I'm afraid this one is pretty dreadful, despite several good performances and generally competent acting-for-the-camera direction. It's a first and last attempt by writer-director Soo Lyu. "Rub and Tug" (2002) is one of the unfortunate by-products of Canada's program to promote home-grown film-making. While the program encourages worthwhile efforts like "New Waterford Girl" it opens the door for untalented novices like Lyu who did not have to aggressively pitch this project but was green-lighted without an adequate examination of her script or her credentials.

You don't mind the low budget because the shabby production design, bad lighting, poor audio, and dreary docu-style shot selection is consistent with the subject matter; the workers in Canadian massage parlors. But the dialogue and the plotting doesn't give the actors anything to work with, the editor much to assemble, or a viewer any mental challenge other than suspension of disbelief. When your story is this simplistic the last thing you need is a muddled storytelling technique; even though nothing happens, the movie is hard to follow and point-of-view impossible to pin down.

Don McKellar's performance as Conrad is several notches below his similar characterization in "Exotica". Lindy Booth's Lea is her standard quirky airhead; as always she is likable but here she is little else. Kira Clavell's Cindy is a pleasant surprise, a kind of Asian Shelley Duval. The only other role of any consequence, Tara Spencer-Nairn's street-wise Betty, more than cancels out her excellent performance in "New Waterford Girl". Her shallow performance in "Rub and Tug" should curtail any tendency to seek out other films in which she has appeared; unless you need further confirmation of "Waterford" director Alan Moyle's skill in working with young actors.

You quickly conclude that Lyu's reptilian brain cannot grasp concepts like plot complexity, so the need to insert a lazy and lame "deus ex machina" device toward the end is hardly a surprise. Still it could be worse, the listless story has so little internal logic anyway that the unlikely ending is not as painful as would normally be the case.

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


One of the silliest movies of the 1940s, an unbearable haunted house comedy with music starring Kay Kyser. Kyer, orchestra leader and radio-star (and eternal college fraternity goof-off), was sort of the precursor to Spike Jones, hamming it up for his guests and backed up willingly by his merry troupe of musicians. He's hired to play a birthday party in a gloomy mansion, the kind where poison darts imported from Africa are framed and hung on the wall. The shindig is beset with a creepy judge, a scary professor, an ominous swami, lots of giggly females, and enough bad jokes to fill three Bob Hope pictures. The songs (by Jimmy McHugh and Johnny Mercer) are nothing to brag out, and neither is over-confident Kyser, yukking it up with elbow-in-the-ribs material that turns 1940 back ten years. * from ****


I knew my summary would get you. How is this movie like a Pet Rock and Disco?! Well, unless you lived through the 1970s or 80s, you probably can't understand WHY anyone would like a New Coke or own a Pet Rock (and frankly, at least in the case of Pet Rocks, I STILL don't understand it completely). They're just a couple things that seemed to make sense at the time but really baffle the younger generation. The same can be said for Kay Kyser and his band. At the time (the 1940s mostly), they were very popular and had enough clout that the studio starred them with Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi AND Peter Lorre in this film. Yet, if you didn't live at that time (it was well before my time), you wonder why anyone liked this sort of "entertainment". After all, Kyser and his band mates are incredibly obnoxious and their humor is very, very broad (i.e., unsophisticated and cheesy). Frankly, I couldn't stand their antics nor did I appreciate that there were just too many musical numbers in the film. Because of these factors, the great supporting cast was given a back seat and fans of these actors will probably be disappointed.

The film involves Kyser and the band coming to a mansion where a young lady and her wacky aunt live. Once there, the bridge is washed out and strange happenings begin. Eventually, it culminates in some attempts on Sally's life and a séance (of sorts). It's all played for laughs--and it's really not a horror movie despite the cast.

Overall, it's passable entertainment at best. As a Lugosi and Karloff fan, I sure felt cheated having to watch Kyser and his knuckleheads.


Solid comedy entertainment, with musical interludes, it generates a fast pace that carries proceedings along in zestful tempo through a maze of humorous and chiller complications. Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Peter Lorre form a strong setup of sinister villainy. The script contains all the standard mystery film props-sliding panels, secret passageways, thunder and lightning and poisoned blow-darts. Karloff, Lugosi and Lorre go in for heavy leers and obvious melodramatics of the gaslit era. Kay Kyser and his band offered great entertainment for the people living in the 1940's who were trying to forget about the horror's of World War II.


Having heard so many people raving about this film I thought I'd give it a go. Apart from being incredibly slow, which I don't mind as long as the wait is worth it, but it just isn't. As many others have said there are so many inconsistencies and so much of this film just doesn't ring true. The reaction of the 4 men switches from shock, horror on finding the body to complete indifference whilst they fish. Surely if they were the type of men that would go on happily fishing, then they would have just reported the body and said they had only discovered it after their fishing trip....why on earth tie the body to a tree, go fishing and then tell everyone you found the body 2 days previously? Its so hard to watch a film knowing that the behaviour of the main characters is so inconsistent. As for the rest of the townsfolk, well you'd think at least one of them might show some curiosity about who actually killed the woman! The body itself, naked except for the knickers....what scenario leads to that? If she was raped then why still the knickers? If she was raped with the clothes on, then why remove them afterwards bar the knickers? If she wasn't raped, then why take all her clothes off bar the knickers....leaving yourself with evidence to dispose of? I truly cant think of any realistic scenario that would lead to that other than killing someone to steal their clothes so you can fill up your jumble sale stall! Oh well its watchable but only just and only because, despite the poor script, the acting is strong.


Just too many holes in this movie to be enjoyable AND WORSE OF ALL a bizarre almost Hollywood-like ending that is completely out of context with the rest of the movie (this is not a spoiler as you will never guess how it ends!).

YOu will also need to be thick skinned to all sorts of politically correct undertones. The conflict between whites and blacks was highly contrived and one sided. I didn't understand why the author had the local black communinity behave in such an unacceptable manner, is he / she trying to be racist?

A truly bizare movie. Only watch if you like to be really annoyed by holes in the plot and like to debate all the things that may or may not have supposed to have happened.

But on the positive side the filming and acting is excellent.


This is an abysmal piece of story-telling. It is about an hour into the movie before we have much idea of what it is supposed to be about; the characters often mumble inaudibly; actions frequently seem to have no relation to each other; nobody seems to be concerned about who actually murdered the girl; a pair of spooky kids go swimming in waters that seem threatening but nothing happens; the Irishman gets punched in the face by one of his buddies for no apparent reason ... to continue would be as boring as the movie itself. The only half-entertaining element is the landscape photography; but anyone could point a camera at the Australian outback a get memorable shots. Overall - dreary, incoherent, pretentious - and downright annoying for wasting so much of the viewer's time.


Stewart Kane (Gabriel Byrne, VANITY FAIR) heads out with his local Jindabyne, Australia fishing buddies for a weekend of rest, recreation, and relaxation. But when Stewart discovers an aboriginal woman's body floating face-down in a river, things appear to have turned out for the worst. The largest casualty of the weekend is the men's commonsense. They don't hike out of the ravine, and instead finish their fishing weekend with some great catches. Then they head out and report the body.

The town and the men's lives quickly turn into a mess. The local media swarms them, and accusations of aboriginal prejudices rear up from the local natives. Stewart's wife Claire (Laura Linney, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE) senses the deeper meanings of what her husband and his friends did, but has to battle with it through her own mental illness.

Amidst all this chaos is the life that was this young woman who is now a media spectacle, splayed out on a morgue slab. Her murder and subsequent dumping into the water are symbolic of what lay beneath the town of Jindabyne: a division of men and women, black and white, social and outcast.

The only other people who seem to understand some of what is going on are two young kids: Stewart and Claire's son who is being led around by a half-breed Aussie who's mother was killed also just a few years before. The young girl lives with her grandparents and is trying to let go of her mother the best way she can, and the discovery of a new body seems  strangely enough  a method in which to accomplish this (again, the underlying current of Jindabyne is surmised).

Everything and everyone in this Jindabyne township feels what lurks beneath its surface, yet none of them are willing to dive into the murky waters and take a look around (the symbolism here is seen when a nearby lake that is used for recreation and swimming is said to contain the old town of Jindabyne under its surface). None, that is, until Claire forces them to.

The movie is interesting if a bit too convoluted. There are far too many story lines that needed exploring and it just doesn't get done; too many loose threads. The acting was okay, but the filming was terrible. Wobbly cameras, grainy or dark shots, and just a generalized sloppiness hurt the overall production.

I enjoy symbolic films, NORTHFORK being one of my all-time favorites in that vein. But Jindabyne needed to peak its head above the turbid water so that it could see its own problems, which simply didn't happen.


I love the 80s slasher flicks and I remember when "Silent Night/Deadly Night" was pulled from our theaters, I was very disappointed, so I was very excited to see some of these on Fear.net. You Better Watch Out was what I've come to expect of these types of movies. The quality of the special effects were laughable by today's standards, the character development too long, but all in all it was laugh out loud funny!

The scenes where he loses it because Santa, aka dad, is feeling up his mom and later when the mob is actually shown lighting torches - not flashlights as you would in the 80s, but real torches! - really tickled my funny bone. However, the scenes where he was checking on the kids in his neighborhood gave me a creepy feeling of a different nature. I also enjoyed trying to figure out who some of these character actors were. It took me awhile to figure out that the main character was the lovable teddy bear on Brothers.


This (extremely)low-budget movie is compared to the great classic "Silent Night Deadly Night", since it is labeled as a Slasher Flick. First let me say that I think that even "Silent Night Part 2" is better than this (that one was filled with flashbacks of the original for more than half of the movie). "Christmas Evil" tries to get psychological by introducing the main character as someone who goes insane,(a strong word), slowly (very slowly). He is irritated by people who do not get the true meaning of Christmas and at work he can't stand how the fabricated toys are made with such lack of quality and love. Dressed up as Santa he finally goes on a killing spree. Also a strong word, since only 3 people are killed without the real need for special effects. No tension, no thrills, no gore, no cast. For one exception that is: Jeffrey DeMunn is in it. He is best known for playing aside Tom Hanks as one of the guards in the classic "The Green Mile". He still must be kicking himself these days for ever accepting the role. He truly is the only one who really can act, his supporting role is better than the main lead. (who also isn't that bad, but if you're overshadowed by a little supporting character, you're not great either.). And what about that strange ending ? (you have to see it, to believe it). "Christmas Evil" is downright boring, nothing happens and the artwork is just misleading. This is not a slasher. You wanna see a real Christmas slasher, check out the all time greatest: "Silent Night, Deadly Night".


The only reason to give this movie even a single star is how much the ending made me laugh. I had high hopes as I usually love bad campy holiday horror movies, but this just didn't qualify. It's really just a bad attempt at showing a character slide slowly into insanity, which again, isn't a bad plot, but is done poorly here. There are some scenes (such as the ending) which are not intended to be funny, but actually made me laugh out loud. There were a couple of times when I thought the movie would actually go in an interesting direction, but it never fulfills what it could and should be. In my opinion, if you are looking for a Christmas slasher flick, try Silent Night, Deadly Night.


What can possibly said about this movie other than, "viewer beware". Christmas Evil should come with a warning label like cigarettes do, because this was harmful to my eyes and ears. I am rarely this unsatisfied with a "b" horror flick, but this movie couldn't even bring a little scare to a five year old. The point of a relentless lunatic that has a thirst for blood in a film is that he/she should seem almost god-like, like nothing can stop their maniacal rage, but in this film the resident psychopath gets himself stuck in a chimney in a bizarre attempt to surprise his next victim and of course follow along with the all to popular legend of santa claus, it's a reminder to the viewer that this man is in no way dangerous because he's far too stupid to be dangerous. All in all a total waste of film.


This is one of the worst B slashers I've ever seen in my life. The ending is something you have to see to believe.

The movie starts with Harry Standing and Phillip Standing sitting on the stairs with their mother watching their father come down the chimney while dressed in a Santa suit. He puts the presents under the tree, eats the cookies and milk and then goes back up the chimney. Phillip goes to bed but Harry comes down only to find his father dressed in a Santa suit sexually pleasuring his mother. Then, Harry goes up stairs, smashes a snow globe, grabs a shard of glass, and cuts himself.

Then you move on to the present. You see Harry. He is a lonely man who sleeps in a Santa suit and watches little kids through a pair of binoculars. He has two books. One book for good kids and the other for bad kids. He writes down everything they do in these books. The guy is a creep. He also works at the Jolly Dream toy factory. His brother Phillip has a family and two kids and lives in a nice house.

When Harry finds out that his boss only cares about profits, he goes and collects all the toys and delivers them to a few kids. Then, he travels to a church and kills 4 people. Then he goes to another house and puts presents under the tree. The kids catch him but they go back to bed. So, Harry goes to the bedroom and kills the father and leaves.

As he is walking towards a house, a bunch of kids spot him and run up to him. The parent's are nervous and try to get their kids to come back to them so they don't get hurt. How do they know that Harry is the killer? Sure, you have to be suspicious because you never know who it could be. Harry gives the kids presents and the father pulls out a switch blade in an attempt to stab him in front of the kids.

When Harry runs off, the townsfolk light torches and follow him to kill him. They don't even know that he is the killer. When Harry reaches his brother's house, his his brother and him have a little talk and Phillip strangles him. He only loses consciousness. Phillip loads Harry back into his van. When Harry wakes up, he takes off.

The ending is something I could not believe. Once again, you'll have to see it to believe it.

One thing that bugged me was the black Santa. That's right, the man in the Santa suit they saw was a white man. So why did they bring in a black man?

Skip this and see Silent Night Deadly Night and Santa's Slay. You'll get your money's worth seeing those two films. They are better than this pile of garbage! I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Wish I could give it 0 stars cause that is what this movie deserves.


Depending entirely on your own personal state of mind when watching this, "Christmas Evil" can either turn out to become an ambitious and innovative psychological thriller OR one of the most pathetic and infuriatingly lame holiday-themed slashers ever made. Me, personally, I'm tempted to opt for the latter because I didn't bother to do any research at all and simply anticipated a cheesy and undemanding early 80's slasher with a nutcase in a Santa Clause costume butchering people. Wrong! The movie actually handles about a bloke named Harry Stadling; who's obsessed with Christmas, works in a rubbish toy factory and considers it to be his responsibility to determine on Christmas Eve who deserves presents and who deserves punishment. Harry's issues all started when he witnessed Santa  his daddy in a costume obviously  caress his mommy's naked legs at a tenderly young age. After that he just developed into a social outcast, much to the irritation of his younger brother, who's bound to snap one (holi)day. I fully understand why certain fans appreciate this slightly eccentric horror movie, but did it really have to be so boring? There are several overlong and seemingly endless parts of the film in which absolutely nothing happens. I can forgive the shortness of gore and outrageous bloodshed, but this movie doesn't even benefice from an unsettling atmosphere or unexpectedly demented plot twists (with the notable exception of the finale, I must admit). Also, I would have taken the concept more seriously if the crazed protagonist would focus himself on lethally punishing the naughty children! He doesn't and exclusively kills misbehaving adults. How are you supposed to take wannabe controversial and original Christmas thriller serious when Santa doesn't even commit one miserable child murder? THAT would have made "Christmas Evil" a classic, whereas now it's just a forgettable and pitiable piece of junk.


Why, oh, why won't they learn? When you've got a nice, juicy exploitation gimmick, use it! Don't go messing around trying to get all deep and thoughtful; you're only gonna wind up looking foolish.

Christmas Evil is the story of Harry Stadling, who saw a little bit too much of Mommy kissing (Daddy-dressed-as-)Santa Claus back when he was a kid. So, of course, Harry grows up obsessed with Christmas, and finally, when his disillusionment becomes too great, he flips out, dresses as Santa, and wanders the city giving out toys to good little children, and viciously killing anyone he deems naughty.

Simple enough, and not a bad place to start. (After all, how many other holiday-themed horror flicks use the same schtick?) Unfortunately, this film wants to be more "Santa, Portrait of a Serial Killer" than "Silent Night, Deadly Night". Two-thirds of the film are spent documenting Harry's slow but inevitable breakdown, when I would have been willing to buy the premise by the time the opening titles were rolling. You know a slasher film is in trouble when you find yourself urging the killer to just get on with it already.

Perhaps Harry's descent into madness could have been compelling in the hands of a competent director, but alas, we've got some guy named Lewis Jackson. Apparently, this is his only film, and it shows. The action jumps giddily from scene to scene, without establishing shots or clear views of the actors to let us know where we are and who we are seeing.

Even once the film gets rolling, we're still treated to heaping helpings of Harry's self-pity, insecurity, and neurotic behavior. More depressing than frightening, Christmas Evil is one to avoid.


Going into a movie like I this, I was expecting absolutely nothing entertaining except for a whorde of kills.....what I got was even less.

Christmas eve 1947 a kid witnesses his parents doing it while daddy is in a santa suit. Horrified, he runs up the stairs and cuts himself. The story begins 33 years later and Harry Stalling is your normal everyday joe.....cept for the fact he's obsessed with Santa. After his boss makes fun of him he goes insane, dressing up like santa and starts killing non-santa believing patrons and his boss. An unruly neighborhood catches up to him and just as they're about to torch him, he drives his van off a cliff.....into the moon. Not the best ending I've seen but it was original.

It was a slow paced, boring movie that really had no redeeming quality except when Harry went apeshyt on the church goers. There was hardly any gore and even the "sex" scenes were toned down.

Too boring......4 out of 10


this is without a doubt the worst most idiotic horrible piece o' crap i have ever watched.

this movies plot is that some guy goes crazy and dresses up as santa claus and kills people BECAUSE he saw his mother give his father oral sex while he was dressed as santa clause. THAT IS WHY HE WENT INSANE? is it just me or is that the worst damn reason for someone to go insane like EVER? and that's not the only thing. i'm being serious when I say NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS DAMN MOVIE. nothing until like 1 hour and 15 minutes of it have gone by.

there's an entire friggin scene where he glues a friggin santa beard on to him. IT'S A FRIGGIN MINUTE LONG. WHO THE HELL WANTS TO SEE THAT? however i must say the ending of this movie made me crap myself laughing at it. so if you see this movie on TV or something come back in like 1 hour and 20 minutes just to watch without a doubt the worst ending in all of cinematic history. and i'm serious about that.

it's not even so good its bad, it's tedious, it's idiotic, it made me want to break the vcr. it's just not worth your time also i'm sure every other review mentioned this but The actress who played the mother on Home Improvement was in this movie for a split second. YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW BAD THIS MOVIE IS? I'D RATHER WATCH HOME IMPROVEMENT FOR SIXTY SIX HOURS THEN EVEN LOOK AT THIS MOVIES COVER EVER AGAIN.


Stupid and just plain weird movie about some kid who becomes traumatized when he finds out Santa isn't real (???). He grows up and becomes an adult (Brandon Maggart) who makes lists of people who are naughty or nice. One Christmas he snaps and sets out to kill the naughty people--dressed as Santa of course.

Boring and just plain bad killer Santa movie. If you're looking for gore, it's not here. Only a few of the murders are shown and they're not that gory with VERY fake effects. Most of the movie just contains Brandon Maggart talking to himself and slowly going crazy. The script is trite, the acting is terrible and it leads to an ending which had me staring slack-jawed at the TV. Seriously, I had to rewind the tape and watch it again to make sure I wasn't hallucinating! Really REALLY poor ending.

If you want a scary Christmas flick rent "Black Christmas" (the original 70s version---NOT the terrible remake). Avoid this one at all costs.


No, I've never seen any of the "Santa Slasher" series, i.e. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night,' the original 'Black Christmas' or this one, 'Christmas Evil.' I've heard all about their reputation, or, MADS (Mothers Against Deranged Santas.) I thought I would rent this one as I've heard it pop up as a reference on a 'Fat Guys At the Movies' segment.

Mothers should be against this, but not for the ooooohhhh "killer" Santa, but for the fact this movie was just plain crap. Boring, long  even at only 92 minutes, crap.

Little boy sees Santa arrive down a chimney in 1947, deliver presents, eat some goodies and miraculously, float up the chimney. Boy goes to bed, but returns to living room to witness Mommy and Santa (sort of) getting it on. Apparently this messed up that kid for the rest of his life, though the scene was about as steamy as when Ralphie's dad got the "Leg Lamp" in 'A Christmas Story.' He was sooo disturbed, he went to the attic and, well cut his own hand.

Fast forward to the future! Now, it's 1980 and messed up boy works in a toy factory. We get a whiff of him being a little off-kilter, and he stalks both kids and parents alike. Who's naughty, who's nice, blah blah. It takes a good two-thirds of the film to get him to finally snap  as if that's not foreshadowed from frame one. NO MOVIE should take that long.

I will admit, this movie had its tension building, but only because I kept expecting him to do something, anything to anyone. When he finally does, well, punish "who's naughty," it's as graphic as a "Garbage Pail Kid" card. And I haven't mentioned the WTF ending. I'm thinking it was a metaphor, but in reality, it's just as weird as the rest of the movie. (Take the brother who's upset his sibling is killing, and his solution isuh, killing.) Don't open this mess, even on Christmas Eve, or Evil. Again, I didn't watch the other "Santa-Slashers" but this one sucked bad. It built up suspense due to the nature of the movie and never once delivered a decent present.


I saw mommy...well, she wasn't exactly kissing Santa Clause; he has his hand on her thigh and wicked thoughts in mind.

This was enough to emotionally scar a young boy who wanted to believe. He grew up to be a bitter man who was upset at the quality of the toys being made, and the lack of Christmas spirit.

Expecting a real slasher flick, I was very disappointed that less than a handful of people dies, and there was no nudity at all. What a bummer.

I wanted to like this flick, but it was just too slow and really didn't have a good script. I didn't expect great acting, but I sure wanted some action. There just wasn't any.


Yes, I am just going to tell you about this one so don't read if you want surprises. I got this one with the title Christmas Evil. There was also another Christmas horror on the DVD called Silent Night, Bloody Night. Whereas Silent Night, Bloody Night (not to be confused with Silent Night, Deadly Night) had lots of potential and was very close to being good, this one wasn't quite as good. It started out interesting enough watching the villain (if you can call him that) watching the neighborhood kids and writing in books about who is naughty and nice, but after awhile you are looking for some action and this movie doesn't deliver. You need character development, but this goes overboard and you are still never sure why the heck the guy snaps. About an hour in he kills three of four people while a whole crowd watches in terror, and the guys he kills aren't even his targets they are just making fun of him. This is one of many unsuccessful attempts by the killer to knock of the naughty. He then proceeds to try and kill this other guy, and he tries to break into his house by squeezing himself into the fireplace. He promptly gets stuck and barely manages to get out. He then enters through the basement and then tries to kill the guy by smothering him in his bedroom. He can't seem to kill the guy this way so he grabs a star off the tree and slits the guys throat. What the heck was a tree even doing in the bedroom in the first place? Oh yeah, the killer before this kill stopped off at a party and had some fun too. Well that is about it except for the town people chasing him with torches and the unresolved part with his brother and that tune he wants to play. What was that even about? He kept talking about something that was never really explained. How does it end you ask, well since I have spoilers I will tell you. He runs off the road in his van and proceeds to, well lets just say it was lame!!!!!!!!!!!!


This movie is not that interesting, except for the first ten minutes. The pace and editing are a perfect introduction in an ensemble piece, even better than say Gosford Park. Then it inexplicably slows down, loses focus and starts resembling a traditional French movie only to regain focus in the end with the love relation between Antoine (Depardieu) and Cécile (Deneuve). In the middle there are too many sidelines and loose ends in the story, several threads started are not ended.

*******SPOILERS AHEAD The main story is the relation between Antoine and Cécile. He has been loyal to her after his relation with her many years ago, despite her remarrying and setting up home in Morocco. As builder he now rebuilds his own life and recovers hers by taking the mask of Cécile's marriage. Having accomplished this, he is buried after a freak accident (literally) and becomes a comatose. He wakes only after she has burned their old picture as indication that they've reconciled with the past and can properly start their lives again together. *******END OF SPOILERS

It remains unclear what vision this director wants us to see us because there are so many other stories here: Illegal immigrants want to enter Europe, there are frequent radio broadcasts about the overthrow of Iraq's former regime. Cécile's child is bisexual and is bitten by dogs (loyalty) once he meets his boyfriend, whereas the girl he lives with seems to be sick (of that?). Her sister is traditional Islamic, and enters a relation with Cécile's husband. It portrays Morocco as unnecessary backward, despite all the building there is a strange colonial vision shining through that almost glorifies the past. It portrays Islam as backward and prone to extremism, which may sometimes be true, but certainly not in general. In the end it can all best be described as adding some couleur locale and l'art pour l'art.

Deneuve and Depardieu are great. With this material they are so familiar they are able to spin something extra in every scene: lifting an eyebrow, body language, radiating pride, awkward behavior. The movie itself is disappointing and only confirming the limited role of French cinema in the world nowadays. With some notable exceptions of course.


Ok I will sum up this movie... A bunch of skanky British women have some disease that basically is turning them into zombies. The whole movie consists of these women talking, smoking, and rarely going out for "meat" Or humans to eat. I swear I had to MAKE myself watch this movie... UGH


Unfortunately, the realism is boring. This movie, I thought it would never end, would have been better if all the characters would have been nuked in the first five minutes. Where's Blade when you need him? While as dismal as COMBAT SHOCK, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and as nightmarish as BOISE MOI, DEAD CREATURES isn't nearly as entertaining as any of the aforementioned bleak movies. While the gratuitous cannibalism might make the wannabe Jeffery Dalmers hearts race a little faster, it wasn't nearly as interesting as RAVENOUS. Really, I found it about as interesting as late-night infomercials, and as exciting as a trip to the dentist. If you have strong masochistic qualities, you might be able to endure this, otherwise, for no one. I was really surprised that this one wasn't made by the people at Brain Damage as that was the quality of Dead Creatures.


SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I watched half of this movie and I didn't like it.

First reason: Boring. Barely anything happens, the women sit around and discuss how terrible their lives are and how they have no hope, they smoke weed, read magazines, care for their sick friend, and cut up the occasional dead body. BORING!!!!

Second reason: There are too many things left unexplained. Many scenes are dedicated to a zombie hunter who kidnaps random men, restrains them in a chair and interrogates them. Who are these men? How do they know anything about illegal activity concerning the diseased flesh eaters? Why does he kill one and let another one go?

Also there is this dude who at first I thought also had the flesh eating disease but he puts his fist through a wall with superhuman strength suggesting he's not quite what we originally thought-never explained! How frustrating is that?

Conclusion: I found the women annoying, the story uninteresting, the duologue tedious, and the action non-existent. Also the cover art is misleading since it makes you believe this movie is going to be cool when it clearly isn't. I rented this movie based on some of the reviews made by other people on this website, and although I respect the fact that some people might have enjoyed this flick, I will from now on make sure I read more than two reviews deep into a movie so as to avoid renting another movie I regret seeing.


This movie is one of those I regret having invested 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back in. The premise is really interesting - essentially it's a zombie flick from the perspective of the undead (let's not split hairs as to whether they're actually dead or not}. Unfortunately, they fail to deliver a compelling story within this framework. The nearly unbearable monotony of the lives of the central characters may add to the realism of the film, but it sucks all the entertainment value right out of it. If they had put a little more effort toward keeping the viewer engaged, it would have been much more likely that they drive home the social commentary.


A bunch of women who can't act sit around, talk, smoke pot. They have another woman in a wheelchair they hide because she is deformed, and occasionally they kill some one to feed this person human flesh that really looks like some store-bought ham which they dressed up by sticking on a few plastic fingers. We don't see them killing anyone, suddenly there is a body on the floor, covered by a bloodied sheet. I can't eat Spam cover by a sheet anymore because of this. Just the thought of Spam cover by a sheet is enough to induce the same narcoleptic fit brought on by trying to get through all of this movie. Occasionally there are randomly inserted scenes of a guy who is "hunting" them by way of torturing some guy he strapped to a chair is his basement. Why he caught this guy and how he is connected to the Sit-On-The-Couch Sisters is never explained. There are also scenes of some "superhuman" guy freaking out. He p***es blood and punches through a wall, but who he is or what is wrong with him is neither explained nor even tied in to the story.

There is no action, no special effects, no story. If you want to watch some boring people talk in a profound way about nothing while sitting around and eating ham and smoking, then here's 90 minutes of that, because, except for a scene where one chick does some hooking on a street corner and the aformentioned random scenes, absolutely NOTHING happens. (YAWN) Oh, I almost forgot, you get to see them move some stuff, including the deformed sister, when they move to their new apartment. Its one of the few times they're not sitting on a couch or lying in bed.


"ASTONISHING" Screams the LA Times from the front of the DVD box. They must have been referring to the fact that such a sorry piece of crap was ever released. The film revolves around a bunch of girls who have a disease which forces them to become cannibals, and murder innocent people just to stay alive. Their skin peels off throughout the film, we also see severed legs, heads etc that are about as convincing as a Halloween Fuzzy Felt set. There is an awful lot of talking b*ll**ks, a bit of human cuisine and some weird zombie hunter chap who imprisons the sufferers of said skin illness in his closet strapped to a chair, before stabbing them in the head, chopping them into bits...

You get the picture. Considering there is no acting talent on display at all, and the gore is laughably unrealistic, what is the point of this whole farrago? Again looking at the video box, the guy responsible for it is an "underground cult director". Would that be like those weird religious cults where they brainwash you into thinking one way when clearly the opposite is true? Because that's the only possible reason I can think of for anyone to derive pleasure by watching this tax write-off. Then, on the same paragraph he compares himself to Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and George Romero. HAHAHAHAHA oh stop it. Now you're just being silly.

Do you enjoy this film? Are you offended by the above opinion? If so, you must be a member of said cult. Do they pocket your wages? Do they let you see other family members? Do they force you to watch Andrew Parkinson films till you think he's the best director since A.Hitchcock? Do tell... this sounds like a Panorama special brewing to me. And say hello to the critic of the LA times when you return to your colony, will you? 0/10


I chose "Dead Creatures" because I thought it was a zombies movie just like "28 days" or so... but not at all. It isn't even a horror movie. Nothing happens, except for a group of women that seem to have been infected by a strange virus that make her to eat human flesh in order to survive.

That plot gives rise to a series of disgusting scenes of cannibalism...

Very VERY BAD MOVIE.

*My rate: 2/10

------------------

------------------


How did this ripoff of "Being There" ever get to be so loved? People say it's proof that a decent, honest man can succeed despite lack of intelligence. They're wrong. The movie is proof that luck is everything: hope your friend invests all your money in Apple and not Atari; hope your shrimp boat is the only one out at sea when a storm breaks; hope that you don't die of shock when you're luckily shot in the buttocks and not in the back; hope you don't get AIDS from your wife. This movie is also politically reactionary -- all who rebel against societal convention lose their legs, do drugs, beat their girlfriends, or die young. In addition, the product placement in this film (Nike and Dr. Pepper) is shameless. An emotionally manipulative film that is very, very empty.


The first half of the film is OK, the second half one of the most tedious experiences imaginable. Quite possibly the most overrated movie of all time. "Pulp Fiction" was robbed for "Best Picture." This is one of those films that people feel required to love because the main character is "slow."


Great CGI effects & a truly Oscar-worthy performance by Gary Sinise as Lt. Dan.

Tom Hanks is a one-trick pony in this movie, how he got the Best Actor Oscar that year over Morgan Freeman was a crime.

This movie is a pandering treacly love letter to the baby boom generation, with a barely concealed right-wing prejudice, beginning from Forrest's service in Vietnam all the way through to the "resolution" with Jenny at the end.

With that said, though, it is hugely entertaining and an American movie through and through. I found certain parts of this film exceedingly offensive, Zemeckis dumbs down this movie almost to the level of Gump himself . . .maybe that was the point he was trying to make.

Watch this film and ask yourself "What is Robert Zemeckis saying about what makes a good American?"

Forrest seems to have made the "right" choices and been at the "right place at the right time" for the last 45 years. Those who are wrong according to the director's vision seem to pay a heavy price. So is Zemeckis saying that idiocy disguised as innocence and naivety is a patriotic, even AMERICAN quality?


I loved "Anchorman; The Legend of Ron Burgundy" and hoped this would be just as funny, but alas, it wasn't. Some bits are excellent though. I thought the sports guy, Champ Kind, professing his love for Ron Burgundy in the car filled with the other members of the news team was hilarious. Everyone is ignoring him and he just gets louder and louder and finally kisses Burgundy which doesn't get acknowledged either. But on the whole the story doesn't gel. It's a noble attempt, however, to salvage the unused bits from the first movie, including an entire plot about some pretty benign would-be domestic terrorists called "The Alarm Clock." Maya Rudolph of Saturday Night Live is one of the members and has a couple of funny lines, but basically this unused plot line has good reason to be unused in the first movie. The extras on this disk are pretty good, with the best two being the filmed rehearsals featuring lots of improv comedy, and the faux commentary with Will Ferrell and an "exec producer" who Ferrell discovers early on was not even a part of the movie in any way, shape or form. Turns out he's "just a guy" who walked in the side door of the recording studio and pretended to be a producer. It's some pretty funny stuff though and goes on for about 10 or 15 minutes


Look, I loved the PROPER Anchorman film, but this was reaaaaallly bad. The kind of bad that makes you wish you could get that time back in your life, the kind of bad that makes you think "what on Earth were they thinking to film this in the first place", the kind of bad that makes you wish you'd taken 50 more minutes when stepping into the kitchen to grab a snack during the film, the kind of bad that makes leprosy look fun, the kind of bad that makes you think you wish you rented a Pauly Shore film instead....seriously, I cannot explain how very bad this was.

Having said that....there were some semi-amusing laughs, but they are all so much LESS funny than Anchorman. Sure, they tried to make it entertaining and fun, but the entire subplot that was left out of Anchorman that made it here was genuinely left out for a good reason...it wasn't even a little bit good.

Do yourself a favour (or in the USA, a favor), and don't watch this DVD...it will tarnish the good movie that Anchorman is and you don't want to do that.

Okay...I'm alright now.


Pieced (edited) together from dead body parts (deleted scenes) from corpses (Anchorman), the Frankenstein Monster (Wake Up, Ron Burgundy) is definitely not a sight for sore eyes (something you'd ever want to watch twice.....maybe even once for that matter.)

More often than not -the relativity of the scenes in WURB are made relevant by a third person narrator. Even more troubling is that the characters in WURB are inconsistent with the versions of themselves that we had at the end of Anchorman (in opening narration we're told WURB takes place shortly after the original.) At the end of Anchorman, Burgundy had grown since the start of the film and embraced having a hybrid co-anchorwoman/lover. In this film, he's back to his immature antics with prank phone calls to Veronica (quite clearly these are the more of the same scenes from the original Anchorman spliced in to WURB.)

The part that makes this a movie, a continually evolving story, involves a bank-robbing clan without a cause called the Alarm Clock. These scenes are almost painful to sit through. This part was scrapped from the original scripts for Anchorman.

The majority of other scenes involving our Channel 4 news team are clearly alternate/deleted takes on scenes from Anchorman. They go to the same party as in the original, the same original "group bitching about having a woman on the team" scene, and the same cat fashion show segment that Veronica had objections to reporting.

Burgundy re-creates their first date with the drive-in spot overlooking San Diego and dinner at his favorite club, Tinos. Neither character make mention that they've been to the drive-in spot before and when Burgundy walks into Tinos with Veronica, he introduces it to her as though they've never been before. Oh, and they're wearing the same clothes as on their original date.

Still, I have to give some credit to the filmmakers - even if WURB is nothing more than a clever way of presenting deleted scenes tied together with narration. Between the two Ron Burgundy stories - this is the weaker one. Looking back on it, it's quite a feat for Anchorman to have risen from the ashes of WURB. You stay classy, IMDb. Thanks for stopping by.


A collection of Deleted scenes and alternative takes, edited together and with added voice-over to make it appear to take place after the events of the first. Pretty cool idea, but deleted scenes are left on the cutting room floor for a reason and this is further proof. As it's just not as funny as "Anchorman", and really let's face it THAT film wasn't exactly comedy gold either, so you get a 'movie' worse than one that was moderately funny. In my eyes that STILL puts it one or two notches above "Kicking and Screaming", or "Bewitched". Chross your fingers that "The Wedding Crashers" is a return to old school form (no pun intended)

My Grade: D


Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the "Golden Age." Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.

Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how "corrupt" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.

However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial.


I like a movie that has at least a vestige of a story. This doesn't occur in this movie. It's a series of vignettes with no cohesion.

There are scenes of a person collecting pineapple cans. A woman with a blond wig never removes her sun glasses. This woman shoots at other people at the beginning of the movie and we never find out why. She disappears completely after about 30 minutes. There is another coquettish woman who endlessly cleans a man's apartment. There are endless scenes at a fast food joint where the Mamas & Papas 'California Dreaming' is vastly overplayed (I used to like the song). The dialogue is mostly concerned with food (pineapples, chef's salad and ordering drinks). I assume most of the actors gained weight during this movie because a lot of fast food was consumed.

There is no passion in this movie because there is no story. This is purportedly a romance - it is no such thing. I just wonder why I didn't hit the Fast-forward. I kept waiting for something significant to happen  it doesn't. Maybe that's the only consolation to this movie - scenes shifted so rapidly that it tricked you into assuming that there was going to be a revelation to all the nonsense.


A never ending frenzy of clever visual ironies does not necessarily create an engaging film. The "Blonde Wig" half of the movie never took off perhaps due to too much self-indulgence by its makers.

 The Wong Faye half (featuring a very playful, if Karen Carpenter looking, Faye Wong) holds much more appeal. All the ingredients are there, however, the girl-meets-boy story element takes a back seat to artsy cleverness. Character development is uneven. Emotion is missing.

 For music lovers, Wong Faye's "Mung Jung Yun" (Cantonese version of the Cranberry's smash hit "Dreams") is used effectively in Chungking Express. Faye Wong also recorded a Mandarin language version called "Zhen Tuo." Both are on CD, although only "Mung Jung Yun" is found on the official movie soundtrack CD.


Average viewers looking for any sense of internal coherence in a film should probably give this one a pass. It generates the same feeling as staring at a curious array of individual images that seem to have some relationship one to another, but never coalesce into a totality.

While this isolative approach to creating a kind of cinematic montage may appeal to a few students or critics steeped in the inside language of contemporary filmmaking, it is flatly irritating and condescending to us commoners who just fell off the haywagon. An overt avoidance of accessibility may be the intentional hallmark of auteurs like Kar-wai Wong and Tarantino, but to me it comes across as Andy Warhol warmed over. The only redeeming characteristic I find is in the production values, and them there just ain't going to cut it all by themselfs.

This is one of those productions in which you watch and listen and wait anxiously and in vain for some clever development of an idea or thought to sustain all the remarkable and beautiful individual scenes. Sorry. The calligraphic credits unexpectedly begin to roll just as your interest begins to stir. I get the same big yawn and let-down reading what I guess are very knowledgeable and thorough comments about this film that never lead to anything truly comprehensible. Ideas and images without some external context are not my idea of fun.

Call me a philistine roaming the streets of Hong Kong looking for a bowl of chop suey.


I saw virtually no redeeming qualities in this movie. The only thing I did see was Quentin Tarantino's seeming insane obsession for it... There were some attractive women in this movie and perhaps that is one decent quality. Overall however, I found this movie surrealistic and ridiculous. The hand held film making coupled with slow motion and other cinematic gimmicks I found clumsy and dizzying, even sickening. Overall the music throughout was horrible and repetitive to the extreme as well reminding me of psychological warfare of the U.S. military against various malcontents.

The various vignettes that made up the movie are haphazard in their placement and unfulfilling and unresolved in their content and "conclusions." A depressing movie (not a true _film_, a term I reserve for true art) that left me with a bad feeling. Do not believe the various people that try and spin this as a "romantic comedy" though there are certainly isolated elements of both this movie repudiates in content, form, and conclusion any association with this genre.

I suggest staying far away notwithstanding the seemingly overwhelming positive views of IMDb and other ratings sources.


I am completely baffled as to why this film is even liked, let alone held in such high regard, especially by so many critics who are, otherwise, quite sensible.

There is one key word which describes this film to its core - irritating.

The most easily explained example of this is the director's use - or, more accurately, abuse - of music. In the first half, a really dull reggae tune is played about three times (when once is too often). But in the second half, The Mommas And The Papas "California Dreamin'" is played at least seven times, usually at top volume. Godsakes, whether you liked the song or not beforehand, you'd be thoroughly sick of it by the end. Just think, some people claim to have seen this film four or five times. This means they've listened to California Dreamin either 28 or 35 times.....

All of this needless hyper-repetition (it contributes nothing to the story) could possibly be excused if the remainder of the film had any lingering merit, or if the story was in any way involving.

But it ain't.

The only aspect I found likeable was Bridgette Lin's charging around and still playing Asia The Invincible in a raincoat and sunnies. Even this wore off fairly quickly.

I'm sure this film's undeserved high reputation will convince many poor suckers to go and see it.

I can only warn you - if you've never seen a HK movie before, don't start with this one.

If you feel compelled to watch it, avoid at all costs seeing it in a cinema. The fast-forward and mute buttons are essential tools for survival here.

You have been warned !


For those deciding whether or not to watch this movie and are reading these comments for insight, I first offer these four words: Don't waste your time! "Chungking Express" was shoddily filmed, slapped together quickly and seems as though it were conceived in its entirety by someone standing in line at a Hong Kong Burger King. I can't remember ever watching a film with an assortment of such one-dimensional characters trying to work their way through a script this mundane! It's an absurd effort with philosophically ridiculous dialog (a man wanders into his flooded apartment and offers the stunning revelation that "tears can be dried with a tissue, but water takes time to mop up"). The same character is also seen carrying on a deep, meaningful rapport with his towels, soap, stuffed animals, dirty laundry, etc. The shaky, wandering, hand-held camera-work was another annoying feature I could have done without. And if that isn't enough to make you puke in your popcorn, we hear the old 60's ode "California Dreaming" by the Mamas and Papas blaring over the soundtrack over and over again during a particularly lengthy sequence.

Quentin Tarantino was responsible for bringing this loser to America through his Rolling Thunder Productions company, though I cannot for the life of me figure out why a man with his talent would bother. He was known to have remarked, "I'm happy to love a movie this much." A lot of us, though, hope he will concentrate on making his audiences happy with more worthwhile discoveries in the future.


This film is another example of the curse of east Asian cinema: two or more separate stories rolled into one film. Other reviewers have obviously picked up on it as well because there are several mentions of the "first part" and "second part". How can you have any character development or a deep plot when the characters and the story are featured for such a short time? I was enjoying the first part until it abruptly stopped (it didn't "end", it just stopped in what appeared to be the middle of the story) to be replaced by an inane and totally unbelievable second part that seemed to focus around a girl rearranging and cleaning a guy's apartment (wow!) I look forward to the day when Wong Kar Wai is given a decent script to work with!


Be warned!

This is crap that other crap won't even deign to be in company with because it's beneath them! Okay, got that out of the way, let me say something more substantive.

I've seen Ashes of Time a very long time ago thinking it was a fresh take on the material which is based on a highly revered wuxia tome of a novel due to the emerging reputation of the director, Wong Kar Wai. Well, despite of all of that WKW hasn't succeeded at adapting the novel on screen according to a lot of wuxia fans; mostly it is just shots of dripping water, beads of sweats, legs of horses running, etc. I couldn't sit through most of the movie.

Fast forward many years later when I wanted to give Mr. Wong's movies another shot after hearing many praises, especially from Cannes. I was intrigued by his latest, 2046. A friend told me to start w/ Chungking Express because it is his most accessible movies. So wrong! I was just p.o. that I got duped into wasting my time and money on this piece of pretentious nothingness. Some professional reviewers mentioned it as a meditation on alienation and loneliness in a modern big city, blah, blah, blah. It's all fine if the director has a point of view with something to say as to why these things happen and tell it. But no, he merely shows what is. Faye Wong's acting is very typical of Hong Kong's style: garbled enunciation, deer in the headlight wide eye expression, try to be cute and girlish kind of acting; the rest of the cast is equally uninspired.

I think the word, Auteur, is a euphemism for a director who tries something new and different, which is to be applauded, but not one who hasn't yet mastered the art of cinematic story telling, which is what Mr. Wong is, for the last 17 years!


I saw this on cable recently and kinda enjoyed it. I've been reading the comments here and it seems that everyone likes the second half more than the first half. Personally, I enjoyed the first story (too bad that wasn't extended.) The second story, I thought, was cliched. And that "California Dreaming," if I hear that one more time... Chungking Express is alright, but it's not something that mainstream audiences will catch on to see, like "Crouching Tiger."


i checked this one out on DVD for a dollar so I could easily smile as this dreadful movie unfolds. every time that you think it cannot get any worse, it inevitably does. The acting is absolutely horrific. the plot makes no sense at all. The title "cold vengeance" in the US DVD version has absolutely nothing to do with the script. The action scenes are so obviously taken in their first take. There are lots of mistakes during dialogues indicating that there is just no intend to do another take to at least try to make this movie bearable. I cannot remember having seen a worse movie and I do occasionally get bad ones--well, except for unstoppable with Wesley Snipes. No, who am I kidding, while a bad one, Unstoppable deserves Best Picture awards at the Oscars when compared to this piece of crap.


What a shame it is when a potentially captivating and refreshingly low-key story manages to latch onto your interest at the start and then gradually lets you down further and further until you're left scratching your mystified head by the time it reaches its overdone conclusion. Unfortunately, this is what happened to me by the end of WHITE NOISE.

It wasn't Michael Keaton's fault; it was a pleasure to see him return as the star of a brand new movie once again, looking a bit wrinkled perhaps, but still managing to give a strong and sincere performance. As a man whose wife has recently died, he becomes obsessed with her wandering spirit in the afterlife (not a new idea), apparently getting contacted by her through that funky electrical fuzz business you see on your television screen when there's nothing being broadcast.

The idea of spirits communicating via the airwaves is called EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) and there are a lot of people who actually believe in it for real, so I'm not going to make any comments about what I think of that, or them. Let me just say that I'm all for suspension of disbelief when it comes to buying into fantastic films like this, but what I can't tolerate is not understanding what the hell was supposed to be taking place, which is about where I was left stranded when the credits finally began to roll. Much static indeed.

There are occasionally movies like this that have me completely baffled, but if a film fails to make itself clear for me, I tend to consider that to be the fault of the filmmaker, not my own (unless I watched it while I was too tired to focus or something). Well, for WHITE NOISE I was wide awake, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed -- so guess who's to blame?


I first heard about White Noise when I saw the TV advert. Before then I didn't even know it existed. I watched the trailer online and decided that I would go and see it. Now being a fan of films like The Sixth Sense, I thought that this film would give me everything I wanted. It has Michael Keaton in it, and he rocks. Unfortunately the film did not deliver. It tried to be another Sixth Sense or Stir of Echoes, and failed miserably. It has a very promising start, but the middle just drags on repeating itself, and ends with a completely poor twist which any monkey could have figured out. Unfortunately like most "Scary" films nowadays it relies on loud noises and bangs to make the audience jump. This film could have been so much more. It's a shame because it was a good idea.


Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones ("Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.") etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves ("D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement)."). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, "It's Anna!"


I frequently comment on the utter dirth of truly scary movies on the market, and sadly White Noise only served to reduce my faith that the film industry remains capable of such an endeavor. I was surprised to find myself growingly increasingly fatigued as the plot wore on and my static-induced headache increased. I found White Noise to be preposterous beyond our best efforts of suspension of disbelief. Even after witnessing the harrowing ordeal sustained by Michael Keaton, I was totally unaffected by his demise. Up until the credits I diligently awaited for something--anything-- of substance to connect me to the characters' story, but such relief never came. Sure, there were the occasional heart-stopper moments, but only because loud noises tend to do that to the dozing viewer.

While the acting was lame, Michael Keaton may have played his studliest role to date. Perhaps the only redeeming quality that White Noise has to offer is the stunning archietecture in both of Keaton's abodes. Overall, White Noise leaves one with the morbidly depressing idea that those who die are trapped in a world guarded by three malicious shadows, contriving to trick the living into following the dead to their own graves.


The idea was awesome, the actors were incredible, the story could of been very scary, but the writing was poor and there was no depth. I couldn't really get into this movie. I couldn't feel for the characters, there were a lot of cliffhangers, and the movie just ends very weirdly. Was it a happy ending? I don't know. Was it a sad ending? Again, I don't know. You leave the theater feeling unsatisfied. The movie had so much to give, but couldn't. Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should, right? I wouldn't really recommend this movie because you just can't say that you left the movie feeling like it was completed. You'll just be confused. Trust me, you will probably thank me if you don't watch this movie.

3/10


I don't think I've ever been so bowled over by the sheer absurdity of a movie in my entire life as i was when i walked out of this piece of crap. NOTHING in it makes any sense. none of it is clever or well thought out. out of lack of truly suspenseful moments they repeatedly use that total cop-out trick where you build up the music before the character does something like open a door or push aside a curtain and then nothing's there. thats OK to do once, maybe, but i counted three times. there are things thrown in for no apparent reason, characters, half-formed story lines.... the characters weren't well developed at ALL. the ending was.. bad. bad, bad, bad, everything, every component, of this film is terrible. and I'm just here to warn you all of that.


John Rivers' life as an architect and family man has taken a turn for the worst when his wife has disappeared and has been concluded dead after a freakish accident that involved changing a tyre on her car. During the days she has been missing, he confronts a man that's been following and he tells him that his been in contact with his dead wife from the other-side through E.V.P - Electronic Voice Phenomenon. Naturally he doesn't believe it but then hear gets weird phone calls from her phone and so he contacts the man to find out more about E.V.P. Soon enough John is hooked onto it, but something supernatural doesn't like him interfering with the dead, as now other then contacting his wife, the white noise is foretelling events before they happen.

Since this DVD has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, I thought I better get around to watching it since it wasn't my copy. But then again I don't think the owners were in a hurry to get it back, as they haven't question me about it. Oh well. So I decided to give it a play, as I was in an undemanding mood. After hearing and reading all the bad press on it, I wasn't expecting anything remotely good, but I was kept entertained for 90 minutes. Well, more so the 60 minutes, as the last half-an-hour was pretty much a blur of confusion. The film is nowhere as good as it could have been, but the time breezed by quick enough even though it's a rather tepid supernatural thriller. I thought it wasn't all a waste. The first hour I found some effective sequences rather interesting and there's a spooky awe generated with a slow progression of subtle stillness and tragedy that haunts you, but sadly that comes to a crashing halt later on in the film. That's when the predictably forced jump scares come into their own and somehow it just doesn't fit in with the context. It becomes rather hectic, loud and very muddled with its MTV style editing and kinetic camera-work that gets to close into the action. I couldn't understand what was going on within choppy and abrupt climax. The whole explanation how everything fits into the bigger picture is pure hokey. It's a very unsatisfying conclusion because it goes for something big, but hits rock bottom. I thought they did fine job up until that point with the lighting and showy camera-work. Other then the distinctively stark lighting, the score kept this flick atmospherically gloomy. All of it is very slickly done with its glossed up and fancy hardware, which makes it come across as very sterile and empty.

You can easily see that the film's heart is in the technical components and not in expanding the characters and story. There's just no connection and lasting sentiment within this flimsy material. After a while, it just tries too hard to convince you that it falls into manipulative thrills and popping in many blood-curdling stuff from beyond the grave. It just got rather repetitious watching someone watch a fuzzy TV screen after while. The E.V.P machine was the star on the show. Well, it did have more impact than the limp performances. Michael Keaton is more than capable actor, but lately his disappeared off the map and here he provides a modest performance as the dangerously obsessed John Rivers. He really deserves much better, though. Everyone else is pretty brittle and forgettable. Not because of the performances, but of the lack of depth in their characters. This clunker wasn't bad to begin with, but it does go pear shape by falling away drastically.

I wouldn't care to see it again and I wouldn't recommend to anyone, unless you got a interest for the subject matter and enjoy the recent crop of Hollywood produced horror/thrillers. It's just a damn shame that this over-produced flick couldn't put it together successfully, as it had promise in its idea and a more than decent cast on hand. I didn't hate it, but what a disappointment.


I saw the trailer for this film a few months prior to its release, and MAN, did it look scary, Especially how this film was based on a real life phenomenon. I was incredibly interested, and thought that this could finally be a decent horror/thriller film after years if crap. Well you know how movie trailers make a film look better than it is: maybe by showing all of the creepy parts or by overdramaticizing certain elements. The advertisements for the movie did both, which lead to my ultimate disappointment.

By no means is this "the most disturbing movie in years". Hell, I doubt it was the most disturbing movie of that week's release. This movie takes the whole "based off of fact" thing too far.

This movie wasn't complete crap. I must admit, it held my interest and Micheal Keaton was believable as a man searching for answers by supernatural means. Other than that, though, this film is one big cliché. After John's wife dies, he learns about EVP, which transmits the voices of the dead into everyday electronic appliances. He all of the sudden receives messages from his wife! My God! It's not just his wife reaching him, it's other dead people. Gee, imagine that. A movie about helping dead people. Come on, give me a break! The clichés don't stop there. There's also the obligatory clock-stopping-at-the-same-exact-time-every-night trick and three evil spirits that menace our hero. Not only was the movie cliché, it WASN'T SCARY. The film literally had two jump scenes, and those two scenes are almost identical. The ending is horrible, as it leaves the door WIDE OPEN for a sequel. There's also an ending message with a message saying how only 1 out of X voices heard through EVP are threatening, with a nice happy tune playing. Way to break the mood, you guys. Jeez! In the end, if you want another forgettable horror film, see White Noise. The only reasons I could possibly think anyone would watch this film for is that either that the person is a Keaton fan or that they are interested in EVP. Sure, the EVP aspects may be slightly interesting, but I don't like my movie concepts to be shoved down my throat and blown up in my face. This film tries to be scary, original, and disturbing, but it's just the opposite. You know you have a lame movie when the commercials use the ghosts to talk about there film. "I WILL SEE THIS FILM NO MORE."


Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) suddenly becomes a widower when his wife dies. Soon after, he's approached by a Dr. Price, an expert in Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), who claims he's been receiving messages from Jonathan's departed wife Anna via sundry electronic gadgets. Is Anna trying to tell Jonathan something? Is this merely a hint of something on a larger cosmic or otherworldly scale? It's good to see Keaton in a leading role, but the story he's stuck with is convoluted and absurd at points; it's as if the movie doesn't know how to answer any of the questions it brings up, so it just distracts the viewer with new, unrelated questions.

Keaton himself is pretty good, convincingly cast as the bereaving widower desperately trying to communicate with his late wife. He's matured quite a bit as an actor, leaving behind the frat-friendly waacky-hijinks roles he played 15 or so years earlier. He looks a little craggy, with a perhaps few more wrinkles than one might expect, but he's lost none of the guile and panache that he's shown during his quarter century in Hollywood.

So it's not that Keaton turns in a mediocre performance, it's that the script itself is subpar. Written by Niall Johnson, the plot gets more confusing as it progresses, each tortuous path ending in another tortuous path. This is all well and good if the path leads to some sort of acceptable denouement, something that ties more or less everything together and explains... something. But not White Noise; I knew less about what had happened to Jonathan than I did before I'd first seen him.

Keaton's really the only reason to watch this junk, although he gets fine support from Ian McNeice (as Dr. Price) and Deborah Kara Unger as the requisite love interest.


As a cinema fan White Noise was an utter disappointment, as a filmmaker the cinematography was pretty good, nicely lit, good camera work, reasonable direction. But as a film it just seamed as predictable as all the other 'so called' horror movies that the market has recently been flooded with. Although it did have a little bit of the 'chill factor' the whole concept of the E.V.O (Electronic Voice Phenomena) did'not seem believable. This movie did not explain the reasonings for certain occurrences but went ahead with them. The acting was far from mind blowing the main character portrayed no emotion, like many recent thriller/horror movies.

Definitely not a movie I will be buying on DVD and would not recommend anyone rushes out to see it.


"White Noise" had potential to be one of the most talked about movies since "The Exorcist" I think. Seeing as EVP is supposedly true it really had an easy passage to be a feared true fact. Not many movies come along that really instill fear into the minds of people. Like I said this movie could have, but did not. The movie degraded itself to a low class PG-13 scary movie. Nothing compared to "The Ring" or "The Sixth Sense" by any means. Someone really needs to just take charge in the horror movie industry and just make a movie that not only makes us think, but it makes us jump, scream, everything a horror movie should do. I'm honestly sick of the PG-13 Horror Genre, because its becoming a genre of its own. We need the old days back, the blood and gore days, the Freddy Kruger, the Jason, The Mike Myers days. Few movies can pull off a think about this mentality being so NOT scary. So why try to pull it off? A few good jumps in this movie amount to nothing but one of the stupidest endings in movie history with no resolution at all...don't waste your money on this movie.


Okay, I struggled to set aside the fact that in selling EVP as real the movie was basically lying to me from the get-go. I reasoned that hell, I don't believe in vampires but I still liked Dracula so I could live with this.

However, even with that accepted the movie is just not very good. It's competently made and acted, but it doesn't really capture you at all. There are several "jump" moments, and I just looked at them and thought "yeah, I didn't expect that" without actually jumping in the slightest.

Also the resolution doesn't make sense. If the force behind this is capable of doing the things it seems to be, then why the hell does it need to use a proxy? Plus, the end caption was absurd. They obviously put it there as part of the "give the movie credibility by claiming it's all real" thing, but for that to work it really needs to be at the start. But they can't put it at the start because then they give the plot away... sticking it in at the end just made it stick out like a sore thumb.


Michael Keaton has really never been a good actor; in the Tim Burton Batman movies he always falls in the shadows of his great villains. Here, he stars as a widowed husband that picks up radio frequencies that seems like is dead people that tries making contact with the living...

Well, this is supposed to be a pretty shocking thriller, but it really misses about every spot there is shocking you. Because there's way too much stuff that ends up unexplained, undiscovered and uninteresting. So where's the shocking excitement when it all gets so bad movie made in the first place that WHITE NOISE makes a fool out of itself? Truly bad acting and horrifying edited, this movie is nothing to watch. Michael Keaton tries making a thriller comeback but ends up missing the target more than ever.


LOC could have been a very well made movie on how the Kargil war was fought; it had the locations, the budget, and the skill to have been India's "Saving Private Ryan" or "Black Hawk Down". Instead it come across as a bloated, 4 hour bore of trying to meld the war move with the masala movie. Even the war scenes were terribly executed, using the same hill in all their battle scenes, and spending unnecessary time on casual talk. Instead of trying to appeal to the indian public, a better movie would have been a to-the-book account of what happened at Kargil (like "Black Hawk Down") or even spending time on the militant point of view (like "Tora, Tora, Tora"). Even better, it could have used a competent director like Ram Gopal Verma to write, direct and edit the film. Until then, I'd like to see some one re-edit this film, with only the pertinent portions included; it would make the movie more watchable.


Storyline: The film spanning 4-odd hours covers in adequate details the happenings at the Kargil sector near the LOC in 1999 when the Pakistani infiltrators had crossed the LOC and had entered deep into the Indian territory and the Indian Retaliation. To know more about the story, I would suggest readers to read the news-items pertaining to Kargil.

Comment: If one is looking for a formula story in this movie, then one can be sure that it is absent. LOC is a story of Pure sacrifice, patriotism, courage and lots and lots of bullets and Blood. The movie hall where I saw this film was full of whistles and cheers when the Film shows Indian Bravery. Movie audience seemed similar to Audiences like in an India vs Pak cricket match.

Watch the movie as a tribute to the Army's sacrifice and for the characterization of the real-life war heroes (4 PVC honoured heroes) who have sacrificed their lives so that we could see this day. The movie has made a brilliant portrayal of the Army who have battled all odds in rough weather conditions. The film's negatives are that it is too stretched and the songs are extremely boring.


If you have seen very less films, this might be a big one for you. If you have seen lot of films, this is a joke. The acting of real heroes is portrayed very badly. Not to mention, there are songs, there are lot of flashbacks, and most importantly, the fighting scenes are stupidily performed. New characters, good direction, would have done a better job, but since it contains all the bollywood heros/heroines, you can predict whats going to happen next. You do not feel sad when something happens, the emotions they protray is terrible, mainly because we have seen this actor in 1000 other hindi movies. It suppose to be a realistic movie, but it fails to show. There are times you wondering, you have thousands of army vehical filled with soldiers moving and the pakistanis are bombing at them and none of their bomb hits them. Are the pakis really bad at aiming or the director made them look stupid? There were only a few characters acting that was very good, but as far it is concerned with plot, action, it is poorly directed. This movie could have been short if they took out songs, flashbacks, stick to the point.


There's nothing new for me to say: 4 hours of people dying over and over in the same hill. The cast was stellar, but unfortunately the producer/director/editor/God goofed. He should have eaten humble pie (if not for his own sake then for the men who died in Kargil), hired one of these brilliant Bollywood directors, hired a real scriptwriter, hired a real editor, hired a musician that wasn't related to him in some way (and who seemed to have listened to some bad version of "Apocalypse Now" on some cheap Indian drug), hired a real professional crew, thrown away all the fireworks and told a real story. Unfortunately he, like the bigwigs of the Indian Army, made decisions that were terrible for his actors, and terrible for his audience. We all died over and over.

Please don't do that again, Sir! Sushma Kathmandu, Nepal

ps: Next time an Indian director decides to glorify the Gurkha regiment, I suggest he hire more than one Nepali to represent the team. Surely there are plenty of Nepali men working in Bombay--last count was 40,000 to half a million.


Okay, I was bored and decided to see this movie. But I think the main thing that brought this movie down was that there would be a hour of footage, then basically that same hour repeated 4 times. It consists of 1. Gathering the troops and discussing the attack plan, 2. Flashbacks to the men's wives 3. The approach of the troops marching in a long line 4. Men running up hill and shooting, usually the first getting shot in the head then 3 other men rescuing him. 5. Defeat of the enemy and calling to base to tell of success 6. Men flashing back to wives and singing 10 minute songs. That was the basic movie, and that same order of events happened about 4 or 5 times. and every time it did a flashback to the wives, it would show the man, then his wife and him. There were about 10 men or more who would have a flashback so this took up tons of time. Other than that, the men couldn't kill their enemy except with either bayonets or grenades. I liked the music and there was a lot of action, though the action was repetitive. Overall, I probably wouldn't see it again, but it wasn't too horrible.


This film was the most longest film and the record breaking film for sure It had 30 actors After JAANI DUSHMAN(2002) i guess no one had the guts to do something like that

The film as the title suggests is based on the Kargil war but the problem is there are too many characters and the romantic subplots and the songs of many characters are boring

Even there are too many cinematic liberties like killing people with knifes, wonder which soldier does that?

Direction by JP Dutta pales front of BORDER Music is okay

Amongst the huge cast Ajay Devgan stands tall, Saif is very good in his part and also it's his first film with kareena, Abhishek is likable Manoj Bajpai has his moments Sanju is wasted, Suneil is okay Akshaye Khanna does his part well rest are passable Rani is good, Esha is okay rest are passable


This was a movie that I hoped I could suggest to my American friends. But after 4 attempts to watch the movie to finish, I knew I couldn't even watch the damn thing to close. You are almost convinced the actual war didn't even last that long. Other's will try to question my patriotism for criticizing a movie like this. But flat out, you can't go from watching Saving Private Ryan to LOC. Forget about the movie budget difference or the audience - those don't preclude a director from making an intelligent movie. The length of the movie is not so bad and the fact that it is repetitive - they keep attacking the same hill but give it different names. I thought the LOC was a terrible terrain - this hill looked like my backyard. The character development sequences (the soilders' flashbacks, looking back to their last moments, before being deployed) should have been throughout the movie and not just clumped into one long memory. To this day, I have yet to watch the ending. But there was a much better movie (not saying much) called Border.


Now please don't start calling me names like, "unpatriotic" , "weirdo" and more .

The very length of this movie (4 hours .. !!!) is its biggest mistake . No editing at all - seems like J.P. Dutta fell in love with his project too much . Even Lagaan was 4 hours long - but it was entertaining and gave a message as well .

It's based on true incidents and real people . Kudos to it , but were the repetitive war scenes really needed ? On top of it the focus constantly shifted from one battalion / squadron to another and it was impossible to keep a track of them all .

Between the skirmishes , there were songs about loneliness , lovesickness and related stuff . There were chummy conversations . In the beginning it gave some relief from the violence but became so monotonous later that one could even correctly predict nature of the forthcoming talk .

Why were the soldiers walking around as if they were lions in jungle , fully unaware that enemy was lurking somewhere near? And when they were shot , it elicited sympathy but it seemed unmindful of them to be so cocksure of their safety in the first place .

Music was melodious and the lyrics were soulful but did not fit with the movie . Better to listen to them on the soundtrack rather than in the movie .

Acting was the saving grace : From seasoned veterans like Sanjay Dutt and Ajay Devgan , to relative newbies like Abhishek Bachchan and Akshaye Khanna , everyone acted like a pro . Manoj Bajpai and Ashutosh Rana deserve a special mention for lightening up the mood whenever necessary .

Dialogues ranged from brilliant ("From Madhuri .. with Love!!") to illogical / monotonous ("Pakistan se zyada musalman Hindusthan mein hain") . And the expletive spree consisting of all the MCs , BCs , Cs and F-words wasn't really required .

LOC Kargil attempts to provide a fitting tribute to the brave Indian soldiers , but tries too hard and ultimately fails . Indian soldiers surely deserve a better tribute .


Is this the movie??? Is this what Indians are trying to show?? I think this is one more effort from a sick-minded director to turn down Pakistani soldiers and in fact country....but what we Pakistani's know that we are always ahead of India in every part of our lives...not only in armed counters.

Well...this is bad filmed as that of Border in early 1997...and director and writer just tried to overcome a shame of defeat in Kargil by Pakistani armed forces, by creating films like these..

One thing is very clear...Whenever there will be an encounter between Pakistan and India....we will win....!!! So Mr. Dutta try to make some good movies instead of Nonsense movies like this


I should put out an alert all over saying that the movie shouldn't be watched. It fails to a fitting tribute in such a magnificent manner that it is almost an insult to the memory of those brave men. The special effect were horrible, I hadn't expected the total failure on the part of the director to appreciate military technology. How can a machine gun which normally fires at the rate of 600 rounds per minute fire at 1/10th the speed? How can soldiers fall forward when a grenade explodes in front of them? How can people survive when there are artillery shells falling as close as 20 feet away? How come the artillery shells fall only on either side of the road and not the road itself?

Not only did this disrespect for the weaponry appall me, it was the cliched situations and the incongruity of the dialogues which had me screaming murder. There were the standard dialogues like Ye bhi kisi ka bhai hai, ise laath mat maro and Pakistan se jyaada musalmaan to Hindustaan me hai and LOC cross mat karo ye mera hukum hai. Stupid to say the least.

What Shobha De had written is true. The director worked without a script and it shows. There is no flow to the movie. There is no gradual progression from one battle to another. It is just one gunfight after the next with no connection to the overall scheme of the war. The explanatory scenes are awful. The chief of army staff looks unconvincing. To make matters worse the theatre people had indiscriminately cut footage to fit the four hour long movie into 3 hours.


I saw this movie with some Indian friends on Christmas Day. The quick summary of this movie is MUST AVOID. JP Dutta wrote, directed, produced and edited this movie and did none of these jobs well.

The movie tells the story of the attempt by Pakistan in 1999 to capture part of the disputed region of Kashmir from India. Supposedly based on fact, you get a hint from this movie of the difficulty the Indian army had in recapturing the area from the Pakistani troops - who occupied the high ground. But instead of telling what must have been a compelling and heroic story, all this movie does is make the Indian military look laughable and stupid, which I know is not true.

I watched this movie with an almost completely Indian audience, who were very patriotic and clearly wanted to like this movie, but also found themselves laughing at scenes that weren't meant to be funny.

The script was absolutely abysmal. It gave the impression that Mr Dutta knows nothing about how an army operates and was using bad war movies for reference. The result is a script that is brainless and repetitive.

The acting from most of the principals was not stellar, but considering the script they were given, I find it hard to criticise them too much. As for the supporting cast, all I can say is that I hope they were amateurs.

The editing was also pretty bad. It was pretty hard to follow what was going on for a lot of the time, and music would abruptly end at scene changes.

Good things: The cinematography was pretty good, although it was hurt a little by the fact that the movie didn't appear to be colour corrected (the colour balance often varied significantly within scenes). Also, the few songs that were in the movie were quite enjoyable - for the first half a dozen or so verses at least. Unfortunately they went on a LOT longer than they should have.

And the worst crime of all? This mess is FOUR HOURS LONG. There is enough here that a good editor could almost squeeze a good 1.5 - 2 hour movie out of what was shot. Sadly, a good editor was not working on this movie.


This movie was absolute torture. First of all, it's a whopping 4+ hours long! True, the Kargil war may have had several points that were captured and fought for, but every single one of those battles need not have been shown. So maybe this is a documentary, not a commercial film as advertised. Sure didn't seem like it, as enough background information was not given and there were some flaws. The battle sequences were so poorly executed. I am terribly disappointed from the man who gave well done sequences in Border. Each battle was the exact same as the previous. It was so predictable. (This might be a spoiler.) The whole army marches uphill, five or so soldiers curse five thousand times each (they also use the same cussword every time), one of the lead actors is shot, someone yells for a stretcher, the actor says, "No, don't get a stretcher. That will take 6 men from the battalion," and then an actor dies. That exact same thing happens over and over and over again. Oh, and the songs are so bad and so long. The cast of the movie is too big for its own good. Despite such a long movie, none of the characters were well developed. The actresses had the most miniscule roles. They all are dressed and portrayed to be the same. Two of them were weeping synchronized. It was so comical. They moved their hands and heads at the exact same time and then bit their dupatta together.

The list just goes on and on. I know I'm still forgetting something . Anyways, I think I have bashed the film enough that you get the picture.


I thought I read somewhere that this was the last Monogram production, but whether that's true or not it doesn't matter, because if it wasn't, then it should have been. It's a deadly dull affair starring John Carradine with some gray in his hair to make himself appear like an older scientist who is experimenting with the aid of his young apprentice (Robert Shayne) in bringing the dead back to life. Every time their subjects are revived, they seem to have a whitish face like marble as they are lying strapped to the laboratory table (big deal). Carradine manages to restore his faithful dog to life after it's dead, and the mutt gains an unusual ability to walk through walls in a ghostlike fashion (wooooooooohhhh). That's about all she wrote.

For an ultra-cheap Monogram quickie, this thing at least actually utilizes a more fancy-schmancy lab setup than is usually allotted. The funniest running joke in the movie is that the "older" doctor Carradine constantly refers to his "young" assistant Shayne as "m'boy" when, in fact, Carradine was actually 40 and Shayne was 45 when they made this!


A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.

Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.

There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.


My girlfriend has the habit of going to Blockbuster and choosing movies no-one has ever heard anything about. Admittedly, at times, it has led to some fun discoveries. Often times, the best that can be said is they definitely run an hour and a half.

She brought home "Advice From A Caterpillar." She was excited because the box said it was funny. Lucky for us, the propaganda on the boxes never lie.

This movie was an exercise in patience. This is one of those movies where, unless you are a pretentious and shallow person who likes watching movies about yourself, you will hate every character in the movie. Until the introduction of the one nice character. Which the lead annoying pretentious character will fall in love with and act in such a way that, in the real world, would drive anyone away.

MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON

So a bunch of emotionally vapid, stuck-up, pretentious artists swear off love and find success in their careers. Then, they meet a nice, intelligent, emotionally mature and loving character (an almost perfect guy). We then watch the woman, the annoyingly pretentious artist (in her 30's?) freak out as she falls in love. So she tries to flee from the nice, intelligent, emotionally mature man and stay with the married man with whom she's been having great but empty sex. She is rude to the man and does everything in her power to drive him away. In the real world, she would have been quite successful. I certainly wanted to flee from her and I wasn't even in a relationship with her!

Although its nice that the man 'fought for his love', I never wanted her to have him. (Nor did my girlfriend) She didn't deserve him. And, why I wonder, did the director think that the 'almost perfect guy' should be punished by having to win a relationship with her? When the artist was asking the 'almost perfect guy' to leave, we were screaming for him to leave too. There's a problem with a movie when the heroine of the film is so annoying, childish and stupid that you want her to fail.

Beyond that, let me say that Andy Dick made me laugh a few times even though his character was also pretentious to the point of annoyance. Regarding the other characters, they were well acted, morally bankrupt and annoying characters.

It is a comedy and I can say I did laugh a few times in the film. Unfortunately, not much laughing happened until the last 10 minutes or so. But by the time I had those laughs, I had been praying for the movie to end for far too long. I needed to get these vapid characters out of my life.

If you want to watch people you hate struggle with a love for people they don't deserve, then this is the movie for you.


This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy.


Why? Why did they make this movie? If Timothy Olyphant wasn't shirtless in it several times, there would be ABSOLUTELY no reason to watch this movie, ever. Um...Plot? Nope. Well-defined characters? nope. The only time I laughed was when my boyfriend made fun of the whole she-bang. P.S. Andy Dick? Nope.


Not a movie, but a lip synched collection of performances from acts that were part of the British Invasion, that followed the dynamic entrance of the Beatles to the music world. Some of these acts did not make a big splash on this side of the pond, but a lot of them did. Featured are: Herman's Hermits, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Peter and Gordon, Honeycombs, Nashville Teens, Animals, and of course,the Beatles.

It is so much fun watching these young acts before they honed and polished their acts.


Ostensibly a film that predicts the coming trends in British popular music, it's wrong on so many fronts that it's laughable. Tommy Quickly? The Honeycombs? The movie DOES include a song by the Spencer Davis group, two by the Animals, and one tacked on live film of the Beatles doing their live version of Twist and Shout (all 1:20). But all in all, an awkward display of British music circa 1964. Oh, and Herman's Hermits.