Danny De Vito shows us here he is definitely, indeed infinitely, a better on screen performer than off. He plays the part of Owen, a miserable would-be writer with a cranky old mother (delightfully played by Anne Ramsey) he would like to see dead. Billy Crystal is Larry, a very frustrated writing teacher who has an estranged wife he feels the same way about. So Owen, after viewing Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train", suggests they swap murders.

As director though, De Vito's control is inconsistent as he wastes this clever idea, while his film lurches from the very humorous to the very bland. He and Crystal are okay in the lead roles, but the show belongs to Anne Ramsey as the cantankerous Mrs. Lift.

Saturday, June 20, 1992 - Video


This is a comedy version of "Strangers on a Train". It works pretty well. I am a harsh grader, so the 3 rating reflects mostly on the characters and plot. The performances are extremely good, all of them. Of course, the two stars, DeVito and Crystal, shine most. Each performer acts well enough to play off of. The comedy works in a level just short of slapstick. DeVito characters work best when depraved. His character, portrayed as a writing hack, would probably be more real if he was published and lauded as much as most hacks are. His character would, in real life, have a great agent and multiple solicitations. The characters are one dimensional, which is okay in comedy. But Crystals's character is not written very well. His desire to kill the "moma" all of a sudden makes no sense at all. It looks like a pitiful attempt at humor. The pitiful attempts are not too often, and the movie flows fairly well.


Leonard Rossiter and Frances de la Tour carry this film, not without a struggle, as the script was obviously hurriedly cobbled together out of old episodes. When it came out, this must have been a real disappointment as it's also done on a bus ticket budget. Attempts to move it out of the house - which is jarringly unrecognisable, a bad job all round there - with a picnic, fantasy sequences, rugby and a boxing match in the local gym simply don't work. Most of these are just character-light setups for a solitary not-particularly good gag. That said, the interplay of Rossiter and de la Tour (and anybody else with him) is mostly hilarious; they even manage to make a soda syphon gag work, but you can see the struggle with recycling a literally uninspired script that changes plot half way through. Don Warrington has very little to do except 'be black', and due to the random script hacks Christopher Strauli changes character at least twice. And in the end, as he often did in the TV series (though you might not remember - read the scripts), Eric Chappell lets you down with a 'time's up' ending. Were they that cynical, or just too desperate to be in the film business? Rossiter and de la Tour are always funny but as a film, it's a terrible postscript to a fondly remembered TV series. RIP.


This film derives from a Long Running ITV sitcom by the same name.The Sitcom lasted for half a decade roughly and brought to our screens Rigsby,Phillip,Alan,Mrs Jones & Vienna.

Then in 1980 The film version hit the Cinemas.Now when it did,sadly Richard Beckinsale had passed away & was replaced by Only when i laugh actor Chris Strauli.

I myself felt this gave the film a different feel.I would have preferred if it wasn't shot as Richard was a key character.Thats like having the porridge film without Godber or Mackay!

The Film did have some classics moments definitely but it felt a bit De-Ja-Vu! Many parts were seen before in the TV Series. Now if you saw the movie first rather than the Series you would get a different feeling about it then the series fan!

Saying that Leonard is definitely on top form and makes the movie,just like in the TV series.The Film has recently had a new lease of life on DVD and is usually on Terrestrial over a quiet weekend.It is a cracking good film,but for Rigsby fans you may feel that youv'e seen it similarly before.

Saying that though its worth a buying/watching

7.8/10


The film version of 'Rising Damp' came out two years after the television series ended. Like many fans I duly went along to the cinema when it opened. I came away bitterly disappointed. Eric Chappell could not have spent very much time writing the script; most of it is rehashed ideas from old episodes. At the time of the film's release, the 'Rising Damp' series was still being repeated regularly on I.T.V. so the public was being asked to pay to see something they'd seen already. At least the 'On The Buses' movies boasted original screenplays.

Secondly, Richard Beckinsale had died the year before, so they eliminated the character of 'Alan' as a mark of respect, substituting art student 'John', played by Christopher Strauli of 'Only When I Laugh' fame. It simply wasn't the same.

As another poster has pointed out, Rigsby's boarding house looked nothing like the one used in the series, being bigger and altogether cleaner.

Director Joe McGrath was one of the directors who worked on the original 'Casino Royale', a film steeped in surreal humour. 'Rising Damp' also has its share of 'Walter Mitty' style fantasy sequences, such as the 'Saturday Night Fever' parody. Personally, I found them horribly out of place. A case of 'over-egging the pudding'.

On the plus side, Leonard Rossiter is as magnificent as ever as the seedy 'Rigsby', as are Frances De La Tour as 'Ruth' and Don Warrington as 'Philip. Its just a shame the film isn't worthy of their talents.

When Rossiter died in 1984, it was shown by I.T.V. as a tribute, with its final scene - showing Rigsby laying prostrate at the foot of the stairs - removed in the interests of good taste.


Doesn't this seem somewhat familiar? Oh wait, that's right.. 90% of the jokes in this movie have already been done in the TV series. What's the point in repeating yourself, you may ask? Is it for the benefit of the Americans who haven't seen the programme? Did the scriptwriters run out of inspiration? Or maybe everyone on set suffered a sudden attack of amnesia, and forgot they'd covered this ground already? Either way, for someone who has sat through the first three series, this was just really boring. I had to turn it off during the 'tablets that turn your water green' part.. yes it is very funny, but give us something original for goodness sake! Actually, if the best new stuff you can come up with is Leonard Rossiter's take on Saturday Night Fever, you can forget it.

The guy they got to replace the late Richard Beckinsale is a lookalike alright, but not half the actor. Personally I would exorcised the role, as a mark of respect to him. Or better yet, not bothered making the film at all, and just let the hilarity of the TV series speak for itself. But no, they couldn't do that.. not as long as there was money to be made. Sad, really. 4/10


no way out 2007 was a really bad and if it is the road to wrestlemania they choose the wrong road.

Chris Benoit & the hardy boys def MVP & Minn: in my view this was the best match of the night some good wrestling here but not much. 7/10

cruisweight championship open(which chavo Guerrero won): awful, no high flying at all, really quick and boring. 3/10

little bastard & Finlay def little bogeyman & the bogeyman: this was more comedy than wrestling, some laughs. 5/10

Kane def king booker: a decent effort by these two but they could do better. 6/10

wwe tag team championship Paul London & Brian Kendrick def deuce & domino:another boring match,no high flying by the champs. 4/10

ecw world title Mr Kennedy def bobby lashley (disquilification): in my mind the worst match of the night. truly awful.i thought ecw was no rules,i was wrong 2/10

john cena & Shawn Michaels def Batista & the undertaker: an okay match but could have been a hell of a lot better. 6/10

overall this was bulls*it id give it a 3/10


A good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to "plot" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the "bad" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean.


"TNT Jackson" isn't completely unwatchable. But either the version I saw on DVD was edited with a weed-whacker, or the screenplay itself is the lowest level of grind-house/blaxploitation sausage. Or maybe both.

Jeanne Bell is supposed to have been a Playmate at one point in her career,and the movie makes the most of the connection by displaying her breasts at least two times more than was really necessary (including a hilarious topless fight scene that I am pretty sure was meant to be funny). I will admit, they are quite nice. Still, she's sort of average looking and doesn't have the charisma of a Foxy Brown, of even a Cleopatra Jones. She does have her moments as an actress in the film, though, but it would have been nice if the director had pushed her a little harder or the screenplay had given her a chance to do more than emote "attitude" and kick people.

Speaking of kicking people, the fight scenes (the other putative reason to watch a film like this) are pretty poorly done.There's no real choreography to speak of here, just people posing and sticking feet and fists in the general direction of their opponents. One minor exception is a nice moment with an opponent equipped with butterfly folding knives; another is a sequence near the very end where an obvious stunt double for Bell (and maybe for Stan Shaw) leap around and do some decent sweeps and groundwork for a minute or two before Bell/"Jackson" punches her enemy's liver out, Shaw collapses and the screenplay just stops. (Again, I will admit that this is very much in the tradition of Shaw Brother quickies since time immemorial).

There are a couple of supporting actors who are actually better than the film deserves (I'm thinking of "Joe" and the fellow playing the drug lord's right hand man). There's a halfway decent funk laden soundtrack that complements the action on the screen and add a star to the rating by itself. There's a semi-dodgy sex scene that manages to be effective almost in spite of itself.

This one is strictly for hardcore fans of blaxploitation. I saw it out of sheer curiosity, and I'm not sorry I took the time. But I can't imagine wanting to take the time to see it again unless I decide to write a dissertation on the pop culture intersections of "Kung Fu Theater" and "Foxy Brown".


A young woman nicknamed "T.N.T." for being virtual dynamite in a fight and a knockout in terms of looks to boot, goes to the most lawless part of Hong Kong in search of her missing brother Stag Jackson. When she learns he has been murdered, she decides she will bring the killer to justice in a fashion only she can.

Sounds good, doesn't it. Well, there's really nothing wrong with the basic premise as a starting base for a martial arts/blaxploitation action thriller, which is what this aims to be. The leads actually prove pretty good too with Jeanne Bell fitting nicely into the role of "T.N.T." and Stan Shaw doing well as the ambitious, power-hungry Charlie. Where this fails miserably is in terms of the fighting action it offers up. The fight scenes are totally and completely unconvincing and/or sometimes so completely over the top it reaches the point of ridiculousness which doesn't at all help when the basic focus of your movie is a Kung Fu action heroine. Also the poor lighting, actors sporting accents making them hard to understand, the confusing camera-work and the sometimes poor sound doesn't help this obvious low budget effort out either any. This does deliver in one area which may delight some fans, it does offer up plenty of the T in "T & A", in fact practically every fight scene in the film is proceeded by some type of nude scene and Jeanne Bell actually does have one extended fight scene in which she is completely topless.

In the end, this fails to be something you want to revisit because the fight scenes are so pathetically, laughingly bad.


Now any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.

This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed it.


This extremely bargain-basement Blaxploitation/Kung-Fu hybrid was in my country released by a questionable DVD label that usually speaking just occupies with the transfer of pure crap onto disc, so that wasn't exactly a favorable herald. Several other titles were released in the same series, like "The Black Six", "The Black Gestapo" and "The Black Godfather" and judging by all their low ratings and negative reviews none of these belong to the elite of the 70's Blaxploitation hype, neither. "TNT Jackson" is a pretty lousy film, completely lacking a significant plot but featuring far too many laughable fighting scenes and horrible acting to compensate. Apparently Roger Corman  never too embarrassed to make some easy money  assigned two of his most loyal acolytes to rapidly invent a simplistic story that would appeal to fans of both oriental Kung-Fu movies and contemporary trendy Blaxploitation flicks. The result Cirio H. Santiago and Dick Miller came up with was "TNT Jackson"; the tale of an arse-whooping black babe traveling to Hong Kong in search of her missing brother. She quickly discovers he was killed by a criminal network of drug-smugglers and swears to avenge him. Mrs. Jackson smoothly infiltrates into the underground and encounters macho pimps, helpful undercover agents, loads of vicious Kung-Fu fighters. Only one thing's for sure; they all want a piece of TNT's ravishing body in one way or another. I sincerely doubt movie concepts get any more elementary than this, but  unfortunately - all the other aspects suck too. The battle scenes are overlong and moreover pathetically staged. Jeannie Bell and the other poor suckers try really hard to stare menacingly and assume a tough position, but eventually all they ever do is kick in the air and stupidly leap across rooms. The cinematography is horrid, the soundtrack is vastly disappointing (whatever happened to soul music?), the few dialogs are poorly written and the acting performances are inferior. Speaking of which, Jeannie Bell is undeniably a beautiful woman, but still she can't hold a candle to Tamara Dobson or Pam Grier. There's only one really good and memorable scene in "TNT Jackson", namely the famous hotel room battle where Bell, entirely naked except for panties, repeatedly switches the light on and off whilst kicking the hell out of some goons. Amusing scene ... I just haven't figured out yet whether it's thanks to the light switch ingenuity or Bell's perfectly shaped breasts.


I cannot believe how this atrocity managed to capture the hearts and minds of a cross-section of the 'bright young things' of its era, but I'm certain I wish it hadn't. In my opinion it is an inaccurate, poorly acted, weakly scripted, pretentiously directed piece of gumpf. The brief outings to an imagined reality bludgeon any humour to death. The situations are unsubtle exaggerations which make the the already flimsy characters even more unbelievable and detestable. The romance is dull, the end is unsatisfying and ruins the only sensible drugs message in the film and the simple plot ('Withnail and I,' 'Fear and Loathing') is tested to extremes with the uninteresting motion of the film. In short this film as a blatant visual assault with no hint of skill or initiative. I condemn it to the ash heap of history and pray it stays there.


utterly useless... having been there, done that with the subject matter i have to say this captures the clubbing atmosphere in absolutely no respect. It may have done so had the characters not just been mouthpieces for incredibly dire, unrealistic drivel. So many cringe-worthy scenes that would put The Office to shame (not a compliment to this film). It also may have helped to have some semblance of a story, a point, a message, a commentary, anything. Seriously, Kevin & Perry Go Large had more to say on the subject than this film (term used very loosely in this case). There should be minus numbers reserved for films like this. -10 (extra turd)


"The Best Movie of the 90's" "The Welsh Trainspotting"....Aye, right! I went into this movie with pretty high expectations, and it was all downhill from there.

This movie was supposed to be this archetypal movie on the drug culture of the early 90's, and was going to allow us all to see inside this scene, and shatter the media's preconceptions following the moral panic which followed the death of Leah Betts in 1995. Unfortunately it has fallen a long way short.

Where Trainspotting was able to treat you like an adult on the subject, and potential problems that surround drugs, this just provided us with some schmaltzy tale of the wonder of drugs, and how it can like, you know, like totally open your mind. Cue some guff about Bill Hicks, and Howard Marks ad nausea. It is painfully bad at times. I mean, the scene at the end between Lulu and her Auntie actually made me laugh out loud.

Now maybe I am just a cynic, but the way Jip leads us through this tale is like listening to THAT Acid frazzled guy you once met at a house party, who talks to you about how "the man" is holding us back, and how Acid has released him from the strains of modern society. You just wanna shake some sense into him, and ask him to leave the premises.

The script was a real problem for me, because where Trainspotting had Irvine Welsh's excellent book to cite from, this is written and directed by Justin Kerrigan. The words "Jack of all trades, master of none" come to mind. You can see where his inspiration comes from, particularly in the style of narration from main character Jip (which sets the main character in a social situation where he speaks directly to the camera, and outlines what is going through his mind as the scenario plays out) The problem with this is that some of the speeches to camera are just painful to watch. Mainly this comes down to a lack of empathy for Jip, but they are so desperate to sound philosophical that they just end up sounding like your average A-Level drama project. The direction is fine, and the intentions are good, but it is so lacking in any integrity that you start to wonder what the hype is about.

Saying that though, it is not all bad. There are moments which are genuinely very amusing, and entertaining. Moff is the highlight of the movie for me. For an independent movie it also managed to attract a high numbers of quality British actors/actresses, which maybe outlines why there was such a buzz about the movie.

Best movie of the 90's? Not by a long shot, but if you're looking for a solid Sunday night movie, then this might just be your bag. Inevitably though, the movie is flawed by the hype that surrounds it.


If I wouldn't have had any expectations of this film, it might have received a 5 or 6. As it stands, I give it a 3. The acting is poor, the factual accuracy of the drugs it discusses is lacking, and I feel no empathy whatsoever for the characters.

I watched 'Adam & Paul' immediately before watching this film, and I both laughed and cried on several occasions. This film did not strike even a similar chord. The directors of 'Human Traffic' may have some off-hand experience of ecstasy, but there is no demonstration of actual drug-related semantic knowledge here. In fact, I find it rather offensive and contraproductive to the strife of making current drug laws less politically oriented.

Watch 'Requiem for a Dream' if what you're looking for is an amazing, touching film about drugs.


Human Traffic is purely a `been there, done that' experience  only this time it's quite limp.

Major themes explored are paranoia, male impotence and jealousy  but only mildly and poorly.

A lot of the movie seems to want to imitate Trainspotting (drug / `clubbing' culture)  but it fails to include the low times / come-downs that Trainspotting deals with (eg: issues with death / dependence, etc). It even tries to come up with a similar monologue to Ewan McGreggor's classic `Choose Life' speech  but `The Milky Bars are on me! Yeah!'  what the fudge is that all about?!

The characters try to analyse their lifestyle but when their lifestyle is so shallow  their analysis becomes boring and repetitious.

The soundtrack (for a movie that is trying to be cool) is pathetic. It includes the likes of Fat Boy Slim and CJ Bolland  come on people  good dance music IS be better than this!

The characters become grating and annoying (especially half way through the movie) and the lack of care-for-the-characters soon dawns.

There are a couple of funny scenes  but they are few and far between. The mother catching the son in the bedroom was quite amusing.

But PLEASE  I'm sick to death of the Star Wars analogy scenes. I thought it was much more sharper in a couple of Kevin Smith's movies (ie: Clerks and Chasing Amy). According to the characters  Yoda is a drug fiend hence that's why he is short and bald  huh?!

My score  4 out of 10  do yourself a favour and see Trainspotting or Go instead!


Saboteur was one of the few Hitchcocks I had yet to discover and I was less than half-overwhelmed. The French title "La Cinquième colonne" (i.e. The Fifth Column, a very evocative phrase for underground spying and sabotage organizations) set my expectations quite high as did the images of the finale on top of the Statue of Liberty.

Basically Saboteur is as much light-hearted as were The 39 steps (note this is another evocative phrase, even McGuffin as a title) but it lacks most of the humor (so the characters are rather down to earth) and it's definitely not as fast paced. As a chase movie across the USA from LA to NY Saboteur drags its feet from sequence to sequence. The sequence at the villain's lovely ranch? Lovely ranch, lovely villain but pretty tame on the whole, it doesn't really add up to nothing. The meeting with the blind man, the mixing with Circus people, the Soda City sequence, the NY ball sequence? They fall flat, bringing in more characters with very little added suspense value.

One big problem I can point out is the relationship between the leads Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane which is not building up as with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in The 39 steps. Hence the whole narrative structure is floating, depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages. In The 39 steps it was clearly scripted as 1/escaping from the police (so you know the hero can't just go to the police) then 2/running for his life and after the villains to prove his innocence.

If you want a better Hitchcock from the 40s wartime propaganda I would advise you to chose Foreign Correspondant over Saboteur. They are both chase movies with a catchy finale, well really a gripping one and not just sightseeing in Foreign Correspondant as well as beautifully efficient scenes (the umbrella crowd, the tulip fields, the strange mills...).


Rarely will anyone deny that Hitchcock remains one of the most creative, inventive and prolific directors of all time, because he is arguably all of these things. It takes true genius to scare generations of film goers out of taking showers and wearing neck ties. Saboteur, however, is not creative or prolific at all. Rather, Hitchcock set out with the soul intention of creating a film to muster "American Pride," a certain call-to-arms, support-our-troops title which was a popular theme of the time. With that in mind, Hitchcock severely underplayed other important aspects of the film, including but not limited to a logical plot, characterization, believable dialog, and a fluent, running storyline.

Typically Hitchcock does great with espionage films, only a few years earlier achieving cinematic greatness with The Foreign Corespondant and The 39 Steps, but seemingly lost his stride in creating Saboteur and merely recycled the same once-thrilling story lines both his previous excursions readily provided. Without going into any great depth here is a list of a few of this films major problems:

1. Despite having his face plastered on every newspaper across America, the only person who recognizes Kane is blind.

2. At the dinner party, Kane and Patricia don't want to run for the door because the bad guys might grab them and tell the party they were "gate crashers." Logically, what prevents the spies from grabbing them and saying this at any point during the evening? Besides, does anyone need to be reminded Kane is a wanted terrorist?

3. Since when can a fan belt cut through handcuffs?

4. Nobody recognizes him...his face is on EVERY NEWSPAPER!!!

5. The spies catch up with Kane in the ghost town and assume he's the man Freeman sent to work with them...shouldn't't he have some sort of credentials? I know spies don't run around with name tags and photo IDs but a secret handshake maybe?

6. Cop picks up Kane escaping from Freeman's house, still seems no one recognizes this guy.

7. How exactly does the FBI come to believe Kane with no evidence? They don't even show Kane talking to the FBI, the scene simply fades in and we are forced to assume everything is now kosher.

8. When the cops search the Carnival Caravan how do they know Kane is now with a woman? The blind man believed Kane's story thus logically would not have reported his daughter missing, kidnapped, or even more importantly running with Kane. Why does this movie not employ logic?

This is a running list. The movie is not exciting, the plot makes no sense, and the world is full of people who willingly take wanted terrorists into their homes and cars everyday because its no big thing. Hitchcock fails miserably on this one.


As I post this comment, IMDb currently rates Alfred Hitchcock's subpar Saboteur a 7.3/10. Personally, I rated it less than half that. Honestly, I can't tell how a movie this bad could've come from what is probably the most consistently good director I know of. I've seen about 10 other Hitch movies from the 30's-60's. Vertigo is thus far my hands down favorite while Saboteur is easily the worst. It's hard to believe that 7 years earlier Hitch used the very same formula in The 39 Steps far more competently. My recommendation would be to see that instead and avoid this like the plague. It's the only Hitchcock movie that I turned off before before the end and have no desire to go back and see the rest. If you must watch it, then rent or borrow. Don't make the mistake I did and buy the DVD on good faith earned through Notorious, Rebecca, Vertigo, Rear Window, etc. Even a master screws up sometimes, I guess.

EDIT: Maybe I was a bit harder on this film than I should've been. It's certainly nowhere near Ed Wood or Manos or anything like that, but there's three reasons I feel I must rate it so low:

1) The name "Hitchcock" brings with it certain expectations of quality. This film delivers on a few of them, but they're way overshadowed by the darn near non-sensical plotting.

2) I want to compensate a bit for all the 8+ ratings this film is getting. Hitchcock is like the John Coltrane of directors. True fans will find reasons to consider anything by him a work of art, but the high rating on IMDb gives more casual movie enthusiasts like myself the impression that this movie is far better than it actually is.

3) I spent $18 on this. Maybe if it'd cost me $5 or even $10 I'd probably be a bit less bitter. ;)


Hitchcock is a great director. Ironically I mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. I admire Hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level.

First the positives. Hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. The curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. It isn't exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then.

Secondly, Hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. He has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. He gives them regular thrills, regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. In short, he anticipates the audience's base needs and plays them like a fiddle.

Unfortunately, the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. Food, sex, the thrill of danger and a little comedy. Hithcock caters for all these needs on screen, with the exception of food, which, judging from his size, he catered to off screen.

It's this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. A second downside is that most of Hitchcock's camera work and visual grammar are now common place. What keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales, the intelligence of his camera work, and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces.

So on to "Saboteur". This is a light-hearted romp in the vein of "The 39 Steps". It jumps from sequence to sequence, until it concludes at the typical Hitchcock final act set piece.

On an emotional level, the relationship between the leads is not up to par with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in "The 39 steps". Hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. The plot simply rumbles on like a machine, desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end, since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages.

There are the usual Hitchcock logic flaws. For example, a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (Why doesn't he just drive away in the car? Surely handcuffs aren't that restrictive? He's able to swim in them, after all!)

If you want a better Hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40's, I would advise you watch "Foreign Correspondant". They are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale, but "Foreign Correspondant" makes great use of umbrellas and tulips, something Spielberg rips off nicely in "Minority Report".

7.5/10 - Some good set pieces. Beyond that, however, there's nothing much to sink your teeth into.


This movie was one of a handful that actually caused me pain. It might be enjoyed by anybody who thinks that it would be funny to see his/her mother in a crowded discotheque full of people half her age "inventing" some totally ridiculous dance in a completely misguided effort to be "hip" (in the parlance of that age). To see Ingrid Bergman stoop to such a pitiful performance on the disco dance floor was hard to watch. I was embarrassed.

To make matters worse, the music in the disco was not realistic at all - it is the bogus idea of some Hollywood director about what pop music was like at the time. That is always a total embarrassment in most films of that era - the ersatz music is canned and bears only a painful, passing resemblance to the music that was actually popular in the 60's.

Mathau is hopelessly miscast as some kind of ladies' man; he just looks lecherously grotesque. Hawn's wide-eyed innocence is just too silly. The handsome neighbor in her apartment is portrayed way too earnestly and seriously. He seems like a Brady kid who got lost in this farce. Painful, pitiful mess.


Subspecies is set in Romania where two American college students Michele (Laura Mae Tate) & Lillian (Michelle McBride) arrive to study local folklore with the aid of local friend Mara (Irina Movila). There they rent rooms in a hotel & become curious about the mysterious ruins of a nearby castle, it turns out that a powerful & evil Vampire named Radu (Anders Hove) lives there who has stolen the Bloodstone from his father King Vladislav (Angus Scrimm). Radu takes a fancy to the three girls & starts drinking the blood of Mara & Lillian, meanwhile Michele falls for a guy named Stefan (Michael Watson) who just so happens to be Radu's brother. Michele & Stefan decide to team up & rid the world of the evil Radu...

Directed by Ted Nicolaou this film seems to be quite highly regarded amongst genre fans & while it's not terrible I certainly wouldn't call it very good & I could't really see anything much to get excited about. Subspecies is a rather slow going film, not that much actually happens & while it does try to stay close to certain classic Vampire lore there's all this nonsense about a Bloodstone & some little monsters that grow from the tips of Radu's severed fingers for some reason. Subspecies could have been a half decent film if not for the fact that it's dull, I really can't remember that much about it, good or bad. The character's are alright but some f the dialogue is silly & there's a scene which bugged me near the start when the girls are at the castle ruins & one says they have to go because it's getting dark yet it's still clearly the middle of the day & very bright. There's also a scene where one of the American girls finds a coffin that hotel's attic & doesn't really seem that bothered by it, I am not being funny but is some bloke whose house I was staying at had a coffin in his attic I would be very, very worried if you know what I mean. I don't think I would ever want to watch it again, there's no real threat, the plot is weak that mixes classic Vampire themes with silly subplots & I was distinctly unmoved by it all. Not the worst film ever but hardly the best either.

The film looks alright with nice locations & some local scenery although you feel the look is down to the budget rather than the makers attempt a authenticity. There's not much gore apart from a decapitation & some broken off finger tips. For no apparent reason the makers throw in some average looking stop-motion animated monsters that really don't do anything or have much significance to the story.

Filmed on the cheap by Charles Band's Full Moon Entertainment production company in Bucharest in Romania, the production values are alright & better than many later day Band productions. The acting isn't great with many of the cast putting in below par performances while genre regular Angus Scrimm has a small cameo at the start. There's a little bit of style here on occasion with a few scene reminding heavily of the original Nosferatu (1922) in particular the bit showing Radu's shadow coming down the stair with his long claw like fingernails standing out.

Subspecies is a film that many seem to like for reasons I don't quite see, I thought it was throughly average at best & overall rather dull. Followed by Bloodstone: Subspecies II (1993), Bloodlust: Subspecies III (1994), Subspecies 4: Bloodstorm (1998) & the spin0off film Vampire Journals (1997).


First of all, let me make it clear. This movie is a real piece of garbage, but although it is a real piece of garbage, it is an better piece of garbage than it could have been. It could have sucked big-time, but it doesn't...

What this movie didn't have, was for example scary moments, good acting and a good script. It wasn't very entertaining either. But the movie had cool music, fancy locations and hot girls. It also works great as a Dracula spoof. (hope it was meant that way, although I really don't think so)

The story focuses on three girls in Transylvania, awaking an ancient vampire, which then terrorizes and kills the girls, one by one. Sounds familiar? Yes, so it does!

After reading through this, you may think that I should have given it a better vote. The reason I don't, is because I almost felt asleep at some points...


regardless of what anyone says, its a b-movie, and the effects are poorly done.. if you're a vampire fanatic, I suppose it would be OK, not 10 out of 10, you others here cant sincerely mean that?. we are to view this as a movie, not read it as a book, so the effects and characters are important, as well as the story. The story are good, but it doesn't carry the film, no wonder it has a low rating over all. I write this because I chose to see this movie when I saw some good reviews here on IMDb, but got severely disappointed. don't get me wrong, I thought the blade movies was awesome, and loved the underworld movies, but this characters aren't close. the make up on the vampires is poorly done, and the effects are worse. this sucks. I might not have gotten so disappointed if I had not read reviews here that told me how great it was. the reviewers must have had something to do with the production company or something, seriously, if you think this is awesome, you don't care about acting or make up. this is better as a book. 3 out of 10 for an OK story..


A few years ago I bought a movie called The Cellar. I had heard that it was supposed to be a great movie, but it turned out that it was a flop and a B-Movie.

The story is good, but there are no good effects in the movie. (Maybe they didn't have enough money for that on the budget???).

If you choose to watch this movie be sure to watch it three times. The first, only and last time!!!


"The Cellar" is an intolerably dull and overly child-friendly 80's cheese parade, directed by Kevin Tenney (creator of the much better films "Witchboard" and "Night of the Demons") and starring the incredibly untalented Patrick Kilpatrick, supposedly depicting a guy with feelings. The pacing is really slow, the plot feels far too familiar, the monster-effects are all but petrifying and the film opens and ends with tedious narrative ranting that somehow feels unrelated to the actual subject matter of the film. The voice-over keeps on nagging about wind and creatures riding on wind, but what the hell, there's no wind in the plot? Like so many 80's horror movies, "The Cellar" handles about cursed Indian landscapes and all-too-real mythical monsters hidden in basements and quagmires. Mance Cashen and his family move into a house build on what once was the home of Native Americans, but then white people came and turned the land into oil fields. Half of the script is wasted on explaining the origin of the monster, but I can easily summarize it for you: an ancient Indian witchdoctor summoned the creature (which looks like an over-sized paper-mâché rat) to annihilate the white people overflowing his land but he buried it again because, and I quote, the SOB kills Indians as well. Mance's hugely irritating son accidentally awakens the beast and naturally can't convince his parents about the big hungry rat in the cellar. The allegedly emotional family situation (daddy constantly wants his son to love him) is very pathetic and redundant and the film badly needed more bloodshed; kids' movie or not. The youthful hero (Chris Miller) is quite annoying, but we've definitely seen worse kid actors in the 80's. "The Cellar" is very much not recommended, unless of course you're a fan of cheesy and typically 80's monster designs. The big dodgy rat-thing is a real hoot to see.


If you can get past the slow start and bad acting it's worth watching. The story line was pretty decent. The father had a wicked temper because he was unemployed and he hardly got to see his kid except in the summer because his ex-wife had custody of him. The father was very angry and frustrated the majority of the time. The monster in the story wasn't too scary. The movie breaks consistency of the monster being so incredibly strong. The one scene that the moviemakers do this in is one of the times when the kid is down in the cellar and the monster goes to attack him. When the monster goes to attack the kid his arm gets caught in a steel trap attached to a chain. The monster is about a foot away from the kid's face. Every other time throughout the movie the monster is strong enough to break through or tear down anything. Yet the steel trap and chain holds him back from getting the kid! More than likely the moviemakers did this for shock factor because no one wants to see one of the main characters die. Moviemakers just wanted to scare us into thinking it may be a possibility that the kid could die. Instead of breaking consistency, the moviemakers should have replaced the kid with someone who they could dispose of!


Mediocre at best. Slow, but probably more entertaining to the younger viewers. A young boy(Chris Miller) is haunted by an Indian spirit and horrid monster in the cellar of his father's new home. Also in the cast are Patrick Kilpatrick, Suzanne Savoy and Ford Rainey.


I watched this film on Telly the other night and little did I know what a cringe-fest it would be...I knew it would be stupid but not this bad! This film exemplifies everything that is awful in Australian comedy. Apart from the most tedious, uninspired scenarios and characters I have ever come across (aside from those dubious French produced American tax break comedies!), most of the situations were boring, unbelievable, stereotypical and SO not funny just...terrible!

One such scenario that really annoyed me was the nerds on the bus scene. From a screen writing perspective the writers used the most uninteresting - not to mention unbelievable - scenario to get these three stranded without their luggage...They are on the holiday of their lives and they're going to risk it all (including a $300 deposit, luggage and room) to exert their rights to dance on a bus? I mean, they're about half an hour away from their destination! At least they could have had the bus driver kick them off but, no they leave willingly cos 'they can't take it anymore!'and wreck their holiday...Anyway, I can't believe the writers didn't workshop this appalling scenario out. I think a ten year old could come up with 5 set-ups more clever, funny and believable.

I can go on with many others - the really unimaginative stereotypical psychopath, the whole relationship with the angry jilted girlfriend and tag along virgin, the 'Wow Man! Out there goth girl' inhaling stuff on the train - EVERYTHING was just woeful! I cannot think of one redeeming feature of the this film except that maybe the third wheel nerd was kind of cute. Spoilt his career by appearing in this trash though!


Schoolies is a pointless exercise... Go to Gold Coast, get drunk and have sex. Worthwhile ambitions maybe but not highly intellectual. The plot is a simple as a few sentences assigned to each character and nobody is helped by the cliches doled out here.

Something that would help is the casting. Everybody looks too old. These characters are supposedly innocents embarking out on their own in faltering steps to adulthood yet they all look way too old to be believable in the role.


To me this film is just a very very lame teen party movie with all the normal clichés and boring stereotyped characters (Nerds, Jocks, Popular girls, Sleezy guys, etc) but with an underlying anti drug/drinking theme.

If you ever have the unfortunate chance of seeing this film, keep an eye out for all the references to responsibility and keeping it real (dunno how else to word it) I guess the only thing that'd make this film cool, would be if they TV playing it was on fire. That, or DVD it was on exploded...

1 out of 10000 - Watch Animal House instead.


Like most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the "performance" late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.

Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say "SPOILERS." I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's "not real?" Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:

[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.

[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they "get" it.

I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home...


If you are a pretentious person, it would sound like a good idea to brag about your intellectuality saying that you really like this movie.

Otherwise, don't bother and better watch something good.

This is the stereotypical movie for snobs. The plot line would be very silly if you could see it from beginning to end. It is just presented in a messed up way as an attempt to make it hard to understand and make the movie look intellectual.

Mullholland Drive is not enjoyable to watch. You would very rarely understand anything the first time you see it. And if you do, you would most likely be disappointed because it is not a big deal.


It´s a joke, right?! Lynch could not get produced this as a TV show. He was out of money, so what to do? Well, he received somehow some Dollars and "completed" the pilot and created this mess by just mixing everything together... How can anybody see a failed pilot for TV as an cinematic masterpiece?!

And now everybody is guessing about the deeper meaning!? Well, wake up, there is none! Like in that other TV series by Lynch, what was the name again? Same procedure there. Build up a mystery and then come up with nothing. I guess Lynch will repeat this concept until people will realise, the emperor has no clothes.

In Germany there is a comedian called Harpe Kerkerling. He dressed up as an opera singer and "performed" some new "art songs". Singing complete nonsense like this:

"The wolf. The lamb. On the meadow. Hurrz!"

It´s a classic now.

Anyway, afterwards he discussed it with the audience. And they were talking seriously about the deeper meaning of the wolf / lamb relationship.

You people giving this movie a rating of 8.0 in imdb.com, you people could be one of them.

So let´s say it all together: "Hurrz!"

0/10 Macaulay J. Connor


I get the feeling a lot of people liked this movie (not all people, but a lot of them) because they don't want to admit they don't understand it. People of middling intelligence, if you will, who pretend to be ever so avant garde and trendy who think Lynch is a genius.

Lynch, to me, is like Tarantino. They're both great, but neither one is the messiah as so many fanboys want to believe. No director can change the world, so chill out. And both make sucky flicks sometimes, it just happens. Everyone has a bad day. And clearly, since this movie was actually designed as a pilot first and then hack-jobbed into a feature film, it wasn't made with all the passion and forethought one should put into a movie. Face it, much of the movie is gibbering unintelligibility which cannot be understood. We can all make up meanings, Lynch may have his own view, but none of that matters. It was strewn about the screen incoherently. Admittedly, the first portion had the semblance of an intentionally convoluted passingly interesting story, but then it falters.

The cowboy, the mysterious organization of men with their phonecalls, the lawyers... come on. I can almost picture David Lynch yelling cut, forcing the crew to gather around him and explaining to them all "Look how crazy and weird I am! Isn't it great?? It's so weird and crazy!" Weird and crazy works if it's a by-product of your style. However, it's pretentious and tired when you go out of your way to do nothing but that. It's like all those half assed Pulp Fiction throw backs that came out after Pulp Fiction. It's just not cool.


Some directors take 2 and a half hours to tell a story, David Lynch takes 2 and a half hours to piece together scenes with "clues" and his trademark oddity, but there's never a story. No plot. No progression of the characters (unless you find revealed delusion a "progression"). It amazes me how anyone can call Lynch's garbage "art", but if beauty rests in the eye of the beholder, so be it. Lynch's movie and TV work in the 1980's came off as "avant garde" and "alternative", fine. 20 years later, work like "Mulholland Drive" comes off as a 2.5 hour David Lynch masturbation piece. It's embarrasing. I've finally seen the movie that takes my top spot as the worst ever. At least the people churning out "Godzilla" and "Rodan" weren't passing them off as "art".


How does David Lynch do it? Unlike the legions of thick-black-framed-glasses-wearing types and pretentious movie critics who praise his name, I just don't see how this guy keeps getting paid to make such tripe. How can Lynch sloppily cobble together leftover footage from a failed TV pilot into a nonsensical, poorly-acted mess & have critics rave about it & actually include it on Year's Best lists?

I'm baffled. If you're looking for a good film noir, rent "Bound" instead. If you're looking for a good "puzzle" movie try "Memento." But beware of this over-hyped stinker unless your idea of a fun night is throwing away 2 1/2 hours of your life & $3.50 of your hard-earned cash.


seriously, if i wanted to make a movie that makes zero sense, never will, and features lesbian scenes as its only high-point, i could have.

david lynch is the worst, as is this movie. anyone could have made a better movie in which at least some answers were given and the story wasn't so slow and long-winded. the story means nothing without something at the end besides the credits. what a waste of time. i will never get those 147 minutes of my life back and hope that others can learn from my mistake.


How much longer are we to persist with this flawed belief that once a director produces great, ground-breaking work, all future work "can't be all that bad, after all, he made such-and-such".

Mulholland Drive is a case in point, and is in fact unmitigated rubbish. The performances are excellent, particularly from Watts and Theroux, but a good film they do not necessarily make. What Lynch has clearly forgotten is that just making a film unnecessarily wierd only works when it takes the audience by surprise. When the audience is expecting the film to not make sense, then the film has to have some substance to keep the audience interested. Lynch succeeds in the first half of the film, with the murder-mystery set up with lots of twists and red herrings, and then ... plop! The story decends into a quagmire of bizarre halucinations and pointless segues. Methinks Lynch realised how muddled the film was becoming, and threw in the lesbian and mastobatory scenes to the audience awake, and to stop the male viewers from standing up and leaving.

Watching the film at the preview, I was surrounded by Lynchophiles who had no more idea of what was going on than I did, but left the theatre commenting on the "layers and layers" of Lynch's film-making. Excuse me but these people are the same nitwits who stand in art galleries staring at canvasses that have been painted white commenting on the "courage of the artist at painting such a brave work".

Films like these are made because (a) Lynch is trading on his previous work; and (b) because people convince themselves that unintelligeable film is art, and therefore, must be good. I queried a number of the Lynchophiles about what they ACTUALLY liked in the film and only response I recieved that wasn't a broad "layers" type of answer was that they liked it when the "chicks got their kit off".

Nuff said.


ok we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why!


There is an inherent problem with commenting or reviewing a film such as this. I remember feeling the same way after disliking Dogma. If you do not like a film that is odd and controversial like Mulholland Dr., you are seen as "not getting it." Of course for those who have already seen this film you know that the entire point is not getting it anyway.

I have heard from several different sources that the unique and likable aspect of this film is a dream-like quality it has. In other words, the plot isn't structured like other films. With the case of Mulholland Dr., it seems more like an unfocused collage made by a third grade boy who procrastinated until the last second to do his art project. It doesn't make sense, it isn't supposed to, but I know it was to be a TV series at first. It appears Lynch had a stack of unused film and decided to mash it in with a bunch of new stuff. You will notice that toward the end the nudity, sex and foul language increase. All things he would not have filmed for television.

For a better film not told in a traditional, linear fashion, rent The Thin Red Line from 1998. That was a great film, this is not.

Rating: 2 out of ten


I thrive on cinema....but there is a limit. A NAME isn't enough to make A MOVIE!. The beginning of the movie puts us in a mood to expect the unseen yet. But we remain hungry ( or angry..) till the end . Things are getting so confused that I admit that I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE END or was there an end to this nonesense. The opportunity to make an outstanding movie was there but the target was totally missed. Next...


Oh boy ! It was just a dream ! What a great idea ! Mr Lynch is very lucky most people try to tell classical stories. This way he can play with his little plantings and his even more little payoffs. Check out Polanski's "The lodger" for far more intelligent mix of fantasy and reality.


A colleague from work told me to watch this movie, since he considered this movie to be one of the best movies ever. So I did watch it. First I have to admit that I dislike mainstream movies and prefer to watch movies with a real meaning.

And this is the point, why I dislike this movie. It doesn't have any meaning. It's just a combination of funny, stupid, boring, entertaining, absurd and thrilling pieces.

At first I thought that this movie could be a real mystery thriller (as the German packaging read), but the movie was too mysterious for me.

David Lynch may be able to make a combination of the most different images, but the composition tastes to me as awfull as a combination of milk with beer. Both for themselves are pretty good, but together?


I had stifled high hopes for this David Lynch, whom I really like, film, but the very poor acting by everybody but Naomi Watts was the first clue that this was a wasted effort. Some Twin Peaks characters are recycled into this film, but it wasn't eerie, it wasn't interesting (except for the topless Watts scenes) and the quirks were poorly executed.

I will probably give Lynch one more chance, but the hype around this film just doesn't pan out, especially for those of us fans who saw Eraserhead when it first came out.


If you don't like bad acting, poor editing, ridiculous dialog and unbelievable characters you will hate this movie. If you like all of the above, that is to say if you are a Lynch fan, then you will love Mulholland Drive. This is quite possibly the worst film to be rated above an 7.0 on IMDB.

Outside of Naomi Watts work, you will be hard pressed to find any competent acting in Mulholland Dr. The other female lead went to the "hide your face with your hands when you don't have the chops" school of acting. Given the script they had to work with it's a wonder all of the actors weren't holding their heads in their hands.

Characters wander in and out of the film that do nothing to advance the storyline. You have a hitman, a mysterious cowboy, an adulterous wife and her cliche'd poolman lover, a mafioso type figure sitting in a darkened room who speaks through an external voice box and a host of others too numerous and tedious to mention. Suffice it to say that they manage to do little more than fill up screen time.

This isn't so bad however in that it distracts the viewer from the fact that the movie has no discernable plot. You will wait and wait for for all of the loose threads to come together and in the end you will be abysmally disappointed. The hardest thing for a writer to do is to bring everything together in a believable fashion at the end of a movie in a way that leaves everyone feeling fulfilled. The easiest thing for a writer to do is to create a lot of odd characters and put them in scenes that are not connected to the movie as a whole and then to take what few coherent threads there are and jumble them up at the end for the sake of surprise. Guess which way Lynch goes. SURPRISE!!

You know you have a bad script when you have to resort to dream sequences to make any sense out of it. After all, a dream sequence covers all sins. Dreams don't have to make sense. Anything can happen in a dream.

The editing is similarly disjointed. Let's just say good editing does not call attention to itself. Much of the way this film is edited seems to be done for the sole purpose of calling attention to the editing. "Look at me... You can see my editing... Aren't I a genius?" Uh, well... NO! This movie has all of the earmarks of the worst and most self-indulgent French films.

So why is this movie so popular? My theory is that it is just another sign of the decay of our culture. Melodies are hard to compose so let's listen to rap. Plots are hard to follow so let's dispense with them. Pictures are difficult to paint so let's pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. These are the symptoms of our times and Mulholland Drive is just another part of the affliction.


I bought the video for £13 at HMV (we pay more in Britain) as a friend had told me it was highly rated and the reviews on this site were generally impressive.

I have to say that the opening credits were a let down...the dancing/music not very powerful.

The car ride and unexpected crash just as the lady passenger was going to be harmed was a nice touch,..something unexpected...though the way she walked away from the car with hair perfectly groomed and still carrying a handbag looked corny for most Directors ..but for Lynch was something else.

Her dazed walking around after such a shock was enhanced by a regular low noise similar to fingers scraping along a blackboard; I thought another Lynch master touch perhaps portraying the demons gnawing into her shocked and traumatised self conscious. After a while this noise became somewhat annoying and on further investigation I discovered the new video cassette squeaked.

I dont know whether this squeak took away a lot of my enjoyment but this movie became a waste of time.(and money)

The two female characters had some presence and the lesbian scenes were fair enough, though predictable. There were no male characters of any merit and apart from a few vaguely good scenes (the hoover switching on )there were far too many dreadful scenes that were plain weak and ridiculous. Eg, the coffee being spat into the napkin by the menacing loon and the silly monster face at the back of the diner. Oh and what about the paint in the wifes jewels..boring and naff.

This whole film gives you the feel of the failed genius..you know when you listen to the worst Dylan track ever and think my God that was embarrassing....was that really Bob?

The whole feel is that of a failed TV movie , badly put together with a few (not many) extra bits to give it a 15 rating.

I whizzed it on during the last 30 minutes .

Do I give it another chance and watch again. If I want to be puzzled and work hard at understanding a film I will watch Frank Woods Guide to Consolidated Accounting.

Lynch did one classic ..Blue Velvet and Straight Story was nice.

This, like Wild at Heart, was a let down ; his weirdness is now predictable and stale. Anybody want to buy a 2nd hand video?

Make way for some younger original talent, David.

Four out of Ten (and no more). Sorry.


Most of the comments on this movie are positive so I thought I would try and redress the balance. I came out of this movie wondering what was going on. I now know and still consider it to be a poor movie. I intially discounted a dream sequence as that seemed too obvious. I was glad that I had a free ticket to the movie or I would have asked for my money back. Movie reviewers and critics love this movie, which only confirms to me that most of them would rather sound intelligent than review how an audience may enjoy a film. The 8+ rating this movie has is so misleading. In 20 years time this film will not compare to true greats such as The Godfather. The film does have fine performances from both the leads but that isn't enough to save the film. (nor are the lesbian scenes!)


In need of work, straight man Bud Abbott (as Jack) and comic partner Lou Costello (as Dinkel) get the latter a job babysitting self-described "problem child" David Stollery (as Donald). Young Stollery winds up reading Mr. Costello's favorite novel (see if you can guess the title), which puts Costello to sleep, dreaming he and Mr. Abbott are reliving the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" (you guessed it).

The sepia-tone switches to color for the bulk of the production. Apparently, this was an attempt at something different for the duo, a colorful children's fantasy. It fails, but this is where you get to see Abbott & Costello in color, silent film superstar William Farnum (as the King) make his last performance a bit part, boxer Max Baer's brother Buddy, and Stollery before Disney's "Spin and Marty".

** Jack and the Beanstalk (4/4/52) Jean Yarbrough ~ Lou Costello, Bud Abbott, Buddy Baer, William Farnum


I watched this last night for the first time in 40 years. It's bad. Really bad. But it has enough hilariously awful moments, that it's worth watching. First of all, was it deliberate to make the boy being babysat completely effeminate? He even says to Costello a la Mae West "you fascinate me!" as Costello does a double take. God only knows what would have have happened if the babysitter had been a hunk. THIS kid would have seduced him in a heartbeat! Then there's the principal male dancer. He is totally inept. Roar with laughter as he leaps and prances with no talent whatsoever over the giant's grave during He Never Looked Better in His Life. The two romantic leads are zeros, wastes. Abbott gets to sing one line and that was dubbed in by another singer. Geez, I guess he couldn't even carry a tune! Costello does manage to be charming in his I Fear Nothing number, and I guess very small children might like it, but there's not much to recommend it. But oh that seductive effeminate boy! THAT aspect alone blew me away! Plus the fact the family accepted anyone off the street with no references to babysit a child! Today, little femmy boy would be taken away from them!


I'm not really much of an Abbott & Costello fan (although I do enjoy "Who's On First") and, to be honest, there wasn't much in this movie that would inspire me to watch any more of their work. It wasn't really bad. It had some mildly amusing scenes, and actually a very convincing giant played by Buddy Baer, but somehow, given the fame of the duo and the esteem in which they're generally held, I have to say I was expecting more. As the story goes, the pair stumble into a babysitting job, and during the reading of Jack & The Beanstalk as a bedtime story (with the kid reading it to Costello), Costello's Jack falls asleep and dreams himself into the story. There's a "Wizard Of Oz" kind of feel to the story, in that the characters in the dream are all the equivalents of real-life acquaintances of Jack, and the movie opens in black & white and shifts to colour during the dream sequence. The fight scenes between Jack and the giant and the dance scene between Jack and Polly (Dorothy Ford) are among the amusing parts of the movie. Polly, of course, also leads to one of the questions of the movie - what happened to her? Jack and gang apparently left her behind in the giant's castle! I know - it was just a dream, so who cares. Still - I wondered. There were also a couple of cute song and dance routines. My 4 year old giggled a bit during this, so she was able to appreciate some of the humour. I found it to be an acceptable timewaster, but certainly not anything that would convince you of Abbott and Costello as comic geniuses. 4/10


Absolutely inane film starring Abbott and Costello. Even our young children would become increasingly annoyed with this complete mess of a film.

Abbott as Dinklepuss. What a look he had on his face. Sure, he had to be part of this dreadful film.

Did anyone notice that Costello's mother in the film sounded and looked like Fay Bainter? Luckily, for Ms. Bainter, that she wasn't in the film.

There is really no excitement hear for children. The jokes, if any, are quite stale. Some of the singing is nicely done but the lyrics are ridiculous.


For some reason my father-in-law gave me a copy of this tape. I think because my great uncle, Buddy Baer, was the giant in this movie and my father-in-law thought I'd like to see it. I had, years before as a child, and didn't like it then, either.

My son, then two, watched it and was hooked. Every waking moment in front of the TV, this horrid video played. I went to work with the inane songs stuck in my head. The two "leads" were worse than a junior high stage review. The dancers looked like rejects from an Ed Wood horror flick and Abbot and Costello phoned their parts in. Thankfully, I was able to distract my son long enough to lose this videotape. Frankly, I think it was the tape from "The Ring".

To correct another reviewer, Buddy Baer is the UNCLE of Jethro (Max Baer, Jr) not his father. 0 out of 10.


I'll start blasting the movie first. Remove Abbott and Costello from the cast and you've got a badly colored movie, stiff cardboard from the casting department, badly dubbed sound (especially during the singing!) and annoying dialog (ex. listen to the line "Mr. Dinklepuss" ad infinitum). Obviously some studio hack thought that they could cash in on Disney's CLASSIC presentation of "Mickey and the Beanstalk", but maybe audiences were either more gullible back then (improbable) or stuck in a double feature (more probable). Even children should feel insulted at having this movie shown to them. A total waste of celluloid. Now, about the acting of Abbott and Costello. Bud Abbott always played the straight man, and by all accounts was the nicer person off the set. On radio, his character was usually the smooth fast talker, and was especially funny when his speed caused him to flub his lines and smooth over the mistakes. In the movies, he still plays the straight man, but is more of a con artist. Not that he's bad at it, but that character has been played to perfection by Groucho Marx. The real travesty of the duo on film is Lou Costello. Again, on radio he was funny. He played a character that was a little slower than Abbott, but not too much slower! He was also glib with the lines, and got me laughing when he would ad-lib at Abbott's mistakes. On film, I don't know if it was his decision or not, but in the movies his character becomes a shoddy impersonation of Stan Laurel, which in turn was even more shoddily done by Jerry Lewis. Why the change? he was funny on radio when he was a smarta--, but here he becomes a child-like character that looks like he's mugging for the cameras in every shot. this characterization is shown in every movie they do, and only brings a stain to the reputation they had on radio. What is left to their film career is a poor (very, VERY poor) copy of Laurel and Hardy. The movies would have been much funnier if they had played their radio characters instead of retreads of stock casting.


Although I am sure the idea looked good on paper, and it appealed to me when I first heard of it, this movie often lumbers along and falls flat, and when I watch it, I just want it to end. The bookend beginning and ending of the film about Lou having to babysit a troublemaker is contrived at best, although I found the tall cop part to be humorous. However, I found little to laugh at with the bottom of the barrel script that was thrown together for these two great comedians. I thought that it was a mistake to put them in a musical, and it reeks of "Wizard of Oz" rip-off (with the songs and black and white to color format). I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone but die-hard A&C fanatics. Anyone else will be disappointed, and they have many better films.


This little cheapy is notable only because it is the worst film Abbott and Costello ever made. It is dreadful in every way: crummy music, horrid choreography (check out the awkward lead male dancer), cheesy special effects and sets, wooden actors (the leads are barely at the high school level in their profession and were unheard of later), and a script without a single laugh. Better times were ahead for the comedy duo. Abbott and Costello Meet Captain Kidd is much preferable, as is the television series, which at times was inspired. But skip this one.


"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"! If IMDb would allow one-word reviews, that's what mine would be. This film was originally intended only for kids and it would seem to be very tough going for adults or older kids to watch the film. The singing, the story, everything is dull and washed out--just like this public domain print. Like other comedy team films with roots in traditional kids stories (such as the awful SNOW WHITE AND THE THREE STOOGES and the overrated BABES IN TOYLAND), this movie has limited appeal and just doesn't age well. Now that I think about it, I seriously doubt that many kids nowadays would even find this film enjoyable! So my advice is DON'T watch this film. If you MUST watch an Abbott and Costello film, almost any other one of their films (except for A&C GO TO MARS) would be an improvement.


I´m only joking. This was potentially the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. How anybody in the 1950´s could have raised a laugh at this innane rubbish is beyond my comprehension. I jest not.


1 hour and 40 minutes of talking--boring talking, and more talking and then some. It is hard for me to grasp how an actress like Anne Parillaud, who shone superbly in Femme Fatale, would sign up for such a piece of crap! Unbelievable. If you need a nightcap, this movie might help, although I would prefer some nice classical music. unfortunately, i just found out that i have to write 10 lines for my comment to appear--that's almost as unbelievable! so, short and succinct one or two sentence commentaries expressing one's core take on a movie is not enough. geez, people. i made my point and don't to waste your time with more, unnecessary words--as this movie does. Wolfgang


I don't recommend watching this movie. It's a movie in which a movie is being filmed, with no attraction between actress and actor being played. The sex scene at the end of the movie which is to explain the reluctance of the actress (being played in the movie) to cooperate with the actor (being played in the movie)in it is a blunt repetition of the same scene in the Breillat movie Fat Girl. Everything there was played with more delicacy, if you can attach delicacy to a sex act like that. A typical French expression for the the thing happening in Sex is comedy is Oh la la! In Breillat's film Brief Crossing there also is sensitivity. In Sex is comedy I don't see real sensitivity and also a clear plot for the movie is not being developed so that there is a rather loose story with the disillusion of the end.


As one who loves films that appeal to intellectual sorties as well as those that simply tell stories, this film should have been appealing. But as written and directed by Catherine Breillat who seems to be playing out her own conundrums in film-making experiences, this tedious and talky film fails to arouse interest.

The main character Jeanne (Anne Parillaud) is the screen form of Breillat, a director frustrated in her attempts to film a convincing sex scene with two difficult actors (Grégoire Colin is The Actor and Roxane Mesquida is The Actress). The one 'comic' bit is Jeanne's imposing the use of a dildo strapped onto the Actor in order for her to drive the sex scene to fruition, but even this sight gag wears thin quickly and we are left with a film within a film that feels more like a 'Deleted Scenes' featurette on a DVD than a solid French comedy with class. Grady Harp, August 05


The first users comments are very detailed for a very vague movie. Not saying that I disagree, but this summary can be written in a few sentences. To get straight to the point, this is pretty much like watching the making of a really bad amateur porno flick. There are a few funny points in the movie, but with the kind of things that happen in todays youth everyday its actually kind of lame. The main actor in the movie is a pompous jackass and both guy and girl in the film are way too modest to be in a film like this. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE. The only reason why I gave it a 4 and not a 1 is that they used at least a somewhat attractive girl in the movie and towards the end you got to see almost full frontal nudity from the girl, thats it, thats the only thing thats worth watching it for. the end


I'd really have to rate "Sex is Comedy" as one of the worst pieces of dreck I have ever seen. The film inadvertedly showcases those which are the worst aspects of the French, or at least how they are stereotyped, narcissism, snobbery, and pseudo-intellectualism. I myself am French-Canadian and feel slightly ashamed that the creators of this film are from the same culture as me, that should give you an idea as to how bad this movie really was! One doesn't so much watch this film as undergo torture to it, there was a total lack of humour, and it seemed to me as if the entire film was a documentary interviewing people who were neither famous, nor talented, as if to celebrate something that has never happened to begin with. Instead, why not watch Auberge Espagnole, Happenstance, or Je t'aime... a la folie, three fantastic modern French films.


To preface my remarks on the film, I know the topic is horrendous and words can't adequately express the compassion any decent person would have for people dealing with the post-horrors of an atomic bomb dropped near them.

However, this film doesn't really deal with in a horrific way except for the first 10 minutes. Some of the images there are horrifying, and should be as a reminder what devastation nuclear weapons can produce. Seeing burned people walking around aimlessly or man combing his hair and clumps of hair coming out, etc., is not a pretty sight.

But after the first dozen minutes, this Japanese film concerns people dealing with the aftermath of Hiroshima in the mid-to-late '40s. I actually found the story developing quickly into a boring soap opera.

Almost all the story occurs five years after the bomb and deals mainly with one family's problems at that point. This is why it became more of a melodrama than some shocking story of nuclear disaster. It's simply a story about how these people got on with their lives from about 1950 on, whether one of the women was permanently damaged and if so, should she marry?

This could have been a real impact film but it didn't go in that direction


I remember when "The Love Machine" was first released to theaters. I was a mere 13 years old, too young to see the much-ballyhooed motion picture release, but not too old to take my Mom's paperback copy of the Jacqueline Susann novel to school and pore over the 'naughty bits' with my schoolmates.

Though I'm not sure what my problem was at such an early age, but I was very much into the book. I bought and wore an "ankh" ring just like on the paperback cover, and I remember the ads for the perfume, "Xanadu" that was cross-promoted and featured clumsily in the film. Despite such an interest I didn't actually see the film until several years later. I should have left things as they were.

"The Love Machine" is hands down the worst of the many bad films adapted from Susann's novels...which of course makes it the most fun to watch. Its faults are many: from its hopscotching script that jumps choppily from one incident to another with nary a connecting thread; its dated, horny (brass instruments, I mean) music score of ersatz Bacharach; the flat, first-take performances; the boring sexuality -I've never seen bathrobes featured so prominently in a movie before. It's like a fetish! Whenever sex, nudity or something sleazy is called for, out pops somebody in a blue robe! Very odd, that; and most certainly, the circus train of awful 70's fashions that are on endless display. Poor Dyan Cannon's performance (which is no great shakes anyway, but heads over the rest of the cast) is consistently undermined by the jaw-dropping get ups she's called upon to wear. However, the film's chief liability is the stoic, stone-like John Philip Law as (appropriately enough) Robin Stone, the object of every girl's (and one overthe-top flaming male photographer's) affection.

Law is just awful and performs as if he were pulled off the street, handed the pages of the script in hurry and told to give a cold reading on the spot. Just lifeless! Not only that, but he appears in desperate need of a blood transfusion or something. He looks wan and sickly throughout and is several pounds smaller than most of his female costars. Robin Stone should be a hunk, not a hankie.

For anyone finding the film hard going (it's rather slow by today's standards) I beg you to stick around for the climactic "fight scene." Here Ms. Cannon (balancing 23 pounds of teased hair) finally abandons her heretofore starchy acting style and lets loose with that infectiously raucous laugh of hers, setting in motion a truly memorable free for all that should have become a cinema clip highlight by now. Trying to rival "Valley of the Dolls"'s infamous wig-down-the-toilet scene, "The Love Machine" finally does something right.

Jacqueline Susann's unique brand of trash is sorely missed. Perhaps someone out there owns the rights to Rona Barrett's "The Lovomaniacs" and will revive the genre.


Movie based on Jacqueline Susann's best-selling novel. It's about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) a ruthless TV anchorman who claws his way to the top. It details his love life concentrating on Amanda (Jodi Wexler) and Judith (Dyan Cannon). It also shows his total inability to commit to anyone and instead sleeps with any woman he can get.

The novel is no work of art (it's not even good literature) but it's a quick, silly, trashy read. But this movie makes it seem like "Gone With the Wind"! This is a textbook example of how NOT to do a movie adaptation. First they condense the novel terribly. In the book Stone's inability to commit is dealt with and it's revealed why. Here it's brought up...and ignored. Also there's a truly revolting scene in which a woman is brutally beaten. It's in the book--but there IS a reason totally left out of the movie. And the book dealt with three women--not two. Don't even get me started on the homophobia.

Adaptation aside the acting is pretty terrible. Law is just horrendous as Stone--VERY wooden and boring--you seriously wonder why all these women are after him. To be fair to Law--another actor was cast but had a very bad accident before shooting began and Law stepped in at the last minute. Wexler is terrible as Amanda; Maureen Arthur is truly astoundingly bad as Ethel Evans; Shecky Greene is unbearable as Christie Lane. Only three performances stand out: David Hemmings (having a GREAT time) camps it up as a gay photographer; Cannon is actually very good and Robert Ryan is just great. Also Dionne Warwick sings the catchy opening song ("He's Moving On").

It IS bad but I watched the whole thing and it is (in a silly sort of way) a lot of fun. I'm giving it a 3.

Also Jacqueline Susann has a cameo as a newscaster.


Even though this film was nothing special as such, I am drawn to comment on at least one factor that ruled in its favour - that of the lead female performer in the film, Dyan Cannon. In spite of the film's ridiculous storyline and what she goes through here, hers was the best acting job in the film, making the unbelievable seem more plausible. Her raucous scene with the gay photographer David Hemmings has to be seen to be believed. Good work, Dyan.


Jacqueline Susann wrote several novels all involving sex and melodrama and a few of them actually were made into films including this effort and they all have the distinction of being some of the worst films ever made. Story here is about Robin Stone (John Phillip Law) and his rise to the top of television by being ruthless and calculating to everyone around him. He's a playboy of the worst sort using and then throwing away every woman he beds including the wife of the IBC network president.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Greg Austin (Robert Ryan) is in charge of the television network IBC and when his younger wife Judith takes one look at Robin she wastes no time getting into bed with him. Greg falls ill and has to take some time off and this is where Robin steps in and starts trying to run the network but during all this a model named Amanda (Jodi Wexler) who is in love with him kills herself. When Greg returns to his job he tries to get rid of Robin by using the morals clause in his contract when rumors start flying about his relationship with Jerry Nelson (David Hemmings) who's a gay fashion photographer.

This was directed by Jack Haley Jr. who went on to be a very successful producer in both television and movies but this was only his second film as a director and the material he was forced to deal with seems way over his head! The script comes from Susann's novel and that would probably be why this resembles a cross between "Alfie" and "The Valley of the Dolls" and I think the reason why her books never could translate well onto film is because the filmmakers made the terrible mistake of taking her stories seriously instead of tongue in cheek. With that, the laughs that come from this are unintentional especially during that totally ridiculous fight towards the end of the film which starts when Cannon refuses to give back the slave bracelet to the gay characters! Hemmings was a very good actor but his role here is completely over the top and it has him wearing one of the worst beards in history and using the term "chic" in every other sentence. Law was not the original choice for the lead but another actor that was cast had a serious accident and Law stepped in and delivers one of the more wooden performances this side of Miles O'Keeffe. The film's script suffers in two different areas in that it's both completely silly and horribly dull and it will test a viewers patience if they choose to watch this. One has to wonder what would be the outcome if a director decided to film one of Susann's novels and not take it seriously because the attempt here is ponderous and ridiculous.


Cute idea to have Dionne Warwick do the song vocals for this movie-adaptation of Jacqueline Susann's bestselling book (a la "Valley Of The Dolls")...although it's really too bad this sudser doesn't have Patty Duke's Neely O'Hara to spike the story. "The Love Machine" is unrelievedly dull. Even the final brawl (with an Academy Award as a fight prop!) can't save it. Dyan Cannon seems embalmed in her heavy pancake make-up and cumbersome fall (although her tiny, suntanned figure is a beauty to behold), John Phillip Law is a block of wood in the lead, David Hemmings embarrassing in gay-mode as a flamboyant photographer. And where is Robin Stone walking to at the end? Is he trekking out to the waterfront to pick up some sailors? After Cannon has deflated his masculinity, it would be a safe bet. In that case, "Love Machine--The Final Episode" might've been a more interesting flick. Certainly better than this yawn-inducing snooze-opera. *1/2 from ****


Contains spoilers.

The British director J. Lee Thompson made some excellent films, notably 'Ice Cold in Alex' and 'Cape Fear', but 'Country Dance' is one of his more curious offerings. The story is set among the upper classes of rural Scotland, and details the strange triangular relationship between Sir Charles Ferguson, an eccentric aristocratic landowner, his sister Hilary, and Hilary's estranged husband Douglas, who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. We learn that during his career as an Army officer, Charles was regarded as having 'low moral fibre'. This appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition; throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world, and his main sources of emotional support seem to be Hilary and his whisky bottle. The film ends with his committal to an upper-class lunatic asylum.

Peter O'Toole was, when he was at his best as in 'Lawrence of Arabia', one of Britain's leading actors, but the quality of his work was very uneven, and 'Country Dance' is not one of his better films. He overacts frantically, making Charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat, as though he were auditioning for a part in the Monty Python 'Upper-Class Twit of the Year' sketch. Susannah York as Hilary and Michael Craig as Douglas are rather better, but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. There is also little in the way of coherent plot, beyond the tale of Charles's inexorable downward slide.

The main problem with the film, however, is neither the acting nor the plot, but rather that of the Theme That Dare Not Speak Its Name. There are half-hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between Charles and Hilary, or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part, and that his dislike of Douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. Unfortunately, even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors was willing to allow, and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off-limits. (The American title for the film was 'Brotherly Love', but this was not used in Britain; was it too suggestive for the liking of the BBFC?) These hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates Charles or what has caused his moral collapse, resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. 4/10


This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.

It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.

The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.

The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.

The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences.

More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.

Really not worth your time.

4/10


I thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including Peter O'Toole, Susannah York, Michael Craig & Harry Andrews might be worth watching. Alas, I was wrong. Utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both O'Toole and York overacting wildly. I watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. I've a feeling O'Toole plays the Laird of a Scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (York). He is also barking mad. But apart from that, your guess is as good as mine.

The film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. I can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary, unimaginative, stagy piffle. Clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. Risible.


Like the previous commentator on this film, I too found myself in tears at times during this movie. Sometimes one wonders how a film of such awe-inspiring awfulness comes into existence. From the first moment when our protagonist wakes up in his New York apartment from a dream of subway trains intercut with galloping horses (what Irish emigrant hasn't had that one), its clear we are in trouble. And it doesn't get much better.

Whisked back to 1950s Ireland, we enter a world where everybody speaks without intonation, and exclusively on the topic of the Irish Civil War. Schoolchildren go to school to learn about the Civil War. The drinkers in the pub divide themselves according to their Civil War allegiances. Remembrances are carried out for those who died in the Civil War. The town is divided between those who believe we should remember and those who want to forget...the Civil War. Every glance and conversation is dripping with meaning that traces back to the Civil War.

The blurb on the videocover of Broken Harvest suggests that the film is a parable of the troubles in modern Ireland. The only parallel which strikes me is that in present day Dublin conversation is indeed dominated by one topic: house prices. If its intention is to offer some sort of insight into Ireland's obsession with its past, it fails miserably. It is striking how few Irish films have dealt with the Irish civil war and its legacies. However it will take a film of a great deal more subtlety and intelligence than this one to tell us anything about the lasting effects of such a traumatic event on the nation's psyche.

For those American viewers who have suggested the film evokes the atmosphere of 1950s Ireland: it doesn't. 1950s Ireland was a horrible, poverty stricken pit of sexual repression and misery from which young people fled in their droves. However there was more than one topic of conversation.


I could not stand the woman who played the mother. I wanted her to shut up. She had a bizarre manner of speaking and the lines she was given to read didn't make it any better. I had no idea why the men of the town were so taken with her to cause all these problems except that in a town populated by men she seemed to be the only woman over ten and under sixty. Even after a terrible tragedy her voice was devoid of human emotion, she seemed to have no ability to grasp the events of her life. She delivered her lines with the same emotion whether she was saying "i love you", "i hate you", "the bank is foreclosing", "my dress is on fire". Was this actually filmed in Ireland? The sun blazed throughout the movie and the characters seemed surprised by a rain shower during the harvest. I lived in Ireland during the summer of 2002, the wettest summer in a century. Most everything was still harvested. If the farmers in Ireland could only harvest during long dry stretches then the country would have starved hundreds of years ago. It seems as if there wasn't a lot of money to make the movie. The black and white flashbacks looked as if they were filmed with the security cameras one can get at Sam's Club.


If it had not been for Christopher Guest's hilarious role, I would have stopped watching this movie after 20 minutes. The jokes were flat, the movie choppy and slow paced, certain characters were obnoxious and painful to watch, but Guest's character kept me laughing so I stuck with it.

I do feel there are much better choices out there!


I must say I was disappointed with this film. Although it is well acted and directed, the underlying story simply plods along too slowly.

Granted, in another mood I would have liked it better. I did chuckle a lot, but rarely laughed out loud; and there was actually a sense of suspense to discover who won. But in contrast to another movie that my wife picked up the same day (one neither of us had heard of before) this one paled in comparison.

If you see lots of movies, then by all means see this -- it's distinctly better than your average fare. But if you (like me) have limited time and want to watch only the best and most entertaining, save this for later.

[Rate: 7/10]


First of all "Mexican werewolf in Texas" is not a werewolf movie. This title is bullcrap. The story is actually about a Chupacabra that kills all the local villagers in the little town of Furlough in Texas. I suppose the distributors renamed the original title so that it would make some extra bucks or something. And I guess it actually works because that's the reason why I bought this piece of crap, it sounded so stupid. Anyway the movie isn't any good. Actually it's bloody awful. But I didn't expect anything else when I bought it. It's a low budget horror movie with a Chupacabra monster. If you enjoy low budget horror with bad dialog, actors and some gore then you should check into this movie. But I must warn you, this movie is really baaaaaaad.

This movie has some of the worst acting I have ever seen. The actors try to hard and t it gets completely ridiculous. They almost never say a line in a normal way. They always have this completely wrong tone about just everything they say. It's so stupid it almost looks like a freakin parody. It's like they shot each scene only one single time and were happy about it. The worst of them all is the blond girl which is supposed to play a bimbo. She's the worst of them all. I have never seen an actor as bad as her (And I've seen Pteradactyl). Even when her boyfriend dies she can't stop being a bimbo about it. I hate her.

Some of the shots in this movie were actually quite good. The ones that where shot in the daytime are all pretty decent for a low budget project. But most of the movie is shot in the night when the Chupacabra strikes and the lighting is way too dark. The gore scenes are few and short, but really grizzly and violent. The effects are pretty hilarious really, but that's the way I like it. The Chupacabra looks pretty messed up, and it's easy to see that it's a guy in suit.

Overall this movie should only be watched by extreme fans of low budget flicks and it's very important to not watch this alone because you will probably be bored to death. I recommend watching this flick with your friends and some beer.


In the dusty little town of Furlough in Texas, an animal is slaughtering the cattle and the locals. When the teenager Tommy (Michael Carreo) is killed, their friends Anna Furlough (Erika Fay), her Mexican-American boyfriend Miguel Gonzalez (Gabriel Gutierrez), Jill Gillespie (Sara Erikson) and Rosie (Martine Hughes) finds that a Mexican werewolf Chupacabra is the killer and they plot a plan to kill the beast.

"Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is an amateurish crap and among the worse movies I have ever seen, if not the worst. Nothing works in this movie: the screenplay is laughable, with some of the most terrible lines I have ever heard. The direction does not exist and the camera follows the "style" of "The Blair Witch Project". The amateurish acting seems to be a prank of high-school students or a high school play. The "special effects" are gruesome and extremely poor and the "werewolf" is the cheapest I have ever seen. Ed Wood movies are cult, but this "Mexican Werewolf in Texas" is pure garbage. In the end, Jill says that no man can resist her teats (actually the most beautiful thing in this flick). But I believe the correct quote should be "no man (or woman) can resist to watch this movie to the end". I was driven by my curiosity to see how bad a movie can be and I lost 88 minutes of my life, but I believe most of the viewers will stop seeing with less than 20 minutes running time. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Um Lobisomen Mexicano no Texas" ("A Mexican Werewolf in Texas")


First off, Mexican Werewolf in Texas' title is misleading as many others have pointed out. It is actually about El Chupacabra, which is a similar creature to a werewolf, but by no means the same.

The production and editing just plain suck. When it was over, I probably wouldn't be able to give a very accurate description of what exactly the Chupacabra looked like, for whenever it was in a scene(despite one or two exceptions) the camera turned all shaky and you could only see the monster's face clearly. The special effects were laughably bad, but that has to be expected from a low budget horror movie.

Along with the terrible production comes the bad actors. Now a couple give fairly plausible performances(Erika Fay and Martine Hughes), but then there were the bad actors(everybody else), who seemed to have no emotions whatsoever when people died. Then there's the absolutely terrible actor(Sara Erikson), who gives one of the 2 worst performances I've ever seen in a movie. I mean my god, she was indescribably bad.

The plot was very simple. Basically, a Chupacabra is in a small Texan town killing off local residents and a group of teens look to stop it. However, even with the plot being this simple, a few plot holes managed to leak through.

Anyways, horrible movie. However, if you are looking for a movie to make fun of and laugh at with your friends one night, this would be a pretty good one. My friends and I had a good time watching this. Probably the 2nd worst movie I've ever seen, 1/10. Awful.