This episode had potential. The basic premise of a woman living next door to an empty apartment (but a phone that constantly rings) is somewhat interesting. And when she explores the noise, there is genuine tension and fear. But stupid script writing ruins any promise the episode had.

First of all, the woman readily admits to seeing things that would send most of us running in the other direction (e.g. "It's funny that the door slammed shut even though there is no wind;" "This door has serious damage to it that wasn't here a minute ago;" "The door opened by itself, without me touching it;" etc.). Given these supernatural phenomena, plus the fact that a woman committed suicide in the room, wouldn't she take some precaution before entering it? Maybe she could investigate in the day time. Or maybe she could investigate the apartment with somebody else. Or maybe she could TURN ON THE LIGHTS!!! Also, while in the haunted apartment, she decides to make numerous phone calls to the operator and gets into an argument over who has the power to disconnect the phone, and then they begin discussing the details of the suicide. JUST UNPLUG THE PHONE! The phone company doesn't need to be involved. Walk up to the phone and unplug it. Case closed.

Finally, showing the phone scamper across the floor like it's alive was just comical. If the director wanted the woman to get strangled by the phone card, he could've done it in a way that didn't look cartoony. Brave Little Toaster anyone?


The poet Carne disappears (didn´t he disappeared with Prévert?) and is followed by the judge Carne. The director wants to give his own vision of a youth that he doesn´t understand and he doesn´t want to. It´s a long way from the wonderful "Les enfants du paradis"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Having already seen the original "Jack Frost", I never thought that "Jack Frost 2" would be as absurd as it is. Boy was I wrong! Then again, A-PIX movies have a way of showing unbelievably bad material, even worse than you might expect. I believe this is the first A-PIX sequel, and it may be an indication of what to expect in the future: more A-PIX sequels.

It's hard to watch this without laughing, especially during the later parts of the movie in which Jack Frost's offspring (which are essentially snowballs with eyes, arms, a mouth and sharp teeth) start killing people with the typical comedic dialogue and silly voices to go with it. They are shown both as puppets (with a stick underneath to move them) and as computer animation, which I have to say looks very cheesy. The computer animation surprised me, as the first "Jack Frost" had no such effects.

I'd strongly recommend that you see the original "Jack Frost" before seeing this one (both of which it would be preferable to watch with a group of friends) to get the full amusement out of it, and because it would make more sense ("sense" being a relative term).

Now only if there was "Uncle Sam 2"...


Ill-conceived sequel(..the absurd idea of having the killer snowman on the rampage at an island resort where there is no snow or cold weather)brings back the spirit of the psychopath, returning thanks to a scientific experiment providing foreign elements which reintroduce life to his molecules(..it's the best I could do to explain this preposterous concept).

I could go into depth about how he winds up at the island in order to slay numerous tourists, but I simply find no reason to bother because it'd all be so exhausting. Anyway, the filmmakers think it wise to kill off the pretty girls not ten minutes after their arrival(..I mean seriously, why worry with even introducing them to us if we can't enjoy our eye candy no longer that this?!).

The "snow anvil" murder scene takes the cake. Ice icicles protrude from the beach's sand so that a victim can fall on them. Oh, and another girl is stabbed with a pair of weenie tongs.

Look I get what's coming to me when I sit down to watch a killer snowman movie..such a ridiculous supernatural slasher will either tickle your funnybone("Oh, it's such a wonderfully cheesy horror movie!")or have you pondering why the hell you're wasting time with such nonsense. Jack Frost has the power to freeze water(..then how were they able to melt him in the first film?)and causes the island resort to snow. One sequence has Jack freezing pool water, encasing a swimming model under the sheet, result being her drowning with nowhere to escape.Oh, there's also a recreation of the "tongue stuck to the icy pole" bit from The Christmas Story("Cowatonga dude!").

I gotta hand it to the cast, though..they're real troopers for trying to make this wretched material entertaining. Christopher Allport(..perhaps unwisely)returns as Sam, to face his old nemesis, as does Eileen Seeley, as his wife. The attempts at tongue-in-cheek humor(..for me, at least) fell flat, but the cast soldiers onward trying to make the most of a very difficult situation, with spirited performances they do their best to rise above the pitiful premise and woeful dialogue.

A development occurs which increases the danger towards those still around to face off with Jack, his genetically altered water molecules, thanks to the introduced foreign elements, allow him to withstand coolant/anti-freeze, and, even worse, he now can reproduce..through indigestion, Jack hacks up what appear to be snowballs which hatch to reveal little snowballs with black eyes, mouth and sharp teeth! The killer snowman costume and little snowball puppets introduced later in the film might produce belly-laughs if you are in the mood for such shenanigans, but I personally found this junk rather hokey(..that's the purpose behind it, I suppose, cheap guffaws from those willing to embrace this)and unbearable.The snowball offspring is an obvious homage to Gremlins where we get a bar scene where the little bastards are celebrating in number over terrorizing victims at the resort. The weapon against them..bananas! It's explained that when Jack went to kill Sam in the first film, both fell in a truck bed full of anti-freeze(..an icicle emerging from Jack's belly was penetrating Sam's chest when he pushed them out a window into the truck bed, and I guess in their being "being linked" by the icicle, Jack inherited Sam's banana allergy, or so this is what we are led to believe!)and in doing so both "merged" in a sense.

Phew, such a film as this defies simple explanation. It's a film with effects and plot so terrible, one might find the presentation enjoyable because of it's many failings.


Yes, in this movie you are treated to multiple little snowmen on the attack in apparently a very warm climate so yes this movie is definitely not to be taken seriously. It is in fact a much worse movie than the original as at least with that one the whole production looked like it cost more than a couple of bucks and a video camera to make. It has its funny moments, but really playing off the cheapness of your movie and making that be your intended laughs is kind of weak film making if you ask me. You can not come up with a good story, your effects are going to really be bad, hey let us just make the movie look as bad as possible with horrible one liners and we have our movie. The first one at least had a somewhat credible story as the snowman in that one attacked during the winter and not what amounts to a resort. It also had better effects too, this one is just a step or two ahead of "Hobgoblins" as far as the monsters are concerned and you really want to be more than a step a two above a bunch of hand puppets. Still, it makes up for all of this with a super ending that depicts a great sea vessel being taken out by the mighty frost. Actually, I am just kidding, but really it was the funniest part of the movie.


this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.


-may contain spoilers-

Clearly, who ever made this film must have had a lot of connections. I just can't see it any other way. What really surprises me is no one used the name Allen Smithee, and more surprising, everyone involved didn't use this name.

Anyhow, where to begin. The bad dialogue, the crummy costumes, the sorry looking film stock, the unintentional comedy, the over-the-top characters, and more inconsistencies than George W. Bush's college career. I don't know what was funnier, the guy losing his arm because of a snowball, or the slow motion scene where all the baby Jack Frosts' were getting killed. Also, one of the great lines of all time was uttered in this film. "How do we know it's him?" Like there's another mutant snowman who can talk and kill people with snowballs! A great camp film, but a very bad film overall.


Jack Frost 2 was a horrible, terrible, sadly pathetic excuse for a sequal to a great movie. The original, was a low budget comedy horror film about a murdered who was turned into a snowman after an accident with some toxic waste. And the snowman went around murdering people, and avoiding blow dryers like the plague. This, however, was a far cry from the quality of the original. It seems like this even had a lower-budget because for some reason, after an hour into this film, I still hadn't seen the snowman. Some revenge he's getting if he's always in the form of Ice cubes with a cheesy voice-over and a little shake of the cooler he rests in to give animation to the character. Disappointing to no belief, even for a fan of bad cinema.


Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.

The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.

Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..


In all, it took me three attempts to get through this movie. Although not total trash, I've found a number of things to be more useful to dedicate my time to, such as taking off my fingernails with sandpaper.

The actors involved have to feel about the same as people who star in herpes medication commercials do; people won't really pay to see either, the notoriety you earn won't be the best for you personally, but at least the commercials get air time.

The first one was bad, but this gave the word bad a whole new definition, but it does have one good feature: if your kids bug you about letting them watch R-rated movies before you want them to, tie them down and pop this little gem in. Watch the whining stop and the tears begin. ;)


If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing.


Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.

The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.

The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like "Evil Dead 2"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.

I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...


Horrible movie. This movie beat out revenge of the living zombies for the WORST movie I have ever suffered through. What the !@$% were the morons who made this film thinking. Was it supposed to be scary. Because man let me tall you it wasn't. It was so dumb it wasn't funny. We all know that tropical islands are the natural hunting grounds for killer snowmen. And those stupid baby snowballs. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. Fake snow and lousy actors. OH and frost looks nothing like he does on the box. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. REnt it and destroy it.


Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong!

Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying "man" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.

The best joke was were one guy asks "Why are you talking to your watch?". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).

It's funny, but writer/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.

Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney!


This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.


Jack Frost 2 is out of the question, I'm actually surprised people are allowed to make these sort of movies.

As Sam and his wife take to the Tropicana for a relaxing Christmas, Jack returns to kill off the fun and take on a revenge with inbreeding...

Don't take a swip at this film at all, most people say its a laugh with your mates, but frankily its a waste of time. If the people who made this film can get a job by doing what they do, they can at least take the time and effort to write up a better story, especially the cheesy character names.


Jack Frost 2. THE worst "horror film" I have ever seen. Why? 1)The premise is WELL beyond ridiculous 2) The damn thing doesn't even have legs to move on! 3) It escapes AFTER being completely submerged in Anti-Freeze (first film) 4) Get this...It travels all the way across an ocean of SALT WATER to a TROPICAL island to get revenge on the sheriff that did him in the first film. 5) "Killer Snowballs". I have yet to be drunk enough to see "Ginger Dead Man" so as of the writing of this, Jack Frost 2 hold the distinction of being THE stupidest "horror" film ever. Even Surpassing the inaneness of it's predecessor (if you can believe that!).


I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary but not intentionally.

Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.

Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as "There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing" and "I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else avoid like arsenic.


Hello it is I Derrick Cannon and I welcome you to the first ever Cannonite review show. My movie for this week was debatable, what route what movie, what excellent four star epic would I choose, guess what I decided to pull a one eighty and go the other route, I've decided to review a movie so atrocious that it totally killed what could have been a very unique concept. The movie I will review today is Jack Frost Two revenge of the mutant killer snowman. The Stars in this movie include Christopher Allport as Sam Tiller, Eileen Seeley as Anne Tiller, Marsha Clark as Marla David Allen Brooks as Agent Manners, Sean Patrick Murphy as Captain Fun, Ray Cooney as the Colonel and Scott MacDonald as the killer snowman himself Jack Frost.

It's hard to believe that this movie was in the same series that gave us the incredibly funny Jack Frost(loved the carrot scene),but it's even harder to believe that this is the exact same cast. The movie was ruined for me as soon as they arrived on the island and Captain Fun was introduced. What was the point of his character and how did he fit into a horror movie?The only possible reason I could see was that they wanted to give us a character that was total killer snowman fodder. Sam Tiler seemed more paranoid then he did in the original, his babbling about anti freeze was one of the most pathetic display I had seen in a movie. His wife however was one of the few bright spots. She played her role as the main woman to a hilt. She was a voice of reason in film of pure idiocy. The scene where she figures out how to kill the snowmen was one of the most anticipated parts of the movie. Ray MacDonald once again did a great job as Jack Frost despite what he was given. If it wasn't for such weak characters he could have been immortalized like Chucky,Freddy and Jason. Laugh if you must but when it comes down to it Jack Frost had spunk, he had humor, and most importantly he had an undoubtable vicious streak.

This movie could have been so much more, it could have been a continuation of a great franchise, instead any plans to make a Jack Frost three have been canceled.

This movie gets a two out of ten for me, and it's lucky that it even gets a one.


Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).

Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.

Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.

For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.


Talk about rubbish! I can't think of one good thing in this movie. The screenplay was poor, the acting was terrible and the effects, well there were no effects. I can't believe the writer of this movie did Identity, everything in this movie made me sick to start to finish.

The front cover of the video box shows a showman with shark like teeth and scary eyes. I looks like a scary villain, but like the old saying "never judge a book by it's cover", the whole villain looked like a cardboard cut out. One part in the film a girl gets killed by a salad tongs, terrible. The setting was bad enough, like they could of set the whole thing in Lapland but no, a tropical island instead.

I took this movie as a spoof, which I think they wanted it to be but the only thing that made me laugh in a bad way was the tacky effects. You can argue that I haven't watched the first one, but seeing this I would be safe if I wouldn't attempted it.

The biggest joke in this movie is the effects, the snowballs looked like they were home made, and that carrot was a complete embarrassment. If I would of guess the budget of this movie would of probably be between 8 to 9 pounds fifty. The producer in a last minute panic must of grabbed the actors for the street gave them the script told them they have 6 minutes to practise these lines and shoot on a island.

Lastly the acting in the film was painful, it was like the actors forgot their ordinary lines and made them up the way through.

In conclusion I give this film: 0 stars out of 5


Below average blaxpoitation action / melodrama in which the lovely Ms. Grier plays a private eye who comes to the aid of her father (Rudy Challenger) and his partner (Austin Stoker of the original "Assault on Precinct 13") whose loan business is being threatened.

I'll be frank - I agree with the few other user comments for this movie. "Sheba, Baby" has a less than satisfying script, direction that isn't particularly distinguished, action scenes that are moderately entertaining at best, and one of Ms. Grier's more nondescript supporting casts (although there's an important supporting role for D'Urville Martin, also a familiar name in blaxpoitation). I get the feeling that this routine movie may have been put together quickly merely to cash in on her then enormous popularity.

It sure was cool seeing Stoker again, although Ms. Grier doesn't have as good a role - or dialog - as she has had in other films, although she is doing what she does best, and that's playing a sassy, sexy sister on a mission of vengeance.

Non-stop soul / funk soundtrack is enjoyable, at the very least.

Mostly recommended to those who wish to see everything in the Pam Grier film repertoire.

4/10


Sheba Shayne (Pam Grier) receives a telegram informing her that her father may be in trouble. Sheba, a private investigator and former cop, goes to her father's aid. But someone will stop at nothing to run her father out of business. An attempt to show their muscle goes awry and Sheba's father is gunned down in cold blood. These guys have messed with the wrong woman.

If I had to describe Sheba Baby, the best I can come up with is Pam Grier Lite with some really bad acting. For a Pam Grier film, Sheba Baby is incredibly tame. It's nowhere near as violent as some of her earlier films. Gone are the over-the-top images of Pam placing a small revolver or razor blades in her afro. Pilot (D'Urville Martin) and his crew can't hold a candle to some of the real villains Pam faced in her previous movies. It's strictly by-the-numbers and almost has a made-for-TV feel. As for the bad acting, the baddies that Pam faces off with are as unnatural sounding in their delivery as I've seen. As a result, characters like Pilot don't come across as threatening as they should or need to for the movie to work.

That's not to say there aren't moments or elements in Sheba Baby that I didn't enjoy (Pam in a wetsuit and Pam brandishing a spear gun), it's just that when compared with Pam's other films like Coffy, Foxy Brown, and even Friday Foster that the movie fails.

One final observation - maybe I'm just more sensitive to these things post-9/11, but I don't remember a time, even in the security lax 70s, when you could take a suitcase full of guns on an airplane. When Sheba flies to her father's aid, she's got an arsenal packed in her luggage!


When Pam Grier made COFFY in 1973, it was an exciting though flawed film. The plot was gritty and satisfying--even if the acting was often amateurish. It was so successful that American International Pictures decided to rehash the formula the following year with FOXY BROWN--not a bad film but certainly almost like "COFFY II". Now, only a year later, the studio had apparently given up on creating anything new for Ms. Grier, as SHEBA, BABY was essentially the same plot from COFFY and FOXY BROWN yet again. Because the idea was so recycled and because the acting and acting are so tired and low-energy, it's really scraping the bottom of the Blaxploitation barrel.

Exactly like these other films, SHEBA, BABY begins with some local Black mobsters pressuring and eventually killing someone Pam Grier loves. In the past, it had been drug dealers and pimps, now it was mobsters trying to run all the loan companies and pawn shops out of town so they can corner the market. And, like the other films, Pam is a one-woman hit squad--dispensing justice and a good butt whoopin'. And, like the other films, there is a "cat fight" between Pam and a White lady right in front of "Mr. Big". And, like the other films, Mr. Big is a White guy pulling all the strings. And, like the other films, she is captured by Mr. Big. And, like the other films, he DOESN'T immediately kill her but gives her ample opportunity to escape (here, leaving a knife conveniently lying around). And, like the other films, she eventually gets free and kills his jive-@$$.

While this formula did seem interesting in 1973, by this film it was frankly a predictable bore. Even if you hadn't seen the other films, it still was bad because the action was so slow--the punching and kicking seemed so slow and staged. The same could be said for the gun play. In one scene, four guys with machine guns, an AR-15 and shotguns attack. Pam responds by opening fire with a .357 revolver and killing 3 of the 4 and getting the other to surrender!!! Even if she's a good shot, she was rather slow and the guys just seemed to wait until she killed them!!! Plus, even a world champion shooter or Rambo couldn't have succeeded with such one-sided odds--after all, these guys had very impressive weapons and they were already pointed at her when she "cleverly" whipped out her pistol and easily dispatched these professional hit men!!

In addition to slow and lame action scenes compared to any other Blaxpoitation film, the movie has many logical gaps that show the writing was terrible but the studio just didn't care. In one case, her boyfriend, "Williams", knew about the yacht and Nu-tronic at the end of the film but Pam never told him--how did he know about this? In another, the cops approach a boat filled with hoods and the hood immediately open fire. However, the cops had no evidence anything was happening and the crooks began firing with little provocation. And, the crooks had .30 caliber machine guns and other amazingly powerful weapons but in many cases were killed by cops wielding snub-nosed .38s!

The bottom line is that this is a great example of "Been there/done that....a WHOLE LOT BETTER". I love Blaxploitation films, but this one is just too dopey and slow to merit watching except by very devoted fans of the genre.


I really tried, but this movie just didn't work for me. The action scenes were dull, the acting was surprisingly poor, and some of these characters were TOO stereotypical to even be funny. Pam Grier tries, but when you have nothing to work with, even her considerable talent cannot prevent a disaster. Even by the standards of this weak genre, this film is pretty bad.


I've seen Foxy Brown, Coffy, Friday Foster, Bucktown, and Black Mama/White Mama...of these this is Pam Grier's worst movie. Poor acting, bad script, boring action scenes...there's just nothing there. Avoid this and rent Friday Foster, Coffy or Foxy Brown instead.


Threadbare horror outing has an innocent teen (Meg Tilly, appealing as always) attempting to get in good with the popular clique at school (despite the fact they seem to hate her outright) and letting herself be subjected to their sorority-like initiation: spending the night in a creepy mausoleum. Despite the complete absence of originality, this low-budget thriller manages to come up with some decent special effects and has several good performances (particularly by Robin Evans, oozing campy viciousness as the leader of the girls). The script isn't razor sharp, but it has enough quirks to make the proceedings somewhat bearable. ** from ****


I had never even heard of ONE DARK NIGHT until someone mentioned it on a horror message board here recently, and reading into it, I gained interest due to Meg Tilly's involvement and recognizing that it was an early gig for Friday THE 13TH VI:JASON LIVES director Tom McLoughlin . Unfortunately, sad to say, it's nothing special. The premise has a familiarity to it:a college girl must survive the night in an old mausoleum until morning in order to join a sorority. That girl is a young Meg Tilly, as Julie, who wishes to prove to her loving, caring boyfriend, Steve(David Mason Daniels)that she can make his cruel, conniving ex-girlfriend, Carol's(Robin Evans)sorority regardless of the tactics she pulls in order to see her fail. Along with Carol's gang is Kitty(Leslie Speights), always with a toothbrush in her mouth, and Leslie(Elizabeth Daily)who doesn't really wish to cause Julie such trouble. While Leslie insists on leaving Julie alone as she remains in the mausoleum, Carol and Kitty plan to torment the poor girl. Meanwhile Steve searches for her while Julie, Carol and Kitty encounter an evil they couldn't possibly imagine..the corpse of a recently diseased "psychic vampire", whose telekinesis was of a dangerously powerful degree, will seek to drain them of their very lifeforce. The only one who can help these girls is the dead man's daughter, Olivia(Melissa Newman)who is equipped with the same psychic power he has.

I think what many will find exciting is the unusual evil that threatens the girls in the mausoleum, it's certainly different than what you normally see in the slashers that were out at this time. Like Adam West's character(..he was the cynical husband of Olivia who found the idea of her father's power ridiculous), I had a really hard time adjusting to the tacky plot, and I personally never found anything within the film to get excited about. The mausoleum to me never really was that spooky(..it doesn't really achieve the same kind of eerie quality PHANTASM captured) and the corpses which are used to attack the girls are laughably unconvincing(..there is one great scene where a corpse's face melts away). I have a soft spot for low budget films from this period of time, but I just never really could find a reason to get involved when you have this unsatisfying undead corpse shooting electric bolts from it's eyes causing other bodies to break free from their crypts to obey their master. It's just too silly to take seriously. Carol is your typical blond bitch wishing to punish a nice girl who is dating a former flame. Steve is your typical, squeaky clean all-American boyfriend, handsome and tender, who becomes the hero seeking to save his girl from whatever sinister forces are at play. To make up for the small budget director McLoughlin tries every trick in the book to thrill the audience, using a series of ooga-booga effects such as corpses which pursue young girls, chairs which shake and tremble, doors that slam shut, and objects levitating by themselves. The film obviously has it's fans, and I am glad I had a chance to see it, but I was a bit disappointed that ONE DARK NIGHT wasn't the horror sleeper I hoped for. Adam West has a very small role as the concerned husband hoping his wife will snap out of her depressed state regarding a father who had nothing to do with her. Melissa Newman is the troubled Olivia, recognizing that she must stop her father once and for all or else he'd continue to prey on the living. Donald Hotton is Dockstader, an associate of Olivia's father's who informs her of what he was. I wasn't particularly blown away by Tilly's performance here(..she was basically scared most of the time), but she'd get a chance to prove herself to a greater degree from this point onward. This will undoubtedly be of some value to those who watched it back at that time, for nostalgia purposes it might seduce fans of movies from this era.


When you look at the cover and read stuff about it an entirely different type of movie comes to mind than what you get here. Then again maybe I read the summary for the other movie called "Mausolem" instead as there were two movies of this title released about the same time with both featuring plots that had key elements in common. However, reading stuff about that movie here I know I saw this one and not that one and that movie is even less what one would imagine a movie with that title would be about. I will be honest, I expect more of a zombie type picture and you get that in this movie to some degree. However, there is more stuff involving the occult and strange powers as the opening scene of the people being taken away by the coroner at the beginning of the film will attest to. The movie also has the old theme of kids going somewhere they do not belong to have some crazy party, in this case it is in fact a mausoleum. The other movie I do not think really has that key feature playing that prominent role in the movie and I see the score for this one is higher too, still it was just not the movie I was expecting.


I received a copy of this film from a friend for my 21st birthday, which he had obviously picked up for 99p from a bargain video bin.

Never have I been so frustrated when watching a film - it was tedious, Adam West was wasted (literally) and, in retrospect, I cannot recall a single thing about it. My lack of enjoyment grew to such an extent that the second the credits rolled we smashed up the cassette and hung the tape around the living room. Just for good measure, we set fire to the cover.


I saw this on a cheap DVD release with the title "The Entity Force". Since I enjoy cheesy 80's horror films I thought I was in for a real treat. Sadly the film is mostly boring and you're constantly waiting for something to happen. It does eventually get somewhat interesting, but this is in the last quarter of the film. It's a case of too little too late. When the action does happen it's not that great, what we get are dead corpses 'floating' along the ground and chasing after the girls in the mausoleum. It's not the absolute worst I've seen, but you can do a lot better. I would only recommend this to die-hard collectors of cheesy 80's horror.


Some guy named Karl Rhamarevich learns how to live on even after death through telekinesis. He's interred in a mausoleum. That same night Julie (Meg Tilly) has to spend the night there to get into a group called "The Sisters". And Karl's "power" is in full bloom.

Silly movie. I saw it in a theatre when I was 21 and was generally bored. The PG rating should have tipped me off--this is a horror movie for kids. One REAL stupid scene at the end has a corpse breaking THROUGH concrete to hit a young guy! For starters corpses are put in HEAD first making it impossible for the corpse to use his arms and there's no way anybody is going to break through concrete. When you're noticing silly mistakes like that, the movie is not doing its job.

It has two good scenes--two of "The Sisters" are "attacked" by floating corpses crowding them in. At one point one of the sisters punches a corpse in the stomach--her hand goes IN the body and she can't pull it out! That scene has stayed with me every since. And there's a cute little bit involving a corpse and a toothbrush at the end (which had my audience laughing). But the rest of the movie is a dim, dull memory. For kids only--adults will be bored. I give it a 3.


I must, in light of the encomia of praise for this flick from viewers, assume once again the role of the turd in the punchbowl, as Lowell Weicker used to say, I am scratching my head at the sheer number of laudatory comments. "The African Queen" this ain't. The period flavor is wonderful, yes. The acting is fine, but no actor no matter how great can bring life to the seemingly endless stream of perfectly tedious and insignificant party and dinner table conversation here, and I care not how much of it is taken from Joyce's text. Imagine spending an hour and a half as a fly on the wall at a Christmas dinner of a not particularly interesting group of people (it's not clear to me that it's a family, as one person suggested), having to listen to their mundane table talk, and you have the essential experience of this movie. Absolutely nothing happens. And nothing important is said, but it is said at interminable length. As I said, the popularity of this movie is a mystery to me. Speaking of mysteries, watch a good one rather than this.


I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.

Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.

Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.

There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.


I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.

The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.

But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.

There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.

Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's "I Walked With a Zombie." Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of "easy listening" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.

I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.


This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?

Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.

Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.


(Spoilers)

Oh sure it's based on Moby Dick. Totally obsessed and it destroy's him. It's a total folly. The movie starts off rather well, but by the end of the film, everyone else is destroyed and the main star's mind is a blank.

The supposed half sister is never convincing. Some very poor lighting effects. Music is interesting. But little else. It took me over a month to finally finish the darn thing. I suppose if you like Being John Malkovich, you might like this. But where as BJM was a great movie that I just didn't want to watch again, Pola X is a movie I just hate to high hell. The only possible excitement in the film is the gratuatious incest sexual scene towards the end of the film. (Hopefully yer not thinking of Catherine either.)

This movie is severely boring, depressing, and poorly directed. Not highly recommended. If if you like french movies. (go watch Crimson Rivers instead)

4/10

Quality: 5/10 Entertainment: 1/10 Replayable: 0/10


I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an "arty" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like "Did I have a mother or father, I don't know" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.

If you are curious about the transition of "art" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)


I enjoyed Carax's "Les Amants du Pont Neuf" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.


It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.


Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that  not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there


I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation...."Last Year at Marienbad" comes to mind. Well, "Pola X" ain't no "Last Year at Marienbad". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. "Pola X" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. "Pola X" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!


The movie contains a very short scene of Deneuve in a bathtub. She looks absolutely stunning for a lady age 56, but this is the only saving grace of the movie. Otherwise, it has a mindless, unmotivated script and the lead actress has none of Deneuve's appeal. The director apparently watched too many Peter Greenaway films and Pola X comes across as a student's imitation of the Greenaway style, without any of his inspiration.


French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?


First, I don't see how the movie is on any "best" list or how it won any awards. Compared to La Pianiste, which is also on a "best" list, La Pianiste is gold. This movie lacked so many things, on so many different levels, but I can't quite explain why I disliked it so much. The lead actor was annoying, I felt as though I never knew what was going on, and I was BORED!! Even though this was supposed to be some worthwhile life change that Pierre was starting, I wanted it to end.... as soon as possible. Why did it have to be his sister and cousin? Ugh. And why did Thibault get mean? He just bipolarly turned mean. And also, was it me or did I miss the whole purpose of what that guy in black was all about? Who were all those people playing music in the big basement of the big warehouse? Why did they have all that weird equipment and the guns and all those extra rooms for people to live in? I mean this in all seriousness, but does incest happen a lot in French culture? European culture? I took 5 years of learning about the culture and I never heard anything about that!


You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as "pretentious crap". To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .

One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool.


A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...

If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...

A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who "think" they can make movies.

I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...


My boss at the time and showed it to us at a Halloween party at our office. He is the Chris Huntley that co-wrote and acted in it. He knows it's bad, we know it's bad and we all agree that the monster looks WAY too much like a vagina to be coincidence. Maybe it was from a gynocological experiment gone wrong.

It was a VERY low budget and the actors were all friends so what you have here is a case of "hey gang, lets' put on a show".

Nobody got hurt and it was a first attempt. Nothing wrong with that. It gave us all a good laugh and it's a great film to watch with friends and make fun of. :-)


This extremely low-budget monster flick centers around a group of mine surveyors exploring an abandoned gold mine in order to see if its worth reopening. They get trapped after a cave in and find they are at the mercy of a strange, slimy creature which seems bent on knocking them off one at a time. The word that most came to mind as I watched this movie was 'desperate'. The script and acting is terrible, the stop-motion monster effects were unintentionally funny, and since the bulk of the movie takes place underground lighting the sets convincingly looked like a logistical nightmare. All that being said however for some reason I felt this movie failed not from lack of effort, but maybe from either a lack of budget, experience and/or lack of creative inspiration. The whole thing came off like it was either a college project or a first film made by amateurs, I have a certain amount of affection for films like that even when they completely miss the mark. I guess what I'm saying is I give it an B for effort and a D- for actual results, not insultingly bad as some low-budget monster movies I've seen but still not worth seeing unless you have a LOT of free time on your hands. I'm voting it a 4.


A group of 7 gold prospectors head into a mine that was recently opened back up after an earthquake. Of course, they don't pay attention to local legend that something is down there and killing people. This low budget ($25,000) horror flick has a slight cult following and I'm not exactly sure why (unless it is because it is so obscure). I'll admit the last half hour is pretty entertaining, but the hour getting there is pure torture. Lots of walking and talking and our titular strangeness doesn't appear until 45 minutes in. Even in the extras co-writer Chris Huntley admits it commits the unforgivable sin of being boring. I would forgive them if they were strict amateurs, but this group graduated from USC so I would hope they know an exploitation film should be exploitive. Anyway, like I said, the last half hour is cool as three survivors battle the stop motion monster and there is a cool John Carpenter-like score. I wanted to see more of the monster, but it is literally on screen for 45 seconds.

Even if the movie isn't the best, Code Red DVD has given this great attention. You have interviews and an audio commentary by director Melanie Anne Phillips, producer/actor Mark Sawicki and co-writer Huntley. The tales about how the film was made are pretty fascinating and inspiring (like a cave set being built in a backyard). Even more interesting are Sawicki and Huntley's USC student shorts, which are actually all better than the feature production. Huntley was a pretty talented artist and it is a shame he didn't go on to anything else. Sawicki has worked steadily in Hollywood as a visual effects and camera guy. The film's VHS is kind of legendary for how dark it was and I'm sure this is much better. However, you still get scenes where the only image are five helmet lights bouncing around in the blackness. Safe to say, the original MY BLOODY VALENTINE is still "horror film set in a mine" champ.


Some movies are just  unlucky. These are the films that obviously thrived on a lot of goodwill and a handful of potentially great ideas, but simply didn't have the budgetary means and/or professional cast and crew members at their disposal to make it happen. "The Strangeness" definitely belongs in this category. You really want to like it, but even the most tolerant and undemanding 80's horror fanatics will have to admit the film barely reaches the level of mediocrity due to its atmosphere of cheapness, clumsy stop-motion effects and impenetrably dark cinematography. "The Strangeness" has a fairly original plot and setting (okay, it's similar to "The Boogens" but I sincerely doubt that director David Michael Hillman intentionally ripped off a fellow insignificant 80's B-movie) and the players deliver enthusiast performances even though they're all miscast. An assembly of amateur speleologists go on an expedition to explore the infamous Gold Spike mine. Many years ago, several miners mysteriously died there and the place has abandoned ever since, but there's supposed to be too much gold hidden there to remain closed forever. Shortly after they descended into the mine, the group members one by one encounter the slimy ruler of the Gold Spike mine; a Lovecraftian monster with tentacles and an incredibly cheesy way of moving forward. Throughout most of its running time, "The Strangeness" is a boring and incompetent mess that is difficult to follow due to the complete lack of lighting. The characters are uninteresting and the mine remains a mystery because the only lighting effects come from the helmets of the speleologists. There's very little action or horror to experience in the first hour, but director Hillman cleverly grasps the viewers' attention by showing bits and pieces of the monster at regular intervals. As soon as you catch the first glimpse of the monster's tentacle, you're doomed to keep watching till the very end. The creature is realized with stop-motion effects, which I usually adore and worship, but here in this case they look extremely weak and pitiable. The person responsible for the special effects should have paid more attention to the work of Ray Harryhousen. The death sequences largely occur off-screen and there's very little suspense throughout the whole movie. A horror flick with a setting like this should benefice from claustrophobic atmosphere and unidentifiable sound effects, but "The Strangeness" lacks all this. The biggest trump of the film is unquestionably the beautiful appearance of blond actress Terri Berland. She resembles a speleologist as much as I resemble Mother Theresa, but she surely looks good in her tight white top and beige pants.


I want to say I liked this film, I really do, but when it boils down to it it was just far too boring. It starts off looking promising, and even once they get inside the mines the creepy atmosphere and mood is great. The problem is the monster, or lack of it. As people have said it's a stop-motion monster, but that's not the problem (stop-motion can look great if done properly). The problem is that we don't see enough of it and we don't get to see any deaths. This is meant to be a horror film so a lack of monster and a lack of deaths equals boredom. There were some scenes I liked, such as when one girl is using her camera in the dark and the monster is coming towards her. There are also a few other creepy scenes but they are far too few to hold your interest and definitely not worth watching the film for. It's a shame, because I can see that had it been handled correctly it would've been an effectively creepy horror flick. The saddest thing is that films like this will never be made again, because film makers over-polish their films these days and rely on crappy CGI effects.


The whole movie was done half-assed. It could have been a much better movie but, that would have required a re-write and different actors. Compared to "Traffic" this was a wreck. I am just glad I didn't have to pay for it.

Spoiler:

What was the point of having crooked cops getting arrested? To share the guilt of drug dealers and make them feel better? Pu-leaze! The parents were scum, driven by greed, and didn't even consider the harm they were doing; as pointed out by Ice-T.

2 out of 10


I caught the North American premiere of this at the Chicago International Film Festival. I was beyond disappointed. From the mood in the audience, I wasn't the only one.

The film takes a long time to get to the conflict, and then refuses to resolve it, opting instead to tell us the story is "To Be Continued". Is it a spoiler to reveal that a movie has no ending? I consider it more of a warning. This is, at best, only half a movie- and not the good half.


I don't know what has happened to director Abel Ferrara. Ever since the "Body Snatchers" remake he seems to have lost it. "King of New York" and "The Bad Lieutenant" remain two of the best films of the '90s: searing indictments of a decade gone wrong. With films like "'R Xmas" (whatever that means) and "New Rose Hotel" he seems determined to disgust and bore his former supporters. This film has NO LIFE in it. While he gets excellent performances out of his actors in all of his projects the result of this mishmash of ideas just doesn't jell. Whatever the point is -- that the new breed of drug dealer is more or less the same as any other upper middle class New Yawkuh -- gets lost in the mind numbing script and boring direction.

I saw this opening night at the 4-Plex in downtown L.A. In the lobby, while buying tickets, I was surprised and delighted to see it filled with a large, racially mixed group of men and women in their twenties and thirties. Then they started into the theater but it was the theater that was featuring "8 Mile" not "'R Xmas"! The theater showing "'R Xmas" (keep in mind, this was opening night!) had a total of 4 people watching it, myself, my wife and two others!

Way to go, Abel!

2/10


'R Xmas is one of the only films I've seen where I can almost say that simply nothing happens.I felt as though I watched a drug dealing middle- class couple,with child,walk around,eat,smoke,converse(excuse me,swear)through most of the film.And I don't believe I'm missing the point.I think this film was well directed,well acted(although the husband's performance was rather wooden),and the constant feeling of impending doom around every corner certainly kept the viewer involved.But when the dust clears,your left with zero(just a boat-load of fade outs).I didn't want car chases,gun violence,beatings,etc.In fact,I'm sick of violence.But my goodness,let's at least get a bit deeper into all these characters(let's get to know each of these corrupt officers a little better-not just show glancing shots of them as street thugs).Why was the dialogue so juvenile? Everyone spoke as if they were in junior high.I believe even this side of our human race can say something other than fu_ _,sh_ _,etc.The pacing and the storyline of 'R Xmas I found quite interesting,but the execution was plain and simple-empty.4/10


The whole movie seemed to suffer from poor editing - every scene seemed to take forever to unfold and when they did, I felt like I had waited a long time for very little to happen. I guess I missed the whole point of the movie - either that or there wasn't one.


Good actors, good director, well acted, well directed but...Where's the movie? Did they have an script or just improvised it all? At least it is a short-length movie (only 80 minutes, including credits). Nothing seems to happen in this film, nothing at all. A couple of small time drug dealers caught in small time troubles, but you'll never get a clue of what's happening, nor even what are they talking about in some sequences of the movie. Tons of "f***'s" and "motherf*****'s", but nothing else...

For the people who love Abel Ferrara's films such as The Funeral, 'R Xmas is going to be a big disappointment, as it's been for me. What was he thinking about? Did he really think that this was a good movie? And if he didn't, then why did he made it?


"R Xmas" peers into the lives of a middle class married-with-kid family of narco-distributors during the Christmas holiday season. There's no story here - just a disjointed collection of events. Ferrara seems to get off on the juxtaposition of the holidays and home life with narcotics peddling in NYC, jumping back and forth between each. The players appear to be improv'ing and adlibing now and then making for an unconvincing watch. Overall a poor effort not worth the time. (D)


In New York, in a morning close to Christmas, an upper class father and mother go in their BMW to a private school to see the play of their daughter. Then they go shopping and later they return to their fancy apartment in Manhattan. In the night, they move to a simple apartment in a dangerous neighborhood, where they prepare drugs for distribution. On the Christmas Eve, while buying the Christmas gift for their daughter, the father is kidnapped, and his wife desperately tries to raise a high amount of money to pay the requested ransom. "R Xmas" is a deceptive movie of Abel Ferrara. The lead characters do not have names, are anonymous, and maybe his intention is to tell that in the breast of a neighbor family in your building may have drug dealers; or that drug dealers may also have families and may be loving persons; or that there are many dirty cops, probably worse than the criminals; or is it a simple apology to crime? Whatever! However, this humanization of criminals is a horrible message, and I really did not like this movie. In Brazil, for example, many drug dealers and criminals help their communities, due to the absence of the State in poor areas and slums, but this procedure does not make them model citizen. In this movie, we see a loving upper class family in the day, providing drugs as means of living, but the destruction of the members of other families is not shown in the story, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for any characters. In the end, I wished all of them dead. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Gangues do Gueto" ("Gangs of the Ghetto")


I really enjoyed "Candid camera" with Dom DeLuise and I was surprised to see that after the years Suzanne Somers have becomed the co-star of the show. But that was the only positive side of the show - the whole studio, the intro, the hosts - all that give the new meaning to the word "pompous".

Well, that would be OK if the materials weren't so cr*ppy - I mean come on, the best you can do is show few men that have problem with getting ketchup out of the bottle, Suzanne Somers walking with Halloween basket in July, ice cream place that sells only vanilla...? I've seen few episodes and each time it was horrible. They were posing like it's the greatest show ever and then fill the time with scenes so dull that I really felt embarrassed to watch. Even the people in them looked bored and that just can't be good.


I recently rented this film on DVD and thought it would be an interesting choice seeing as I am both from the north of England (Bradford), and also interested in film-making. However, it soon became apparent that this film seemed to lack a decent level of development script-wise. The characters were weak and often stereotyped and the story lacked substance. The subject matter could be an interesting basis for a film. However, the delivery of this appeared naive and unfocused.

The ending felt as though it was casting judgement on the characters - punishing and rewarding where the filmmakers felt necessary. This felt a little awkward and silly, and seemed at odds with the 'realism' used in the style of shooting. For me, the film dealt with the characters and subject matter in a rather heavy handed and clumsy manner. It felt as though the writer had already decided how he wanted to end the story and set about crow-barring everything else in to fit it.

Another point that I feel strongly about is the watered-down Ken Loach feel the film had. I get quite upset that UK film financiers can't see that there is more to British films than 'gritty realism'. It has become almost a safe option. Film is an infinitely wonderful playground for imaginative ideas and it is not being exploited by UK feature film producers. There is a lot of talent here in the UK. It's unfortunate that most of these individuals end up either making music videos and commercials 100% of the time or they go to America.

Love + Hate would have worked better if it had been cut down to 30 or 60 minutes and appeared as a one-off TV drama.


That's what I kept asking myself during the many fights, screaming matches, swearing and general mayhem that permeate the 84 minutes. The comparisons also stand up when you think of the one-dimensional characters, who have so little depth that it is virtually impossible to care what happens to them. They are just badly written cyphers for the director to hang his multicultural beliefs on, a topic that has been done much better in other dramas both on TV and the cinema.

I must confess, I'm not really one for spotting bad performances during a film, but it must be said that Nichola Burley (as the heroine's slutty best friend) and Wasim Zakir (as the nasty, bullying brother) were absolutely terrible. I don't know what acting school they graduated from, but if I was them I'd apply for a full refund post haste. Only Samina Awan in the lead role manages to impress in a cast of so-called British talent that we'll probably never hear from again. At least, that's the hope. Next time, hire a different scout.

Another intriguing thought is the hideously fashionable soundtrack featuring the likes of Snow Patrol, Ian Brown and Keane. Now, I'm a bit of a music fan and I'm familiar with most of these artists output, but I didn't recognise any of the tracks during this movie (apart from the omnipresent "Run"). B-sides, anyone? We get many, many musical montages which telegraph how we're suppose to feel. These are accompanied by such startlingly original images as couples kissing by a swollen lake and canoodling in doorways. This is a problem, as none of the songs convey the mood efficiently, and we realise the director lacks the ability to carry the emotional journey to the audience through storytelling and dialogue alone.

The ending is presumably meant to be just desserts, as everybody gets their comeuppance and there is at least one big shock in store.. But I remained resolutely unmoved because the script had given me no-one to root for. It's not enough to tackle a hot-button issue, you have to actually give us a plot that hasn't already been done to death and individuals who are more than window dressing. As it stands, this film is a noble failure, with only the promising lead actress and a few mildly diverting punch-ups to save it from the bin. 4/10. Must try harder..


I find it difficult to comprehend what makes viewer's feel this is a powerful movie. I would guess that the main intention of this film would be a character study and the effects of racism in a British community. It is therefore all the more disappointing that all the characters are two dimensional and the acting is at the level of a college performing arts course. I'm always sceptical of "improvisation", another word for being too lazy to write a decent script. I was embarrassed by the performances and sat in an audience who laughed when they surely were supposed to be moved by the story. Racism is a serious issue but I think a subtle approach in cinema works far better than laying it on with trowel.


Upon writing this review I have difficulty trying to think of what to write about. Nothing much happens in this film. The storyline is a South Asian woman who falls for an English Londoner. The problem is he and his friends have had a racist streak. At the same time her friend at work is unknowingly to her having sexual relations with her brother, and it just escalates from there. The problem is that this movie is very predictable. As soon as all this stuff has happened it's all pretty much standard. It drags slightly even though it's only about 90 minutes long. This is more of a Chick Flick than anything else. So if you're male I do not recommend this film to you.


I have to agree that the movie is not the best I've ever seen, but I would like to make mention that the actors portraying Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey were the actual Dorsey brothers. As actors, they were wonderful musicians. The movie, based on their famous split, would have been better had professional actors played the parts. Many movies made during this time frame took advantage of the popularity of Big Bands. Most often, the movies were not that good because musicians are not actors by trade. Most of the movie-going audience didn't go to see Tommy or Jimmy Dorsey playing themselves; they went for the plot and the music. I've never been much of a Dorsey fan, but the music is good even today.

I have to comment on a previous post regarding the actors who played Mom and Pop Dorsey and that their accents would be considered extreme by a Dublin audience. Arthur Shields and Sara Allgood were actually Irish actors, both born in Dublin. You might remember Mr. Shields as the Reverend Mr. Playfair in The Quiet Man and Ms. Allgood as Mrs. Monahan in Cheaper By The Dozen.


Why spend a moment slogging through this awkward and self-conscious movie? Every now and then, after an hour of tedious plot and amateur acting, we start getting bits and pieces of the big band swing that made Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey, separately and together, the great musicians they were. Occasionally -- in a jam session with Art Tatum, with Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra doing "Marie" and, a standout, Jimmy Dorsey and his orchestra fronting Bob Eberle and Helen O'Connell singing "Green Eyes" -- we get a complete song.

Unfortunately, the movie is in the public domain and the DVD transfer is just as bad as the acting. My copy has only four chapter stops. That means you can get arthritis in your fast- forward finger trying to speed through to where the good stuff is. The swamp you're moving through is Hollywood's version of the life and battles of the two Dorseys. Tommy, superb on trombone, and Jimmy, superb on saxophone, usually couldn't stand each other. In 1935 they finally split, with Tommy starting his own orchestra. Each had greater success alone than they had achieved together. They reconciled when their father died in the Forties, which is where the movie ends. They later managed to tolerate each other in the orchestra led by Tommy as the big band era faded out in the Fifties. Tommy died in 1956 at age 51, vomiting in his sleep after booze, pills and a big meal. Jimmy died of cancer at 53 in 1957. Jimmy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, a reasonably easy-going guy. Tommy was hugely talented and, from all accounts, often an overbearing jerk. But good music makes up for a lot of faults, and the Big Band sounds the two created helped define the swing era.

They play themselves in the movie, and we see them develop from tussling tykes (with child actors) to grown men battling and yammering at each other. The movie is lumbered with not just their two parents, played by those Hollywood Irish clichés, Sara Allgood and Arthur Shields, who just want their boys to get along with each other, but also with a major sub- story involving a romance between Janet Blair, as a childhood friend of the Dorseys who becomes a vocalist with them and serves as a nearly full-time mediator and enabler, and William Lundigan, as a piano player. Blair is not bad at all. However, if you want to see why she never became the star she quite probably should have become, just look at the films, like this one, that her studio put her in. No wonder she left Hollywood. Lundigan simply takes up space.

How bad is this movie, other than when we can actually hear the Dorseys play? Well, here's a song written especially for the movie and given to Blair to warble. It's called "To Me."

To me...you're the rose of a rosary...the rise of a rising sea...the glow of a star...

The rose of a rosary? The movie doesn't get any better than this, and it can't get worse. Still, if you like the Dorseys and if the price is right...well, in hindsight I'd still not buy it. The highlight, for me, is Eberle and O'Connell singing "Green Eyes." You can watch them on You Tube for free. You'll also find there quite a bit of each of the Dorseys. I wish I'd known.


For me this movie is essentially like a feature length pilot episode for a TV series. It reminds me particularly of the British remake of the TV series Wallander, starring Kenneth Brannagh. People interviewed by the police are hardy, and often as bitter as the weather, the lead investigator has huge family problems, investigations invariably lead to cruelties of the distant past, and the plotting is labyrinthine with strange occurrences and subplots making sense only at the end. Both have excellent cinematography.

The plotting of Jar City is extraordinarily reminiscent of a standard UK or US crime series. Effectively you could take the plots of any of the episodes of Touch of Frost and transplant them on top of the bleak locale in this movie and have an effective sequel.

Really the script couldn't be more obviously from the cookie cutter. You get even the most familiar of motifs, such as the police going to the local prison to interview a manipulative and dangerous psychopath, who inevitably explodes at the end of the interview.

I'm absolutely convinced that this is scones and jam for many folk, but I feel it needs pointing out to people like myself who do not go to the cinema to watch television. What I felt a keen lack of was message. The movie takes as its theme the genetic studies in Iceland. Icelanders in genetic terms have remained largely isolated from the outside world, presenting a great opportunity for scientists to study their genetics. Lots of information concerning the heredity of the population has been kept, and many genetic diseases unique to Iceland can be traced effectively in a population that has refrained from interbreeding, and is remarkably genetically homogeneous (it's like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle of the London underground map, instead of a jigsaw puzzle of a field of daisies). A company called deCODE genetics attempted to set up a database carrying all the genetic and hereditary information for the entire population of Iceland. Due to privacy concerns this project was terminated, and at the end of last year deCODE genetics went bankrupt in Iceland. The episode is a rich topic for debate.

But in this movie genetics and medical science are not there for education's sake, they're there for weird atmosphere.

It's a grisly movie if you are interested in that, and there's often a morbid focus on food to accompany events, like a coroner who eats lunch in between incisions. The most queasy for me was when the lead inspector devours a sheep's head. Unfortunately for me this occasionally became farcical. The movie attempts the rather delicate task of mixing the grisly with the sentimental, and ended up providing unintentional humour towards the end. This is the equivalent, in cinematic terms, of attempting to prepare fugu, if you're not well-qualified, deft of hand and sharp of eye, you poison the client. This rather novice director should have lowered the tariff on his performance.

I walked out of this movie feeling rather bad about myself and about life in general.


Would a different translation have made it chillier or scarier? Are the subtitles too compact to convey the nuances of the original language? Does it even matter? You may have heard that great actors can make reading a phone book exciting. Well, this is an opportunity to judge for yourself.

If this isn't about homosexuality, murder, dismemberment, psychopaths, insanity, deviant psychology, then it is about acting - acting helped along with lots of dialog, So, enjoy the acting or muse about how titillating the dialog actually is.

For English speakers, "Twelve Angry Men" might be a better choice. There's a bit more interaction, and you can judge if the acting is consistent with the dialog. You don't have to wonder if you're missing something.

I would recommend Andy Warhol's "Empire" to those who like this film.


Surprisingly Kieslowski's this movie is disappointing to me because of the sometimes weird and sometimes cliché script that also seems a work of a poor observation sometimes. There is an isolated young boy. He lives with one of his relatives, but he is lonely and every night watches a woman who lives across their building. It seems! that he wants her. He is one of the youths who are not good at communication with the opposite sex. However, he likes that woman, when the woman comes to his house with a man, Tomek gets pain. Then, we understand that Kieslowski tells us a story about an isolated young boy who needs a female to flirt or who falls in love with a mature woman. He does not do something else, because may be he knows that it is his salvation. One day, he stops that woman, suddenly, he seems a shy boy, but proves that he is not, so he explains her almost everything. She lectures and refuses him. Everything is so realistic like the other Kieslowski films, no problem. The problems start when Tomek visits her, the story of a lonely young boy who falls in love with a mature woman (but an unrequited love) turns into the story of a lonely young boy falls in love with a mature woman, at the beginnings the woman refuses, but after a short time, she starts to change her mind. This U-Turn makes the movie cliché firstly. The personality of Tomek is weird? or a result of a poor observation? I disappointed with this character, this is my opinion and I will try to tell why. When he goes to her house, Magda treats him very friendly. She asks what do you want from me? To kiss me? to make love with me? to go out with me? At this point, I remember the people who say she is a femme fatale. See? Returning to the scene, Tomek rejects all the proposals. Why? Because he is shy? I don't think so, but his communication is blunt, OK. After the leg scene at home, some events make the movie misses its aim. I think that the aim of the movie is (should have been according to the story) to show us there are some people who suffer from lack of endearment and to save from this situation is not easy owing to lack of communication and being aloof especially for men. I mean that at this point, what does the movie say? It is blurred and disappointing. It is seen that he is not hunger for love or a female or sex. Then, what? And the suicide attempt scene support this weakness. So that he touches her legs, he wants to kill himself! By the way, as I mentioned before, some say Magda is a femme fatale. Totally not. She endeavors in order to make Tomek happy. Does she avoid having contact with him? No. Does she insult him? No. Does she amuse him? No. And Does she deceive him? No. She has some troubles with her (ex) lover, so she is not O.K. However, she does not take revenge for it from Tomek. She is not an angel, but not a femme fatale also.


This is an excruciatingly boring, slow-moving movie. We can feel some sympathy for the socially- and sexually-inexperienced and awkward Tomek, but the motivations of Magda are pretty hard to see, and the ending, at least for me, was inscrutable.

Maybe it's about how we all need love, but I'd get more out of a good Busby Berkeley.

I'm told that comments have to be at least ten lines, so I'll add that in the background are some interesting shots of the relationship between Polish citizens and government employees and institutions. I wonder if it's meant to portray this before or after the fall of the communist government.

Finally, watch for the clever way the men from the gas company investigate whether or not there is a gas leak in Magda's stove.


A depressed creepy teenager does many bad things to a socially active older lady who does not like to use shades or drapes in her windows. He steels assorted things from her, peeps at her, does prank calls, and plays assorted unpleasant tricks on her. Oddly, he keeps none of this a secret from her. At first, she does not seem to care one way or the other that he is bothering her. Then later she seems to begin to respect him for his cruel fevered activities.

There are some illogical items to note. One is that the guy peeps into the night through a pane of glass from the more brightly lit side. In real life such a thing would not happen. The more brightly lit side of a pane of glass acts as a mirror. He would be able to see exactly nothing. Also, everyone out in the night would be able to look inside at him sitting in his well lit room.

One other illogical item is that the creepy teen takes a job as a milkman, and his one and only customer each morning seems to be the lady he is picking on. Easy work, if you can get it.

I saw A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE at a public showing. By the end, there was not a single open eye in the house. A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE is the foreign language movie for those who do not like reading subtitles. Not only are there very few words spoken in the film, but much of the movie is silent. A certain rest in peace.


Conclusion: very, but very, very boring, yet I watched till the end, hoping for some upside-down effect, but the end was worse, because it was nothing. The old black&white game didn't helped at all, it usually helps psychological movies, but this was not the case. The script, the plot, etc were linear, had no substance, nothing in-going. When you deal with psychological, you deal with analysis, therefore with details, that unity-diversity formula....there was no essence, no detail. Just a story, there are many stories to tell, but something makes them unique and hard to forgive with the tools and creativity of movie-makers...well, this is not the one.


This movie tries to say something profound; I'm just not sure what it was. Too much is left unresolved in the end for me to figure out the main point. A couple scenes really have me wondering what was left on the cutting room floor. I don't think the wall was very well developed I never got what was actually going on there. When the mother finally unveils it I just couldn't make any connection to the boy's silence. What was the point of the boy not talking? Was he just delusional or did he acquire some sort of power. What was the scene with the burnt girl all about? Another power the boy has or what? I don't understand how that developed any character or moved the plot. I got the bully bit but what happened to the dog? Did the dog come back or did mom get rid of Fido for good somehow?

There were several additional plot elements that were more clutter than use. Like the radio talk show in the background discussing the Iraq War. I think that was supposed to create some sort of comparison to the grief and insecurity the mother and Addison were experiencing but for me it was distracting and strained. I didn't buy the link very much. I also found the teacher getting on Addison about not saying "here" for roll call a bit much. The mom seeing the doctor was pointless, how did it serve the plot? Was that to show how desperate the mother was getting, or was it something about the medicine that I didn't get? Was that the dad coming back in the last scene, or just some guy? So did writing on the wall work? What happened to the Dog?


This film is about a grieving wife who lost her husband through suicide. She is tormented by her son who refused to speak after that.

Child grief is rarely explored on film, so it is refreshing to see a film like Addison's Wall. However, due to the very nature of the film, there is no tension or drama. Apart from a few key emotional moments, everything in the film is very plain. The abrupt ending that does not solve any mysteries certainly do not help the film to be more watchable. Addison's Wall could have been much better, such as exploration of the contents of the wall, a more intensive care program to help Addison to go through his trauma. Instead, the film feels very unfinished and non engaging.


I saw this movie on the strength of the single positive review and I can only imagine that guy is a shill.

The acting of the female lead is actually quite good, but the entire film is just so excruciatingly boring I could hardly bear to sit through it. This is the very definition of dullness.

So far, this film is rated as 8 out of 10 on 7 votes. That must mean the director, director's girlfriend, producer, actress and drinking buddies have given their own film a 10.

For the rest of you, who simply want to be entertained or enjoy a good story, avoid this.

This man on the street shall give it a 2 out of 10.

FDA note: while this movie can be used as an aide to obtaining a good nights sleep, no medicinal value is implied or offered.


This was the most god awful movie I have had to sit through. 30 minutes into the film and I couldn't take any more. Seriously, do not bother with this one unless you are a sentimental nut job or one of those pseudo-arty types that like this kind of tripe so that they may feel more cultured. Boring, although the acting is fine; the kid is just plain irritating. Some scenes are a little strange with very weird close-ups. I don't know why they did the whole movie in black and white, but whatever effect they were hoping to have failed miserably. There was just nothing to watch, and although its a sad tale, supposedly, its just so stupid that its hard to feel any sympathy for the characters.


A nicely evoked 1930s setting provides much interest for a viewer in the early 21st century; unfortunately, "London Belongs to Me" has little else to recommend it besides lashings of quaint English charm. All of the problems rest with the deeply unfocused story. The main plot concerns the actions of young lad Richard Attenborough, the problems he gets into and how the community in which he lives bands together to save him from society's laws. Or something. The main issue here is that Attenborough's character brings everything upon himself and, quite frankly, is guilty of almost every accusation brought against him, so it's baffling why the film (and all the characters) have so much sympathy for him. He's treated as a victim of circumstance when he really, really isn't; and what's more he isn't shown to have very much remorse for his actions, only caring about getting away with things he didn't mean to do. Alastair Sim gets a lot of screen time in a subplot that has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot line and you wonder what he's doing there (though Sim is, as always, superb). You know there's a problem with the structure when the main plot impacts constantly against the subplot but not vice-versa. And, following a sedate pace and a careful build up, the plot completely falls apart in the last 20 minutes with a deeply unsatisfying and unexplained conclusion which doesn't even show us if Attenborough's character has developed at all from the previous proceedings. The film doesn't end, it just stops.

The acting, direction and the general feel of the film can all be commended but unfortunately the story and structure of the piece jars constantly. A last point of trivia: Alec Guinness based his performance in the vastly superior film "The Ladykillers" on Alastair Sim's performance in this film, right down to both the characters having almost identical first scenes.


I watched this movie based on the good reviews here, and I won't make that mistake again.

The first couple minutes shows that a group of people have been brought together by some tragedy, but you don't see what it is. Flashback 12-hours and we get to see the boring lives of each of these people, which in the end are totally meaningless to what is about to happen. When the ending is finally reveled, you realize that you just wasted an hour of your life waiting for a big payoff that doesn't happen and means nothing to what you have been watching. The only connection these people have is that they have all had a "bad day"--but even that continuity gets lost in the boredom.

If this was supposed to be a "Crash" clone, it's a complete failure.