The operative rule in the making of this film seems to have been "never make a 1 minute scene when you can make it a 10 minute scene." This was a principle set right from the start with an interminably long portrayal of the graduation of the Harvard class of 1870. The point of that scene, I suppose, was to introduce some of the primary figures in the story and give a bit of their background - which is somewhat effective when comparing the idealism of the Harvard graduation ceremony to the realism of life in Johnson County, Wyoming, but it just keeps going and going, and that sets the stage for a film that features repeated stretches of mind-numbing nothingness, made even worse by the fact that I found a significant amount of the dialogue to be almost incoherent. In the end, I couldn't even watch this in one sitting. I got through about half of it and had to set it aside for a couple of days before I could drag myself back to see how it turned out.

My reaction to this movie in many ways is a shame, because there are positives here. The performances are generally of a high calibre, especially from Kris Kristofersson as Averill, Christopher Walken as Champion and Isabelle Huppert as Ella. The basic story - interspersed as it is around that ever-present mind-numbing nothingness - is potentially interesting, focusing on the efforts of immigrants to establish themselves in Johnson County and a local cattle company's efforts to stop them by killing a number of them in collaboration with the government and the military. There's also some absolutely breathtaking scenery shots. Having said that, the whole thing could frankly have been done in half the time - and should have been. In the end, all those potential positives are washed out by - again - the mind-numbing nothingness that the movie seems to revolve around. Seriously - 2/10.


The film, Heaven's Gate, was a good view, although still tedious at over 4 hours. But the film took great license - as usual with Hollywood. James Averill (Chris Christopherson), and "Elle" were actually married in real life. Their main contribution to the Johnson County war, was to start it by being hanged. Well, by starting it, I mean it came at the beginning, not the end. Here's the real scenario: James Averill and Ellen Watson were secretly married because one homestead could be given to each family. By filing as single individuals, they could get two homesteads. They chose homesites on Crazy Woman Creek actually controlling the water above the land held by a powerful member of the Cattleman's Association. He offered to buy them out repeatedly, which they refused.

Although characterized in real life as the owner of a brothel (Cattle Kate), and a prostitute herself (and also in the film), there is no real evidence that was true. It is known that she bought many head of sick cattle, nursed them back to life, and was later accused by the Cattleman's Association of receiving the cattle in trade for "lewd acts'. In the end, she was accused of rustling - an act almost certainly untrue. So much for this part of the myth of the "American West", which is a gooble-de-gook of myths spanning a time period of about one hundred years.

In real life, she and Jim Averill were surprised one day by several members of the Cattleman's Association, taken in hand, and promptly hanged. Those perpetrating the injustice were never brought to trial. But that was the first link that led to the murder of Nate Champion, and the start of the Johnson County war.

Quite different from the Hollywood version which shows her shot at the end.

Other than that, I think the main problem with the film was the editor, who could have made the action a faster pace by more skillful editing.


I have just recently seen Heaven's Gate. After i watched this 3 hr 40 min epic western that's not a western, i read the book by Steven Bach. After considering all events and the movie itself, i still think this movie is a complete waste of time. I believe that when someone tells you to watch it, they are, in fact, trying to bore you to death. If for some reason you can enjoy this self indulgent over thought truely bad movie, i have to ask why. Though this isn't a reason to hate it, it is historically way off. It pretends to be about a situation that happened in Wyoming called the Johnson County War. Simply, the cattle barrons of the time wanted to kill all cattle thieves and claimed they were all immagrants. You find that you simply do not care about these people and hope they all get killed because at least then, something would happen. Everybody in the movie talks about things that happen, and it is never shown. After you sit though this giant waste of time you wonder how someone could actually make a 4 hr epic in which nothing happens. Oh and by the way the Johnson County war was not a war, it never happened. The Johnson County war, in fact, was called that because it almost happened, in actual fact, 2 people died. I can't warn you enough off this movie. However, if you're like me the, the idea of watching a movie that ruined careers and put United Artists on the "for sale" lot, sounds like an interesting case to study, then by all means, watch this terrible, narsisistic, movie with no sub-text, and a lot of photography.(which is lovely sometimes)


I watched this last nite with an open mind. Sorry to say it is still bad. first, the movie is too noisey and you can't hear what people are saying. The accents are bad especially Richard Masur. What is the French chick doing in this film ??? Miscasting at its worst. Walken's makeup is strange. The Harvard scene is useless and not needed. Kristoferson's character is unlikeable and I wanted him to get killed and go away. Meanwhile, the Walken character gets killed too early and easily ( despite the makeup). The settlers are all stupid. GET ORGANIZED you bunch of hicks, people are coming to kill you !!!!! John Hurts character provides some humor buts thats all.

I have nothing good to say about this excessive piece of crap. The only good thing is it ruined the director's career and killed United Artists.

Still Crap after all these years.


You have to acknowledge Cimino's contribution to cinema. He gave us both the most over-rated film in history (The Deer Hunter) and the worst film in history (Heaven's Gate). And before you start with the 'It's bad but not the worst ever' let me explain.

For 20+ years I listened to the critics and avoided "Heaven's Gate"-actually this was not hard because you are hardly bombarded with opportunities to view this film. Then a few days after seeing the 'Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate' documentary I stumbled on a used $9.99 DVD of the long version. My advice after 229 minutes is to seek out the most negative review ever written about this film (you will find a wide selection), and imagine that the reviewer is Cimino's devoted mother and that she is doing everything she can to put a positive slant on her dear son's movie. Then you will have an idea of just how big a mess Cimino made.

While pretty much everything is wrong with this film, what ultimately tips the scale to make it the worse ever (and a classic 'less than zero' example) is its shameless distortion of history. Although the cattlemen's association did send a group of regulators/gunmen to Johnson County and did have a list of targeted names, the actual facts of an interesting historical event are hopelessly exaggerated. On the morning of April 9, 1892, Nick Ray and Nate Champion were besieged and eventually killed by an army of about 50 cattlemen and Texas hired guns who had come to Johnson County to clean out "rustlers." The citizens of the county then besieged the regulators who finally were arrested (or rescued) by the Army. Women did not actively participate in the fighting and aside from Ray and Champion there were minimal casualties. After all, these were sieges not assaults-and there were not wagons of immigrants riding in circles around the encampment of regulations (early westerns to the contrary this was a film making device and not an actual tactic of the Indians). And weeks prior to the arrival of the regulators a number of Johnson County residents were hanged without trial including Jim Averell, the keeper of a modest road ranch, and his wife Ella Watson (who Cimino resurrects as his two leads and he even shows Averell living to a ripe old age).

There is no movie-making sin greater than fictionalizing history, if you are going to play fast and loose with historical facts, then change the names and locations to protect the unsuspecting audience members who might go away from a film believing what they saw actually happened. Fortunately so few people saw this film that the damage was minimal. Perhaps it is harsh to blame Cimino for his distortion of history. He could probably escape blame anyway with an insanity defense-the film provides plenty of support. If Cimino was insane during the production of Heaven's Gate it would explain a lot of things. But my vote goes to 'lack of directing talent' instead of insanity.

There are some good things about Heaven's Gate. You can actually see on the screen where some of the huge budget went; expensive sets-beautiful epic camera shots-artful dance sequences. Isabelle Huppert (a strange casting choice that actually worked) gives an agreeable and likable performance although most of her scenes are extremely boring (that tends to happen when the director forgets to give the viewer any reason to care about the characters). The dialogue is generally solid if rather ordinary.

But don't fall for the crap that this film experiments with storytelling by intermixing carefully crafted moments of character interaction with textured pageant-like explosions of communal action. This implies that there was a method to Cimino madness. 'Experiments' is another word for when a filmmaker gets so lost in his project that a coherent story is no longer possible. The simple fact is that there is no evidence Cimino storyboarded a single scene or made any attempt at control or organization. What it looks like is that he just turned his DP loose to stage action and to get an endless selection of colorful shots-1.5 million feet of loosely staged scenes. Then he tried (without success) to pare this down and fit everything together in post-production.

The final battle scene is genuinely hilarious as babushka wearing townswomen (perhaps borrowed from a 'Fiddler On The Roof' touring company) throw countless sticks of dynamite at the regulators. Unfortunately each explosive falls just short of the target and explodes harmlessly. After you see this happen 50-60 times you can relate to the woman (the one who looks like something out of 'The Grapes of Wrath') who puts a huge gun in her mouth and pulls the trigger. This is probably what Cimino's mother did after writing that review.

So believe what you have been hearing about this film since 1980. It is a sloppy, disconnected, poorly paced, and historically distorted mess. Of value only as a 'how not to make a film' example for film historians and as a source of amusement to those knowledgeable about the actual history of the American west.


Critics love this movie. I personally found it senseless and tasteless. This is the millionth time I've fallen into the "critics love it" trap and came out wishing someone would throw boiling hot water on my testicles because it was less painful than watching the movie. There are many scenes that are completely unnecessary. A warning to Animal lovers: Don't see this movie if you don't want to see sheep killed and molested.

If you want to see a good Asian film, see Afrika. If you want to see a film about escaped convicts, see the Gene Wilder/Richard Pryor classic Stir Crazy. Avoid 9 Souls like the plague.


The idea of nine stupid prisoners escaping and going on a road trip sounds pretty good for a movie. Especially because it's meant to be funny and I guess heart-warming in some weird way. The problem is, the movie was very rarely funny and often just seemed pointless and needlessly gross. It was as if jokes or interesting scenes were being set up again and again but no one bothered finishing any of them--there was just no payoff. Also, the movie was just brainless and had the crooks meandering across Japan even though they left so many crime victims alive that it's impossible to believe they wouldn't have been caught almost immediately--especially since they continued to keep using the same stolen camper for days on end. And as far as being gross goes, I just didn't need to see scene after scene after scene of guys peeing along the side of the road. Plus, believe it or not, there is a scene where four of the guys are out raping sheep!

All in all, I really hated this movie. And it's a shame, as I almost always love Japanese films--just not poorly made and uninteresting ones like this one.


Here is another great film critics will love. The problem is that it is not a very good movie.

The films premise is simple. Nine convicts escape a prison after the tenth one goes crazy and tells them where the treasure is.

The first half has a lot of slapstick some of it very broad while the second half is a character driven descent into fantasy and melancholy.

The two halves simply don't mix. Individual scenes do work very well (The guys crashing a friends house who has a new Filipino bride is hilarious While a later scene with the big guy working in the restaurant tugs at the heartstrings.) They simply don't mesh with each other.

The movie as well is missing entire set-ups. One scene shows the guys desperately looking for change under a deserted vending machine to buy a snack. The very next scene has the whole crew in drag sitting down in a restaurant. Where did they get the dresses and wigs? (The crew includes both the big guy and a midget) How did they get all the clothes and money to buy the meal? And most puzzling is why are they in drag? They are clearly guys in drag and lets face it is there anything more memorable to witnesses than a big guy and a dwarf eating a meal dressed as women? I mention the big guy and the dwarf because besides the old guy everyone else seems to blend into each other. (In fact they wear matching white jumpsuits throughout most of the movie) The movie has very little character development in the first half and as a result the second half really lacks an emotional punch. As we are often trying to figure out who is who in their individual payoff scenes.

Speaking of a drag the second half has all those wonderful sweeping camera shots and big emotional moments and great symbolism that makes a great film. It is also excruciatingly slow which makes for a boring movie.

9 Souls is a big disappointment, the reviews gush about a great film and it's in there somewhere, good luck finding it yourself.


No emotion. Bad music (and I am a reformed eighties metal guy, so I would be vulnerable to some good stuff.) Everything is half done. The brother is a parody, there is nothing to hold us in except to see what horror from the eighties they'll pull up next. The tour manager tries to bring a humanity to the thing but isn't given enough time. Wahlberg is okay and Aniston is slumming. We know she didn't need the money. Is this the only role she could fit into her summer break? Surely she must slap her forehead every time it pops up on VH1--which is only slightly less often than Ozzy does. It barely qualifies as a TV movie. It's just hard to believe that it was actually released theatrically.


I don't know any idiotic rock'n'roll cliché not used in this movie. Ouffcourz , rock enroll life is only sex drugs and parties and tons of supermodels trying to ride with you. Say it to stupid young boys. The filmmakers seemed to have read too much Guns'n'Roses or Motley Crue stories. I have seen everyday life of usual rock band closely and there are nothing to do with reality in this movie. If you are successful enough your life is touring touring touring. Its means that you are mostly in a bus and trying to sleep. Just sleep. Because you must be fresh, sober and clean in evenings. After live you have a little time to discharge your stage excitement. Then you have a bit time to have fun. But its not any luxury or dream. Artistically this film was zero. Stupid characters and idiotic dialogs. The ending of movie was funny -- main character left heavy metal band and formed a grunge band! Yeah, what a moral. Real 90s.


This is the movie that is somewhat based on the exit of Rob Halford from British Metal Gods 'Judas Priest' and how the band replaced him with Ripper Owens, who used to front a Priest tribute band. Originally titled Metal God this movie could have been something great. Instead, someone in an office somewhere who knows little to nothing about metal music decided to water it down. From the title change of Metal God to the 'safe' middle of the road 'Rock Star' to the lame soundtrack this movie plays out badly. Having spent most of my life in a professional metal band I was really looking forward to seeing this, I was very let down by several points of the film. The soundtrack is very NOT metal for one, and the ending of the movie is lame as well. The movie does have a few bright spots in the writing and acting but as a whole, it fails in the end because...1)A movie based on a metal band should have a metal soundtrack. 2)There is NOTHING metal about Marky Mark or Jennifer Aniston. If Bon Jovi, Warrant, Def Leppard and Poison are your idea of 'heavy metal' go see this movie. If Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Dio & Black Sabbath are your idea of metal see this movie for a good laugh.


Well........how and where do I start to describe this utter nonsense? Imagine the morals of a cheesy Hollywood Western, throw in a lavish helping of the most trite soap opera storyline, and try to dupe the kids into thinking its cool by dressing it up to be about something 'contemporary'. This film is all package and absolutely no substance.

It starts with promise......young men dreaming of becoming rockstars and engaging in the kind of excessive hero-worship everyone can laugh at. After that, it all goes downhill.....quicker than a bobsleigh with no brakes. The scene involving the first gig with Steel Dragon is one of the most pathetic pieces of 'cine kitsch' I have seen in a long time. The singer appears on stage for his debut and falls down some stairs.....will he get up and sing???......or will he stay there on the floor and not sing......who cares by now?? It gets worse, but I don't want to bore myself by having to remember it in all its excruciating detail. If you watch it after this review, its your own fault!


80's sleazy (glam)rock is like 90's house music or current boybands: it's boring and has no ideas or ideals. The only thing that makes it a bit 'cult' nowadays is that it's a long time ago, so we can laugh at its sillyness. Too bad 'Rock Star' has no laughs at all, as it must be one of the most boring movies of recent years.

Chris (Mark Wahlberg) is singer of a Steel Dragon tribute band. When he's kicked of the band at the same time the real Steel Dragon singer is kicked of as well, he becomes the next lead singer. You already know how this is gonna end up at that time, with Chris losing it with sex, drugs and r&r and forgetting about his long-time girlfriend/manager, Emily (Jennifer Aniston).

There's way too much (boring) music in this standard formula-packed excuse for a movie and should be avoided for it at all cost. Watch the (over-rated, but still more fun) Almost Famous instead, or even better, a movie about real people playing real music having real emotions, That Thing You Do.

What a stinker. 2/10.


First of all, the genre of this movie isn't comedy, it's more of a drama.

I had low expectations on the movie, and still they didn't come up them. As some of the other reviews point out, there are some nice music in the movie. But if you want to listen to good music I suggest spend the time looking at some concert recording with Bon Jovi, or Mötley Crue, it'll be more quality time.

Last, if you want to watch a GOOD movie in this rock'n'roll genre, I recommend "Almost Famous".


Contains Spoilers

But if you weren't dropped on the head as a child and then used as a football then you'll agree with me that this is one of the worst and yet hilarious series ever made. Centreing round a woman who as a young girl was beaten by her father who also killed her mother, she spends her time drawing, but wait for it, then she becomes her superhero drawings and goes on to fight crime, therefore being "drawn by pain", so clever. The story itself is actually OK, but it's just how it's done, Jesse the writer and director has no idea how to write a script, just listen to a monologue featuring the 8 year old version of the hero and it sounds like it was written by a 30 year old man, while her dad, who sports a great moustache, just walks around the house all day while looking angry, just showing how bad the characterisation is, especially the bit where he gets angry in the first episode and begins repeating the phrase "no more" while holding his wife's head before killing her using the marble work surface. The following bang sound effect and just his terrible acting as all he can convey is angry just is brilliant, including after where he goes to beat his daughter using his belt which is all done with him moaning and looking angry in slow motion. The episodes themselves could contain easily a good clean script ranging over 5 minutes, but oh no Jesse doesn't want this. Little Jesse, is shitting out post modernism as if he'd just eaten Donnie Darko and then douched himself to death. Pointless camera jerks, all at weird angles, overly repeated lines and even pointless sequences just muddled up every now and again to fill the overlong episodes. In conclusion the idea isn't bad it's just how it's done, also there is a great character of a fat guy on a bench who doesn't come up enough and is great, i just wanna hug his Lil chubby cheeks cause they look so soft. The character development is non existent as the main character just says the first philosophical sounding thing that comes to her head although they all contradict one another. But all in all, mainly s**t

Indiana Jones 4 however is much better, Type "Jeeharv" into you-tube as well, the results may make you weep at the beauty of the world also you'll hear a lot of cheap sex jokes, mostly gay ones.


This short was director Del Lord's last and only Shemp short. The problem: It was quite weak and the cafe scene was pretty much a carbon copy of a Curly short "Busy Buddies" (1944). The interrogation scene was pretty funny, and the beginning part of the cafe part. But there are a lot of plotholes in this short. For example, why are the stooges hiding in the garbage can when the police come? In the remake, "Of Cash And Hash"(1955), director Jules White fixes this and the reason for the stooges hiding in the garbage can is because there is a gunfight between the police and the armored car robbers. The scene in which Moe is having trouble with the oyster was done before with Curly in "Dutiful But Dumb" (1941). The spooky house part wasn't all that great except for the hilarious scene on the outside of the spooky house. To top it off, the ending had no sting to it. Rating: C-


I was not expecting a classic, but at least a funny film. There were only a few scenes that makes you laugh but nothing more. You don't scare it is full of American teen-slasher cliches and you can guess what will happen easily.

But it tells much about a senior student in a Turkish High-School. Pressure of Student Selection Exam (OSS) that 3-hour-exam determines which university you'll go and thinking about the exam when a ghost is after you is not exaggeration. The movie is bad. Don't waste your time to watch it.


Okul"The School" is a result of a new trend in Turkish cinema. Having used the same stories over and over again new generation directors finally come up with different ideas. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are all grand. I think Okul is one of them. It is supposed to be a scary movie but it is not. It is not successful on being scary either. So what is it? Actors are so average especially Deniz Akkaya is pretty annoying with the teacher role. I am sure it could have been better if it was tried on harder. Maybe concentrating on one topic such as making it scary or vice versa. But directors have missed the target this time. ** out of *****


This is better than the early Cronenberg horror films, but nothing more than your basic what-is-real story. The videogame theme has been told before too. Nothing original is left except the weird Cronenberg atmosphere (which is not that strong here) with the amusing sexual references and Shore's dark score. The story never grabs your full attention. It just flows forward event after event with boring pace. Rating 4/10.


I was subjected to this terrible excuse for a made for TV movie. I only watched it because I don't have cable and my only other choices were Golf, College Basketball, or local news. The plot is very generic and has no substance that I could see, not to mention it had a major flaw in my eyes. The main character, Dr. Sorensen, is a washed up astronomer who believes that an asteroid named "Nemesis" will strike Earth, causing all life to cease. He bases his belief on his discovery of cave paintings by an Aboriginee (I'm sure I spelled that one wrong). The paintings show an apparent timeline, showing significant events throughout history, such as the building of the Great Wall of China. All of the events are shown in perfect chronological order, and the very last picture on the timeline is Earth being destroyed. Now to me, if the painting showed things that had indeed happened, why would the great Doctor believe that he could somehow change what was going to happen? All that aside, the movie moved along with extreme formulaic precision. There was nothing in the movie that surprised me at all. The actors were not very good, and on a few occasions I just felt that they didn't even take the movie seriously to put forth enough effort to try to convince me that the characters were worth caring about. The whole movie was cliche ridden and a downright waste of time and money. I'd recommend Armageddon over this piece of crap any day. At least Armageddon has some good acting (compared to this), not to mention the eye candy that is Liv Tyler. Now that I think about it, Golf isn't that bad.......


"Dolemite" is the touching story of Dolemite (Gotta love blaxploitation film titles), an ex-con who probably should still be in jail. He gets in trouble with cops, friends, drug dealers, women, prostitutes, and society in general. He's just not that likable a guy. Neither is the movie, though it's still hilarious and worth watching.

The flimsy premise is that Dolemite (played with as much enthusiasm as star Rudy Ray Moore can muster) is in jail for a crime he claims he didn't commit. When a drug hit or a drug bust or drug something is about to go down, the warden releases him to stop it, or help it, or just watch it. Not very clear. All I know is that I was unaware that the justice system frees convicts in order to allow them to prove their own innocence. My ignorance, I guess.

The plot is convoluted and unimportant, basically Dolemite goes around killing people (Usually with very poorly choreographed karate), having sex, and cursing out people, sometimes even rhyming too. The joys of the movie are its total incompetence, and its total indifference in the matter.

I stopped counting the number of times I saw the boom mike after it was in one scene for the entire duration (about two minutes of film). I stopped questioning why the warden was looking down at where Dolemite was sitting, even after he stood up and walked around, when they cut back to the establishing shot and Dolemite was inexplicably sitting down again. I stopped wondering why Dolemite dressed like that when he got naked on the street to change, because he didn't want to get in his car with the ugly (read: normal) clothes the jail gave him. And I stopped wondering where he learned karate when he jiggles his hand on a guy's stomach and somehow cuts him open. The only time I was ever remotely nervous and tense was when the disgusting, flabby white mayor is walking around totally naked with nothing but a towel hanging around his neck which just barely covers him up. You keep saying "Cut away...cut away...cut away" but by the time they do, you are already emotionally scarred.

The movie is ridiculous in every way imaginable. Moore as Dolemite, is either funny, cool, or both. If you're on the lookout for a bad movie, you have found it with "Dolemite."


I love the so-called "blaxploitation" films and have seen dozens. Some, such as COTTON COMES TO HARLEM, SHAFT and HAMMER have excellent production values and are very entertaining, while many others are very cheap and silly, but still entertaining, such as BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH or COFFEY. However, DOLEMITE manages something rare for the genre--it's just cheap and silly and not the least bit entertaining! It's like blaxploitation made for very, very stupid people.

Years ago, I saw a takeoff on the Dolemite films on "Mad TV" and unfortunately, the real DOLEMITE isn't any better. Like the parody, the acting is just atrocious. Rudy Ray Moore has all the charm and charisma of a piece of balsa wood. He can barely read his lines and his "karate" is a joke--with his kicks obviously missing the target again and again. As for the rest of the actors, many might be even worse. My favorite was the FBI guy who couldn't even remember his lines and really struggled to get them out--yet they didn't even bother to re-film these scenes! In fact, so much of it was inept that I had a hard time figuring out whether the film was intended as a joke.

If you think that despite horrible acting and action that there is something worth seeing about this film, you're wrong. Even for the perverts out there hoping to see some skin, will be disappointed. The naked women in the film really do look like hard-luck prostitutes and there's nothing remotely sexy about their sagging bodies. I think looking at old people naked--REEEAALLY old people naked--is no worse than looking at these "ladies". And as for Rudy Ray, he has "man boobs". No Black super-hero or anti-hero should look that bad naked!! For goodness sakes, put on your clothes people and come up with a script that doesn't look like it was written by winos!!!

FYI--Apparently, there are actually sequels to this film!! I can't imagine watching them, so you'll just have to find someone else to review them. I have watched PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE and ROBOT MONSTER, but I just don't think I can bring myself to see another Dolemite film--they are that bad!


It's so fake! The plot seems like a generic adaptation of the average blaxploitation film. The common themes of blaxploitation like racism, oppression and fighting for the integrity of your community are outlined so simplistically/shallowly. And the jokes aren't even funny! Dolemite does these stand up monologue comedy routines that are really painful. All the people around him deliver this canned laughter. Even the soundtrack sounds like it's fakin' the funk. For far better comedy in a blaxploitation try "Coffy" & "Friday Foster" with Pam Grier. For a more realistic blax experience try "Black Heat".


As a Bruce Campbell fan for nearly two decades, I was thrilled to have an opportunity to see his latest film on the big screen with the man himself in attendance. Unfortunately, "Man with the Screaming Brain" was itself a disappointment.

Set in Bulgaria--where the Sci-Fi Channel makes its Saturday night original films--"Man with the Screaming Brain" is a curious mix of '50s B-movie horror, body-switching comedy, violent revenge flick, and overdone slapstick with a touch of romantic reconciliation. If that doesn't make sense, well, neither does "Man with the Screaming Brain." Campbell plays a pharmaceutical company CEO who visits Bulgaria with his estranged wife in an inexplicable attempt to invest in the former Communist country's half-finished subway system. The two fall in with a former KGB agent turned cab driver, and all three ultimately meet their demise at the hands of a vengeful gypsy woman.

A local scientist (Stacy Keach) and his goofy assistant (Ted Raimi), who have developed a technique to allow tissue transplants without the possibility of rejection, steal the bodies and place a portion of the cab driver's brain into Campbell's damaged skull. Also, they put his wife's brain into a robotic body they just happen to have at hand.

Campbell escapes, and with a hastily-restitched skull and the voice of the cab driver--whose transplanted brain tissue controls the left side of his body--echoing in his head, sets off to find and kill the gypsy. (His robot wife does the same.)

But first, there's an attempt to emulate Steve Martin/Lily Tomlin's "All of Me" when Campbell's two personalities battle for dominance over a restaurant dinner. Just as he was playing his own evil hand in "Evil Dead II," Campbell is adept at making his body appear to be inhabited by more than one mind.

At times, "Screaming" comes closest to another Steve Martin film, "The Man with Two Brains," as it also takes a silly approach to '50s sci-fi clichés. However, it tries too hard for too little result, and that goes double for Ted Raimi's semi-comprehensible Bulgarian oaf, who gets entirely too much screen time. (Nothing against Raimi, it's just that he's better in smaller doses.)

In the end, it's neither outrageous (or funny) enough to satisfy as a spoof, nor is it serious enough to enjoy as a B-movie pastiche. I was glad that Campbell had already left the screening by the time it ground to a halt, as I feared having to say, "Gee, Bruce, that was really...something."

Perhaps the best praise I can give it as a film is that at least the images stuck to the emulsion. And it was twice as good as "Alien Apocalypse."


Written by, directed by and starring the champ of camp Bruce Campbell. Easy on its easy to tell this is a budget on a shoestring affair; filmed independently in Bulgaria. All I can really say for sure is that silly is not always funny. Campbell plays an affluent American business man with a cheating wife(Antoinette Byron)and trying to close a business transaction before he is murdered. He hires a cabbie to drive him around a strange little town; not knowing that his wife is 'carrying on' with the taxi driver. Within moments of Campbell being bludgeoned; the cabbie is killed in the same location. A mad scientist(Stacy Keach)proceeds with an experiment putting the cabbie's brain inside the American's head. With massive stitches on his forehead, Campbell breaks free and roams the streets looking for his wife; all the while he is arguing with a strange voice inside his over-sized head. Campbell contorts his rubbery face making silly expressions as he argues with himself. Thus, Bruce is doing what he does best and no doubt his many fans will be pleased. I get the impression this must have been written as a straight comedy. Rounding out the cast are Ted Raimi, Tamara Gorski, and Vladmir Kolev. Watch for this on the Sci-Fi Channel.


I'm 35. Bruce was THE man in Evil Dead, and I still love to watch ED1 and ED2. It was cool also to see him as The King two or three years ago in Bubba Ho Tep in which he showed versatility and great acting talent. But this Screaming Brain adventure is certainly not for Bruce's early fans. Either I'm getting too old for this sh17, or I'm just not part of Bruce's target audience anymore. I'm positive kids age 9 to 13 will love this film. But this over extended matinée sci-fi comedy contains about 5 minutes total of interesting moments, and the rest is cheap kids slapstick humor. Campbell better talk seriously with Sam Raimi and get their brains screaming together for a last Evil Dead reunion picture to get back my interest. At least there would be a good director behind the camera... Sorry Bruce, this just doesn't cut it for me. Take care.


My brain was screaming "why do you keep watching! Turn it off and go to bed!" But couch potatoness won out, and I watched until the predictable ending. I guess when it's Bruce Campbell I need to give it a chance.

I find it hard to complain about a low budget movie purely because of the low budget... time and time again we see low budget movies proving that a good story, good writing and good acting are enough to make a good movie. Ted and Bruce got their start on just such a movie, but they didn't seem to learn from Sam that it takes a bit more than slapping it on film to make a movie.

It's sad, too, because Bruce has always been a favorite. After the 70's and 80's, I just can't believe movies this bad are still being made. Bruce, I'm really disappointed.


Guys, what can I tell you? I'm Bulgarian. I can't remember how many times I talk to Americans and let alone that they don't have a slightest clue where is Bulgaria, but they say things like: "There's a war going on there, right?" or "I've never imagined that in a place like Bulgaria people have Internet" Go watch Bruce Campbell's "The Man With The Screaming Brain". I was curious about this movie, cause 1) I'm Bruce Campbell fan - "Evil Dead" trilogy and "The Adventures of Brisco County Jr." 2) The movie was shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, the second after "Alien Apocalypse" which is also nearly unwatchable. 3) I enjoy nice B-movies

Well... The movie presents our country like a never-ending Gypsy Town where they raid your car, wave around illegal guns, and you can get killed any moment. And Bruce's line "Bull$h1t Bulgaria" is more than offending.

Ted Raimi and Stacy Ceach make a great team, Bruce does his special - beats himself up and that's all. Nothing more to see here.

Peoeple give this movie 10 just because of Bruce's cult status, but it doesn't deserve more than 3. Waste of film.


I just saw this movie last night at a midnight sneak preview screening (I work for an independent theatre chain in Colorado - it's one of the perks)...I'm sorry, but this is one of THE WORST movies I've ever seen! I know that there are some Bruce Campbell fanatics out there who (like Star Wars die-hards) will string you up from the nearest tree if you DARE speak any ill of their beloved cinematic icon...nevertheless, Campbell-teers, this particular work from The Chin is a celluloid black hole.

Before you make any assumptions that I'm some hoity-toity film buff who only watches "real" movies like "Ladies in Lavender" and "Sideways", think again - I'm a huge fan of B-movies, and Bruce Campbell in particular. His trademark character Ash is one of my favorites, and his portrayal of the aging Elvis in Bubba Ho-Tep was phenomenal.

But hey, B-movies still have the potential to be reeeeally, reeeeally bad (and not in that "good" campy way we all love)...and that's what watching this particular one was like for me and my fellow co-workers. With the exception of that one tracking shot where Bruce runs through the square and scares the kids, there were no laughs to be had. Overall, we found the story to be mind-numbingly stoopid, the pacing mollasses-like, and the so-called humor dumber than a bag of hammers. (I'm sorry, but Ted Raimi's "Pavel" character was not comic relief...he was just plain retarded!) Believe me, we all went into this really wanting to like it, but left feeling incredibly disappointed and robbed of two hours.

If you absolutely loved this movie, plan to see it multiple times, want to marry and have kids with it, etc., that's fantastic - we all like what we like, so you get no judgement from me. But don't go questioning the sense of humor or fan loyalty of those who aren't having multiple orgasms over Campbell's latest cinematic coupe. This flick was a steaming turd sandwich in my humble opinion...and as a true Campbell fan, I'm allowed to say that!


I enjoy B movies. I think Bruce Campbell is a very watchable actor. I love how he delivers his lines. 'Evil Dead 2 and 'Army of Darkness' were great movies. I liked 'Running Time'. However, I don't know if I'll ever watch this movie again...and I bought it. Now, after saying that, I bet the commentary tracks and special features will be worth watching! This movie just has far too many holes for me to actually enjoy, even as a cheapo movie. First off, Ted Raimi was annoying, just flat out annoying. There was nothing to his badly acted / written character that hasn't been done better a thousand times before. The directing sadly was sub par and the choice of some shots...yikes. I don't expect Woody Allen or James Cameron here, but Campbell did not deliver.

I did not purchase this thinking it was going to be an Oscar movie like 'Annie Hall', but still I'm disappointed. I would have been happy with 'Mallrats' or 'The Rhino Brothers'. I got much less. By the end of the movie there were no scenes that popped out to me, no dialogue that resonated within me. Even 'Hostel' had a classic line for petes sake! I do not recommend this movie.


Lets get one thing out of the way. I am a HUGE Bruce Campbell fan, I have the Evil Dead series, have the action figures, and have seen Bubba Ho-Tep. I am a fan of cheesy, laughable horror flicks and know how to appreciate the whole "it's so bad it's good" deal.

I wish I could say the same about this movie. I watched this movie with high expectations, I wanted it to be good, campy, something from the BC we have all come to know and love. It started out promising enough, but after the first 20 minutes I resided to watching the rest of this sorry excuse of a movie as if I had just been shot with tranquilizer darts.

The idea itself isn't a bad one; two men, don't get along, both killed by the same psycho woman, half of one man's brain is transplanted into the other's head, they argue, disagree and the comedy ensues.

What killed me is how extremely unorganized and boring it was! It had potential, even as a camp flick to be so much better than it was. The plot was boring, even Bruce's zany physical slap stick couldn't make it work.

Word's cannot even properly express the ridiculous robot that Bruce's wife's brain ends up getting put into. Easily the worst looking robot I have ever seen anywhere (even for a B movie.) The whole idea is dumb.

What the hell was going through Bruce's mind when he made this steaming pile is beyond me. Why Ted Raimi didn't go running to his big brother asking him to slap some sense into Bruce and not to mention some lessons about making an enjoyable movie on a budget is beyond me.

Shame on you Bruce!!!


Man with the Screaming Brain is a story of greed, betrayal and revenge in the a small Bulgarian town. William Cole, wealthy industrialist, winds up with part of his brain replaced by that of a Russian cab driver Yegor. The two couldn't be more different, but they share one thing - both were killed by the same woman. Brought back to life by a mad scientist, William and Yegor form an unlikely partnership to track down their common nemesis.

Bruce Campbell returns to the B horror movie genre that gave him his cult status, this time not only in front of the screen, but behind the lens. Unfortunately for this time around, the laughs don't deliver and Campbell has to resort to what he does best to try and fill the gap in this film.

As a fan of Campbell, who has the movies, the books and the action figures, I was hoping for another hit to add to my collection. Although, after seeing this film before the purchase, I am glad that I don't have the "pleasure" of adding it.

The film first goes wrong in the story, which at first sight, seems like harmless fun but turns out to be boring drawn out dribble. Which is a sad thing to say because it was written by Mr. Campbell himself. The comedy never really hits, it only makes us scratch our heads. It seems that Campbell ran out of things that are funny and resulted in giving the audience what we've already seen...him fighting himself.

Ted Raimi, the brother of Evil Dead director Sam Raimi, is undoubtedly the highlight of the film. He brings a freshness to it and an entertaining time when the film really needs it. It helps if you are a fan and have been following these stooges from Evil Dead to Xena, which is why I felt compelled to like this film.

Campbell's experience as a director, from directing episodes of the TV series Hercules is apparent. Campbell makes the film work well enough, even with the low-budget. In the end, there aren't as many things going for this as one would hope for, but the fans of Campbell will stick behind it no matter what, unfortunately for this fan...I won't.


This could have been a great movie with plenty of educational potential for teachers around the world about evolution, biology, the creative work in science, research and Darwin's life, but it is not.

The screenplay is mostly historically inaccurate and transforms a true story into a Mexican soup-opera melodrama. While it is true that Darwin gradually lost his religious beliefs, this was in great part due to his findings during the voyage of the Beagle and not solely due to the loss of his daughter. He was certainly disturbed by his loss, but that did not made him literally insane, delusional and detached from his friends and family. The such portrayal of Darwin is an invention of the script writer. Thus it cannot be used in any way as place to learn a bit about Darwin's life and psyche. According to most historians, Darwin had the theory ready by the end of the Beagle voyage, and kept it from going public because he wanted to develop further the consequences of it and check against more data. In the movie, it is an imaginary conflict of Darwin with his religious beliefs and the mental illness that he developed after his daughter's death that kept him from going public.

The movie brings a modern situation, the creationists vs scientists debate, into the life and times of Darwin, thus it is anachronistic. It depicts Thomas Huxley not as a man trying to develop further understanding of biology but as someone eager to "kill God", in his own words from the movie, and destroy the church, who would accept the theory of evolution for such purposes and not because it was a synthesis of plenty of disconnected data. Huxley is presented as a very arrogant and insensible person, a combination that I interpret was an attempt to ridicule active atheists who speak up against religion. In real life, Huxley accepted Darwin's ideas after publication only gradually, and before the work of Darwin he thought that there was not enough evidence to support evolution. His first support of evolution was published one month after the Origin of Species became public. He was agnostic but did not think it was necessary "to kill God", only thought that there was not enough evidence to believe in the supernatural. The debate creationists vs scientists appears throughout the movie, and creationists catch-phrases such as "It is only a theory" are part of the discussion. Of course, no such dispute or catch-phrases existed at that time. In fact, the Anglican Church published a positive review of the Origin's saying that they saw God's work in evolution, in some sense, quite in fact in contradiction to the way that the clergy is portrayed in the screenplay.

Another awful aspect of this movie is that it gives the wrong impression to the general public that scientific research is done by a solitary crazy man who just writes a lot. Nothing could be further from the truth. The conception of the theory of evolution was the result of thorough observations of living forms by Darwin during five years in the HMS Beagle, and was developed gradually as it can be seen from Darwin's notes of the voyage. Even though the Beagle voyage was the sole most important part of Darwin's life to the conception of "Origin of Species", the voyage is briefly mentioned only once at the beginning, and no attempt is made to show that the book came as an elaborate analysis of observations. To make it worse, Darwin is shown performing a single experiment (pigeon breeding) to test his theory and, in the end, quits it. And I'm not really sure whether such experiment did actually occur.

Great disappointment. It is not in any way a homage to Darwin and science.


I can remember reading that Darwin had a pivotal experience in the Galapagos islands, seeing the vast range of animal life there, and intern, penned his theory of evolution. Not according to this movie-it was inspired by the British countryside. OK, and as John Cleese would say-Right-. I also did not think that Darwin was a man suffering from deep personal conflict and someone who suffered dark reveries and flights of anguish. According to this film he was. It is sad that he apparently lost one of his daughters to illness, but I don't think him losing a family member would have impacted on the mans scientific abilities very much. Well, not according to...you get the picture. I think there is nothing worse than when science gets turned into fable, and to an extent this film comes off as trying to debunk evolutionary theory by saying it came from a man who was emotionally unstable, which to me, is just plain gross. I think Charles Darwin was the soul of scientific enquiry, cool and calm, and always thinking logically. This film seeks to dramatize the undramatic and sensationalize clear headed scientific exploration. It is like a Canterbury Tale. I would not recommend it.


How to take Charles Darwin's fantastic intellectual journey and turn it into a chick flick. His pivotal and seminal ideas and their radical influence on Western thought and capitalist society are untouched except for two brief scenes, in one of which it is claimed he is "killing God"; pure demagoguery to make the movie emotional. And the rest of the movie buckles to that purpose: it consists entirely of melodramatic and long family scenes with overloud music at which one is beholden to cry. Anyone who actually read "Origin Of Species" would be vividly aware that there was no breach with God in any of Darwin's work; to the contrary, there was an increased awe and respect, and a revolutionary new way of looking at things. A good movie about Darwin could be educational, thoughtful, and deeply inspiring, even in a religious sense - but that would contradict the soap-opera intentions of this flick. This is a flick that is designed to make people wail in contrived sympathy and then feel transformed although unable to understand why; it makes fast use of Darwin's great name only as marketing clout, as one would drop a famous name at a party to create an impression. Sad that the sets and costumes are so good: production values, except for the writing, were obviously high. See it if you want to weep, for the loss of intelligence in American literature.


what a waste of a film once again the film industry does not trust to make a film that could have been just about the man's ideas. there is virtually nothing on his theories or evolution, instead the most boring story of home life and relationship with one daughter, a ponderous script, great liberties taken with Darwin's life, dialogue given to his character that i find hard to believe he would have voiced. Darwin never gave up his believe in a higher power, he may not quite rightly have believed in the established Christian idea of God , but was not an atheist. which this film implies. what would have been a riveting and much better film, is if they had started with the publication of On the Origin of Species and constructed a story of the great revolution that entailed, and of an amazing cast of characters involved on all sides. instead we got a plodding, boring drama, mostly made up, a great injustice


I wish I could tell you that this film is as exciting as the theories it espouses. But I can't. Another species could have come and mutated while I waited for some action. For such a controversial man, Darwin lived the most conventional life. If you didn't know about the mad theories, you could almost mistake him for a stamp collector.

The film-makers have cast Darwin as a dullard which does him a disservice. Even when he briefly loses his mind due to his tireless theorising, it wasn't interesting to watch. Maybe great thinkers are dull people? I don't know what I was expecting: a forehead-banging eccentric with wild hair and eyes espousing his love of all things simian, the glint of madness straining from a furrowed brow? A long-haired hermit who babbled to animals? A head-cradling lunatic with eyes lit up like beacons of truth? All of the above would have been great. This is the movies for Scorsese's sake.

But there was none of that. No lightning, no thunder, no wonder, no awe. Just Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly fresh from the Subtle as Breath School of Method Acting. I imagine that someone with Darwin's ideas had a brain like a speeding train so why did this film just pootle along - chug chug chug - like a slow winter? The disappointment is immeasurable.


I had high hopes going to see this, as I always enjoy Paul Bettany's performances. I thought he was very good as Darwin, and did his best considering the terrible material he had to work with.

Darwin's book On the Origin of Species was one of the most ground-breaking, controversial and innovative publications ever, yet you'd never think it based on this tedious movie. It's like a two-hour episode of a soap opera in a Victorian setting. There is virtually nothing about Darwin's five-year voyage on The Beagle to the Galapagos Islands, for example, surely of supreme significance to the story, as it was from his investigations of the wildlife thereon that he began to form his theory of evolution.

This is just one long, dreary, domestic drama, with Darwin portrayed as a slightly loopy eccentric, seeing visions of his dead daughter everywhere and being given the cold shoulder by his emotionally-constipated wife. Jennifer Connelly's portrayal of Emma Darwin is nothing short of awful and bears little relation to historical descriptions of the real Emma. There could have been an opportunity here to present the creationist interpretation of life on earth, from either Emma or from the local priest, as played by Jeremy Northam (a blink-and-you'd-miss-it part which is a complete waste of a talented actor) to act as a counterbalance to Darwin's views, but it wasn't taken up.

The story focused too much on endless mawkish sentiment about Darwin's grief for his daughter Annie, and too much time was also wasted in Darwin wondering whether or not to write his book. Eventually I was so bored it was difficult to care.

All in all, this was a bit like making a movie about Picasso and spending two hours concentrating on him having a fight with his girlfriend and not bothering to mention that he was an artist.


I must say that I wasn't impressed at all, probably because I was expecting much more from this movie. Maybe an accent on religion vs science or on the meaning of life, not just a few lines. So, if you expect something to think about after you see this movie, don't. It's more psychological than philosophical. I vote 4 because of the end, it clears up a bit and because I have a great respect for BBC documentaries. There are a couple of very interesting scenes that actually gave some sense. It was a brilliant idea to add it in a movie related to theory of evolution, too bad that this wasn't the main subject. Ah, I just forgot to say that for more than 1 hour, the movie is quite boring and in a way, cruel.


the movie is precious, and cage is a babe.

but will anyone agree with me in saying that the punk representation in this movie is ATROCIOUS?!?!

where's the clash? the ramones?? misfits? social distortion? the cramps?? sex pistols?! ANYONE?!?!?!?! the music is this movie is incredibly disappointing! at LEAST they play the cure.

plus, randy's feathered hair and pleated khakis...

this definitely looks like a movie about "punks" the way that a bunch of movie industry squares see punks.

although it's a 90's movie, SLC punk paints a much more accurate picture of the punk rock scene in the early 1980's. just sayin'.


How can anyone even begin to like this film is really beyond me.

The idea? It has none. "A guy fell apart". That's the idea. Wow. An environment was slowly killing him... now THAT's original and worth watching.

This is the first Fasbinder's film I've seen... I've heard that he's a genius of mise-en-scene, but I've seen student films with more attention, inspiration, idea, and craft than this... this.... this nothing. It has nothing!

Each and every shot is too long. There's so much emptiness in them... The acting's horrible. You can see the actors had no preparation at all, no understanding of their roles, not even an attempt at showing emotions... it's so... superficial... The lines are so explicative that you could removed 90% of them and still have the same crappy film. Tempo? Who cares about it. Atmosphere, dynamics, that's for pussies! One shot per scene, 80% of the time people staring unrealistically, having no idea how to represent emotions and importance of the moment besides hollow staring at the camera or one another... EDiting? All rules of editing have been disregarded with no pa pay-off of any kind... Photography? Half of the shots have reflection in them, and crappy lighting with no stylization of any kind. Shadows, play of shadows... who needs that? We need a guy pissing, drinking, hitting his wife like he's... like he's acting. We need a bunch of close ups of a not-so-beautiful woman... we need an amateurish climax of his capture by an unconvincing arabian torturer... This film has so much wrongs that it isn't worth the no-budget it had.

Frankly, I haven't seen a film this bad since American Pie 5. Yup. That bad.

I've just started watching his "Veronica Foss" movie, which seems much better, based on the first 15 minutes (since it does have a hint of directing and artistic idea, unlike this crap), so I won't argue that Fasbinder's clueless.... but this.... this film SUCKS!


The filmmakers apparently had enough money to be able to afford decent makeup effects, but not enough for a creature that would move around and attack convincingly. We never get a chance to see the "monster" move from one place to another - whenever that happens (supposedly), the camera focuses on the "terrified" reactions of the humans that are nearby. And when a man is attacked by it, he simply seems to be holding an inanimate object against himself so that it won't fall to the ground. This is still not the worst "Alien" rip-off around (the two "Xtro" films are even worse, for example); it's actually sufficiently entertaining if you've got 68 (!!) minutes to spare. (*1/2)


I am the kind of person who can enjoy a good B Movie if it has some kind of redeeming value to it, but Dead Space has nothing to redeem it! This is the kind of film that will make you frustrated, restless and sick to your stomach.

Bad acting. Lame story. Terrible effects. Horrible, excruciating dialogue. Dead Space has it all!


Alien was excellent. Many writers tried to copy it. They all did a bad job (or almost). But Dead Space is the worst Alien copy. Because of the bad actors, the bad special effects, the BAD scenario and other bad stuff (it would take about 3 pages to tell everything that is bad in this film. The movie wasn't very long and this is a very good thing (the only one). You cannot laugh because it is too serious...that is a bad thing because, in almost each B-series sci-fi film, you can laugh during the whole time. It can be terrific sometimes, but instead of watching this stupidity, just watch Alien or Event Horizon...these are much better!!! I give it 1 out of 5.


Less than two hundred and fifty years ago, the last of the great pirates wrote their names in blood and fire across the pages of maritime history. This is the story of a buccaneer Captain whose name for one short year struck terror in the hearts of seafarers and merchants from the ports of the Caribbean to the trading houses of London.....

Hmm, that opening to the film sounds like we are in for one hell of a swashbuckling, pillaging, ripper of a movie doesn't it? Well it's not. Tho it's not totally without value as a curio piece. Out of 20th Century Fox, Anne Of The Indies is adapted by Philip Dunne & Arthur Caesar from a short story written by Herbert Ravenel Sass. Direction is by Jacques Tourneur, the score is by Franz Waxman and Harry Jackson is providing the Technicolor photography. Jean Peters is in the titular title role of Anne {AKA Captain Providence} and support comes from Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez & James Robertson Justice.

Originally meant to be be based on true life pirate Anne Bonny, the film ultimately turns out to be a tale of a woman seeking identity, and finding herself, in the predominantly male led world of piracy and sea based shenanigans. Filled with clichés and over familiar set pieces, the film also suffers from a cast that is largely misfiring. Peters gives it a right good go, and Paget lights up the screen with effervescent beauty. While Robertson Justice, although underused, actually looks the part and doesn't overact like the rest of the male cast does. Some reviewers have desperately tried to dig deep into the film to find intelligence and hidden meanings, purely because it's Tourneur in the directing chair. But there is no depth here, this is merely a job for Tourneur, a professional one granted, but its thinly plotted and actually lacking swash to go with the buckle in the action stakes.

Disposable at best. 4/10


After the turning point of NIGHT MUST FALL, Robert Montgomery (for the most time) came into his finest films and performances: HERE COMES MR. JORDAN, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE, THE LADY IN THE LAKE, RIDE THE PINK HORSE, THE SAXON CHARM, JUNE BRIDE. Even some of the failures he was in were interesting enough to be still watchable (RAGE IN HEAVEN, MR. AND MRS. SMITH). But Montgomery wanted to do more and more production and directing work. In 1949 he made what would be his last movie performance - he played Collier Lang, an egotistical movie star, who is dragged into helping the authorities do an investigation about a young girl's boyfriend.

Apparently my view of this film is a minority view. Most of the views given are favorable about it. I thought it was a dull, witless script, with Ann Blyth's groupie heroine not very appealing as a character. She admires Montgomery as a star, and this "helps" when he is called in to assist the authorities, but after awhile I found there was no chemistry between them. The script was also devoid of much fun, although Montgomery and Roland Winters did try. The only thing I recall to this day as a joke point was that Taylor Holmes is the wealthy father of Blyth, and he is an admirer of Winston Churchill. So he always dresses up as Churchill, and we see him wearing a floppy broad brimmed hat, smoking a large cigar, and painting (Holmes' bald head helps in the disguise). That was the most memorable joke from this film - not much of a real memory.

Montgomery went into early television, and finally won the attention and respect he always had deserved in motion pictures. His last contact with the movies was his direction of THE GALLANT HOURS about Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, starring his friend Jimmy Cagney. It is a far better film than this. For his overall film and television career, I will give this mediocre film a "4". That strikes me as generous.


Poor second-string feature from Universal Pictures about a mama's boy movie actor doing criminal investigation work for the military, fending off the advances of the brash young woman he's been assigned to romance. Robert Montgomery directed and stars in this adaptation of the short story "Come Be My Love", and his acting performances of this era are unrelievedly lazy. The plot is sappy, predictable stuff, and writer Robert Carson has given all the really funny lines (as usual for films of this period) to the feisty black maid. It's always nice to see Ann Blyth and Jane Cowl in support, but they can't do much with this hokey material. * from ****


The One is a very aptly name show, mostly because it comes close to being the only network shows on in prime time that barely more than one person is watching.

When I first heard of The One, I thought to myself "Weee!! Another sing-song show! We don't have enough of those!" and then proceeded to strap on my helmet and run about my home hitting my head on blunt objects and sharp corners. Because in all honesty, the constant, year round pain and suffering inflicted by having only one or two "talent" based reality shows running just isn't enough. We needed another one. And not just any one - "THE" One. The one with slightly less attractive contestants with slightly less talent. The one with slightly less of a point, though it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that's possible. The one with pointless footage of the contestants when they're not performing included. Because I care what Johnny Sings-a-lot does in his off hours! I really do! Now, you may be thinking "Hey! On the entire continent of North America less than 4 million people watched the first episode. Doesn't that mean this show sucks?" Well, to that I say less than 4 million people in North America have syphilis, so sometimes low numbers bring good news now don't they?. Think about it.

In the end, The One may be horribly unoriginal, a show that even the airing network couldn't be bothered to promote because they too realize how absolutely worthless it is, but it's still not syphilis! Yay!


No surprise except in how quickly ABC reacted to the dismal ratings. According to published reports (Variety) the show garnered the worst ratings in the history of the ABC television network.

And I quote: ABC's music talent competition "The One" opened Tuesday night to cancel-me-now ratings.

The article went on to say that the show received a "shockingly low 1.1 rating/3 share in adult 18-49 and 3.08 million viewers overall."

That makes it the weakest premiere for any reality show on any network and also below all series bows in ABC history.

From the first moment I saw the commercials for this I knew it would fail. We don't need another American Idol clone. But ABC should have given this show a fair chance to succeed.


From the weeks and weeks of promotion for this, ABC's "The One" was supposed to be "The Real World" meets "American Idol." We were to watch these singers perform, compete and see how they lived together in a house as well. The Drama! The Tension!

Where does one begin with this atrocity? Let's start with the "judges" who were known as "Music Experts" on this program. "Experts" implies they have expertise. Andre Harrell at least had a pedigree. He was in charge of Motown Records for a time. The other two... eh. Kate Hudson's uncle, who could have been labeled Mr. Weird Beard. He dyed his facial hair three distinctly different florescent colors. I wonder how scary he would have been with a black light! And The Paula Abdul wannabe, who did something I didn't think could happen: she was even more gushing and cloying than Paula! She then over corrected and became harshly critical after the first episode. The farce of "critiques" that these three offered was a true joke and an insult, not only to the process of finding the best singer, but to the audience that is now quite savvy, already having done this numerous times on Fox.

There was the host. George Stroumboulopoulos was no Ryan Seacrest. In fact, he was as lackluster as can be. He actually sucked what little energy there was in the program, dry. How he got that job was the second biggest mystery of the show.

The first was how did they pick the 11 competitors for this program? This was literally a talent-free talent show. OK. Perhaps that's an exaggeration. And granted, the performers all have to be relatively close in ability, because if they were not, there wouldn't be a "contest." If only one person was "good," there would be no "suspense." So, I get that they all needed to be comparable. But they all should have had *some* chops! Additionally, the judges were running a "Singing Academy," so the program was part "Fame," as well. Clearly these performers desperately needed those lessons. But you need some extremely talented people to teach those with little talent to be talented. And that definitely wasn't what was happening here.

It seemed in casting the show, the priority was on the "homelife" elements, as all of the players were very attractive to look at, in equal parts to how badly they vocalized. But the filmed segments in their house were so chopped and sliced, you couldn't get into the stories that were starting to happen, so the show didn't capture the events there, either.

As badly devised as all of that was, "The One" had an incredible, unbelievable, fatal design flaw built into the results that made it completely laughable.

The audience phoned in their votes for who they liked the best, just like on "AI." But then, after the audience vote was revealed, the bottom three contestants were forced to sing a final song. The "music experts," based on that performance, chose one person from the three to save for the following week. And THEN, the contestants who were safe got to vote for who they wanted to keep from the remaining two, sending the remaining contestant home.

The "design flaw" was that the contestants had the final say. I mean, if you were in a music competition and you wanted to get as far along the path as you could, would you vote to KEEP the better singer, or would you try to get rid of your toughest rival? Any first season viewer of CBS's "Survivor" could answer that one! And that's exactly what happened on the program. The person who had the better potential was lost, and the contestants voted back "the one" who had no talent at all! On top of that, the contestant who was just saved from the bottom by the "experts" was also allowed to vote against the remaining two! It was a complete farce!

Maybe if they let the contestants vote first, at least the "experts" would save the better of two evils to finish. But this just confirms how not ready this show was for broadcast, how unsatisfying the whole process was to view and how misguided the producers were in attempting it.


I a huge fan of when it comes to Doctor Who series and still am, But I was very disappointed when i began to watch this new series.

Children under the age of 15, or even better under the age of 10 will probably will enjoy it the best, and possibly new fans who haven't seen any of the original series, But as far as fans of the original series, will find this series missing much of the charm the made the original series so great, It took David Tennant to get me to Appreciate how Much better Christoper Eccellestion was as a Doctor in the 1st season.

I would only recommend this series for people who haven't seen much of the original series, people who are under 15, and EXTREMELY DIE HARD who fans, everyone else will just get a laugh and mumble curse words about Russel T. Davies screwed up one of our favorite TV shows.


Rose  Does anything actually happen in this episode? It introduces our two leads, a slow-witted grinning idiot of a Doctor and an utterly un-interesting companion. There's no plot to speak of, childish humour, mixed with some extremely bad pacing and incidental music. What else is there to say, really?

The End of the World  A marginal improvement, in that we see our first outer-space scenario. Subsequently brought down by poor contemporary humour, paper-thin logic, very poor pacing, and tired SF clichés.

The Unquiet Dead  Best episode to date showing what can happen when someone knows how to structure an episode, write interesting character dialogue, AND integrate an intriguing plot. Let down solely by the Doctor and Rose.

Aliens of London/World War Three - Doctor who degenerates into farce. What more can be said. Penelope Wilton brings the proceedings a little gravity, trying her best in dire circumstances. Some poorly written, and out-of-place soap opera elements come to the fore in these two episodes, and a return to poor pacing, bad plotting and cringe worthy humour/satire.

Dalek  Not great, however still far above the RTD fare to date. The pacing and script are all fine (though the Doctor and Rose still irritate). The effects and menace of the Dalek are introduced well. The finale, however, took an interesting premise that reduced the Doctor's most notorious foe, into a cuddly touchy-feely mess, and turning a previously un-seen menace, to a blue rubber squid that looked like a child's toy.

The Long Game - The first RTD script to show any plot, even if it was in a clichéd 80s style. Still, it was marred somewhat by his usual over-reliance on juvenile jokes, placing it too far in the future to make logical sense, and again poor pacing. Not as bad as his previous efforts, but instantly forgettable.

Father's Day  The initial premise could've been vaguely interesting, but common sense and logic abandon this episode from the very beginning. Also, we are treated to a whole episode of Soap Opera. Before you start thinking this is all about characterization, remember, there's a big difference between lame Soap Opera and characterization. On the plus side, it does prove RTD isn't the worst script writer so far.

The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances - This started off in a mediocre way, with some cringe worthy moments, and some illogical mistakes that even a primary school pupil wouldn't make (Well lit windows in a blackout, anyone?). After this, the first part takes a more interesting and sinister turn. Florence Hoath truly steals these episodes, showing us what an interesting companion could've been like. She could also act. Instead we get the annoying and politically correct Captain Jack as the new companion. The conclusion was a little hasty, but sufficient. The pacing and script improved with a reasonably good storyline, making these two episodes quite atmospheric and intriguing.

Boom Town - I have to be honest, except for a few examples, I had been so disillusioned by the current series, that upon seeing the trailer for another 'Slitheen' episode, I gave up and didn't subject myself to the torture.

Bad Wolf - Reality TV, arguably the worst facet of the modern media, is basically used as the premise. There's no subtlety whatsoever. Do we get any interesting social commentary as in the likes of The Running Man or Truman Show? No, of course not. This in an RTD episode, so they're basically here to cynically try and pull in the audience of said shows. Once again, logic goes out the window, as we're placed 200,000-something years in the future. RTD tries pointlessly to shoe-horn in some 'over-arcing' story here, with no relevance other than it's own existence and when the villains are revealed at the end... They make empty threats, and the Doctor grins once more like an idiot for the climax! Faster paced for the most part, than RTD's other efforts, this has one or two interesting moments. Otherwise, another lacklustre instalment.

The Parting of the Ways - The big finale. More of a damp squid, literally. All of the Dalek menace set up in 'Dalek' is brought crashing down, as they become rather pathetic. So many plot holes riddle this episode, with typically poor contrivances. Daleks want to harvest humans as Daleks, but then vaporize entire continents? Dalek's can vaporize said continents, but not destroy the Tardis in space? The Tardis is now indestructible and can land anywhere, even over people so they can be saved in it? This ability can't be used to easily destroy the Dalek 'god'? The Daleks can vaporize entire continents, but don't just nuke satellite 5 to destroy the doctor, and instead let him play around? The doctor is a pathetic coward without the conviction of his actions, after eradicating his whole species to try and eliminate the Daleks? These and many other holes aside, we are treated to the lamest dues ex machina solution ever conceived, joined with a near pointless story arc.

So what can we say about the new series, all-in-all?

Would this have gained a second series if it were anything other than Doctor Who, with RTD behind it? Would most of the episodes have been seen as anything other than un-original and forgettable, if they were anything other than Doctor Who, and had RTD's name attached? I think not.

Some people would have us think we can't say anything against RTD, since we owe him for bringing Doctor Who back to our screens. However, this at the expense of good characters and stories. Personally, I'd rather not have a poorly planned, ill conceived product, churned out at that price. I'd rather wait till someone could come along and make a genuine effort. For the most part, this is the kind of puerile rubbish that gives SF a bad name, marring what is otherwise the most creative genre.


To be fair, I didn't see a lot of this show. Probably because it wasn't as good as the original M*A*S*H, but I seem to recall them moving it around on the weekly schedule. Some shows just aren't worth the trouble of following around every week. But I really did try at first, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe I just kept expecting it to improve, but I can't give this show a 1. In all honesty, I can't give it any more than a 2 either.

It wasn't MASH (I'm not going to type those stupid *'s every time). And it was trying to be MASH without putting forth any effort, like it would just magically happen. Well guess what? No magic. The best I can do here is to compare it to other shows.

Trapper John, M.D. was a much better show by far. However, they should have called it B.J. Hunnicut, M.D. because Pernell Roberts looked exactly like an older BJ, but nothing at all like Trapper John. Keep everything else the same, just change his name and the name of the show. Presto! After MASH wasn't the only sequel to completely bomb and dishonor the original. Archie Bunker's Place was a lame follow-up to All In The Family. It had no heart, no conflict, no depth  all of the things that made All In the Family so memorable. Likewise, MASH was funny because the doctors were reacting to the impossible absurdity of war. Remove the war and you remove the drive for 99% of the humor. Potter can't yell at Klinger for wearing a dress, because Klinger isn't wearing a dress, because he's not trying to get kicked out of the Army, because he's already out of the Army, because the war is over. (breathe) All of the jokes became forced because there was no motivation for anything. The least motivated was the viewer, to stay around and watch the show.

And from what I remember, the whole show seemed to be Potter, Klinger, and Mulcahy just standing there unnaturally, facing the audience like a trio of Vaudeville performers. It was reminiscent of Good Times, where they spent 90% of the show standing behind that couch and talking to the audience, trying to make it look like they were having natural conversation. They weren't. And it felt even less natural on After MASH.

Another random tidbit I recall is that the people who made MASH never got any royalties from the spin-off. The studio used the absurd excuse that After MASH was really a spin-off of the movie MASH (which they owned) and not the TV series. Nice try, but Mulcahy was the only one of the three in the movie, and he was never deaf. I guess studio execs will do anything for a buck. Anything other than make a worthwhile sequel, that is.


Every time I watch Larry King Live, he rolls out the most softball questions for his guests. He rarely gets any useful information because he doesn't ask the hard questions. This comes from his start on radio.

King established himself on the radio and basically has not changed one bit of the format for television except for his talking head being visible. He becomes like a puppy for his guests & the only time he really gets useful information from them is whee they volunteer it or a caller to the show actually asks a hard question.

Larry is a nice, fatherly type of interviewer. This means he should not have a prime time show on a major news network if you consider CNN one. I don't because of the history of CNN.

Copying (ie. Cable) New Network was started by Ted Turner as an alternative to network news in that it could broadcast news 24/7. When it first started, the only TV competition was from NBC,ABC, & CBS. Because of this, CNN Copied the format of their competition & achieved respectable ratings.

This worked fine for CNN until they got competing networks which were innovative & provided better/ fresher news coverage. In response to the heating up of competition, CNN went into denial & panned its competitors who were eating their lunch & ratings because CNN wanted to resist change. This didn't work very long & their ratings began to plummet.

Now the Copying News Network is trying to re mold itself by re-inventing itself by copying the leading news network format. Unfortunately, this show represents a big piece of the problem. It is 21 years old & showing it's age very badly.

Sorry to say, King needs to be moved out of Prime Time or scrapped altogether.


Larry is a perfect example of the Democratic Party in the United States, of which he is a staunch member. King used to be somewhat fair and unbiased and had a variety of guests on. The Party used to be centrist, too, but that was another era. Now, like, Larry, it's Far Left.

At least 90 percent of all the guests on King's show in the past year or two are Liberals who sit there and bash President Bush and every Conservative they can think of.....night after night. Bill Mahar, one of the more viscous ones, is - and you can look this up - the most frequent guest in the history of King's TV show. You can count on other outspoken Left Wingers to be on King's show each week, but don't hold your breath waiting for a Conservative. They are few and far between.

King was also one of the innovators of the media overkill. That all began with the O.J. Simpson trial. Night after night after night that's all you ever saw back in the mid '90s. Whatever latest gossip on Anna Nicole Smith, or the Petersen murder case, or Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or some other tabloid subject, you can bet Larry will beat it to death. Sadly, all the other networks do the same thing now. Larry was a leader in that regard.

King also has the nerve to sometimes give advice, such as on marriage. I am not kidding; I 've heard him say it. The joke is that he has been married and divorced a half dozen times! This man has few scruples, believe me. When it comes to morality, he is clueless. Maybe that's why he has Dr. Phil on, to explain some facts of life to him regularly. Larry will nod, but he doesn't understand any more than when Billy Graham used to talk to him.

King also is becoming famous for the "softball" interview, meaning he asks no hard questions. That is a lot due to the fact that most his guests are of his political persuasion. People know being on King's show is liking having an hour public relations gig.

What all this has meant is a serious decline in ratings the past five years. People see through him and his Liberal-and-tabloid-TV mentality and switched over from King and CNN to Fox News.


Let's describe Larry as an interviewer: a complete suckhole, in every way possible. He laughs at all his guests jokes, he asks the most boring questions and he would never dare contradict them. He hits me as the type of person who wants to be liked by...everyone. Friendly, boring, ol'predictable Harry. He probably owes his success to being a dream interviewer for celebrities because they don't get bombarded with what we, the people, want to know and have a right to know. Let's put it this way: he interviews as if he's in a red country. 02/10, 2 for the guests that come on the show yet it all seems pointless when Larry starts asking his mind numbing questions such as "What's it like to be a mother?" followed by the usual answer along the lines of "Being a mother is the greatest thing that ever happened to me: it's wonderful, but tiring".


I can't honestly believe that this is a sequel or follow up of John Landis classic comedy horror movie from 1981 . I suppose you can't really describe it as an original werewolf movie either since the bare bones of the story steal elements from the one set in London: An American tourist visits a famous European capital , he narrowly survives a werewolf attack that kills a colleague , he embarks ( Pardon the pun ) on a sexual relationship with someone in the medical profession , he turns into a werewolf , he's visited by apparitions of his dead victims , etc etc . and reading the previous line I've just discovered how much the storyline has in common with the original that it seems very similar indeed . The difference lies in how enjoyable and entertaining the Landis movie is

With this Paris based movie there's no scenes that really stand out . There's no naked man waking up in a zoo wondering how he's going to get back home with no money or clothes , there's no bizarre dream sequence of Naziwerewolves and there's no spectacular climax . AAWIP does try to be funny but is there anything more embarrassing than failed humour ? I'm thinking of the scene where Andy McDermott has to convince someone he's got chewing gum in his pocket and not condoms ! Perhaps the biggest difference between the two movies is that there's no poignancy involved with this dubious follow up . You really do feel sorry for the protagonist's fate and dilemma in the London movie , here you just feel Andy is nothing more than a cypher going through the literary motions of a script . There's also a large number of plot holes visible . Is this the first time The Lunar Club have carried out a massacre ? If not then aren't large numbers of corpses with their hearts torn out been reported in the world's press ? Why haven't the police got leads ?

Everyone else has mentioned it and so will I - The visuals are poor . Look at the bungee jumping scene at The Eifell Tower , it's painfully obvious that it's achieved via some blue screen projection while the werewolf transformation is done by some very cartoonish CGI . I won't put Anthony Waller in the same bracket as Stephen Sommers as a director who totally ruins a movie because of an over reliance on CGI ( The major problem with AAWIP is the screenplay coupled with a high degree of expectation from those who saw the 1981 movie classic ) but I would have preferred the Rick Baker type special effects used for the transformation . To be fair it's reasonable to speculate that perhaps the budget didn't stretch that far . But at the end of the day this is a fairly poor horror movie that didn't need to be made and DOG SOLDIERS is much better entertainment


Woeful and unnecessary sequel to a bonafide classic. An American Werewolf in London was, indisputably, a gem of a movie: humorous, demented, with just a dash of romance and so very, very British it made me want to stand up and sing God Save the Queen every time the movie ended. Then came this abomination. You know you are in real trouble when the leads are so utterly unlikeable you are glad when they are slaughtered, and actually start cheering for the lycanthropes. Tell you the truth, folks, I only got about half way through this CGIed travesty before losing the will to live and turning it off. Absolutely pitiful and a putrid waste of anyone's time.


Once upon a time there was a great American film. Which combined horror and comedy with equal thrills. This film featured clever direction. Groundbreaking special effects and superb comedic and serious acting. It was entitled 'An American Werewolf in London.' Sixteen years later the long awaited sequel was finally pinned onto the poster board outside your local theater. Surely it would have at least some of the thrills of the original. Think again. 'An American Werewolf in Paris' is an incomprehensible mess from start to pitiful finish. The problems begin with the leading man. Tom Everett Scott's performance is stiff and tiresome. From the outset he seems intent on proving that all young people are simpletons. In his defense, not even a seasoned Shakespearean thespian could have extracted a good performance from the juvenile and witless dialogue. At one point, one of Scott's deceased friends, who's soul is doomed to walk the Earth after being carved up by one of the werewolves, Is finally able to leave for the afterlife. He then quips to Scott and his friends. 'Okay guys, see ya.' What a memorable goodbye. Julie Delphy soon shows up as Scott's mysterious European love interest. Basically, she's a French girl playing the French girl. It isn't much of a stretch. But all this stupidity isn't even the most disappointing thing about the film. The special effects, such an integral part of the superb original film, fall far short in this flop. The werewolves look like cartoons. And no matter how well you sculpt a cartoon with sinewy lycanthrope muscles. It's still hard to get scared of a cartoon. So instead the vacationing American gang, led by the ultra weak Scott, keep finding excuses to return to the werewolf's catacombs lair. Here it's much easier for this incompetent special effects crew to keep the computer enhanced creatures or absurd beast masks under the cover of darkness. Some have said that if you don't look on this film as a sequel it's not as bad by comparison. I disagree, this film can not stand on its own, and is even more of a disgrace when compared to the brilliant original. If it doesn't want to be looked on as a sequel it should not have borrowed most of the title from the 1981 film. I , don't care how much you love werewolves. Or how much you worshiped 'American Werewolf in London.' as I myself did. This one is simply not worth wasting your time. 'Okay guys, see ya.' Terrible. 3 out of a possible 10 T.H.


God, that sucked. You can't end a horror movie with a happily-ever-after family setting. Yeash. I was kind of ambivalent going in to the final act. But, my god. He didn't have to kill the girl, she didn't die, the ghost father appears with a cure (which makes no sense, because his spirit would have been liberated after the yank kid killed all the bad werewolves). What a hunk of junk. This is the worst horror movie I've seen in a long time, and I've watched a lot of horror movies. This is a slap in the face for Landis and everyone else involved in American Werewolf in London. Blegh. I hope that this ruined the career of every one in it bar Julie Delphy. And CGI: Kind of new and chic back in 1997, but today it just looks drab compared to the artful prosthetic/makeup work of London. Anyway, I'm done, I hope I've scared a few people of. Get the original instead, or failing that The Howling. Or failing that watch American Idol reruns. Just don't watch this mess.


Perhaps I'm being too generous when I give this film two and a half stars out of five, but there was an occasional moment. However, as "An American Werewolf" movie this one is a missed chance! There are no real plot connections to the superior original to speak of, but the story is similar in some ways to "London".

*Possible Spoiler Warning* American kids go to foreign country, one falls in love with a beautiful girl. Another one of the kids gets slaughtered by a werewolf in the same night that one gets bitten, and despite his undead friend's warnings, by the light of the full moon he sprouts fur, fangs, and claws!

But there are some differences in the story, for one; the girl is one of the werewolves. Second; there are three American Kids. And third; there's some weird-@$$ werewolf cult intent on taking over the world! As crazy as it sounds, that last one, WASN'T a joke! *Spoiler Ends*

The films suffers from many things, first the weak acting drags it down immensely! Tom Everret Scott's performance is amatuerish at best, and he and Julie Delpy, who plays his love interest, don't seem to have any chemistry together at all. Second; A weak script that seems to be all over the place. Many elements of suspense and dark comedy, that made the original one great, are missing in this one. And whoever said that eating out the heart of the werewolf that bit you will change you back human? Last I heard this wasn't part of werewolf lore at all! Third; terrible special effects; The werewolf effects are done with computer animation, which works for things such as dinosaurs, ghosts, and space ships. But seems choppy, fake and artificial, when used for furry creatures like werewolves.

However there were a few things that saved this one from total "turkeydom", there's one hilarious scene in a Paris cafe when Andy (Scott) is having coffee with Serafine (Delpy), he drops a bunch of condoms on the table, and tries to pass them off as chewing gum, by chewing and blowing a bubble! Also; the soundtrack, a very cool mix of alternative rock bands like Bush and Smashmouth. Although none of the songs have the word "moon" in their title, like the original movie, the soundtrack is great nontheless. And another funny scene when a rotting corpse, played by Julie Bowen, attempts to whistle and her eyeball pops out, had me laughing out loud.

But as a whole this film seems to lack the wit and suspense of the original. And the overly contrived ending doesn't help it out much either.

**1/2 Two and a half Out of Five Stars (Average.)


I was a fan of the AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON movie and so was curious whether a 16-year later sequel could be done with French language and local re-cast major, supporting, and minor characters. Tonight I watched the "edited for FOX Network" version that was some sort of curious hybrid of several hyperactive sequels. The screenwriters and directors pay homage to certain of the key plot concepts: Tourist gets wolf bite, full moon comes out, boy meets girl, boy becomes beast, boy dies heroic death after help from ghost victim. For me, the oddest aspect of this "formula" teen horror special effect-ride was the casting of the school teacher-love interest of the TV comedy "ED" as one of the werewolf's clueless victims who is more or less totally unsympathetic in the scripted lines they handed her. I haven't seen another horror-flick that this movie is "sequelling" (a vampire fighting flick titled BLADE), but I guess that parts of its plotline must explain how villain werewolves (they're spoofish) are threatening the "good" werewolf pair during a long part of the movie. There is also a final conflict in a Paris subway train, a la SPEED. This 1997 studio product is an odd hybrid of a film since considerable technical effects are shown for scary purposes but the authentic terrors of the original have been completely undermined, in my opinion. Such an odd re-write of the werewolf legend and "movie-mythology" !?! My suggestion to those considering this at the video store -- go for a classic "top of the line" Thriller instead : Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO!


The odd mixture of comedy and horror sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Had the main male character been a little more interesting, the film would have been as well. A trio of young Americans visit Paris, run into a beautiful werewolf, and the problems confound from there.

Numerous logic holes make the possibly intriguing story difficult to take.


This DVD is missing its calling as a Heineken coaster.... This is a great example of why no one should ever go see a sequel with a different director/writer than the original. Two hours of this turkey left me begging for Exorcist 2 reruns.

NO legitimate laughs. NOT ONE decent scare. The script was just a mess and I felt bad for the actors who had to perform it (they must have had sick relatives at home or monster coke habits or something).

The original was a makeup effects landmark. So naturally, the producers of the sequel thought it would be a great idea to to scrap makeup FX and do CG werewolves instead. These CG werewolves had me laughing a lot harder than any of the "comedy". It was just a total miss. If ya want a night's entertainment, go rent the original again. Or go take a film class and make your own horror film. You're bound to do better than these fools did.


Well, what can be said about a "horror comedy" that features neither horror nor comedy? There are no characters in the film, but much too many plot lines - all underdeveloped and mostly superfluous.

The computer generated creatures look bad, a bit like Disney versions of oversized rats without a tail. The walking dead are the biggest rip-off apart from the title, the shall look like the dead in Landis' movie, but are far removed. They just look like bad actors with abit of plastic and bull's blood added.

Two plot lines really showed some promise (the love story and the "company" story), but failed as miserably as the director, the writers, the SFX department, the production and the actors.


I had been wanting to see An American Werewolf in Paris for a long time because I loved its predecessor, but this film didn't impress me as much as An American Werewolf in London. Actually, to be quite honest, it didn't impress me at all.

Tom Everett-Scott and his dude pals are wandering Paris and, in a preposterous bungee stunt off the Eifel Tower, rescuing wolf-babe Julie Delpy from death. Before you've time to work out if the constant mugging and lumpy dialogue is meant to be the stuff of comedy, a full-moon has hit and the brats are being chased by dreadful CGI werewolves down Parisian sewers.

The script is disgustingly poor, the actors were made to make this film, they're horrible performances match the status of the movie. From start to end, this movie is never entertaining, engaging or even slightly watchable. I had trouble watching this whole film without throwing up my dinner, to be quite honest.

The action scenes aren't exciting, the jokes aren't funny and the werewolves aren't scary. In short: Miss out or be haunted forever.

I rate An American Werewolf in Paris 2 out of 10.


AWiP tries to be funny, scary, tense, and romantic ... and fails in every respect. The acting is average at best, but mostly stupid. The special effects are not enough to make up for the stupid plot devices, and the chemistry between *ANY* character is juvenile.

If you don't want to be mad at yourself, don't pay money to see it.


Take an utterly stupid story. Couple it with unprofessional performances, 2 bit graphics, add ultra-lame comedy bits, and you get this film. I thought the original was bad, but at least that story was simple and straightforward, though idiotic. May nobody produce another in this series.


I just don't get it. Why call this a sequel to the film "American Werewolf" when it has absolutely NO connection with it whatsoever? The first film was funny *and* scary with ground breaking special effects. (If memory serves, the Oscar category for special make-up effects was *created* for this movie). "Paris" is none of these things. Awful effects, and not much else. Do not see this movie. Rent the original "Werewolf in London" instead. You'll be much happier.