunts too are laughable while the twists in the end are too laughable The film also took a long time to reach the theatres which looses it's spark

Direction is awful Music is outdated

Zayed Khan screams, makes faces.etc what he does always Urmila is good in her part, Sanjay Suri is not that convincing Ashish Chaudhary tries hard in a negative role and he is okay Aftab is horrible and he makes you laugh in a negative role Surprising the same director gave him his only solo hit KASOOR Sophie is horrible Tanushree is a non actress