I don't know why IMDb lists all the Ghoulies films as theatrical releases.. They were all straight to video films. Same with the Puppet Master series. Why hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Right, somehow you've stumbled across Ghoulies IV, probably raiding through an old abandoned video rental store from 1993. You looked in the discount section and found this...Look at the back and front covers. What do you expect, The Shawshank Redemption? There is no need to review this film so critically. It is the fourth GHOULIES film! I bought it on DVD for 6.50 because... it was 6.50.. I knew it wasn't Kubrick material. And I was right. An unremastered DVD with no extras, not even a trailer, boasts an uncared-for film.

It actually contains the star of the first Ghoulies film, Peter Liapis... who really didn't get many 'big' roles apart from those two films. And I don't see why... He's not too bad an actor and is pretty fun. But I guess if you're gonna take a lead role in the Ghoulies films, Scorsese and Tarantino will lose interest. Also present is his idiot sidekick Bobby Di Cocco, who despite having a very small resemblance to Al Pacino (very small), retains none of his acting ability... A complete idiot who's just awkward to watch. Then there's Stacie Randall - obviously a porn star, I don't need to look that up. She does look quite sexy, though her costume, her character and everything she does drags down the films credibility, which is no easy task for such a film.

Then there is the Ghoulies themselves! Who also manage to let us down. Ghoulies III made them start talking, mistake no. 1, but Ghoulies IV takes it a step further. Instead of being puppets, this time the Ghoulies are in fact KIDS in COSTUMES!!!! The filmmakers decided to run that extra mile to insult the films viewers. Also, there's only TWO of them, and they're not the main highlight of the film, as they don't appear in a lot of it. However, at times they are MILDLY amusing... And they're not evil this time either.

This really is hilariously bad stuff, it's amazing that I was actually able to enjoy it. I dunno why... Some of the black humour is actually funny, though the script is mostly effortless. Imagine Satan's only threat to you being that he will "kill you, slowly...painfully...".

But at least Full Moon had no involvement this time. Did they? Yeah, a very bad and cheaply made film with 0 production value, but not so bad as to be in the ranks of Puppet Master 1/2, Lawnmower Man 2, Surviving Christmas or even Ghoulies III.


Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.

Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.

In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this filmwhether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylumis hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.

But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.

3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.


Some things just won't stay dead. They just have to keep coming back for more whether we like it or not. I guess some people like to beat a dead horse. The first 'Ghoulies' was a surprise hit and it's first sequel was an even better film. The third film took a more comical approach and by this point the little buggers were starting to overstay their welcome. I guess someone out there in Hollywood thought it was a bright idea to resurrect the franchise, but the outcome will likely disappoint fans of the previous entries.

Pros: The acting is actually pretty good for a movie like this. A silly, but fun score. Moves at an alright pace. Some cheese for those who love it. Some pretty good action-packed sequences. Has a bit more plot than the others and unlike II & III at least attempts to link itself with the original.

Cons: Not nearly as much fun as it's predecessors. Though it has more plot than before, it's a pretty ridiculous one. Poor effects. The original Ghoulies only appear in flashbacks and here they're replaced with two trolls who serve no purpose other than to be comic reliefs. Speaking of comedy, all attempts at humor are lame. Is a direct sequel to the first film, but there are so many loose ends. For example, I thought Jonathan was done with black magic after what happened in the original? Not that it was spectacular in the others, but this film's direction is especially bland.

Final thoughts: The first three 'Ghoulies' movies are a bad movie lovers' dream. This fourth, and so far final sequel (Let's hope), is a bit of a letdown. Sure there's some fun to be had, but it just isn't the same. The others are low budget too, but the people involved put a lot more into them. See if you're a completeist or you wanna see beautiful women in skimpy outfits. Otherwise just stick with the other three.

My rating: 2/5


All movies that contain "goofy sound effects" should be shot. If there is one thing I HATE, it's gotta be the use of a "whoop whoop whoo" when somebody gets hit one the head. The only movies I have seen to do this is Ghoulies IV and Hobgoblins when they are in the bar, and Pixie is hitting the guy in the red suit with a beer bottle... or rather, fanning him with a beer bottle, because she never really hits him with it. Yes Ghoulies IV does suck. But I have to wonder, did they MEAN to not make the so called "Ghoulies" mouths move when they supposedly talked? Their faces are almost as static as the masks used in Trolls 2. Hell, I can make a better mask out of construction paper, some rubber cement and a handful of glitter. This sucked.


The only good thing about this film is they managed to tie it with Part one! But other than that it was one of the worst films ever! The only time you see the Ghoulies is in a flashback (and the flashback is just clips from Part one)! A must NOT see! On a One to Ten, "Ghoulies 4" gets a One!


This is quite a bad movie but oh well, this movie is at least not as lame as the third Ghoulies movie.

Yes, this is a bad movie in terms of its writing, directing, acting and basically everything in between. It has such a weak, simple and ridicules story, that besides has little to do with the previous Ghoulies movie entries. It tries to connect the movie with the first movie "Ghoulies", from 1985 but then on the other hand, if they really wanted to connect this movie with its predecessors, then were are the Ghoulies in this movie? Instead now we are having some small people, played by Tony Cox and Arturo Gil, dressed up as demons. Not that the Ghoulies from the previous movies were any classic characters but they were nevertheless the heart and soul of the movie and also provided the movies with a certain amount of fun. It's like having a Gremlins movie without the Gremlins.

The movie is not really interesting to watch because it lacks any tension, good humor, intriguing characters and basically everything else you can think off because it got put together by persons who obviously aren't the most talented ones within their business. Just like at director's Jim Wynorski resume, with movies such as "The Witches of Breastwick" and its sequel, "Alabama Jones and the Busty Crusade", "House on Hooter Hill", "Scream Queen Hot Tub Party", "The Bare Wench Project" and the sequels "The Bare Wench Project 2: Scared Topless" and "The Bare Wench Project 3: Nymphs of Mystery Mountain" and "The Da Vinci Coed" on it.

Yeah the movie is quite silly and campy but this is not really enough to boost this movie and gives it some more entertainment value. You know, it's the kind of cheap looking movie with some lame special effects, costumes, make-up and actors nobody has heard of ever since.

Still it isn't the worst movie out of the series because of the reason that "Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College" is by far a more worse movie, since that one had some horrible lame attempts at humor. This movie at least still does some attempts to be serious and professional one, even though the end result is far from perfect.

Bad movie making and perhaps only watchable for those who have seen the previous Ghoulies entries.

3/10


This is one of the worst movies EVER made. I can't believe how bad it was. I was shocked at the awfulness of the "ghoulies" masks. They are OBVIOUSLY Halloween masks! The mouths don't even move when they talk!!!!! Why did they feel the need to make the ghoulies comical and goofy? Whenever they do anything there seems to be this circus-like music and overused BONK and BOING noises when they hit people. The bondage dominatrix lady is one of the worst actresses I have ever seen. This movie is just bad. The plot is nonexistent. The mom from ONE TREE HILL is in this though and she has obviously had a nose job since this was made. Why did the main character from the first movie return to make this garbage? BAD BAD BAD movie.


Ghoulies IV starts in a museum storage facility where PVC & leather clad blonde Alexandra (Stacie Randall) is looking for a ancient jewel, after offing various guards she summon the demon Faust who she worships & wants to have sex with, unfortunately she lost the jewel so he's not very happy & orders her to get the last remaining one... Which belongs to Jonathan Graves (returning from the original Ghoulies (1985) Peter Liapis) who is experienced in demonic possession & stuff like that after the events of the original Ghoulies. Alexandra sets about finding the jewel so she can bring Faust to Earth permanently from the 'other side' to, well I don't know actually. Erm, that's about it really...

Directed by Jim Wynorski whose very name name sends shivers down my spine when it's attached to a film I'm about to waste 90 minutes of my life on Goulies IV is as I expected complete, total & utter crap from start to finish & it's as simple & straight forward as that. The ,ahem, 'script' , cough, by Mark Sevi has virtually nothing in common with the other Ghoulies film except in it's title & that they managed to convince Liapis to reprise his role which also has the added bonus of big able to use footage from the original even though it has no relevance whatsoever. The story is almost none existent, the whole film is a real chore to watch, it's incredibly boring & moronic, it's slow, it's predictable, it's squeaky clean as far as blood or gore goes & it has two comic relief goblins whom I assume are supposed to fill the Ghoulies quota even though they look nothing like they did in the previous films & are in fact just embarrassing to watch, in fact I think they were practising to be ventriloquist's during most of the film as when they speak their mouth's don't move... You know I don't want to talk or think about Ghoulies IV anymore so please believe me when I say this is one huge piece of crap of Elephant sized proportions, don't waste either your time or money.

Dirctor Wynorski turns in a throughly rotten film on just about every level, the special effects are terrible as is the whole film. Apparently Ghoulies IV is meant to be some sort of horror comedy but it misses both targets by the proverbial mile & it is neither funny nor scary. The best thing about this film is actress Randall in her PVC & leather outfit running around trying to find the jewel & that's hardly worth sitting through this rubbish to see. There's a half decent runaway car scene with a few crashes but it looks like it was edited in from a completely different film & given Wynorski's track record I'm sure it was. Forget about any gore as there isn't any.

Technically Ghoulies IV sucks, it's obvious it had & low budget but that simply isn't an excuse for it to be this bad, is it? Liapis is back in the cast although he probably wishes he'd stayed away, PVC clad babe Randall is easily the best thing about this film which says a lot.

Ghoulies IV is crap, there's nothing else to say really. I honestly can't see anyone who enjoy films getting anything out of this, I just can't. I can't believe that I'm going to recommend the original Ghoulies over anything but it's going to happen now because even though that's crap as well it's a hell of a lot better than Ghoulies IV, one to avoid folks & you can thank me later. The things I sit through so you don't have to, honestly...


This movie was so horrible...I want to beat the hell out of who ever made this movie...I was a original fan of all the ghoulies movies...but when i seen this i just began to cry I could not handle it..There are not even ne ghoulies in it...like the original creative monsters...this is so friggen cheap...I meen come on a witch...thats bull crap no one wants to see the witch...they wanted to see what the movie is about..."GHOULIES" i meen jeesh am i right or what? Thats y we watched the other ones..now we have to actually put up with this horrible storyline...This makes me want to eat my own poop after Spaghetti Monday!!!


They do... Each sequel is worst. You, who think that Ghoulies 2 or 3 need a 1, please, watch this sequel... You'll be wondering with the first three parts. Then you'll give a 10 to the first, 8 to the second and 5 or 6 to the other. That's because Ghoulies 4 really gets the big 1 (from me it does).


Wow! This movie is almost too bad for words. Obviously the writers wanted to somehow link this to the Ghoulies franchise, so they got Pete Liapis from the first one to reprise his role as Jonathan...only now, he's a cop and has no similar character traits as he did in the first one. The ghoulies in this one aren't the ghoulies from the last ones. The cheap looking puppets have been replaced with even cheaper looking costumed little people. Instead of being any main antagonist or being evil, they are more like the comic relief characters that appeared out of nowhere for no reason.

When watching this film for the first time, it felt like I'd seen it before. Why was this? Because everything in this was stolen from another movie. All the cheesy cop lines and action scenes were from Lethal Weapon. The ghoulies were pretty much like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, except they weren't amusing at all. Even scenes from the original Ghoulies film were sprinkled throughout this flick.

I think the target audience was supposed to be adults, but the mixture of black magic, cartoon slapstick, cop drama and bad acting doesn't work at all. I hope they don't make a Ghoulies V, because I don't want a movie studio to lose their money.

My rating: BOMB/****. 78 mins. R for violence.


A group of teens have their car break down in the middle of nowhere. They seek shelter in a farmhouse. But three murderous convicts are there killing the owner of said farmhouse and his family. One of them accidentally brings zombies around by knocking over a scarecrow. Cue blood, gore, carnage, bad acting. Better than the first but only by default. I still wouldn't wish it on my arch-enemy, bob. In the end the filmmaker wants it to be a parable about how we us Americans are killing ourself and our forests (huh? OK, whatever buddy) Dude I'd rather chop down forests then have my braincells diminish and my Grey matter leak out of my ears. In other words become a simple-minded idiot Liberal.

My Grade: D-


Jerry Angell, owner of zombie-horror's finest mullet, returns for more undead action in the sequel to director Todd Sheets' atrocious home-made gore-fest Zombie Bloodbath. This time around, Jerry plays a sleazy low-life thug who, along with his equally despicable partner-in-crime, some escaped convicts, several teenagers, and a bunch of screaming girls, comes face-to-face with a horde of shambling, flesh-eating corpses.

Obviously having learnt zilch about improving his craft in the two years since Zombie Bloodbath, Sheets delivers another shoddy mess of a film that somehow manages to be even worse than the originala feat that I thought was almost impossible to achieve. The acting is uniformly lousy, the effects amateurish and cheap (most of the gore appears to be nothing more than a selection of offcuts, offal and blood from the local butcher's shop), the story incomprehensible (as far as I could fathom, the zombies rise from the dead because a scarecrow commands them to!!!), and the direction frustratingly laden with cheap looking video effects and completely meaningless cuts to black-and-white.

And as if that wasn't enough to convince you of this film's complete lack of redeeming features, the simply mind-bogglingly moronic ending should do the trick: the few remaining survivors stumble upon an abandoned truck that conveniently happens to have a stash of flesh-eating bacteria laying on its passenger seatjust the thing for dissolving the undead (but, strangely enough, not at all detrimental to the living).


When I say worse, I mean less entertaining. Todd Sheets seems to have learned some stupid camera tricks since the last Zombie Bloodbath, which makes the movie even less tolerable. In the last movie there were no special camera effects, where in this one, we are treated to shaky cam, and constant switching to black and white. Also, this is called Zombie Bloodbath, despite the fact that the zombies are barely in this one. The movie starts in 1945, where some satanists kill a violent burglar and put him up as a scarecrow. Back in modern time, some kids have a car problem and go to a house, the same house in which the satanist murder happened. Some mean people try to rape the kids (or something), and they bring the scarecrow burglar back to life, who comes back with some zombies and now talks like Darth Vader. Mr. Sheets amped up the language and lessened the violence. If you want to see what a bad movie is, check this out!

My rating: BOMB/****. 96 mins. Not rated, contains violence and language.


In following Dylan Moran's star from the charming misanthrope bookstore owner in the surrealist sitcom Black Books, I could see his comic potential begging to be utilised in theater or larger cinematic avenues. This first big screen outing in a starring role (he had a cameo as Rufus the thief in Notting Hill) had oodles of promise, but like the strained Steve Coogan vehicle, The Parole Officer, has too many creases which should have been ironed out in preproduction.

The plot is so convoluted that I shan't bother repeating the finer details (the script has every character do that for us), and the laughs are sourced from show business in-jokes. Michael Caine is a pompous has-been running a production of Richard III - updated to Nazi occupation (one of the few genuine laughs, a satirical jab at Ian McKellen), in which everyone is forever doing the Hitler salute every time they take the stage. Convincing Dylan that acting should be a conceptual act unto itself, the two plot to steal money from some fairly harmless gangsters by way of their acting prowess. Confusion ensues (both on screen and in the audience), there's a romantic sub-plot between Dylan and the daughter of one of the gangsters blah blah blah and Dylan gets to dress in odd clothes and do funny accents. Michael Caine delivers some choice lines, and Dylan's comic timing is on the money, so why isn't it any good? It does have a certain charm that you would expect from Film 4, but it also has a precocious little girl acting as compass in a muddled and irrelevant plot - a no-no in screen writing 101. Exposition overshadows everything else. You just want to see Moran and Caine acting as comic foil to each other the way the were at the beginning, but when they're together toward the end, the the pairing has lost its charisma.

The Actors is an amusing, albeit underwhelming effort. Should it come on telly during a rainy Tuesday afternoon, then have at you. Otherwise you would be better off watching your old Black Books videos, or renting Withnail & I.


The real surprise of this effortlessly lightweight movie is how such a top notch cast got assembled for what is nothing more than a hammy uninspiring affair. Presumably it was a proverbial snowball rolling down a hill gathering pace and size and shape. One can imagine that by the time Miranda Richardson got contacted by her agent, the conversation went along the lines of: 'Do you want to shoot a movie in Dublin scripted by Neil Jordan? Michael Caine and Michael Gambon are already in!' This is a dull 'comedy' that sees Michael Caine and Dylan Moran try and pull off a well-planned hustle where Moran must imitate a London gangland boss (whose arrival is imminent) to collect a sizeable sum of cash from local kingpin Michael Gambon. The rest is simply a forgettable romp that is thankfully over quite quickly. Moran is mildly amusing in places but on this evidence is better suited to life on the small screen in hit comedies such as Black Books. Caine is unchallenged in his role and gives a steady performance without being overstretched. One can only imagine what made him sign up for this movie - it can't even have been a summer in Dublin given that many of the scenes look positively autumnal in the background. Gambon actually steals the show, and anyone who has caught some of his performances in the likes of Have I Got News For You will know that he is a wonderfully funny man. But overall the result is disappointing, and it seems a lifetime ago that Neil Jordan was making quality movies of the likes of Mona Lisa.


It is hard to imagine two actors of such class and experience as Michael Caine and Michael Gambon getting involved in such an embarrassingly inept film. The responsibility for this ill-judged production has to be down to the writer, Neil Jordan and director, Conor McPherson. I doubt I've seen such a bad film with such good credits in a long time. The comedian, Dylan Moran, who made his mark as the irritable and incompetent bookshop owner in the TV sitcom, Blackbooks, turns in much the same routine here, except with such excess and lack of comedic control as to leave one squirming. It is easy to see how the story could have been made to work, for the situation is an interesting one and loaded with comic potential. A classical actor (Caine) tries to rip off the mob (Gambon and co) with the aide of a bumbling wannabe colleague (Moran), with predictable results. It could have and should have been good. Sadly, it was not to be.


We saw this in a bargain basket at the local Asda: £1.50 for the DVD. reading all the hype plastered all over the cover saying how "hillarious" it is, and it also had a really good, established cast, we thought this must a great film.

So we bought, took it home, shoved it in the DVD player, sat back and waited for the funnies to begin.......and waited.......and waited.....and waited a bit more.

Some 90 minutes later, although it felt more like 3 hours, the credits rolled, and that was the end of that.

What a letdown - even paying £1.50 seemed a con. God knows what Caine, Richardson and Gambon were thinking when they said 'yes' to this tosh. And as for Moran: well much as I enjoyed Black Books, Shaun of the dead, and his comedy tours, I felt he was out of his depth in this film. He tried too hard playing for laughs, probably thinking that if retaining the characteristics from his Black Books character, would work here.

Sadly it back-fired. The gags fell flat after awhile, and then he became just an irritation. Which is a shame because I believe given the right part he could be a very good film/character actor.

Anyway, to sum up: the actors in The Actors, failed to Act!!!

**/*****


Michael Caine usually appears in either very good ("Blame It On Rio", "Sleuth", "Without A Clue", "Gambit", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels") or truly bad comedies ("Noises Off", "Death Becomes Her", "Harry & Walter Go To NY"). This falls into the latter category.

TA is a comedy that succeeds in only two things: managing to waste a cast that includes Caine, Gambon and Richardson, all of which have comedic abilities, and succeeding in its mission not to make the viewer laugh. There isn't a single truly funny moment here. The main reason is the lousy script; there was so much futile effort put into writing a pointlessly convoluted story which is simply too bothersome to follow (considering it's only a comedy) that the writer(s) forgot to make the damn thing funny, which, as far as I can recall, is what the whole point of a comedy is supposed to be.

I've never seen this Moron before. Some people even say "if you're a Moron fan you'll love this" bla bla bla. A Moron fan? Does this non-descript person really have fans? A comedy as badly written as this requires a mega-talent to eke out a laugh or two out of it, someone like Steve Coogan and not your average Moron.

If you're going to make a comedy about actors then at least make them out to be the utter morons that they usually are. The characters of Caine and Moron are insufficiently dumb.

The single most annoying thing about this unfunny collection of scenes is the little girl. Only a truly horrible writer would think that to spice up a lousy script it's wise to include a super-intelligent wise-ass kid. Smart-a** kids aren't even funny to Bill Cosby fans any more. In "Little Miss Sunshine" we had a totally normal kid and she was very funny. This stupid ol' the-kid-is-smarter-than-the-adults shtick belongs to a century-old Marx brothers film.


If you are thinking of going to see this film then my advice is - dont.

For me the film failed to make the grade at every level and was a reminder of how dire most British (& Irish)films are. Forgettable tripe is the best i can say. If it had been on telly l would have wandered off to do something more interesting five minutes after the start. I saw this film with a group of friends and having read the press previews went along prepared to not be critical and hopefully pass an amusing 90 minutes. But, oh dear.....

As a comedy it wasn't funny, as a thriller the stupid story was sloppy and lazy. As a love story totally unbelievable. Most of all as a piece of 'gloriously over the top whimsy' it lacked both style and charm. Gambon and Caine did what they needed to do to earn their money playing er..... Gambon and Caine. Is it just me, but other than playing east end gangsters and jack the lads, does Michael Caine leave you cold?

In fairness, some of my friends thought it was 'ok' but if you do go, my advice is have a few drinks (or puffs) beforehand and leave your critical faculties safely locked up at home.


Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through "Midnight Video" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.

This film goes under many "a.k.a's" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased "The Bloodsucker leads the Dance" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under "people" and input "Krista Nell").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.

There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a "client's" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their "wheres and whyfores".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.

I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such.


INFERNO starts off with a fairly impressive for a TVM starscape effect . We`re also introduced to a scientist who`s called Heller . Don`t you get it ? Heller , Hell-er , Inferno . So I guess someone on the production had some intelligence . However it does become more and more obvious as the TVM progresses that intelligence has been discarded throughout the storyline in order to appeal to an American TVM audience

The story itself is overwhelmed by subplots featuring umpteen stock TVM characters like the tough liberal schoolteacher who`s trying to save a home boy from a life of crime , the doctor who`s lost his medical licence etc . In fact the story concentrates far more on these characters than the approaching disaster that all the potential tension and drama the scenario might have had soon goes up in a puff of smoke , and being a TVM we just know that there won`t be a downbeat ending <br /><br />There is an onscreen problem I noticed and that is everytime there`s an explosion there`s a massive fireball which looks ridiculous not to mention physically impossible . Look at the scene where the national guard are in a fight with a gang . A soldier fires a grenade into a tower block and the whole building explodes in a fire ball . What a small greanade containing no more than a few ounces of high explosive can do that ! No it can`t . There`s also another scene of army engineers blowing up a dam with plastic explosive and the same fireball effect is seen . Can directors please note that high explosive is not the same as napalm

Having said that I did find INFERNO highly watchable for a TVM and at no time did I find myself wanting to turn it off . It did have some potential and let me repeat the special effects are fairly good considering the budget and it`s not as bad a TVM as some people are making out


Absolutely horrible movie. Not a bad plot concept, but executed horribly. Cliché storyline; bad script. So schlocky it doesn't even qualify for campy. This is the kind of movie that gives sci-fi a bad name.


This has to be one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune to see. The general idea of a coronal mass ejection hitting the planet earth with EM disruption is fair enough, but where did they get the idea that humans could survive a sustained 155ºF? The acting was so terrible I got the feeling that the casting agents simply grabbed a handful of people off of Santa Monica Boulevard and threw them in front of the camera. In all honesty I have seen less wooden acting from my ironing board. Sorry, but this film was poor, poor, poor.


Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about Lucille Ball, especially her autobiography. I've never seen so many mistakes in a biopic, ranging from her early years in Celoron and Jamestown to her later years with Desi. I could write a whole list of factual errors, but it would go on for pages. In all, I believe that Lucille Ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. If I were Lucie Arnaz and Desi, Jr., I would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. The filmmakers tried hard, but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.


When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.

To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.

Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.


I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch "This Is It" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).

If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average "horror"-stories, like "scary short-stories" that you find in an issue of "Reader's Digest" in the waiting room of your dentist's.

I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the "I want to see blood!"-type of person, but this "movie" is neither "horror" nor "comedy" nor entertaining in any other way.

It's probably more scary/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of "You've Got Mail" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.

Conclusion: a "horror-comedy" for people between 4 and 7.


The concept for this movie was quite good. But somehow the execution failed on many parts. There aren't many horror movies that I can think of that used dolls that looked so realistic. Especially when these dolls start blinking their eyes or moving hands. So much could have been done with this premise. There were a lot of scenes where there was room for tension and suspense. And I really was expecting creepy things to happen. But never did the movie managed to be scary. One of the main reasons is that the story is too minimal and predictable. I actually thought that they did this on purpose in order to surprise us with some wonderful twist. Sadly this doesn't happen. Well at least not in the way that I hoped for. The cast also failed to make it all believable. It would have been nice if more background was given on the characters. In the beginning when we get introduced to the main character. It seems that she and other characters are invited by some sort of artist. But it also is apparent that they don't have an idea themselves what they are invited for. Of course this is part of the mystery. But it does seem unlikely. If I got an invitation without having a clue what the deal is I simply would not go. Furthermore most characters aren't real likable with the end result that you never actually care for them. Another flaw is that the director deviates from the basic premise which is scary enough and brings up new elements that never get explained and aren't even relevant to the "Doll Master mystery". Overall this movie has been a big disappointment to me. If you want to see a good horror movie involving dolls go see "Dead Silence"!


The worst ever Korean movie! The plot is ridiculously complex, unbelievable, and the film creates not a single shock. It builds up suspense well enough then leaves you agitated providing no shock or jumpy moment. Whenever there is a chilling moment you are not bothered by it as you're still trying to work out who is who and what is going on! It goes something like this: a modeling company recruit 4 people for a modeling career. but the owners are not what they seem, they have model dolls of everyone and a strange girl is seen walking about the place and the owners have no recognition of a girl. It turns out that everyone is there for a reason and thats as much as i could grasp. The ending is a muddle of killings and you don't know who's a doll who's real and who's dead! i don't recommend it to fans of Korean/Asian horror films.


Have to disagree with people saying that this is a lousy horror film with good acting and camera-work - I'd say it's an okay horror flick RUINED by shockingly abysmal acting and poor camera-work - watch 'Ju-on : The Grudge instead of wasting your time with this garbage. The principal idea behind the film is rather an original one, considering the abundance of killer-doll-based scare-fests which have been foist upon us over the years; unfortunately, the story is handled with all the subtlety of the latest Michael Bay actioner, with a cast of characters which are uniformly unlikable and played with precision-perfect dreadfulness by actors presumably sifted from daytime Korean soap operas. It isn't scary and only succeeds in dampening your expectations of the next Korean horror movie to come-a-calling. Oh well.


Doll Master is an example of a lousy horror film, fallen somewhere in the space with it's two not so well established genres, a horror film and an emotional drama film. Seems like The Doll Master tries very hard to be a very scary horror film, but it fails. The noise of the dolls while moving is like taken from the croak of Kayako in Ju-On, and the crawls are like sadako esquire. The killing dolls will remember you a cute version of "Chucky". But compared to Child's Play, this film is more superb. But the story seems a nothing, the brilliant camera shots and the brilliance of acting was taken away cause of the plot.

Don' watch this if you are expecting great shocks.


This relatively obscure Hong Kong "minorpiece" is the perfect desert island movie for video age peeping toms (at least its first half is). Every set-up, every scene, every sequence is an excuse to look up a girl's skirt, stare down at her breasts, gaze at her bottom and leer at her tight crotch. What it's establishing is the lead character's perverted proclivities, of course(!)

Genre stalwart Anthony Wong is a marginally perverted married man who is plagued by erotic daydreams and outrageous fantasies. All involve scantily clad, sexy Chinese ladies with nothing but sexual servitude on their minds.

The plot is thickened by a homicidal subplot, voodoo doll skewering and a little rape and pillage.

Some of the sex scenes are fairly hot and the gore is liberal, but the supernatural elements introduced into the second half feel half-baked and the plot developments are ludicrous.

Clearly, producer of garish garbage Wong Jing was in a terrible hurry to get this into and out of theaters.

The arty title sequence did not fool this jaded punter.


I was looking forward to this movie as everyone was talking about it as being a good horror movie, and finally an European one. So, maybe my expectations were to high.

It begins with a good quiet horror/shock sequence but it lets you down right away in the following scenes, where the plot begin being introduced, as the acting and the motivation/life of the characters reveals itself no better than any 'made for TV' drama. It keeps that way right into the end.

About the horror part of the movie, it is certainly a good idea and a different one, but ALL the scenes are of the 'seen it before' kind.

Overall, my idea of this movie was that it had a good concept, which was inserted into a mediocre story, bad acting and less than tolerable plot holes.


Firstly, this movie works in the fact that it is disturbing. I really did not like seeing all these scenes where people get cut up alive, etc. The weirdly erotic introduction gives one a sense of necrophiliactic wonder. It is somewhat... distastefull to me personally. But the movie really works in that respect, and it is suppposed to be scary, so I give it credit for that. Yup, a few points there for those scalpels and....well, damned disturbing idea of getting disected alive.

But what this movie lacks is an interesting plot, characterization, or real surprises. The whole teen-flick horror genre usually goes in a very simple, predictable way. Lots of 'tense' moments, creepy guys who are insane, and the big question of all: is the boyfriend the murderer? This movie fits into the category of "Scream" and countless others which have spawned over the 90s. Well, I won't spoil it for you, but it's not exactly interesting who is the killer. We find out who it is half way through... and from there on, the movie drudges on, trying to fill in some time... rather boringly to say the least. I was looking at the clock a bit on this movie.

The lead actress is great, as usual, but the carboard acting box she is placed into makes one groan in pain... the college girl who is a detective who everyone thinks is insane, but she is the one who really knows whats going on. And the cops? Ahhh, they just laugh and eat donuts. Very predictable, flat, disturbing at times, and most of all, boring and dull... It's like an American film company took a flight to Germany to shoot a movie to make it foreign..... hmmm..... or did they?


Medical student Paula Henning wins a place at an exclusive Heidelberg medical school. When the body of a young man she met on the train turns up on her dissection table, she begins to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death, and uncovers a gruesome conspiracy perpetrated by an Antihippocratic secret society operating within the school. Disturbing and gross, lots of scary parts. It even has a good script and ending. But it has a one poor part. What else could you see from this movie? It's a good mystery and horror movie. But, of course, if you like it, Go buy it. If you don't, there still is not reason to waste your money on this.

Rated R for Extreme Graphic Violence, Sexual Situations and Profanity.


This movie had such a good premise to start with. Suspense, slashers, a secret society, and you really couldn't figure out who the bad guys were until the last quarter of the movie.

But it contained so many dumb clichés from the worst of the old American slasher/horror movies. Now, I love slasher/horror movies, but there are all the old clichés that have long disappeared from American cinema. For example, the old "I hear noises in the basement and I'm home all alone and the basement light doesn't work, so I'll go down to investigate" cliché.

Three examples of these clichés just really irked me to no end:

1) When Potente finds out that there may be a secret society at work at the medical school carving up live bodies, she proceeds to ask questions and tell EVERYONE -- very publicly. In essence, she is saying, "I found you out. Come kill me because I am telling everyone your secret." And then she wonders why she finds blood smeared all over her bed and is brought her roommate's severed finger in a towel.

2) Even after one guy she met two weeks ago ends up on the dissection table and she finds out about this secret society disemboweling live people, she goes to the lab where all the dead bodies are stored 2-3 more times BY HERSELF AT NIGHT to investigate.

3) Her roommate gets killed. She gets chased by the killer, whom she knows, doesn't report him to the university or the police, then leaves the school to go home to visit her parents. Then she returns to school, apparently thinking that this guy who tried to kill her will let bygones be bygones and not try to kill her, even though she knows his secret. She was, of course, wrong.

For someone who was supposed to be so smart (she was studying to be a doctor in the best school in Germany), she acted like the cliché bimbo in a horror movie.

These things just made a potentially good movie very frustrating, and made me wish the ending would come even sooner. Halfway through the movie, I stopped routing for her and wished that she would end up on the dissection table, too.


There is an endless supply of trashy horror movies. It seems that people never get tired of trying to scare and thrill. Alas, very seldom these attempts succeed. This, unfortunate movie has almost no redeeming value. The story is highly predictable, most of the actors very uninspired, or just plainly miscast, special effects of very low quality. It took a lot of effort not to switch off the DVD and go to bed. With such a limited number of foreign movies issued in the USA, why in the world would anybody want to import this drivel. To top it all, apparently there is an "Anatomy 2 ", for those who have nothing better to do. I'd rather watch the paint dry.


Okay, I had reasonably high expectations for this. The controversial subject matter was a good concept. As a horror fan I admit I was fascinated and very excited about this.

It turns out they had a great idea, but it was terribly executed. Let's see. This movie seems to run in 3 modes: Happy, Sex and Dark. The problem is that the movie never decides what it wants to be. The "Happy" parts I believe were meant to contrast with the "Dark" parts, but it doesn't work. The soundtrack is one of the reasons.

The movie transitions between these 3 modes very badly, I can't even begin to say how much the directing and editing suck. There's sex in the most unappealing and unerotic way. I'm not complaining but even for Horror standards they were unnecessary and filler.

The characters are all unlikeable with the exception of Paula (Potente). Her friend from Munich is a slut and possibly one of the most annoying characters in movies I've come across recently.

There's a bit of plot which I won't go into detail... It's not stupid and in more talented hands would make a good movie. There's even a nice twist and a cool conspiracy going on. Don't try to understand everything because there are giant plot holes here.

It's all so shoddily done that you don't care for the victims, the perpetrators, anyone. And to think this could have been great. I can say ONE good thing about it which is, the movie shed some light on today's unethical medical procedures. With genetics and controversial sciences advancing, this could have been a great philosophical film that raises and discusses these questions. But you won't find that here, just a series of scenes loosely pasted together with people and things that you don't care about.

Skip this and go watch Flatliners instead, you're welcome.

3/10


1st watched 6/24/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Stefan Rujowitzky): OK thriller, but a little too predictable. This story is based in Germany, which is also where the movie is made. It is about a young medical student who gets a shot to go to a premiere school in Heidelberg and arrives seeing some strange things occurring. Someone she met on the train there and saved, shows up on the school's experimentation table and she's suspecting foul play right away. She does some investigation and the disappearance of her friend leads her to a secret society called AAA(and no it's not Alcoholics Anonymous) that has something to do with the anti-Hippocratic oath and is used to perform experimentations on live people that doctor's wouldn't normally be able to do. She finds out her grandfather(who was a dean at the school) was a big part of establishing it and it's pretty readily filled by members of the school. It's an interesting story but the problem with this movie is how quickly the audience is told what's going on and then it's kind of a horror movie with the heroine fighting off the bad boy of the group that's taking things to the next psychotic level. Although this movie was made in Europe, it plays to a young American audience with it's focus on gore, sex and the horror film premise(which is really it's big downfall) and explains why it probably made good money and spawned a sequel but doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.


Anatomie isn't very unique in horror genre, in fact it isn't even scary at all. It reminds me of its American cousins, horror slashers. It's just a copy of any other horror slasher and as a German movie it's just too American with nothing to add to it.

Actually Anatomie is too predictable and boring, its plot is not intact and consistent. It's got stupid scenes to it which don't even fit into a horror movie genre. Amusing sex scenes with pop music and topless women in underwear. Why do they need to have it all in just one movie? They should have made a cheap German adult movie instead.

I can't recommend this movie to anyone because it's just too boring.


Finally got to see this movie last weekend. What a disappointment..it barely reaches "made for TV" level. Given the list of actors, I would have expected something substantially more sophisticated. The movie lacks a good story, well, actually any story for that matter. It has no credibility, instead lots of predictability. Save yourself the money and the time.


This is by far the worst non-English horror movie I've ever seen. The acting is wooden, the dialogues are simply stupid and the story is totally braindead. It's not even scary. 2 out of 10 from me.


Anatomie was a German made Movie and subtitled.It was also overlong and boring.If it was supposed to be a horror movie,it failed miserably for me.The actors went through their paces looking more like they wanted to be some where else.The film work was ok but more attention should have been applied to the awful banal script.I paid nothing to see the video and I still feel cheated.Go read a book and save your money.


This is a pretty lousy picture.It offers nothing unique or original or even interesting.

A medical student discovers that a secret society at her university is engaged in macabre medical experiments.And of course she becomes involved in solving the weird deaths at the school.This movie started out promising with a few cool special effects in which a guy is partially dissected while alive and tries to get away after he wakes up but then even that fizzles and the rest of the special effects are pretty routine plastic models of the human body and that unreal looking blood that these second rate horror movies always seem to have.

And as if the routine plot and the lousy acting wasn't enough this movie had subtitles that many times didn't even match the dubbed English that you hear being spoken and then add that to the mouth movement not matching the dubbing ..well let's just say trying to coordinate all that in your head isn't worth it for this mediocre movie.

I was at least counting on some skin in this movie and except for a bit during the opening credits this movie didn't deliver on that either.

This is a boring routine run of the mill horror/gore movie---short on horror and gore.Skip this movie unless "Ernest goes to Camp" is the only rental left.


I had high expectations going into this film, but alas, I feel let down. I bought it for 5 bucks at a used VHS place, and the version I bought was the English dubbed version. The dubbing is awful, so beware. "Lola" just wasn't as good in this film as in "Run Lola Run", and the bad guy just kinda came out of nowhere. And "Lola" starts to catch on to what's going on the second she gets to the university. Seems unrealistic to me. I was also wondering if in the original version there were American songs in the soundtrack... they seemed extremely out of place. Too bad for this film, I really thought it was going to rock.


I watched this basically for the sole reason that it was supposed to have Third Reich references in it. It turned out a pretty brainless and predictable slasher film that appeared to be made to appeal to feminists or something.

Let me tell you something, if you wait an entire movie to see the attractive female lead's breasts, the last thing you want is a "tastefully" done sex scene with annoying camera angles that don't show anything. Her busty friend didn't get hers out either, but we saw plenty of men's butts and pubic hair and guys with their shirts off. And at the end you have our heroine magically dodging the scalpel thrusts and swings of the villain (who turns out to be the hunk, funnily enough) and she easily out fights him (uh huh) while her male love interest is tied down and waiting to be rescued. The funniest part was when she picks up a chair and "swings" it at the guy and it breaks over him. Now it'd be about as much as she could manage to lift the chair let alone smash it against a person with enough force to break it! It looks ridiculous, she basically brushes it against him and it falls apart. If you are going to do this sort of "role reversal" rubbish (which has already been done to death) then you have to at least make it semi plausible.

There was one good bit though. The bad guy did get the better of her slutty friend, teaching her a lesson for being such a tramp and sleeping around. That's not exactly something feminists would like.

Pretty stupid really. Not that American slasher flicks are generally much better, but you have to wonder why they bothered. It brought nothing new to the genre at all.

5/10


On assignment in scenic Italy, beautiful lip-synching Lana Turner (as Fredda Barlo) meets older singer and prince Ezio Pinza (as Mr. Imperium). The two fall in love, while enjoying the pretty Italian countryside. Unhappily, Mr. Pinza is called away to his Kingly father's death bed, leaving Lana in the lurch. Twelve years later, Ms. Turner is a Los Angeles actress, about to make a motion picture about falling in love with a King. Turner is being romanced by co-star Barry Sullivan, who wants to marry her - then, King Pinza re-enters her life

"Mr. Imperium" provides a tired storyline for sex symbol Turner and debuting bass vocalist Pinza, who appeared for several decades with the New York Metropolitan Opera. Pinza likely earned his MGM feature film career after appearing in the hugely successful stage production of "South Pacific" (1949). The cast album, and Pinza's golden "Some Enchanted Evening" single, sold millions. Supporting casters Marjorie Main, Cedric Hardwicke, and Debbie Reynolds give the film a even greater sense of wasted resources.

*** Mr. Imperium (1951) Don Hartman ~ Lana Turner, Ezio Pinza, Barry Sullivan


Simply miserable Lana Turner-Ezio Pinza vehicle. Pinza had a beautiful voice but he rarely uses it in a film that reminded me of "The Student Prince" with adults. Pinza is no leading man either. He looks like an elderly man ready to collect social security and go fishing.

The plot is extremely thin and the supporting cast of Barry Sullivan, Marjorie Maine and Debbie Reynolds are given so little to do. Sir Cedric Hardwicke comes in at the end to announce that our King Ezio had better return to his people. As far as I'm concerned, the faster the better. Is that Lana Turner really singing with Pinza? Not bad if it is her. The picture would also remind me in a way of the 1960 movie "The Prince and the Showgirl" with Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier.


This brief review contains no spoilers since the movie spoils itself. It is wooden and pedantic. It has no saving grace whatsoever. If someone invites you to his house to watch "Mr. Imperium", don't go. Even the title of the movie is dreadful and portends what garbage lies within. The whole plot is so bad that it could drive Mother Theresa to despair!!! It wasn't a stroke that led to the early demise of poor Ezio, it was having to act in this clunker that did him in. It must have haunted him the rest of his days. Perhaps he was an enemy alien and wanted revenge upon the Americans for his confinement. He found a perfect vehicle for his wrath in this travesty.


Alan Rickman & Emma Thompson give good performances with southern/New Orleans accents in this detective flick. It's worth seeing for their scenes- and Rickman's scene with Hal Holbrook. These three actors mannage to entertain us no matter what the movie, it seems. The plot for the movie shows potential, but one gets the impression in watching the film that it was not pulled off as well as it could have been. The fact that it is cluttered by a rather uninteresting subplot and mostly uninteresting kidnappers really muddles things. The movie is worth a view- if for nothing more than entertaining performances by Rickman, Thompson, and Holbrook.


It's not easy to find Judas Kiss on VHS (it's not available on DVD), but I wanted to add this rather obscure movie to my Alan Rickman movie collection.

I can't understand how the talented Mr. Rickman gets into these mediocre films? Judas Kiss boasts several wonderful actors, an interesting plot and intriguing twists, but its strange visual wanderings and chopping editing ruined what might have been a great crime drama. Many scenes seem to be missing vital information to explain the character's actions: Why was our hero immediately suspicious of his bosses? Why did he mistrust the detective he replaced? There were times when I honestly couldn't tell if the director meant Judas Kiss to be a legitimate crime drama or a campy spoof. Why else would he toss in a topless/alien/lesbian porno scene in the first two minutes (that little surprise certainly made me scramble for the remote since my kids were playing nearby!)? Did he purposely instruct his two distinguished English actors (Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson) to use such awful New Orlean's accents? As an Alan Freak, I confess that I still thought Mr. Rickman was sexy: in a rumpled, weary, "take-him-home-and-tuck-him-in" sort of way.

Judas Kiss isn't a great movie, but it does have some intriguing moments, but I don't recommend it unless you're trying to immerse yourself in Alan Rickman.


This film would like to be the kind of shocking, cerebral, and intense movie that many others in its genre have successfully been, but it's not. It is at best confusing and absurd. When the twists and turns finally revealed themselves, rather than saying "Ahh, I get it!" I muttered something along the lines of "Okay...whatever." In my opinion, when a movie reveals a major plot twist it shouldn't have to employ a flashback sequence to prove that it did give some hints that would enable the viewer to discern the truth himself. But this movie does have a flashback; and here's the kicker: it flashes back on scenes that weren't even in the movie!

The characters were stereotypical, unsympathetic, and wholly ridiculous. I feel that the "steamy" love scenes between the romantic leads were the most untitillating and unsexy that I've ever scene in a movie that wasn't porn. It seems that the director was going for shocking and kinky with the love scenes, but they were really just plain silly.

And don't EVEN get me started on the crappy accents and second-rate sets. I guess the movie was set in New Orleans, but Aside from the afore mentioned accents and a couple bland city shots the movie could have been in Anytown, USA.

My recommendation: don't bother!


This series continues to frustrate and annoy. How are they going to drag this out for another year? Each episode offers up more and more questions, whilst providing the answers to very few. To quote another very popular website, I believe that this show has now jumped the shark!

Will, I keep watching it?

Probably,

Will they manage to keep the show on-air till it ends?

Probably not...

How did two qualified doctors fail to notice that Naomi was still alive? How did 30 plus people not notice a corpse wake up and walk off with a knife still in her back? How did someone have enough strength to create two trails and climb up a tree to ambush Kate?

We've now introduced a ghostbuster...

Same time next week? yep!


I felt last night's episode was slow and kinda of boring at times. I honestly don't think it has to do anything with the writing. Because I know the story was well staged and tried to keep things in place. I thought it wasn't that bad but overall, I didn't enjoy it. The most blame has to do with the director of that episode- Stephen Williams. I always hated Stephen Williams's directing. If Jack Bender continues with this episode from the season premiere, he would have kept it in a good pace and keep things float to keep things interesting. I'm glad Jack Bender is directing next week's episode and it'll be much better and I'm glad he got first Syaid episode to direct and I'm curious what he will pull off this time since Stephen Williams had directed too many Syaid episodes before.

I always keep thinking that Stephen Williams needs to be thrown off from the show. He doesn't even do anything interesting with the show.

Why does the opening have to be done with a target thing while being in the helicopter? IT was so BORING! Bad perspective of camera work too!


This is the first and as far as I can tell, the only completed production of "Heart of Darkness" ever released. Prior to starting on "Citizen Kane," Orson Welles shot some test footage for a version of "Heart of Darkness" that was to be filmed entirely in what would now be called "POV", where we would see everything from the point of view of the main character Charlie Marlow; he would be seen only fleetingly in mirrors, windows, water, etc. The film was never made. The "POV" technique was used, not too successfully, in 1947 in "The Lady in the Lake," with Robert Montgomery starring as Philip Marlowe. Presumably, the coincidence of the two "Marlow(e)" characters is just that. Of course, Francis Coppola's "Apocalypse Now" was based on "Heart of Darkness."

The short novel "Heart of Darkness" by the Polish-born British writer Joseph Conrad, first serialized in a British literary magazine in 1899, features one of his favorite alter egos, ship captain Charlie Marlow, who also narrates the short story "Youth" and indirectly tells the story of "Lord Jim." Marlow, temporarily out of work, decides to take a job captaining a river boat for a Belgian company involved in the brutal exploitation of the resources of King Leopold II's personal fiefdom, the cruelly misnamed Congo Free State. Marlow travels from London to Brussels, signs on with the company, and is told that his mission is to take a boat up the Congo River to a far inland station headed by one of the company's most productive agents in the colony, a German named Kurtz. Shipments of ivory, latex (for the production of rubber) and other products from Kurtz's station have ceased, and no word has come downriver from Kurtz for some time. There are rumors that he has "gone native." Marlow is to investigate, take any necessary action, and make a report on his return. He takes passage down the West African coast to the mouth of the Congo, is delayed for weeks while he is forced to repair his boat at the company station on the coast, and finally sets out upriver to find Kurtz's station. The river, the heat, the vegetation, the wildlife, the insects, the people, all take their toll on his endurance, his imagination, and his mental resources. He finds Kurtz ill, half-mad, and close to death. The final encounter and the death of Kurtz are almost an anticlimax, especially since Conrad is so obscure about what actually happens that we are left to puzzle it out for ourselves. This is a novel where you close the book vaguely dissatisfied with the ending but nevertheless treasuring the story for its amazing atmospherics.

This "Heart of Darkness" was filmed with Guyana in Central America standing in for West Africa. It is best where the novel is at its greatest disadvantage: Actually showing us First World urbanites what a boat trip up a tropical river would look like. But the rest of the film was forgettable. Tim Roth does his best as Marlow, but so much about the plot, characterizations, and character relationships has been altered beyond recognition that you wonder why they bothered. If the aim was to make Conrad's story for the screen, why didn't they leave it alone? It's unreasonable to expect that no compromises will be made when a book is made into a movie, but so many changes were made that to me had no cinematic justification that you wonder whether we are simply dealing with incompetent screenwriters and cinematographers. Most disappointing of all was John Malkovich as Kurtz. He was completely miscast and simply flubs the role. Everything about him is wrong: His looks, his acting style, his voice, his accent, everything. A vastly better choice would have been someone like Bruno Ganz (unlike Malkovich, an actual German, like the character).

This is a very disappointing production and I would recommend it only after you've read the book if you want to depend on more than your imagination to get a visual picture of a boat trip up the Congo River circa 1900.


After seeing the film version of Heart Of Darkness, I feel as if I wasted 100 minutes of my life. Though the book was not my favorite, I was very disappointed to see how poorly Nicolas Roeg portrayed the story. Despite the fact that he left out many bits of important information, the cast just did not seem to fit their roles and the whole film seemed vastly emotionless. The book depicts vivid scenery and detail that are completely disregarded in the movie.

You'd think a director would be able to fit 76 pages of a book into a film of at least an hour and a half. The differences completely changed the story for me. For example, when the character of Kurtz's fiancée is nonchalant to the fact that Kurtz has died, it completely modifies the ending the book had given. Not to mention the sets and scenery used in the film were not nearly as beautiful as they were described. It sincerely feels as if Roeg was filming another story with references from Heart Of Darkness embedded in it.

If you watch the movie without knowing the title or expecting it to be anything like Joseph Conrad's tale, you may find it good. Though I thought the camera work was poor and the cast unfitting, it is a captivating story all the same. However, if you are looking for a good movie version of the famous classic story, don't look for it in Roeg's film.


Overall, the movie "Heart of Darkness" was pitiful compared to the book. Anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. There is an immeasurable difference between the two. It seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. I couldn't imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating "Heart of Darkness." The immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. Conrad's story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation.

First, capturing the details of the story is unattainable. The colossal fine points created by Joseph Conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. Marlow's feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. If you have taken on the enormous task of tackling Conrad's work then, you know as well as I that Conrad only wrote half the story. The additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. You, as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting Joseph Conrad's ideas. As a result, several crucial details are absent in the movie.

Also, although the movie was an adequate length, the film seemed short. It seemed that Conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. The speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. Marlow was much more of a stranger. The viewpoint of the book puts you into Marlow's shoes. However, in the movie, you're almost watching Marlow from a distance. I began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same "read between the lines" method as Conrad did. However, the connections were weak. I know that if I had not read the book then, I would, in no way, be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters.

Finally, Kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. His role was short and the details weren't all included. It was impossible to comprehend the true Kurtz in the length of time he was shown. An important detail in the book was that Kurtz had become a god to the Africans. I didn't think that significant detail was defined. Also, in the book, Kurtz represented a soulless being. He had died inside long ago. I believe the director comprehended this detail. However, instead of recreating it, he just had Kurtz mope around and mumble everything. Moreover, it seemed like the director attempted to make Kurtz seem mysterious, however, instead, he seemed entirely unidentified.

Altogether, this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project, due the next day. It appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. The characters were alienated, crucial details were left out, and, overall, the central plot was lost in translation.


Despite the excellent cast and the potential of the story, this movie fails on many levels. I was convinced that the director was a beginner. The movie is very poorly edited, shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes, has very visible goofs and has no suspenseful atmosphere whatsoever. The question which repeatedly popped up in my mind while watching this was: "so what?". I couldn't care less about the protagonist and what happens to him. It's not that the story isn't compelling, it's simply the way it's told. The movie tells the story. PERIOD. It's like an actor who mumbles his lines, without knowing what he's saying. The movie simply tells the events that happen, without any soul. And the director's to blame. He doesn't know how to make something interesting or suspenseful or enjoyable. (And believe me, I'm NOT somebody who wants to see die hard 8 or 2 fast 2 crappy. On the contrary, i especially like slow-paced movies.) So i was convinced the director was a beginner. But to my amazement this man has years of experience and has worked as a cinematographer or camera assistant on a lot of marvelous productions. Guess he had a bad year back then.


The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.

The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very "choppy", in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book.

I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book.


To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness.


Taylor Deemer Mrs. Drake English 10 PIB B4 31 March 2010

A Shot in the Dark

It is difficult to make it through the movie Heart of Darkness because it is incredibly unexciting. The book that this movie is based off of has little action to begin with. So the thought of turning it into a movie seems like a totally off-handed idea anyways, basically guaranteeing a fail.

Most of the book is of the mental travel of a young seaman named Marlow on a job through the many darknesses of the Congo and people as a wholeI feel like the screenwriter failed massively at capturing the essence of Marlow's travels. It totally missed the biggest issue of light versus dark. That is the major point in the book and when that doesn't translate to the movie, all that's left is 100 minutes of boredom and monotony.

This being the case, the question is posed, why would anyone make this into a movie? An even better question could then be asked, who would want to watch it? It is utterly a chore to watch. Had it not contributed to a grade in my English class, I would have never even considered watching the movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Heart of Darkness is stripped of all its insight and meaning when it's taken from the pages of the book. The novella is torture to read until the last twenty pages or so, but the afterthought is that it is a pretty decent book. The movie is like a shot in the dark with no chance in the world of hitting its target.

How can a book that's all about the mental processes and realizations of darkness be portrayed in a physical, visual sense? I feel like it's impossible to accurately show thoughts. Also, I feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that don't seem to add up at all. The novella Heart of Darkness was published in 1902, while the movie version of Heart of Darkness is from 1993. The 91 years between the two may be a reason behind the seemingly different terrains. The novella seems to have much harsher conditions, and the movie does not portray the prehistoric feel of the Congo. The Congo, in the movie, just seems like another place, not the dark, inhuman place that the book paints this setting of. I feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella.

With two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie, the little bit of decency that is in the book Heart of Darkness is gone. When the controversy of light versus dark is the biggest theme, not including it in the movie makes it seem like the entire movie will be incredibly pointlessand it is. It's dull, unexciting, and a major waste of time. There's no reason to watch it. The book is stripped of any significance it has. If it's necessary, for some reason, read the book. Avoid the movie at all costs.

Cast and Credits Marlow: Tim Roth Kurtz: John Malkovich The Russian:Morten Faldaas The Intended: Phoebe Nicholls

Directed by: Nicolas Roeg Written by Benedict Fitzgerald, based on the novella by Joseph Conrad Running Time: 100 minutes Rated PG 13 (some sexuality and language)


A made for television version of the Heart of Darkness seemed like a good way to add more insight to the book, well, that was the wrong assumption. The movie made it even worse. I was highly disappointed about almost everything in the movie. I hoped that the movie would possibly help put the pieces of the book together that I didn't comprehend, but it did no such thing. It still left me confused and hanging. It is one of those movies that makes one feel like it would be more fun to watch the grass grow instead of watching the movie. Not exactly anyone's cup of tea. It was an overall dreadful, boring, and slow movie.

To begin with, Nicolas Roeg must have been pretty desperate when he decided that he wanted to undertake the task of making the already boring book into a movie. It's a guaranteed loss. It's like going into a knife fight, but forgetting the knife on the kitchen counter. The knifeless person is going to lose; and in the case, the knifeless person was Roeg. All I've heard about the movie are bad things, and the movie deserves those bad things to be said about it. From watching the movie, I got the impression that the people who made the movie, just skimmed over the book to get the key points.

Furthermore, although the movie did follow the main story line of the book, it left out quite a few details, and it also changed the ending. I am not a fan of that. Roeg left out when Marlow and his crew came across the Russian sailor's camp, and at that camp they found the book. Also it didn't show when at the camp they came across the sign that says, "Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously" (Conrad 110). Also, at the end of the book Kurtz dies on the boat, not at the inner station.

On the contrary, Nicolas Roeg did one good thing while he was making his movie; he managed to hire some pretty decent actors to play in the movie. For instance, he acquired Tim Roth and John Malkovich, both of whom would later go on to have successful careers. In doing so, he added a little something to the horrible movie. Also, though I am ripping his book to shreds, I do have some respect for him, because it takes a lot of courage to try to take on The Heart of Darkness. It isn't exactly the easiest novel to portray into a film. Twus a valiant effort, though! In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first. This way, you'll get all of the scenes that were left out of the movie and you won't be completely lost when you watch it. But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time. Trust me. I was forced to do both by my English teacher, and now I wish that the book and the movie didn't exist. If either the book or the movie are pursued, good luck!


After reading the book, Heart of Darkness, the movie did not do it justice. The movie puts the book to shame and anyone who has not experienced the book would frown upon the story and plot because it was portrayed so poorly by the movie. In the film, the characters and set were just some of the let downs that occurred in the movie. The director left out so many important and interesting aspects of the book that made it one of the best literary works ever made.

Of course any book is better than the movie but these weren't even comparable. Joseph Conrad as a writer was brilliant in vocabulary and the cleverness of the written word. The movie doesn't even start to show any of this. Some of the very important and influential scenes from the book were completely left out, like how Kurtz was not in the boat when he died. Also when Marlow went to deliver the news to Kurtz's intended, she reacted differently in the movie, rather than the book. Another major difference was that Marlow saw the picture of the lady that was blindfolded at the end of the movie, not at the beginning, like the book. This was influential on how the audience perceived Marlow, and the movie totally messed that up.

The book was so fine tuned on what every location looked like, but the scenery in the movie was a let down. There was a bunch of cheesy fake backgrounds and to compliment, a bunch of bad actors to go along with it. There was one exception to the awful actors and that would be Isaach De Bankolé, who played Mfumu. His character was depicted the best. Though the movie wasn't that great, I still would recommend it ONLY if you have read and understood the book very well. That way, you can see what the differences are in the movie and book and contemplate them. If you have not read the book, I do not recommend the movie because it is a boring, lifeless mess. I loved the book, so you should definitely read it and enjoy it.


Heart of Darkness Movie Review Could a book that is well known for its eloquent wording and complicated concepts ever be made into a movie good enough to portray the deep meaning in the book? So far, that goal hasn't been achieved. The Heart of Darkness was attempted to be made into a movie in 1993, but it was a failure in comparison to the book.

It is hard enough to make any book into a movie. There always is the worry that it won't be as descriptive or have the same meaning. So why the novel, The Heart of Darkness, is made into a movie, I am clueless. There is so much description and hidden meaning throughout the entire book. When just reading the words plainly, I think that a person would think it is pretty boring and wouldn't get the symbolism. I think that is what happened in the movie; the movie just skimmed the story at the surface.

The movie didn't even follow the full storyline of the book, major changes were made that I thought made the movie worse. For example, the manager did not go along on the boat with Marlow and the rest of the crew, the spy did instead. I think that took out some major plots and took out the great deception of the manager in relation to Kurtz. Also, Kurtz wasn't even on the steamboat when he died, which especially made the entire journey even more futile, which just got annoying after a while. And when Marlow was telling Kurtz's fiancée about his final moments and words, it was no where near as descriptive or important, the fiancée didn't even get that upset.

As far as the acting went, none of the actors did a very good job except for the actor that played Mfumu. In my opinion, Kurtz was not very evil, and that was kind of an important thing in the book. Also, other characters such as Marlow, the manager, and the fiancé didn't do the characters justice that they deserved from the book. Their acting wasn't very exciting or memorable at all. Over all, I don't think that this book should have even been attempted to be made into a movie. I think it is fine to use some of the themes in a different story line like in Apocalypse Now. But as for following the same exact story line of the book, it just does it shame.


If you've ever heard the saying, "the book is always better than the movie," Heart of Darkness is no exception to the rule. I believe that it was much easier for me to comprehend the details of the novel over the movie because I read the book aloud with my English class. We discussed each paragraph in great detail so I grasped the concept pretty quickly. I couldn't really understand the plot as well while watching the movie. This may be because there were no discussions held in class, but I suppose it is also because I couldn't paint my own pictures in my mind of the events of the novel. If you're the type of person who believes in that well-known saying, then leave watching the Heart of Darkness movie off your to-do list.


In a sense, this movie did not even compare to the novel. However, it was good to have a visual of what the Congo looked like and also the natives if you are not good at visualizing as you read. I would never recommend watching the movie rather than reading the book. I hardly suggest even watching this film, let alone any other films based on this literary work. This movie; and many others, did not fulfill this book. One important part that is missing from the movie is MArlow's sense of how government of lack of there in Africa was forming an early genocide. Also in the movie, MArlow and his companions didn't stop and get the note and wood. Likewise, Kurtz' African mistress knocks Marlow out towards the end of the story which has a major influence in the story but was not in the book. In the novel, Kurtz died on the ship, however he died in his hut in the movie. The fiancé's reaction to Marlow's interpretation of Kurtz' last words also differed. This movie is only effective if you wish to visualize more clearly the novel.


If you're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you.


The movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story.

There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to "spice up" a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's "mistress" beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the "noble" decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend it.


The 1994 film production of Heart of Darkness was in no way capable of living up to the outstanding book. The film contained unnecessary scenes that confused the viewer rather than aiding them in understanding what was going on. The director was obviously not experienced, and if he is, then he didn't show it. On top of that, scenes from the book were left out or changed, scenes that were rather important. The movie left me feeling rather bored and was a complete waste of my time. The characters acted as though they had no idea what was going on, and the actors did not portray the emotions that Marlow and the rest revealed in the book. Overall, the movie was terrible and completely lacked the suspense that was otherwise necessary to make it even remotely interesting.


Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing. When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like. This book had many pieces and when I finished reading this book it seemed as the puzzle had been completed. After I finished reading Heat of Darkness, I watched the movie, which was a mistake. The movie cut out so many substantial parts. For example, in the novel Marlow waited a very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility. In the movie that part was just left out. The movie added more parts that were useless and made no sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. What purpose did that scene have, other than to make the audience feel sorry for the monkey? It's as if the script writer didn't even read the whole book and just put the parts that he read in the movie. If I had not read the novel before I had watched the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. The book was amazing and it is truly a classic in American Literature, but the movie could have defiantly been nominated for the worst picture in the Razzie Awards.


Heart of Darkness Movie Review Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is pretty dark, deep, and very profound. I would have to say reading the novel is way better than the movie. The character Mr. Kurtz, played by John Malcovik was totally the wrong actor to do the part. He fit the character in "Of Mice and Men." The movie left out man key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story.

The movie is poorly edited. It shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes. In the novel it has a very suspenseful atmosphere, but in the movie it lacks that kind of feeling. In the book there is so much that was left to the imagination of the reader. For example when Marlow spent timeless hours and days waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. In the novel Marlow waited very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility in the novel. The movie added more parts that were useless and kind of didn't make sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. That kind of just ruined everything, didn't make any sense to me what so ever. So my suggestion to you is don't view the movie, just read the book. You will understand more and have a better interpretation of the story.

~Chris C.


The movie 'Heart of Darkness', based on the 1899 book by Joseph Conrad is one with little to no detail and has an almost schizophrenic like plot line. If you have read the book then you know that little to none of the important "story making" scenes were put into the movie. In the book there is so much that is left up to the imagination and I feel that that is one of the part that make the book what is it. An example would be when Marlow spent timeless hours and days, even months waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. Again if you have read the book then you would know that this scene in the book is one that almost describes the main, theme of futility, best. Finally I feel that the movie was too cut and dry. Not enough though was put in to the original text and how that made the story what it is today.

If you have not read the book, 'Heart of Darkness' (preferably, the Norton Critical Edition) then don't waist your time in renting or buying the movie. However if you have read the book then I think that you will appreciate the book a lot more if you decide to watch the movie

Eric 2007


Roeg's take on Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" was not quite what I had expected. Although based on one of history's most studied and interesting texts, the film just became sort of dull. The story just never manages to grasp the viewer. It just comes across as indifferent in a way.

The traces of the text are easily spotted, but still this is not really Conrad's "Heart of Darkness". Benedict Fitzgerald's (who also wrote "The Passion of the Christ") script just uses Conrad as an inspiration, and thus becomes Fitzgerald's "Heart of Darkness". The film is just not worth it, unless you are particularly interested in Conrad or perhaps John Malkovich.


Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.


After completing the lackluster novel, Heart of Darkness, I moved on to watch the movie, which was a complete and absolute disappointment. At the onset, I expected that the movie would help put together the jigsaw puzzle of a book. However, even though I had read the novel, the movie still made no sense at all, so I can't imagine how lost I would be if I had skipped the book altogether. It seemed as though the writers picked out their favorite parts and put them in the movie, and left out anything that may assist the viewers in comprehending the meaningless plot. This dreadful movie made no sense at all, and I would strongly recommend against watching it, as it will do nothing more than leave you completely baffled and bewildered.


Heart of Darkness, a short novel written by Joseph Conrad about greed, corruption, and traveling through Africa was, to say the least, a tedious read. The Narrator follows Marlow, a seaman who travels into the deep of Africa to rescue Kurtz, somewhat of a prodigy Ivory trader who supposedly went crazy, this conclusion arose when the Ivory stopped coming into the main port. The basis of the story is Conrad writing lavishly of the surroundings, he sets the scene wonderfully, but possibly a bit to extensively. The story seemed more like a water color painting, as apposed to the slow creeping mild action story that Conrad might have intended to pan out.

It sometimes happens that after you read a book, maybe watching the feature film might help correspond some thoughts with those in the book, or vise versa. Not so with Heart of Darkness, even with the supporting role of masterpiece actor John Malkovich the movie only confused me more, there seemed to be no real main characters in the film, no one stood out to the others, non of the extensive symbolism was explained. It was rather bland and drudging to say the least.

In all do respect to the Author, The Heart of Darkness is a true short novel masterpiece, it touches on some very severe subjects, the lies of Marlow, and the greed of Kurtz. It is not a book to be taken lightly, and will put you in a rather somber mood. A book like this I feel might be to heavy for a lot of people. I would however recommend this book to those who crave a sad pseudo action story without a textbook happy ending.