It's reassuring to see that other IMDb reviewers have had the good sense to pan this disappointing film, at the risk of blaspheming against the great Vadim, Malle and Fellini.

These directors may be talented & artistic in their own right; however in attempting to pass off this hodgepodge of attempted eroticism and 60s chic as *in any way* related to Edgar Allen Poe's stories, they exposed themselves as frauds. Either (A) they didn't bother to read the Poe stories, or (B) they read them but were so transfixed by their own egotistical agenda that they didn't pay Poe any mind.

Imagine if Metallica plugged in their guitars, cranked the amps up to 11 and moshed out 3 chords claiming it to be Beethoven's 9th Symphony. That's the feeling you'll get after sitting through this film. If you're a Vadim/Malle/Fellini fan (Metallica), you'll dig it. If you're a Beethoven fan (Poe), you'll puke.

METZERGENSTEIN...

Here we begin with a bizarre porno version of Poe. OK, "porno" may be a bit extreme haha, but at the very least you have to call it a Barbarella version (including, I don't doubt, some of Jane's outfits coming directly from the set of that scifi romp). Vadim falls into old clichés of his own: the girl lying on a bed being pleasured by some man whilst from the pillow-cam we see the apathy in her eyes; the general lassitude and ennui of a woman who finds no satisfaction in hedonism. Cute stuff, but "Metzergenstein" ain't the place for it. And in addition to the Barbarella outfits and irrelevant erotic themes, Jane Fonda's awful American accent and unconvincing performance as a European countess made this the worst casting since Julia Roberts in that lousy version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.

WILLIAM Wilson...

Here's a great Poe story about the madness that claims a man when he realizes that he is no longer unique in the world. If you really want to see a fantastic visual interpretation of this theme, go watch Star Trek episode #27 "The Alternative Factor". But here, Malle glazes over that central theme and instead focuses on... any guesses...? yup, eroticism, sadism and debauchery. Ho hum. Brigitte Bardot's role is a complete fabrication to accomplish that end, and once again the director distorts a classic Poe story into a masturbatory catharsis of his own unrequited sexual issues. Do it on your own time, Malle. I thought we're here on Poe's dime.

TOBY DAMMIT....

The absolute worst of the three and possibly the worst film I've seen since "Staying Alive". At least Fellini showed some tact in changing the title, but his departure from the original plot, theme and humour of the story is so vast, I wonder if he just picked this reel out of his private collection of home movies, stamped "Edgar Allen Poe story" on it and submitted it to this collection. I strained very hard to find any thread of familiarity with Poe's works, but there was absolutely none.

The original Poe story ("Never Bet the Devil Your Head") is a short and hilarious dark fable about a man who constantly exclaims "I'll bet the devil my head..." On a foggy morning, the devil takes him up on his offer. The result is the sickest and silliest thing you've ever read. This was Poe, the comedian, at his finest (yes, Poe wrote many comedies. Also check out "A Predicament" and "Devil in the Belfry" if you want a taste of his witty, satirical works).

This Fellini version? It's bland, soulless, and not funny at all (unless you consider it funny to see a drunk stumbling over himself for 45 minutes). Here Fellini's egotistical rant is about an artist struggling with the hypocrisy, pretense and mediocrity of cinema. Most of it is set at an awards ceremony where Fellini beats us over the head with sarcasm, cynicism and that classic "sour grapes" attitude that we find in all Fellini films dealing with cinema. Note the sarcastic jabs at "the critics", a recurring theme in Fellini's films. For someone who considered himself above the critics, Fellini sure spent a lot of time talking about them. At any rate, I feel like Fellini just took some outtakes from 8 1/2, spliced them together and sold it as a Poe story. Worst "adaptation" ever.

I think I put more effort into typing this review than any of the three directors put into making a Poe movie.


What is it about the French? First, they (apparently) like Jerry Lewis a lot more than the US does. Second, they (seem) to like Edgar Allan Poe's work more than just about anyone else does. It's got to be the "Beaudelaire effect".

Don't get me wrong...I'm a Poe fan myself. But this trilogy manages to make three of Poe's below-average stories into...well, I'm not sure what they're made into.

"Toby Dammit" is a fine Fellini film, but it has nothing to do with Poe's story, at least in terms of theme. It's enjoyable on the first viewing. Terence Stamp does a good job with an interesting role. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Poe or spirits of the dead.

"Metzergenstein" is a big mess. How did Vadim's films get produced? It's just awful...not even up to amateur film school standards. Depending on the DVD menu you have, try to skip it and save your time.

"William Wilson" is actually the segment that is most faithful to Poe's work. It does not have much style, though, even if it includes the strangest snowball fight I think that I have ever seen on film. (It looks like the boys are throwing tissues, or maybe handkerchiefs, that have been rolled up into balls.)

My advice is to skip "Metzergenstein", watch "William Wilson", and then, if you're a Fellini fan (I'm not) keep "Toby Dammit" on while you cook dinner or make a snack.


I'm pretty sure Poe would have considered this a travesty. The first two stories are decent, nothing spectacular. And then there's Toby Dammit. What on earth was Fellini thinking? It's a rambling, random, dull piece, with little to recommend it. One should feel frustrated at the lack of backstory or conclusion, but there's only relief that it's over.


"Yesterday" as a movie, is hard to rate. The cinematography is excellent and deserves a 9/10. The story is gritty and real and does not compromise. But the translation of the story to the screen through the actors did not match the camera work.

As a person who was born and raised in Central Africa, I appreciated the authenticity of the film's look and the honest depiction of daily life for the Zulu. But this and the camera work are not enough to recommend the average viewer should see this film. It takes an appreciation of true cinema and not just a love of movies to see the purpose and strength of "Yesterday".

Unlike the 1980 film "The Gods Must be Crazy", which was a comic look at one African culture encountering modern technology, "Yesterday" has no intention of appealing to any crossover audience. The movie simply is not fit for the common western mind - and I doubt it was intended for the western mind. The scenes are long and slow, the editing is not paced for a 60mph+ instant gratification world. The dialog is not cleaver or witty, it is real. Movies about health crises do not make the best entertainment and this movie is not entertainment, it is education.

This movie is best viewed by those who know, appreciate and love the way of life and the culture in sub-Sarah Africa. If you lack a broad enough world-view to understand other cultures, especially African cultures, should skip this film. Do not waste you time with it. Go see "Talladega Nights" or "Larry the Cable Guy" instead for your cross culture viewing.

I give it a 4 for most who might want to see the movie but have no accurate understanding of African cultures. For the viewers with an appreciation for films about the human experience anywhere in the world, I would give it a 7.


I am sitting here writing this review and the movie's not even over yet. In fact, I just checked, and there are 45 more minutes to go. But no matter, there's no need to see it through to the end. I'll just write this review and laugh as the film plays in the background and stumbles onward to some kind of presumably horrible conclusion which I don't care to ever see or know.

What accounts for my hostility to this movie? The characters are not believable. The plot is not believable. The pretentiousness of the movie is sickening. Basically, every element of the movie rings false. Buscemi obviously thought he had something to add to the dozens of movies which have already explored the well-worn themes of dysfunctional families and the apparent meaninglessness of life. However, Buscemi was badly mistaken, because this movie contains nothing new. It tries very hard to be depressing, but fortunately no one can really be depressed by it, because it's obvious that no people like this exist in the entire world.

What IS depressing however is the knowledge that somehow this film was voted several undeserved awards. Disgusting!!!! Bottom line: stay away from this worthless film at all costs.


I like Steve Buscemi. I like his work very much, both as an actor and a director. You could say that I am -into- Steve Buscemi. A Steve Buscemi freak. I lurv Steve Buscemi.

I remember when I first saw Buscemi's full length directorial debut, "Trees Lounge." I enjoyed the movie, although it wasn't as good as it could have been. It was -almost- there. It -almost- scratched that itch, the itch of wanting to see "small" movies about "small" people in "small" bars that are in "small" towns. It was close enough to where I would say that it was a very good movie - one that with a few tweaks could have been great. But that's OK. I like the movie and I've watched it more than once.

But this review is not about Trees Lounge. It's about "Lonesome Jim." When I saw the description of the movie and then I saw who's movie it was, I was excited at the prospect of finally seeing the movie that I knew that Trees Lounge could have been. But what I actually experienced was not unlike that of leaving one of those smalltown bars with a belly full of cheap whiskey and an armful of cheap floozy, heading back to your apartment with a mushy brain full of exciting prospects that inevitably disintegrate into the reality of alcohol-induced impotence and headspinning regurgitation.

In other words, this movie left me flat and unrequited and sorry that I wasted the time and the money that it took me to get to that state - the film equivalent of waking up next to that cheap floozy the next morning, or if you happen to be the floozy, waking up next to that stinking and farting and unshaven imbecile. The film had all of the substance of a stale white bread sandwich (with store brand white bread, no less) and the emotion of a cadaver. I am not sure what the point of this film was, and since it was supposed to have some sort of a point and was not an exercise in abstract surrealism that can get by without one then this lack of a point is a sin of omission. Sorta like those new cars that don't come with ashtrays anymore although there are millions of people who smoke and buy new cars (I'm not one of them, but hey, I can sympathize). Overall it was a boring film about boring people doing boring things and had none of the grit and believability that can carry and save such a film. I mean, Trees Lounge was about boring people doing boring things, but it was interesting.

I blame a lot of this on Affleck. Why do people keep casting these Affleck turds? They suck the life out of anything that they are connected with. One Affleck was in one decent film (and wasn't even the reason why the film was decent) and all of the sudden every butthole named Affleck is stinking up as many films as they possibly can. And Liv Tyler is no better. Being the daughter of a rock star does not necessarily make an actress. She is as lifeless as Affleck. These people simply do not rise from the flat page of the script. People pay to see films and they deserve to see actors and actresses with a bit of charisma - these two duds together don't have the spark of the old guy who hands out shopping carts at Wal Mart. I always thought that Steve Buscemi was the type of guy who would rise above this type of pablum, but oh Steve you let us down. This film makes me want to stuff you into another wood chipper.


Whilst this is most definitely a well crafted piece of film-making, it's thoroughly without any entertainment value whatsoever.

If you're depressed already, this film will send you over the edge.

If you're feeling somewhat depressed, this film will be just one more thing in your life to feel bitter about. You'll feel that it's just your luck to have chosen to watch a movie that turns out to be a complete waste of time.

Otherwise you might be able to make it through this film unscathed (I didn't, BTW), safe in the knowledge that your life is so much better than Jim's. Then again you might consider that you have been fooling yourself, and that are in fact in a much worse situation than you'd previously realized. You might feel a bit annoyed at Jim for bringing this to your attention. You may want to slap him around a bit with a wet fish.

The sad truth is, much as I wanted to like this movie... I hated it. It took rather a long miserable road down the path of oblivion and then suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, looked back at itself and then stopped.

Jim does not have an epiphany, at least not one that is conveyed on screen. Jim has a miserable life and a miserable set of options. He discovers nothing that one can relate to and fails to make any significant progress on his journey of self-discovery.

Of course no-one alive could write a happy ending to this movie. As others have said it's no Hollywood tale, it's gritty and it's real. It's well made. Life is quite a struggle at times. If anyone were to know "the answer", they do well to shout it from the rooftops.

Still, I feel cheated because this movie pretends to have something to say. You feel that it's going to say something, that if you just suffer through a little more of it, it'll have something to say. It'll make you stop and think.

It doesn't.

Again, I do submit that this is a well crafted film. And therefore may be of value to a film student with a penchant for e.g. lighting techniques of the use of colour palettes.

For the rest of us, it's utterly miss-able.


The only time I seem to trawl through IMDb comments is when I've seen a duff film. I guess I'm looking to find reassurance that it's not just me. For me, then, Lonesome Jim was a duff film packed with unbelievable characters in unbelievable situations which limped on lamely and boringly towards a cop-out hackneyed conclusion. So I check out what other people have to say and feel a bit like Jim, out on a limb, alienated, as page after page of multiple star ratings and plaudits leave me doubting my critical faculties. Yet maybe I should check the settings for the comments presentation, since after a while the gushing dies down and I'm relieved to see appreciations that mirror my own. I feel vindicated. It IS a rubbish film, it DOESN'T hang together and it DOES constitute a wasted evening sitting through it. Praise be to kindred spirits.


I was attracted to this film by its offbeat, low-key, 'real life' story line. That is, a twenty-something guy flops in the Big Apple and comes back home to live with his parents and even more floppy brother. It just might have worked but there's a problem. And that problem's name is Casey Affleck.

Casey Affleck is nearly catatonic in this film. His acting mantra must be "exert as little effort as possible at all times". Or "why speak when you can mutter?" Or maybe "put yourself into a coma as soon as the camera rolls". Lips moving when speaking? Barely. Facial expressions? None. Muscles in face? Atrophied. Something? Nothing. ANYthing? Zip.


Lonesome Jim is kind of like a romantic dark comedy about a dysfunctional family whose two boys are total losers. Both boys around 30, living at home, with absolutely nothing going for them. I live in the Midwest and I can't name one family like this. I picked it up because I kind of like Buscemi acting humor. Now I realize I need to have a counteracting agent to that humor to make it work. The acting and camera work and editing was fine. The first 15 minutes got you set, and the last 15 minutes helped prevent the film from being totally depressing Jerry Springer trailer trash type of story. The female members of my family were begging me to turn it off, but I prevailed under the premise that there had to be a turning point near the end, and we watched the entire movie. The male family members, as expected, simply walked out after the first 30 minutes.


Olivia D'Abo in a wet T-shirt is the only thing this movie has going for it. Other than that, this Canadian production about a man taking out a vicious band of hillbillies is not worth anybody's time. The writing is bad, the acting is poor and the direction is sub-standard.


A family (A teenage boy, his mother and a stepdad), sick of city life, decides to move to the mountains to get away from it all and have a fresh start. However, their idyll is shattered by three brothers and their domineering father, who don't take kindly to newcomers on their patch. While having objects thrown through their window and being threatened in the street is just the start, the youth decides to make things even worse by having a relationship with the terrible trio's sister. With the law unwilling to do anything about it and the violence escalating rapidly, the lad decides to take matters into his own hands..

Veering wildly between hilarity and nastiness, this is one of the oddest exploitation movies ever made. At first, you can have a chuckle at some of the hammy acting and ludicrous dialogue given to the characters, especially the overwrought bad guys. But then, you get completely unnecessary scenes like a mother being raped while her son is forced to watch, or the thug's sister getting herself beaten up by her siblings for daring to sleep with our young hero. In fact, the whole view of women in the movie, which seems to be that they're pathetic creatures who scream a lot and can't defend themselves, is pretty despicable. But of course, there's the obligatory nude scene, which this time involves a young lady diving into a pool bra-less under a very thin T-shirt. Who cares about plot consistency when you have some willing young starlets ready to shed her togs. Right?!

The climax centres on the teenager, who up until now hasn't been able to sneeze without jumping, suddenly morphing into a Rambo clone and blowing off his assailants left, right and centre to save his stepfather who is being held hostage by the gang. It's completely implausible but hey, so is everything else in this film.. so at least you can't accuse it of not being consistent. So, rather than attempting to find logic in a place where the word doesn't exist, check out the IMDb pages for Janet Laine Green, Dehl Berti, Stephen Hunter, Jonathan Crombie.. etc. Notice a pattern emerging here? Their careers all hit dead ends. Why? Sit through this, and all will become clear. Remember kids, if you want to get ahead in this business, hire a decent agent and ALWAYS read the scripts they offer you. Please.. 3/10


Are you kidding me? The music was SO LOUD in this show I could often not even hear the dialog. And the music was nothing great. Anyone know what Jake's mother said when he walked in the door??? And the mushroom cloud looked pretty close to have so little instant devastation. Anyone research the effects of nuclear fallout before writing this one. I felt like a bunch of sit com actors were sent on location and didn't know what to do with dramatic dialog. And what does a Kansas teen know about shopping in Soho....couldn't we have had a better line here? Was bored to tears and only kept awake by the jarring blare of the over-mixed way to loud music.


This is a slick little movie well worth your time to find and see.

It really speaks to all those mundane choices we all make every day and (like an H.G. Welles Story I can't quite recall) may live to want back.

Keep in mind that this is a SHORT (very short). It starts out slowly but just as you begin to think it has become boring =bang= it's over. And, believe me, the 'punch line' is one you will remember.

I'm not sure if the producers are going to make it available for purchase - or available on the web but either way you'd be happy you took the time to get hold of a copy - of that I am sure.


whomever thought of having sequels to Iron Eagle must be shot. In this case once was enough. Iron Eagle was a good movie to watch. Even though it is unrealistic, it is still entertaining. Iron Eagle II has a senseless plot and can be used to as a cure to insomnia. I didn't even bother to watch Iron Eagle III, but from looking at the R rating, I assume it's more violent than the past 2 movies. Well, Iron Eagle IV is probably the most inane sequel. Lou Gossett Jr. returns as the always delightful "Chappy" Sinclair. Another Jason returns to fill the role of Doug Masters (Canadian Jason Cadieux, who looks just like Jason Gedrick from the first Iron Eagle). But wait(Here comes a possible spoiler).....Wasn't Doug killed in Iron Eagle II? The writers must've been desprate for a story so they revived Doug Masters by saying he was a prisoner of the Russians. This movie was the cheapest done of all the Iron Eagle films. Why do movie makers find it neccessary to make sequels to unappealing movies? (ex. Police Academy movies). I have always liked Gossett Jr.'s work in these films. He was the only one holding this turkey together. Let's hope this was the last of the Iron Eagle sequels. let it rest in peace.


Louis Gossett Jr returns to the well one more time as Chappy Sinclair who goes to Doug Masters (Played by Jason Cadieux who is in for Jason Gedrick who wisely declined) to teach a new band of recruits however this time they discover corrupt air force pilots who deal in toxic waste. This is a series that just keeps getting worse with each subsequent entry, this one however doesn't have any of the zip or even the action to make this even worth seeing on cable. Iron Eagle IV is directed with such indifference that the dogfights come off as if we were watching a playstation 2 game played by two lobotomized teenagers. It is horrendous to watch and Gossett Jr who has made his share of turkeys seems to have bottomed out here. And I saw Cover-Up, Firewalker, Aces:Iron Eagle III, Toy Soldiers and Jaws 3D. What is mysterious about Louis Gossett Jr is that he seems to be like Christopher Walken in his quest to do anything as long as he's working. As I look at his post Oscar win. Some of his better movies include Iron Eagle, The Punisher and The Principal. Considering that the latter two movies have him co-starring with Dolph Lundgren and James Belushi it is indeed something to say that three guilty pleasure action flicks are in the running for his better work. Of course Enemy Mine and Diggstown remain his best post-Oscar win work.

* out of 4-(Bad)


And obviously I didn't see it!

But looking at the cast and seeing that Doug Masters is back from the dead, I know now to avoid this like the plague! I hate it when Hollywood, producers, writers, directors or all of the above think that audiences are stupid that they're not going to catch continuity errors. A supposedly dead Doug Masters returning is a big giant one, won't you say?

And I can't believe that someone like Louis Gossett, Jr. would return for something like that.

Did Jason Gedrick really decline this? Well, I hate to say it, but even if he took the role again, it would have still had that same continuity error. I bet (if he really turned it down), he must have been incredulous seeing that his character died in the second film.

I'll probably catch it by accident on a late night air on some channel, but no way am I going to rent this or buy the DVD!


It's another variation on the oft-told tale of two people getting married and having to share their brood of kids. WITH SIX YOU GET EGG ROLL is directed by Howard Morris (from television) and it shows, because it's the kind of tale that plays like a half-hour situation comedy padded out to feature film length--but with a scarcity of laughs, or to put it differently, only the number of laughs that would have been possible within the half-hour limits of a TV show.

DORIS DAY decided to call it quits after this film--and it's rather easy to see why. Even the presence of some fairly reliable actors in the cast doesn't help. BRIAN KEITH, BARBARA HERSHEY, PAT CARROLL and ALICE GHOSTLEY do their best, but the script is the real problem and should have been left untouched for the big screen.

Nothing much can be said in favor of it. Skip it and see Miss Day in any number of her more worthwhile films.


This sickly sweet and laboriously paced 5-reeler is definitely not among Harold Lloyd's better films. Gags are sparse and mostly uninspired. Saccharine melodrama is abundant. The setup takes forever, as Lloyd, the unconventional, but impossibly kindly, country doctor makes his rounds, bringing a little sunshine into the lives of children, the elderly, and puppies. It's like a 1922 version of Patch Adams. Ugh. 4/10.


Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.

I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.

In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.

In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a "doodle pad" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.


Fear and Desire is of interest mainly to Kubrick obsessives, who can plumb this pretentious clap trap for signs of his still-to-come greatness. Kubrick was right in seeking to ensure that the film was not screened or available on legitimate video. He considered it embarrassing and amateurish, and he was correct in his evaluation. This is a weak and tedious film--at 68 minutes it still seems longer than "Barry Lyndon"!--it nevertheless is of historical interest, and has its genuine absorbing moments. It's a difficult film to find (only "unofficial" copies are in circulation), though perhaps this may change if Kubrick's estate relents and has it released on video. Recommended only for Kubrick enthusiasts.


Kubrick may have been the greatest director of all times. He may have made more classics than anyone else. He may have been a perfectionist. But man, was his first attempt ever bad!

Kubrick had good reason to try to make this film dissappear from the map: it looks like an Ed Wood film. It has strange narration, cheap shots, bad dialogue, ominous music reminiscent of your 50s sci-fi/horror flick, and what looks like relatives of the cast of "Reefer Madness" going insane for no reason.

Sure, you can see an undeveloped Kubrick in there. It is a psychological/horror study of war. The characters became dehumanized and insane. There are people playing more than one role. There are constant shots of the faces and particular facial expressions of different people. And there are a few interesting shots around there. But really, this is a mess.

Of course, I am not discouraging you from watching it. If you get a hold of it, you are joining a select group of myself and a few thousand people world wide who have had access to it.


A group of young filmmakers with virtually no budget set out to make something clever and original -- and while there is a bit of originality and some skilled drawing in this slacker puppet show take on "Dante's Inferno," there is nothing especially clever. Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a brilliant piece of social commentary. This film is a vaguely moralistic student film with pretensions to High Art.

I suspect those who loved this film were those readily amused by the sophomoric pokes at some icons of the political and/or religious right, and that those who hated it took offense at seeing their favored icons poked. Be that as it may, few of those pokes actually rose to the level of satire.

The high point of the movie is a sudden outbreak of "Schoolhouse Rock" on the subject of lobbying and the "revolving door." It's really a shame that the entire film couldn't have been a musical. That would have stripped away a great deal of the annoying film school pretentiousness and added a far stronger element of fun.


I was surprised to discover Michael Moore or Bill Maher wasn't involved with this "movie". An American leftist laundry list of axes to grind, with a distinct sparseness of democrats in Hell. Mao Zedong and Karl Marx didn't make an appearance in Hell, but Ronald Reagan is in the same room with Hitler? Perhaps we'll have to wait for these California spin doctors to butcher Paradiso for them to show all of their pet ideologue political figures.

Cheap shots at religion, right-wing politicians, corporations and their lobbyists, Fox News, even SUVs. All the radical leftist talking points were too completely covered - while conspicuously omitting references to wrongdoing from the "other side of the aisle" - to not have been a conscious effort. The singular exception I noticed, in the hour and a half, is JFK has to have sex with Marilyn Monroe for eternity: The token inclusion in these propaganda pieces in a pathetic attempt at appearing non-partisan.


This demented left-wing wipe-out trivializes Dante's great work, distorts the genius of the author out of all recognition, inserts hateful ideology, incompetent satire and moronic political commentary in every imaginable place, and itself deserves a place in the Eighth Circle, Tenth Bolgia with the rest of the falsifiers. Sandow Birk has reserved himself a spot next to it.

Stocking Hell with Republican political figures, Fox News helicopters and Christian conservatives is a work of literary sacrilege, to say nothing of extreme liberal bias. It is, however, unoriginal, tedious and trite. Nothing in Birk's unworthy and heretical revision is in the least relevant to the original text or is in any way entertaining, humorous or enlightening, despite his smug pretension to the contrary.

I could have eaten a reel of video tape and PUKED a better movie. I regret the two hours of my life that I lost watching this insult to the very concept of poetry. Calliope will weep forever.


Dante would of been mortified, if he knew that his masterpiece was being ACTED OUT PUPPETS!!! Also the actors who played the puppets are sell outs. Due to the fact that playing a puppet is not acting it is just basically doing nothing. No one really will care who the puppet was. people only care who played a major role in like an actual movie. this is just annoying how you could mock such an amazing man and his belief, by this dumb little movie. This should be a crime and.... I cant believe you would ruin a book like that. I thought the movie was absolutely ridiculous and should be destroyed!!!! It totally ruins what your suppose to be getting from reading it. Your just making it a big joke.


Documentaries about fans are always mishmashes, and never worth seeing through, but I found this one, made by some of the fans themselves, more than usually unenlightening. As a veteran of the original Tolkien craze, forty years ago, I'd hoped for more than the obvious--which doesn't always equate to the true. If there's anyone living who doesn't already know the nature of a fandom, any fandom, from having been or known a fan, he won't discover it here. Between irrelevancies, platitudes (to which the actors from the films are particularly prone), and acting out (by fans making the most--if not the best--of their one shot at fame), I could glean little of the special appeal of LOTR, the special emotional responses it evokes, and the range of the special creative forms those responses can take. In addition, the film is rather lazy: it slights some facts that could have been got across with little effort, e.g. what the exact legal loophole was (the wording of a copyright notice) that permitted the books' unauthorized publication in the U.S. (Speaking of which: I take strong exception to the film's dismissal of the covers on that edition as "irrelevant" and "psychedelic," which they were not. They were the work of Jack Gaughan, a very able sf illustrator of the period, and some fans, including me, found them more apt, and more attractive, than the covers on the rival set.)


I just rented Blackwater Valley Exorcism because the cover and pictures looked terrifying, and I don't normally watch movies that are automatically released onto DVD, but this looked so interesting and scary! I was very much in the mood for a good scary film and to me, possession is one of the scariest subjects to watch or learn about. Just look at The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose, both terrific movies that made break-throughs not only horror wise, but story as well.

Blackwater Valley Exorcism is about a girl, Isabelle, who from the get go is automatically possessed, so we can't even tell what kind of a person she was to begin with. But a former wife beater turned priest is on the case with a gardener...? I know... I know. Then they go into several other stories with the priest and Isabella's sister, and the priest hit the sister and messed around with Isabelle? I'm not sure, then we get into a story with Isabelle's dad and his questioning of his wife's faithfulness to him.

I mean, the story just goes into too many directions and wasn't well developed at all. Not to mention that the exorcism didn't seem authentic at all and more of a just scare your pants off type of a film, which I didn't like at all because I couldn't take it seriously. Whoever directed and wrote this clearly had no idea where to go or how to direct the story well, so I wouldn't really recommend this.

2/10


The movie started very well..so far Isabelle's exorcism could be believed....but later, gosh!!! I didn't know if it was a horror movie, a drama one or a Must Not See one! The possessed creature attacking the sheriff had no connection at all with the movie....the make up!! well it looked pretty real at beginning, but at the end, last part of movie, the make up (especially teeth and eyes) was very exaggerated. If you want a good "EXorcism" movie watch "The Exorcism of Emily Rose".

Together with "Hard Candy" (Totally boring, pathetic plot and ending), these two movies are the worst I've seen from Lionsgate!! But well the movie company has given horror movie fans excellent films, but with this one, you will wish you never rent it!! Exorcism movie fans, just stay with two "The Exorcist" and "Emily Rose's Exorcism"


I'm not sure if this is a comedy or not, but I found it pretty comical. Isobel is possessed by the devil. Somehow a perverted priest and the gardener are gonna' fix that. Part exorcism and part soap opera, you'll at least get some laughs. There's the paranoid jealous dad, satanic sister, Valley of the Dolls mother, and then the cowboy boyfriend; all there to help the skirt chasing priest fight the demons from dear Isobel. It sometimes felt like a Jerry Springer episode, but I actually paid to see this. Instead of the cool head-twisting, sailor cursing, and crucifix humping that Regan did in The Exorcist; you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild. So, if you want to watch a quote unquote horror film that is worth a few laughs while you wait for the predictable ending ... this is your movie.


This movie was probably one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time. A friend of mine grabbed it off the shelf at the video rental store, and all but forced me to watch it, an action we both deeply regret. Ehh... Where to start? The writing, the acting, the quality? All of it, sucked.

Quite possibly some of the worst writing ever displayed in a movie. The dialog was worse than I thought it could ever be in the movies. Blatant dialog, such as "how ya doing?"..."not that great, doc" (directly after an attempted exorcism of a man's daughter and then his wife's attempted suicide. Of course he's not that great.) was, at some points, kind of funny. If not horribly written, planned out, and obvious. The general plot of the movie, the writing and the way it worked, HORRIBLE. It was like the writers could come up with nothing better to do then write a bunch of crappy dialog and throw in as many sex and nudity scenes as they randomly could. The only almost good sex scene (between the preacher and the tattooed & Peirced girl) was filmed with such poor quality that it looked more like a cheap porno than a feature film. Oh yeah, and they never actually got the deed done.

The acting? Horrible. x100. I think the only good actor was the short Spanish guy who played Miguel, Del Zamora. And his part was written horribly. The worst acting? Arguably Paul Kappellas, whose acting combined with shitty music, a gun, and a half naked bluish white girl running around in the woods made the movie almost unbearable to sit through. He even screwed up his own death scene, one that should have been easy to nail. Although, most everybody else's acting was horrible as well.

The lack of characters also added to the overall suck level of the movie. There were just enough characters so that almost half of the characters died, that same amount of people became possessed at one point, and then the remaining characters couldn't be counted on one hand. Like... 50 thumbs down.

P.S. What IS it with the climax of exorcism movies happening in a stable, anyways?


A girl named Isobel becomes possessed by a demon. The local priest (who formerly dated Isobel's sister) must try to save her, but the bigger problems are with the family's suspicions of each other rather than the demon in their daughter.

This film is directed by Ethan Wiley, the writer of "House" and the writer/director of "House II". I loved the first film and liked the second one even better, so you would think this would be a winner. Alas, this one looks like it was thrown together by first-year film students. Dawson Leery could have done better. I have thought about blaming new writer Ellary Eddy, especially because the idea is hardly original (are they trying to cash in on the fans of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"?), but Wiley should have been able to do his magic.

Also, you'd like to think veteran horror stars Jeffrey Combs and James Russo would help this film. Russo (playing the bishop) barely shows up, and Combs has a great role as a sheriff... for the five minutes he's on screen (but I love the mustache). So, no help here.

After seeing "The Exorcist", all other exorcism films must be compared to the classic by default, no? And the demonic possession in this film was not scary in the least. No head-spinning or paranormal activity at all. Just a girl with a deep voice and runny makeup. All the "demonic" stuff was centered around the father accusing everyone of sleeping with his wife. As another reviewer wrote, "you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild." That sadly sums up the extent of the "evil" in this movie.

If you want to watch a movie about family members who invent accusations and yell at each other while the possessed daughter sits in another room off-camera, this is the movie for you. But, if you don't mind my saying so, you have a horrible taste in film if this is what you're seeking.

The plot seems to focus on the father accusing a cowboy of sleeping with his wife (who didn't, but did sleep with his daughter) and of the veterinarian of sleeping with his wife (who might have, but denies it). And then you have a gardener who attacks the possessed girl with a crucifix and tells the family to call an exorcist, but once the priest arrives the gardener declares he does not believe in God. What was all the Bible-quoting you were doing five minutes ago?

A horrible exorcism movie. Horribler examples of what Combs and Russo are capable of. And such a sad display of directing after the "House" series of films became classic. I would like to pretend Wiley had no part in making this shamefully derivative and unoriginal, uninspired film. The power of Christ compels you to avoid this movie as if viewing it were a cardinal sin.


OK, I normally don't add comments on movies, but I finally watched a movie that was so utterly full of bullsh*t and riddled with incompetence that I just had to warn people about. Blackwater Valley Exorcist is loosely about a wife-beating/pederast/priest and this podunk family of horse freaks, and to make a long story short the youngest daughter who was molested by the priest but in love with the hillbilly ranch hand gets possessed. Along with a heroic god shunning Mexican gardener who once participated in a exorcism, the wife-beating/ pederast/priest manage to save the day, but not before the possessing demon is able to jump over to a hooker who the town sheriff made blow him. All in all this movie is the biggest pile of useless (I could get very descriptive with this part but why waste my energy on this movie)sh*t I've ever seen. Any and all persons associated with the making of this movie should be sterilized so that they cannot pollute the earth with their useless spawn.


Even worse then the incredibly boring "the Exorcism of Emily Rose". It started off decently, and right up until the mom said to the dad, "See I knew she was possessed", in an I told you so voice. It was a terrible line, spoken badly and it foreshadowed the rapid demise of this amazingly bad movie. Every family member has an issue from the past with the priest. The dad starts to accuse everyone of either liking his wife, or actually having an affair with her, culminating with him killing his buddy, then himself in the obvious instant lucidity after he realizes his friend hadn't slept with his wife after all. People are dying, others are coming under possession, and by this point most viewers don't even care anymore. Except for their employee Miguel, none of the characters in this movie was actually likable, making it hard to care, about any of them. The acting was terrible and the writing even worse. Glad I saw it for free; although I feel that for a movie this bad someone owes me money for the time I lost.


I have to agree with the previous reviewer. Although the Kristin Erikson did a great job of playing the possessed girl, I seriously don't think that Isabelle, the character she was playing, was possessed. I have seen people have psychotic breaks due to sexual abuse, and they never made it clear whether or not the father had actually abused her or not. I also had to watch some parts of it over again, to make it clear as to what the letter said, what the characters' names were, and I'm still not clear on a few things that happened, whether they were real or not. I'm trying to find the "original" story that it was based on, to compare facts, but I can't seem to find anything about it online.

It wasn't a bad movie, but some of the dialogue was incredibly cheesy. Special effects wise, the movie wasn't bad for a Grade B, pretty much, and those possession scenes made it all worth while... that is, if you have nothing better to do. LOL


This movie had very few moments of real drama. After the opening minutes the film descended in a spiral that didn't quite take us to hell and back - viewing was pure purgatory to say the least. The acting was more horrendous than the subject matter of the film and at times I couldn't stop laughing. The continuity between some of the scenes was dire - characters disappeared from scenes without explanation only to be replaced by other characters who minutes earlier had been some where else. Surely this was a spoof of The Exorcist. The collection plate at the church must have been full of copper the day Mr Russo signed up for this one. Do I speak Latin? Et tu Brutus.


Blackwater Valley Exorcism is set on a small town ranch where teenager Isabelle (Kristin Erickson) is found wandering around covered in dog's blood. Her parents Ely (Randy Colton) & Blanche (Leslie Fleming-Mitchell) own the ranch & are deeply worried about their daughter, recently she has not been herself & is considered a danger to herself & other's. Ranch hand & ex-priest Miguel (Del Zamora) recognises Isabelle's symptoms as a possible case of possession & when she starts to speak ancient Latin in a strange voice he becomes convinced of it. Blanche calls priest Jacob (Cameron Daddo) who is her other daughter Claire's (Madison Taylor) ex husband to see Isabelle, he confirms Miguel's suspicions & accepts the job of performing the exorcism that will hopefully banish the demon inside Isabelle & an innocent girl free...

Directed by Ethan Wiley I was sat there in my house in front of my telly watching Blackwater Valley Exorcism & I kept asking the same question over & over again, why do I do it. Why do I keep sitting through all these awful low budget horror films that look like they were shot on a camcorder? Right lets honest about this, Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a complete total & utter unashamed rip-off of The Exorcist (1973) & you literally tick off the major plot points that the two share. There's the possessed teenage girl who starts to get very horny & suggest inappropriate things, the demon that uses past misdemeanour's against other's, the worried parents, the way that the possessed girl is shunned by doctor's, the priest with a troubled past & the possessed girl is tied to her bed amongst other things. I suppose where Blackwater Valley Exorcism is different (other than it's total crap) is that it tries to give all the character's some screen time & tries to get across how the situation is affecting them but it's so badly written & acted it just ends up being boring. The film starts with Isabelle already possessed so we never knew what she was like as a normal person so we never really care about her or what is happening to her either, the rest of the character's are poorly written & fleshed out. At times I wondered whether Blackwater Valley exorcism was a spoof, there's a silly scene in which a vet tries to sedate the possessed Isabelle with horse tranquilisers & after he states that she needs a 'little prick' he enters her room with a huge needle hidden behind his back! There are a few scenes in which people are punched accompanied by a silly comedy sound effect. The film has an uneven tone as a result as it goes between silly spoof & serious horror drama, or it did in my opinion at least.

According to some text before the opening credits Blackwater Valley Exorcism was based on 'Actual Events', yeah right actual events from 1973 that happened in a film called The Exorcist... This piece of text also states that the exorcism scenes were supervised by a real priest. There isn't even any decent gore or exploitation to liven things up, there's a scene of a cut arm, there's a dead dog, someone is stabbed with a crucifix & that's about it. There's surprisingly no bad language in it either despite the demon trying to be offencive. I would imagine the only reason Blackwater Valley Exorcism has an adult rating is because of one very brief scene in which a pair of breast's are seen. One pair of naked female breast's is not worth the time watching this or the money you might spend on it. There is zero scares, no atmosphere & a really amateurish feel to the whole film too.

With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 I must say that I am wondering where all the money went, the film looks ugly & cheap throughout. There are no special effects to speak of & the production values are rock bottom. The acting is very poor from all involved, genre favourite Jeffrey Combs gets near top billing during the opening credits but has nothing more than a cameo in what amounts to about five minutes of screen time. Even he must have feared how bad this was going to be has he hides behind a moustache & a terrible accent, he is better than this.

Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a complete rip-off of The Exorcist without anything that made that film such a classic & the makers are thirty five years too late anyway. A total turkey from start to finish.


As the metaphoric flies fled this steaming watery stool of a film i found myself longing to join them.

From the opening sentences, you quickly gather that the actors are talentless. The script editor was probably dead and the director should be. To be honest I didn't manage to finish this film because about twenty dismal minutes in the sight of the main actress scuttling across the floor like a Shetland pony that has been shot in the ass was too much for me to stomach.

I have never, and I mean never, seen a film as sweaty as this one and I watch tons of crap films.

Turd.


While watching BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM, I encountered scenarios and dialog so incredibly bad that I was convinced that this was supposed to be a comedy. A few choice bits of dialog worthy of a belly laugh: "I ate a rabbit." "I TOLD you she was possessed!" "Are you telling me the Devil is in my daughter?!"

There are many, many more, but you must discover these for yourself - if you dare.

The story goes off into all sorts of directions and things happen that probably shouldn't and everyone seems to be a perv or psycho of some sort (even the Priest). And I haven't even gotten to the bad acting. Most notable in this area is the fellow playing Isabelle's father. The director must have just told him to act like he's got a stick up his @$$ because that's the general impression one gets.

I don't really want to steer anyone away from BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM because there is entertainment value to be had...for all the wrong reasons, but if you're looking for a decent horror movie that makes sense and is actually scary...well, run don't walk.


Let me tell you something...this movie exceeds all of the Troma laugh and gore movies hands down as it ACTUALLY TRIES TO COME ACROSS AS A SERIOUS MOVIE. From the terrible acting... "I knew it, I knew she was possessed!"...to the priest accepting sexual favors and getting into showers with naked teenagers...this piece of dung takes the cake. I am at a loss trying to compare this to another movie equally as bad. This may just be in a class all its own. The kicker is that supposedly some Cardinal oversaw production to make sure it was true to the actual situation. I did not know that people from Backwoods USA act like utter imbeciles. I am not sure if I am upset for renting it or have stumbled across a jewel of comedy. This was a very guilty pleasure...so awful that I watched with hands over my eyes half the time (while I wasn't laughing so hard I was crying). The ending simply made no sense whatsoever, pulling the whole thing together perfectly. If you want to watch something so awful its funny, here is your movie. If you want a scary movie on exorcism....move on.


This movie just seemed to lack direction. The plot developed so many twists in such a short amount of time that it seemed to lose any semblance of what the true storyline was. There was a lot of wasted dialogue and just seemed like the writing was rushed and a little too wandering. The exorcism scenes and possession story began to take a back seat to the character's back stories (which were a little weak to begin with).

All in all, I would say skip it unless you have rented out the rest of the horror section at your local video store and you have a jones for a movie you haven't seen before. You're much better off just watching The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose.


Blackwater Valley Exorcism is a movie about a possessed young girl. Do I need to describe any more of the plot to you? The Exorcist and The Exorcism of Emily Rose are two terrific terrifying movies. Classics (IMO). Blackwater Valley Exorcism (BVE) is not. Not by a long shot. It's certainly not as terrible as a low budget copy of The Exorcist could have been. From start to finish it has the feel of a "made for Sci-Fi channel" production. It's one of those movies that will probably be spoofed and ridiculed on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (or a similar show).

The make up and effects were absolutely laughable. The acting was horrendously bad. There was not a single performance that didn't lead to me rolling my eyes or giggling. Oh, except maybe for Jeffery (Re-Animator) Combs as the sheriff. The script wasn't THAT terrible but it certainly wasn't anything special.

It seems like through most of the movie everyone is more focused on who is sleeping with who than they are with the demon possessed girl in the other room. Oh, there was something I learned from this movie. Apparently if your teenage daughter is possessed by a demon then all you have to do is lock them in the room. C'mon. And if your daughter is possessed don't worry too much because all it does it make them talk in funny voices, eat rabbits, try to stare you down, and put fog machines in their bed. Other than that there is nothing to worry about. Apparently she was possessed with a low budget D-List demon.

There was none of the ghastly deeds done by A-List demons like crucifix intercourse, painful body distortions, or even projectile vomiting.

Totally laughable movie. Not worth even a discount rental.

2 out of 10.


While this movie did have a few scary moments (great use of music and film angles to build suspense), it's obvious director Ethan Wiley and scriptwriter Ellary Eddy didn't waste any time researching their subject matter; which also makes me question their claim that the exorcism scenes were overseen by a genuine Catholic bishop.

Amongst the many inconsistencies:

* Jacob the Roman Catholic priest, when we first meet him outside the church, is wearing an academic robe over his clericals rather than the typical alb, chasuble or surplice. Academic robes are commonly worn by Protestant ministers in liturgical denominations, not Roman Catholic priests.

* Jacob the priest quotes some obscure and disturbing scripture about the angels taking up weapons. He attributes it to St. Paul. This verse is not from St. Paul's writings, neither is it in the Bible. I can't even find it in the Gnostic scriptures.

* Jacob tells his bishop he doesn't believe in demon possession and turns down the request to study exorcism but does a complete 180 (later that same day?) within minutes of talking to possessed Isabelle. Sure, it's possible; but a little unrealistic. See Father Damien as a priest/psychologist in the original THE EXORCIST for a bit more realistic portrayal of a skeptic-turned-believer.

* Miguel, the former priest turned farmhand, is the first to try an exorcism on Isabelle. He quotes scripture, and she quotes back. He says "I see you know Psalm 65" - she corrects him "that's Psalm 67" - they're both wrong.

* Miguel, the former priest who just got done performing an exorcism - making the sign of the cross, calling on the name of Christ, applying holy water, etc. - tells Jacob he doesn't believe in church and he doesn't believe in God. (Maybe he's just conflicted?) Jacob enlists him to put on home-made vestments and have another go at it anyway.

* Miguel, the former ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, crosses himself backwards (or Eastern Orthodox-style). As an Hispanic Roman Catholic who USED to be a priest, he should've crossed himself forehead to sternum, left-side to right side of chest.

I had to read into the little side stories to get the notion Satan was messing with the whole family, not just Isabelle; but even in the end it was hard to say for sure if anyone was really guilty of the images in their heads or if it was all demonic trickery (except for the sheriff - it's pretty clear he was guilty).

On the positive side: Isabelle was CREEPY - in my opinion she was the best part of the whole movie and I liked the plot twist with Claire.

I'm just not sure if the movie was meant to be serious or a spoof.

Listening to the running commentary with Cameron Daddo and Ethan Wiley, I'm inclined to believe it was a joke.


A by-the-numbers exorcism exercise with a disappointing non-allegiance and usage of the term 'blackwater.' The cinematography appears right out of basic cable MOW land which removes any semblance of swampy, murky atmosphere from the proceedings. In addition, there's not nearly enough gore, sex or attractive young things to satiate the majority of the film's targeted viewers. That being said, the lead actress who plays the possessed has a sexy olive-skinned presence. What else needs to be said about this non-winner? Don't rent unless you've got a thing for middle-aged adults bemoaning their past and rants with clichéd priests, shrinks, hispanic stablemen all regretting their past actions.


Is the Cannes controversy-meter remarkably esoteric, or is that we Americans are so callous and cynical that we never bother to read between the lines anymore? Be that as it may, with plenty of careful analyzing, "Falscher Bekenner" at no point seems to live up to the hyped controversy it supposedly brought to Cannes in 2005, a puzzlingly drab and aimless movie that rather lives up to it's glum American re-title ("Low Profile").

Building on familiar themes of Bourgeoise angst and subsequent sexual liberation (kind of), admittedly it's a film not without it's surface-level interests. It starts out with a grabber, as a haunting shot of a desolate off-the-highway road focuses in on a teenage drifter, who ultimately walks by a totaled car, where supposedly a brutal hit-and-run has left the driver dead in a gory mess. Stunned, he does nothing but pick up a scrap of the remaining engine.

Just out of school, the drifter turns out to be Armin Steebe, a product of the German suburbs with minimal ambition. Persisentily pressured by his caring but somewhat nagging parents to find a good job, he endures interview after interview with every haughty interviewer along with it, every one with the same fruitless outcome. Getting mighty sick of it, his aforementioned highway encounter soon provokes his first act of rebellion: claiming responsibility for the crime which he did not commit.

Pretending to fill out more applications and going to more and more bizarre job interviews by sunrise, he partakes in roadside sexual fantasies and petty vandalism way after sundown. As the days get shorter and the nights get much hotter, as he goes on living in his suburban neighborhood as if he's doing nothing out of the ordinary.

If you seem confused about what exactly is going on, don't worry about being the only one: this is about as far and coherent as the story gets. The plot seems simple enough, and perhaps due to it's seemingly direct purposes that's why "Falscher Bekenner" becomes pointlessly convoluted, becoming enamored with endless false conclusions, dreamlike situations and graphic sex scenes to try and enlighten a story lacking clear logic to an already vague argument (supposedly the soul-numbing effects of the modern suburban wasteland, or something about youth's fascination with crime. Hey, it could even be a coming-out movie.) at hand. It spends a lot of time creating numerous symbols, both tangible and surrealistically allegorical, but they don't seem to be really symbolizing anything of interest.

The most fatal flaw, however, is how the filmmakers paint all it's characters in a rough shade of vanilla. There's hardly any distinguishable traits to help understand their purpose, and how the secondary characters (especially the confused relationship between Armin and his rather normal- perhaps too normal- family) catalyze the already under-developed lead character's "plight" never comes into focus. How are we supposed to identify with this young almost-adult's rebellion, with little sense of the world he's living in or the prominent figures around him that help comprise it?

Many people drop in and out of the movie (including Armin's sort-of girlfriend Katja, and a strange, affluent visitor who for some reason finds pleasure in watching the protagonist eat brownies) and seem to exist for no reason whatsoever. They ultimately just seem like prolonged padding to an already thin story with pointless subplots that continue to prove the movie is drawing a total blank about where to go next.

And even a movie that supposedly toys with reality (especially with Armin's nightly exploits), it ends with a literal, almost moralizing head-scratcher that seems to halt questions to a "story" that does little but put it's viewer in a state of pointlessly exhausted perplexion.

Without any color, it's impossible to shade anything vital in.


I have to differ from the other comments posted. Amid sporadic funny moments, there are a lot of actors trying too hard to be funny. The strain shows. I watched this with two friends on another friend's recommendation- none of us were thrilled.


Formulaic to the max. Neither title reflects the serial's actual content, "Fighting Nazis in Morocco," (actually, the Iverson ranch). The plot is just to fill in the lulls between fistfights. The packaging claims over 40 'fistic encounters' in 15 chapters. That's at least three a chapter! Aside from seeing Duncan Renaldo cast as a Spanish accented Frenchman, watching how much furniture is overturned, smashed, thrown, burned or blown up is what this serial is really all about. When the protagonists start fighting, you can bet that everything in the room will be in it, too. So, kudos to the fight choreographer, who is the real star of this serial!

Two positive notes: the characters do sometimes lose their hats during the fights, and best of all, we have the girl side kick (often a journalist, as she is here) actually participating in the mayhem, mostly by shooting and killing the bad guys. Yet to come is Linda Stirling killing the main villain in "Manhunt of Mystery Island" (1945). On the negative side, there are just too many jump out of the way escapes-- before the slab falls, before the car goes over the cliff, before the speedboat explodes, before the building explodes, before the truck hits you, etc. etc.

It is claimed that this serial partially 'inspired' George Lucas to make the first Indiana Jones film, but that is more by implied concept than because of the actual story or the serial's development.

Rod Cameron 'shines' as a moving rock, a role he played in all his films. Other than watching all the furniture getting smashed, there's nothing really going on here, compared to other serials that have fewer fights, more story, better actors and more developed characters.

I give it a 3 for all the furniture smashing.


I just saw this at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco and had trouble staying awake during this incredibly repetitive, unenlightening little film. It is a 75 minutes film that felt like 175 minutes and has about 20 minutes of modestly engaging material. It's not bad in any offensive way, it just repeats things that have been said many, many times over and more interestingly and provocatively. With only a couple of exceptions, the interviews drone on and on and on, making little emotional contact or context to the whole topic. It's more like a "how to" guide for something that can't be done anymore. I was alive during the era but felt little connection or nostalgia for what was presented.


This movie should be retitled: Sex in the 70s In a Part of New York City called Greenwich Village and Chelsea.

This movie does little to talk about sex in the 70s except focus on the hypersexual environments of public and private sex spaces in New York City. I doubt that the Manhole bar was symbolic of actual sex in the 70s and that kind of sex is much more prevalent in the film.

Don't get me wrong, the time period looks like a blast. And it's rather important to document the scene to which the film refers. But as far as calling this film Sex in the 70s, the title is a bit misleading. Technically it's no Oscar Nominee, but the rawness of it feels appropriate for the subject.

Overall, an "eh."


Being a gay man who lived through the time period examined in this tedious documentary, I was eager to see how the subject matter was handled. Unfortunately, the film makers wasted what could have been an energetic and insightful opportunity to shed some light on our collective gay history. This film only concerns itself with the period within New York City, ignoring the rest of the country. While I spent a fair amount of time in NYC at that time, I can assure you that there was a gay life outside Manhattan! The men interviewed here are the same "A-list" queens who thought they were better than anyone else during the 70s, and here they are again, waxing nostalgic and still throwing attitude. The film should have at least tried to cover larger topics, such as race, ageism, the burgeoning gay "caste system" based on wealth, body image, and the rise of the "clones", discrimination of sub-groups within the community, and the ability to grow a decent mustache (which was very important in the 70s!). Alas, we have none of this presented, and the recollections of those interviewed are no different than my own memories. If you were there in that decade, you'll enjoy the archival photos and grainy home-movies of the bars and discos we haunted. If you weren't there, this film will undoubtedly seem dull. It should have been so much more, but sadly, it's not. Two stars for jogging my memory...I still miss going to the Anvil!


I absolutely love the first three movies, they were great! I once caught Part 5 on VHS 10 years ago, and I was disappointed. But perhaps that was because I never saw the fourth one, because they were shot back-to-back. but after finally viewing a copy today, I have to say it was no way better than number 5. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but this is cheap direct-to-video stuff, not even a horror movie, it's PG-13. The acting was not convincing, the story was rather dumb without any excitement and there were not many effects. But the main problem is that there were no kills or any gore (the annoying kid who gets killed in his car was supposed to be the highlight, but come on..)

Surprisingly, both Parts 4 and 5 were directed by Sequel-director Jeff Burr who gave us the excellent Stepfather II and Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. I liked Puppet Master: The Legacy, even if it was nothing else than a tribute with the best scenes from all movies.

Overall, Puppet Master is very much like the Hellraiser Series: A great trilogy but forget the rest..


***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** This installment of the Full Moon franchise changes the storyline a bit and implements some new elements. First off a new puppet master is established. Secondly, the puppets turn good in this sequel. Finally, It introduces some scifi/fantasy elements as well.

A new tenant of the infamous hotel by the bay, his girlfriend, her psychic friend, and that psychics boyfriend, stumble upon Andre Toulon's puppet trunk. They also learn about some demon from another dimension that holds Toulon responsible for stealing the secret to animating the unliving. So Sutekh (the demon) sends the totems, a bunch of craven little creatures that look like ear-less gremlins. Then it's up to the puppet troupe to take care of the inter-dimensional threat that's trying to kill there new friends.

Like most low budget movies this film is rife with continuity problems. How did the puppets get put back in the trunk? How come nobody remembers the last rasche of killngs in the hotel? Who bought the hotel? Why would a contractor by a building with a history of mass murders? All this and many more questions, will not be answered...ever.

The real suprise of this movie is the acting. It's actually pretty good. The actors take it with a enthusiasm unusual especially for a bunch of Full Moon nonames. Teresa Hill was especially impressive as the shy, nervous, psychic Lauren. Chandra West (Susie) was also a pleasant suprise also. Gordon Hill was a tolerable protagonist. But Cameron was far too annoying to stomach. Thank the norse god he dies before halfway through.

The puppets are there usual animated selves. With some improvements as well. There emotions (especially Jester's) are much more human due to the sounds that have been given to them. Blade's hisses, Pinhead's grunts, and Six-Shooter's snicker have all been improved and sound much better. The stop-motion animation is only average at best, especially the totems. They just don't seem to move as fluidly as the previous installment in the series. Also the Sutekh costume is absolutely awefull. How are we supposed to afraid of a creature so humorous looking.

The story seems a bit juvinile for the series. I think Charlie Band was looking to focus in on a younger demographic. The violence being toned down in this movie also seems to speak the same. Gore fans will be disappointed.

I think the above is the main problem this movie can't really stick with many people. It doesn't have the violence for gorewhores. The language is a little cleaner. Yet it's too violent and harsh for the wee ones. Which is why the movie gets low ratings. I have to say that the common reviews are mostly fair.


I'm a big fan of the demonic puppets. Looking at the surface of this one, it looks pretty good! You've got Decapitron, the puppets, and a new villain in THE TOTEM! Unfortunately, the little punk that's doing this project to animate, inanimate objects, can't act. He stinks! His girlfriend is worse. If they were left out, it would probably be cool, BLADE VS. THE TOTEM. I'd watch that for 2 hours. But instead, the puppets role is down played, and the whole movie suffered because of it. The mystical Skull guy who created the totem is corny at best, and Decapitrons appearance is long awaited, short, and really quite disappointing. You'd be better off watching the first one again.


A severe backwards step for the puppets in this mainly dull and tedious outing. Guy Rolfe, so fantastic as Andre Toulon in part three barely features this time and Richard Band's fantastical them tune appears with the puppets a fair few minutes in to the film. For the start of the movie we are introduced to the caretaker of Bodega Bay Inn (Gordon Currie) and some youth friends of his (many of the cast are Canadian and are all very good in unfortunately rather undemanding roles - Teresa Hill is quite yummy). Totems, minions of the Egyptian God Sutek want the secret of animation life back and the puppets (when they surface) act with a previously unseen cleverness to attempt to destroy the ugly and very computer game looking Totems. The Totems merely complicate the series and distract from the things that previously made the series so unique - they don't share the weird beauty of the puppets and thus don't really fit in. Top scene is Pinhead using a rag to clean blood from Tunnelers drill bit, classic and about the goriest this film goes. The fifth film was filmed concurrently with this one so expect similar sections of mediocre and a Toulon performance that seems to have been filmed in a different era (or even galaxy). Guy Rolfe deserved better and series fans certainly do. Grrrrrrr.


So I decided to watch the entire Puppet Master series, and had just watched parts 1-3, which I thought were ALL excellent. They had a unique charm to them, and a certain intelligence that I really appreciated. About a year ago, I even saw Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys, which of course was bad, but still a terrific guilty pleasure and fun to watch.

From the very beginning of this film, I knew it was in trouble. The cheesy Power Rangers-style Egyptian skull villain who watches the Puppets 'Rita Repulsa-style' through his pyramid glass came straight out of left field! All of the additions to this franchise in this story were completely absurd! Suddenly we have a grand assortment of all kinds of new and random characters and plots that are a far cry from the first three films. I seriously doubt that when the first Puppet Master was being penned, the writers had visions of someday seeing an Egyptian Power Rangers villain, totem monsters, annoying twenty-somethings who seriously can't act (and are supposed to be brilliant scientists but never say anything intelligent), and a lame "Decapitron" puppet who's head can morph into the ghost of Toulon.

Another thing that greatly disappointed me in this film was that it completely ignores what happened in the last entry (Part II, since III was a prequel). Suddenly, the puppets are back at Bodega Bay Inn, back in their case (minus Blade), and Toulon for some reason is willing to help his puppets again (he betrays them in part II for his love of Elsa). This isn't explained AT ALL...and so with that, and all of this other junk thrown in, I was no longer amused.

I'm a huge fan of ridiculous B movies, a connoisseur if you will. I even collect laser discs of rare B movies you can't find on DVD, and so it takes a lot for me to say that this was one of the most absurd movies I have ever seen in my life. I still love those puppets, the original ones, Blade, Tunneler, Pinhead, Jester and the rest, and if they had only stuck with what they had rather than trying to fix something that wasn't broken, well, the series might still be alive and in good health. That being said, even though the reviews aren't so great, I'm really interested in checking out Puppet Master Retro, sounds like an interesting one that pays great tribute to the original themes.


When I borrowed this movie, I wasn't expecting a high-quality performance, but this was just sad.

Most of the acting was so unbelievably bad that you couldn't easily get into this movie if you tried. There's nothing quite like seeing a kid announce things like "Oh no! My Dad is invisible!" or "I wonder what this does?" in the same monotone that one might announce traffic advisories over the radio with. There are some good actors, but they are wasted on smaller parts.

The story is decent, though it would be fairly easy to guess, considering that there aren't too many real plot changes. Lots of holes, too. For example, the Dad is invisible, and the inventor figures out what part is needed to make him visible again. So the boy goes and steals the part from an electronics store. Couldn't he just ask his Dad for the cash?

This shows up in the Comedy category, but most of the comedy in this movie was fairly dumb, like the Invisible Dad taking off his clothes while invisible and then almost reappearing naked during a meeting, or walking around with his head covered at all times. Funny at first, but it gets old.

2/5, because it is watchable, and it's one of those movies that are funny in their own way... like the monotone recitation of lines.


This movie made me want to bang my head against the wall. It is hard to compare such badness as this to anything, but some say that watching this movie is similar to bleeding from under your fingernails. And that comment comes from the writer's cousin. This movie was so flipping bad, it made "Hulk" (The second worst movie ever) look like "The Departed" (One of the greatest movies in cinematic history). If you like boring family movies with predictable plot lines, then you will absolutely love this movie. If you have a brain, then you definitely will not. When I rented this movie, I actually fell asleep while watching it. The next day, I finished it from where I left off, and it was the worst decision of my life.


Well the name in the summary should tell you everything. FRED OLEN RAY - the modern King of low budget flicks, be it for TV or direct to video (I doubt he produces for the silver screen anymore - with the death of drive-in B-movie double features and all).

Creator of such cult(?) classics, like Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers and Dinosaur Island....

Well I kind of like this guys stuff. Its mostly entertaining (in a distinctly cheesy, campy and especially cheap kind of way) and if he's one thing, he's a pro - something you can't say for all guys in the movie biz.

But this one flick here is among the weaker ones in his oevre. Insipid acting, an uninspired script and lame jokes conspire to make your brain go numb in a matter of minutes. If you are out for real F.O.R. goodness (or rather badness), look out for the above mentioned ones, and generally his stuff from the 70s and 80s (I think he lost a bit of his edge lately).


Sometimes you get exactly what you expect. A film produced and by and as a vehicle for a rock band in the middle of a comeback is not to be expected to rank high in artistic merit- and in this case it certainly doesn't. In fact, as expected, the soundtrack is a much better investment than the movie itself, which like the 70's rock and roll lifestyle it attempts to portray, is characterized by excess, drugs, and over-the-top antics, but unfortunately is not nearly as much fun. Utilizing a script by Carl Dupre horrible enough to make a fellow screenwriter cringe, and wasting the talents of Edward Furlong, the sole highlight of this rock and roll period piece gone wrong is the music, most notably the elaborate recreating of a 1978 KISS concert.


Now this is a bad movie if I've ever seen one. In one of film's greatest years, 1999, Detroit Rock City contends with Runaway Bride and Wild Wild West for the bottom spot in a barrel of junkies. The plot is masterful. Four scrawny high school youngsters finally have their chance at seeing the hard rock theatrics of KISS forthe third year in a row. So when their tickets are toiled by an ultra-religious, chain-smoking mom, the pals scramble themselves in getting to Detroit, and I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

Well, not exactly; the movie does go to extreme measures in explaining how the four band members (no, not Gene, Paul, Ace and Peter) go about getting these tickets: losing your virginity in a confessional; saving a smoked-out bimbo and your mom's Volvo (from the Soprano's Steve Schirripa, nonetheless); preventing a robbery in the midst of botching one for a 12-year-old's debt; and of course, stripping down to your bare essentials for MC Ron Jeremy after shuttling a full blender with bourbon-leftovers. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Perhaps Detroit Rock City does have a point with all this tomfoolery in how extreme sometimes these fans can go. And we do understand this movie is a comedy; it is supposed to be filled with slapstick. But does Detroit Rock City aim to the proper audience? It is rated R, meaning the only way prepubescent adolescents-the audience as I see it, to which many will eventually hail this one a classic-will voyeur is through illegal terms.

Detroit Rock City also fails at giving itself the late-1970's touch. The camera's texture quality is way too clear and way too bright, missing the necessary flair from films like This is Spinal Tap and Sid & Nancy. This would've allowed audiences to feel `more at home' with the times. Simply costuming kids into pre-90's grunge-wear and settling others into `disco infernos' does not do the trick. Environment does mean something you know; I doubt Detroit looked this glamorous in '78. If there's anything positive coming from this movie it's the kick-ass soundtrack of hard late-70 to early-80's rock. Van Halen, AC/DC, you name it, it's all here. Of course we can't forget KISS, the band aptly subjected throughout.

What the film noticeably fails to manage are questions concerning why the Knights of Satin's Service (it's really just KISS) were so frowned upon by moms around the nation. Sure, the loud rock and devilish makeup might be a part of that; encouragements for youth to explore themselves and have a good time might be fair reasons as well. But, what is KISS saying in the music we hear throughout the film towards this highly rebellious group? What separates these anthems of `rock[ing] and roll[ing] all night and partying everyday' from the rest of the music? Most likely, these questions will remain in a music communication class and not in the films that should answer them, simply because it is KISS and they rock and we must do everything in our God-forgiven power to see them.

1.5/5 stars


I picked this movie up because it sounded like a pretty decent flick, and I've always been a fan of Foreign films. However, for someone who likes movies, I was surprised at how much I hate, hate, HATED this movie.

Although it does aim to expose the lives of young, lowerclass men in Lima, and to an extent it does succeeed, the characters are hopelessly shallow and the audience winds up having absolutely no feelings whatsoever for them.

Although the story chiefly revolves around M, he rarely ever speaks, and his dialouge is, at best, amazingly dry and dull.

*** Warning: Some small spoilers ***

Basically, the story revolves around a young man named M who has been searching for jobs, but without success (He does gain employment twice, but quits because they're "not for him", when you're poor, the last option you have is to be picky). Some amount of time is spent with his friends, who's idea of "fun" is to rape a little 14 year old, steal crappy tires off a piece of shit car for a dime sack of weed, and several other slightly retarded activities.

M's friend comesup with a plan to make $25,000 a piece and move to the US by running Cocaine to Miami. When the drug lord gives them a job, we're treated to an extremely lame scene of the three friends buying clothes at the mall with some music playing in the background. We see them trying different clothes on like little girls given $200 to shop, get there hair cut, and then strutting off looking like slick gangsters (one character, Carlos, will from this point on wear sunglasses ALWAYS... even at night).The day before they leave, the leader of the group leaves to speak with the drug lord, leaving M and his friend to be dumb. They party up, take several samples of the drugs they're suppose to run, and break into thier old school, acting like animals and smashing everything in sight.

The movie ends when M tries calling his girlfriend, who hangs up on him. The friends then proceed to set the pay phone on fire, which brings out a bunch of kids and some old man with gun. M and Carlos' friend in charge of the drug run shows up on his motorcycle and wants them to leave with him now. Then he takes off by himself, and gets shot by that old man. The police show up and arrest M and his friends (but not the man who shot the guy) and cover thier dead friend up with newspapers as music plays and it fades to credits.

**** End Spoiler ****

I even watched this movie a second time, hoping to see some subtle, redeeming factor for it, but I did not. A complete waste of 102 minutes. Although I must give it credit for being straightforward and not shying away from disturbing elements, the casting, acting, and overall direction still leaves much, much, much to be desired.

IMHO, if you're interested in a movie that explores the issues this one was suppose to, go rent City of God (Cidade de Deus) instead. Avoid this trash at all costs! You have been warned!!


I watched this movie which I really thought had a promising beginning but then it just led me to feel disappointed in the end. The problem I think with this film was that the director was trying a bit to hard to make this film weird and original. There were too many flashbacks and too many bad "effects" which got me annoyed through the film. I love Debbie Harry and Isaac Hayes but they disappointed me in this film, they could of done much better. This film seemed promising in the beginning, dragging in the middle and then disappointing in the end. The film could never beat Stanley Kubrick's geniousness when it comes to controversial matters, weirdness and originality in movies.


The worst movie i've seen in years (and i've seen a lot of movies). Acting is terrible, there is no plot whatsoever, there is no point whatsoever, i felt robbed after i rented this movie. they recommended it to me mind you! a disgrace for terrible movies! stay away from this terrible piece of c**p. save your money !


There are movies that are leaders, and movies that are followers.

"Meatballs" was a leader. And here's one of its followers.

"Party Camp" is about as interchangeable as any of its brethern who plumbed the depths that "Meatballs" (the original) had so successfully mined. Of course, that one had Bill Murray. So, what does "Party Camp" have?

I'm glad you asked that question.

Jewel Sheperd has made these flicks her bread and butter, and what a side dish SHE provides! Even as an innocent (wink, wink) girlfriend to a rich twerp (Cribb), she provides that sultry steam she gives to all her parts. And yes, guys, she shows (if you know what I mean and I think you do). My gosh, that smile of hers could melt through titanium.

What? Oh yeah, the movie. Nothing special as I said; every cheap joke is aimed for and hit (at about crotch-level). And eternal teen Jayne is good for a laugh or two. But instead of a sense of humor there's just nudity, lame sex jokes, more, nudity, a soft-core dream sequence, a sex symbol nurse simply for (CLOTHED!) leering purposes, even more nudity....

Hmmm... Maybe it's a good idea Bill Murray WASN'T in this.

Two stars. For Jewel, naturally. Plenty of "Camp", but not much of a "Party".


I love these awful 80's summer camp movies. The best part about "Party Camp" is the fact that it literally has no plot. It simply drops a weak batch of "characters" into a location and then things occasionally happen. The cliches here are limitless (SPOILERS): the nerds vs. the jocks, the secret camera in the girls locker room, the hikers happening upon a nudist colony, the contest at the conclusion, the secretly horny camp administrators, and the embarrassingly foolish sexual innuendo littered throughout. The only cliche missing is the presence of Corey Feldman. This movie will make you laugh, but never intentionally. I repeat, NEVER. A final note, be prepared to bust a gut watching the nonsense that is the "dramatic" scene where Jerry Riviera and D.A. share a beer late at night, spilling their guts to each other. The dialogue literally makes no sense, and the acting belongs on a high-school stage. It's a classic.


Young writers, young auteur, young cast, busload of producers, what could go wrong? Everything. Even lame is too good a description, that suggests that three of four legs were functioning, when actually, none of them were. Barely enough recycled plotline for a 48 and a half minute television hour, gratingly stretched to ninety minutes. The audience was talking back to the screen, so bad was the story. Dirty cops steal drugs from the evidence locker. How many thousands of times has this been done on television? Bad cops frame good cops. Again, how many times? There was not an original shred in this entire concoction. Giovanni Ribisi made a valiant effort to prop up the lack of script, drawing the only laughs of the entire movie. And the thought of he and Claire Danes working from a real script with a grown-up director and photographed by an actual cinematographer intrigues me. Note to screenwriters: Buy one of those story generators. It can't possibly be as bad as ripping off bad television. Note to auteur: There are shots available to you other than closeups. Even the lovely and interesting face of Claire Danes eventually grows tiresome in closeup. Note to cinematographer: Apprentice yourself to a professional for a few years--you have much to learn. Note to color timer at the lab: At least try to persuade the auteur and the cinematographer that they don't know what they're talking about. Note to Claire: I hope this paid for your new condo. It's time to get some professional management and start actually reading the scripts before signing on.


I'm not one of those folks who bemoans everytime a film based on an old TV show comes out. Rather, I usually run out and see it (If I had watched the show) and try to get nostalgic. But if anyone feels like running down films based on old shows, this is exhibit A (So you can actually say something more than just "McHale's Navy"). "Mod Squad" is dreary, tiring, and lethargic. At least the original series was angst riddled long before anyone knew teens could be so glum, making it groundbreaking. This is just tedious. Claire Danes is nice to look at, but does nothing else but mood swing and sneak around spying on the baddies. Giovanni Ribisi's acting extent in this flick is that Droopy the Dog look for an hour and forty five minutes. And Omar Epps looks like he wants to flee the set, but the script's chlostraphobia has trapped him. Sure, the production is nice, with the now seemingly obligitory "rave" nightclub opening action sequence and shootouts galore. Oh, and the kids yell and get mad at each other and their superiors a lot too. It's kind of like deciding to use the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine to go on a family vacation to Hollywood with your teenage kids who you and your spouse know need heavy therapy and prescription drugs. I really wanted to like this movie, and there were promising moments, but the next scene would suck the life out of it. You can knock another Spelling remake, "Charlie's Angels", all you want, but at least that film knew it wanted to have fun with itself. "The Mod Squad" makes you wonder where the inspiration from the original series went.


I must preface this comment with a sort of admission: I suppose I just have a soft spot for the original 60s-70s TV series. I think the filmmakers here blew it from the get-go as far as casting: in a supposed remake, audiences would look for reflections of the hip, athletic Linc (Clarence Williams III), or the cool, with-it Michael Cole, and so forth. Instead, we get Giovanni Ribisi as a poor-little-white rich boy who comes off as just pathetic, like he is in all his roles (in the office I used to work in, I amused myself once by creating a fake movie poster, casting various actors as members of the office staff; guess who I cast as the dorky son of the company President?). Danes does OK as the new Julie, but none of the characters have much to do, as the story just sort of sits there, mired in conventionality. So it's quite forgettable, besides. What was I talking about?


The mod squad gets started 'after' the formation of the 'Mod Squad' without even bothering to develop any of the characters or show us why anyone is doing what they are doing.

Moreover, most of the events in the movie seem ancillary to the plot. Without even a smack of character development, the plot meanders from Gen-X club scenes to action scenes and back again.


So, it's Friday night and you want to go watch a movie...all you want is something entertaining, not too artsy, or anything that might require a long night of philosophical discussions. So, you pay $10 to watch the Mod Squad. The trailer to this movie should have tipped me off, but come on...it's three of Hollywood's most beautiful people--eye candy. But that's about it...a string of moving Prada ads. And what did Hollywood producers forget? A plot. Why are these kids running around the streets after some unknown enemy? Where are they? But, don't worry, after a while, you'll just stop caring. I was on the verge of walking out of this movie, because I thought sitting in my room and staring at the wall might have been more productive (and free), but by that time, it was over (90 minutes--it's only saving grace). So, still willing to waste $10? Go, get yourself a nice hot meal.


This may just be the worst movie of all time. Never have I seen such horrible film making before in my life. Its so bad I think I want to go watch Barney instead. I advise everyone who reads this to write a petition to get this movie off of our film history so we can never hear from it again. I give it 1 out of 10.


Pure crap, decent cinematography... I liked some of colors. Other than that, this was one of the worst movies I ever saw. Boring, lifeless, not once did I find myself interested in any of the characters. I kept waiting for a real plot to form and the movie to pick up the pace. Nothing ever happened! I think they spent too much time working on hair and wardrobe that they forgot there was a movie being made at the time.


Being a fan of the series I thought, how bad can the movie be? Well I got my answer. Some movies should never be made. Why call it a remake of the series when the only similarities are that there are three main characters. The Pete character in the series wasn't a whiney little baby as portrayed in the movie. The only good thing in this movie besides the music and that Clare Danes is pretty was that it was short. What's with that dance scene??? The only reason I didn't walk out of this film was because it was so bad it got funny. Maybe that was the plan! It's really bad when a cheap 60's TV show is better then a 90's 20 million dollar film. El Mariachi cost only $7000 and is a much better film. Don't even waste your money when it comes out on tape, it's not even worth renting.


OK, Number one-this "film" is a "90's" version of a crappy show from the 70's that no one remembers! Number two-As soon as the movie started, I was confused, it was like I walked in halfway through the movie! There was no plot! it was very annoying! Horrible wardrobe! Call me crazy, but It's just not believable to me that little skinny Omar Epps can chase down a big grown man, without a gun, and scare him into talking! It's a ridiculous "plot". I'm sorry, but to me, kids these days can't even put their pants on one leg at a time, let alone catch some "evil, underground, killers". I walked out of the theater and demanded and got my money back! I do not reccomend this movie to anyone over 12 years old!


This is an astonishingly bad action film. I'd say its primary flaw is that it's BORING. Arghh! Funky wardrobes, retro chic set design, and decent cinematography cannot prevent this flick from being a snoozer. Mod Squad's second (major) flaw is its lack of character development--underscored by the actors' lack of talent. I tend to like Claire Danes's work so I was quite surprised by her non-existent performance in this film. Giovanni Ribisi is woefully miscast: how could his cotton-mouthed, bumbling acting style possibly fit into an ACTION flick? As for Omar Epps, well, he needs to take a few acting lesson to learn how to emote. The man had the same facial expression for the entire film! My suggestion is to save yourself a few bucks and wait to see this turkey on cable.


I really wanted to like this movie, but I just couldn't. It had the potential to be a really cool, hip remake of a cool show, but that's where it fell apart. It was too hip, too cool. First of all, all the cool lines and scenes were showcased in the preview trailers, which I'd seen lots of times. And the editing was very disjointed, so that the scenes didn't seem to flow together and they all seemed out of place. Claire Danes, who I love as an actress failed to make this her break through to the beyond high school acting roles. The only bright spot was Giovanni Ribisi as Pete. His slightly stupid, yet actually smart style was funny and refreshing. Overall though, I'd recommend just watching the previews instead of seeing the movie and wishing it was more.


I thought this movie was horrible. I was bored and had to use all the self control I have to not scream at the screen. Mod Squad was beyond cheesy, beyond cliche, and utterly predictable.