Hunters chase what they think is a man through the forest, though the audience sees he is a werewolf. The hunters never seem to realize this, because after they shoot him, he looks normal when they decapitate him.

A doctor transplants the werewolf's eyes into a man who lost his own in a laboratory experiment. The man, Rich, gets to have sex with his nurse (Stephanie Beaton) before he even gets his bandages removed.

After he leaves the hospital, he finds his wife has been cheating on him too. When a smoke machine sends clouds past an amateur painting of a moon (with a fake tree branch on the foreground), he turns into a werewolf! His torso grows larger, splitting his shirt, and he grows a giant werewolf mask on his head that has red lights in the eyes. His pants stay intact. The mouth chews unconvincingly, though some sort of robotics (or hidden hands) in the eyebrows give him a baleful look at times.

Despite the poor werewolf costume, there is a fair amount of blood and gore, and those are fairly well done. There's even a pretty good decapitation later in the movie. However, when a man falls from a height, a rather bad dummy does the job.

Rich has a friend named Siodmak who is some sort of occult expert, and he also accidentally stumbles across a small man with crutches named Androse who is also such an expert. They try to help him a little.

Rich kills people who have done him wrong. A policewoman investigates the murders and tries to hit on Beaton, who doesn't much care for lesbian scenes so nothing comes of it.

Quite cheap, but between the nudity and blood and gore, and a not-terrible story combining (sort of) The Most Dangerous Game with The Hands of Orlac and The Wolf Man, it's somewhat entertaining. Available on its own, or in the box set Scream Queens Vol. 1.


Eyes of the Werewolf (1999) is a really bad movie. The premise was real good but the overall execution was just terrible. I wished the filmmakers would have taken their time with this project instead of rushing it into production. Some blind dude gets some new eyes, bad thing is that they belong to a mean old werewolf. Nasty things begins to happen to the dude as he turns into a cheesy looking creature. Can he find a cure before his hot girlfriend finds out? Who is that weird little troll who helps him out and what's up with that female cop? If you really want to find out, check out Eyes of the Werewolf!

Not a bad idea for a movie. I just wished the filmmakers would have spent a lot for time in pre-production before they decided to shoot the movie.


A group of hunters track down a werewolf, kill it, decapitate it and then sell the head to unethical Dr. Atwill (played by director/writer Tim Sullivan), who runs a private clinic specializing in corneal transplants. Research chemist Rich Stevens (Mark Sawyer), whose eyes were destroyed when acid flew into his face during a lab explosion, is the unlucky recipient of the werewolf's eyeballs. It takes awhile to get to the first full moon, so first we get a tender love story between Rich and his compassionate, big-breasted nurse Sondra Gard (Stephanie Beaton). Sondra is so compassionate that she strips off her clothing and starts riding Rich in bed before he even has a chance to remove his bandages! After a month in the hospital, Rich returns home to icy wife Rita (Deborah Huber), who promptly tells him "You look pretty ugly" before speeding off in her Kia. Our hero soon discovers that Rita is not only a bitch, but an adulterous skank who's been carrying on an affair with his supposed friend Craig (Lyndon Johnson). Finally, the full moon rises and Rich finds himself in a hairy predicament as he transforms into a (very silly looking) werewolf creature. Predictable carnage ensues.

After ripping out Craig's throat on a beach, Rich wakes up in the brush the next morning with his clothes tattered and vague recollections of the evening's events. He makes friends with dwarf psychic/occult expert Andros (Kurt Levi) and is hassled by both local author Siodmak (Jason Clark) and lesbian-police-detective-in-a-pants-suit Justine Evers (Tarri Markel). When Rich confronts Dr. Atwill, the doctor sends his sadistic bald henchman Kass (Eric Mestressat), who gets a kick out of dismembering corpses with a machete at the clinic, after him. With help from Sondra, Rich manages to escape. Sondra takes him back to her place and basically rapes him on the couch during an overlong sex scene that lasts about five minutes. Will Rich be able to control his lycanthropy or find a cure for it before he claims more victims?

Shot on the cheap with a camcorder, this homemade werewolf flick has a somewhat unique premise with the eye transplant angle, but trots out cliché after cliché otherwise. The sets are sub porn level - the clinic scenes seem to have been filmed inside someone's home or apartment. The wolf transformation scenes don't even look as good as the time lapse photography used way back in the 1940s. Instead, they employ ragged editing. Throw some hair on the actor. Cut. Throw on some more on. Cut. More fur... and fill his mouth full of white gunk he can spit out. Cut. No need to worry about continuity! There's no fade, no dissolve, nothing. It's pretty sloppy. Once fully transformed, the werewolf costume (designed by Jeff Leroy, who also edited and shot the movie) is pretty awful. It has red, glowing Christmas bulb eyes, fur that looks like shag carpet and a plastic face that's almost completely immobile. There are several times you can see the cameraman's fingers in front of the camera lens, and does the moon really stay full five nights in a row? As far as the cast is concerned, they're amateurish, but tolerable. And as far as B horror flicks are concerned, there are worse out there. This one is paced fairly well, is only 70 minutes long and does provide plenty of the red stuff during the attack scenes, as well as the aforementioned T&A from Ms. Beaton.

It was produced by David S. Sterling (CAMP BLOOD), who was one of the first to ride the wave of digital video right when it was first starting to dominate the low-budget/independent horror genre scene back in the mid/late 90s. Many of his notoriously awful productions were released by Brain Damage Films, a label to avoid like the plague for the most part. Fx guy Jeff Leroy (who is listed as co-director here at IMDb, but not in the film's actual credits) and Vinnie Bilancio (who appears in a small role as one of the hunters) went on to make the much more fun and polished exploitation flick WEREWOLF IN A WOMEN'S PRISON in 2006, which had a similar-looking creature on display (red glowing eyes and all).


Bangville Police supposedly marked the debut of the Keystone Kops, named after the studio they worked for. In this one, however, they don't dress in the silly cop costumes or drive the fast-paced car that's their trademark. Anyway, Mabel Normand is a farm girl here who's begged her dad for a calf. She later sees some strange men in the barn and quickly calls the police. One answers and the chase is on. Next, Mabel slams her door just as someone is coming in. Turns out it's her mother who jumps to the conclusion robbers are in there! So while Mabel blocks her door with furniture, the mother and father try to fight their way in! This was perhaps the most amusing part of the short along with some explosions of the cop car. This was a short 7 minutes that went by so fast it's over before it's begun. The only real characterization that's developed is Mabel's who exudes charm with just her face and big eyes and seems so optimistically cheery here except, of course, when she's frightened. It's easy to see why she became a star. It's largely because of her that I'd recommended seeing this at least once and why I'm giving this a 4.


The "Confidential" part was meant to piggy-back on the popular appeal of the lurid magazine of the same name, while the labor racketeering theme tied in with headline Congressional investigations of the day. However, despite the A-grade B-movie cast and some good script ideas, the movie plods along for some 73 minutes. It's a cheap-jack production all the way. What's needed to off-set the poor production values is some imagination, especially from uninspired director Sidney Salkow. A few daylight location shots, for example, would have helped relieve the succession of dreary studio sets. A stylish helmsman like Anthony Mann might have done something with the thick-ear material, but Salkow treats it as just another pay-day exercise. Too bad that Brian Keith's typical low-key style doesn't work here, coming across as merely wooden and lethargic, at the same time cult figure Elisha Cook Jr. goes over the top as a wild-eyed drunk. Clearly, Salkow is no actor's director. But, you've got to hand it to that saucy little number Beverly Garland who treats her role with characteristic verve and dedication. Too bad, she wasn't in charge. My advice-- skip it, unless you're into ridiculous bar-girls who do nothing else but knock back whiskeys in typical strait-jacketed 50's fashion.


There's nothing particularly original about this story of corrupt unions on one side and the "chief attorney" on the other. The stark but unimaginative lighting and photography stems from the fagged out noir cycle. The story could easily have been out of a Warner Brothers drawer with George Raft in the lead. The performances are routine, the direction flat, and even the set dressing perfunctory. (An alley is shown by a single plaster wall of simulated brick. It has one poster on it. The poster says, "Post No Bills.") We are introduced to the story and some of the characters by a portentous narrator who informs us that, while most unions work hard and honestly to advance the causes of their members, a few are corrupt. But we don't really get to know much about the unions or how they operate, although I suppose they were fair game after the success of "On the Waterfront" a few years earlier. Here they're just a peg to hang the tale on. The real ring leader is a disbarred lawyer who runs things through three or four thugs. The District Attorney (or whatever he is) finds out, like Dana Andrews did in "Boomerang," that the wrong man (Dick Foran) is charged with a murder and he spends the rest of the film almost alone, digging up evidence of Foran's innocence. He gets into fist fights and shoot outs like any inexpensive movie private eye.

Brian Keith is the D.A. He's shown some insinuating displays of talent elsewhere, but here he spends most of the time speaking quietly and staring at the floor. Elisha Cook, Jr., is a likable rummy but can't do a good drunk. Beverley Garland is okay but is undermined by the direction, which has her gawking in a night club when she should be furtive. The remainder of the cast would be suitable for a TV series.

And nobody is helped by the writing. When a "B girl" is about to be shipped by the union mob to the Filippines, someone advises her that she only has to learn a few words of Spanish. "I only know one word," she says, "Si. Yes." The writers have not trusted the audience to know that "si" in Spanish means "yes." The plot is clumsy and has holes in it. Keith visits a witness in her flat over a night club. He enters the door and has a gun shoved in his back by a yegg, but he outwits the heavy and knocks him out. Then the orders someone to call the police. The rest of the scene, played out at some length in the night club downstairs, forgets all about the police and they never show up, nor are they expected by anyone.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, and some people might enjoy it, but there is similar stuff, better done, elsewhere.


obviously has some talent attached, Maria Bello is always great. but this is just a dreary wast of time, portraying every character as someone to be loathed and exploited so someone could make a movie out of an 'interesting' story. well, i hope they got it out of their systems. unfortunately for the audience, there is no insight, no sensitivity, no context, and really no humanity. which would all be fine, except it has no humor, no horror, no context, and nothing constructive to say about the story it's trying to tell. bad things happen, you sit and watch it, you don't care, so what? 99% of the time, the words 'based on a true story' constitute an unintentional warning to the audience. it means the director and screenwriter are lazy and fascinated by some events they heard about somewhere, so they just throw them up on the screen and expect the 'true' nature of the story to make the audience feel something without the filmmakers having to do any of the work. i hope they had a great time making this movie. it stinks on ice.


As is often the case, films about self-loathing characters do not usually make for good drama. 'Downloading Nancy' is no exception. It's supposedly based on a true story about a woman who's murdered at her own request by someone she meets over the internet.

The protagonist is Nancy (Maria Bello) who is married to Albert (Rufus Sewell). Albert is a successful software developer who has developed a golf game which his company has successfully marketed to various bars and bar/restaurants. Unlike most human beings, Albert has virtually no positive attributes (except for his ability to be successful in the business world). Throughout the film, Albert has a grim and dour expression on his face. He has no sympathy for his wife with all her emotional problems and resorts to patronizing prostitutes. When his wife asks for sex, he punishes her by masturbating in her presence instead.

Nancy is equally one-note as a character. Not only has she had a loveless 15 year marriage but was sexually abused by her uncle when she was growing up (thankfully there are no flashbacks of that back story in the film). Her self-loathing takes the form of self-mutilation and a result, she's forced into therapy. However, she has such contempt for her therapist that no progress can be made.

Finally, Nancy is so depressed that she contacts Louis over the internet. He's sort of a sadomasochistic gigolo, who has sex with women for money while inflicting massive amounts of pain to boot. It's revealed that Louis has two children but no longer sees them (the children's mother no longer wants anything to do with him).

Nancy's plan is to first have painful sex with Louis and then have him kill her. There's a particularly unpleasant scene where Louis has sex with Nancy while slashing her vaginal area with a broken piece of glass. These scenes are shown as flashbacks after Louis pays a visit to Albert who ties him up and strikes him with a golf club. It seems that Louis has a two-fold plan in going to see Albert: 1) berate him for his treatment of Nancy and 2) enjoy the beating he receives. It takes awhile before Louis will reveal Nancy's fatefirst, he forces Albert to do him the favor of taking his dog to a relative so someone will care for it in the future. Nancy's fate of course is that Louis finally ended up choking her to death (but showed some hesitation first as he made it clear that he had some 'feelings' for her). We soon learn that Louis is imprisoned for life for Nancy's murder.

What exactly are we to take away from a film such as Downloading Nancy? Are we supposed to feel sorry for victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence? Is that the main point of the film? Is sympathy for Nancy actually warranted? I don't think so. The film's writers create a straw man in the character of Albertsomeone who is so cut off from his emotions that he is the one that is held responsible for Nancy's decline. But are people so one-dimensional in real life? I think not. They have the repulsive Louis, a man who makes a living by inflicting pain, come over and berate Albert for neglecting Nancy. Furthermore, his expressions of love towards Nancy (before he kills her), is supposed to show his 'sensitive side'.

In the end, it matters little whether the filmmakers have defined where their sympathies lie with the various characters in the film. They are so bent on titillating their audience with scenes of gratuitous violence, that Downloading Nancy becomes nothing more than an exercise in poor taste and soft pornography.


Maria Bello doesn't seem to care what people think of her choices in movie roles. Again she chooses a very difficult and not popular movie to star in. Maybe she needs those movies, to get off the sugar coated (aka "Hollywood") ones she does here and then (Coyote Ugly and of course Mummy 3).

While I think fails to achieve what it sets out to do (I won't spoil that), Maria Bello is as great as in her other independent/small movies she stars in. It's her performance that elevates this movie. This combined with the strange subject matter almost did the trick for me. But in the end (and even if I try to overlook some flaws, like bad pacing and dramaturgy), the movie is still too long


Although Misty Ayers (burlesque stripper) is certainly attractive as the blonde lead, this flick is just an excuse to let her strip down to her underwear a few times (no nudity in 1954 when this film was made; not 1965).

The guy who hires her to work in a whorehouse resembles Bud Abbott of Abbott & Costello. Most of the other woman are unattractive, and the drunken woman is semi-amusing in a creepy way.

A 2 out of 10. Ms. Ayers has a curvacious physique, but you can't judge any acting talent because the ENTIRE film is post-dubbed. Some of these "exploitation films", usually made later than this one, are interesting in some way, but this is really a bore fest. Sid Melton (MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY) directed. There are some Samurai-like facial expressions and interesting apartments, but there's really NOTHING here.


Released in 1965, but clearly shot years earlier, this is an inept little crime melodrama with some inept sexploitation up front. As usual for grindhouse flicks of era, there's a fair amount of undressing and dressing for no reason complemented by lousy music, annoying narration, and awkward editing. The coffee shop scene lays the excruciating groundwork, as we chop back and forth between characters to avoid actually seeing them speak their lines. All we get are reaction shots to the off-screen character's voice! 50s-pretty Misty Ayers strips to her French-cut panties a couple of times before the action gets started. She's accompanied continuously by what is apparently stock music from romantic to western to mother-does-the-dishes, mixed randomly to produce, among other things, the most thrilling cigarette lighting ever captured on film. Watch as he taps it! Watch as he strikes the match! Will he inhale or will he be captured by Apaches? Only time will tell!! The film tells the sordid tale of how Sally gets tricked into working in a whorehouse, falls for a dope, and can't escape. For some reason, we're treated to some of the most bored and boring hookers ever committed to film, literally doing their nails or knitting rather than entertaining the clientèle. Some stupendously lame comedy (boozy dame accidentally drinks milk! Har dee har!) and silent film acting doesn't help. This is one of the worst feature films I've ever seen, even on the Something Weird Video marquee. It's really more of a film curiosity for those interested in the history of cinema--very bad cinema.


Obviously made to show famous 1950s stripper Misty Ayers "acting" talents. Too bad she can't act.

Boring little tale about sweet, innocent Sally Down (Ayers) being drugged and forced into white slavery (prostitution). Then she meets likable Tommy Cole who instantly falls in love with her. He wants to help her escape but can he? You really won't care.

There's no real skin here--Ayers just strips down SLOWLY to her underwear (twice). The rest is just a boring little tale chockful of bad acting, atrocious "comedy" (never thought prostitution was funny but what do I know?) and terrible post-dubbed dialogue. I admit there was a twist at the end I didn't see coming but that's not enough to sit through this. Also Ayers' attempts at acting are hysterical! A real bomb. Avoid.


Misty Ayers had a smoking body, and that's all this movie was about. Pure exploitation flick. I started playing a game with myself, counting the number of times they looped the stock orchestral music. And of course the music is completely unrelated to the scenes. Case in point: casually walking into a room and saying "Hello" was scored with chase music from a roman epic. I'd like to know why this film sat on the shelf for 11 years before being released. What I learned from this movie: that women's low-rise panties existed in 1954. I'm talking Sigourney Weaver in the original Alien movie panties. At least 20 of the first 30 minutes is Misty leisurely taking off and putting on her clothing (except for bra and panties, sadly). Also includes horrendous dubbing, leading to a "Look out! Godzirra!" effect.


Cheap, amateurish, unimaginative, exploitative... but don't think it'll have redeeming amusement value. About as unentertaining, uninstructive and just plain dull as a film can be.


After seeing MIDNIGHT OFFERINGS I am still convinced that the first decent movie about (teenage) witches yet has to be made. I didn't think much of THE CRAFT and I'm not into CHARMED either. The only film I more or less enjoyed (about teenage witches) was LITTLE WITCHES (1996), and even that one wasn't very good. But changes are that if you liked all the aforementioned movies, you will also enjoy MIDNIGHT OFFERINGS.

I was expecting a silly and cheesy early 80's movie about teenage witches in high school. But I was rather surprised that this whole movie plays it rather serious. The acting is decent and serious all the time. No jokes are being played by teenagers or something. And the musical score, at first, I thought was pretty good. It added some scariness and also something 'classy', with the use of threatening violins and all. But as the movie progressed I came to the conclusion that the score was just too ambitious. They didn't have to add those threatening violins when you simply see someone back up a car and then drive away at normal speed.

Then there's Melissa Sue Anderson, who was the main reason for me to see this movie. A few weeks ago, I saw her in HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, a rather enjoyable, thick-plotted (and goofy on some occasions) slasher-movie which she had done in the same year as MIDNIGHT OFFERINGS. And I must say, she was very good as the icy-cold bad witch Vivian. But the main problem with the movie is: almost nothing happens! Vivian causes a death and an accident, yes, but that's it. Then there's Robin, the good witch, who is just learning about her powers. And we expect the two of them using their powers more than once, but at only one occasion they use their powers to make some pieces of wood and other stuff fly through the air as projectiles. That was supposed to be a fight between two powerful witches? And what's worse, I was hoping to see a spectacular show-down between the witches at the end of the movie with at least some special effects, flaming eyes or whatever... but nothing happens. There is sort of a confrontation in the end, but it's a big disappointment.

So, the acting of the two witches was good. The musical score was decent (even though overly ambitious). And the cinematography was rather dark and moody at times. But that doesn't make a good movie yet, does it?


How could 4 out of 16 prior voters give this movie a 10? How could more than half the prior voters give it a 7 or higher? Who is voting here? I can only assume it is primarily kids -- very young kids. The fact is that this is a bad movie in every way. The story is stupid; the acting is hard to even think of as acting; the characters are characterless; and the dialogue is terrible. I saw this one rainy afternoon on the Sci-Fi channel. In the sad event that it is ever rebroadcast, I suggest you read a book instead.


This beautifully filmed and scripted episode was let down for two reasons. 1) Perhaps it was the morality of the 1950s talking, but no man left alone on an asteroid for years would react with such hysterical negativity to the gift of a female android. 2) It wasn't an android at all, but a woman, the beautiful Jean Marsh.

The popularity of the sex doll industry in the coming decades could have traced its origins back to this episode if they'd done it properly. In fact, the modernization of sex-bots are in the news as I speak.

Robots were not new to movies or television when this episode was made, so they could have at least had her act like one. Her fleshiness would then have added a creepy element. Instead, it becomes a nice little love story about two humans on faraway star.

The Twilight Zone always stretched the imagination and credulity. Normally no one cared. But this episode seemed hamstrung by a Calvinist morality eschewing what would have amounted to masturbation with a machine, or downright carelessness.


If you haven't seen the gong show TV series then you won't like this movie much at all, not that knowing the series makes this a great movie.

I give it a 5 out of 10 because a few things make it kind of amusing that help make up for its obvious problems.

1) It's a funny snapshot of the era it was made in, the late 1970's and early 1980's. 2) You get a lot of funny cameos of people you've seen on the show. 3) It's interesting to see Chuck (the host) when he isn't doing his on air TV personality. 4) You get to see a lot of bizarre people doing all sorts of weirdness just like you see on the TV show.

I won't list all the bad things because there's a lot of them, but here's a few of the most prominent.

1) The Gong Show Movie has a lot of the actual TV show clips which gets tired at movie length. 2) The movie's story line outside of the clip segments is very weak and basically is made up of just one plot point. 3) Chuck is actually halfway decent as an actor, but most of the rest of the actors are doing typical way over the top 1970's flatness.

It's a good movie to watch when you don't have an hour and a half you want to watch all at once. Watch 20 minutes at a time and it's not so bad. But even then it's not so good either. ;)


No wonder this movie never saw the light of day. The timing was of the release was awful. The Gong Show had already "jumped the shark" by the time the movie came out, so who would pay money just to see a few of the censored clips from the original run of the show? And the show clips are just a tiny bit of this pathetic, 90-minute whine by Chuck Barris about how hard his life was as host of the show. Did he really expect we would feel sorry for him and his messed-up millionaire life? Did he really think we even wanted to KNOW about his life? (Obviously so, since he later wrote his weird autobiography about his career as a CIA operative.) Did he think the gag of having everyone, everywhere audition for him would stay fresh for 90 minutes? Or the network executive hounding him at every turn? This might have worked as the plot for a 30-minute sitcom episode, but not as a full-length movie. However, it was nice to see Rip Taylor, Gene Gene, and the Unknown Comic again (although, to make the movie "spicy," they included only his most vulgar routines). And as someone else has pointed out, this is Phil Hartman's first significant movie part (even though it lasts only a minute). Note his name is spelled HARTMANN in the credits, which is the name he was born with. You can't miss his voice and facial expressions, even though he's much thinner and younger than in the SNL days. Ed Molinaro (Hill Street Blues) also has a tiny part; one of his first after leaving the soap world.


Having searched for this movie high and low, I actually found it when I least expected, playing on the Sundance Channel very early in the morning one day. Why I searched endlessly for a small vanity project that Chuck Barris that was made during the last waning years of the TV show, I haven't a clue. The film is simply put horrible. The scripted part that deals with a week that is. Of course the highlight of the film is seeing the real performers that were "too hot for TV" or rejected for some reason or other. That part is still horrid, but campy bad which was enjoyable in it's own way. Now that I saw what I sought after for so long will I watch it again in my lifetime? Resoundingly NO!! Do yourself a favor and just watch the MUCH MUCH better "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" or find old copies of the actual show. The girl act where there just lick popsicles provocatively was fun, but having to endure seeing Jay P. Morgon flash the audience has in all likelihood made me sterile. In hindsight, I'm so very happy that this was massive flop, for if it was a massive hit, there could have been a "The $1.98 Beauty Show Movie" and THAT my friends would surely have brought upon the Apocalypse.

My Grade: D


Easily the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Direction : none. Story: pathetic. Screenplay : that will be a good idea. There is a lot of gratuitous graphics, all of pathetic quality. Preserve your sanity, dont ever see this movie !


Let me state first that I love Westerns & Civil War stories. I also consider John Ford as an excellent director. I also have the same high feelings for John Wayne & William Holden's acting ability.

I cannot remember if I saw this film when it first came out in 1959. Last night was the first time I saw it since then.

As per my 4 rating, one can say I did not like the movie.

I now will attempt to tell some of its shortcomings.

John Lee Mahin who wrote the screenplay from Harold Sinclair's novel, was a very gifted writer & wrote many fine scripts, This script is poorly written & badly researched. They make mention of the awful conditions of the Andersonville prison, At the time of the movie Andersonville was not in operation. They also use rifles that were not used at the time.

John Ford was directing films for over 40 years & won 4 Oscars. He must have been ill during the making of this.His usual style was missing. It could be that this was film in the south & east and not in Monument Valley.

He normally had a stock company of players he used in nearly all his film, MOST were missing this time. This time only minor cowboy stars Hoot Gibson & Ken Curtiss have roles & of course Anna Lee has a small role. There were no other familiar faces except for the 3 stars. (see below) Mr. Fords stock company made most of his films the classics they were; sadly missed here.

Now we come to the main stars John Wayne & William Holden. The Duke also must have been ill,he seemed out of place here. This sort of role usually fit his style perfectly, he was just adequate here. Wiliam Holden did the best he could, but nowhere as good as he usually was.

It was required that there be an actress in this type of movie. Here in her first major role (second film) is Constance Towers, a very beautiful person, But not really an actress, She is still having roles on Television. Let me be kind and say she has had a long career,more based on her looks than acting talent. Also in caas as Ms. Towers servant is Tennis Star Althea Gibson.I am glad she stuck to tennis.

The rest of the production credits were far from the usual high standard of other John Ford films There were a few military type songs supposedly done by the marching cavalry, not good at all. The action scenes were good but come at the end of film.

Ratings *1/2* (out of 4) 47 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10)


Oh, how we have a misfire here; a film so bad that your mind will wonder and drift away onto other things as it wastes your time with brain numbingly poor production values; character stereotypes of the worst and racist kind since D.W. Griffith referred to the Chinese character in Broken Blossoms as 'the yellow man'; characters so unimaginative and un-engaging that it's difficult to watch as well as a narrative that plods along at such a slow, stupid and pointless pace that you will question the very people who say they like this film.

Prizzi's Honor is a film that ends up being an absolute post-modern disaster in every which way possible. The film is a messy and senseless disaster that has John Huston directing; Kathleen Turner and Jack Nicholson staring and everybody else filling in the gaps as either dumb stereotypes or supporting characters that weep on a phone now and again or bicker with a main character. Prizzi's Honor is a film that falls into a genre of neo-noir, comedy, romance, action, gangster and overall crime  this twinned with its director and cast should be enough to propel it through some sort of a story; some sort of a sequence of good scenes; some sort of intelligence in the form of a screenplay or something else but no  what we get is a nasty and ugly film revolving around nothing at all.

I'll give a couple of examples of how shoddy this horror show of a film actually is. Firstly, the film thinks it's a love story and it thinks this for about an hour of its time: of MY time. Charley Partanna (Nicholson) is an assassin who kills people for a family that he works for in New York and yet he resembles his character out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest more than an international hit-man. He meets and falls in love with Irene Walker (Turner) who is another assassin and they hit it off but as the poor excuse for a plot plays out, it appears all is not right. I read that the plot for this film is: "A professional hit man and hit woman fall in love, only to discover that they have each been hired to kill the other." Well, yes that's true but that actual revelation doesn't happen until about twenty minutes to the end! Nicholson plays Partanna like someone with an IQ of 60: he walks around; seemingly making observations and talking out loud about things he sees; he talks like he is either drunk or has a more serious problem from within and worse of all we never get the feeling he is an assassin  one really poorly shot assassination early on (that actually happens off screen) is not enough to suggest this guy is a hard-bodied, best of the best, international hit-man.

So with a main character who is un-likable and un-realistic, we move to the script. The first hour and a half is just a cinematic dead zone with what ever there is to suggest traces of life merely poor conventions: Partanna slouches around on the phone or in person asking the same things over and over again: "Do I marry her?; Do I love her? What is love? What do I do?" and it gets so repetitive, it's not even able to act as good humour. This twinned with the way he always seemed to be on the phone to someone: a girl called Maerose Prizzi (Huston) played by director John's daughter; which served absolutely no purpose to the plot whatsoever and seemed to be there for laughs as was the scene in which she tells her father about how she slept with Partanna and loved it  that got me thinking, was this supposed to be funny? Should I be laughing? The film felt like a smart mafia picture what with its opening scene of a wedding (alá The Godfather) and consequential scenes with a touch of noir as gangsters, police men and assassins were introduced into the film. But what we get is something very, very different.

The second hour revolves around some sort of a kidnap plot; right, the love and romance is dealt with  maybe the film will kick-start. I was so very wrong: with more characters continuously talking very slowly and very deliberately in a monotone way, we have a kidnap scene involving some guy coming out of his office: this scene sums the film up. Everything is briefly planned and then executed in a heavy handed and dumb way that just makes it look cheesy. We do not get to see them arrive to some dramatic music; perhaps they have to get through security to get to the elevators; maybe they have to be careful of civilians when they hide in their chosen places and when that random woman steps out of the elevator and the gunshot occurs  the scene isn't even edited correctly. Some suspense, some drama: "Do I shoot or don't I?"; maybe some slow motion as the character has to quick draw before it's too late  anything but how it was actually executed. Prizzi's Honor continues its monotonous and uninteresting decent into filmic oblivion as it nears its climax. It's a film where cameras reflect in windows; lights reflect in sides of cars and 'dead' chauffeurs blink when nudged. Prizzi's Honor is a jumbled and messy film that will try the patients of any film-goer and don't say it was a comedy because I didn't laugh with it  AT it is another matter. The film is repetitive, drawn out and colourless in its vision and scope for originality - there is no Honour here.


Eight academy nominations? It's beyond belief. I can only think it was a very bad year - even by Hollywood standards. With Huston as director and Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner as leads I probably would have swallowed the bait and watched this anyway, but the Oscar nominations really sold it to me, and I feel distinctly cheated as a result.

So it's a black comedy is it? Can anyone tell me where the humour is in Prizzi's Honor? It's certainly tasteless (the shooting in the head of a policeman's wife is but another supposedly comic interlude in this intended farce about mafia life) but with the exception of a joke about 'your favourite Mexican cigars' (which I imagine is an old joke for Americans who have been officially forbidden from buying anything Cuban for the last 50 years) I failed to spot anything of a comic nature - and I did try. There is a lot of Mafia cliché but cliché doesn't constitute humour in my book.

Is it a romantic comedy of sorts? Never. The characters and their relationships are so completely incredible and shallow that they are on a par with Ben Afleck and Jennifer Lopez in Gigli.

Is it a cleverly devised parody about the Mafia? Not in a million years. The plot is just pointlessly absurd rather than comically absurd, and it usually just has the feel of a really bad (and cheap) Mafia movie. It feels more like a homage than a parody.

With one-dimensional characters and little in the way of humour written for them, the actors are left doing dodgy accents and pulling faces. Well it isn't enough; even when the face is being pulled by that master of the comic facial expression, Jack Nicholson (repleat with puffed up top lip ... now is that meant to be a parody of Brando's padded jowls in The Godfather?... Oh! Who cares?... all I know is, it isn't funny).

Throw in some slow, plodding direction (this film drags on for 2 hours), some hopelessly daft and clichéd dialogue such as; "You remember the Camora? Well we're far bigger, we'll track you down wherever you go", and clichéd mannerisms and you'll be reaching for that fast forward button before you can say "capiche?". Prizzi's Honor is far from being Huston's "masterpiece" and is rather a very poor last work. It's definitely one work in the great director's canon that should be given a concrete overcoat and tossed into the Hudson River.


This movie has not aged well. Maybe it's just the impact and artful characterization, acting, and directing that we've seen with The Sopranos, but I just viewed Prizzi's Honor for the first time, on DVD, alone.

The experience of watching it with an audience 24 years ago must have been quite different, but I have to say, I was just appalled at the ending. Not just the violence of it, but the mere idea that somehow this would be a satisfying ending.

I enjoy a good shocker, but this seemed so out of character... Also, when was this move supposed to be set? The cars all seemed like they were from the 1960s, and yet the World Trade Center towers {completed in 1973} were clearly visible in many cityscape scenes.

Another way in which the film has aged poorly is the mere idea that a passenger could travel coast to coast with a knife on his person.

Somehow, mid-1980s audiences found this film charming and funny. Mid-eighties, meet the late oughts: only of you can live.


I may not have the longest of attention-spans, but this is the second movie I have refused to see all the way through, and I even bought it on DVD because of its "classic" status.

At first, I thought that the director was playing a big joke, so I kept waiting for a resolution, something to laugh at, something to keep my interest, but this resolution never came. Rather, the writing was laughably amateurish, the movie dragged on and felt disjointed, like someone cut a TV series to feature-length. The Academy must have been on drugs when they nominated this movie for no less than eight Oscars.

Once again, I repeat myself. This is the second movie I have refused to watch all the way through. The first was "Exterminator". I hope this gives you an indication of how bad it really is. 1/10


It's boggles the mind how this movie was nominated for seven Oscars and won one. Not because it's abysmal or because given the collective credentials of the creative team behind it really ought to deserve them but because in every category it was nominated Prizzi's Honor disappoints. Some would argue that old Hollywood pioneer John Huston had lost it by this point in his career but I don't buy it. Only the previous year he signed the superb UNDER THE VOLCANO, a dark character study set in Mexico, that ranks among the finest he ever did. Prizzi's Honor on the other hand, a film loaded with star power, good intentions and a decent script, proves to be a major letdown.

The overall tone and plot of a gangster falling in love with a female hit-man prefigures the quirky crimedies that caught Hollywood by storm in the early 90's but the script is too convoluted for its own sake, the motivations are off and on the whole the story seems unsure of what exactly it's trying to be: a romantic comedy, a crime drama, a gangster saga etc. Jack Nicholson (doing a Brooklyn accent that works perfectly for De Niro but sounds unconvincing coming from Jack) and Kathleen Turner in the leading roles seem to be in paycheck mode, just going through the motions almost sleepwalking their way through some parts. Anjelica Huston on the other hand fares better but her performance is sabotaged by her character's motivations: she starts out the victim of her bigot father's disdain, she proves to be supportive to her ex-husband, then becomes a vindictive bitch that wants his head on a plate.

The colours of the movie have a washed-up quality like it was made in the early 70's and Huston's direction is as uninteresting as everything else. There's promise behind the story and perhaps in the hands of a director hungry to be recognized it could've been morphed to something better but what's left looks like a film nobody was really interested in making.


Well then, what is it?! I found Nicholson's character shallow and most unfortunately uninteresting. Angelica Huston's character drained my power. And Kathleen Turner is a filthy no good slut. It's not that I "don't get it". It's not that I don't think that some of the ideas could've lead to something more. This is a film with nothing but the notion that we're supposed to accept these ideas, and that's what the movie has going for it. That Nicholson falls for Turner is absurd, but then again, it is intended to be so. This however does not strike me as a.)funny, or b.)...even remotely interesting!!! This was a waste of my time, so don't let the hype get the best of you...it is a waste of your time! With all that being said, the opening church sequence is quite beautiful...


They had an opportunity to make one of the best romantic tragedy mafia movies ever because they had the actors,the budget,and the story but the great director John Huston was too preoccupied trying to mellow out this missed classic.Strenuously trying to find black humor as often as possible which diluted the movie very much.And also they were so uncaring with details like sound and detailed action.Maybe it was the age of the director who passed away two years later.


I guess it's Jack's great empathic ability that makes him the powerful performer that he is, but empathy comes at a price like all things-when he's surrounded by mediocrity he instinctively lowers the standard and becomes one with it. He is a joke as a mafia-hit-man(also because the part doesn't suit him one bit, him being so extroverted)and just grazing avoids making a fool of himself in this.Kathleen Turner had a much tooooo long career just by being tall and blonde, because her acting ability is limited to that thing she does with her eyes, when she opens them wide which she's convinced is sooooo damn sexy and Anjelica Huston is the absolute same(granted interesting) in everything, just like Robert Loggia.

The movie is a lame draft(and this will be the only mention of the rag they call script) of a gangster-movie, with a cast that was probably only interested to get to the after-party faster(they certainly gathered the party-going elite in this). What, did they shoot it in 1 day?-cause that would be the only explanation.


I watched this film because I noticed that it had Kari Wuhrer in the cast. I have long had a theory about her, that she is a talented actress, but never seems to get to prove that, because she is always in this sort of low-budget B movie. She is still beautiful, and she is still trying to act over the unfortunate material I always see her in. This is no different. The film is often ugly and disturbing, but that doesn't make it good. George Wendt played against type, and that was so jarring that he gets recognition for his role. Another note about Ms. Wuhrer. Her breasts seem to have shrunk markedly since I saw her last. Perhaps reduction surgery, or (more likely) removal of implants. This NOT a bad thing. She still looks great. I would like to see her in a better movie.


This was a crappy movie, with a whole lotta non-sense and too many loose-ends to count. I only watched this movie because one of my favorite actors (Ron Livingston) made a cameo in it, and I continued watching it because as a girl, I love any movie that includes male nudity for a change. Later, I found myself wondering just how much more ridiculous the storyline could get, and each time it got...more... ridiculous.

Sean Crawley (good-looking Chris L. McKenna, whom I've never seen before - but LOVED his little nude scene)is making ends meet as a painter, when he meets electrician Duke Wayne (George Wendt from "Cheers"). Thinking he's getting more work from Duke, Sean agrees to meet contractor Ray Matthews (Daniel Baldwin, playing a stereotypically evil guy). Ray is being investigated by a City Hall accountant (Ron Livingston in a cameo, who I've been in love with from "Office Space" up to "Sex & the City"). Ray end up offering the apparently desperate-for- cash Sean $13k to kill the accountant, and Sean accepts the job. Sean stalks out the accountant, whose wife (Kari Wuhrer) he finds himself attracted to, completes the hit, and leaves - taking the file of information against Ray with him. Sean quickly learns he was being used, that Ray never intended to pay him, and Sean uses the file as leverage to get his money.

Up to this point, it's a descent flick...generally worth watching. But as soon as Ray, Duke and their crew kidnap Sean to muscle the information about the file out of him, it just got dumber and dumber (and still DUMBER...), until finally it seemed like the film's writer, Charlie Higson, had snapped out of a 10-day writing hangover and realized he needed to desperately figure out how to wrap up the series of implausible messes he created before a deadline or something. Without simply detailing the movie, let's just say that in every-single-scene you watch after the kidnapping, you find yourself gasping "what the f**K!," baffled by the ongoing nonsense as Sean follows a fairly graphic and gross path towards redemption. In the end, so many loose-ends are left in the movie, that you begin to regret that you even watched it.

This is a movie that you should only watch after it hits cable, and you should have enough beer and friends around to mock the film to it's full value. It's supposed to be a psychological thriller, and McKenna is a decent actor, but it's hard to give yourself to the movie when you have "Norm" from "Cheers" and a Baldwin brother doing the dirty work, and a kidnapping strategy that really makes no damned sense. Guys will love the violence, blood and guts scenes, and the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes and boob shots. Girls will enjoy handsome Sean's gratuitous crotch shot in a mainstream movie, when its almost always the girls that get stripped down in a movie. Personally, I hate that the only actor worth watching for more than his looks (Ron Livingston) is only in the first one-third of the movie.


i bought this DVD because it has kari in it and the mpaa ratings said ; "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, nudity and language".

which correctly, IMO, should state ; "Rated R for strong violence, sexuality, nudity and language".

the word "sexuality" should come after a "comma", not an "and" because of the huge difference in meaning it make. i think a lot of people who have watched this movie will agree with me that the sexuality and nudity parts ALMOST non-existent. my first impression when i look at the mpaa rating was that i will be watching something like "vivid" movie. that is why i felt cheated. story-wise, it was so-so, after-all who really cares about the story if the gorgeous kari was in it. i know i don't.

of course, this is only my opinion.

Joseph


Why oh why don't blockbuster movies simply stick to their selling point? Everyone in the cinema, young and old, was there to see talking animals make jokes, and whilst they did that we were all happy... And then, as with Lost In Space, came the two killer blows - plot and sentiment. Who really cared what happened to the tiger or whether Eddie Murphy made up with his daughter? Not me, that's for sure.


this show is one of the worst shows of ALL TIME! absolutely no original jokes and they're always a year late. like in 2009 they will finally say something about Michael Vick's dogfights. all of the cast members are people who wanted to be on S.N.L but had to go to the lowest of the low, mad TV.its an hour of mad magazine jokes witch aren't funny to begin with, told by terrible John Stewart wanna bees. so if you have any problem tell me id love to hear the opinion of the 3 people who watch this show. family guy put it well "Osama bin Ladin was hiding in the one place no one would look, the cast of mad TV. There is a reason why no one watches the show.


In the glory days of the 90s (god rest its soul) you could turn on the great Comedy Central at any hour of the day and see the greatest sketch comedy show of all time Saturday Night Live. Whpat a glorious show that was, whether it was the original Not-Ready-for-Primetime Players or the second golden age of SNL featuring the greats- Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, David Spade... and then, it all went to hell. I was first exposed to MadTV about a year and a half ago, and I think I must've passed out from shock. How could a show so terrible prevail for so long? There are so many horrible flaws. I suppose I'll start with the writing. The writing, for most part, is terrible. It is nothing more than kindergarten bathroom humor. The cast, for the most part, is talentless. There are a few sketches I have enjoyed, such as some of Ms. Swan and Stuart, and there are a few talents on the show such as the magnificent Alex Borstein. Phil LaMarr is a talented actor, just not as a comedian. Although there a few sparse ha ha moments, they are not enough to redeem this endless line of horrible drivel populated by babbling idiots. Miss this one.


Horrible, horrible TV show! Why Comedy Central decided to repeat old episodes of this program is beyond me. It really sucks! I am, of course, speaking about the seasons after the first two. The first two seasons were golden, and if I was exclusively talking about those seasons, this show would have gotten eight out of ten stars. None of the comedians appearing after the first two seasons who were not part of the original cast are any good. They were, and are, awful. The comedy is not funny at all. AT ALL!!!

The original cast was full of very talented comedians, like Artie Lange, Phil LaMarr, and Mary Schorr (or whatever her name is), all of whom should have gotten better deals after they left MAD TV. This show is highly overrated, and less worthy of your channel surfing time than Saturday Night Live, another horrible show. Go out on Saturday night and have fun, and leave MAD TV to wither and die, as it deserves to.


You've got to admire director Todd Sheets for his dedication, drive and enthusiasm when it comes to movie-making: between 1985 and 2000, he made a whopping 34 films. Unfortunately, if his Zombie Bloodbath trilogy is anything to go by, they're probably all crap (and a quick look at their IMDb ratings seems to verify my hunch).

Part 3 sees a group of obnoxious students finding detention a little more eventful than usual after they are attacked by hordes of the living dead, who have escaped from a top-secret army base located directly beneath their school. Working from a dreadful script by Brian Eklund (which relies heavily on liberal use of the f-bomb) director Sheets delivers yet another embarrassingly amateurish effort featuring some mind-numbingly awful performances from his talent-free cast, dreadful visual effects (some crap CGI and what looks like the front of a giant cardboard space-shuttle) and his trademark shoddy gore (handfuls of offal pulled from beneath his victims' clothing).

Finally, after what seems like an eternity watching irritating characters running for their lives, and unconvincing undead people fondling animal innards, Zombie Armageddon finishes with a time-travel/paradox twist ending which forces viewers to re-watch several torturous minutes from the beginning of the film. Honestly... once was enough, Mr. Sheetswhat have we done to deserve having to watch it again?


Why in the world would someone make this piece of trash movie? The first two Zombie Bloodbath movies were stupid enough, but this takes the cake for the worst of the trilogy (Perhaps of all time). Todd Sheets is still the director, but no longer the screenwriter, which isn't a negative or a positive, considering he's just as untalented as the guy who wrote this one. The writing is too heavily reliant on the f-word, which is used somewhere between 200 and 300 times at nausea. The acting is about on par with the last two Bloodbath movies, so naturally, it's some of the worst I've ever seen. The special effects are better than the last 2, but they still look godawful. The plot has become too complicated for it's own good, and was about some government experiment gone wrong and zombies being produced. Also featured is cryogenically frozen mutant zombie and school kids that know how to time travel, leading to one of the most idiotic endings I've ever seen. After the movie it goes to outtakes, which is strange because this whole movie is an outtake. Only see this to make fun of it, because if you go into this with a serious mind, you might possibly kill yourself.

My rating: BOMB/****. 95 mins.


I really liked ZB1. Really, I did. I have no problem with extremely low-budget movies, and I have enjoyed movies with worse production values than ZB3 (if you can imagine such a thing. check out 'wiseguys vs. zombies,' if you're interested). Indeed, I prefer lower budget zombie films, because I am suspicious that Hollywood directors do not understand what zombies are 'about.'

But ZB3 was just so bad. It was retarded. I don't want to bother being dignified in my criticism. I want my 90 minutes back, etc. Except that it really only took ~80 minutes, because partway through I put it into 1.4X fast forward.

Okay, here's some criticism.

1. The pacing was TERRIBLE. Everyone talked in monologues. Even when someone just had a single line, the camera work and the editing and the insertion of a bunch of F-bombs into every sentence made the line FEEL like a monologue. At first I was excited about the 90 minute running time compared to ZB1's 70 minutes, but there were actually fewer 'events' in ZB3. It's all talking.

2. The gore effects got stupider. Just glop rubbed around on people's tummies.

3. Despite the epic exposition, there really wasn't a plot. And the exposition is indeed epic! I won't spoil it, if you're going to watch it. (Don't watch it.) But then, it's just a bunch of lame characters walking around and bickering for ~80 minutes. or fewer, if you so choose.


For the life of me I can not understand the blind hype and devotion to this totally unbelievable movie......and I think I have the qualifications to say so.... I am a former Special Operations soldier with 14 years in the "lifestyle" ... This movie was totally totally unreal and obviously written by someone that did very little research into life in the Army, in combat or at a team or platoon level.

Three EOD guys trouncing around Bagdad on their own????? Get Real... No chain of command????? Get Real... EOD clearing buildings??? Get Real....EOD/ Military Intelligence / Sniper qualified buck sergeant???? Get Real.... Wait... I shot and killed a bad guy and then let two guys take me without firing another shot or being injured at all???? Get Real....I carjack an Iraqi civilian, while I am only armed with a 9 mil, break into another civilians house, get punked by his wife then make it back to camp on foot in the middle of Bagdad at night without as so much as a scratch or confrontation???? Get Real...

There is absolutely no adherence to military protocol {Army} and no resemblance at all to any Army unit that I have even encountered. Totally unbelievable and disrespectful to the men and women of EOD who contrary to this poor film are not wild adrenaline seeking yahoos but extremely qualified professionals doing an incredibly hard job.


I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky.

For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility.

- A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher.

- A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target.

- I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert.

- The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping.

- Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there.

- How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?

There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.

Many of the "surprises" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.

Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?

If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead.


Like a latter day Ayn Rand, Bigelow is la major muy macho in her depiction in the film of a few tough American hombres stuck in Iraq defusing roadside bombs set by the ruthless, relentless, child-killing Arab terrorists. As Bigelow posits the Iraq war as the backdrop of the grand stage of human drama, one veteran bomb expert gets blown up and another shows up to replace him in the dusty, hot, ugly rubble that is Iraq, and a new hero is born.

The new guy is what John Hershey described in his book, and later the movie, The War Lover, as a sadistic wingnut who actually isn't fit for civilian life, and requires the stimulation of war to sublimate and suppress his errant sexual desires. The war lover can only fully function in war, peacetime suffocates him. While Hershey chastised the war lover, (played in the film by Steve McQueen in one of his greatest roles) Bigelow glorifies him. The army needs war lovers, they are the bulwark of defense against our enemies. We can't handle the truth, that it is war lovers who are the best soldiers, the toughest men. According to the unironic Bigelow, regular men are pussies, the war lover is a special breed, the last of the cowboys. So what if he wants to bare-back his men, or fondle an Iraqi boy? He is a throwback to the sex-and-death cult of war. In war, sex is a thankless, loveless, don't-ask, don't-tell kind of male bonding. Bigelow has no opinion on this; she just limits the options of masculinity in this ham-fisted attempt at realism. Only a war-lover can win the moral struggle between right and wrong, between American innocence and Arab perfidy. Bigelow disguises her racism and arrogance behind the ingenuous facade of journalism. She's just another gung-ho yahoo depicting a brutal war against civilians as a moral triumph of the spirit.

On the political front, Bigelow returns to the western genre and its relentless clichés again and again, ad nauseam: the wonderful world of the open frontier, which happens to be some one else's country. ("You can shoot people here" says a soldier ); the tough but human black guy companion, the soldier with a premonition of death, the gruff, possibly crazy commanding officer, the college-educated fool who tries to befriend the enemy. You name it, Bigelow resurrects it.

The man-boy love is palpable in scenes with the cute Arab boy who befriends the war lover, but Bigelow plays it straight; she doesn't consummate the sex, just sanitizes it. What Bigelow really wants to show us is the ugly, sneering face of the Arab enemy. Any Iraqi who isn't pure evil is either demented, hostile or up to no good, anyway. They all deserve to die for their impudence, and many of them do in this glib gore-fest film. The Iraqi women are all hysterical, they only make their presence known by screaming. They could be male stunt men in drag for all I know, you never see their faces. There is no female presence at all on base or in battle, although female casualty rates in Iraq would certainly disprove this.

Bigelow goes through all the motions one by one. She glorifies war, she canonizes the sadist nut-case hero. The cowboys, surrounded by the subhuman Indians, prove their mettle by doing God's work and subduing the wretched terrorist-infested hellhole with sheer bravado and suicidal mania. Toward the end, I felt like rooting for the Indians. In Bigelow's world, though, no mercy or understanding ever makes it through. The Iraqis are dehumanized par excellence. The slaughter of civilians is just the dramatic backdrop to our hero's psycho sexual struggle. Every U.S, bullet finds its mark. You have to love the guy, the war lover. It's just his way, he is the true hero. He's just a guy trying to get things done the hard way, and so what if he lusts for boy tang on the side.


I'm a huge fan of war movies, and, as a Vietnam combat vet, have some experience with the technical details. I worked with the bomb guys more than once and have nothing but respect for them. Other vets, and Iraq vets in particular, have summarized the inaccuracies in this movie very well. Poetic license is one thing, but this movie is a complete fantasy, and fails badly because of it. No bomb disposal unit, or any unit, would ever have tolerated this rogue operator for more than 5 minutes. Military units prize conformity and discipline for a reason;it saves lives. The opening scene particularly annoyed me. The guy with the cell phone would have been shot immediately. Yelling, "Stop dialing" is not an effective deterrent. It got worse from there. The scenes with the sniper were particularly egregious. As others have noted, your average EOD guy doesn't know jack about being a sniper, and to think any Arab sniper is that good really stretches the imagination. Kidnapping an Arab businessman for some form of personal revenge just wouldn't happen. Somebody might shoot him, but this kind of risk-taking is limited to the movies. I could go on, but, as I said, others have pointed these things out in detail. This is not a good movie, and if it wins any awards at all, it's a further reflection of why "La La land" is so named.


I saw this movie once, and I thought it was OK. Then my friends at work said "Watch it again, it's better". So I did. And to my surprise, it was WORSE on the second time! There's a word limit, so I'm going to get the ball rolling here.

-The bombing scenes were all so stupid. Why on earth would anyone WAIT to trigger the explosion??? -None of the characters here are even remotely likable. Not on the first time, not even the second.

-Oh, and last time I checked, a car does not explode from a single gun shot, nor can a fire THAT huge be put out with a tiny fire extinguisher... did the above 3/10 viewers actually watch the movie??? -The camera is so shaky, I can barely tell what is going on. That opening scene with the robot had my stomach off-put, the rest of the movie was not much better.

-The sniper scene. The McManus Brothers (from "The Boondock Saints") would roll their eyes, it was so stupid. First off, why did the guy plant his gun where one person had gotten shot? Furthermore, why would he spend THAT much time cleaning the bullets, reloading, aiming and NOT get shot, when there was so much chaos going on around him? -SAS types RUNNING instead of staying and fighting back?????? Huh????? Are the soldiers... gay...??? I didn't mean to sound homophobic, but honestly, that scene was so ridiculous.

-Too long for its own good, yet too short for the amount of material crammed into it. Bigelow seems to think that the more action, the better. Looks like she is wrong- the movie is full of superfluous action scenes thrown in there to distract you from the lack of a central plot. I know Watchmen is longer at 163 minutes, but at least that movie didn't drag. This movie, on the other hand, does, and for it, feels longer.

The only good thing was Renner, who was satisfactory at best. But do yourself a favour, just skip this, and don't give into the hype.


watch a team of bomb disposal experts in Iraq count down their time before they can go home.

That in itself sounds boring. Every time that little caption came up telling us how long they had left, it just caused this film with no plot to drag on and on. hurry up and finish your time there so we can all go home.

I must be missing something. I'm a great fan of war films if they are done well. This had "jarhead" syndrome. A film that at times was beautifully shot, but cinematography doesn't stop it from being totally dull and pointless.

And get over the slow mo "cartridges coming out of the gun" shot already. they could have saved money and just got stock footage from any other film with a gun in it.

I didn't have any empathy for the main guy in it, i was constantly hoping that his recklessness would cause him to die. In fact the film would have worked much better if he had.

I read some reviews and seemed to get the feeling that those who had been in the armed forces disliked it, and everyone else loved it. I have never been in the forces, and I'm with them. It's pretentious drivel. the 3 stars are for the cinematography.


Some unrealistic movie spoilers included.

From real life experiences, this movie continued to disappoint from the very beginning. I'm currently deployed on my second tour to Iraq as an infantry man. This film has nothing near what would happen in real life occurrences. From the very start to name a few: the bomb cart, the EOD elements rolling out solo with no escorts, the EOD staff sergeant sneaking of VBC, having sleeves rolled the entire time in ACUs, to where i had to call it quits on my 2 dollar haji copy, the sniper scene. The list would continue, however, it is unnecessary to list things wrong happening with a time span of 2 minutes before more things were incorrect; and the point was made.

This movie is for people and critics to watch that have no understanding or experience with deployments or the military.

People with military background or knowledge of the military will be disappointed with the inaccuracy.


I just rented this today....heard lots of good reviews beforehand. WOW!! What a pile of steaming poo this movie is!! Does anyone know the address of the director so I can get my five dollars back???? Finally someone bumped "Stop-loss" from the 'Worst Iraq War Movie Ever' number one spot. To be fair, I don't think there are any good Iraq war movies anyway, but this was REALLY bad.

I won't get into any technical inaccuracies, there's a hundred reviews from other GWOT vets that detail them all. If the director bothered to consult even the lowliest E-nothing about technical accuracy however they could've made the movie somewhat realistic....maybe. I guess the writer should be given the "credit" for this waste of a film. He or she obviously hatched the plot for this movie from some vivid imagination not afflicted with the restraints of reality. Does anybody but me wonder what the point of this movie was? Was there a message? Seriously though.....WTF????

I'm pretty amazed at all the positive reviews really. This film is hard to watch as a vet because of all the glaring inaccuracies but even if one could overlook that, the plot sucks, characters are shallow (to say the least) and the acting is poor at best. It's ironic, I suppose, that this movie is supposed to be about Explosive Ordinance Disposal, because it's the biggest bomb I've seen this year.


I love a good war film and I fall into the "been there, done that" category. So I would like to think my review is an accurate one (IMHO). Having just watched this film on DVD I can safely say that it was a pile of rubbish. There is no way I can recommend this film to you.

It started off with me shouting at the TV saying "you wouldn't do that" etc...but I soon realised that having a bit of job experience would be a hindrance so I chilled a bit. But on the opening scene when the trailer wheel fell off I got a nasty feeling that this film would be a predictable dud...I was right.

There simply wasn't any logic to the EOD scenes. I just know that the army team had some of the most patient insurgents ever at the other end of the command wire or remote trigger. So much so I was left scratching my head all the time. Then just when you think you know where the story is going the guys in the Humvee are off out on their own driving around the desert. One of the most valuable assets in theatre out on a jolly bumping into some SAS wannabe contractors.

The sniper scene was just so laughable. It just made no sense at all and made me want to switch off there and then. Then for them to drag it out so long really did test my patience.It started with the "Contact Right" and went down hill fast. If you had a Brit accent then you got shot but if you were part of the EOD team then suddenly you were a great shot and saved the day. Then just as you thought it was over it stretched on for an inexplicably long period without adding anything to the story at all. You are just left watching and asking why hasn't it ended yet?

Then we had the booze scene where they just hit each other for a laugh..another scene where you just wanted it to end. It added nothing to the film.

Then just as my life seemed very dull the main star went outside the wire to hunt someone down. This most be the most ridiculous scene I have ever watched. It defied all logic and ability to write a good storyline...it was senseless and awful. I still don't understand why they wasted time on it. Then to watch him just jog through the busy streets heading back to camp had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Pure comedy :)

The sad fact is that this storyline is all over the show without really deciding what it wants to be. I thought it was going to be stupid illogical EOD scenes but then it kept going off on tangents trying to be something different. But as hard as it tried it just bored me to death. All I wanted was for it to end. It was a messy compilation of stupid scenes mixed into a batch of stupid, senseless, action(ish) scenes.

There is no way I can recommend this. Maybe my work experience compromised the enjoyability but even the naive must realise this just doesn't make sense. The only thing more stupid than this film is the artificially high IMDb rating...which must be the 24/7 work of the box office PR team who seem to use this website as a way of making everyone think it is good. Sorry folks...it just ain't!

Not recommended...it will just bore you.


As usual, I am making a mad dash to see the movies I haven't watched yet in anticipation of the Oscars. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie as it seemed to be right up my alley. I can not for the life of me understand why this movie has gotten the buzz it has. There is no story!! A group of guys meander around Iraq. One day they are here diffusing a bomb. Tomorrow they are tooling around the countryside, by themselves no less and start taking sniper fire. No wait here they are back in Bagdad. There is no cohesive story at all. The three main characters are so overly characterized that they are mere caricatures. By that I mean, we have the sweet kid who is afraid of dying. We have the hardened military man who is practical and just wants to get back safe. And then we have the daredevil cowboy who doesn't follow the rules but has a soft spot for the precocious little Iraqi boy trying to sell soldiers DVDs. What do you think is going to happen??? Well, do you think the cowboy soldier who doesn't follow rules is going to get the sweet kid injured with his renegade ways?? Why yes! Do you think the Iraqi kid that cowboy soldier has a soft spot for is going to get killed and make him go crazy? Why yes! There is no story here. The script is juvenile and predictable! The camera is shaken around a lot to make it look "artsy". And for all of you who think this is such a great war picture, go rent "Full Metal Jacket", "Deerhunter" or "Platoon". Don't waste time or money on this boring movie!


COULD CONTAIN SPOILERS.....I'm surprised by the high rating of this film to be honest..really am. All I saw was a slow moving propaganda movie with nothing much to say. (Note to self must check the rating for Platoon on here)This movie was so black and white...Americans good...anyone else either evil or useless. I take it the British troops in it were meant to be SAS (one of the most elite units in the world most would agree with I'm pretty sure) they lost 3 men and the others ran away while the US troops who weren't even Elite soldiers in the fighting sense held the ground and opened up a can of whoop ass on them evil sneaky Iraqis. Aye dead-on strings to mind. The only good thing I have to say about this movie did come in this sense when the sniper took out the SAS man...muzzle flash from distance, good noise used...really well done that bit but the rest...Spare me what am I 10 years of age over here??!! Well I'm not and can see nonsense propaganda in a movie and boy did this movie have it.

SPOILER...Oh aye and in the main crazy,wild guy can't stay at home with his wife and young child..no he has to sign up for another year to fight in a nonsense lie of a war!! Why...because young men need thrills or something apparently. Like say I'm surprised by the high rating of this movie really am.

P.S. I'm not hating America I'm hating the message of this movie that seems to not even want to confront issues of an illegal war (in my eyes) which OK fair enough because clearly there are people out there who think it's a just war for whatever messed up reason (wanted to say something else her but censored) but hey that's up to them. But to churn out a movie so one-sided like it's black and white...good v evil is lazy and treating me as a child. In war there is a lot of grey and it's two (sometimes more)sides who believe in what they are fighting for. Not Star Wars with something something dark side verses the goodies. F' sake Hollywood at times you really do take people for mugs...then again 7.8....well maybe you are right to but I'll not be buying it. Glad I downloaded this movie tell you all that for nothing. ;)


There is no artistic value in this movie to deserve any award. Well, it does not deserve an audience as well. Ironically, one of the awards is for cinematography but frankly, the camera movements are disconcerting to say the least. Every frame, you feel you are getting the "full picture", its like someone is "cropping your view" from the edges. The story is pathetic. Well, I will be honest, I could not bear to watch the entire movie. The part that sucked the most was when I saw the soldiers partying in their barracks and one of the soldiers coaxed to drink liquor. These and many other similar scenes reminded me so much of Steven Seagal.

Take my advice, stay away from this piece of crap.


I am definitely in the minority opinion on this one. "The Hurt Locker" has won more "Best Picture" awards from the critic groups than any other film this year. However, not only did I not like it, I found it hard to sit through.

There is minimal plot and little character development. They disarm bombs, fight, and disarm more bombs. That is the entire movie.

But the worst part was that the camera never stops moving and is constantly shaking. This has been a recent fad in film making and it is supposed to make it seem more real because it has a cheap, documentary look to it. The camera was shaking so much it was making me nauseous to look at the screen.

I normally don't care for war movies and "The Hurt Locker" was no exception. But you don't need to take my word for it because the critics love it.


Well I too had heard read all the breathless reviews and comments about how this movie might deserve the Best Picture Oscar so I went to see it today. What a major disappointment! 1) If you read the other reviews you will learn from members of the U.S. military who served in Iraq how unlikely the events of this movie are. They mirrored my own thoughts; as the movie played I - a complete civilian - kept thinking to myself, "say WHAT? there's no way that would happen like that.." 2) There's very little that actually happens in terms of plot. A new bomb disposal guy shows up to replace one who was killed (a death that isn't really clearly explained). The new guy gets an adrenaline rush from his work. His attitude puts others at risk. THAT'S IT! 3) This movie is nowhere near as suspenseful as claimed. If you want suspense try one of the Bourne movies. If you want to see a war movie that's emotionally powerful, try renting Go Tell The Spartans, which is about the Vietnam War, and stars Burt Lancaster (who told me PERSONALLY in a serendipitous supermarket encounter that it was a film he was immensely proud of and one he viewed as some of his finest work, and which he was still upset had been largely ignored in the wake of the over-hyped Apocalypse Now), or an old WWII black and white classic Sink The Bismark, which, especially for an English film, is unbelievably heart-wrenching. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON Hurt Locker.


Who did the research for this film? It's set in Baghdad in 2004, however all the Soldiers are wearing ACUs and have all Universal Camouflage Pattern gear. No one was wearing that stuff in 04.

I just saw this film while deployed overseas and I can say that the overwhelming feeling from the audience was WTF? This movie made no sense, had characters come and go with no explanation, and people doing ridiculous things that would NEVER happen in real life. I realize that it's a movie, but it's obviously trying to portray something realistic. It fails miserably, but it's trying.

It's like someone came up with a bunch of random ideas, chewed them up and swallowed, then vomited out a film. I would not recommend this film to anyone. I'm still not sure why I sat through the whole thing. GI Joe was one that really made you think compared to this. STAY AWAY!


REALLY???

I am truly amazed to see the glowing reviews here!

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is one big pathetic, grainy, cliché. I would have laughed out loud, and a lot, but was on a date with an ex-military guy. I could not hide my other response, BOREDOM. Yes, I think my date, a flat-line "good old boy", liked it. That's not a compliment. I know an actor wants to work.... Fine for the others. But Ralph, come on.

It was a painful tease from Ralph. I vote a 2 only because Ralph looked SO STUNNING. But I must plead, Ralph, how could you? And, why??

I'm going to go watch The End of The Affair to heal and recover now.... C1


This whole film should have lasted 45 minutes - maximum. Although an interesting concept/theme, it really did not develop as a story. Once the initial idea of a brave (stupid?) bomb disposal expert (cowboy?) are introduced, and this happens very early in the film, the rest is repetitious. Characters were not explored, and aspects of the location and politics were ignored. There was some nice insight into the appalling difficulties faced by troops in such a foreign environment, and the difficulties in differentiating between friend and foe. But the way in which the unit operated stretched belief! Individual performances were good, and special effects were adequate, but not enough to overcome the basic lack of content.


... And being let down bigger than ever before. I won't make any direct references or anything here, but to say the least, this film is pathetic. If you're military trained, don't bother watching. I put it on the DVD with 2 friends wanting to watch a somewhat interesting action / war flick. Why couldn't I just have read the reviews first.

Already at the first "bomb" scene the film has huge glitches, and they continue to show and become bigger and bigger. My 2 friends, not connected to the military in any way spotted a couple of the filmmaker's mistakes almost as fast as I myself did and asked me if some of the things going on we're realistic. Well, as you might have guessed, they're not - at all.

Avoid this movie unless you're able to overlook these completely idiotic and re-occurring mistakes being made. 2/10 for catching my interest at first.


I decided to watch this one because it's been nominated for Oscar this year. I guess as many folks here I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and disappointed. First scene was OK but the whole rest of the movie in "shaky hands" camera mode is really annoying.

i guess the main reason for making such a movie and nominating it for Oscar is this:

American "military machine" (people, who makes money on war) urgently need an excuse or justification of war in Iraq by bungling up something (sort of) patriotic.

why these "heroic" efforts of director and the main character to _inspire_ the audience with an idea of "loving-war-like-a-drug"?.. Oh, please, come on! what a bore!

watch this to get an idea of how low the movie academy can fall...


I went to see this movie simply to see what all the hype is about, and I was as disappointed as surprised about how it got 6(?) Oscars and 7.9 rating on IMDb as of today.

Kathryn Bigelow should be the luckiest director ever to win the best picture and best direction Oscar for this sort of a really really bad movie and I wonder why? Did the totally unrealistic 'cowboy' bomb disposal-man storyline mean anything to somebody that I failed see? Why did I keep getting the mental image that this movie was a remake of some old bad Western movie about a cowboy doing 'brave deeds' in the Wild Wild West infected with 'evil' Red Indians; but just that it was set in a different background this time? Was it given the Oscars because the director being ex of James Cameron, and made it a nice underdog (gossipy) story for day time TV shows to munch on? Or was it some sort of Emperor's Clothes syndrome - where most people realized it was junk but just couldn't say so because others didn't seem to be saying it out aloud?

And finally what was with that sniper scene where they showed the shell casing dropping in high-resolution-super-slow-mo as if to convey a 'deep message' or something? Something in the lines of 'EOD guys make good snipers all of a sudden and they will get the filthy terrorists all the time'? Was it just me who felt like there were so many bits and pieces here and there in the movie squeezed in for no apparent reason? And you can get the Oscars for editing and directing for that??

If you haven't seen this yet, don't waste your money on tickets. Wait till they run it on TV in a few years. You are not going to miss much.


Let's start by the simple lines. From the viewer's side, there a couple of good "director details", some points of view at the movie scenes that are nice. The special effects are good enough, a good acting/good scenery also. But the story is way too simple. It shows how a elite Army bomb squad unit lives, acts and sometimes dies. It shows the drama of living in war. In my movie experience as a serious action movie "addicted" guy, I missed that click that gets my eyes and mind stuck on the screen. One of the things that need to be present in a movie in order to I consider it a good one is the ability of immerse the viewer in the movie reality and time. It didn't happened to me. I stayed "conscious", for the entire movie.

Honestly speaking, I think that this movie gained its place in fame based on the "subconscious" appeal of American patriotism, a healthy and genuine feeling, but not the adequate use as a movie fame generator. More than a movie about war, it grows its popularity based on that.

A simple thought: if this was a world war II or I movie, only changing time, with everything remained the same, would it be this awarded? Sure not. Why? Because there are great ones that elevate the bar way to high.

Compared against its rivals in the Oscars, I don't think that all of the prizes it won are correctly awarded.


Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal are already preparing a sequel about a young US corporal in Afghanistan. He also happens to be a highly-qualified surgeon and is roaming freely around Kabul, operating on wounded NATO soldiers. On a particularly difficult mission, he casually picks up a sniper rifle and shoots Osama Bin Laden from a distance of about 3000 yards. He is then finally promoted to sergeant, but is unable to decide between a sniper and surgeon career, so he quits from the Army altogether. One year later, frustrated with civilian life, he joins the Navy and the last scene shows him proudly wearing a white uniform.


I was looking forward to Kathryn Bigelow's movie with great anticipation after the endless hype and 6 Oscars which it was awarded. Unfortunately it really isn't a good movie. The depiction of the situation certainly seemed to be accurate and believable on all counts, but beyond that the story simply came across as incomplete and the direction of the movie appeared to be uncertain and haphazard. The actors put in a good effort, but for me I didn't really get what the movie was trying to be. It's not as atmospheric and gripping as Full Metal Jacket, not as epic as Band of Brothers, not as action packed as...well, anything. I certainly can't see why it was nominated for so much, nor why people are 'hyping it up' to these epic proportions. Mind you, given the calibre of movies in the last couple of years I suppose there's not a lot to choose from.


Yes, this movie is a real thief. It stole some shiny Oscars from Avatar just because politicians wanted another war-hero movie to boost the acceptance (support?) for the wars U.S. is still fighting today. I do not really want to go here into politics, but come on, this is more clear than the summer sky. Hurt locker does not really have anything outstanding, no real plot at all. I really feel myself in the 50's of Hungary when the party told the people what to like and what not to like. The same propaganda movies were produced that time, only with the exception that those were black and white. Even if we consider this title a reasonable piece of the "U.S. wars are cool" genre, you surely have much better movies to choose from.


i was intrigued to see how a little-seen 2008 film had somehow won the Oscar for best picture of 2009 and thus went to see The Hurt Locker. sadly, all i got for the two hours invested was the grim confirmation that this film had won awards purely for off-the-screen reasons.

the direction and visual style of this film is some of the weakest you will ever see. when it's not busy being yet another Bourne Identity homage with dire, annoying "shaky cam" visuals, it shows off all the hallmarks of a second rate daytime soap opera in terms of lensing.

the "plot" is threadbare, the characterizations are about as well developed as rejected Beetle Bailey comic strip ideas and the dialogue - on the instances where the film gives up on being "minimalist" and for no apparent reason turns one or two soldiers into right chatterboxes - is some of the worst ever recorded. in fairness, the actors do the best they can in the circumstances, just not enough to obscure how bad the project is.

the whole film has the feel of it being intended as some kind of "mockumentary" that they clocked was bereft of humour and thus re-edited as best they could so as to pass it off as a serious drama.

if you spend two hours on this film they are two hours you will never get back, and two hours wasted that you will regret for the rest of your life.


I rented this film on Netflix after it won all the Oscars, to see if it was really that good.

The Hurt Locker is a very realistic portrayal (for the most part) of a group of soldier's rotation in Iraq. The film centers around Will James, a reckless soldier who gets his adrenaline fix from taking risks, and defusing bombs.

Where this film seems to lack in my opinion is the Plot and Direction of the movie. This film has no clear plot unlike other films such as Black Hawk Down. What this film tries to do is focus more on the characters, and their different attitudes about the war. Bigelow does an okay job of focusing on the characters, but there are many points in the film where the dialogue seems to drag. Hurt Locker is 131 minutes long, yet it feels like a 3 hour movie.

One scene in the movie that was particularly awful, and ruined the films perfect credibility, was the sniping scene halfway through the movie. It was both unrealistic, and very long.

Overall, I thought this film was OKAY, but the reason I gave it a 6 instead of a 7, was because it was a major letdown for winning Best Picture at the Oscars. I felt like this film could have been so much better considering Saving Private Ryan lost Best Picture, but was much better than this film. Another notable mention is Black Hawk Down which only won 2 Oscars. I honestly do not know how this won best picture.

If you are looking for an action packed war flick, rent Black Hawk Down. This film will be forgotten in a year or two.


REALLY? REALLY???? I know if you make a political war movie you will get noticed but this movie was just garbage. Horrible in every sense. Terribly inaccurate in so many ways. I have an easier time believing the president of the United States suiting up, flying a jet fighter, and shooting down aliens. It is easier to note the few things that were right. My jaw dropped when I saw some one say that this movie was the best in the last 25 years. It was overacted, seemingly pointless plot diversions, and had questionable cinematography at times.

X-box, YouTube, ACUPAT utilities did anyone check that these things did not exist in 2004? It's not like you had to do extensive research, it was only five years before this movie came out. I am an Iraq war Veteran and if you spent ONE day with an infantry platoon or an EOD squad you would realize how B.S. this movie is. To compare this to Platoon or Saving Private Ryan is ludicrous. Why don't you just throw Commando and Red Dawn in there too; I think those might be more accurate.

If for some reason you can see past the unbelievable plot, the historical and factual discrepancies, then this movie might just be OK. Nothing more. If you keep on hearing "Oscar buzz", and have to add your own pompous review, go right ahead. As for me, I am writing the director to see if I can get my 131 minutes back.


As an ordinary movie-watcher I can't say I enjoyed watching this one. It's not too emotional for a drama, not too gripping for a thriller, not too fast for an action. Plus, some moments of the movie are hardly credible. OK, I understand, soldiers become a bit out of their mind out there, but it's hard to believe that a person would risk his life, carjack into the middle of a hostile city, and after being shouted at by a professor's wife run away, without having asked a question (in a proper way). It would seem terribly romantic if it were an animation or so, but it's supposed to be a SERIOUS film about war.. There are several episodes like this, so the whole picture makes an impression that it's just a raw preview of a movie, and it needs considerable work.

It feels like the movie makers wanted to create an image of an emotional brave soldier, but all these 'curves' of his psychology seem simply unnatural.

This picture left a question in my head: WHY? Why they gave it an Oscar? Why SIX? And IMHO it's the most thrilling part of the movie :)


I picked up TRAN SCAN from the library and brought it home. We have considered taking a trip out east and thought it would give us a feel of what it was like. The film was a total waste of time, if I went out to buy it I would call it TRAN SCAM when I saw that it costs $49.

The DVD ran for 8 minutes and showed a roller coaster ride across Canada with my stomach feeling ill as they went up and down and around curve with the film at high speed.

There was a lot of footage they probably shot on this and you would think that they could have made a better product. If I would of done this project I would of provided more footage, paused on road signs to let people know where they were and linger in places to view the scenery. To make a film like this it should of been 60 to 90min. Oh yes the case said it was in stereo, the whole film was a hissing sound from sped up car sound, thet could of at least put some music to it.

If you want a good cross Canada film watch The railrodder / National Film Board of Canada starring Buster keaton (the one of the last film he made) in this comical film Buster Keaton gets on to a railway trackspeeder in Nova Scotia and travels to British Columbia


If this movie as meant to discourage people from doing drugs, it fails. I was ready to start using them I got waiting for something to happen and nothing ever really did. This movie is neither horror or drama. It's just the paranoia of meth users. This movie may win an award for the using the "F" word so many times and so uselessly. It was not well stated, but I felt like they were making Meth to replace Meth they owed to someone. Hector just got worse and more paranoid as the movie went on and the girl just got more hopeless. The ending really made no sense. The movie made no sense unless it was just showing how annoying is is to be stuck in a house in the middle of nowhere with a meth-head. I relied on the other feedback when I decided to watch this movie and the rating on this movie should be a much lower average.


I see what the director was trying to do but he missed the mark. The main actor was really good but the editing around his moments takes you out of it. The camera work, ie lighting and exposer is kind of amateur which I could forgive if the direction was more fluent but it wasn't. The sound was a bit off and that takes you out of the film as well. I see could see this director doing a little bit better in the future so not a total right off but don't expect a dv movie nearly as good as 28 days later or anything, keep your expectations low and you'll get more out of it. At least it was only an hour and a half. Oh yeah and other than the lead the acting was pretty bad if you ask me. But I'm a movie snob so take that for what that's worth.


Judging by the hype, and other reviews on this site, I was ready for an awesome horror movie focusing on junkies. What i got was complete crap focusing on junkies. I wonder if there's another movie called "Cookers" that these people reviewed? There are only 3 main characters, and none of them struck me as well-written or well-acted. Basically the whole movie I just spent shaking my head and marveling at the stupidity of these drug addicts.

Do yourself a favor. Don't rent this movie. Rent "Cabin Fever" or some other decent horror movie. Hell, rent "Mary Poppins"! The animated penguins are scarier and more convincing than anything you'll find in "Cookers."


I wanted to like this movie, but many elements ruined it for me. The use of a fisheye lens throughout and choppy editing did not give me a sense of being in the world of the meth head, but it did make me think I was watching MTV for a few short moments. The movie never did seem to go anywhere and the acting was truly an excellent example of over acting. I love movies that give us a glimpse into the seedy underworld, but this film couldn't decide if it was a bad horror film or an even worse serious commentary on the horrors of addiction.