The title tells it all -- Ed Gein, the butcher of Plainfield.

It's not a zappy action-filled slasher movie made for teens high on energy drinks. That would fit it into a well-established genre, the kind that some people find entertaining, something along the lines of "Halloween" or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre".

This is dark, slow, filled with chopped-up corpses, and quietly evil. There are few shock cuts, no monster's point-of-view shots, no loud electronic score. I don't know who it's aimed at -- ghouls, maybe.

Beneath the credits we already see still photos of skulls, carcasses hung up, skins draped across the backs of chairs, that sort of thing. And they're sufficiently revolting that I couldn't help thinking this movie had better be pretty good to make up for this Grand Guignol opening.

Alas, it's not. The acting is uniformly terrible, as in a high school play. The script does its best to sink below vulgarity. Ed Gein, who killed only two middle-aged women and maybe his brother, chases a screaming, bloody young woman through the Woodland of Weir, and she's wearing only a modern bra and bikini, rather than period underwear. Gein also decapitates a night watchman, which he never did in any historical sense.

The direction? You could do a better job. In the first few minutes, law officers discover an abandoned car with blood spattered all over the windshield. There is no body. The handsome young deputy sheriff turns to his boss and suggests they search for the victim, who may still be in the vicinity and living. The sheriff, lacking any motivation, shouts at him, "Now you just FORGET that! I don't want you going off HALF COCKED on anything!" It should be no more than a business-like exchange of views. Why does the director have the sheriff so angry? Characters of diverse sorts listen to radio programs or records that play old jazzy pop songs -- Louis Armstrong's "Ain't Misbehaving," for instance. This is -- what -- rural WISCONSIN in the 1950s? And the characters insist on music that would appeal to customers of the Cotton Club in Harlem in the 30s, or New York intellectuals like Woody Allen. Nope. The radio would be playing Kitty Kallen's "Wheel of Fortune" or Theresa Brewer or, equally likely, Lefty Frizell. Not that the dysfunction between the music and the events adds anything to our understanding of what's going on beneath the images. Someone involved in the production just liked old jazzy pop songs, that's all.

Of course there's only so much you can do with a low budget, but it can be light years ahead of this butchery. See "Ed Gein," with Steven Railsback for an example of a much more sophisticated way of dealing with this lunatic and his penchant for dead bodies, and on a budget that couldn't have exceeded this one by much.

These comments are all based on the first twenty minutes of the movie. That's about as far as I could get. If anyone finds this tale to be well-executed and fascinating in any way, he should try to find some insight into his tastes. It's beneath mine -- and I consider myself pretty warped.


I own a vacation lake home not far from Plainfield, WI. Ten minutes from the Gein property to be exact. I've seen his land, the cemetery where he is buried and where he did his digging, and I've shopped at the hardware store that was formerly owned by the Worden family. While visiting relatives in California, we decided to rent this movie. It was disgusting. The true story of Ed Gein is so disturbing and creepy, why the creators of this piece of trash decided to make up their own story is beyond me. The actor playing Ed is a very large man, Ed was a very small, meek, and shy man. That is part of what makes his story so frightening. He did not have a helper to dig up the graves and anyone who owns land in the area knows that it is mostly sand with a little dirt in it. You won't break much of a sweat digging a hole. They didn't have to hire an actor with the physique of a wrestler, just do your research. And if the writing wasn't bad enough - there are NO mountains in Wisconsin, and I'm pretty certain that 911 was not available in 1957.


My reasoning behind viewing this film (despite the fact that it was free), was more or less out of curiosity... slight, slight curiosity... I wasn't all that familiar with this straight-to-video "biographical" account of Mr. Gein and discovered during the opening credits that it featured horror icon Kane Hodder in the starring role. My emotions turned from not just curiosity, but now a glimmer of mild anticipation as to how his portrayal of Gein would turn out. Also in the credits (among some grim photos of Ed's crimes) was Michael Berryman and Priscilla Barns. "Okay", I thought to myself... "This may be mildly amusing". As the movie started and progressed (slowly), my microscopic confidence (or as I call it, "micro-hope") for this movie faded entirely and I was stuck with an overwhelming feeling of humiliation as I died a little inside from watching this dung heap. Hodder, who is widely known and respected for his past work as an unstoppable serial killer, inaccurately puts that into play here - turning Eddie Gein from a mild-mannered recluse, to a hulking, full-blown killing machine. He lurks by night, killing cemetery caretakers, his grave robbing buddy and teenage girls, leaving Plainfield in a panic as the local Sheriff's department seems to do nothing to adjust the dangerous situation in the least. The deputy and his mom have a warm little relationship that gave me a fuzzy feeling inside (or that could have just been the cyanide pill I ingested halfway through this turkey). I'm not sure what the point of this movie was and obviously the director knew nothing about the subject he was working with. There is already such an abundance of films pertaining to Gein's story that, unless the "Ed Gein Snuff Footage" is discovered, I don't want to see anymore of these on the shelves. If you want a more authentic film of this nature than check out 2001's "Ed Gein (aka In the Light of the Moon)".


Ever since he played a goon in Lone Wolf McQuade, actor/stuntman Kane Hodder has been busy. His film, Hatchet, got all the publicity last year, but he still makes a couple of more films every year. He should have skipped this one.

Hodder seems to be the king of the slashers. he has played Jason Voorhees from 1988's Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988) to Jason X (2001). He is working on a new film that appears to be a Halloween remake. He is very much what I would call the serial killer type with his methodical, expressionless thirst for blood.

However, there wasn't much blood in this movie and very little action occurred on camera. It felt as if I was watching an episode of real law enforcement on A&E.

I won't put the blame entirely on Hodder's shoulders, as the rest of the actors didn't contribute much either.

Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes, The Devil's Rejects) just ran his mouth until Gein shut him up. Adrienne Frantz ("The Bold and the Beautiful") was cute. Veteran actress ("Three's Company") and Penthouse Pet, Priscilla Barnes did a credible job. I am sure there are other horror favorites, but they all just seemed to run through their roles.


When "Deranged" was made the film-makers saw fit to turn Ed Gein into Ezra Cobb even though the resultant film was actually quite close to the facts of the notorious case. I presume that enough was fictionalised that they thought they should change names and such.

"Ed Gein - The Butcher Of Plainfield" masquerades as a true story retelling of the Gein case, but actually bears very little resemblance to the history. As a biopic type film it is a travesty. If ever a film needed names changing it is this one, far more so than "Deranged". It is as close to the true crime story as "Dirty Harry" was to the true story of the Zodiac killings.

OK, so, that annoyance aside, how is it as a horror film? Well, as a horror film, well, as a film generally, it is quite appalling. One of the worst films I have sat through in months. Issues run thus: 1) Kane Hodder is quite astonishingly miscast as Ed Gein. Utterly unsuitable in the part, Hodder just lumbers through glowering menacingly. Very bad.

2) Kane Hodder is the best actor in the film! The rest of the cast are rather "amateur dramatics" and utterly unengaging. It is painful to witness some lines being delivered.

3) The occasional efforts of stylish film-making seem to come from "The Big Book Of Moody Cinematography Cliché". You've seen it all before, better executed. Aside from the efforts at style, the rest of the film-making is largely inept: cameras shake, framing is bad, there are overlong pointless shots holding back the pace...which leads me to...

4) It seems to go on forever. It is under 90 minutes in length, but sitting through it is an ordeal. You'd swear it ran two and a half hours.

5) Ed Gein almost seems secondary. Mostly the film is concerned with the family affairs of a newly promoted Deputy Sheriff. Said Deputy is played by an abysmal actor upon whose shoulders no film should rest.

Is anything good about it? Well, the gore FX are very good. Some convincing wounds are in display and the make-up is generally excellent. None of this, however, makes up for the massive failings of the film.

It doesn't even have any kitsch value, it's just bad; not enjoyably bad, not "so bad it's good", just genuinely bad. A film to avoid and despise.


I just saw this movie and it turns out to be pretty lame just as mentioned by other user reviews and the one thing that bothered me the most was the southern accent some of the characters had, it took place in Wisconsin, not the south. As mentioned from other reviews, Ed Geine wasn't a big dude, so why did the guy that plays Jason and Leatherface portray him?

I fast forwarded through most of it being that there are many slow parts.

Hopefully someone will do their homework on Ed Geine and the town and make a more accurate movie


This is the worst movie I have ever seen and believe me I've sen a lot of bad movies. I love cheeesy horror but this was just terrible. There was not one scene in this film where I felt scared. All the actors must have been people that they found at a bus stop 20 minutes prior to shooting. I wish that Blockbutser would have given me my 99 cents back. The acting was terrible. The writing was incredibly bad. Someone had to screen this movie before it was released and had to know that it was terrible. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with this monstrosity. Don't rent this movie. If you do, don't return it so no other poor souls will ever make the mistake of renting it.


All of the great horror movies of the 70's, 80's, and even the early 90's from Psycho, to Texas Chainsaw Masacre (The original not that warmed over WB crap), to Silence of the Lambs. The characters in these movies were based upon the crimes of Ed Gein. The writers and directors tapped into the true story for the inspiration for creating some of the greatest *fictional* movie killers of all time.

The old horror films were great because even though the crimes were loosely based upon the facts of the case of Ed Gein, they were truly fictional and far removed from the true story.

In the case of this movie, they've created a fictional horror film in which they tried to capitalize on the true story in order to sell a cheap, poorly acted, love story between two characters that nobody really cares about. In fact, in a *good* horror film these two characters would have been excellent victims.

End of Lecture...

In short, this film was like wearing clammy underwear on a cold afternoon sipping on a nice cup of chilled vomit.


I got this movie for fifty cents at a going out of business sale. I want my fifty cents back. Bad acting, poor script writing, lousy direction, historically inaccurate, even the sound of the film is awful. It's not the subject matter that offends. I'm one of the many who find suspense films and true crime films very interesting. The subject matter could have been treated more seriously, with much more attention to detail and accuracy, and the lack of respect shown for the victims and their devastated friends and family is enough to puzzle anyone. Also, there is little to no attention paid to what could have caused someone to begin the bizarre behavior that Ed Gein was displaying in acting out these horrible crimes.

Save your time and sanity. Don't watch this awful film. If you bought it, you have my sympathy. It's not a total waste though...you can throw away the disc and make use of the plastic case!


I have done some research on Ed Gien, and I have found a few interesting things. Like the fact that Ed Gien, was quiet and a loner, not some buff over bearing jerk as in this movie. I will say that I didn't finish this movie but I will. I will cringe through the fact that all of us, Wisconsinites, talk like we are from Kentucy. You know the funny, but oh so sad factor in this movie, is Wisconsin isn't as hot as they made it look.

This movie is not only an insult to Wisconsin people, being a Wisconsite myself, but it is a complete insult to a man that was proved to be an insane, lonely man. He killed two people and the movie couldn't even get that right. Ed didn't get that close and personal and scare people, he shot the two and only people, he killed. So, why do these movies lie and say "BASED ON A TRUE STORY"? This is not based on nothing but the lies the director came up with in his foul head.

A joke and nothing more!

OK, I would like to add on to this. I did finish this oh so sad movie, and I personal would like to laugh at the director. Do your homework when making a movie. I would like to inform you that there are no Mountains (for those who have never been in Wisconsin) and oh THERE IS NO DESERT! What the hell, there was more pine trees and snow in Ravenous and that was suppose to be shot in Californa.

OK, for those who know nothing about Ed Gein, I would like to give you, your history lesson. Ed Gein was thought to have killed his family, but it was never proved. He killed a bartender, she was shot at bar close when no one was around. He took the DEAD bartender back to his house. 10 years later he SHOT and killed the store clerk, he stoled the cash register and the store truck. He was caught because of this murder, he came in the day before when her son was there and asked about antifreeze. The day he killed her, he was in there buying the antifreeze, and the reciept that only had antif..... was the only evidence they had to start a world wide man hunt. He robbed graves, in fact in robbed 56 graves. He hate the people he dug up and he made furinture; lamp shades, couches, chairs, and other things.

He had a family that he had dinner with once and awhile and they threw all the meat he ever gave them out when he was caught, considering he was caught at their house. He was arrested and hid in the back of a cop car, in fear of what may happen to him. How do I know all of this? I read the book the judge that tried him wrote.

After this movie was over, after watching the whole horrific thing, not only am I offended by the directors horriable view on what Wisconsin women look like. I mean it was hard to tell who this guy had on the slab half the time, you know cause Wisconsin women are all BLONDES. Please! I am overly offended by the lack of homework this guy did and the poor job he did making this movie. I have no idea who this Kane guy is and I think he may be OK in something else, but he did a horrible job playing Ed Gein.

After all of this I am so sad I wasted the 3.99 on the movie.

Movie after finished was completely untrue, this movie is like me saying that the world is flat and George Washington wasn't our first president. Come on people, that is your history, and this is Wisconsin's history. To end this rant, how would all of you feel if I made a movie and George Washington looked like Brad Pitt (some of you may think that is fine, but it would be not true) and he lived and wasn't the president and whatever. You can't rewrite history.


PLEASE people! DO NOT bother with this poorly directed joke. The direction was totally wrong from the outset. Where is the history of his mothers' emotional interference and the general madness in the original family? Why is ED portrayed as this large, overbearing imposing figure full of anger and hate? What IS this crap? The writer and director obviously did no research into the history and just wanted to cash in on the infamous Gein name. The fools who made this movie took so many liberties with the truth, it's ridiculous. If you want t see a brilliant Gein film. go back to the minor classic "Deranged" to see how Ed really was. There is humor in that film, and Ed is portrayed as more of the sad, lonely slight man he was, according-to HISTORY. Where is the background story here? There is just poorly set-up shocks (that are not shocking) that we've seen before, and more accomplished as well. Take the worst Texas Chainsaw massacre ripoff, and add this one to that list. Had to give it ONE out of ten because rating wouldn't accept ZERO. I want my money BACK. If anyone regards this film as 'stunning' is possibly getting a financial kickback to do so.


Ed Gein, one of the most famous serial killers of all time, he was the inspiration for famous movie killers like Norman Bates, Leatherface, and Buffalo Bill. He is also one of the most sick and disturbing killers of all time, I watched a documentary on him, so I know his story pretty well. When I saw this, I was curious because I thought it was supposed to be like a documentary re-enactment, but I have to say that this was just a pathetic waste of time. First off, the facts are completely wrong, with a few minor exceptions, and secondly, this was just a stupid Hollywood story when these horrific murders really happened and they just made it into a cheap buck. Not to mention that if they were going to make it into a horror movie, this was poorly acted!

Ed Gein, he lives in a small town in Wisconsin called Plainfield, but he has a little secret that the whole town is being effected by, he digs up dead bodies, as well as brutally murdering people. Bobby, a deputy, is on the case to get Ed Gein, only, no one knows who the killer is at first, just finding crime scene after crime scene. But things get "personal" when Ed starts messing with the policemen's family and friends.

Of course this movie was just ridicules and completely insulting to the true story. I always thought that bad acting is a necessary tool to a horror flick, but for this story, it should have been a better acted film, not to mention, it should have been more of a documentary than a stupid cliché'd horror film. Please, stay away from this film, it's completely pathetic and untrue to the story of Ed Gein.

1/10


Michael Feifer writes and directs this fictitious story based on the arrest of Edward Gein in Plainfield, Wisconsin. Gein was responsible for a rash of gruesome murders that sent a shock wave of terror through his rural hometown in the late 1950's. His evil mind and twisted world is suspected to be caused by his domineering zealous Lutheran mother. Ed was given the nickname "The Butcher of Plainfield". He would rob corpses from fresh graves of women who resembled his mother and he would have sex with them before 'dressing them like a deer' in his garage. Severed heads with bodies hanging upside down being his personal trademark. After his arrest there would be many articles made from human skin found in his home. In this movie, a young deputy Bobby Mason(Shawn Hoffman)makes the search for Gein(Kane Hodder)a personal one, when his storekeeper mother(Priscilla Barnes)goes missing. The acting is a whole lot better than the ridiculously liberal telling of the documented events concerning Gein. Also in the cast: Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, John Burke, Michael Berryman and Amy Lyndon.


The story of Ed Gein is interesting, VERY interesting. This movie, however, interesting only in the fact that it was actually made. Kane Hodder's portrayal of Ed Gein is so far off, it's not even the slightest bit funny. Ed Gein did not behave psychotic in public, he was very calm and collected and always extremely polite to everybody and talked to anybody who would listen, this is one of the major things this movie failed to show the audience. But the biggest mistake of this movie, side from even one frame ever being shot, was that Ed never killed anyone without having been told to do so by his dead mother, whom he thought was speaking to him from beyond the grave. He killed only the people who his dead mother said he had to because it was God's will, and he was very remorseful about it, though that didn't stop him from experimenting with cannibalism and wearing people's flesh. I officially gave this movie a rating of "1" simply because "0" wasn't given to me as an option.

I highly advise all to stay clear of this movie. If you want to see a movie that accurately depicts Ed Gein and doesn't try to put in a sub-plot love story between a cop and a fictional woman who never existed, i HIGHLY advise you see the original movie, which unfortunately seems to not be on IMDb.com though i could be wrong, but i have yet to find it here. The original doesn't stray from the actual events and doesn't try to twist the story. I can understand telling the story from a different perspective, but this movie just tried to straight change the true story itself, something that i find as horrible as if someone made a movie based on 9/11, but gave it a twist that Canada was behind it. Or a WWII movie saying Hitler was a good guy and helped fight the Nazi's.


I am a big fan of horror movies, and know a lot of info on serial killers. Obviously the director of this one refused to research the film he was creating, because half of the movie was fictional. More than that, the character of Ed Gein was portrayed in the wrong light. I did not rent the movie to worry about the Deputy and his girlfriend Erica. I rented it to watch Ed Gein and his legendary story. This movie was awful, the only reason I gave it a 2 out of 10 is because the gore wasn't too bad. Acting= horrible Actors= sub par Movie= waste of time.

A big upset all around, but i wont give up my search for a good horror movie.


Just saw this at the Madison Horror Film Festival and was disappointed. A few shocking, funny moments (fisting the hollow Carla, a urinating harpy in the Dreamland) and two competing interesting premises (similar to New Nightmare with belief bringing a mythical character to life and also Lost Highway with a man living out a fantasy in his head) but had long stretches of no movement and incoherent plot development. Just because you use the framework of dreams or a mental fugue state doesn't make it Lynchian. You need the compelling visuals and creepy performances.

Positive things: Dr. Maitland had real comic timing and all the girls were very cute. Carla's Father, Chalmers, and Ingrid Pitt looked like they were having some fun. And Tom Savini at least looked like he had his lines memorized and we couldn't see if he was just reading cue cards.

I get the Hammer references, but it looks like the director realized the script was a snoozer and just added some shocks to try and get some laughs out of whatever footage he could put together. But they don't work because they're too few and far between and create an inconsistent tone. Condense this to 30 minutes of all the fun parts and you could have a surreal goofy short, but at feature length, skip it. It's not "so bad it's good" it's just "so bad it's boring".


Most likely "Cleopatra 2525" will be of little interest if you did not watch the series when it was broadcast; and I don't think that many people did. But if you are still somewhat intrigued it is a "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" premise without space ships and with no budget for wardrobe or production design.

In this case the Buck Rogers part (Cleopatra) is played by Jennifer Sky. Which one might expect to be a good thing as Jennifer is very beautiful and quite talented; and has a nice comedic touch. But a quick glance at the promotional material will show that she is somewhat the worse for having a bad haircut and a Salvation Army Thrift Store wardrobe. If you remember how fetching Jennifer was during her time on "Xena" her dowdy Cleopatra look will be a huge disappointment. With a target audience of "teenage boys looking to burn their eyeballs looking at "hot fetish-attired girls" it is not a good idea to skimp on the exploitation value of your heroine or her costume. And they wonder why some series don't attract much of an audience. Love it or hate it, "Buck Rogers" had hotter costumes and much better looking guest stars.

The other two exploitation elements are Cleopatra's two female associates; Hel (Gina Torres basically playing her stock "Firefly" character) and Sarge (Victoria Pratt-another "Xena" connection-an extremely wooden version of Natasha Henstridge). Torres does a good job playing off the Cleopatra character, providing most of the show's comic relief.

Torres sings the theme song, a somewhat lame parody of Rick Evans' "In the Year 2525 (Exordium and Terminus)" (1969). You remember the one that opens with the words "In the year 2525, If man is still alive, If woman can survive, They may find..."I suspect that they gave the series its title so that they could butcher this catchy little song although who knows, perhaps the title is a homage to "Buck Rogers" and they thought of using the song later.

So, the premise of the show is that the Earth's surface has been taken over by aliens called Bailies (not the WKRP one) and the humans have been driven underground. Our three heroines fight against the Bailies under the direction of a disembodied (presumably) female voice (appropriately referred to as "Voice"). Unlike Buck Rogers, Cleopatra is kind of a wimpy third stooge, still dazed and confused from her cryogenic sleep or maybe just disoriented from the creepy haircut. There are a lot of nice close-ups of Sky wide-eyed and bewildered. Like "Buck Rogers" the running gag is Cleopatra using a common 21st century expression and everyone finding it either totally profound or completely baffling.

Unlike "Firefly" the action is more of that hyper edited "Xena" garbage which is neither realistic nor particularly entertaining. One good gimmick is that the girls travel around "Spiderman" fashion, a sort of web slinging through tunnels and shafts in the labyrinth of their underground world.

Strangely (or maybe not considering the budget) these are only half hour episodes and except for one two-part show there is not enough time for any subtlety and nuance.

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


If good intentions were enough to produce a good film, I would have rated the turgid, ponderous, obvious "Focus" a bit higher than 4. Macy does his best, but as an earlier poster commented, Miller's little parable asks us to suspend disbelief too often. Perhaps the novel gives us a bit more background on Newman, so we can understand how someone who is obviously not without intelligence could be so dense in perceiving the attitudes of those around him. I agree with another reviewer that if one is unaware of how bigoted average citizens were in America during this time period, then this movie might be an eye-opener. I grew up in the fifties, and the "good" pastors of my Lutheran church found nothing wrong with having the church picnic at a commercial beach, whose sign prominently indicated that no Jews or blacks would be admitted. It is difficult for young people today to understand that this was the norm, and not just in the South. As late as 1964, when I graduated from a somewhat racially integrated (but sexually segregated) public high school in Baltimore, my black classmates could not attend the traditional "father and son banquet," as it was held at a facility which did not admit blacks. Sadly, it was an establishment owned by a Jewish family. The subject matter of "Focus" is important, and we should never forget, despite the lingering signs of racism in modern America, how truly repulsive the attitudes of that previous generation were.(The "greatest generation," indeed). So, perhaps this film is somewhat valuable in countering the recent wave of sentimental crap about the forties from the likes of Steven Spielberg and Tom Brokow. But in the end, as in "Far From Heaven," the filmmakers' good intentions are undermined by having a protagonist so ridiculously oblivious to the social conventions of their time.


I had never heard of this film until it came to DVD. I was immediately intrigued by everything about it: the actors, the title, the cover, and especially the author. Arthur Miller, you can't go wrong with him, can you? Yep. I haven't read the novel, but I'm going to guess it was a lot better than the film. I had high hopes for this movie. I love Macy and Dern, and it looked interesting. Unfortunately, this film never really rises above cookie-cutter messages about racism and bigotry. If you've never seen any other films that deal with this subject, or if you never knew that America was founded on bigotry, then maybe this film will wow you. Others will probably find it predictable, stale, and overall bland.


The somewhat-belligerent brother of a suicide finds that he and his mother grieve in much the same way (by acting out) but that Dad is morose and blaming himself. Writer-director Dan Harris gives us a dysfunctional family torn at the seams, characters with question marks hanging over them, and then lays all the story-points out in the most obvious terms: Suicide! Secrets! Gay shame! Family sickness! Ultimately aiming to wrap things up with a tidy bow, Harris wants to make sure we don't miss a trick, initially giving us thoughtful material to ponder but then spelling everything out in an elementary, sentimental fashion. Sigourney Weaver's bemused performance as the family matriarch is dryly disengaged and she's a joy--that is, until Harris gives her a make-over (complete with sensible new hairstyle). It's the cinematic equivalent of a condescending pat on the head. ** from ****


Viewers of independent films know that once or twice a year they are going to see stories about dysfunctional families and they have come to expect them and it's becoming more of a challenge to keep them fresh but here despite the good cast it just seems more of the same. Story is about the Travis family who is trying to recover from the suicide of Matt (Kip Pardue) who was a very promising high school swimmer. Ben (Jeff Daniels) is the father who withdraws from everyone and has never treated his other son Tim (Emile Hirsch) as well as Matt but he does communicate (of some sort) to his mother Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) who finds his stash of pot and starts to smoke it.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Sandy also starts to flirt with much younger men like the check-out cashier at the grocery store but when she attempts to buy more marijuana she gets busted and hauled off to jail. She doesn't tell anyone what happened but she does discover bruises on Tim's body and also that Ben has taken a leave of absence from work. After all this happens Sandy falls ill and lands in the hospital where her life is in danger which forces Ben to realize that he may have to come to terms with losing another part of his family.

This film is written and directed by Dan Harris who has worked with Bryan Singer on "X2" and also the upcoming Superman film and while his script allows these characters to have genuine moments of expressing their pain and confusion the story (for me) just has too many things thrown in. The script touches on so many different areas that you need a scorecard to keep track of them all including drugs, sex, love, infidelity, abuse, neglect, experimentation with homosexuality, and a life threatening illness. If all those scenarios weren't enough for you Harris then tacks on a plot twist at the end that's supposed to sum up and explain most of everyone's feelings towards Tim. While I did roll my eyes at least 2 or 3 times with the way the script kept unrolling one thing after another I must admit that I didn't hate this film and I have to credit the actors for that. Everyone has at least one good scene somewhere in the film but I wish the story would have concentrated more on Weaver and her character than Hirsch. Weaver is exceptional and with a sharper script she could have had a role that maybe would have led to an Oscar nomination but instead we get endless scenes of Hirsch at parties or his shenanigans with the neighbor next door. Harris shows he can be a good writer/director but with this effort he just throws so many different things at the audience that the material just becomes labored and contrived.


===========BIG SPOILER================================== This is a terrible movie with no likable characters. So many clichés and senseless scenes. It needs a good editor but then there might not be any movie left. Please save your two hours. The only decent and unpredictable scene in the movie was when the younger brother refuses to stop his brother from killing himself. The description read "moments of dark comedy". Perhaps I missed those when I blinked. The horrible characters start right with the funeral. The funeral goers are laughing and complaining about the food while at the funeral of a very young man who has committed suicide? Then the father makes digs at the only son left? Right at the funeral? How is it that the next door neighbor whose husband cheated on her with Sigourney Weaver's character is the bad guy for telling the husband? The father doesn't even know his son can play the piano though everyone else around him seems to know he is a great pianist. The movie tries to shove every dramatic cliché possible into one movie: father over-driving athletic son to succeed, dysfunctional family losing a chosen son to suicide, the son left feeling lost and alone, drugs, marital affairs, child conceived via affair but raised as husband's son, incest, homosexual tendencies, bullies, possible terminal illness, etc, etc, etc. DO NOT WASTE YOUR 2 HOURS.


This was a character's movie. The plot wasn't that hot when it was there, but the characters were interesting and very well-acted. The story focuses on the Travis family in the wake of the eldest son's suicide. I say that loosely, because the story is mostly about the surviving son and the mother, because if the father WAS supposed to have the story focus on him too, they edited the movie pretty poorly. The acting on all parts was very good, particularly Emile Hirsch as the surviving, confused son. The characters were all very interesting and I didn't mind watching them until late in the film, when it just seemed to drag.

My big complaint, however, was the story. The son killing himself was supposed to be the center of the plot. However, it really wasn't. It was something that happened at the start of the story, but then everything went every which way. Then they'd mention that the son killed himself to remind you that that was the central thread. The other thing was that the big plot twists, of which there were plenty, were never really explained or built up to, but just thrown in there randomly and often from far left field. In fairness, the ending was very, very cool. But it was also clear where the inspiration for the story came from: about half of it (the half that wasn't padding) was pretty much lifted from the story in the Pearl Jam song Alive. Which reminds me...

There was a "poem" in the movie that was supposedly written by someone who killed themself. I could not have been the only one who recognized that said poem was lifted, word for word, from that very same song. I dunno, this was a movie I had hope for, and they really, really dropped the ball.


This wretched psychodrama uses every shabby device in the book to wheedle attention and sympathy from us for its characters, who, with one exception, are not worthy of any notice at all, let alone two precious hours of filmgoers' time.

As in Robert Redford's "Ordinary People" (a superb film that, in comparison, clearly shows up the vacuity of "Heroes"), a late teenage boy has died, leaving his family in the throes of bereavement. In this case, the death was a suicide, an event that nearly always poisons the emotional well of the survivors in a particularly corrosive way. We follow these people over the next 8 or 9 months.

The father (Jeff Daniels) becomes a withdrawn, virtually mute, usually drunken stiff who secretly takes leave from his job for months, sits instead on a park bench all day, and insists on setting a full plate of food at the deceased son's place for every meal. He treats everyone else in the family with unerring nastiness. He sees his doctor regularly but the issue of therapeutic intervention in his obviously dysfunctional state never comes up.

The mother (Sigourney Weaver) yells at the neighbor woman, among others, gets busted when she stupidly tries to buy "marijuana" (her term) at a head shop (what adult in reality would ever try such a dumb stunt?), and, near the end, swoons into coma with a lung condition that everyone in the theater assumes is cancer (she's a heavy smoker). Ms. Weaver has a few flip lines but generally behaves too unintelligently to merit much empathy.

It's not that there aren't people out there who behave in these silly ways when severely stressful circumstances arise. But why make a film of such drivel? What can anyone learn from this pair's conduct?

The deceased's older sister (Michelle Williams) is away at college and all too happy to distance herself from the family zoo. The younger brother (played by Emile Hirsch) is the only credible member of the family. His suffering is genuine, its causes multifold, and his conduct is coherent within the circumstances. But Hirsch's character is too soft spoken, too morose and beaten down, to carry the movie. The other bit players, subtexts and cutesy, unreal dialogue don't help.

The suicide theme is echoed in an almost nonchalant manner in the case of two other minor characters. So what is the writer-director, Dan Harris, trying to say about this subject? That it isn't a serious matter? Why Jeff Daniels agreed to play the sap of a father as written in this screenplay is something only his therapist might possibly be able to answer. Avoid this dog. Instead rent Redford's classic. My rating: 4/10 (C-). (Seen on 2/17/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.


I just finished watching this horribly depressing drama and realized that, in light of recent dramas such as these, the only ones who could be considered abnormal are those who are least aware that life is nothing more than tragic. I would suggest how nauseatingly defeatist and counter-productive this conclusion is, even if relationships and outlooks like those presented in this movie are grounded in fact to some degree. But, instead, I realized that these films have made the very determination of the great "tragedy" trivial when the same boring situations, the same suffocating dysfunctional families and friendships continue to play out just have they been over and over again in some sort of attempt to knock out previous distortions of family life (much of it existing in the 1950s and earlier with personality and character aberrations being made ever so subtle), supplanting it instead with the "reality" of how things actually are. That in fact, what we are watching is no longer the dysfunctional, but in fact, a normal existence and set of circumstances that has actually existed all along, but of which we may have been previously been unaware and thus, have ignored or at least denied.

Only problem is, that too many films have been trying to make this point. And by doing so in nearly identical form. When I had read the synopsis for the film, I immediately thought of 'Ice Storm.' While watching the depressing lifelessness of the Travis family, which seemed to endure repeated emotional berating, I immediately recalled 'American Beauty.' And, in some regards, the interactions between the parents and the middle child, Tim, I drew similarities from 'Igby Goes Down.' 'Imaginary Heroes' may be a novel experience, maybe a refreshing one deemed so for an honest portrayal of character that, as said before, is often not permitted to exist in the films of family (which is idiotic to think anyways, considering we were already seeing these kinds of relationships displayed in films like 'Ordinary People' as early as 1980 and which go back even further than that). But, to the well-versed viewer, these films may offer nothing new. They have in fact, become a rather tired testimony of too many filmmakers who may try to out-do the other with the amount of trauma and apathy they can pack into one family (and here, it extends to neighbors and friends). In fact, 'Imaginary Heroes,' the latest in this genre (I do think there have been enough films to accurately declare it a 'genre'), crams so many disasters and surprises into one family, that they would make prize finds for a daytime talk show host. It is the story of a family who is tested by the suicide of the eldest son, a talented and decorated swimmer who hated the sport with a passion. The youngest son knew this, the father was in a daze and blinded by the push for competitiveness in his all-star son. And it's not clear that the mother and sister had much of a relationship with the young man.

Granted, it is no less entertaining (to some extent, for those who find this material exhaustively depressing after a while), and the performances are quite good, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels. But, I sure hope that filmmakers in the future wishing to add to the commentary of struggling familial relationships (which coincidentally or not always seem to be upper-middle class white suburban families) intend to offer something new by way of material and insight. I should see no distinction (and consequently, no purpose) otherwise.


Kinda funny how comments for this film went consistently downhill, now add mine. I think the script could have been saved by better acting, and the acting by a better script. Together, it was difficult to watch, and I don't flinch from such subject matter.

Sigourney was the best part (I thought the relationship between her and her surviving son was pretty much the only new thing this film offered to its genre) but even she lagged. Can't blame her, who knows what takes were left on the cutting room floor by the director and/or editor. The whole movie had an "okay, that's good enough, let's move on" feel to it, when I KNOW there was more to be mined from the actors and the script, which did have some good lines and some interesting themes.

I don't think this counts as a spoiler, but a perfect example is the scene where Sigourney marches up to her son's supposed tormentor's house and has this look on her face and I thought "that's the face of someone who is overacting what it's like to see someone living in a mobile home" and sure enough, next shot, meant to shock us I'm sure, bully lives in a trailer as opposed to a nice house, like hers.

As many other posters have pointed out, there are SO MANY better movies with similarly airy scripts about similarly messed up families that hit the notes better -- "Celebration" probably being the ultimate example that I've seen.


Stylized Hollywood Westerns, full of familiar conventions, seem to have eternal life and this is an avatar. Everything in it seems to have been scraped out of the back of a drawer from 1939, a larger budget applied, and this production its issue.

Gary Cooper has played this sort of role dozens of times -- the displaced Southerner, fast on the draw and firm with honor, though kinda easy going whenever possible. He plays Blayde Hollister who travels to Texas looking for the gang who destroyed his cotton plantation. He wears a buckskin-fringed shirt and packs two ivory-handled six shooters. He speaks with a countrified accent -- "A feller could get hurt doin' this." (Cf., "Sergeant York.") The gang is led by sneering Raymond Massey, who buys and sells land, usually by underhanded means whenever possible. The gang includes Steve Cochran, who cannot play a Westerner though he's very good at scum bags in general. The requisite woman is Ruth Roman, daughter of the Mexican plantation owner, who looks and speaks about as Mexican as a Boston brown betty.

I don't think I'll bother too much with the plot. No doubt someone has gone into it in some detail and it's not worth much more mention. As in any 1939 Western, it's labyrinthine. Everyone except Cooper and his friends are underhanded and there are multiple double crosses and switched identities and hidden secrets.

Everything is retro. The plot, the dialog, the wardrobe, even the music. The score is by Warner's stalwart Max Steiner. He's the guy that scored "King Kong." That was 1932. This movie was released in 1950.

Cooper's name, by the way -- "Blayde Hollister" -- prompted me to look through the records of the RACA -- the Real American Cowboy Associaton -- to see if that name cropped up in their archives, which date from the beginning of time to February 4th, 1911, when the last Real Cowboy passed away due to an unfortunate encounter with a deranged peccary. There has never been a Real Cowboy with the name Blayde. Hollister, yes, but not Blayde. As a matter of fact, there is no record of any Real Cowboy named Wade, Luke, Cole, or Matt either. The most popular names for genuine cowboys, in descending order of frequency, were Clarence, Mortimer, Noble, Nebukadnezzar, Plautus, Pinchbeck, and Hortense.

If this movie had been released in 1939, it would have been routine. In 1950, it is a calamitous monument in the history of human recycling.


This is one of the most ridiculous westerns that Hollywood ever made. Gary Cooper plays 'Reb Hollister', a former confederate officer wanted by the law. He meets up with a moron named Weatherby, played by Leif Erickson, who is a U.S. Marshal with no knowledge of firearms. Weatherby is on his way to Dallas to see his fiancee, Tonia Robles, played by Ruth Roman. Senor Robles, Tonia's father, has plenty of men, but they can't seem to be able to keep an eye on his cattle, which are regularly rustled by the Marlow brothers. Will Marlow, played by Raymond Massey, has financed the loan on the Robles estate, making things completely absurd. He even has the power to call for mortgage payments before they're due, simply because he feels like it.

Since Weatherby is a Boston boy who can't fight, since he only became a Marshal so he could visit his fiancee, Tonia, (Just another instance of more plot nonsense. Are we to assume that you only have to pass a written test to get this job? Wait a minute, this guy couldn't pass the written test either.) he switches identities with Reb Hollister, who of course is an expert gunman. Reb takes the liberty of greeting Weatherby's girl with a passionate kiss, while Weatherby looks on like an idiot. Gary Cooper, Hollywood's number one stud, is in fine form here as Reb. Before the movie's done, not only does he take Weatherby's job, he steals his fiancee also, and Ruth Roman as Tonia, falls for him so hard and so fast that she gives chump Leif Erickson the brush-off before the films little more than half over.

There isn't a shred of plot credibility in the whole film, so despite the good cast and lush photography, the film is a dud. And Cooper's character is a complete heel to boot. The film also stars Barbara Payton as Brant Marlow's girl, a beautiful and talented actress who squandered away her chances, unfortunately, by making too many headlines for the wrong reasons. I strongly suggest you pass this one up.


This is the most pitiful excuse for a comedy show I've ever seen. I'm confounded that this guy was given his own show. It smells of complete and utter desperation on the part of comedy central, trying to fill the void left by the talented and incomparable Dave Chapelle. He's a tip from Ned's bag of comedy gold: Is a punchline not funny? Need to give it that extra push into hilarity? F***ING YELL IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS. Simple, no? And as an added bonus....finish half your jokes with...THEN YOU'RE RE-TAH-DED!! or DUH-DU-DUUUUHHHH! Oh man. So....funny. Beaner...hilarious. Wetback....does the laughter ever stop?

To illustrate my point in a more cerebral way, i'll cite an example. Mencia jokes about how "retarded" it is to rebuild new orleans, because it's so close to the water. Genius. The line of distinction between a great comedian and a hack has never been drawn so clearly. While a good comedian would find hidden humor in the tragedy, finding subtle ways of weaving a joke into something that we can all laugh at and take solace in, Ned goes for the obvious. Move the city. Great. Wait, is that funny? Ned doesn't have the intellectual capacity to find the deepest meaning of things. The hurricane didn't flood the city, ned. The levee project was underfunded and in serious need of federal dollars...and behold! They broke. I guess that's God's way of telling us we shouldn't be there. After all, he's got a seat in congress. What a fool.

Chapelle was a master of turning a tired racial comedic spin on its head. He was effortless at it, and at all points, we were laughing with him. While mencia talks about black people not being able to swim *yawn,* Chapelle took it 300 yards further with the black and blind white supremesist. You don't have to be scathing to be edgy. You have to be original.

Mencia and his legions of fans are like that closeted gay dude who laughs all too emphatically at gay jokes, thinking it somehow masks his own insecurities. Except of course, with Ned, he's laughing all too emphatically at the "retards." Du-du-duuuuh.


I thought "puppets making crank phone calls" was pretty low, but I don't believe that Carlos Mencia's show even qualifies as comedy. His main objective is to make the audience incredibly uncomfortable while using the word "beaner" as many times as he possible can. I have never felt compelled to write a review declaring the awfulness of anything on IMDb before, but I really do hope this show is never renewed or rerun.

Mencia is trying to be the next Dave Chapelle, and perhaps he was only hired by the network because they hoped he would fill those shoes. It is obvious right down to the rip of Chapelle's intro (blues guys vs. mariachi band). However, Mencia has absolutely *no* attitude, and does not delve into popular views of the hispanic culture enough to come up with a creative poke at it each time. Instead he sticks to a small number of hardly-shocking nicknames for his fellow latinos and makes "jokes" about immigration. Every once in a while, he'll take advantage of the slight darkness of his skin to make fun of someone else, like middle eastern cultures. These jokes mainly consist of reiterating every joke or stereotype made against the culture, and perhaps some incredibly old topics (such as 9/11), in a watered down, stand-up style, while he laughs at himself to cover up the audience's style. I think he's too afraid of really offending anyone, so it just makes the viewer feel awkward. He also beats jokes to death. If you've ever seen "Why the f*** is this news?" you'll know what I'm talking about. It's funny at first, but he just rambles on and on and becomes Captain Obvious at some point.

It's a trainwreck that is purely painful to watch.


I haven't watched this show in months, but for a while I was forced to watch it every day because I had a roommate that liked it. So maybe it's undergone some vast improvement in all that time, although the commercials and the 4.2 rating on IMDb aren't a good sign.

It was clearly just a quick replacement for Chappelle's Show. Even Mencia says so. And while I wasn't even that big a fan of Chappelle's Show, his jokes were at least original and clever (and far edgier than Mencia has ever been). Mencia's jokes are completely unoriginal and stale. If you can't see that, I guess there's just no hope for you. But to be fair, here are some examples:

--Mencia blatantly rips off Chapelle's Lil Jon skit. Just takes it.

--"South Park" makes an episode about scientology. One week later, Mencia has a joke on his show about how offensive he is to scientologists. Bear in mind the joke isn't ABOUT scientologists, but about how much he's offended them on his show. When up to this point, he has never made a single scientology joke, ever.

--After Hurricane Katrina, two AP photos go around the Internet showing a black man "looting" groceries and a white woman "finding" them. WEEKS later, after millions of people have already seen this, Mencia presents it on his show as if he discovered it and it's being shown for the first time (the Daily Show would have been on something like that in a day). Pathetic.

Even more annoying than the joke-stealing is the way Carlos has promoted himself and his show, claiming he's breaking down some sort of PC barrier (whatever) and that if you aren't laughing, you must be a weak prude who can't handle any jokes about race. Yes, Carlos, it's not because you're not funny, it's because we're all too offended to laugh (if that was really true, then why was Chappelle's Show so popular?). He constantly berates his audience for "not getting it" if he doesn't get enough laughs, and often repeats and EXPLAINS his jokes, a technique most comedians stop using by age 14.

The worst part is that Mencia does not seem to be very intelligent. It's sort of tragic that there are dozens of funnier, more insightful comedians out there trying to make it while this guy is rolling in money. His show is supposedly the third highest rated on Comedy Central, which is baffling (again, it has a 4.2 rating on this site). Where the hell are they getting these numbers?? Comedy Central tries to bill itself as an "edgy" station, but as long as it tries to appeal to the dumbest audience possible, that will never be the case.


...so where's my friggin trophy? I seriously expected a banner and confetti to drop from my ceiling for watching a full 30 minutes of that crap. Comedy Central is truly dropping the ball lately, trying to fill the void left by Chappelle with multiple seasons of a retarded man impersonating retarded men. Dah duh nah!! If you pay attention to the show, you'll notice that when Mencia isn't stuttering over punchlines and laughing at his own skits, he only makes exaggerated observations which seem to lack any sense of humor. You ever notice how people in Buick's drive really slow? It's like Dah duh nah! Not even the midgets and half naked hot chicks manage to distract from Mencia's distinct lack of talent. Furthermore, Mencia isn't even a "wetback" as he constantly and adamantly proclaims he is, which makes him a fraud on top of it all.

If anything good could be said about Mencia, it's his effort. The man clearly has no talent, but like a wounded antelope in the mouth of a hungry alligator, god knows he's trying.


Yup, that's right folks, this is undoubtedly the worst show in the history of television. If you want to watch a sad, lonely and unfunny hack comedian attempt to entertain the masses with a half hour of pale and tired social ramblings that your mildly retarded cousin commented on at the Thanksgiving dinner table then this might be the show for you. This is billed as edgy comedy my friends but to be honest this makes Tim Allen look like Richard Pryor. Avoid at all costs. Unless you're a masochist.


I absolutely love stand-up comedy. I love to hear the raw thoughts of the stand-up on stage, as they are appealing to an audience of their peers different life experiences they have had, or things they have thought up or seen that they just thought were so ****ing stupid that they had to share it with someone.

There used to be stand-ups who took on a persona that everyone could relate to (Rodney Dangerfield comes to mind) or were just so damn crazy that you couldn't help but laugh with them as they laughed at others (Richard Pryor). And then, there were the thought-provoking comics like George Carlin, who, despite pretending to be a loon, was the smartest guy in the room, who appealed to people to rethink things they saw when they walked around, and realize just how screwed up things were, and how easily they could change things.

Now, this might seem to not have anything to do with "Mind Of Mencia," which, as I agree with most commentators here, is Comedy Central's horrid solution to the loss of "Chappelle's Show," but it does. Carlos Mencia spends half of the show doing stand-up bits for his audience, sometimes on popular topics, most of the time on just racism and racial stereotypes. He tries to be all three of the above types of stand-ups. He makes a stage character, an every-day Mexican named Carlos who, despite stereotypes, is just your run-of-the-mill normal guy. He then proceeds to try to laugh at others, people he calls racist or just those that disagree with his opinion. And then, finally, he presents skits to the studio audience and the viewer, telling them that it will help them see his point of view.

Carlos Mencia always says he's showing a point of view that people don't see, yet what he is really doing is not only promoting racist stereotypes that already exist and have been joked about to death, but he stupidly encourages people to hear them and do the one thing that helps keep them around:laugh.

Promoting stereotypes is usually the lowest, yet easiest, way to get laughs in stand-up. The best comedians, which, I fear, Carlos Mencia feels he is in good company with, don't have to resort to them. They talk universally, and ask you to laugh AT absurdity, rather than with it, like Mencia encourages. As he creates more skits or "real-life" situations that call for racism or the bashing of others with the use of it, he tells us, rather than asks us, to laugh, and actually presents these absurdities as truth, rather than just extremes of it.

His show is an insult to the minds of those who watch it. Mencia doesn't give us comedy and ask us to digest it and take from it what we want (something that, as much as I hate to compare the two, was "Chappelle's Show's" finest quality) he tells us exactly how we should view it and react to it---which, according to him, is to make a stupid face and say "Dee Dee Dee!" This show is appropriately named. It is indeed a show about "The Mind of Mencia." It's Mencia's mind, through and through, and, as such, is nothing more than dumb entertainment. The show is tailor-made to give life lessons to its core audience, 14-24 year olds, about how stereotypes are bad, but that racial bashing is alright to Carlos Mencia, and therefore should be alright to you!


What is it now-a-days that minority comedians feel its okay to slander their minority and expect to get away with it?

Carlos Mencia is no George Lopez. There IS a difference. When watching comedian Carlos Mencia, I think he hates his own people. And more than that, I think he was forced to pattern his show as the "Hispanic/Latino/Spanish" version of the Dave Chappelle show. What a horrible mistake. (Note to Mencia: Please do not do a "Block Party" movie. As much as I would like to see Santana, Tierra, El Chicano, Christina Agullaria, Jennifer Lopez, Shakira and the reunion of the cast of "Xica da Silva" on one stage, don't.)

Carlos Mencia likes to use the word "beaners" as much as Dave Chappelle liked using the "n" word. Neither is funny and neither is acceptable, even if it's from 'their own people'. Carols Mencia also likes to say, "If you're offended, too bad". It's not the offense, it's the defense because of what is being said and asked to be accepted.

Carols Mencia goes further - he disrespects everyone for what he assumes is comedy. It's not comedy, it's not funny. There is a finesse to being able to look at yourself and make others laugh out of comedy and not laugh out of enforcing stereotypes that other races believed in the beginning.

Mind of Mencia needs polishing because Carlos Mencia needs polishing. Find out what is funny and not what will set more prejudices in motion and then - do it. Until then, the show, Mind of Mencia is a pass.


Carlos Mencia just plain isn't funny! His show is painful to watch because of that. His sketches/parodies are all very horrible, and this really just feels like a filler for the Chapelle Show, which while I'm not a big fan of that, it is much funnier than this trash. Carlos Mencia gives the stupid speeches and he all too often depends on finishing his monologues with a retarded voice and going "der, der der." It's just not funny. He often, when talking to others, makes puns. They are horrible and painful. When people don't laugh, he blames them...why would anyone laugh, he's not funny. He has an immature sense of humor in everything he does on this show, it's amazing that anyone but 3 year olds watch this. One of my least favorite things he does, is water down every topic and make it seem like a joke! I hope that this racist idiot gets taken off the air as soon as possible because he's dumbing down a station that doesn't need to be dumbed down anymore.


This is a great example of what happened at Comedy Central after Dave Chapelle left. Here's the problem with Carlos Mencia. Firstly, his birth name is Ned Holness, and was known that until he was 18, when he switched his name to Ned Arnel Mencia. He was born in Honduras, though he acts like he's from Mexico. He grew up in the United States, as well.

I might be able to forgive all that crap, but...

He's been caught stealing other peoples material. Joe Rogan has been his most vocal critic in this way. The Stereotype Olympics was an idea he ripped off a couple of DJ's from Miami. He has stolen jokes from Bill Cosby. He stole George Lopez's material in his own HBO special (13 minutes of it).

He thinks what he's doing is so original, but Dave Chapelle and Lisa Lampanelli have been cracking on race for years before this idiot (amoung others).

This show will crash and burn. The word Beaner can't last that long before it gets old. He hasn't done anything new since the first episode.

"Wanna hear a joke? A Beaner jumping a fence!! That's funny for 3 Seasons!" Not.

Awful.


I'm surprised that the comparison hasn't been made yet between Mind of Mencia and the television program The Awful Truth, which ran a few years ago. Helmed by controversial director Michael Moore, the show would begin, in the exact same manor as this show, with Moore interacting with the audience, and introducing segments, namely short documentaries and skits, which had been put together in an attempt to provoke thoughts about current issues. The difference? Mencia rarely delves past the superficial and the reactionary. What he says and does is often pandering and rude, and insults the ability of his audience to make decisions for themselves. There's a difference between being "edgy", which I have no problem with, but Mencia tries too hard to accomplish this, and ends up coming off as arrogant, and with little backing. He does however, make points occasionally, but often in order to get to them, one has to sit through some pretty mind numbing attempted shock humor.


...If you've been laughing too much for a long time, and need to take a break.

After reading about 25 unfavorable reviews of this show, I decided to turn it on and check it out for myself. Everything that each of those people have said about this show is absolutely true. Mind of Mencia is like a half hour version of Mad TV, but with somehow worse jokes.

One skit I had the displeasure of watching was "The Second Annual Stereotype Olympics". What's funny about black guy who has trouble swimming, or gay guy named "Sparkles" that wins a banana eating contest? Neither of these concepts is particularly novel, insightful, or amusing. Do we really need a joke about Star Wars every episode? That movie came out like 30 years ago. Mencia's solution to funny things up is toss in some stereotypes about Hispanics and throw a few "beaners" in there; and call it a day to go home to roll around in his pile of money. Pure comedic genius.

Then he blatantly ripped off Jeff Foxworthy on a second show I watched, with a "Your gay if..." bit. You could just imagine the roaring laughter he got when he snook in a Ryan-Seacrest-is-gay joke. It's not like either of those has already been done to death.

Unless you're a big fan of Jason Friedberg and Adam Seltzer movies, please stay away from this show. Especially when there are authentic comedians like Dave Chappelle out there who can joke about races and racism and still be insightful.


Did you find the title funny? Oh, you didn't? Well that's because you're uptight. Learn to laugh because if you're not laughing, you're not living. So please, lower your standards regarding to what you believe is funny to that of a mere infant. Now do you find it funny? Still no?! OK, that's because you're full of yourself and get offended too easily. If you're not laughing, you're not living. And if you don't like me then send me hate mail so that I could write another review and state how much hate mail I get and try to twist this into making it seem as if I am a bad ass. Are you laughing at my hilarious title yet? Still no?!?! OK that's it! You are a racist! You HAVE to laugh or else you are a racist. Why else would you not laugh? Oh, It's not funny!?! No, this can't be why. I want it to be funny so therefor it is!! Laugh damn it!!!! Please!!! Deedeedee!! Durdurdur!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK that's it. Where's my notepad and pen? And where's my Richard Pryor DVD's? I need to write some jokes for my show.

And...... scene. Thank you, thank you.

This is basically what you'll get from Mencia for about 23 minutes. Please, do yourself a favor and change the channel when this bum's show comes on. Even basic cable channels have things 100x better than this. I'm not even saying this because I hate him. I'm for real. This show is like watching grass grow. Not sure though, at least grass doesn't steal jokes. I'm honestly trying to save YOUR time. I even tried watching his show. I told myself "maybe he isn't THAT bad.". But no, he is. I completely zone out when I watched his show. I tried to collect myself during the commercial break and focus on the show but I couldn't. I zoned out again, I think I was thinking of something more interesting like re-making my bed, vacuuming or folding my socks. Before I knew it, the show was over. Yeah, it's that bad.

Here's my final thought - There's so many things you can do with 30 minutes besides watch this guy shout about nothing for half an hour. Don't watch a show that tries to shove racism in your face in vain. I can support shows that try to ease the tension of the race wars but this guy just provides more racism rather than stop it.


To put it simply, Mind of Mencia is the worst, unfunniest show on Comedy Central, and quite possibly all of television... ever. I love Comedy Central and watch many shows and movies there all the time, but every time the intro for this show even starts after some good comedy, I can't find the remote fast enough.

Mencia tells used, worn out racial jokes in a bad attempt at being controversial, then will point out the ethnicity he just talked about in the audience as if to say 'they liked it, so all of your race likes it, and by extension me too'. Give me a break Mencia, I don't know if those people are plants or not, but just because you go to a black guy and high five him after one of your ridiculous jokes, doesn't mean he thinks you're funny, it just means you put him on the spot and what else is he going to do, smack you on TV? He gives the impression that his jokes are deep, meaningful, and thought provoking, which is apparent in his commercials, but when you actually watch the show almost 100% of what he says is common sense. He also claims that only smart people get some of his jokes, but you don't have to be any smarter than a monkey to understand what he just said when he says that, maybe you need to go finish 3rd grade Carlos. The guy goes on to say that he says what others are only thinking, but I think you'll find that if anyone was thinking what he says, they figured out all on their own that it was ridiculous, and that's why they never said it in the first place.

All in all, watch 1 episode and be done with it if you must, because after you've seen 1 episode, you've seen them all. Why Comedy Central keeps renewing this horrible show is well beyond me. If you're looking for good comedy, look elsewhere, because you will find very little of it here.


Thats right I can't watch Comedy Central anymore just because I can't bear to watch the repeated commercials for this show. I'll tell you the truth, this is a terrible show not because I'm offended by it, but because Carlos Mencia is one of the worst comedians I have ever seen. I rather watch Carrot Top do a George Bush impression than watch this no-skill hack. And to believe he calls himself the greatest. Even if he didn't steal the jokes, he is still bad at telling them, he's way off-timing and unoriginal. I remember in one joke he said "Why do white people go camping? to pretend there poor for a week?" Now what is that suppose to mean? That all white people are rich? Another one I didn't understand was when he did a skit of the Price is Right and he told some fat guy "You should know how much a fridge cost, you're fat" and the fat guy had the saddest look on his face. But what does that mean? That "fat people" are always looking for refrigerators? Those are just the two I seen in his commercials, God knows what his show is like..

This show falls in the likes of Epic Movie and Date Movie..


There's been a whole lot made about Carlos Mencia's (Mr. Holness, excuse me) theft of other comics' material. Heck, even before Joe Rogan had a blowup with him on stage I knew that Carlos Mensteala was swiping material from Cosby and Kinison and a host of others.

To compound the crime of his theft, he retold these comic geniuses jokes BADLY.

And that is a crime he continues to perpetuate on this show. I'm sure the series writers have to share some of the blame - it's got to be hard to write jokes day in and day out... but that's why people get paid so darned much to do it! These series writers need to go back to their day jobs of flipping burgers or whatever it was they were doing before they decided to embark upon a career of intellectual theft.

Not to say that he steals all of his material. You can tell when he has devised a joke on his own when what you are watching transcends the merely awful and goes straight into the territory of horrifyingly bad.

Because he likes to call people b***h on his show, ten year olds call him a genius. They're gonna grow up one of these days, Carlos, and when they do, you're gonna dry up and blow away.


The tagline for this show is, "He's speaking his mind. We're hiring extra lawyers." If you look back in time, any classic raunchy comedian never prided himself in being controversial. Richard Pryor's tagline wasn't, "I'm Crude, Racist and Daring." That's basically how Comedy Central is marketing this show - in your face, non-PC and "honest" - but how can a television show pride itself in being this way? Where's the humility and humbleness? And what suddenly has made Carlos Mencia this huge figure for Comedy Central? Let's start at the beginning - Dave Chappelle cancels his show (which became UNEXPECTEDLY popular and controversial) and Comedy Central is looking around for someone new to push. They hire this guy named Ned who claims to be a Mexican, even though he isn't. They splatter his face on a few TV ads and make it look like they're being "daring" by unleashing him upon the public.

I've seen a lot of hateful topics on the forums for this show, and I don't agree with "Mencia's" detractors. This is not an awful show. It had me crying in laughter a few times. When it's funny, it's very, very funny. Yes, it's juvenile - but so was Chappelle's.

The problem with Carlos is that he uses a lot of the same material over and over. And he's too obvious. The overt marketing put aside, "Carlos" has now said beaner so many times I have lost count. He's trying to make it the next famous line (like "I'm Rick James, b****!") but it's way too obvious.

In terms of repeating himself, Carlos uses many of the same jokes over and over. For example, on one episode he said he'd love it if all Mexicans disappeared from America overnight. He'd wake up and an American guy would be saying, "Room ser'vuce!" in a southern accent.

He used this exact same joke - verbatim - when he appeared as a guest on Adam Carolla's talk show. It was a great deal less funny the second time around, because he seemed more desperate.

Is "Carlos" funny? I think so. There are some outrageous moments on his show. But he focuses too much on TRYING to be controversial rather than just going with the flow and letting his comedy naturally progress. Repeating silly little catchphrases over and over again coupled with goofy faces and loud vocal screams does indeed get old quite fast...I just hope Carlos - or his writers - can give a new edge to this show, because right now it's starting to dwindle in repeat hell.


Okay, I like to give the benefit of the doubt. I watched his show.

It isn't funny to me. All I remember was a lot of "weird" noises and yelling. I don't think I even cracked a smile. The only thing that somewhat resembled humour was his Anjelina Jolie/Jennifer Aniston bit. I think you can get dumber by the minute watching it though.

Also, what's with the "Ask Whitey?" section? Is that a ripoff of "Ask a Gay Dude?/Black Man?" from Chappelle's Show? Isn't it that obvious? But when Chappelle did it, he was exposing the ignorance of the subject. Like Borat. But what's up with picking random white people and yelling stuff at them? That's not funny, its just plain dumb.

And I'm pretty sure I heard certain "jokes" of his somewhere else... it seems abit like he's 'plagerising' bits & pieces, throwing in some "loud" yelling.

Anyway, it wasn't funny. Seriously. Don't even waste your time.


Besides the fact that this guy is a liar, he is also a total idiot, and a thief in the comedy community. Once when I attempted to watch this excuse for a television show, I believe i actually threw up in my mouth a little. I can't help but feel a little bit dumber every time is see one of his horrid commercials while I am enjoying great comedy central programs like Reno 911 and American body shop. It shows like this that make me worry about the continual existence of mankind. It's hard to believe that even Joe Rogan can make someone look like an moron. Please begin praying now that comedy central will realize their mistake and end this show as soon as possible. Haven't we suffered enough?


I'm a huge comedy show fan. Racial humor is always a little risky but the greats like George Lopez, Dave Chapelle, Lisa Lampanelli etc. pull it off perfectly.

They don't go overboard, make the audience uncomfortable or *cough cough* STEAL JOKES! But I won't harp upon that.

Carlos makes racial humor totally unenjoyable. His jokes continually scream racial humor to the point were it's not funny or clever, but it's insulting. I'm not one to turn cold towards racial humor. But his execution of these jokes is sloppy that cause people to recoil at his comedy.

His humor is only surpassed by his stage presence in annoyance. I feel as though he's SCREAMING at me constantly! And he runs around the stage like a maniac. It only comes off as annoying!


Carlos Mencia is not funny. From his stand up specials to this train wreck of a TV series, Carlos Mencia is not funny. I have been trying to convince people for two years that he steals other comedians' jokes, and as far as his comedy material goes, he is a regular "Johnny-come-lately" with far less than sub-par results. Psycho astronaut jokes? Britney Spears breakdown jokes? I hope this is only a scheduling error, but come on Carlos and Comedy Central, those topics, and many others, have run the gamut of late night TV show hosts' opening monologues, Saturday Night Live, Mad TV and many, many others. Lampooning ethnic and racial stereotypes? Comedy stands no chance of evolving with Carlos Mencia around. Perhaps people, especially viewers and Comedy Central executives will get the point since this week's issue of "New York" magazine accurately labeled him: "Carlos Mencia, unrepentant joke-filcher."


Occasionally I accidentally leave the television on after "South Park" and I end up catching some of the train wreck of middle school humor that is "Mind of Mencia". It's the only time I wish my room was cleaner because I'd be able to find the remote that much faster. The truth is Comedy Central was in need of a replacement "Chappelle's Show", and what they got was a show that appeals to idiots that either miss Dave so much they'll cling to any minority variety show, or are satisfied with the plain "Mexicans love tacos" jokes that Carlos Mencia shovels in every week. I am to understand, though, that there are some people out there that actually find Mencia *shudder* funny. I firmly stand by my words when I say I believe these people to exist only in myth. However, if you are indeed out there, I ask only that you never enter into my housing district, and read these major differences between Carlos and "Chappelle's Show":

1) Dave was funny. You may want to highlight this one.

2) "Chappelle's Show" was FIVE TIMES as edgy as Mencia could ever hope to be. Yet every time a promo for his little show airs, it's all about him, tooting his own horn about how he's nothing we've ever seen before. You've got that right, Carlos. And not in a good way. Chappelle didn't need to tell people he was edgy and funny. We all just kind of stuck around to watch the show to find out for ourselves.

3) Chappelle actually had race jokes that dove into some depth of the different cultures- things that some people didn't know about. Like his "I know black people" game segment. The grand prize was some hair cream that black people use. That's deeper than Mencia would ever dare to dive. So how dare he call himself edgy? If Mencia were writing that sketch the grand prize would have been fried chicken and kool-aid. And my accusations have some merit. I saw a promo for his show (which I have affectionately come to call 'My T.V. Monitor Taking A S--t For Thirty Minutes') a few days ago and it was some stereotype olympics sketch, which i admitted to myself was a pretty funny concept. Then I saw that the Mexican that won received a green card as a grand prize. That's it?! That's as close to the fire as you wanna get? Who COULDN'T think of that- back in 7th grade? For you fans of the show, if you're ever watching and you miss one of his punchlines- perhaps because you and your friends were discussing how "Duh-De-Durr" never gets old and is in no way the part of the joke where someone funny would have something clever to say- just remember that there are only five possible choices for punchlines anyway: green card, tacos, border jumpers, lawn mowers, and of course, duh-de-dur. Just remember-whichever it was, it was screamed. Enjoy!

4) Kind of relating to number two. Every time he says something that gets a laugh, he'll pause to tell people (while laughing at his own joke) that he thinks he "went too far with that last one". Then don't say it for God's sake. Or let the people decide by themselves. He and Comedy Central keep shoving this tripe down my throat that he's this tell-it-like-it-is show that is more controversial than "The Da Vinci Code". You're not. You never will be.

I've never been offended by the show's content. I would never give it that much credit. I'm offended that Carlos Mencia is given thirty minutes to scream unnecessarily. Yeah... I'm literally offended by that fact.


Carlos is perhaps not the most original comic, but the first series was amusing, his forthright comments and observations were fresh. I missed a couple of seasons, but after all of the allegations of stealing material I caught a couple of episodes of the Mind of Mencia at the end of July 07. A bit of a change I see! Carlos is much more into toilet humor and sex jokes than the race observations. In one episode he sort of implied he was in the same league as Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle. I think not. Perhaps Comedy Central will give him one more season, but episodes I saw sounded tired and samey with more words beeped out than the Osbournes. Carlos, go back to stand-up for a couple of years, get some fresh material and try again.


I've only seen most of the series since I leave the TV on as background noise in my dorm.

I've been a fan of Mencia but this show really doesn't do much for me. Occasionally he'll say or do something to pull a chuckle out, but he has this aura of smugness that completely ruins it.

I've always thought he was funny because of his raging angry-man routine that's not terribly prevalent in this TV series. Instead, he's just smug. I guess that just reflects how funny his comedy is: stale and uninteresting when he isn't in the proper mode of delivery. I've seen him get into it sometimes on his show, but for the most part, he just sits there smiling and looking smug, and it doesn't suit him well.

Just my opinion though.


Carlos wants to make fun of affirmative action, racial stereotypes and related topics on his show which makes him a lot like Supreme Court Justice Thomas. He's there BECAUSE of his race and then denigrates it. He can supposedly make fun of Mexicans to no end because he is himself Mexican, and I would also contend he can get away with making fun of the mentally challenged because any lay person can tell he's not the sharpest tool....though he is definitely a tool of some sort.

He is a hack comedian who, even with a staff of writers, can't put together 3 minutes of genuinely funny material in a 30 minute show. I can't think of a single comedian who is regularly on TV that Carlos can hold a candle to except maybe Larry the Cable Guy (not too surprisingly, he also has a show on Comedy Central to cater to the exact same audience no doubt.

If you ever see the greats, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart etc. talk about comedy you really get a feeling for the amount of work and thought that goes into developing a funny interesting comedic voice. All that work was completely skipped by Mencia; his comedic voice is, in part, stolen from other better comics and in part hidden by his propensity for yelling his unfunny rehashed racist tripe. Mencia's show is beloved by some of the "at least I don't suck that badly crowd" who I firmly believe watch it to feel better from his rants about the dumbing down of society; unfortunately Carlos and his fans are part of the problem not the solution on that topic.


It doesn't take balls to make-fun of retarded people. Having to listen to Mencia insist that he is brave to make "retard" jokes is intolerable. Also, it doesn't take balls to bite off of the chapelle show. The racial game-shows, the racial olympics, it seems like a lot of the skits are merely reworked Chapelle Show skits, that are just way less funny.

But the most irksome thing in the show is his insistence that he is just marching to the beat of his own drum, when he is actually marching to the beat of many over-worked, over-done drums that have been drummed many times.

I hate this show. I hate that it presents itself as a voice for Latin America.

And no Carlos, I am not trying to censore you. If people like it, then keep it on. But I personally think that it's a bad show.


while mind of mencia could be summed up as nothing more than a clone of chappelle's show, it is really worse than that. first of all, Carlos mencia is a jacka** that is as funny as he is original, which isn't saying much. the show contains lame spoofs of American television ads and political issues, and mencia's "comedic" insight on politics adds to the low quality of this show. on top of it all, mencia tosses in more lame ethnic jokes and stolen Jeff foxworthy lines than i can count on one hand. while every once in a while Carlos gets a cheap laugh, the rest of the time he spends insulting everyone in sight, which does include exploiting his own audience members. with the exception of south park, drawn together, and Friday night stand-up, this show marks the end of the chappelle's show glory days, which for those of you who haven't heard, was before he went to Africa.


This show reminds me of an episode of "The Simpsons," where Smithers had just been fired by Mr. Burns and was forced to live a miserable life being unemployed. All he did to while the way the hours was to drink and watch Comedy Central. The implication was that Comedy Central was a pathetic TV channel for miserable people with nothing else to occupy their time. "Mind of Mencia" is slightly better than most of Comedy Central's programming, but it still serves as an example of why this channel is low-quality filler for people with absolutely no lives.

Truth be told, Mencia is a fairly competent comedian who throws out trite, soft-ball ethnic jokes and cashes in on bland stereotypes of people based on their race, gender, or economic status, or a combination of two out of three of these characteristics. If you've heard one of these jokes by one of your friends at a bar or at work, believe me, you've heard what passes as comedy on "Mind of Mencia." Carlos also tries to make fun of current events, but lacks creativity or originality. This is not to say that Carlos is a washout all the time. I found some of his skits amusing, such as his rap video portrayal as an oil sheik. If you find bland, run-of-the-mill comedy up your alley, you'll probably enjoy "Mind of Mencia." For those people who are tired of repetitive, pedestrian comedians trotting out the same old time-worn jokes, stay away.


I'm sorry but this guy is not funny. I swear I've heard heard 4 year olds come up with better jokes then some of his. "Dee dee dee" for instance is possibly the worst catch phrase I've ever heard. It lacks any creativity at all, and to be making fun of mentally challenged people when you've reached level of having your own show is incredibly dim-witted on Mencia's part.

Though every one compares this fool to Chappelle, their is no contest. First off they had very very different shows. I think all in all Menica's show on average had only about 2 short 5 minute skits in between his 10 minute rants about god knows what. Chappelles show came off more as sketch comedy, with 2-4 skits that occupied all the show. All chappelle did was a short summarization of each skit before and after each one. This is where Mencia fails even more. What would make Mencia think having a show which consists of the same standup comedy that he talks about on his standup specials would be a beneficial idea? Does anybody really want to listen to a bit George Lopez pioneered years before Mencia, but just dragged beyond belief to the point where its dead? Snowflake's chance in Hell.

My point is even though most people hate this guy for his rascism, I just cant stand him for his imcompetence. Comedy Central was looking for a minority they could brand as "controversial" and then leave him to follow Chappelles path. The problem, is this guy made it very clear he doesn't want to be Chappelle. So instead he conducts his crappy show like a burning trainwreck right into the ground. Does anybody want to watch a weekly standup about the same stuff every thursday, I know sure as hell I don't.

I cant express my gratitude to Comedy Central though. This idiot's show is done. Personally after watching his standup, I don't know how he got his own show in the first place. There are so many more deserving comics like Jim Gafigan, Zach Galifinakis, etc... In fact anyone is better than this fool.


This film is worth seeing since it is a classic in the sense of being the very first full length film released in the process of three demention. It was not very good in its acting or story plot, but can be a great movie quiz question from an historical standpoint. It should be seen in the 3 D process with polarized lenses.


I was a teenager when this first appeared in theaters, and I saw it in Japan. The film's plot wasn't my cup of tea as a high school sophomore, but I went to see it for the 3-D process. It had been ballyhooed in the press so that even service personnel overseas had heard of it, though it never screened at the Post theater.

The film started the trend of throwing objects at the audience, which was taken to absurd levels with later 3-D films.

I don't know whether this qualifies as a spoiler, but you've been warned if it is. In many films of the time, actors would often work in front of a "rear projection screen," where backgrounds could be projected to make it appear that they were in a different environment, such as a jungle background when the actors were actually on a sound stage. This works well on regular films, but when seen in 3-D, they look like a flat scene behind the actors. There were several scenes in the film where rear projection was used, and it didn't work well in the theaters. If seen in 3-D, it will constitute another disappointment.

The film's only importance is historical, since it was the first of its kind.


I saw this movie when it was first released in Pittsburgh Pa. I had traveled from Youngstown Ohio, a distance of approx. 85 miles. I knew nothing of the plot nor the players. I had read no reviews nor had I talked to anyone who had seen it. Believe me I will never make that mistake again. It was being touted I believe as the first feature length movie filmed in the new 3D process. That was what enticed me to make a 170 mile round trip.

There was a waiting line two abreast that stretched (I kid you not) 2 or 2½ blocks long and moving very slowly. I could hardy wait to be seated. If I had only known at that moment what I soon would know, I could have been ¾ of the way back to Youngstown by the time the feature started.

By the time the first 3D scene was shown, I was already nodding off. The novelty quickly wore thin and from then on it was pure agony.

Without going into excruciating detail, I can only offer the following advice. If you have ever seen the famous film PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, supposedly the worst movie ever filmed, it in my humble opinion stands head and shoulders above this garbage.

I don't know if this has ever been shown on tv, if it has I don't know why. If you ever get a chance to see it, do something else. Take a walk, cut the grass, wash the dog, have someone flog you with a rubber hose. ANYTHING. Your time will have been better spent.

This has been my first movie review. It might well be my last unless a worse movie comes along and I wouldn't make book that will happen.

Bill


"The Brotherhood of Satan" is a stupefying combination of conventional horror elements mixed with some imaginative characterization and direction (Bernard McEveety). It all starts out with father Charles Bateman (as Ben) driving out west with his pretty blondes: luscious Ahna Capri (as Nicky), and daughter Geri Reischl (as K.T.). Things get weirder and weirder for the trio, as they approach the town of Hillsboro, which is being gripped by a Satanic cult!

When the dullish travelers hit Hillsboro, the "action" switches to the film's more interesting assemblage of characters: townies L.Q. Jones (as Pete, the sheriff), Strother Martin (as Doc), Charles Robinson (as Jack, the priest), and Alvy Moore (as Tobey). Their interplay is sometimes fun. Soon enough, it all gets very silly, and predictable. Mr. Martin is the stand-out (as you might expect); he considers the possibility of a Satanic cult to be a "cock-and-bull story", but is (of course) their leader. The "Come in, Children" ending is puzzling; unless, perhaps, it was the film's original title.


This is one of those religious horror films which never explain why the forces of "evil" are 10,000 times stronger than those of "good". We've got here a Satanic cult which can: 1) "beam away" people (like in "Star Trek"), 2) kill through little children's dolls, 3) transfer a soul from one body into another, 4) hypnotize telepathically from a bigger distance, and 5) cause drastic car-crashes in which selected persons turn into spaghetti while others (kids, in this case) survive unscathed.

On the other hand, the forces of "good" can: 1) sit around helplessly, 2) stand around cluelessly, 3) panic, 4) laugh hysterically, 5) waste time by doing nothing, 6) read comics while people get slaughtered by the dozens, and 7) arrive too late to Satanic rituals.

In every religious horror movie I have to assume that that movie's world is inhabited by God and by Satan. I also have to assume that Satan can't be 1,000,000 times more powerful, unless the movie has a world order resembling that of Hell. In other words, where were the priests in this film who knew something? The best that this movie's priest could do is guess that there are some witches about - nothing else - from reading all those books in his study. At the first sight of violence this priest becomes catatonic, then laughs hysterically, only to finish in a major panic attack. So this is supposed to be God's contribution to fighting Satan? Ridiculous. Every good religious horror film has the powers of "good" equipped with some form of (more-or-less) supernatural power, or at least SOME concrete knowledge of how to fight "evil". In that sense this movie is quite idiotic. As is the casting of the droll Martin to play the high priest(!) of the cult. There is very little menace or awe in watching the quirky Martin lead a Satanic ritual. I mean, it didn't have to be Christopher Lee or Langhella, but couldn't they have found someone less funny-looking? Also, why does the couple go back to the town after their car is put out of the running? After their "friendly" encounter with the town's folk no sane person would have gone back; they should've just walked on. The man's explanation to his girlfriend (and the viewer) is that "who knows what's in that direction".


I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Satanic horror movies and, in fact, I seem to like them less and less every time I see a new one, and that isn't really surprising when I end up watching films like Brotherhood of Satan! Despite its low rating on IMDb, I was surprised to hear some good things about this film and my expectations went up. This turned out to be a big mistake as this is exactly the film that its rating suggests it is: namely, a very bad one! The plot is your basic bunch of Satanists causing trouble, and we focus on a small town where people have been murdered and kidnapped and it's not really clear why. Naturally, Satanists are behind it and this is bad news for a mother, father and daughter on a road trip who become trapped in the mysterious town. I had a feeling that this film might be along the same lines as the crappy Satanist flick 'The Devil's Rain', and while it's not quite as silly as Robert Fuest's later film, it's not much better either. The plot seems to be fairly down to Earth, but it's also rather boring and I can't say that I enjoyed myself at all during this movie. Brotherhood of Satan obviously has its fans, but I'm not one of them; this is a film that I see no reason to recommend...


Being a big fan of horror films and always manage to find something good about a picture, but this film just did not hold my interest or attention. This story revolves around a father and his daughter and a girlfriend, since his wife died a few years back. These people encounter a horrible situation in a town they stop off and visit and all the senior citizens in this town gang up against these people and almost kill them. This film reminded me of a film called "Children of the Corn" because it really involves children who are being presented to Satan and are his instruments of terror. There is plenty of chants, mambo jumble and a toy tank that completely destroys an entire family in their station wagon as well as dolls who kill a husband and wife.