The Ealing Comedies constitute their own specific sub-genre in the history of film. They were wry, droll reflections on British life in the late Forties and early Fifties. They are always amusing but I feel it is misleading to characterise them as comedies. They are breezy and good-humoured, rather than laugh-out-loud funny. However, the best of them are laced with understated satire and shot through with an occasional dark streak (epecially Kind Hearts and Coronets and The Ladykillers).

I have an affection for all of them, but The Lavender Hill Mob is probably the one I have most difficulty with. Compared to the others, it seems somewhat perfunctory. To me, it is an outline sketch for a movie, but one that needed to spend a lot more time in development before it was ready to go before the cameras.

Everything about it is a bit undercooked. For example, nobody is given any real context or background. Henry is simply a dutiful drudge, whose secret dreams and hidden ambitions go unrecognised, while Albert is a frustrated artist forced to prostitute his talent by making gift shop trash for a living. This establishes a motive for their crime, but nothing that subsequently happens is a consequence either of their characters or their plan.

Other characters are introduced but play no real part in the story. The elderly resident in Henry's guest house could (with her love of detective stories) have been made an unwitting thorn in his side, but is merely used as background 'colour'. Similarly, the various policemen who pop in and out of the action are simply there to keep the plot ticking along.

As a result, the movie is driven entirely by its contrived plot devices, which I find both frustrating and faintly irritating. The not-very-ingenious robbery is accomplished with minimal problems, despite Albert being prevented from carrying out his part in the plan (by Sidney Tafler's Clayton). The gold is then smuggled to France without mishap. Everything would have gone smoothly if it wasn't for a minor hitch, lamely based on the French pronunciation of the letter 'R', which results in six of the gold Eiffel Towers being accidentally sold to some English schoolgirls.

This leads to a series of frantic chases as Henry and Albert seek to retrieve them. These scenes are well executed, but at each point the conspirators are frustrated in their pursuit of the schoolgirls by a series of wholly factitious accidents. It is as if God is deliberately intervening to give them a hard time. This kind of plotting always has me grinding my teeth.

When they finally track the last Eiffel Tower to a Police Academy exhibition and snatch it from under the nose of John Gregson's Police Inspector (why is he there, anyway?) all shreds of plot logic are abandoned. The final car chases are then simply filling up screen time until we are returned to the framing device with which the picture began.

The movie doesn't even bother to tell us the fate of Albert (Stanley Holloway), Lackery (Sid James) and Shorty (Alfie Bass).

This genial little caper has the professionalism of the Ealing team behind it, so it is far from being a bad movie. I suspect most viewers will find it considerably more enjoyable than I do (and why shouldn't they?), but I cannot help thinking there was a much better movie waiting to be made, if only more time and effort had been expended on fleshing out both the characters and the story.

By the standards established by Ealing, Lavender Hill Mob is a missed opportunity.

PS: One curious footnote is that Audrey Hepburn gets a credit for her single line early on, but Archie Duncan remains anonymous despite his much more substantial contribution. I guess she just had a better agent.


The acting in this film was of the old school: corny and stiff. Irene Dunne is luminous, and comes off the best even though she has some very unnatural lines to say. Still, her ability to convey emotion comes through.

Old movie buffs will find at least some redeeming qualities in this film through observation of cinematic technique of the 1930s. Otherwise, it is not really that worthwhile.


One of the most boring movies I've ever had to sit through, it's completely formulaic. Just a cookie cutout of a movie, you could predict about every scene in the movie just from knowing the genre, as this movie adds nothing new. The dialogue is never funny, interesting, or intelligent. The acting is weak and the soundtrack is annoying - basically everything looks to have been done by an amatuer filmmaker. Nothing fresh, memorable, or entertaining in this movie, combined with the fact that it is LONG gives it an easy thumbs down. Sorry, fans.

Overall Grade: F


I had high hopes for this one after reading earlier reviews but it was so slow and the plot so basic that well I wondered if I had read the wrong reviews.

Please, a boy meets girl next door at 11 and both aspire to love and being basketball legends. Grow apart, but watch each others progress. Guess what! Both get scholarships to same university and become lovers again until his father is caught out playing around with a younger woman. Our young hero unable to cope has lapse in court concentration but some how decides to go pro and drop studies, and guess what is picked up by Lakers. Dumps the heroine because she was not there for him during this emotional period. So for 5 years they go their own way. She returns from Spain having lost the zest for the game and our hero is getting married in two weeks. Mom tells her that she should fight for her love so she professes her on-going love and challenges him to a basketball shootout. He wins he marries she wins he loves her. Well he won but decides to dump other girl for our girl. The End has her playing basketball and he has baby duties. Sorry 2 is my high score. My partner she scored 0 for a soapy story for those who read Mills and Boon


A plot that is dumb beyond belief. However, that said, it must be admitted the lead actors go at their roles as though it were Shakespeare. And that is as it should be. It isn't their fault the writer seems to be in a coma.

Hats off to what is really a very cunning performance by Joanna Kerns. She proves that just because it isn't on the page doesn't mean a role can't be seized and dug into. And she does so with gusto. Good for her.

Ditto to Christine Elise who is called upon to be little more than confused and weepy, but goes way beyond what is asked of her by the script.

And to Grant Show as well. A graduate of daytime and prime time soaps (Ryan's Hope, Melrose Place). He is always versatile and underrated. His primary drawback seems to be his impossible-to-ignore good looks. He is a sturdy, well grounded actor capable of much more than he is generally given the opportunity to do.

The rest of the cast is basically window dressing.

The direction is adequate and the script, as I alluded to, is fairly idiotic.

Watch this one to enjoy three good actors in the leads taking delight in performing some much needed scenery chewing. It's fun.


Not even original in the plot. Ho hum. There were a couple of angles that could have been quite interesting, but the film follows the path of 90% of Hollywood movies. I don't really "get" Samuel Jackson's acting most of the time in his other films, but he was rather good in this film. He rarely yelled and went much further in his character rather than reverting to an "in your face anger." I liked Eva Mendes - as usual - and even though she is great eye candy, she proves herself to be much more than that as an actress. Luis Guzman was actually really good also, except that I disliked the change of his character towards Samuel Jackson at the end of the film. How can one's character center around a dislike for a former cop and then turn into lollipop land within a split second? Is there no original thought left in Hollywood?


It starts really interesting - the story develops around the main character, who runs a "cleaning business", specialized in cleaning up crime scenes. As a former cop, he runs into some strange situation, when one job does suddenly "offically vanish". Furthermore, he discovers some relation to an investigation into police corruption. His "Columbo Feeling" is justified, the deeper he gets into the background of the story. The good actors (Jackson, Ed Harris, Eva Mendes) play in an suspenseful story with some twists --- but only up to the last 25 minutes. (up to here 7 of 10 stars). SPOILER:::: Suddenly the movie looses its touch and in the end there is a completely unnecessary shoot-out, involving the 14-year old daughter, a betrayal of friendship and a not justified righteousness out of the character development... why not having Cutler giving up his investigation for the sake of the friendship? or having the daughter discovering some facts? or ... many possible much better story finishes are imaginable... a truly wasted ending!


Request you to not watch this movie... It starts with a promise and as it goes on you crave for the movie to end... Predictable,not entertaining at all,wasted movie... Save your time and watch better thrillers.... The synopsis sounds good and that is why I watched the movie... But it was way too predictable with nothing to give you a start... No great suspense.. no great direction... nothing phenomenal with the acting... shy away from this... low rating... Nothing to write about this movie so I am filling up the remaining lines of text so you can imagine how much a time waster this movie is...really irritated at how good a premise that was and how bad a screenplay was written out of it...


I normally don't try and second guess a crime thriller, but Cleaner was just entirely too predictable. Samuel L. Jackson playing the character Tom Cutler, along with his profession created an interesting twist in the beginning of the film, however, that was about it. Without even thinking I knew where the plot would be taken and within 30 minutes I had already figured out who the killer was. Rather then trusting myself and having seen several films that make a turnabout, I watched to its completion. What a disappointment, I was right from the beginning.

The casting of characters was a good, as well as the acting from Jackson and Harris...except for Eva Mendes. From the starting gate she didn't play a believable character in correlation to the script and this ruined the entire plot too soon. Maybe this was a directing mishap or just weakness in the story itself. Her role as Ann Norcut should have shown more emotion and distress for the situation that was building around her. This would've made the build-up a bit more compelling and the ending more dramatic. Nevertheless, Cleaner is watchable, not memorable. I've seen episodes of CSI that were more thrilling then this.


Tom Cutler (Jackson) is a retired policeman who now works as a crime scene Cleaner-upper. In his latest job, he cleans a new crime scene and destroys evidence and isn't aware the crime hasn't been officially reported. Uh oh, this can't be good.

You hear about Cleaners all the time, but usually when a mob or gangland hit is involved when bodies etc need to be removed and the area cleaned up. This one is different in that Tom Cutler works with the Police to clean up after the police have done their investigation of a crime scene. Hey, someone has to do it. You know the Police won't. The movie makes that quite clear and it is up to the family to get the area cleaned up.

This is almost a good thriller, but a side plot involving Tom's daughter (Palmer) makes this story somewhat awkward. I guess they had to fill in some time. Oh, they brought this side plot around to connect with the another side plot, but it was still a reach and awkward. See?

This was almost a good thriller because there was a noticeable lack of tension, suspense and the pace was somewhat draggy. The music didn't help either as I noticed the music was more appropriate for watching people take a long journey. You know, journey music. Get it? HA!

The acting by all was excellent in this almost a good thriller.

Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: No


Matthew Aldrich. This is a name worthy of remembrance. This is the individual that took fingers to keyboard and came up with one of the worst scripts of all time. Cliché. Predictable. An insult to the public's intelligence.

Is he the sole beneficiary of blame? Of course not. Renny Harlin took this abysmal excuse for a script and made it into a movie. Sam Jackson and Ed Harris actually read it (or not) and chose to star in it. Culpability abounds.

This is the Denise Richards of film scripts. There aren't enough Razzies in the universe to give proper recognition to how truly horrible this writing really is.

In all fairness, Samuel Jackson's profession is incredibly novel and the manner in which it's presented is highly creative, but, at the end of the day, it's all just trimmings. Pretty trimmings.

Package it any way you want- garbage writing is still garbage writing.


I remember flipping through channels on HBO and saw this. This, my friends, is one of the worst TV movies I've ever seen. There is no excitement in this film.

The story starts out with Drew Summers(Candice Cameron Bure) driving to a small town while in a trance. She stays with a couple who coincidentally, had a daughter named Laura Fairgate who looked exactly like her and is played by the same actress. Even the townsfolk agree that they looked alike. Thing is, Laura was killed over a year ago. Her boyfriend went missing around the same time she was murdered, making it look like he had killed her.

While settling in this town for a while, Drew starts to have visions and nightmares. These visions and nightmares might prove that the boyfriend of Laura isn't the killer after all. Throughout the film, you find out that Ray Ordwell Sr.(Denis Arndt) is the one that raped her frequently over a period of time and killed her.

The movie is too long and very boring. The film just drags on and on and on and on. Amazingly, I saw another TV movie after this called (Cloned) 1997 which was good but I'll review that one later.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Avoid this TV movie. It is not worth your time. This is the worst TV movie of 1997!


While Watching this movie you notice right away the cheesy elements of a standard TV movie... though through out the picture the plot changes (if you are bold enough to say this movie has a plot) are by the book and unoriginal... and with every one the movie KEPT GETTING WORSE!

Candace Cameron Bure, famous for her role as DJ Tanner on the hit TV show Full House, is not very convincing as a Possessed twenty something.. trying to avenge the Possesers Death. I believe she is fine actress.... just not in the thriller range.

The Filming was trashy, and like I said the plot stale... though watching it I knew I was in for automatic cheese, I had NO idea how much worse this film could get...

I highly do not recommend this movie... unless cheep Filmaking and poor writing is what you looking for


Nightscream is a TV Movie so it's bound to be pretty dire especially as it's a supposed horror film. This young girl is haunted by dreams as she arrives in a small town where there was a murder of a woman one year before. She is amazed when everyone in the town thinks she looks exactly like the murdered girl. The townsfolk are amazed when she keeps entering dream like trances where she reveals accurate details about the murder and murderer because the police got it all wrong apparently. Thinking that they are in danger of being found out, the murderers (there are two of them) start to hatch a plan to get rid of her before she gets to the real truth. By this time you will have probably fallen asleep and why do the makers of the film have the 'mist-making' machine on full throttle in the dream sequences.


This is horrible even for a TV movie. I can't believe it took three people to write this movie. I am not familiar with the novel on which this film was based, but it has got to be better than this. I'd rather watch a "Full House" marathon than this stupid movie. I gave it 2 out of 10 stars only because it was made better by commercials.


Think you've seen the worst movie in the world? Think again. The person who designed the cover of this box should be accused of false advertising. The cover makes it look like a good, scary horror suspense thriller. But, no. What we have instead is NIGHTSCREAM. A movie that makes a "sweeeoooowww!!" noise every time a credit flashes across the screen. The biggest name in the entire film is probably Casper Van Dien who hardly has a part.

I voted a one for this one only because I couldn't vote any lower. If I could vote something like negative five-thousand, trust me, I would have. So, for now, I'm going to give NIGHTSCREAM 1/2* out of 5 just because it ended.


I truly was disappointed by this film which I had high hopes for. It seems to have been rushed out to take advantage of the success of screwball comedies at the time (including MGM's own "Libeled Lady", which featured two of the same stars) and the success of William Powell and Myrna Loy. Three years into their pairing, they were still attractive to watch and filled with fire in their scenes together, but a weak screenplay and rushed premise destroys any chance of it being a great followup to the previous year's "Libeled Lady" and the two "Thin Man" movies they had done prior to this. "Double Wedding" tells the story of a clothing store manufacturer, Myrna Loy, who is intent on dominating the life of her sister (Florence Rice), future brother-in-law (John Beal), and her own servants (which include Sidney Toler and Mary Gordon). When the independent spirited William Powell comes into her life, having distracted Rice and Beal from Loy's constant control, Loy meets her match. Sounds good so far, right? Yeah, an interesting premise falls short, sad to say, because Loy's character is so one dimensional it is hard to even like her let alone see Powell fall in love with her, which we know will soon happen. It's another attempt to put a career minded woman in her place by changing her views on her what kind of life she has been leading, something Hollywood did often during its golden age. When Loy says she doesn't have time to both run her business and have a man in her life, its a groaner.

Fortunately, other than Powell, there is free-spirited Jessie Ralph on board. A salty wealthy older woman who helped Loy start her business, she has an acquaintance with Powell and can see immediately through Loy's cool claims that she loathes him. Rice and Beal are a boring couple, and the whole premise of Powell getting between them is senseless. Then, an ex-wife of Powell's shows up, which really isn't necessary at that late point in the story, and the final wedding scene (where a crowd of people try to get into Powell's tiny trailer) is a weak attempt to bring some farce. (It is funny though, that Powell keeps getting hit by items meant by Loy to hit Edgar Kennedy with; Those chuckles are most welcome, since there are so few others.) Powell and Loy would do better in two later screwball comedies, "I Love You Again" and "Love Crazy", which are sophisticated, witty, and fun. This film attempts to be all three, but ends up a sophisticated bore.


A 'Wes Craven presents' movie from 1995, directed by Joe Clayton and starring Lance Henriksen. A group of scientists save a dying man they find by their desert stranded government outpost by injecting him with their experimental virus, of course, one of their colleagues goes overboard and the virus transforms the man into a near unstoppable monster with them trapped inside. Lance Henriksen plays the morally offended researcher who leaves the project before all this, but returns after receiving a call for help to save the man (pre-unstoppable death machine mutation).

Deciding to combine two trips in one he brings his family along with him (they're going on vacation afterwards) and proceeds to give them entry to the top secret government facility, thus putting them right in the middle of the chaos within. In case you can't tell, this one relies on the viewer to work with it a little and put aside some petty (see: major and blatant) details.

Overall though: Watch-able with mild bits of enjoyment. Note: The Outpost is commonly known under the title 'Mind Ripper'


The only reason I saw this movie was because it had Giovanni Ribisi and it was supposed to be "Horror". Don't be fooled, this movie has to be the worst "horror" film I have seen. It's about these people who go to a secret location which has a "Monster" in it. The monster is a man with a deformed face running around in blue sweat pants who has a craving for brains. Some people die, some people don't. In the end they throw the monster off of a plane and then fly away happily. BUT OH NO! THE MONSTER IS STILL ALIVE AFTER FALLING OUT OF A PLANE! Go spend 2 hours some other way like watching paint dry on a wall, trust me, it's more entertaining than this crap.


I really loved the Millenium series, starred by Lance Henriksen, which is why I bought the film. Obviously at some level it was a mistake. Mutant/monster films are usually very bad and this film is no exception.

The basic idea itself is not totally judged to fail (well nevertheless this film would never have been a success, even with a good director & actors), but the way it turns out this is just a B-class movie. The scenes that are supposed to be scary seem more funny to me and the critter is not credible at all.

However, watching this film with group of friends in restless mood makes this film shine as it is so unintentionally hilarious.


SPOILER!!!! Mind Ripper hmmmm.... I had just watched the nightmare on elm street movies and had just found out about Giovanni Ribisi. I thought Giovanni Ribisi hadnt done any horrors so I checked into it. I saw "the outpost" (mind ripper) I checked on my Tivo for it. There was an air date on Sci Fi. So I was set. I got my pop corn ready came in and set on the couch and what the hell is this? A freakin bold guy in blue sweat pants running around yelling! Nothing is scary about this movie at all! If anything its funny! Funny how low the budget is, funny how predictable it is, funny how bad the acting is and funny how much money it DIDNT make. Ok giovanni ribisi is a good actor but this movie is dumb. It is so stupid. They killed him at the end and then they go on this plane and the "monster" is on it. They shoot him in the head with a shotgun and it falls a long way to the ground. And

-GASP- The killer ending, Its Still Alive! WOOHHH! Scary! woooohhhh! Sucky fat sack of crap waste of 2 hours.

Bottom Line: You have somewhere to go and you need to kill some time. Mind ripper isnt the suggestion. I'd rather sit out naked in the snow than watch this movie a second time.

OVERALL GRADE: F- - - - - - - - - - (ENTERNAL)


Why a film maker with a track record like Wes Craven would want to lend his name to a tedious collection of cliches like this is anyone's guess. And if he did stump up any money for it - all of £50 judging by the looks - he should have been banging on the director's door for a refund the minute the film was released. There are many "Alien" rip-offs and this is one of the worst. Even the reliable Lance Henriksen, saddled with a character dumb enough to allow his kids to wander around a dangerous government lab, can't save it. As a cure for insomnia, this rates a 10+. As a piece of quality film making - forget it.


This is Wes Craven at his worst! this is the very worst horror, if you can call it horror, you will ever watch, esp from one of the masters of horror Wes Craven, Poor Direction, Poor Acting, Poor Set, Poor Atmosphere makes this the biggest pile of rubbish ever! the bad guy is totally unconvincing, you couldn't even feel sorry for the guy! the gore, and horror involved in the film is laughable, it's just plain rubbish! the only good points i can think of is, It stars Natasha Gregson Wagner, Giovanni Ribisi, and Lance Henriksen, but not even that cast, could stop this from spiralling out of control, and into one of the worst horrors ever. If you still ain't watch it yet, don't bother, you'll only hate it.


A scientific experiment designed to create a superhuman being has gone wrong.The creators become trapped in a remote desert outpost,pursued relentlessly and mercilessly by their own creation.James Stockton,the scientist whose research was used despite his protests to create the monster,is called the outpost to help undo the horror that now lurks somewhere within the dark halls.James,together with his son and daughter,soon find themselves trapped inside with the others,trying desperately to survive.And with the outpost sealed from within,there is no way out..."The Outpost"/"Mind Ripper" is highly unoriginal.The sets are pretty claustrophobic and there's a bit of gore.However as a horror it fails miserably on almost all levels.There's zero suspense,the script is weak and filled with big holes and the ending is extremely predictable.So-called master Wes Craven produced this one-I wonder if he is happy with this trash.Joe Gayton directs without any style.The acting is horrible,only Lance Henriksen can act at all.OK,I'm a big horror fan and was bitterly disappointed.Avoid it like the plague-it's just the same old boring crap again!


Sighthe stupid government once again attempted to create an inexhaustible and indestructible soldier, and of course the experiments went terribly wrong, burdening us with a half man-half mutant who pukes an awful lot and squeaks like a little girl whenever he's upset. Lance Henriksen stars as the honest scientist who immediately quit the experiment upon hearing it was a military project, but he returns (bringing the whole family with him) when he finds out his beloved guinea pig has gone on a killing spree. "Mind Ripper" certainly is a watchable horror movie, but it's very unoriginal and features pretty much every lame cliché you can think off (including the estranged father/rebellious teenage son sub plot...yawn). The characters are like wooden puppets, the dumbest things are being said and done and there's a completely pointless dream-sequence...coming from the monster!!! There's a handful of interesting gory scenes to enjoy and some of the isolated desert-locations are effectively eerie. Lance Henriksen is adequate as always, even though this is yet another inferior production he stars, and Giovanni Ribisi surely deserved a better motion picture to make his debut in. For some reason, this anonymous 90's thriller is also known as "The Hills Have Eyes part 3". Is it because it handles about members of the same family being terrorized in the desert? Is it because Wes Craven was once again involved, as a producer this time? Or maybe it's because the monster gets bald near the end like the freaky Michael Berryman in the 1977 original? Who knows...Who cares? Wes Craven probably financed this project because his son co-wrote the script and it's always moving to discover that your offspring is equally untalented as you are. Not recommended!


I saw this film at Temple University. I cannot imaging that anyone will ever see this film in a theater (projected on film). The acting is similar to Saved By The Bell (The TV Show). The plot is simple and unimaginative. The sound recordist likes the sound of wind and the DP needs a light meter. Vampires, Vampires, Vampires.

Don't waste your money.


OK, let's see... a handsome young stranger is new in town, and walks around on the local boardwalk. He meets a pretty girl, meets up with the obnoxious leader of the local hip young vampires club, is dared by them to follow them into this cave, gets into a conflict over the pretty girl, an epic fight ensues...

No, it's not Lost Boys, although you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference, since I think even some of the carnival music is the same. (Do you have to pay royalties for sampling a movie?) Even the ending of this stinkbomb is ripped off from Lost Boys. The make-up is below par, even for a low-budget thriller, the characters are one-dimensional, and just exactly how many "Oh, I had this horrible experience" scenes of teen angst does one movie need? The humor is flat and stupid, and everything else is sadly predictable. Yawn.

The only scary thing about this turkey is the promise (threat) of a sequel, an idea that hopefully every distributor in the country will drive a stake through.


Hi Y'all,

I bought this on DVD from England. You see, I have one of those multi-region players. I thought it would be fun to get a cool movie to show to my friends. Well, surprise to Amy-Jo Johnson, she's barely in the movie. Although she is on the cover. It's really difficult to imagine how a film this bad got made in the first place. Perhaps someone has a trust fund.

Oh... It's about Vampires who live at the beach


I don't know who financed it, or why, but this "want to be" vampire flick is really awful. It tries to be hip, and appeal to the young MTV-generation audience, but it is just downright laughable. The acting is horrible, and the directing is horrendous. I heard the budget was $600,000. I want to know where all the money went?


"Nuts in May" may be one of the worst films i have ever seen. If Ed Wood was still alive this would be the type of movie he would be doing.To say this movie is bad would be the understatement of the century. But how bad is it really? Well, here are two levels of bad i go by; "it's so bad it's good" or "it's so bad it's GOD AWFUL". This film falls into the latter section. What little unintentional humor it has does not make up for the slow, hard to understand, boring majority of the film.

SUMMARY: SPOILERS**

Two middle-aged Anglos take a trip to the countryside for some R&R and camping, there they met Ray soon-to-be Jim (I'll explain later), who's tent is next to our main couple. Throughout most of the movie the two leads go sight seeing on the beach, at a rock quarry and other exciting locations. In between these adventures they talk endlessly about the environment, vegetarianism,fossil collecting, the duty of a proper citizen and proper diet, all thing i want to see in a comedy. They bore anyone who will listen to them. The dialogue is not only bad, but the pacing in some scenes is so slow i sometimes felt like dosing off. Scenes would go on forever and just when it begins to build up and something is about to happen the scene ends. Half way through the movie i thought to myself, "Nothing is going to happen in this thing, it is truly a movie about nothing".

The characters are annoying and constantly repeat things. At one part i felt the director was playing a cruel joke on his audience. The scene i am referring to is the "Sing Along" scene. In it our two boresome Brits play some of there music for us, actually it was the same 4 four lines over and over and over and over. The idea was to get Ray to sing along with them, but Ray knew, as well as us, that they are the worst songwriters known to man. This scene was beyond tedious, by the fifth time the song was played i started to question the existance of a merciful God.

Words can not describe the awfulness of this film. The first thing that strikes you is the indecipherable British accents that most of the cast has. Remember the thick Scottish accents in Trainspotting? Times that by 10.

Towards the end our tree hugging, incoherent, couple get into a fight with some of Ray's friends that have complete disrespect for the rules of camping. Our hero becomes so incensed that a climatic battle ensues between our hero and the head hellraiser. To settle their dispute the two men engage in a stick fight. That's right a stick fight! Now this is where the unintensional humor starts. I laughed so hard at the ineptitude of it all that i thought, "This may make up for the other 80 minutes." After this histerical battle our hero runs behind some bushes to cry his eyes out and the other man calls Ray over by calling him Jim for some unknown reason.

A stick fight, a crying nature loving 40 year old and a character name change 3/4 into the movie, Ed Wood would be proud.

Though, i was again forced to endure the last 10 minutes which to sum up ends with a long take of a pig. Why? who the hell knows. At one moment we see a pig grazing and the next the credits start to role over the screen. One of the worst endings to a one of the worst films of all time.


**SPOILERS** The killer in the movie doesn't wait a second as we see him sneaking into a girls shower and hacking her to death taking her severed and bloodied arm as he makes his getaway. We then get this official looking prologue, as if were watching a true story, stating that a number of gruesome murders were committed in the late fall of 1985 in a small mid-western collage.

Grandfatherly looking, and hearing impaired, Sheriff Ron Delboys is baffled by this murder and later when the murders of local collage students, all women, continues his run for state senator is in jeopardy with him bumbling the investigation at every turn. There's at least two times when Delboys says that they'll never be another murder as long as he's on the case and within minutes another murder happens.

Finding a golden amulet at the scene of each murder the sheriff's daughter, the collage librarian, Tina finds this reference book about Withcraft indicating that the amulet is a symbol of a witches cult that originated in the early 1700 just after the Salem Witch Trials. This cult was out to avenge the 19 accused witches hung by the local townspeople back in 1692 and they went out at night killing men and women of authority and taking off with a body part. When the body parts would form a complete person they would be burned in an occult midnight bonfire ritual.

You never get a handle to what's exactly happening in the movie "Blood Cult" not just because it's totally disjointed story but it's ever more outrageous and grad-school level acing especially by Charles Ellis playing the butterfingered sheriff Ron Delboys. Getting himself into more trouble then even the on the loose killer could have gotten him into. The bumbling Sheriff Delboys ends up with his head busted coffee spiked as well as almost burned alive, after being dismembered. The only reason he wasn't is because he seemed to have dreamt it all up while under the influence of some strong and unnamed drug.

There's a weird dream sequence in the movie suggesting that a number of highly respected members of the community are members of the Witches Cult that's responsible for the sorority murders. The movie doesn't bother to explain at all if the dream, that the drugged Sheriff Delboys had, was a dream or actually a real experience on his part by dropping the whole thing as if it were cut out of the movie!

Getting out of the hospital and staking out the collage sorority house, while munching down a bag full of McDonald cheeseburgers, Sheriff Delboys finally comes face to face with the killer. Shefiff Delboys find out to his shock and amazement that not only does he know who he, or she, is but he's also willing to let the killer escape!

The very first straight to video motion picture and it shows. Not only would no one it their right mind be crazy enough to pay admission, at least with the video you can tape over it Thank God, to see this disaster but no movie-house owner would dare play it on their screen without the danger of the outraged patrons, in a justifiable show of righteous indignation, tear the place apart!


Let me see...I've seen every film Lou Ferrigno has made. I've seen Batman & Robin...twice. I've memorized the dances in Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo...I've watched unfinished Blade Runner rip-off student films...yet this film is the most painful thing I've ever seen.

This was the first movie for the "straight to video market." So you can thank Blood Cult for all of those mysterious Michael Dudikoff films at your local Blockbuster. You should know that this isn't even high quality video. This is consumer grade. This is you father's video camera he never uses. This is what you have to look at for 90 minutes.

I won't bore you with plot details since I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it, but I will tell you that watching this movie is a form of torture. I only watch this movie when I am angry at myself. So I recommend this film if you are suicidal, or if you are up for a mighty challenge.

If you happen to rent this film (God have mercy) you will know what you are in for from the first 10 minutes. This is when you are hit by the usual horror film intro. You know the drill. There's a lot of suspense and build up before some girl dies. Yes, you've seen it before, but not like this. This is the most boring intro I've ever seen. I honestly believe that you could get a camera off ebay for ten dollars, grab the bum that most smells like gin and candy, and tell him to film your mom cooking dinner and it would be more interesting than this intro. It bored me to tears. I cried like a baby.

Another one of the things that makes this film so unbelievably painful is its actors. Yes, I've seen bad acting. TRUST ME. I've seen 4th grade productions of Oliver Twist with more realistic dialog. The lead actor makes me ill. The "supporting" actress is a train-wreck of a human.

I will not even comment on the boyfriend. True horror.

So, rent this movie if you can find it. You'll never be more depressed that you spent 3 dollars on anything else.


What can I say? This was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen in my life (and believe me, some of my favorite movies are admittedly horrible). The acting was amateurish, the sets were boring, and the camerawork was shoddy and sophomoric. This whole movie seemed like a college final project. I had to keep convincing myself that it was done by a teenager to make it seem somewhat good. The most disturbing factor of the "film" is that it's not even film at all-- it 's shot on video. That was extremely distracting. On top of all that, the dialogue is simply disastrous and the plot line is so basic it makes my eyes water. Not to mention they steal from at least four other horror movies in the first 20 minutes or so. If there were such a thing as zero stars, this movie would get it.

The only thing scary about this movie is how bad it is.


Hitting the ground running, the film begins with THREE murders in a row. No plot, no characters, no motivation; the second murder happens off screen, and that victim's severed head is actually used to quite efficiently bludgeon the third victim to death! This is a high point. But the Lewises are obviously smart enough to lead with strength; soon they're covering up botched dialogue scenes with detective voice-over and shooting endless snappy repartee in ugly wide shot. By now this Betacam production's horror atmosphere is rapidly giving way to an insurance infomercial vibe, with the monumental (and rather endearing) plainness of the leads skewing things further in that direction. Shlub cop investigates, meat cleaver guy slaughters, repeat, climaxing early with a memorable severed-finger-in-the-salad gag. Only, how the hell did the fingers get in the salad? And wasn't the Blood Cult's purpose to collect the appendages they severed? When the GORE stops making sense, you know you're in trouble. And without spoiling the big, nonsensical twist ending, just take my word for it: the fascinating incompetence of the first scenes gives way to a deep cathode-tube-smashing impulse. The basic reaction is to try to put it behind you and get on with your life.


This movie is so mild! I tried not to expect anything greater from this film, but still it was a big disappointment. The basic idea of the story is interesting and potential. This could have been so much better. The characters are really simple, no depth at all. It's a shame that previously talented performers Tiina Lymi and Petteri Summanen didn't make the already poor characters any better. The director just don't get the watcher emotionally involved at all with this piece of cr*p.

And the the chase sequence at the end of the movie. That's hideous!!!

Why there had to be so stupid and old solution for that situation?

It's too much used element with even more terrible way of filming it. OH NO!


usually a movie that starts bad stays bad in a monotonically descending pattern. This bad movie started to seem to get better before going into a steep dive. The acting, save for the male antagonist, was awful. The plot was essentially a set up for the final main scene, which is probably good as performance art, but it was wasted in this movie. Not sure why this movie was made.


"Cleo's Second Husband" is an amateurish attempt at psychodrama with more to fault than to praise. The plot is hacked, the story monotonous, the acting poor, the execution second rate, etc. Not worth the time unless maybe your a relative of one of the actors. PU! (D)


I recently watched this movie because I'm a big Kinski Fan. But, oh my god. Don't get me wrong. I love this guy. But in this movie his whole acting is just simply a refusal to work! But fortunately he isn't the only one to blame. First of all the complete storyline is totally weak dealing with a gunmen looking for a murderer while Kinski is stuck up in jail for a crime he did not commit. That's all. All the dialogs and characters are so bad it's making you scream. But maybe that's the fun of it all. If you know the Kinski-Biography it's obvious that Kinski didn't care about those movies at all. Especially all his Italo-Western roles. He just took the money and that was It. again, this whole movie is totally weird. Only for hardcore-Fans of the genre.


Hungary can't make any good movies. Fact. This is a great example of that.

First of all the term "plot" does not exist in this movie. It's seriously weak. Even tho a lot of people would argue with me on that. Sure, it's about a taboo, but that's about it. There are endless possibilities, which could have been really great, if used, but they nearly skipped everything. I think the whole movie is just an excuse to show pictures, which are the only decent things in this whole pile of awfulness.

The acting is just plain shitty. There aren't many lines, so you would think that the actors have great facial expressions or mimicking abilities, but no. In fact, 86% of the time, they suck. And that's when they don't say anything. If they say even a single word, you'll start tilting your head, saying: "That's damn unrealistic". But than again, this is partly the fault of the writing. There's also no emotion in most of the dialogs.

The editing is sometimes OK, but most of the time illogical and just worsens the whole picture. It could have given an emotional push, yet it seems the editing in here is all about putting cuts after each other.

Someone please explain it to me, why critics say this movie is a masterpiece. Calling this an "Art" isn't gonna make it better. Sorry Mundruczo, but you failed. Live with it. Even tho you probably won't care about my or any other guys opinion scarifying your "child".


This film is a very bad example of uninspired storytelling, which tries to hide behind an "artfilm" facade, trying to shock the audience with unmotivated violence (against women) to cover up for it's lack of psychological depth of the characters & internal conflicts. Everything in this movie is pretentious, from the thank you's to Bela tarr at the beginning, to the photography, the acting, music, the story & editing. When suddenly, without reason, you are forced to watch close ups of "charismatic" looking hungarian country people in their boats, while the soundtrack is trying to persuade you that this is supposed to be a dramatic moment, although they are only on the way to the funeral of the local alcoholic, thats one thing. Putting completely unmotivated rape scenes as a shocker is a different thing, for which i absolutely have no comprehension. This movie is trying really hard to enter a certain genre of artistic (east European drama kind of) films but lacks the subtlety, observational skills and "soul" that other directors have.


No way this overly simplistic script, with basically one character, should be interpreted as feature entertainment. In reality it has about enough material for an eighteen minute short, and even that would seriously tax your attention span. Zero characters beyond Noble Willingham are developed. The never ending closeups of lips and telephones are sleep inducing, and the script is so underdeveloped that a chimpanzee could have written it. In fact this whole sad thing shouldn't have even been put on film. A tape recording would have been more than sufficient to put you to sleep. Definitely not recommended. - MERK


I recently watched this film on The Sundance Channel and it kept me interested from the start. However, it seems to take forever getting itself where it wants to go and in the end, I felt somewhat cheated. In a nutshell, Noble Willingham (of Walker, Texas Ranger fame) plays a boat salesman who starts getting harassed by telephone from a man claiming to be his son. According to the mysterious caller, Willingham has a dark, dirty little secret that affects the son and he (the son) is enjoying reminding him of it. I won't spoil anything for anyone but for me three things kept me from liking this movie a great deal. One, the movie has more foul language than Goodfellas, Scarface, Casino, and Glengarry Glen Ross combined. 99% of it is spewed from Willingham himself. It didn't take long to wear me out with constant four-letter words. Two, I simply could not believe that anyone would answer the telephone that many times, especially when one knows that a crank caller is on the other end of the line. No matter where Willingham is in the movie whether it be at work, home, a diner, etc., the phone rings and he always answers it spewing venom at the "son", and then hanging up ONLY TO ANSWER IT AGAIN WHEN THE CALLER CALLS BACK IN ABOUT TEN SECONDS! How many of us would do that? Now I realize that we probably do not have a movie if he doesn't keep answering, but I just could not suspend disbelief on that particular matter. Three, and this is the most minor of the criticisms, why is the director so opposed to showing us the "Corndog Man" (a.k.a. the caller/son)? Most of the time he's just a redneck sounding voice on the other end of the phone. I could have lived with that one if other things had fallen into place, but since they didn't it's just one more to tack on. I do give the movie credit for being a somewhat original idea and for holding my attention with suspense from the beginning but that's about it. Do see it, if only one time. However, if you're like me, you'll be saying "Triple K Marine!" in your sleep for a night or two after you finish watching it.


I must begin by saying that this is one of the most annoying films I have seen in my entire life! Annoying factor number one: Never seeing the "son's" face (for the entire movie). And the infinitely more annoying factor: That incessantly ringing phone..nothing but listening to the phone ring over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...you get my point. The old man was being harassed but the VIEWER was too! At first the film was interesting to me but it deteriorated VERY quickly. The film may possibly have been good as a short but was definitely not enough to maintain anything approaching feature film length. I guess what I am trying to say is that the message about racism (which finally put in an appearance during the last two scenes of the movie) is secondary to this old mans being harassed. Who cares to sit and watch what is really nothing more than an old man spouting obscenities at someone prank calling him?? If you've never seen a movie that just gets under your skin and drives you CRAZY...check this one out!


Dumb, meaningless movie should appeal to Southern Rednecks, teenagers with IQ's bordering on retarded and the average Bush supporter. Noble Willingham plays the lead in this simpleminded script for what it is and uses a generous dose of MFers, eff this and eff that and SOBs. The ending which I anticipated to "Save" this hollow story was the biggest letdown, leaving me hanging and wondering, "Why"?

It's a story of cat & mouse or more like Bully vs. victim.

Don't waste your time unless you like hearing the phone ringing every 2 minutes and constant cursing and screaming throughout this 123 minute piece of dumpster droppings.


This movie was horrid and at the end made me wonder why someone went to the trouble to make it. Now it was not all bad, I have studied film and this film was put together very nicely and had very good cinematic everything with interesting angles to very nice lighting and excellent camera work. I wish I could have seen it back in school because it would have made a good film to write a paper on. BUT........ Since I have graduated and lost most of my film pretentiousness I have realized that a film should be entertaining above all, this movie was long and boring and I'm not sure when it finally got to the point that it was worth my time.


This movie is bad.

This movie is REALLY bad.

This movie is might as well be half a minute long and shown 200 times in a row, because you'd get the same effect.

The phone rings. Man A answers the phone and gets annoyed by Man B. Man A curses off Man B, and then hangs up the phone. Repeat.

This is the entire movie.

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. TRUST ME.


I get the impression that I was watching a different movie to the majority of other people I know who have seen this film. It's not really that I found the film offensive or anything - just that the script was unbelievably amateurish for a film that had obviously had a bit of money thrown at it. I really respected Paul Haggis' work on the Million Dollar Baby script and was bitterly disappointed to see how bad this script was. It was clear to me that it was desperate to be the 'racism' version of Traffic, but I don't think Traffic was really a film worth ripping off in the first place.

The worst feature of thisfilm is the way it shamelessly spoon-feeds its audience. Does Haggisreally think we are so dumb as to require a shot of the blanks? Do wereally need to see the phone book sitting on Farhad's dashboard, withthe address circled in black texta? Can we not be left to make someleaps in logic for ourselves?

I also had a major problem with the dialogue which was so 'on the nose'. I have heard one critic say that the quality of dialogue is deceptively high, because even though people may not speak this way, they certainly do think this way. That is irrelevant. It is the job of a script like this to utilise dialogue in a way that helps add to the characterisations and believability of the (in this case highly implausible) situations that are set up. These characters all speak using the same voice and all they ever talk about is racism.

Surely the purpose of a film like this should be to promote the fact that race should not really be an issue in these situations, but by making it the sole focus of every scene, doesn't it become innately racist itself? Characters walk around spouting their philosophies and conveniently memorised statistics on race relations as though they're regurgitating extracts from the research essay they've just written. It's utterly unconvincing and obvious.

A film should reveal its meaning gradually, not slap us in the face with it in the opening scenes and then never let up. I can see that Haggis' intentions with this film were honorable, but dare I suggest that by directing his own script he has not been able to identify and, therefore, overcome its flaws. I really hope that writer/directors will be really careful in future when approaching this 'mosaic' style of narrative. It has been done well a number of times, but getting the balance between the personal and the political right is very difficult. And Robert Altman will not be outdone in that department.


I saw this "movie" partly because of the sheer number of good reviews at Netflix, and from it I leaned a valuable lesson. Not a lesson about ethnic diversity however...the lesson I learned is "Don't trust reviews".

Yes, racism sucks and people are complicated, but the people who actually need to see this movie are going to be the ones who are the least drawn to it and least affected by it if they DO see it. The only reason that I can think of for the number of good reviews is that it's being reviewed by people who aren't used to thinking, or who've seen their first thought-provoking movie and somehow think that Haggis invented the concept. In fact, he basically made this film, which should be called "Racism For Dummies", as emotionally wrenching as possible, seemingly to give people who don't spend a lot of time thinking the impression that they've discovered some fundamental truth that's never been covered in a film before. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanence it's not... An after-school special for the unthinking masses, cut into bite-sized overwrought ham-fisted pieces to make it easier to swallow without too much introspection.

It's as if they portrayed everyone as being the worst possible extreme, simply to make us happy that we're such good people because we don't identify with the characters. Let's face it people. NOBODY identifies with these characters because they're all cardboard cutouts and stereotypes (or predictably reverse-stereotypes). It's well acted (even if the dialog is atrocious) and cleverly executed, so much that you don't think to ask "where's the beef?" until you can tell the film is winding down. The flaming car scene was well executed, like much of the movie, but went nowhere in the end.

The messages are very heavy-handed, and from the "behind the scenes" blurb, the producers were clearly watching a different movie, because there is very little to laugh about in this movie, even during the intended funny parts. I have to stress that this is NOT entertainment, more like a high school diversity lesson...call it the "Blood on the Highway" of racism. They could even show this in high schools if it weren't for the "side-nude" shot of Jennifer Esposito.

In this film, everyone's a jerk and everyone learns a lesson (except for Michael Pena who gets the best role, but the most predictable storyline).

This is a bad film, with bad writing, and good actors....an ugly cartoon crafted by Paul Haggis for people who can't handle anything but the bold strokes in storytelling....a picture painted with crayons.

Crash is a depressing little nothing, that provokes emotion, but teaches you nothing if you already know racism and prejudice are bad things.


The film's tagline is "You think you know who you are. You have no idea." I reject both the suggested idea that I have no idea who I am and the inferred suggestion that this film tells me who people truly are. If people in real life are really like this, then man, we're screwed.

A bilious film that I walked into late and left prematurely. A film which is so wrapped up in its goal of becoming The Race Film of All Time that it loses sight of the very tools a film must use.

The rules of Hollywood are such: if you show something in the first half, it must be used in the second half. Thus the gun that the daughter worries about her father buying will somehow find its way into the story in the second half. The rules of Hollywood are to make dialog 'real' - a concept which changes with every decade. Is this 'real dialog' somehow less ludicrous than the 'real dialog' of Kevin Smith ten years ago? The rules of Hollywood state that we set the scene, and as action rises, the camera moves in closer to the faces - in this film primarily so we can see the supposed shame, humiliation and transcendental realism of the characters. The strings increase, the frame-rate slows down, and our heart is meant to break.

This film is as crassly manipulative as it is vapid. I have my own prejudices against L.A., which I freely admit, so to combat this prejudice I will not say that this is a natural situation stemming from the location, but rather probably from the author and director. The writer, Paul Haggis, already showed a taste for polemics over humanity in his Million Dollar Baby, which at least had a director who understood how to make the vision of the film bring out the best of a script's ideas. Now that Paul Haggis has his own hands on the camera it becomes obvious that not only does he not know how to write true, natural human drama, he does not know how to photograph or direct it as well. Paul Haggis comes from the land of TV, let us not forget: the land of diminished expectations.

Everything is as obvious as a TV-movie, simply presented for simple minds - Haggis drills into us, over and over again, that while on the surface people may seem to be awful, they have secret pains hidden. This is a nice idea, but so hamfistedly presented that the whole juxtaposition of bad/good has an amateurish feel. Structurally the film is broken up, in the tradition of Magnolia and other earlier films. The editing is as typical and conventionally "cinematic" as could be - if there is a dramatic movement, such as a door opening or a car driving past between the subject and camera, the editors use that extreme movement to give the cut that occurs there a more kinetic quality. The problem is that other than the drive to keep things moving, there is very little intelligence and thought behind the cuts - everything is kept by the books. Not only are the puppets of this hideous racial punch and judy show ineptly handled, but even the curtains are lowered and raised with incompetence.

The film tries desperately to present reality, but there's just no talent whatsoever. Some of the actors are good, some of the actors are bad, and all of the performance get muddied together, brought down by the low, low aesthetics of the film. We have cinematography which is technically clear: we can see the scene, we have a clear understanding of what is happening. However, not only is the cinematography unremarkable, but it is thoughtless camera-work and framing which believes that it actually is inspired. The result is little stylistic flourishes which one recognizes but do not actually add anything to the drama or pathos. For example - and this is a spoiler - as a father holds his dying child (the father might be shot too, I didn't stick around to find out) the camera sees his face and gives us the famous Vertigo track/zoom. The Vertigo shot!!! It was at this point that the film became hysterical and I just had to leave. I had to leave because it was so bad. I left because I was in the middle of a crowded theater, and I wanted to express to the audience that I was sick of emptyheaded Hollywood 'art' which is full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing (in the Bard's own words). I hate to waste such good Shakespearian references on something this remarkably bad.


I agree with what so many others have said about the shallow and offensive nature of this film's examination of racism. It is baffling to me that so many people seem to have been fooled by its pretentiousness. I want to comment on the Matt Dillon character as an example of what's most infuriating about this movie. Here we have a man who -- contrasted with the film's underlying message that "we're all a LITTLE racist" -- effectively rapes a woman in public, cruelly humiliating her husband and deliberately goading him to make a move that, as he well knows, will lead to his arrest or even death. He does all this after pulling the couple over without any legal cause but because, as we come to understand, they are black and wealthy and he is a hurt little boy who is now the police and can therefore do as he pleases. This behavior is not a LITTLE racist. This behavior is evil. It is disturbing to me that this extreme of racism is held up next to another character's behavior -- spouting her paranoid stereotypes about gang violence -- to illustrate that everybody's a LITTLE racist. Later, we're spoon-fed some tripe about Dillon's poor old dad and how black folks drove him into the poor house. Is this supposed to explain, or worse, excuse this behavior? And is Dillon's character meant to redeem himself by committing the utterly unmotivated and unbelievable, laughably coincidental act of saving the woman he sexually assaulted the very night before? Please. The fact that so many people seem to feel some kind of self-congratulatory admiration for this film makes me feel sad about the shallowness of our understanding of racism, and our apparent lack of commitment to condemning and ending it.


*** SPOILERS***

One of the worst films I've seen since last years "The Village." An insult to anyone of any intelligence at all. Poorly written and astonishingly contrived. Nobody, especially in Los Angeles talks the way these characters do. No subtly at all. If the point of this film is to say that "we all have a little bit of bigotry in us" he does a horrible job of stating the obvious. Not only was his point clearly base, but every character in this film was AMAZINGLY STUPID. The car jacking scene almost made me walk out, along with the rescue and oh lets not forget the WHITE off DUTY Rookie COP picking up a hitchhiking black thug and... I could go on and on. Awful, just awful.


I can not believe the positive reaction to this movie. I had great expectations for it and was disappointed. First of all, they used every cheesy racism cliché in the book. It was so predictable. For instance, from the second the young Latino guy showed up you just knew that he would be a really nice guy because he looked like a gangbanger. Matt Dillon's character has been played a million times, a cop who had been hardened over the years and would see the light to some degree by the end of the movie. The predictability hardly ended with those characters. A phenomenal cast was wasted on a weak script. The morals of the story were PC to the max. There were a few clever twists but not nearly enough. The dialouge was embarrassing at times. It wasn't all bad.I just can't believe this movies high score so far. It was somewhat entertaining, just a little insulting to ones intelligence. I admire what this movie was trying to achieve but it fell well short.


I wrote this as a two part review. Part two has spoilers.

Part 1:

No, this isn't that one about the sex with car accidents. This is the one about racism in L.A. You know, the one where everybody is a racist, and race is the topic on everybody's mind at all times. Race.

Its like the movie has a form of turrets syndrome where race is the constant theme. Race. Racist. Racism. Race Relations. Relay race.

Paul Haggis made a movie which took the structure of Magnolia, which was used to show the disconnect of people who are tangentially connected, and then screwed it into a 1'53" mental vomit about racism in America. RACE. In the 24 hour period we have 7 stories running parallel all connected and about race. The first hour, people say ridiculous stuff and do absurd things in an effort to be real about racism in America.

For example, the story with Ludicrous and Larenz Tate provides the comic relief. Too bad, the first half of their story is lifted straight from The Bonnie Situation in Pulp Fiction. RACISM. Their section is the Quentin Tarantino section where, instead of being cool and talking about foot massages and religion, the characters talk about race and racism. CONSTANTLY.

The other good thing about it is the Mexican story when the Mexican guy is talking to his daughter. He gives her his invisible impenetrable cloak to protect her from bullets. Decent writing, but that's only because the writers have had daughters and know what they would say in his place.

The rest of the stories are extremely ludicrous. The Hindi does not act in any semblance of realism. The scene where he's trying to get the lock fixed and the Mexican tells him he needs a new door is abbreviated and stupid. Why would anybody act like that? Is it realistic? NOOO. It reminds me more of the convenience store clerk from The Doom Generation. "Six Dollar Sixty Six Cents girly." If i ever watch the second half of the movie, I hope his head is shot off and his bodiless head starts coughing up relish.

I haven't mentioned race in over a paragraph. RACE. RACISM. RACE FOR THE SUN. Better. Then, there is the black guy who wants to be white, Matt Dillon who has a chip on his shoulder against blacks, Ryan Phillippe who looks beautiful and does nothing, and various other bad actors acting badly with bad dialog. When Matt Dillon molests the black producers wife, could I help it if I was cracking up? When Philippe is second guessing his writing up of his partner for racism, can I help but crack up? The movie is so funny when it is being racist. Racist. RACIST I tell you.

Now, mind you, this movie was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Editing, besides a nod to Matt Dillon who actually did attempt to do a decent job. Who was paid off for that one, I have no clue.

Don't see it unless you feel like being preached at about the racism in society through a bad and unrealistic script from 2 white men over fifty who have no semblance of reality or interaction with real society in any way shape or form.

D-

Part 2:

The second half of Crash takes any and all story lines in the first half...and spews them back out in a sort of redemptive, conclusionary, the world is a big coincidence kind of way. And it is in fact one of the worst ways to do it.

Take 1999's Magnolia. People weren't conveniently tied together over and over again. They were just connected in a strange way that happens more often than you think. You know somebody who knows somebody who did something that you knew somebody else was also involved in. Crash takes this wrapping into a serious extreme.

The stories are lined up so everybody meets again. Are there only 5 on the LAPD force? Aren't these people working weird shifts? Dillon and Philippe were a late shift then an early one the next day? And, why did Tate have to be the murdered hitchhiker? Wouldn't it have had more emotional tension, as well as realism, if it had been somebody we had not been following all day long? Like Phillippe just picks up a random hitchhiker and then freaks out. Everybody'd be freaking out.

Eventually, in the second half, the touching invisible cloak scene is used to get the Hindi to shoot the daughter. It ticked me off and made me feel dirty. Not that the Hindi shot the daughter, but that they created a beautiful touching scene and then had it be the direct cause of people tearing up. It really ticked me off. At the writers, not the scene.

The whole movie is fake and totally uncalled for. The coincidences are far too many and they require an extreme suspension of disbelief. Unlike Magnolia which was connected mildly, this had connections upon connections upon connections which were just so over-the-top. The only good part in the second half was when Sandra Bullock falls down the stairs. She doesn't die though. She should have. I cheered when she fell.

The worst part about the movie is it pulls a Magnolia. Not just in structure, but it has a montage over the song In the Deep where you see everybody being depressed. Magnolia took this and had post-modern commentary on it by having all of the characters singing along to Aimee Mann's Wise Up. Unfortunately, Magnolia came out in 1999, while Crash came out in 2005. Its hard to make commentary on a movie which won't be made for another 6 years, but it happened. Somehow.

Utter waste of my time.

First half: D-; Second half: lowest grade ever; Overall: F---


i am amazed anyone likes this film. i never walk out of movies, but my friend had to physically stop me from leaving the theater during this insulting disaster. the white characters are saints and the Asian characters are practically nonexistent and worthless to the story. they exist only as objects, surprise. characters of other races fare much better. the twists and turns were laughable and predictable. but if you're reading this, you know that already. Paul Haggis is a hack. Hollywood can't even do multicultural movies right. do yourself a favor and watch a much more honest take on race relations, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle!


What a disappointment. The story line is so simple - "the good guys sometimes do bad things and the bad guys sometimes do good things" - dressed up into a racial setting to make it seem clever, sophisticated and meaningful. It isn't. It lacks any subtlety.

Everything that happens is telegraphed and then gone over again in case you missed the explanation.

For a film like this to convince and move the audience it has to be represent the ambiguity of the characters and their motivation and actions; not simply present it as a series of 180 degree changes in each character's actions.

Half way through I really wanted to waste no more time on it, but I thought I would stick with it in case it improved; big mistake I should have stopped then - it simply got worse.


THE GOOD: The acting were great especially Terrence Howard and Thandie Newton. Terrence Howard should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor instead of Matt Dillon.

THE BAD: I'm a visible minority (non-white) and I have experienced some form of racism in my life. BUT despite my life experiences and the movie's subject matter, I would definitely NOT say that this movie is the best of the year, in fact, it's FAR from it. I have problems with this movie both from a moviegoer's perspective and from a visible minority's perspective. Some of my problems with this movie are:

(1) Poor character development (or none at all). Just because we saw extremes in a character, for example, Matt Dillon being a racist cop and being a good caregiver to his ailing father, that does not mean in any way that the character is well-developed. Yes, I admit that in a big cast ensemble like in this movie, it is quite difficult for every character to be well-developed, BUT that does not mean that at none of the characters should be like that.

(2) The dialogue seems really contrived to the point that I'm really surprised this movie won for Best Original Screenplay. They should show this movie in a screenplay writing class NOT because it's good but to show students and future screenplay writers what NOT to do. I just felt like I've been hit by the head over and over again how bad racism is. I get it.

(3) The plot seems so coincidental, it is laughable. What are the chances of a black car robber running over an Asian guy who also happens to be a human trafficker while entering his van, and that same black car robber ended up carjacking that Asian guy's van several hours later after he brought him the hospital, only to find out that the several Asians being trafficked inside the van just to show you that the black car robber has a good side after all? Or, what about that scene where a prejudiced upper-class white woman who fell down the stairs and all her prejudice and hatred vanished into thin air? If it was THAT simple, why don't we throw every racist in America down the stairs so they will have a change of heart?

(4) I think my biggest misgivings about this movie is the unrealistic view of racism. As someone who has experienced racism in my life, the realistic view of racism is that it is hidden rather than in your face. I've been refused to enter a supermarket because I'm not white. Did the store owner said because I was not white? No, he said the store was closing even though there were a lot of people shopping inside. Did he yell racial slurs? No. Racism in America is more hidden. Some cab drivers probably won't stop to pick you up because you're non-white but that does not mean that they will try to run you over or get out and say racial slurs. If a Chinese woman rear-ended me, I won't be saying "blake! blake! Learn some English bitch!". On the other hand, if I was a Chinese woman and I accidentally rear-ended a Mexican woman, I won't say "Mexicans are bad drivers" in front of her face. That's not how things work. Instead, I would give out my insurance info, say sorry, and go home and tell my fellow Chinese friends and family that Mexicans are poor drivers and make fun of them behind their backs. That is the real racism. It's hidden and not in your face.

Anyway, Crash is not original unlike what some people may say. The interlocking and interweaving story lines, plots, and characters have been done before. "Magnolia" is a movie that does this much better than Crash did and yet, it was never nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. It had a stellar cast -- Julianne Moore, William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman (who won best Actor recently), Tom Cruise, etc. It really boggles my mind how Crash was even nominated for Best Picture.


Terrible writing, highly contrived, from a "do-gooder" who knows absolutely nothing about race relations in L.A., or the USA in the present day. The gushing positive reviews are a mystery to me - but could only be provided by folks who think that someone's "good" intentions should be applauded regardless of how shallow, simpleminded and just totally unrealistic the results are. If you want to see a film which deals realistically with modern day L.A. race issues - the movie you need to see (and probably already saw) is Pulp Fiction. There's more honesty and realism regarding race in any two minutes of that film than there are in the full 4 hours (oh I'm sorry, it just felt like 4 hours) of this stinker.

If anyone ever needs proof that the path to hell is paved with good intentions - then this is the movie for you.


Crash is overwrought, over-thought and over-baked. A great example of how to make a pompous and self-important film with a message. Haggis tries too hard to make his point and overreaches in just about every category of the film. It feels very much in love with its own sense of social relevance and has all the subtlety of a jackhammer to the skull. Sure, race relations affect everyone and there's a great deal of ambiguity to the issue, but the universe of 'Crash' operates to suggest that we are all victims to our own perceptions on race. It's a tiresome thread that repeats itself ad nauseum and wears out its welcome within the first 30 minutes. I found the outcomes of the characters unsurprising and forced and the film took forever to sputter out and die. The fact that this film is in the top 50 movies on IMDb is a testament to the public's willingness to get suckered by Hollywood malarkey.

Indeed, if you want the real "Crash," go check out the one by David Cronenberg: dark, twisted and original. This film plays as preachy, tiresome, and masochistic.


This movie was offensively PC, predictable and clichéd. I couldn't imagine a movie that better exemplifies the myopic, narcissistic preachiness of today's Hollywood. If you haven't seen this don't bother watching it. If you have, show some courage and tell people how awful it really is. My wife, a minority in her own right, was offended by the inherent and unendingly racist message of the film. This movie has nothing to do with the real world and has little, if anything at all, to add to any discussion about racism in this country. Instead, it's the kind of cheap, sensationalist crap that is promoted as deep and challenging thought. What kind of a bubble do you have to live in to think that this is at all impressive?


'Bland' is probably the word I'd use to try and start describing this film. I only watched it because it had a good rating on here and i was SO let down.

Basically the film is about racism in a post 9/11 America and the director went at it with a sledge hammer! There was no subtlety in the film at all and it felt as though they were trying to achieve a kind of Magnolia feel to the film - which is never a good idea as that film was three hours of tedium and confusion only for it to start raining frogs at the end...

All in all a HUGE disappointment.


Through its 2-hour running length, Crash charts the emotional anguish of its 10-odd ensemble of characters when faced with the sometimes blatant and sometimes latent forms of racism underlying in American society. That and the emotional anguish of one of its audiences sitting near the front and desperately trying to make sense of what movies have become these days.

The era we live in has become so complicated. Not only do we reject modernism, even the not very enthusiastic flag-waving of post-modernism ideas is always being shot down by what, post-post-modernism that aims to destroy all these ideas, all in no part thanks to the great destructivist ideas of those great 'thinkers'. But I digress. This has nothing much to do with the what the movie is about, but rather what the movie is.

Sure, it seems hard to earn a living in a Hollywood that has to cater to a market that is so post-post-post everything that cynicism has become more than just a motto in life. It has become part of everything we do and part of everything we think of whether we like it or not. And so a new studio product is born! Indie films, which once were energetic and idealistic in its defiant experimentalism now seem to be as equally adamant as Hollywood films to sell to indie film markets. An indie film must sell at Sundance before becoming 'acclaimed'. And so nothing is simple anymore. Even what constitutes a good film becomes so murky. Whereas in the past filmmakers just wanted to entertain people and tell a good story--and in these seemingly simplistic attempts the greatest of films are borne--filmmakers nowadays have to make films that are good first and foremost; films have to make people think, have to be meaningful, has to be provocative, raise questions, yadda yadda yadda. What it all boils down to, is a subversion of the Hollywood movie system, but this subversion seems strangely similar to the formulaic similarity of Hollywood films, the countless ways of differing to essentially be the same product.

And I haven't even begun on the film yet. Maybe I've become too picky on films I see these days. Maybe it's because of my primary need to be entertained, rather than, say, be probed when seeing a movie. But hell, this movie is one big load of crap. And I'm repulsed by this movie not just because it follows the How to Make a Good Movie Good 101 guidebook to the T--characters spout eloquent lines and are sooo witty like they're gifted with the speech of God; it raises issues about racism and life confronting racism in America; it has 'touching' moments where everyone discovers more about themselves and more about other people; not to mention the fact that once you hear the ambient/new age soundtrack of women singing in high registers in foreign languages, you know you're in for all of the above traits.

And something about the aforementioned point--about it raising questions about immediately-compelling issues like racism--pisses me off big time. Like all post-post-post-post-post everything movies, it doesn't contend with just having a message about this issue. Because oh, our audiences are much to intelligent for that these days in this post-post-post-post world. Our audiences want us to make them think, doesn't want us to put things so simplistically, (and then they will go into existentialist crap and say) that's because life itself isn't simplistic. Ha ha ha. What other common drill do we here then the audience need to think about issues rather than have them fed to them. Okay, okay, and okay. So the film makes it a point to pound the audiences with these non-messages and since they're not exactly a message, it's so decidedly subtle and subtle means good right? So we're being hit again and again with this well-written subtlety with the eloquence of rhetorical prose. And as if the irony is not steep enough, we have Ludicrous' character, the only character who seems to not take all these racism discussion bullshit seriously, being 'converted' into one of those irritatingly meaningful characters where he learns something in the end, giving meaningful looks and pauses where audiences are supposed to 'learn something about themselves too'. Um, yeah. How I wanted to see an incredibly racist film right after this man.

To cut the long bullshit short, I guess I wouldn't have taken issue with the film if it wasn't so bloated in its self-importance. The angst that forms the entire movie felt more like white-boy whining than actual Spike Lee-ish anger. It's so Tim Robbins and Sean Penn, the type that wants to wave flags about humanitarianism when the only thing they don't realize is the flag they're waving is their hole-ridden underwear. Plus it's become so trendy in the post-post-post-post world to be completely subtle about it. Nothing is simple any longer. In its best efforts to actually be good, provocative, and ultimately human, it's become neither, imho, just another indie crap from an indie director that wants to make a name out of himself as a credible indie-filmmaker. Now at least Hollywood is more simple and sincere in its manipulativeness.


i had gone to the movies expecting to see a great film based on all the word of mouth and terrific reviews. the minute the opening sequence started i knew i was in trouble. the music and credits were trying so hard to evoke emotion i wanted to puke. all i got from this film was clichéd characters, contrived dialog and an unemotional script. director/writer Paul haggis' has managed to get great reviews with his manipulative, self righteous writing, but it doesn't fool me. some performance were good. don Cheadle is always good. i think Terrance Howard is slightly over rated but he was decent. ludicrous was way too on the nose. he should stick to rapping. Brendan Fraser was fine. Jennifer Esposito left no impression what so ever. i find nothing interesting about her. Sandra bullock is always the same in every movie, she's just okay. Matt Dillon was very good and i enjoyed watching him work. Ryan Philippe was good as well. but as far as the script and the lousy directing- this is actually one of those movies that is so annoyingly bad i actually took the time to write about it. i would not recommend this film to anyone, what a waste of time.


Okay, it was very good...but Best Picture? Please, not even close. Munich was better, Capote was much better, Good Night and Good Luck was much better...Brokeback Mountain - well, that should have won! The Academy voters seem to act like the current day Democrats - please just a little of everyone, but don't dare take any concrete positions. That's why we have a complete moron in office in the US.

This has been the WORST AA presentation ... and forget 1987 ... since way before that. Hollywood is so afraid of it's bottom line, that it can't be set "straight". Many voters apparently didn't even see Brokeback Mountain. Get real and get with it.

This was the most pathetic year since I have been watching in the mid- 60's and I was only two.

Wake up, whoever you are. Hollywood IS mainstream, and that's what happened to the Box Office in 2005. King Kong, the last Star Wars film, another Batman film, a re-make or whatever of Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, and much more to come in 2006.

At least there were original best pictures, i.e. Munich, but heard that one before, Capote - great; Katherine Keener should have won, even though now we know Reese can sing like a Cash/Carter, etc., Syriana was a much better picture than Crash. That film has been done, since the early 1960's and we have to make that the best film? What a horrible Oscar night and a horrible year to end with in 2005 and another boring year in 2006. At least the BAFTA for best picture went to Brokeback, and what about the horrible song that won? Pathetic. I think we only have about 20 years left as America or the USA, before someone comes in and changes up things a bit. Maybe it will be China since they own so much of this country ... or India, because they have all the high-tech jobs and are the largest democratic country in the entire world.

America has become the land of the fat, the pathetic, and the stupid. Trash can be found in more places than Florida, West Virgina, South Dakota, and in the mid-West.

Drive-through a local McDonald's or Burger King for goodness sake. Order all you want until you get a heart attack. Put yourself out of your misery.


This movie is bad. Just bad. In absolute terms, bad.

The dialog jumps off the screen and slugs you in the face with its thoroughly artificial banter, and then defecates on your ability to detect even trace amounts of subtlety.

Racism is bad. Racism in Los Angeles can be especially bad. I live in the city of Angels, I can attest to that. What is so terrible about the bigotry in Los Angeles is its insidious nature. It creeps at you with a knowing glance, or a swallowed word. Until just at the edge of a full on fist-fight, It almost never comes right out and says, "why did he have to be black!"

I can see quite clearly that the car-jackers are black, the detective's partner is hispanic, the DA is white. As long as there is film rolling through the projector, I can let the visuals, music and words take me to that conclusion without just telling me the conclusion. Characters emote, and we read between the lines to make the connections and conclusions.

That is a partnership and trust between filmmaker and audience. That trust is raped by this movie.

A good film pulls you in directions as an audience, and it steers you with cues to drive to a point. This movie beats you down with its point and insults you and your intelligence along the way. My unanswered question is, why did we as a society say collectively, "thank you?"


Given this film's incredible reviews I was expecting something truly exceptional. It certainly starts well with witty and sharp dialogue, and a fine cast in place. A series of Robert Altman-style interwoven stories reel the viewer in with some compelling scenes. I found it gripping entertainment right through to the second half of the film when sadly, it collapses like a pack of cards. A series of ludicrous coincidences and right-on messages stack up until I'm left deeply disappointed and wondering what all the fuss is about. Paul Haggis has tackled the subject of race in LA, and that alone seems to have elevated this movie to a new level of interest. Given that most of the Academy voters live in LA and have experienced racism to some extent, this film is sure to have an impact on them. That means the Oscar for Best Picture will go to the race movie or the gay movie. Let's hope it is the latter, because Brokeback Mountain is a bona fide masterpiece that deserves recognition.


Crash is supposed to be a film about racism in Los Angeles. But in fact, it's just a bunch of coincidences between several characters that connect each other during one day in one of the biggest cities of the world. Who the hell is going to believe that? There are unrealistic situations, one after the other. On the other hand, this film pretends to show racism between Asians, Iranians, Latinos, Blacks, and Whites. But the big error relies on a pre-establish racism coming from the writer. Mainly because the White characters in this movie are usually portrait as people with a better social-economical status than the rest of the other races. Iranians are poor, just like the Asians. And Latinos, as always, are portrait as Housekeepers, police officers, or with a very low profile job like a locksmith. Jesus!!! Don't you guys think it's about time to change these stereotypes? Same with blacks, portrait as gang members, with the exception of a Black TV Director, who was the only fresh character for me. This movie sucks so hard, that makes me so disappointed about the kind of cinema coming out from Hollywood these days. Always with stereotype characters. No realism whatsoever. Nothing to identify with. It's simply a big waste because this could have been a great opportunity to show Latinos, Koreans, Iranians, and blacks, from a different perspective.


I remember viewing this movie when I was a kid. I recall it terrified me immensely and it stayed with me all these years. I spent a couple of years trying to find it online...didn't remember the title, only the storyline. After searching and searching, I came across a VHS that was being sold on E-Bay. I was excited and when it finally arrived, I jammed it into the VCR and couldn't help but feel a bit nostalgic. Needless to say, I was slightly disappointed. This wasn't the movie I remember watching as a kid. It was boring at times and I found Beryl Reid's incessant whinning extremely annoying. Both performances by Reid and Flora Robson were good overall but the movie wasn't scary. I think any movie is worth viewing to form you're own opinion but sometimes, well......


The `plot' of this film contains a few holes you could drive a massive truck through, but I reckon that isn't always top priority in horror. Two elderly sisters in rural England keep their brother in the cellar since more than 30 years. Now, he escaped and started a killing spree, focusing on militaries that are homed nearby. `We only did we thought was best for him' they keep on repeating and  strangely  all the army officers love these women and don't doubt their sincerity, even though 5 of their men died. I don't know whether to find the revelation near the end suspenseful  or tedious! In a way, this film reminded me about `Arsenic and Old Lace'. In that black-comedy classic, two half-insane siblings mother their goofy younger brother as well, yet they do the killing there. The old ladies in `The Beast in the Cellar' are by no means less crazy, though. The `horror' in this early 70's film is very amateurish and cheap, but there are a few neat attempts to build up the tension. Too many `old-ladies' talk about the good ol' days, though and that rarely is something you seek in a horror film with such an appealing title. Flora Robson, who may be recognized by classic film buffs, plays one of the sisters. She gave image to the Queen of England is the legendary Errol Flynn swashbuckler film, the Sea Hawk.


One thing I have noticed about British horror movies from the 1970s is that they don`t hold up to repeated viewing THEATRE OF BLOOD is a case in point as are all those Amicus anthology movies . Add THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR to the list

Much of the drama of this movie revolves around the build up of a plot revelation at the end . Once you know what the revelation is this becomes a rather flat film . It does open with a fairly good hook but after that we`re treated to long boring sequences of two old ladies making small talk . Correct me if I`m wrong but how many people watch a horror movie expecting a couple of old ladies making small talk ? The only sort of interest to be found in THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR is the anti-smoking stance . Some people have mentioned that this is an anti-war or anti-military film but watch carefully and you`ll see that everytime a squaddie lights up for a fly puff he gets killed . Rather strange considering attitudes to smoking weren`t nearly so hysterical as they are nowadays


The bad news: the Canadian version of Beast In The Cellar released by Maple Pictures that I saw was of poor quality. Dark and washed out, it appeared to be dubbed haphazardly from a VHS tape. It even skips at one point due to some missing frames.

The good news: this movie is so bad that the poor quality of the DVD detracted little from my viewing enjoyment. This horror movie fails to build tension and lacks scares. It is a horrorless horror film. While most frightening films have limited dialog, Beast In The Cellar is a gabfest, so much so that a character will repeat something we have just heard said by two other characters. Presumably, all the chit chat acts as filler for a very low budget, unimaginative movie. Unfortunately, the dialog isn't campy enough to make it worth a watch.


This film has the language, the style and the attitude down ... plus greats rides from Occy (a world champ) and the great Jerry Lopez. John Philbin as Turtle has the surf pidgin down, and the surfing scenes are still the best ever. A true classic that can be seen many times. Nia Peeples is a babe, and Laird Hamilton shows the early stuff that has made him the world's number one extreme surfer.


I was lucky enough to grow up surfing in San Diego (not the biggest waves in the world but it was a hell of childhood, I'll tell you that) and I have seen A LOT of so-called surfer flicks in my life. After watching NORTH SHORE for the first time just now, all I can say is THANK GOD I never saw this as a kid. If I had seen this and mistakenly thought that this was a realistic portrayal of the surf scene, I would sold my board and totally gotten into, I don't know, accounting or something.

Seriously, this movie has a as much in common with real surfing as TOP GUN has was real military life. The acting is terrible, the music is worse, the cinematography is iffy at best and OH MY GOD what was Laird Hanilton thinking?! WOW!!! DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!! IT SUCKS!!! If you want a REAL surf flick, see RIDING GIANTS. Hell, watch SURF'S UP instead of this. Seriously. Sucks. Sucks bad. Sucks REAL bad. Brah. ;)

PS: Had to change my summery from "WTF?!" to wtf because, apparently, we are supposed to whisper on this site. NO YELLING!!! (shhhhhh!) ;D


One of the worse surfing movies I've ever seen. This movie is so bad I don't know where to begin-- Okay, let's start with the premise - some dude from the mainland who barely knows how to surf travels to Hawaii and enters a big wave contest which he more or less expects to win. A good analogy for those who don't surf would be a that of a grossly overweight chain smoker slapping on a pairs of running shoes and entering the LA Marathon with expectations of winning. No way! And, the contest is held on The North Shore which conjures up images of 15+ foot waves, but contest day the waves are maybe 6 foot. The acting? What acting? If you must see this woof see it on TV, don't waste your money renting it. If you want to see a pretty good surfing movie - granted it is flawed, but that's another story - rent Big Wednesday.


This movie is one big stereotype. The acting (except Philbin & Harrison) is awful and the horrid script only make things worse. I must agree with another review that the "local" characters sound ridiculous as a matter of fact so do the "caucasian" characters. 3 stars out of 10 for 1)Philbin 2)Harrison 3)surf scenes. (1/2* out of ****) Watch "Aloha Summer" (**) and/or "Beyond Paradise"(***) for Hawaii done right, especially BP which I found to be entertaining and brilliant.


I am astonished at the major comments here for this OK surf film. It really stems from the "California Dreamin" school of barnyard to beach antics and isn't really plausible. The idea that the lead kid learn to ride a board SO well in a concrete wave pool that he beats the real surfers at their game in the real ocean, is just plain silly. In Australia where most urban teens do surf, this film was laughed at audiences took it all with a grain of sea salt. Made in the 80s but with its heart in the 60s, it is fun to watch and looks and sounds good, but it is not a in a classic class at all. Even the actors didn't outlast this. We're seriously in LIQUID BRIDGE or RIDE THE WILD SURF or BEACH BLANKET BINGO land here. Oz stars like Occy and BIG Wednesday hero Gerry Lopez are drafted in to add head nodding recognition to our farm boy's wave prowess, but it only made the crowd in the cinema guffaw. It is for 10 years olds who do not question much. It's not even IN GODS HANDS and that was silly too.


This movie is highly improbable. Read the other reviews to see why.

I would say that most of the characters were plastic, but they didn't even afford themselves that little luxury; they just act like cardboard cutouts. Of course, they had to get real surfers for the surfing contest roles, so that's a crap shoot whether they can act. At least Occy didn't give a crap and just went with it. But "Lance"??? Fuhgeddaboutit.

The one character who rang true was portrayed by Gerry Lopez who didn't really act, he was himself pretty much. He's quite accustomed to stomping people. :-) The only reason I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1 was because I was laying out a newsletter on my laptop when it came on some cable channel late one night. That saved me from having to pay full attention to this silly little time waster. No way I would go out of my way to watch it.


Being a fan of bad movies, I was thrilled to find a 3 pack of cr@ppy horror at Best Buy today. The set was cheap and included a terrible film called "the Dark" that I actually remember seeing in the theater.

The remaining 2 were equally as bad. "Creatures from the Abyss" being probably the worst of the bunch. Since they were all bad that isn't saying much. But its stupidity, bad acting, terrible effects and retarded storyline actually made this one a lot of fun to watch. I was rolling on the floor with each new plot development. The discovery of the abandon ship, the missing crew, the realization that there was something terribly wrong!!! It was great!!! Of course, everyone's favorite scene seems to be the sex scene. OMG!! I almost lost it!!! Between that an the "monster cam", I have to say I enjoyed this film a lot.

I am a fan of bad movies so I enjoyed it but in all fairness, I did have to give the movie a 1. IT WAS AWFUL... But if rubbish is your bag, at least rent this one... (YES the BAD pun was intentional)


Boasting some pretty good Rick Baker-esque special effects and Deran Serafian in a small role, this pretty lame Italian movie deserves some recognition. Cerchi gets some credit for still making gore flicks while most of the other Italian directors (Ruggero Deodato, Sergio Martino, Lamberto Bava, and Enzo G. Castellari) have moved on to lower-key TV movies. As for plankton, it's half Piranha - half The Thing, with people turninging into monsters, raping women, and causing general mayhem. The ultra-grimy, sleazy, and over-sexed feel of the film makes it hard to enjoy. Only available in Italian language work-prints floating around.