This movie has one of the worst lead characters ever. I say this because he is made out to be the hero when, in my opinion, everything he does in the whole movie screws up people's lives and causes problems. He can do nothing right, yet the movie makes him seem like the cool dude everyone should be looking up to. He has temper tantrums at all the wrong times, he has all the wrong stances on things that end up making people mad at him and getting people killed, he is too nosy, too pushy, too macho, too assuming, makes all the wrong decisions and has no common sense.

It's about a private detective hired by a successful painter to find the woman and son that he walked out on years ago. The detective finds the woman and what he thinks to be her son. However, all kinds of things happen to make this story full of crime, drama and twists. It's made for TV, what do you expect?

Anyhow, the movie is fairly entertaining. Johnny Depp is very young in this one and has an awful 80's haircut. He chews gum and tosses a soccer ball around for about 5 minutes and that is all we get to see of him.

For some reason, the out of print VHS version of this sells for $40 in online auctions. It must be for Johnny Depp collectors only. It couldn't be because of the plot. It couldn't be.


Maybe, like most others who have seen this film long after it's premiere on television, I wanted to see many of my favorite actors in old and obscure form, which is exactly what 'Slow Burn' is. Except, aside from the nostalgic value, the movie itself is not very good.

Eric Roberts plays former reporter Jacob Ash, hired by a Gerald McMurty (Raymond J. Barry), a rich artist, to investigate the whereabouts of his estranged son, Brian, who had been living with his mother, Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) for the past few years. In a Phillip Marlowe-esquire fashion Jacob Ash narrates what would become more than just an investigation into the whereabouts of Brian. But, once Jacob tracks down Laine, his discoveries break open wide a whole lot of trouble. Perhaps because events in the film move too slowly, there is never much suspense to this little thriller, not even by the end with the finale routine of revealing the culprits and their motives.

However, as said before, this movie is probably one that will draw attention for it's then-relatively unknown cast of actors, which include both a very young Eric Roberts as well as the adorable Johnny Depp, who plays Laine's stepson, Donnie. That may be reason enough to give it a try...if you can find it.


Every time I watch this movie blood comes gushing out of my eyes. Yes, you read that correctly: I've watched this wretched, foul thing more than once.

Caddyshack 2 went wrong for so many reasons: Harold Ramis dialing in a script and abandoning the direction duties, Rodney Dangerfield (wisely) walking away from the project because they wouldn't allow him to tinker with the script, Bill Murray showing excellent judgement and not being part of it, and a puppet being pushed forward as the feature player of a cast who deserved much better.

I can't help but think of Dyan Cannon in this and wonder why she's perpetually laughing and smiling. The only conclusion I can draw is that she is indeed the face of pure evil. Stay with me a moment. She must have been watching as the film came together and revelled in the untold agony that it would inflict on countless soon to be extremely sorry movie goers who would have this film inflicted on them. She may also have been extremely drunk. That's what I need to be right now to wash the foul taste of this complete and utter failure out of my mind. If I'm lucky it'll be washed out forever.

I have seen this film several times. I blame several of them on childhood and being a very dull and dim-witted boy who apparently had no aesthetic sensibility. Perhaps puppets are just funnier when you're a kid. No, the Muppet show is funnier now ... guess I was just dull. Caddyshack 2 is that rare kind of film that is so extraordinarily disappointing on so many levels that you convince yourself after the end credits that it couldn't have been as bad as all that. It WAS. It IS. It will only get worse with time.

My reasons for going back to this film, mercifully, are becoming fewer. Randy Quaid is limited in his role as Jackie Mason's lawyer. His opening scene isn't bad and brought out my only chuckle. We see him a few more times but it becomes as tired as the rest of the movie and descends with unfortunate rapidity from incidentally amusing to vapid wasteland. Randy Quaid acquits himself well, and this film owes him big time because if there was reason to watch this film as anything other than a torture tactic, he was it.

Maybe that's the trick of the movie. It has enough potentially endearing qualities that people watch it, are horrified at what they've done to themselves but later because the pickings were so slim can remember only what did actually amuse them. Years later they unwittingly watch it again and the cycle repeats.

Jackie Mason takes a lot of the blame for this film but in fairness, I'm not sure he deserves it. He's really trying out there but it is impossible to not to notice that he spends the entire movie doing a Rodney Dangerfield impersonation. That's who the movie was written for but I'm not sure even he could have saved it. Ultimately this fails miserably through terrible direction, bad editing (shall we count continuity errors?) and a rehashing of the same story with none of the wry humour or heart that made the first film endearing.

Dragged kicking and screaming up to a three out of ten instead of two by Randy Quaid's bulldog determination. It isn't even bad enough to laugh at. I've definitely seen worse, but trust your memory -- this one is a dog. If you've never seen it you've made excellent life choices and I salute your excellent judgement.


I saw "Caddyshack II" when I was ten and I mostly laughed because of the horse scene. I should have realized that the movie was as empty as...I can't come up with a good comparison. It's stupid and not even really funny. The cast members from the original who chose not to star in this made probably the best choices that they ever made in rejecting this; why, oh why, did Chevy Chase return?! And how on earth did Jackie Mason, Robert Stack, Dyan Cannon and Dan Aykroyd get involved in this swill?! I bet that every person who had his/her name even remotely attached to this junk (e.g., the caterer) is ashamed beyond redemption. So, all in all, it's beyond dreadful, terrible, and everything such. Avoid it like you would the Ebola virus.


Caddyshack II is NOTHING compared to the original Caddyshack. But, there are legitimate reasons for it. (1) Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to be the ace of this film BUT he didn't like the script, wanted to change it, his request was denied, so he didn't do the film. (2) It was low budget, Bill Murray had grown to superstar status. Ted Knight passed away in 1986, and Chevy Chase the "so called ace" of the first movie (although it was Rodney all the way)couldn't't be on more than 5 minutes, because it would cost too much to pay him. BUT you had Dan Aykroyd, Robert Stack, Randy Quaid and Jackie Mason, all serviceable substitutes, who none had their best performances.


When I first viewed this movie, I didn't know the title of it. I realized it had Chevy Chase in it with the same name he had in Caddyshack so I had an idea this was Caddyshack 2. At the end of the movie when I did find out it was Caddyshack 2 I was disappointed. They could have done better. Dan Akroyd I thought was bad. The whole story was bad. Call this movie by another title, but don't call it Caddyshack 2. You give that great movie a bad name. Jackie Mason's daughter when I first saw her looked like his wife. How old is this girl? Geez. How about making this movie a little believable. I thought Chevy Chase was good.


Caddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.


This movie is so God-awful that it was literally a chore to watch. I wanted to eject it from my vcr and throw it across the room, but kept thinking (foolishly) that it would eventually get funny and then everything would be all right. "You lose, we win, yay!" This movie should be required viewing for anyone who even once entertained the thought that Jackie Mason was funny. After that, beat them ove the head with this movie until the tape cracks. And if you're even considering renting this turd (or worse yet, have!) I have one thing to ask of you: didn't you even look at the cover? I mean, with crap like this you can tell with just a glance how bad it is! "Oy vey!" This movie sucked.


Why was this movie ever made?They have tarnished the original Caddyshack with this crap.I was only able to watch half of it and i didn't laugh once.At least i didn't pay to see it because it was on t.v. but i won't get back that hour of my life that i spent watching this dreadful mess.There wasn't one original star from the first except for Chevy Chase and he probably regrets doing this film.Jackie Mason was supposed to be the outrageous,funny buffoon like Rodney Dangerfield was in the first but Jackie Mason wasn't funny at all.Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield.If you want laugh,watch the first Caddyshack.If you like terrible movie's,then this you're movie.This movie stinks like a barnyard in july.Avoid at all cost.


Why is this one no good when the first one rocked? Try the fact that they attempted to replace Rodney Dangerfield with Jackie Mason! Please! That's like replacing the Beatles with Wierd Al. Randy Quaid is the only one that saves this movie from a zero.

However, don't let this stop you from watching the first movie which was outstanding.


caddyshack II does NO justice for the caddysack. thin plot, thin actors(exception of randy quaid). the ONLY thing that is decent with this movie is the soundtrack..maybe. this movie should have been destroyed when the script was written.


It sucked.

I returned the video after watching half of it. Not funny,

just a cheap and desperate attempt to cash in on a very very funny original. junk, forget it, don't waste your time etc etc


Watch this movie .....only to truly appreciate how good the original is. I'm not real hard to please, but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

It hurt me deeply, because I like Chevy Chase, Jackie Mason, and Dyan Cannon. The writing was just terrible! I thought Chevy would have at least ad libbed some better stuff than he did. There was hardly anything to laugh at in this movie. I went into it wanting to enjoy it. I wanted to laugh but nearly cried.

In the beginning credits it read Special Appearance by Chevy Chase. This worried me from the start. Chevy is actually in more than I thought he would be. It's more than a "special appearance". Too bad the appearance wasn't special. Mason's character would have been a good secondary character but got old as a main. I would rather have seen more (much more)of Dyan Cannon. At least her character was fun, if not well written. I also missed the gratuatis teen sex scene. Mr. Gopher went from being cute and innocent to a pesky rodent that deserved to be blown up. Jonathan Silverman is the only character that interested me and we didn't see enough of him.

I take it back. Try..to watch half of this movie, then...remember the Alamo, the Maine, and CaddyShack I.


After watching Caddyshack 1 I'd heard there was a sequel and decided to look it up. The movie seemed pretty bad and I told myself to stay away but stupid me gave in and actually bought the damn thing! All the reviews and everything bad you've heard about Caddyshack II are true. The movie is simply worn of ideas and the lamest plot and jokes I've ever heard, the gopher, the acting the whole movie really is bad (Randy Quaid was funny though).

Just stay away from this movie as much as you can is all I can really say. I deeply regret watching and buying the DVD but not sure which was the worser decision. Just stay away as much as possible.


Caddyshack II is one of those pictures which makes you ask 'Why?' As in; 'Why was it funded?': 'Why was it made?' and 'Why was it released into the public domain?'.

To say the least it's a bad film. It serves little purpose but to underline how superior its prequel was by setting an almost identical set of characters against each other in a similar storyline as a 'New money' land developer attempts to buy out the establishment's golf course sanctuary.

Right off the bat making the follow-up a whole 8 years after the original is somewhat bizarre. I mean if your going to cash in on highly successful picture such as the first one then you have a window of a few years to do so. But leaving it 8 years means that the formula is hardly fresh enough to simply do a follow up, or poor imitation as this is, so your sort of obliged to reward fans of the original by giving them at least reference to if not indeed actual contributions by the actors who made the first one so memorable. But there's little if any of this.

Instead we get cheap imitations. Okay the passing of Ted Knight in the interim years would have made it impossible to bring back the memorable Judge Smails but Robert Stack's inclusion as 'Chandler Young' (a fellow WASP elitist akin to the Smails character) is unimaginative and seriously lacking in the sort of anarchic frustration that made Knight's turn so watchable. Jackie Mason's 'Jack Hartounian' is a feeble attempt at recreating the non stop wisecracks delivered by the Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) character of the first. While Dangerfield's role was endlessly quotable Mason's is completely forgettable.

Bill Murray's laughably ridiculous groundskeeper 'Carl Spackler' and his war of attrition with the pesky local gofer is substituted for his Ghostbuster's co-star Dan Ackroyd's role as the militant 'Capt. Tom Everett' who's high pitched voice just splits your sides with frustration as opposed to the intended laughter.

Randy Quaid , brilliant as Cousin Ed in the National Lampoon's Vacation series, is quite the opposite here playing Hartounian's unstable lawyer. The looks of disbelief shown by the actor's looking on at Quaid's character's intended to be hilarious acts of inappropriate violence echo that of the audience. Your not laughing. Your just asking 'What the hell is he doing?'

Chevy Chase shows up, all be it occasionally and wisely rather fleetingly considering the disaster that's perpetrating itself around him,as club pro 'Tye Webb' in the films only direct reference to the original not withstanding the golf course itself that is. With his deeply tanned skin and loud Hawaiian shirts Chase looks like he's just got back from a lengthy summer vacation and needs a paycheck. He distances himself from the events in the actual picture enough that he takes little of the blame and leaves with some, all be it little, credibility still intact.

Jessica Lundy as Mason's daughter 'Kate' takes over from the 'Danny Noonan' role of the original as teenager struggling against class divides. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? At least in the first Danny (an Irish Catholic from a blue collar family) and his laughable attempts to make inroads into the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant dominated world of the golf club mover and shakers was played out to some memorable set pieces such as being dismissed by the resident Lutheran Bishop as well as being mocked by the offspring of the local yacht club. Lundy's embarrassment of her father's inability to fit-in is hinted at being because of his Jewish roots. That aside it may also have to do with him being a classless moron but such intricacy's are swept aside though I stopped caring long before they were resolved. At the end of the day Noonan was trying to get ahead in life. Miss Hartounian's biggest problem is getting the hob nobbers at the local golf club to like her multi-millionaire father so that she can get a date with the club's prodigal white kid. Or so I gathered.

Anyway in summation its poorly written, badly scripted with lame set pieces and wastes a lot of talent. Indeed kudos if you were able to sit through it to it's conclusion. It really is a penance. There is that question mark though of why did so many of the original actors not return as opposed to being replaced by performers who on paper at least looked their equals. Maybe they just weren't asked. Or perhaps I suspect they actually read the script. Stick to the original!!!


I have vague memories of this movie being funny.

Having seen it again either I have changed or I was thinking about a another film altogether.

It seems as if we are supposed to be sympathetic to Jackie Mason's character however nothing in the movie actually engenders that emotion. Its notable that he is really the only person accorded tender dialogue with loved ones. No-one else's character is allowed to rise to the status of even vaguely human.

I don't even like golf but as the film went on I found myself really rooting for Robart Stack and the club guys, really hoping they would repel Mason and Chevy Chase.


When a hardworking entrepreneur is rejected from a prestigious country club, he starts a battle between the members and eventually buys it from Ty Webb(Chevy Chase) and turns it into a theme park/golf course in which everyone can join.

This is by no means a good movie, but it is still slightly amusing at times. Almost all of the comedy is cheap slapstick and bad jokes except for Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase plays one of his greatest roles as Ty Webb for a second time and plays it great. He is not only the funniest character in the movie, he is the only funny character in the movie. Even Dan Akroyd fails to bring humor to this film which aspires to be a great sequel to a classic comedy but falls to rubble with others shown on Comedy Central. The movie might have been better if Ty Webb(Chase) had a larger role but instead he was reduced to a minor character and the star became Jackie Mason(Who??) They should have brought back all of the cast and made a sequel the right way! This is a perfect example of what not to do when making a sequel to an already great movie. Overall, Caddyshack II is humorous but a large mistake.

I do not recommend this movie.


This movie sucks. It's horrible. If anyone liked it, those people should get there heads examined. Jackie Mason's character sounds like a retard. That guy who tries to kill the gopher is a loser and he sucked. Even though Chevy Chase was in this movie, he wasn't funny. This movie had crude and unfunny jokes and did not have Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight, and Bill Murray. Even though Jackie Mason's character had the personality of Rodney Dangerfield's character, Mason's character sucks. Rodney Dangerfield was funny! He should have returned! I don't care about Ted Knight, but Bill Murray should have returned, also. The original Caddyshack was Murray's career performance. If he was funny in the first, he could have been funny in the second.

Final comment: I recommend this movie to... NO ONE!!!!!!!! THIS MOVIE SUCKED!!!! IT HAS SUCKED, IT SUCKS NOW, AND IT WILL ALWAYS SUCK!!!!!!!

2/10


This is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made. The script is unfunny and the acting stinks. The exact opposite of the original.


Have you heard the theory of cloning redundancy, where a copy is poorer than the original? Caddyshack 2 is a perfect example of that. They try to duplicate everything from the first movie. Now, in a few cases this work. Robert Stack is actually a little better than Ted Knight, when they play essentially the same character. I actually like Randy Quaid, who is no more or less offensive than Bill Murray in the original. But Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield, and worse of all, C2 demonstrated once and for all that Dan Ackroyd is one of the worst comedy actors of all time. There is very little that I like him in, and C2 nailed the coffin shut on his "comedic" career as far as I'm concerned. He seems to feel the same, sticking more to tuffy like Driving Miss Daisy and hosting Psi-Factor. Other than that, it's mostly, "been there, done that" for Caddyshack 2. Watch the original twice rather than each version once, and you'll get more for your rental money.


This film should never have been made! It stinks, it's awful, it's no good, it's bad, it's terrible. Starting to see a pattern here? Jackie Mason is certainly no Rodney Dangerfield. Gone were Ted Knight and Bill Murray, who, along with Dangerfield, were essential to the first film. It seems that the three of them (the stars) all knew a stinker of a script when they saw one. The one who didn't have the good sense to bow out of this was Chevy Chase, who stuck around but was extraneous to both films in my opinion. This film is quite simply NOT FUNNY. Nor does it have any other endearing qualities. This thing relies heavily on anti-Semitism to work and it works to it's detriment. I hated this thing. A waste of everybody's time.


I usually give sequels the benefit of the doubt and go easy on them. But thisis very poor. The exact same as what happened in the first film happens here again. The exact same. Only they wanted younger kids to be able see it (this accounts for the repeated presence of Bugs Bunny but why they threw in one 'f*ck' is beyond me).

They didn't even bother to change Jackie Mason's character from Dangerfield's. Let me explain, in CADDYSHACK Rodney Dangerfield played a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. In this movie Jackie Mason plays a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. A big effort they made to change the content of the script huh? No, I don't think so. A very unfunny Dan Aykroyd shamefully copies Bill Murray's character. He even goes after the gopher (now more like a Gremlin) in much the same fashion as Murray did.

There is not a laugh to be had. A sample of the 'comedy' in this film: Jackie Mason is getting ready for a hot date with Dyan Cannon. He is in the bathroom is his robe. He moves to the door to get dressed in his bedroom whenthe door handle breaks off. Wow!?! That's the best they can do. Eight years to think of a completely new sequel and that's all we get!?! I could have pulled a better script out of my ass.

See it only if you're a die-hard fan of the original. It's the only way you'll find any kind of laughs in it. Everyone else steer clear.


This movie beats everything out there. Well, depends on what you are looking for... it could be a 10 or a 1 on the scale. This movie is in a complete league of its own.. I don't think any movie could possibly come close to it. I am not sure what the director intended to make it as.. a thriller or a comedy. If he did think he was making a thriller, then he has by a stroke of luck, created one of the best bollywood comedies of all time. You have to see it to believe it.. a matrix + terminator + a host of other movies rolled into one, along with a storyline dating back to 1980's Hindi movies, with a icchadhari naag (a mythical snake which can turn into a human).

Its an ideal movie if you are sitting with a bunch of friends with alcohol on the side, planning to laugh at the movie! I am not sure whether to give it a 1 or a 10.. On the basis of flipping a coin, I have decided to give it a 1!


This movie made me laugh so much. It was a bloody joke to tell you the truth. So unbelievable and the worst plot ever. The acting as well was bad. I don't how come so many popular Bollywood actors and actresses took on to do this movie. The script must have been somewhat of a joke. The visual effects in this movie was excrutiatingly painful to watch. I believe that a kindergarten kid could have done a better job of the visual effect and a monkey could have done a better job of coming up with a plot.

The plot has numerous attempts at copying major Hollywood movies like The Terminator but it fails miserably. I laughed my head off seeing this movie. A total disaster in Indian cinema history!


OK, I would give this a 1, but I'm gonna give it a two because I laughed while watching this film...First of all, I can make a much better movie than this one...in a week...The special effects made this film look like a joke. One shouldn't make such films with horrible special effects because then people won't take it seriously. The acting and direction was also horrible. The screenplay had many plot holes and the whole film wasn't believable at all. This has to be the worst Indian film ever. The songs were also bad. The acting was bad and artificial. Need I say more. Don't watch this movie unless you are curious to see how bad it is. That's why I watched it. I am going into film and I wanted to see how bad a bad film can get. Trust me, I watched one of the worst films in history if not THE worst film.


An insane assault on viewers senses. This is a mish-mash of assorted Hindi and English movies - poorly done. The name carries over from a 70s' multi star cast, which the 2002 version also boasts of. The story is taken from the 70s' Sunil Dutt/Reena Roy starrer - "Nagin" and visual effects taken (a horrible attempt) from The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Mission Impossible II.

Set in a college environment (Sunil Shetty, Akshaye Kumar, Manisha - college kids!!!???!!), Manisha Koirala is the victim, who mistakes a fatal assault on her by two students as a collective effort on the part of our heros. As it turns out Manisha is a Cobra (Nag) snake reborn as a girl in this life and her mate from the previous life, now a super powerful-all-and-any-shape-assuming (Ichadhari Nag) - Munish Kohli, is out looking for her in this life. Manisha appeals to him to avenge her violation and murder.

So begins the mad killing spree, where the avenging lover starts singling each male of the group, with increasing powers and tricks with successive attempts. The effects are extremely cheap, with computer generated skeletons, morphing bodies and motorcycle stunts completing the farce.

Carry over from Nagin includes Raj Babbar playing a catholic priest who provides temporary relief to our boys with a more "Religiously correct" multi-religion locket (the original Nagin only had an "Om") . Sunny Deol plays Manisha's love interest in her current life and the ultimate saviour against the all powerful Munish Kohli.

Music and songs are below average.

Avoid if you don't fancy cheap thrills.


hi, This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The day when I watched this movie, I was having high fever. But still I watched the movie with lots of patience. And after watching the movie, I felt like repenting. Because, I wasted 3 hrs for this stupid movie. I could have taken rest rather then watching this movie. And I was really surprised that how come actors like Sunny Deol, Akshay Kumar Aftab etc acted in this movie.

I don't understand if directors don't find a good story to make a film then why do they remain as directors? Why can't they sit at home and spent their time at home?

I request to all directors that it will be good for them if they request audiences, either by mail or by media, newspapers, radios etc... to send them a nice story if they don't find any good story for to make a film . I request again to all directors please don't make such films.


If you have seen this movie, then you will know that it is one of the worst Bollywood movies ever made. Bollywood is known to copy Hollywood movies. Who would of known that they will copy Terminator 2. The difference between both Film industries are Hollywood spends millions and Bollywood spends 100 thousands (Average). Thats the problem with this film, if you want to make a T2 style movie, then do it properly. The director added a bogus fantasy storyline about a reincarnated snake who finds his long lost girl (in the previous birth) dead by 2 guys, but the blame goes to 10 people. She suddenly reincarnates into a ghost and together they want to kill the 10 people they blame for her death. Not to mention, the Reincarnated snake guy or villain has some kind of super powers. He can transform into anything, he can fly, disappear, fire power, wind power, you name it, he has it. He even gets bazookered and survives the T1000 style. You are probably wondering how he survives. its best not to ask, and its best not to waste time and money on this movie. Its Best just to forget this film even came out. I think its a shame to use a big starcast for this outrageous movie with a nonsense storyline.


I am ashamed to admit in public that I even held the cover of this movie once! This is an absolute reason why one should research on the movie before seeing it! The 'makers' of this movie have called us all fools and gullible losers with too much time on our hands.

Based on the mythical Indian shape-shifting powerful cobras and rebirth, the story takes us for a painful ride. College going 40+ actors (now really?) are the target of their former friend Manisha Koirala (who was in her former life a cobra, but is now a ghost!) and her pathetic, eternal, powerful boyfriend cobra/killing machine boyfriend Munish Kohli (who thankfully hasn't been seen since). Now do you need to know more?

I vote for studying for the upcoming test in school rather than this movie! Give it a pass if you are sane. If not... then you'll probably enjoy it.


Friday the 13th meets the Matrix. As with all of these stupid horror movies, everyone knows who has been killed and who will be killed next, but do nothing to prevent anything, all with the added CGI action effects from the Matrix. Hasn't the world seen enough Matrix reproductions?


Oh If any day u wanna see a supernatural thriller turning out to be a comedy watch this movie

This film was a shocker as it had so many actors in it but what they do and how they fit in?

The handling of the college scenes is like a school play where each person comes talk and then the next person comes infront

Okay reasons to laugh at the film: 1) Akshay, Suneil, Aditya Panscholi, Sharad Kapoor, Arshad Warsi as college students 2)Akshay carries a gun in college 3) some pathetic stunts and SFX

there are several more flaws like why doesn't the snake save his lover from being raped and comes in so late? also why he doesn't kill all of them together there only?

But afterall they have to make a 2 hrs + film so hence you have a tortorius movie

The movie is painful to watch The film was directed by Rajkumar Kohli who was an expert making such films in the past and had a successful record of films like JAANI DUSHMAN(1979) and NAGIN Rajkumar Kohli wants to help his son's non existent career Right from VIRODHI(1992),Aulad Ke Dushman (1993) and QAHAR(1996) all flops he tried hard to promote his son and he also casts big stars so that his son gets noticed, sadly nothing could help his son's career

The film has several comical scenes like the death scenes, how the actors after being bashed by the snake are so fit to fight him again and the climax

Direction by Rajkumar Kohli is bad Music is bad

That brings us to the cast Akshay Kumar - ordinary stuff, he has nothing much to do rather then stunts Suneil Shetty- awful Sonu Nigam- the worst debutante award goes to him, he gives cartoon acting a new meaning Aftab- terrible Arshad Warsi- nothing to do Sharad Kapoor- bad Aditya Panscholi- irritates Sunny Deol- is comical in the scene when he comes to save Sonu LOL Manisha Koirala- ordinary Rambha- Akshay's pair Kiran Kumar, Raza Murad are as usual Raj Babbar- hilarious for wrong reasons the girls are awful Which brings us to Munish Kohli This guy has a huge physique, he is even more stronger and taller then Akshay Kumar Sadly he comes across as poor man's Akshay His voice is awful, his expressions are painful The only thing he has to do in the movie is wear glasses and make an evil face Rajat Bedi is awful


No words can describe how awful this film is. Its like the director literally took a s*** in a roll of film and sent it out to the viewing public.

The acting in this movie is horrendous, The plot is so dumb, and the deaths of each character is laughably bad. Some stupid scenes include Akshay Kumar pulling a gun out of nowhere to kill a hologram (yes a hologram), Akshay Kumar carrying a bazooka around the town, Rajat Bedi getting beaten up by a poorly animated skeleton, Rajat Bedi and Siddharth double penetrating Monisha Korella (How did they think this was straight?). Also i'd like to point out that the animations are absolutely terrible. The scene that supports this statement is when Kapal has the motorbike and somehow gains the glasses. The shopping job looks like it was done in microsoft paint.

The best parts in this movie are with Sunny Deol. This man is so strong that he makes even god feel scared. In one scene, he literally breaks open a jail door by kicking it. Chuck Norris' round-house has nothing on that! He is even so powerful, that he can fly from London to India in a matter of 10 minutes! Overall, this movie is perhaps the most poorly made movie in the universe. If you were to watch it, watch it for the hilarity that ensues throughout (BTW this movie is supposed to be serious)


So many bad reviewers, it made me wonder, what people are thinking while watching a simple flick made by a quite bad director??? Did you all expected a super-hit flawless movie?? No way, you already can see, Raj Kumar Kohli loves multi-starrer movies... All of his earlier works where multi-starrers, but no one was flawless. Take the first Jaani Dushman for instance, so many flaws, but still good fun. Anyways sticking to the movie, the movie Jaani Dushman is a Hindi fantasy film about a snake, who can take any form (Armaan (Munish) Kohli) which takes revenge for the suicide of its lover (Manisha Koirala) on the people who caused it. Its quite good, with a great star-cast. But i think it could have been much much better. For instance, take the script, can't say its flawless. For example Take the ages:

Do 40-48 yrs old still study in university??

There are many many more, i won't list more, but there are dozen more. A solid 5.5 is good for this one.

**.75


Based on the excellent novel, Watchers by Dean Koontz, is this extremely awful motion picture that probably shouldn't be viewed by anyone. Not since "The Running Man" have I seen a book butchered so far beyond recognition. The difference, however, is that "The Running Man" film was still enjoyable as an amusing action film laden down a million catch phrases. This film Nope, nothing remotely amusing. In fact, if you love the book, as I do, you'll hate this bastardization even more.

**WARNING**CONTAINS SPOILERS** Rightio, I'm basically going to tell you the story here, almost in it's entirety. Why? Because you, dear reader, do not also need to suffer through this abominationit's okay for me, because I enjoy watching crap. Because I like complaining about sh*tty things. Now, on to the nasty: This film revolves around a boy and his mother running away from the government and a mutant-monkey-creature-soldier which escaped from a destroyed Government genetics lab with a super-smart golden retriever which the "hero" calls "Furface." Groan Trust me, in the novel, this story rocked. I'll get to that later. Anyway, the hero is none other that dreamy boy-child Corey Haim. Oh, I'm not kidding. Our hero runs around, crackly voice and all, trying to convince his Mom to help save this dog from the "evil government" which birthed him and made him genetically ultra-smart. The monkey-creature, retardedly referred to as an "Oxcom" (God help us) is also a genetic-stew of a creature built to be the ultimate fighter on battlefields of the future. Michael Ironside (Total Recall, Starship Troopersalways plays a badass) is also in this film, and no, I couldn't figure out how anyone convinced him this would be a good idea. He plays a government agent with the NSO hunting the dog and creature. Oh yeah, here's some spoilerama: He's also a creation from the government, and the same lab, and lo and behold spends most of the movie being a prick and killing peopleand all that killing is supposed to be done by the monkey-soldier. Instead of a rockin' kick-ass, creepy horror film, we have a rectal hemorrhage of a teenybopper horror flick. The dog's intelligence is discovered all-too-conveniently, and believed easier than we believe we can see clouds by looking outside. Breakdown!!

Change from Book to Film:

--Lead character (Travis) turned from man to boy-child.

--Man's love interest in book (Nora), is now his motherand all her depth and character growth is completely gone.

--Lem Johnson, black man, is now white Mr. Ironside. This matters as the character's strength was built on his heritage in the book.

--Relationship between two authority figures completely ignored, Lem now kills the guy who was originally his best friend.

--One principle character in the book is now totally absent, the "immortal" that hunted the heroes--maybe this is supposed to be Ironside, but then why is he someone else?

--Dog never receives deserving name of "Einstein" in the movie.

--No part of the book took place in a High Schoolat least nothing that had strong bearing on the plot.

--Takes place over a matter of days, rather months like the bookunrealistic pacing.

--Corey Haim's girlfriend in the movie appeared in no more than two chapters in the book--and they never met in the book.

--Character of Lem Johnson is no longer cool-headed; instead, he's a total asshole that bullies his way through people.

--Hero Travis was part of Delta Force (military segment specializing in hunting terrorists), instead, his Dad, who is never seen in the film, was part of that group.

--Perceived intelligence in the monster now totally absent.

--Subplots involving Soviets and The Mob completely gutted out of the story.

--These are just the most obnoxious changes, and the one's I could remember off hand (and a day later).

The Good:

--Eventually, after 90-odd minutes of pain and mental anguish, the movie ended.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help It:

--Michael Ironsideusually, I like him.

--The dog is still fairly likable.

--Wacky "totally 80's" title screen.

The Bad:

--Okay, the writing for one is extremely awful.

--The direction is so half-assed that anyone watching the film will feel superior to everyone involved in it.

--The acting is crappy and weak, especially from Corey Haim.

--Loose, weak, watered down story.

--The monster looks just pathetic, that is, when we are actually allowed to see the bloody thing. Its head is gigantically over-sized, the yellow eyes that were so much a part of the thing in the book are seen for no more than two seconds. Instead of a lean, powerful, fast, intelligent killing machine, we have some jackass in a puke-ugly monkey suit forced upon us.

--Absolutely no character development.

--Even the violence and gore are done poorly, for f*ck sakes, this is supposed to be a HORROR film!! Usually violence is at least done well!

The Ugly:

--The idea that Dean Koontz whored out his brilliant novel to become this filthy f*cking piece of sh*t brings me dangerously close to vomiting all over myself and anyone near me. There are movies worse than this (headache-inducing as that idea may seem), but so far, only "Alien vs Predator," at least to me, is a bigger travesty and more painful disappointment.

Memorable Scene: Watching the end credits start.

Acting: 3/10 Story: 4/10 (the novel was really good, this is just terrible) Atmosphere: 5/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 1/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 0/10 Violence/Gore: 4/10 Music: 5/10 Direction: 3/10

Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10

Overall: 3/10

I would recommend that no one watch this movie ever, except for a few extreme die-hard horror fansand only if you haven't read the novel. Instead, I would recommend that anyone interested in this avoid it entirely and buy/check/borrow the book.

www.ResidentHazard.com


Every time I think about this film I feel physically ill. To read such a great book and later discover there's a film of it was a great feeling. Years later and imagine my joy at switching on the sci-fi channel and finding it starts in just 5mins!!! Up go the titles and then uggg. If just a couple of things had changed OK. Everything is changed. Numerous characters are removed entirely new rubbish ones are added. The main hero is shrunk and de-aged by about 30 years, and hilariously his girlfriend/wife is now his mother! Even the dog is reduced to sub-lassie capabilities. This is truly appalling cinema at its absolute worst. I would quite happily remove my own toenails with pliers rather than sit through another horrific viewing, and I urge anyone thinking of watching this - please don't. If you own a copy burn it now, right now and think how much better your life would have been had this celluloid insult never occurred.


It is hard to believe that anyone could take such a great book and and make such a terrible movie.

Imagine King Kong being recast as an organ grinder's monkey and Fay Wray's part being played by a young boy. How about Elton John as Rambo!!!!.This movie is even worse than the TV remake of The Night of the Hunter.

By using the title Watchers and Dean Koontz's name the makers of this movie should be sued for fraud by readers of the book who expected a reasonably accurate adaptation of the book.

Read the book, I have never talked to anyone who didn't like it. Another good book is The Winner by David Baldachi.


This was a film based on the Novel written by the modern literary god that is Koontz? I refuse to believe that studio bought the rights to this movie for anything using the Genius' Koontz name. Ever since my sight became poor enough to require Large Print, I have been unable to read this book as I had at least twice a year since first reading it. I missed the book greatly and was unable to find it in Large Print.

I was hoping by renting this movie I would at least get my vicarious Watcher's pleasures, but this movie was a travesty. Because of subtle plot points, it is my belief none of Mr. Koontz's, or most decent authors for that matter books can be crammed into 1-2 hours of film.

It will be the wise network, cable or other wise, who buys the rights to this novel and makes a multiple part television movie, i.e. mini series, of this book the RIGHT way!

one a star out of five - would that I could go lower ...


I still find it hard to believe that a fine - if overlong - novel by Dean Koontz was transformed into this utter excrement.

This movie is so bad it's disgusting. Boos to all who participated. Shame on you!

P.S. The fact that sequels have appeared just goes to show how little taste and discretion remains in Silver Screen Land.


Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" is one of the finest books I have read. Sadly, the movie is a sad caricature of the book. The disillusioned middle-aged hero and the lonely spinster with whom he finds a meaning to his life are converted in the movie into a couple of silly teenagers, the stoic security agent and the conscientious sheriff are combined into a farcical villain - you get the picture? The moviemakers have taken a moving tale of love, horror and adventure and converted it into a Z-Grade horror flick aimed - very poorly - at the teen market.

Buy the book and enjoy many hours of reading - it will be far, far more rewarding than watching the movie.


Corey Haim is never going to be known as one of the great actors of his time, but at least in movies like "Licensed To Drive", he was more in his element... lowbrow humor.

Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" was one of his earlier works, and still probably his finest to date. Sadly, this magnificent tale of a brilliant dog, a deranged mutant and a genetic experiment gone wrong is butchered horribly. The acting is so lifeless, you might think you're watching a zombie movie. Only the dog gives a respectable performance, and if you want to see a decent movie about a dog, you'd be better of watching "The Incredible Journey", "Cujo" or even "C.H.O.M.P.S."...okay, maybe not "C.H.O.M.P.S."

If you've read the book, avoid this movie at all costs. If you haven't read the book, read it and avoid this movie. You'll thank me later.

A somewhat better translation of a Dean Koontz book is the capable thriller, "Phantoms".


Corey Haim plays a kid who teams up with a dog to take out a giant troll and OSA hit-man (Michael Ironside) with a 30/30 and homemade bombs (Which plays plausible considering Haim) Oh and he also protects his mother and girlfriend as well in this watchable yet disappointing adaption of a decent story. Corey Haim is terrible, of course but the movie's sheer momentum as well as Ironside's imposing presence make this at least a modestly effective film. Still the plot is ridiculous and it would've been nicer if we could've seen a monster or at least more gore. At least it's something different. Also it's fairly likely that this film will be the last teen movie for awhile to show a teenager making pipe bombs.

Matt Bronson 2/5


I couldn't agree more. The book is one of Dean Koontz's best novels and this film is a total travesty. I watched about half of it then threw the tape in the bin in disgust! I have NO idea what the idiotic director was thinking making this piece of crap but I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than watch this useless movie again! Everything about this film is just wrong. First the main character is changed from an ex marine to a high school KID. WHY??? Second the love of his life in the book becomes his mother in the movie! hem I bet Freud would have something to say about that! LOL. The dog is cute enough and the best thing in the movie and completely outcast everyone else! Also a main character who helps them in the book betrays them in the movie. There really is nothing good to say about the film except that at least it's relatively short at an hour and a half or so. If anyone hasn't seen the film yet do yourselves a favour! READ THE BOOK! It is so much better than this worthless waste of time!


okay, my question; who's the idiot that wrote this movie, giving it the same name as Dean Koontz's awesome book? its terrible, nothing like the book...you got the dog, and the watcher, but there the similarities end...might be good, if you haven't read the book, though...but it disappointed me, really.

they should make a new one, and let koontz write it... now that would be a good movie... I'll say it again, this movie disgusted me...absolutely disgusted me. it was terrible, it was absolutely nothing like the book. I would never again watch it.


I hated the book. A guy meets a smart dog, gets a virgin girlfriend, and all the while they're being chased by a hit-man and a ape beast thing (both of whom want the dog). Dean Koontz really can't write (I read the book at my sister's recommendation, I should have known better). When I saw this, (mostly out of a morbid curiosity) I actually found myself criticizing it because of the fact that it was untrue to the book, even though this is a book that its impossible to make a good movie of. I figured at least if they're going to make a film adaptation of the worst book I've ever read the filmmakers might as well be accurate. They turned the guy and his virgin love interest into a boy and his mother, for some reason that bothered me most of all (even though I seriously doubt keeping it a guy and his chick wouldn't have made it any better). Quite simply; bad book, bad movie, don't see it.


This is beyond stupid.

Two high school graduates travel to Nantucket for the summer and find situations there that are absolutely revolting.

Demi Moore co-stars in this one. As the film was in 1986, was Ashton Kutcher just a babe in the woods at that time?

Moore's grandfather has died and his home is on the verge of being sold to ruthless people with a father and son who bring a new meaning to the term mean.

Bobcat Goldthwait, with that obnoxious voice is in the film, as well as two brothers, who make dumb and dumber look more and more intelligent.

The writing is absolutely ridiculous. Highlights of the stupidity are where one person says to the other: "Did you ever notice that when people die, they go alphabetically in the papers?"

I rest my case.


Savage Steve Holland wrote and directed his second film, One Crazy Summer, with John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong again in a supporting role. Cusack and Bobcat Goldthwait are recent graduates headed to Cape Cod in order to stay at Goldthwait's grandmother's for the summer. Along the way, they bump into Demi Moore being pursued by John Matuszak and a motorcycle gang. Soon the three are united in trying to save a house from being turned into another lobster restaurant by a conniving, spoiled family that considers "work" a dirty word. The film contains several funny vignettes like the millionaire dollar radio contest gags and the Godzilla skit.

Like Holland's first film, Better Off Dead, John Cusack adds immeasurably to the film. Otherwise, this is a dud of a film filled with contrived situations and idiotic characters (as opposed to quirky). Moore even sings a few bars in a nightclub with some horrible synthesizers. Goldthwait's gags wear thin after awhile, and Armstrong never was an actor of any caliber to appear in anything except grade Z stuff. The tow truck twins are extremely annoying and obnoxious instead of the endearing underdogs they're obviously meant to be. This is more of a hit or miss, kitchen sink comedy which could have used a better script and direction. *1/2 of 4 stars.


Despite this being one of John Cusack and Demi Moore's early films, it is one even hardcore fans can miss, unless they absolutely have to complete the collection. I have rare moments, where I can handle Better Off Dead, but this movie is ultimately worse. I am just not a Savage Steve Holland fan, and he did both movies. So if you don't like the cheesy, random comedy and amateur animation, steer clear of this one. FYI even for the Demi Moore fans: she can't sing and the 80s synthesizers did not save her. There are too many predictable twists and too-easy jokes. I suppose if you want mindless entertainment or something you can leave on in the background and ignore while you do something productive, then go for it. Otherwise, don't watch this movie. If John Cusack (or Demi Moore) couldn't save it, you know it's got to be bad. They are the only reason I didn't give this movie a 1.


what happened to Mathew Modine's career??? i can still recall when he was considered an A list actor...

was it cutthroat island the final nail in the coffin of a once promising career??? wow, this guy must really hate Renny Harlin's guts...

This movie wants badly to be a comedy but fails to deliver any laughs, the characters are caricatures, and badly drawn ones at that ... but still what pains me the most is seeing Mr. Modine taking up on this kind of roles, next to actors so far away from his caliber, i mean at the time when he was making movies like BIRDIE he could never in his worst nightmares have imagined that in the future he would be acting in movies with a hick humping a cow that just had her anus stapled shut, and maybe whats even worst;next to Elizabeth Berkley!!!


This movie might be o.k. if not for all the language in it. I think that the storyline itself isn't bad, but I would be too embarrassed to let my wife or kids see the movie. I know that kids will learn all the swear words along the way eventually, that's true, but parents should not assist them in the process by letting them see and hear the stuff in the guise of entertainment.

I used to quite like Robert Loggia; he has a distinctive gritty quality with that rough voice of his, but in the last few years all I have seen him do are roles with a lot of language in them. If we had an award for over-use of the F word, he would have to be a contender. Unfortunately, I think he's now lost me as a fan. When I see his name on movies in future, I will be thinking twice about picking up that title.

Look, I'm no prude. I use language sometimes too, in extreme circumstances, but when we're watching a movie it is for the sake of E N T E R T A I N M E N T, something which we hope will bring us some joy and escapism. I do not want to be reminded of what's happening out on the streets in any big city these days, and it's a hassle to have to wonder whether or not a movie is alright for my family to watch.

I like Matt Modine too, but it's a pity that he has associated himself with a picture which has let his image down like this. He probably did an o.k. job in the movie, but I turned off about 1/4 of the way through after having had my ears assaulted once too often by others in the cast. Why can't these actors just say no when these scripts ask them to carry on with this gutter language? Once enough actors, (especially the big names), kick up a fuss about it, the writers will stop putting it in the movies!

I'm sorry, but I cannot recommend this picture. It's a pity too, because I think it would probably have been alright, if it had been made well enough for decent families to watch! Thank God I only wasted $2.00 on it!


Well, I'm a huge fan and follower of Elizabeth Berkley. I bought this on DVD off of eBay for my boyfriends birthday. We sat down to watch it and it was so boring. I don't remember laughing once. It's only on for about an hour and half and it seemed to take forever to end. Elizabeth is great in this though. Maybe it's just because I'm a big Elizabeth Berkley fan though. If she wasn't in it I wouldn't have watched it but every time she came on my face lit up. Unfortunately even Elizabeth couldn't save this film. Just the overall story and awful comedy makes this a film you'd rather miss than waste an hour and a half of your life. It's a very forgetful film.


A great gangster flick, with brilliant performances by well-known actors with great action scenes? Well, not this one.

It's rather amazing to see such a wide cast of well-known actors, that have many good movies in their filmographies in such a movie, without doubt this may be one of the worst they could possibly appear in.

First of all, the plot is as you'd expect it from your average gangster biography, nothing new, nothing fancy in it. The way it is told makes the movie look a LOT longer than it is (when i thought the two hours should be almost over, i was quite surprised that only 45 minutes had passed).

The action scenes look a lot like those from 80ies TV series - the A-Team, for example. It's just that in the 80ies (esp. with the A-Team) those scenes were far more sophisticated than those in "El Padrino". It's especially fun to see the guys point their guns in the air and still hit something (not to talk about people that take cover behind car doors which later look like they've been shot through).

The acting fits quite nicely to the action. Either you get the same reaction to everything that happens (Dolph Lundgren style), or it's so overacted that you may think it's a parody (but unfortunately it's not).

My advise is to stay away from this movie, any other gangster movie is better than this one.


A friend of mine decided to rent this thing, lucky it wasn't my money.. Pretty much wasted my time though. A story that could have been interesting is completely wasted by incredibly bad acting and horrible editing/directing. Maybe it could become a classic because of all the weird over-acting :)(Gary Busey's character for example) All the over-acted characters were actually the only thing that made this movie a little interesting as they grabbed your attention (for all the wrong reasons obviously) where the movie in itself failed miserably. In short: A waste of time and money

2/10


Some weeks ago, at a movie theater, I saw a movie poster of El Padrino (2004) with the tag "The Latin Godfather". How lame have we become, I thought, Latin just because he is a Mexican? Let me remind you that ANYTHING Latin comes from or is related to Latium, Italy, So the original guy in the Godfather movie is more Latin than the Mexican Godfather and this is why: We are called Latin-American people because we speak Spanish, a language based in the Latin language that originated in Rome now Italy. So to place a tag in a movie poster like "The Latin Godfather", is not just ignorant, of course if we are trying to related this movie to the original Godfather, but a desperate and uncreative attempt to get some credit by copying the title of a movie classic. Now about the movie, I just hate overacting so from 1 to 10 I guess is 3 the most.


I'm a sucker for mob/gangland movies, so I rented this movie. This movie is a complete train wreck. With all the big name actors in this film, I can not believe how bad it was. It was so bad, that I began laughing hysterically towards the end of the film. The actor better known as Zues or the big dude from the Ice Cube movie "Friday" does an incredible overacting job throughout the film. First thing I told Blockbuster when I returned the film was to remove this garbage from their shelves. Do not rent this movie, unless you want to waste two hours of your life. If they come out with a sequel, I wonder if it will be twice as bad as the first. I will be more cautious when renting so called 'mob/gangland' movies.


What is the deal with all these ethnic crime groups copying Italian mafia related movies ? We all know the Godfather as in Don Vito Corleone, now we have this Mexican one which is just a strait out Copy. I cant see why other ethnic groups have to Mimic and imitate Italian mobsters, but it sure makes them look silly. They sure seem to be wanabee Italians. I would much prefer to see Mexicans perform there own ideas and like to see there own culture, and the way they do it, instead of copying ideas from The Godfather trilogy. Apart from that the movie was disappointing, seeing mexicans acting and trying to be Italians is not my thing. After watching this, I'm now going to Watch the "Real" Godfather so this movie can be erased from my memory.


It's amazing that this no talent actor Chapa got all these well known stars to appear in this dismal, pathetic, cheesy and overlong film about a low life gangster who looks white but is half Mexican, much of the acting is bad and many of the well known stars in this trashy movie are given a script that seems made up by a 16 year old, i'm sure this movie is the career low point for actors such as Dunaway, Wagner, Keach, Tilly and Busey who i'm sure are very embarrassed that they ever appeared in this turkey of a film. I doubt many people have ever heard of Chapa and after this terrible movie i'm sure he will disappear into oblivion where he belongs.


A little while ago, I stumbled upon this DVD while browsing Netflix, and with such an impressive cast, decided to give it a go.

Never before have I seen a movie try to be a new version of an existing great movie (Scarface) and failing so spectacularly.

The main issue seems to be a complete misunderstanding of what the story should be. In Scarface, Tony Montana was the self-proclaimed "bad guy." His spectacular rise and eventual downfall wasn't sad, it was a great (and the only logical ending) to someone who lived such a life.

Damian Chapa, as director, writer, and lead actor, sees Kilo as some sort of hero, or at least a complicated guy. However he doesn't want to do the grunt work of creating a realistic, sympathetic character. He was raised by a white mother, except for the six months of his childhood where his father, a gangster himself, showed him his life. For reasons never fully explained or even really mentioned, he decides he wants to be a drug dealer, and actually drives to the bad part of town, approaches two dealers and says, "Hey, I'd like to buy some drugs." He drops his father's name, and in apparently no time they are not only rich, the two guys who are supplying him are acting subserviently to him for reasons, again, never explained.

Chapa wants you to feel bad when his character is sentenced to prison when a police informant lies about him. However, since he's dealt large quantities of drugs before, why should one feel sympathy for him going to jail for it this time? The most obvious case of Chapa wanting to be the good guy is in his prison execution of a White Supremacist/rapist played by Gary Busey. In Scarface, Tony Montana kills someone in prison because he pretty much has to in order to elevate himself, it's done, he moves on. But in this case they ham-handedly have to make Busey not only a rapist/pedophile but also a White supremacist. A little overkill, don't you think? I won't go into detail in this regard too much more, but their desperate message of "PLEASE LIKE ME! I'M A COMPLICATED GANGSTER!" fails on every level. Try as they might, I didn't feel bad, conflicted, or sympathetic when his buddies are killed (following a shootout), his wife is also killed (shortly after she called him out on being a lousy father, and during an attempted escape when he decided it'd be OK to ride right next to a car filled with gunmen while his wife is in the car), and his eventual demise.

Suffice it to say his acting can be fairly summed up as lousy, his only achievement bringing the term "wooden" to starry new heights. Busey should be credited for actually putting effort into his ridiculous role. Tiny Lister did well. Stacy Keach is playing his warden from Prison Break role. Robert Wagner is coasting for a paycheck. Faye Dunaway, while a touch dramatic, still turns in a performance better than this movie deserved. Brad Dourif is in the film for about two minutes and does what he can. And to give the film credit, it does one-up Scarface in one way - Jennifer Tilly now holds the title of "Most Ridiculous Attempt at a Hispanic Accent." (Sorry Robert Loggia.) In short, this movie had an interesting premise, but a poor story arc, unsympathetic characters, and hit-or-miss performances. I'd advise Mr. Chapa to ease up on the forced sympathy next time - really, we don't need to like your character, we just need to be interested. Better luck next time.


El Padrino :The Latin Godfather - while this seems to be a straight to DVD/video type movie- my fullframe copy obviously looked cropped- so maybe this flick had a limited theatrical run.And the title character appears to more of a Gringo than moi( I am half Honduran). Pretty typical rise and fall of a drugdealer movie with the A-list of B-list actors- Robert Wagner(drug lawyer),Kathleen Quinlan(crusading judge),Tiny Lister(mob enforcer),Gary Busey(child rapist),Brad Dourif(white power jailbird),Stacey Keach(bereaved Governor),Joann Pacula(bereaved Milf), Faye Dunaway(crusading lawyer) and Galo Make Canote as an uncredited party guest.This movie is pretty lame- I only watched it to kill time before the Skins game- the only thing that saved it was Jennifer Tilly as a crazed Latina drug dealing assassin - she was over the top and sexy-skanky that it was fun to watch her scenes.Not worth renting or seeking out. D+


Nothing I dislike more than a kung-fu movie that plays for laughs. It is the main reason I can't stand Jackie Chan (or his lookalikes). He was not always a clown, I must add. "My Young Auntie" is slapstick martial arts of the worst kind. It is a perfect example of how the subgenre was brought down to the mud by endless silly antics and childish behavior. Unless you are 5-year-old, I really don't understand how anyone could find this kind of film funny. But humor is indeed a very subjective thing. Personally, I think this type of approach did permanent damage to the beloved subgenre. I did think leading lady Kara Hui was very good here. But I had such a hard time sitting through this one that I could not enjoy her fine performance. If you don't mind all the silliness, you might enjoy it. I know I didn't.


The clever marketeer is he is, Jess Franco naturally also cashed in on the huge temporarily success of psychedelic spy movies like Mario Bava's ultimately sensational "Danger: Diabolik!". Franco is the ideal man to shoot a similar film, as he could freely insert as much sleaze, kitschy scenery and absurdly grotesque plot twists as he wanted to. And he partially understood this very well, as "The Girl from Rio" revolves on a man-hating organization, led by a funky dressed lesbo, that plots to turn all men into obedient slaves! Unfortunately (for them, at least), the diabolical plans conflict with the daily business of a feared crime syndicate boss, played by George Sanders. All the right ingredients are well-presented, yet this is a surprisingly weak and unsatisfying adventure movie. The plot is rich on imagination, but seemingly only on paper, as the action is quite tame. The film is also very colorful...but not too bright and especially shocking was the total lack of vicious sex. There's a bit of nudity, sure, but too few according to normal Franco standards. All the characters are sick in the head, so the least I expected (or hoped for) were more perverted undertones or frenzied themes. Franco obviously had a bigger budget as usual to work with, and I must say he spends that money well on more convincing set pieces and talented cast members. Particularly the veteran actor George Sanders ("Village of the Damned", "Psychomania") is one of the best players ever to appear in a Franco production. Too bad even he can't save "The Girl from Rio" from being a huge letdown. A legendary Euro-smut filmmaker like Jess Franco could and should have done more with this concept. Shame, shame, shame...


There are certain scenes in this film (like the hero's first meeting with super-villainess Shirley Eaton) where it seems to be on the edge of breaking sexual taboos and doing its premise (females want to rule the world by making men slaves) justice, but it never dares to. The result is a film with no sexuality and some tame violence. Despite the choppy plot, the film is not overly bad until its climax, where its amateurishness runs rampant (terrible editing, overuse of stock footage). Worth seeing only as a curio. (*1/2)


Take the secret agent / James Bond craze of the sixties, mix in some concepts from Sax Rohmer's female Fu Manchu femme fatale and stir in some absurdest twisted revisionism by director Franco - you have the man-hating lesbian Sumuru, or "The 7 Secrets of..." - better known as "The Girl From Rio" in the USA, recalling "That Man From Rio," which has nothing to do with this. Yes, this does take place in Brazil, we must give it that. Sumuru, or Sumitra as she's also referred to, is like an evil version of "Modesty Blaise," played here by actress Eaton with that familiar coy smile which most of us first became acquainted with in "Goldfinger." There are numerous close-up shots of her staring off camera, slowly opening her mouth, probably while watching something unpleasant (however, she is doubled in her key lesbian scene). She controls an entire army of female warriors, colorfully costumed, and rules a city called Femina or something (just outside Rio de Janeiro?). These concepts, which previously appeared in "The Million Eyes of Sumuru," sound terrific, but, despite some intriguing set design & visuals, it follows the same campy atmosphere of, for example, the very dated "Some Girls Do," which came out around the same time and which also featured a female army. At first glance, the sight of all these armed females, usually lined up in a row, catches one's interest, but, after 15 minutes or so, you realize there's nothing else there beyond just setting up the visual.

The plot follows what seems like a secret agent, a male, arriving in Brazil with 10 million dollars. He catches the attention of the local crime lord (Sanders, hamming it up as an elderly Bond-type villain), who sends dark-suited thugs in bowler hats to accost him. This sets everything up for a 3-way conflict between the agent, the crime lord and the mysterious Sumuru (the crime lord wants Sumuru's secrets). Sumuru also keeps various prisoners in glass cages - maybe that's one of the secrets. This sounds exciting but there are problems which go beyond just a slow pace; there are many shots which could have used a lot of tightening: one shot of an arriving airplane, for example, stays on the craft as it settles to a near stop, as if this had never been captured on film before. There's a similar approach to a typical sunset, as if there's something unusual about it. The fight scenes are very substandard, as if the filmmakers had to use the first takes. To add some production value, there's a scene of the real Rio carnival about midway through. I'm guessing there were various budget problems, especially evident in the climactic battle, where fake sound effects and smoke cover up a lot of bogus action, such as the lack of even real-looking guns - it calls to mind those times when kids use plastic guns and pretend bullets are being fired, falling over unconvincingly. There are touches of sadism, such as torturing a character to get answers, and female nudity, an early depiction of such after some restrictions were lifted. But, mostly, you'll be rolling your eyes. Hero:3 Villains:5 Femme Fatales:5 Henchmen:4 Fights:3 Stunts/Chases:3 Gadgets:4 Auto:4 Locations:6 Pace:3 overall:4


Now this is a real turkey by the overrated director Franco, who gave us such classics as "Las Vampiras/Vampyros Lesbos". Yes, I think that bad films can be great fun. I adore the hilarious howlers of Doris Wishman, Dwain Esper and Ed Wood jr., but this one proved to be too much for me. It is the first film I rated 1. Where should I start? The screenplay is idiotic to the utmost. The dialogue is unbelievably bad. The directing seems to be nonexistent. The best music cue (used repeatedly in this film) was taken directly from the movie "Der Hexer" (1964). And it's BORING! Poor Shirley Eaton and George Sanders! In one shot Sanders reads a Popeye comic while his henchman torture a girl (this aspect is probably the intellectual highlight of this movie). The only thing that baffled me was that Franco promptly showed female nudity whenever I thought the movie would gain from it - this is real directing skill! Still, I'm afraid that a movie in which actors pretend to shoot with machine guns by shaking them is not really worthwhile.


During my childhood time I have seen the first three "Critters" movies and enjoyed 'em.They were fun and entertaining horror comedies perfect for adventurous horror loving kids.I have never seen "Critters 4",so I finally decided to check it out.My verdict:forgettable and pretty bad flick with strikingly low body count.The script by Joseph Lyle and David J. Schow is both predictable & clichéd,the plot rips off "Alien" and "Star Wars" and the sets look bland and murky.The tone of the film appears to be deadly serious throughout making it slow and dull."Critters 4" was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects;the ones taken from "Android" look seriously dated.4 out of 10.One to avoid.


Sending the Critters to space does seem like an entertaining idea, but was there really any need for a third film much less this fourth one? A film with Brad Dourif can't be all bad, can it? Well, maybe in this case. This cheap sci-fi effort stars returning lovable klutz Charlie(the reliable Don Keith Opper) who is about to eradicate the last two remaining eggs of the Critters' species when Ugh(Terrence Mann)tells him that he's about to break some sort of Trans-galactic Endangered species law. So at Ugh's request, Charlie places the two eggs in special holders inside a space pod. Unfortunately for Charlie, the damn thing takes off for space and he's trapped inside. The smoke under his feet places him into hibernation stasis and he awakes 53 years later inside a decrepit

space station as Captain Rick, with fat cigar, rude alcoholic malevolence, and greedy to the core is blasting open the space pod trying to see what possible novelties are inside for possible sale or trade. Rick, unbeknown-est to him, lets out the two critters who feast on his flesh. You see Rick and his crew found the space pod drifting and had intense dollar signs flashing in their eyes so they dock it. Ugh reports to them(now in a fine, prominent position as Counselor)that money can be made if they dock at a space station under the Terracor organization. Once the crew dock, they find that this station is in ruin with many corridors in bad condition, but what's worse is the station computer Angela. Angela is a real thorn in the side to the crew because she has been left unrepaired without proper maintenance for some time. It takes some little tricks to get doors to open and close not to mention the elevators and computers. Brad Dourif is Al Bert, pretty much the impresario of computer functions(..and is pretty much the real leader of the group for he is the most level-headed and intelligent). He seems to be a father-figure to Ethan(Paul Witthorne)who just wants to make it to earth to find his father..this story though doesn't necessarily reach it's zenith. Bernie(Eric DaRe)is primarily in the film to be a druggie victim for the critters to munch on. In the film, Charlie, after one critter enters Rick's mouth and eats away at his throat{yuk}, becomes the crew's guide in understanding what they are fighting against. The film has some elements I found rather confusing{or for a better word, ridiculous)..the two critters grow in size quickly, are somehow able to coordinate a ship for Earth, not to mention grow themselves to massive size in this laboratory in the space station. The crew are able to tap into a log from a Dr. McCormick{Anne Ramsay, whose badge is found in a coat thrown to the side for which Ethan discovers her access card}which shows signs that Terracor was looking into creating a species to exterminate worlds and people. Knowing this bothers Al Bert who wishes to leave Angela and her bleeding station for greener pastures. Things don't work out that way because well-meaning Charlie(thanks in part to Al Bert's "ancient" Colt .45)kills a critter which had got on board, but in firing several bullets hits major guidance systems in the ship. So many repairs on in order, but they halt them when Ugh and his storm troopers dock at Angela and prove they are not what Charlie thought they'd be. Ugh is a changed man and Charlie realizes that he is completely evil and his mission is to preserve the Crites for purposes of a cruel nature(representation of corrupt corporate governmental types?). This betrayal is what changes Charlie..he has perhaps grown up a bit(a wee bit)and now understands that some people just change for the worse. Charlie and Ugh will come to a face-off over those critters..will the crew be able to escape a space station which has set auto-destruct? This film really doesn't exploit the critters as much as the other three films. I believe we can clearly see this as the true end to the franchise. The first film was a hoot..a really entertaining romp. But, by the time this sequel cam around, the critters just wore out their welcome. The cast, however, do give the film a boost. The critters do get to feed a bit, but their plans of global domination is under-developed. Their role in the film isn't established to the greatest heights. I said to myself,you have this enormous space station with unfortunates trapped on board.. could you not take this idea and run with it? Sadly, they don't.


I haven't seen this movie in years, the last time i did i was really drunk after 5 pints of tenant's at my local Witherspoon's but even then i though it was quite awful. this movie is pretty terrible compared to the other critters movies, the first two were quite good, 3 was quite crap but miles better than this. The story takes place 53 years after critter's 3, were Charlie the bounty hunter from the previous movies is found floating in a pod in outer space by a crew of some kind of space miner,em,people and taken on board. Once on board the last critter eggs left in the galaxy which Charlie has brought with him from Earth crack open and we then have critters on board the space ship, cue an obvious 'Alien' rip off and a lot of terrible FX and you pretty much have this movie in a nutshell. only good thing is when we are re-introduced to UG(or so we are lead to believe) who is now a villain and wants to preserve the critters instead of destroying them


Critters 4 starts, & I quote 'Somewhere in Kansas 1992' & a replay of the last few minutes of Critters 3 (1991) as the recurring character of Charlie McFadden (Don Keith Opper) is about to shoot the last two remaining Critter eggs in the universe which, we are informed, would mean the extinction of the entire Critter race which is against some sort of intergalactic zoological law or something like that. Charlie's bounty hunter friend Ug (Terrence Mann) is now known as Counsellor Tetra & is a top ranking official at the intergalactic council & orders Charlie not to shoot the eggs but instead put them into a pod that will land nearby very soon, the pod does indeed land nearby very quickly & Charlie does indeed put the eggs into it but he is also caught in the pod which I presume cryogenic-ally freezes him as it's never really explained. Critters 4 then informs us that we are 'Somewhere in Saturn Quadrant 2045' where a salvage ship comes across the pod drifting in space (the credits have barely finished & Critters 4 is already stealing entire ideas & scenes from Aliens (1986)). Rick (Anders Hove) decides to claim the unidentified, to them anyway, pod & try & make a bit of cash out of it. With the help of his crew, Ethan (Paul Whitthorne), Fran (Angela Bassett), Al Bert (Brad Dourif) & Bernie (Eric DeRe) the pod is successfully recovered. They get in touch with the intergalactic council & Counsellor Tetra say to go to an abandoned space-station where a trade will be made for the pod & it's contents, Tetra also specifically tells Rick not to open the pod. So in true horror film tradition Rick opens the pod, thaws Charlie out & the Critter eggs which hatch, kill Rick & escape into the space-station...

Co-produced & directed by Rupert Harvey I thought Critters 4 was a pretty useless film & rounds the Critter series of films off with a whimper rather than a bang. The script by Joseph Lyle & David J. Schow is both predictable & clichéd, the space-station with an unstable reactor that will blow up in a few hours, the protagonists only means of escape being neutralised early on so they are stuck, the race against time to save themselves, the constant bickering & arguing amongst the crew, people splitting up & the loser who turns into a hero & saves the day, yawn. A lot of plot devices seem to come straight from Aliens & it rips off Star Wars (1979) with a tacky waste compactor scene. The characters are no better & you probably won't give a damn about any of them. While the other Critter films could be described as comedy horrors part 4 cannot, it appears to be deadly serious throughout. Critters 4 is also incredibly slow, uneventful & dull. It's over 30 minutes before the Critter eggs hatch & after this brief sequence it's nearly the hour mark before their seen again, why make a Critter film & barely feature them? It can't be because of the expensive special effects as they look like glove puppets anyway, oh & how can a mere hours old Critter operate an entire space-station & set a course for Earth? How do they even know what Earth is? Why did Capatin Rick want to open the pod anyway? What is all that stuff about with the female scientist & a rubber alien thing that is mentioned only once? Why do the intergalactic council want the Critters so badly? Why only send four men? Why is this perfectly good looking space-station totally deserted again? Critters 4 looks cheap throughout with bland, dark unimaginative sets & it even steals footage from Android (1983) for it's ships & space scenes, Critters 4 was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects & the ones it takes from Android look seriously dated. For the most part only two Critters are used although some-more start to hatch but it's pretty late in the day when this happens, for most of the film they are barely seen & the effects for them are the worst of the entire series. Forget about any blood or gore as the Critters only kill two people during the 90 plus minute running time which just wasn't enough to maintain my waining interest. The acting is pretty poor as well with Angela Bassett's over-the-top melodramatic reaction to seeing a few Critter eggs particularly cringe worthy. To look at Critters 4 it is as cheap & unspectacular a production as you could hope to (not) see. The ending of Critters 4 has the universe finally being saved form the Critter menace, lets hope it also saves us & our local video-stores from the menace of a part 5...


This is a disgrace to the name of all of the lovable and laughable Critters' saga. Why do the writers feel the need to make the movie unbearable to watch by all quality standards. The Critters are cute and adorable as ever but deadly behavior has been transformed into that of a killer baby. They aren't as terrifying, gruesome, some what spine -chilling and funny as they were portrayed in the movies before. I used to love their porcupine shots but now it is hidden as if it was thought to be repetitive and boring. And what is with the killing and not eating. I thought this movie would have been cool but everything was so wrong. Why did Ug have to be evil and killed by that which is known as Charlie. This movie sickens me. Disgrace! Disgrace! DISGRAAAAAAACE!!!!


(SMALL SPOILERS) I just bought the DVD of this movie yesterday. I saw it with my friends and I couldn't believe what had happened.

In the first 3 movies, the critters at least had a sense of humor (especially the 3rd movie), but not only did the critters barely ever make an appearance, they weren't funny! They never made me laugh. I must admit that the story did start off nicely. After an hour had gone by I remembered that the Critters movies were always very short. So I thought to myself, "Where the $^%#$ are the critters?!?!" They were barely in this movie! If that didn't make me mad enough, the boy named Ethan was sitting on his bed after Charlie had "murdered the ship" and he knew that the critters were still on board! In the first movie the Brown family was scared out of their minds. But here, Ethan didn't even care! It was as if the critters weren't even a threat!

Now what I'm about to say next may ruin the ending, but I'm going to say it anyways. In the first movie, at the end, they had to face the giant critter for a final battle. In the second one, there was the great ball of critter. In the third movie, the critter with his fave burned did a spindash (from Sonic the Hedgehog) and was going to attack the little kid. But at the end of the fourth one (which is what made me the angriest) the bald critter charges toward Ethan, and Ethan kills it as if it were nothing.

Now something that I really don't understand was what happened to Ug. He was one of my favorite characters in the first two. Then after 50 years, he's evil. That was very disappointing. Not only that, but wasn't he a faceless bounty hunter? Why was he still "Johnny Steele?" Plus he seemed to have a different personality. He seemed much smarter and not as monotone like in the first two.

Being someone who actually enjoyed the first two critters movies, and loved the third one, I give Critters 4 a 2/10


trying hard to fit into the scary space comedy genre, this film falls down in two of these. It does indeed take place in space - but it is neither funny or scary. The plot is dismal and the one joke, concerning the computer's intellect, is overplayed to death. Saying that Paul Whitthorne as Ethan, Angela Bassett as Fran and Brad Dourif as Al Bert make the best of their ham script. The homo-esque relationship between Ethan and Al Bert is hinted at but never explored whilst the attempt at sexual tension betwen fran and rick is so crude as to be laughable. All in all this is a turkey that is best suited to late night tv, preferably whilst do the ironing.


Didn't the writer for this movie see the other three? I loved the original, I thought 2 was the best, I tolerated 3 (it was OK, nothing special). But I HATED this one. Who dare they kill off UG? This was certainly not the Ug who had been almost like a brother to Charlie in number 2. Remember his speech? Charlie said, "You wouldn't just leave me on Earth, would you". Ug replied, "Charlie, Bounty Hunter", saying that he was now one of them now. How dare the writers ignore this special bond between them and turn him into a baddie who get's killed by Charlie (in a particularly awkward scene) just because they realized the movie was getting boring. In fact for the first 20 minutes, we get a new cast and have to wait this long until we again find out what happened to Charlie, who was the hero we've been waiting to see. I kept waiting saying, "Come on, when's Charlie going to appear?" Angela Basset must be doing her best to deny she was ever in this Turkey. Moving it to the future eliminates the possibility of ever seeing a sequel with the original cast or in our time. I think the writers decided, that their movie was going to be the last and they could do whatever they wanted. This movie is totally out of line with the first two. And it didn't even seem like it was written by the same people who made 3. 3 at least had humor and could easily be seen by younger Children. 4 is just ugly and mean-spirited (Eric DaRe) is particularly cruel and unnecessary. I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated it. I hated the fact that anyone could like it and I hated the fact that it ruined what was one of my favorite camp classics. I give this a one start simply because IMDb.com won't let me give it a zero.


After 30 minutes..mostly fast forwarding, deleted it off my recorder. The first Critters movie was self-consciously fun, The "conversation" between the critters just before Granny blows them away off the porch, for example. This film just limps along, waiting for someone to shoot it and put it out of your misery.

I can't imagine anyone who worked on this turkey being proud of it.

One was fun, four just was awful. Don't bother even if the alternative is watching reruns of a TBS "700 Club" fund-raiser, you'll at least get some good laughs there (and the "alien" makeup is more believable..grin).


I'm a big fan of the first Critters movie. The second episode is good,but it's not as good as the first Critters. The third episode is a little bit boring,but lovely. And WHAT IS THIS?? What a crap! It's stupid and really,really boring. It's the worst of the series. I can't watch it again,because I felt asleep at the first watch. And Ug's evil side...eeewww...that's one of the most horribble moments of the movie. In the first 50 minutes,we can't see the little,furry monsters,that's the reason why the audience fell asleep at the beginning of the movie.

It could have been much better.

2/10


(Caution: several spoilers)

Someday, somewhere, there's going to be a post-apocalyptic movie made that doesn't stink. Unfortunately, THE POSTMAN is not that movie, though I have to give it credit for trying.

Kevin Costner plays somebody credited only as "the Postman." He's not actually a postman, just a wanderer with a mule in the wasteland of a western America devastated by some unspecified catastrophe. He trades with isolated villages by performing Shakespeare. Suddenly a pack of bandits called the Holnists, the self-declared warlords of the West, descend upon a village that Costner's visiting, and their evil leader Gen. Bethlehem (Will Patton) drafts Costner. After much misery and numerous efforts to break Costner's spirit, he escapes, thus ending a lengthy section of the movie that could have been told better in a three-minute flashback.

We now finally get to the major premise: the escaped Costner finds an abandoned mail truck and delivers the letters to the nearest town, hoping to get some food under pretense of being a postman. A number of the village people led by young Ford (Larenz Tate) want to get in on this postman act, which does not sit well with Bethlehem and his bandits, and Costner finds himself the unwitting and unwilling leader of a band of postmen at war with the Holnists.

The idea of The Postmen versus The Bad Guys is not as ridiculous as it sounds. The Holnists depend for their livelihood on the fact that the villages they prey on are isolated from one another; the Holnists can destroy any one village, but could not stand against all their victims united. To unite, the villages must communicate with one another, and a working mail system would thus be a big step toward putting the Holnists out of business. So it really makes a lot of sense that Bethlehem would get medieval on our heroic mail carriers. Unfortunately, Bethlehem's eventual defeat is not the result of the villages uniting against him, but instead your old standby cliche, the one-on-one brawl between him and Costner. Nor is there even any real attempt by the communities to use the mail to work together to solve their problems; all the mail seems to be the standard "Hi, Aunt Debbie" stuff played for maximum sentimental value.

THE POSTMAN is one of the most predictable movies, shot for shot, that I have ever seen. Now, I don't purposely try to ruin movies for myself by straining to figure out what's going to happen next. But here we're talking about the kind of predictability that requires no effort; I just knew what was going to happen next whether or not I wanted to know. After a lion is prominently showcased eating people, a Holnist bandit seeking the escaped Costner ventures into the bushes after a noise, and we are then "shocked" when the lion eats him. A bunch of unoffending villagers are rounded up and shot by a firing squad, and one of the villagers sings out some Famous Last Words right before being shot, to my immense lack of surprise. A covered statue is unveiled to show exactly what everyone knew was going to be there: Costner bending to pick up a letter from a cutesy kid we saw earlier in the movie. A man tells Bethlehem that no sir, you can't just take my wife; Bethlehem runs the unsuspecting sod through, though he is the only person in the theater who is unsuspecting.

But it is rank, cloying sentimentality that really undoes THE POSTMAN. Olivia Williams, playing Costner's lover Abby, is worst served. She pours her heart into the material and gives her very best effort to make it sound natural and sincere. She tries so hard, it's heart-breaking. But nobody could ever have made the lines "I have a gift for you, Postman . . . You give out hope like it's candy in your pocket" sound like anything but the syrupy pap that they are. Another example is the scene where a mounted Costner thunders past a little boy, ignoring his proffered letter, only to turn around, stare at him for what seems like five minutes, and then thunder back to pick up the letter. Why didn't Costner just pick it up the first time? No real reason; it's just an artifice that tries and fails to give us a feeling of elation by dashing the kid's hopes and then restoring them.

Schmaltz and predictability unite at the end as the statue of the Postman is revealed. I sat thinking, "Please don't tell me they're going to show the statue and then cut back to the scene with the cutesy kid. Surely that is too saccharine, too obvious for even this movie." Then, alas, the music swelled and we did indeed cut back to the dreaded little boy smiling as his letter to his maiden aunt is whisked away, and I held my head in my hands and thought, "Somebody shoot me." It felt like having thirty pounds of apple pie rammed down my throat.

Gen. Bethlehem is a more humanized villain than normal. Your standard-issue post-apocalyptic villain is the meanest, toughest S.O.B. in the valley. Bethlehem is shown to be a little nothing of a man inside, who tries to make himself feel important by beating up on others. Although some menace is thereby sacrificed, Bethlehem is credible in a way most villains aren't. Unfortunately, Will Patton overacts. And although we are told early on that Bethlehem utterly destroyed his last challenger in five seconds of hand-to-hand combat, Bethlehem's actual fighting skills shown at the end of the movie are absolutely ludicrous.

The acting is otherwise pretty good. Costner has done better, but his Razzie was an overreaction. As mentioned, Olivia Williams is very impressive. Larenz Tate as Ford does a sincere and credible job. James Newton Howard's score is competent, though short of the epic standards the movie was going for. But it's not enough to save this film.

Rating: *1/2 out of ****.


Having watched the first scene, I realized the acting was so bad that it couldn't possibly pick up later. Superficial and artificial, with frequent attempts to look professional through references to technology the way a five year-old tries to make it sound as if he knows what he's talking about.

The second-to-second storyline is completely unrealistic and just about every single decision the screenwriter did, was the kind you expect from a below-average grade school student. The overall storyline was as unoriginal and predictable as a pack of sausages. The few attempts to make the dialogs sound intelligent, was limited to neurotic, apologetic behavior. A ten year-old might like it. But it would take a five year-old to accept the lack of realism; How does advanced cell function allow someone to bypass a code lock by touching it as if with a magic wand, pick out one out of 100s of voices through a ventilation system (thereby ripping off Superman), and repair a home computer by just sensing whats wrong instead of looking for faults? Actually, that scene is a neat example: The fault was that one of the cooling pipes (aluminum ribbons) on the CPU was broken, the way it would look if a exhaust pipe on a V8 engine is ripped off by an explosion. This is something that can't happen, and if it did, it wouldn't prevent the computer from working. There is no electrical current passing through this ribbon, but when he (without doing it himself, his arms worked by autopilot because the cells in his body was super efficient) put a push-pin into the rip, a desktop with icons appeared on the screen immediately without booting.

And so it goes all the way. Like when he escaped an interrogation room in the NSA headquarters by lighting a lighter below a fire sensor, resulting in open doors throughout the building. Naturally, NSA didn't predict this sharp witted approach to escaping, nor did they put any guards outside his room (or anywhere else) to guard a living, walking breakthrough in military nanotechnology. So he walked out and got a cab. Examples like this one are not only numerous, there is in fact just about no single scene that makes sense.

Also, the so-called great effects were terrible. He threw a basketball back to a kid in the park, and the kid was thrown back horizontally 20 feet into a tree. No acceleration or deceleration, but constant speed and height, like a motorized trolley. I'm sure if I paused and looked for the cables that kept the posture of this kid the way only cables can, they probably didn't know how to or bother to erase them completely. If someone is thrown that far into a tree, they would at least say ouch (or rather be hospitalized with broken bones), but the kid was just just confused and amazed.

Moronic. That's the word for every creative decision made throughout the entire production. I'm going to put the director's name on my own personal blacklist, someone as poorly skilled as him cannot improve. I feel like demanding compensation for having wasted 45 minutes of my life for watching it, and the time it took to write this. Although it felt therapeutic, it was traumatic to realize how little it takes to get a pilot approved. The only excuse a slightly intelligent person could have to watch this voluntarily, would be imprisonment or lobotomy.


Making a film for under 1 Million might be a triumph for a line producer or an accountant but doesn't do anything for the audience. The balance sheet might have been pretty but the viewing experience was poor.

What will be a triumph for Irish Cinema is when people realise that production values and the script can't be sacrificed.

I don't understand why people expend the energy it takes to put a film together when the production quality is worse than a low grade TV show.

The deficiencies of the plot have been mentioned in another review on this site and I totally agree with what was written. What I would add is that the film skimmed the surface of several genres without ever settling in one of them. The film would have benefited from either going the direction of a straight out comedy or social/political commentary.

My overall impression was that the film was rushed, thematically under developed and visually not up to standard. On a positive note the performances and music were very good.


This is a poor film. It certainly belongs in the how not to make a feature film category. Story, direction, acting and style are all flat as a pancake. Story consists of five  yes five  football matches spread out over the film's duration, each one more boringly filmed than the last, as a dysfunctional amateur football team go from strength to strength. That's it, that's the plot. It's hard to know who this film is aimed at. It's too banal for football fans and there's nothing in it for teens nor grown-ups. There's nothing in it for women either, there isn't even a single female character. It's dreariness wears you down as the team play game after game after game after game after game. The story, such as it is, dialogue and mannerisms seem lifted from a bygone Ireland, with all the actors spouting cod theatrical Dublin accents. It doesn't have to be seen to be believed. Avoid at all costs. Can someone give me back my 90 minutes. High point the credits at the end, low point too numerous to mention. Brendan Gleeson is in this film.