WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS SLIGHT SPOILERS

There's a parallel universe out there where Gone In 60 Seconds is a dark, edgy, controversial independent movie. Unfortunately in this dimension Gone... is a flashy, vacuous, testosterone-fuelled moronfest starring Nicolas Cage.

For reasons not really worth getting into, he and his large number of cronies have four days to steal fifty expensive cars, only one of which has an alarm. This crew consists of the guy with the funny-shaped ears who's rumoured to be the new Superman; a guy who conducted electricity in The X-Files; an ex-professional footballer and two token black men.

Their enemies are cops, rival car thieves and Bilborough from Cracker, his Manchester accent suitably flattened and broadened for American audiences who are now used to that sort of thing since Daphne in Frasier. There's also Angelina Jolie, who gets no character; save to be a receptacle to men's sexual desires. She and Cage are supposed to be old flames, which is odd, as they never have anything approaching a normal conversation in all of the film's overlong 135m running time.

In fact, characterisation is so poor that whenever anyone has a "moment" a violin plays in the background to accentuate the "emotion". It's no spoiler to reveal that Vinnie Jones (who recreates his famous Paul Gasgoine "hand ball" manoeuvre and is quite menacing when silent) only gets one line; not because his inability to speak is integral to the plot but because his eloquent summing up of the film's dubious morality after appearing mute the whole way through is funny. Allegedly. After he struggles through it in his "not-quite-acting-but-it'll-do" London drawl, Cage quips "I always thought you were from Long Island". My ribs, as you might imagine, were well and truly tickled.

In fact humour is the most undeveloped aspect, from the tactless comedy policeman to the two token black characters. This sees the biggest aspect of Hollywood take hold; why is it that a black man cannot appear in a major motion picture without being constantly aware of his skin tone and endlessly refer to it? The younger man, who, like the elder, jive-talks for the whole duration, proclaims: "us black people don't like the cold ... we're tropical people". He then goes on to express an urge to smoke a joint and watch Roots. He is, of course, parodying the image of black people, but how funny is that? His older counterpart cannot speak without referring to himself, and thereby his colour, in third person. "My black ass" this, "my black ass" that. Does anyone know any black people who actually speak like that? Thought not.

The film's soundtrack is played almost non-stop and with increasing volume, some of the tracks - especially Apollo 440's "Don't Stop The Rock" - so loud they're actually more audible than the sound effects and dialogue. The surroundsound system even separates the two to such a degree that it makes them sound like two different films running together. No background music concept here, it's the aural equivalent of trying to watch a film while someone at the back of the cinema has their stereo turned up full blast. "Keep that music down, young man!"

This isn't the worst film in the world and in many ways I enjoyed it. It's just that it's predictable, lazy and witless, with minimal effort in its construction. Apparently box office expectations are considerably down for this movie. After being force-fed junk for several years it appears the general public are starting to wake up to the fact.


This review may contain some spoilers.

The remake of the classic 1974 car chase movie Gone in 60 Seconds begins well. Actually it is well acted and the plot moves quite well. But even a big Hollywood budget doesn't change the fact that the original plot was more believable. For those who don't know, the original plot had the thieves working as insurance inspectors. Who would suspect them. But even with a change to nearly every aspect of H.B. Halicki's original, the remake is a very good movie, until we get to the final chase scene, the part of the 74 version that made it great. The one in this version is watered down, only 10 minutes, and it culminates in a monster special effect that takes all believability out of the chase. Where the original chase was very believable, the star was a stunt driver who did all his own stunt, the remake falls flat in the last 15 minutes. My advice, if you want to watch a classic car chase film, fine the original in the bargain bin at your local rental joint and stay clear of the new remake.


Randall "Memphis" Raines is a retired master car thief who is forced back into the "game" when his younger brother faces death for not filling an order for British crime boss Raymond Calitri. The job involves "lifting" 50 cars in 24 hours or Calitri will enact his punishment. So Raines quickly assembles a crew he can trust and sets about the task to hand. But the police are on to him and some of the cars on the list are not easy takes. It would seem a near impossible job to complete.

It's got quite a cast has Gone In 60 Seconds, Nicolas Cage, Angelina Jolie, Robert Duvall, Will Patton, Delroy Lindo, Vinnie Jones, Giovanni Ribisi, Christopher Ecclestone, Scott Caan & Timothy Olyphant. All of whom deserve better. Enough acting horsepower there to propel a Porsche 998 Turbo. Trouble is, is that this is very much a case of too many cars overstocking the car park, mucho characters, not enough zest. From the off we are in no doubt that this is a Bruckheimer/Simpson production, bonkers script laced with loud noises and lashings of cheese, scattergun editing, and directed with sledgehammer subtly by Dominic Sena. It's essentially a big budget remake of H.B. Halicki's 1974 indie movie of the same name, with the premise offering up the potential for an adrenalin fuelled car based movie. Potential that sadly is never realised. There's one or two high impact moments, daft for sure, but enjoyable none the less. But if you pardon the pun, the film never gets out of first gear, it's more content to labour with its ream of characters who mope about trying to make the boorish screenplay {Scott Rosenberg} work.

Car fans will get something from it {the cars are ace on the eye}, as will fans of unintentional comedy movies {check out Ecclestone's carpenter grief moment}. But no, it's really rather poor all told. 4/10


I watched this because I thought there were going to be a lot of car chases and cool cars to gawk at. Guess I was lied to. This movie is very boring.

The movie starts out Kip Raines(Giovanni Ribisi) sitting outside a Porsche dealership checking to see if they have the right car. When they confirm it's the right one, Kip gets a brick out of the trunk and chucks it at the window, shattering it. He gets the Porsche while his friend gets the keys. They start up the car and take off into the night. They deliver it to a warehouse only to have been followed by the police. So, the whole crew ditches all the cars and go their separate ways. Then, we get a glimpse of Memphis Raines. He is giving a little speech to a bunch of kids at a go-kart track. Then, he is confronted by Atlee Jackson(Will Patton). Atlee tells Memphis that his brother Kip is in deep *bleep*. Memphis is known as one of the most notorious car thieves in Los Angeles. Memphis heads to a junkyard and meets Raymond Calitri(Christopher Ecclesten). This guy threatens to kill Kip if Memphis doesn't deliver 50 cars within 72 hours.

There are a few problems with this film:

1.Story: The first 48 in-movie hours take place when Cage and Duvall are looking for a crew and planning everything out. The last 12 in-movie hours are a waste!

2. The Cars: You see maybe 10 cars out of the 50 as the movie advertises. So, where are the other 40 cars? Why don't we get to see them?

3. The Chase: The chase at the end of the movie was a joke. It was not suspenseful at all.

4. The Dog: Somewhere in the movie, the dog eats the burgers and swallows three keys as well. This is impossible. The keys were flipped open. The keys would have severely damaged the dog's esophagus, stomach, and large intestines. The guys suggest giving the dog laxatives to help him poop it out. This won't work. The dog will get a lot of diarrhea but no keys. It was stated in Jackass after Ryan Dunne stuck a toy car up his rectum. Take laxatives, lots of diarrhea, but no car. Same case with the dog.

5. The Cop During The Chase: When Eleanor breaks down for a few minutes, Nicholas Cage tries desperately to start up the car. You see a police cruiser behind him who isn't looking at his car at all. But, right when Nicholas Cage starts the engine up again, the police officer jerks his head to the right, sees the car, and immediately begins to chase after him. It is stupid. So, right when he heard the engine start, and saw the car, he knew that was the car he was looking for. How does he know it's the right car? He only sees the back of it.

Overall, the movie is boring. There is no action. There are very few cars. The movie is stupid. I have never seen the original but I plan to.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Get The Fast and Furious instead.


The remake of H.B. Halicki's classic seventies chase film is simply horrible. Along with Vanishing Point, Gone in 60 Seconds represent the quintessential car chase films. The remake takes the original and stands it on its head. Whereas Halicki gave us 75% car chase and 25% supporting drama, in GISS 2000 we get 25% car chase and 75% supporting drama. Cage as super man, saves his brother, kisses the girl. MTV edits, tits and ass. Save your money, rent the original. At least Halicki didn't live to see his baby (he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in the '74' film) degraded in this manner.


This was a horrible film! I gave it 2 Points, one for Angelina Jolie and a second one for the beautiful Porsche in the beginning... Other than that the story just plain sucked and cars racing through cities wasn't so new in 1970. The Happyend was probably what annoyed me the most, seldomly seen anything so constructed!


This movie shows us nothing original. Every idea or (action) scene can be found in many previously released movies. Fabulous Nick is completely plain here. Even Will Patton is calm and evil nor good. Mr. Duvall is ok, but has a very small part. So does Angelina, so how can we determine her newly acclaimed stardom? Overall, there are too many characters, so that nobody and nothing is especially detailed. This makes the movie easy to forget. Too bad, don't you think?


1975's MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE is an amazing and wonderful film to watch. This isn't because the fighting is particularly inspired or because the film makes any sense at all. It's because the film is so silly and so over-the-top that it is a camp classic--bad, but enjoyably bad. The film stars a blind guy who has a Frisbee-like device on a chain that chops off people's heads as he expertly throws this at his foes! Who cares that the physics are impossible or that the film features such silly things as fighters with 12 foot long papier-mache arms or that the guy was blind! It's just a ball to watch from start to finish--and one of my favorite "bad" films and great to see with friends.

Because of this film, I was eager to see THE FATAL FLYING GUILLOTINES (1977), though sadly it turned out NOT to be a sequel but a bit of a knock-off--taking many of the ideas from the original but neglecting to make the film as coherent or watchable. Sure, it's silly fun, but it never comes close to MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE in entertainment value. Like the original film, there are these weird flying devices that sever heads, but they are quite different--with circular saw blades and almost a mind of their own. There also is no blind guy but instead are a bunch of baddies who really have no depth nor does the audience understand exactly what's occurring in this English-dubbed version, as the plot is completely incomprehensible. However, at the same time, some of the martial arts action is very good. While not up to the high standards of most Bruce Lee or Sonny Chiba films, the action is worthwhile despite the ludicrous and often confusing plot.

Overall, this is a film that martial arts fans may like (despite its many, many, many, many shortcomings), but also one that others will probably turn off or laugh hysterically at instead of enjoying the action because the film is just so ludicrous. BUT, most importantly, it never comes close to being as funny or watchable as MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE. Too bad.


Although there's Flying Guillotines as part of the title of this movie, it has no connections to the original Flying Guillotines (1975) and its sequel Flying Guillotines II (1978). The two originals are masterpieces of kung-fu movie and still stands out as a classic. This is a much inferior copy of the original, and even as a regular kung-fu movie, it's below average.

First of all, this movie doesn't have much acting. It's one senseless fight scene after another, and flying guillotine doesn't even play a major part in them. Story is about some Shaolin monks who are tracking down some villains who've took off with a sacred book, and an evil prince who owns part of this book is part of the plot. The same evil prince has plans to lure the monks in and use the flying guillotines on them.

There are four movies with Flying Guillotine as part of its title. This in my opinion is of least quality. The design of the flying guillotine in this movie is different from the other three indicating that this movie was produced by a different entity from the other three.

The movie has no chemistry asides from being unintentionally funny due to poor production.

Best skip this and watch the two originals.


This movie got extremely silly when things started to happen. I couldn't care less about any of the characters; Susan Walters was so annoying, and the leading actor (forget his name) also got on my nerves. Can't quite remember how it ended and so forth but the whole idea of aliens possessing human bodies and all just seemed stupid in this film, things didn't quite carry off. My dad told me it's s stupid movie...I should've listened to him.


I read the comment of Chris_m_grant from United States.

He wrote : " A Fantastic documentary of 1924. This early 20th century geography of today's Iraq was powerful."

I would like to thank Chris and people who are interested in Bakhtiari Nomads of Iran, the Zagros mountains and landscapes and have watched the movie Grass, A Nation's battle for life. These traditions you saw in the movie have endured for centuries and will go on as long as life endures. I am from this region of Iran myself. I am a Bakhtiari.

Chris, I am sorry to bother you but Bakhtiari region of Zardkuh is in Iran not in Irak as you mentioned in your comment. Iran and Irak are two different and distinct countries. Taking an Iranian for an Irankian is almost like taking an American for an Mexican. Thanks,

Ziba


Documentary about nomadic Persians making a treacherous traverse of massive mountains to get their herds to grass. Watching this silent, black and white feature, marred in part by a twink-twink-twink Oriental music score that could not have been used in the original exhibition, is even duller than it sounds. The spectacular scenery is lost on a small black and white screen, and there is an utter failure to establish any kind of plot line. I loved Nanook of the North and March of the Penguins, but despised this movie, notwithstanding the similarity of the theme. Physical hardships alone are just not that interesting.


The problem I find with this title is that I am not sure if the director is trying to produce a documentary or movie. A blend of the two genres just doesn't work and that leaves the whole thing hung in the middle of nowhere. This is more so as the director has picked the most extremes of what is supposed to be happening around our everyday life making it an unconvincing documentary. If it is meant to be a thriller/drama this is too dull and monotonous. In either case, what is the moral or the message which the director is trying to convey to the audience? That around us there are people who ill-treat others who are willing to be ill-treated? That there are many crazy lunatics around us? So..........so what?


This film is in no way entertainment but more of a look deep into the depths of the darkest side of human behaviour. Loosely linking a half a dozen stories of the worst kind of depravities, perverted sex, greed, violence and intolerance. All the action is played out over a few very hot and sticky days during a heatwave in Vienna and the heat is maybe responsible for some of the anger and hate in the film. For me the treatment of the retarded girl by the security equipment salesman was about the worst episode, closely followed by the scenes of drunkenness and perversity in the 'slags' flat. You will be gripped and I hope horrified by this film. I hated it but I felt compelled to see it through. 1/10 for 'fun' 8/10 for displaying 'man' as he sometimes is.


This movie reminds me of "Irréversible (2002)", another art-work movie with is a violent and radical approach of human nature. I did not like the movie but I cannot say that it is a bad movie, it is just special. I reminds me also of "Camping Cosmos (1996)" where a bunch of low-class figures are residents of a camp at the sea in Belgium. The same description of people living together, side by side against their wills and with all the confrontation of characters that do not match together. I also thought about the books by the French writer Emile Zola who was a writer of the style that is naturalism. I did not like the movie and I also do not like the people who are in it. They all seem so vulgar, without any basic good taste. One could ask the question why do they live, they all seem to be on this planet a a member of a big farce, forced to live against their will. Or you could say: the hell is on this world.


Earlier today I got into an argument on why so many people complain about modern films in which I encountered a curious statement: "the character development in newer movies just isn't nearly as good or interesting as it used to be." Depending on the film(s) in question, this can be attributed to a number of things, sometimes generic special effects and plot-driven Hollywood garbage like War Of The Worlds, but in the case of over-the-top, uninteresting attempts at social commentary and a desperate struggle to put "art" back into cinema, it's movies like Dog Days that are to blame.

I normally have a very high tolerance for movies, no matter how dull or pointless I find them (ranging from good, long ones like Andrei Rublev and Dogville, to ones I've considered painful to sit through a la Alpha Dog and Wild Wild West). I shut this movie off 45 minutes in, which is 30 minutes more than I actually should have. I wasn't interested in any of the characters whatsoever and found nothing substantial beyond a thin veil of unfocused pessimism. In an attempt to say something about the dregs of society, this film too easily falls into being self-indulgent, trite, and exploitative in a very sincere sense. Granted, I've seen many disturbing movies on the same subject, but there are so many better films out there about depressing, pathetic people (Happiness, Gummo, Kids, Salo, Storytelling, Irreversible) that actually contain characters of great emotional depth and personality. Dog Days had none more than an eighth grader's distaste for society, choosing to ignore any true intelligence about the way people actually are, and instead choosing to be a dull, awful, and hopelessly unoriginal attempt at a work of "art." This isn't a characterization of the unknown or a clever observation into the dregs of society, it's just boring and nothing worth caring about.


I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable.


If you are looking for a film the portrays the pointless and boring existence of middle class lives caught in a web of non-communication and false ideals, then this is the film for you. If you also what the film to be engaging and keep your interest, then you should probably look elsewhere. There are many films that do this far better. For example, try some of the darker films by Bergman. The Filmmaker felt that in order to show the spiritual poverty of the middle class he should subject the viewer to one agonizingly dull and vacuous incident after another until the film finally comes to its tortuous and pathetic end. If you value your time there are far better ways to spend two hours, like cleaning your house, for example.


Fragmentaric movie about a couple of people in Austria during a heatwave. This kind of movie has been done more often, and most of all, better. The stories don't really have anything to do with each other, apart from the pathetic finale: 'people are cruel'. Ugly flesh, unpleasant people and a movie that goes on way too long without really making a point... Ultra-realistic? Hardly... Boring? Indeed. Not even gorgeous Franzisca Weiss can save this one! 3/10


I didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.

It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.

Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the über-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.

Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of "You are so lame!" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.

This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your "never walk out during a movie" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).

This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.


What an appalling piece of rubbish!!! Who ARE all these people who blubber on about how good this is? Yes, it's "arty"; and yes, it's "foreign", but .... that's not enough. The plot is boring and disjointed, like a reality show but not so slickly made.

The people are intrinsically uninteresting; but as characters they don't have enough depth to feel empathy for them. If they are based on real people then I feel very, very sorry for them.

The violence (and some of it is very violent) seems quite ostentatious and gratuitous. It's like the producer has visions of being Quenton Tarantino. Not that I think very much of him, either.

And oh yes: if I had neighbours like these, I'd move!


This movie sucks ass. Something about a heatwave in some European country, complete trash. There's nothing going for this movie whatsoever. maybe 30 seconds of sex but that's it. There is a very annoying chick who hitches rides with people and really pisses me off. This movie is complete rash and you shouldn't subject yourself to watching it. I regret it it's very boring. I would rate it zero but i can't. No body in their right mind should see this. i'm sure you'll regret it completely i did. How could they think up something this bad. Even Mystery men was better. MYSTERY MEN. That sucks. That movie wasn't worth being made. complete waste of time. The characters in this are very hard to understand and i good very very very bored.


Despite being a huge fan of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers' movies, it wasn't until about 6 years ago that I first saw 'Follow the Fleet'. I knew all the songs from an old Astaire/Rogers record (yes, vinyl) but knew nothing of the plot.

Unfortunately, while the songs are catchy and Ginger Rogers' character is sweet and funny, you just can't like 'Bake Baker'. While trying to make up to his longtime partner, he continually sabotages her career. His character doesn't have the usual humour and elan of the other films' Astaire characters.

Worth watching for the songs and a great solo tap routine by Ginger Rogers.


It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.

It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment.

Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.

I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?!


I say 'I'd figure' in that line because, frankly, I've not seen a Hal Hartley movie until now. It's not that I haven't heard of him though, as he was seen as one of those small NY filmmakers (when I say small I mean even smaller than Jim Jarmusch), who made ultra-personal projects on limited budgets. In an ironic way, much as with Pasolini's Salo, though in a slightly different context, Fay Grim interests me to see some of Hartley's more acclaimed features, because there seems to be at least present some semblance of talent behind it, as if Hartley *could* be a very good filmmaker who may be so good he's just taken a big experimental blunder. Or, on the other hand, he could just be someone far too impressed with his own idiosyncrasies and would-be Godard-like cinematic collisions.

I can't quite explain the story, which may or may not be a problem I suppose, however it's not really in due to not having seen the film that preceded Fay Grim, Henry Fool. I think even if I had that experience it wouldn't make too much of a difference based on the final results. There's a lot of international espionage, a double plot wrapped inside of another that's fallen through the fake pockets of the title character, played in an aloof way by Parker Posey (not sure if that's good or bad either, maybe both), and also involving a CIA operative (Jeff Goldblum, as usual a solid presence amid the mania, even conjuring some laughs), not to mention an orgy-laden picture box, and author Henry Fool. It's not that the script is totally impenetrable, however much it goes into over-extended loopholes just for the sake of it, because there are some touches of witty or affectingly strange dialog.

Quite simply, the direction just sucks. Harltey is in love with the Third Man, which is fine, but he imposes a consistently headache inducing style of everything being tilted in angle, with characters having to get into frame equally oddly. Not since Battlefield Earth, in fact, has a director come off so annoyingly in trying to make the unnecessary choice of titled angles for some bizarre dramatic effect, only this time Hartley isn't amid a cluster-f***, he's mostly responsible for it. This, along with the crazy wannabe Godard title-cards that pop in here and there, some a little amusing and some just totally stupid, and the montage segments all in still shots, AND a couple of moments involving action that almost call to mind Ed Wood, undermine any of the potential that is in the script, which is already fairly hard to decipher. In a way, it's fascinating to watch how bad this all goes, but a kind of fascination that comes in seeing the flip-side to total creative control on a sort-of small-scale story.

But let it be known: you'll likely not come across a more wretchedly pretentious example of American independent film-making this year.


I haven't seen "Henry Fool", but after watching "Fay Grim" I'm not sure I want to. Maybe Hartley aims to be the "anti-thriller" director---he sure succeeded with this yawner. Based on the official description---woman discovers that her dead husband's manuscript contains material that could pose a threat to national security---I expected a taut geopolitical drama. Instead I got flimsy structure, goofy dialog, flabby characterizations, a convoluted plot, and a "tone" that shifts so often it suggests that Hartley changed the script according to his mood at any given time. I can hang for a long time with a frustrating, hard-to-follow plot (e.g. "Duplicity") because I figure that the loose ends eventually will come together. Even when they don't, or they do but they leave lingering questions (e.g. "Duplicity"), sharp writing and acting can hold one's interest. But half-way through "Fay Grim" I reached a deadly realization---I didn't know what was going on, and I didn't care. Too bad, because I really like Parker Posey, reduced here to working with an absurd part that asked her to morph from indifferent, estranged wife and indifferent, clueless mother to tough, shrewd international "player" capable of psychological mano a mano with terrorists. There's also bad casting. Jeff Goldblum can be very good, but he's not capable of overcoming miscasting as a CIA operative. He looks almost as uncomfortable in the role as I was watching him in it. His CIA sidekick is worse; he looks like a refugee from the quarterfinals of "American Idol" (are there really young CIA agents with big licks of hair rakishly draped over their foreheads?). Then there's the sticky question of the characters' ages. Goldblum was 54 when he made "Fay Grim"; Thomas Jay Ryan, who plays "Henry Fool", was 44. Neither was made to look or seem older than their actual ages. Yet, a key point in the story is that they served as CIA agents in Nicaragua "back in the '70s." Goldblum's character would've been in his 20s then; Henry Fool would've been a teenager. Was Hartley being "quirky" or lazy? The problems are too numerous to list...


This is a low-budget spoof of the espionage genre. To help frame your expectations, you should know that: (1) The acting is wildly heavy-handed. The stars are having great fun delivering their lines with excessive eye movement, frequent hand gestures, and off-key pacing. (2) The script deliberately lacks continuity and plausibility. Oftentimes lines are abruptly jarring and humorous because they have absolutely no relevance to previous plot elements. (3) Shots are frequently framed in off-balance angles, poking fun at genre excesses. (4) A pop-eyed Jeff Goldblum delivers complex and classically preposterous dialog in a winningly sarcastic manner.

The film has a guiding intelligence, deliberately starting with a plot element stolen from the B-films of the 1930's: a secret code with a structure that would defy explanation by Carl Sagan. The film's over-the-top acting is used mostly for comic effect during the first 90 minutes. In an early running gag, Fay Grim's son Ned is so frequently told to leave that you can't help chuckling while feeling sorry for the lad. Parker Posey's nicely choreographed fall from bed also helps set a humorous tone early in the film.

The film's slow pacing does not enhance the comedy elements or the drama elements that later emerge. The film's impact as drama is significantly lessened by the early comedy. Moreover, it is hard to be overly involved with the characters and their fates when the early portions of the film are so sarcastic. The musical score is intentionally heavy handed, and I found this (and the off-kilter camera angles) more irritating than humorous.

The over-the-top acting, the implausible and nearly incomprehensible plot of conspiracies/counter conspiracies, and the slow pacing will grind on many viewers. The movie is much too long at 158 minutes.

That said, fans who are receptive to the film's sarcasm might want to watch again ... using closed captioning to best catch the intelligent ridiculousness of the dialog. The film was too slow for me and the sarcasm felt more heavy-handed than light-hearted. But, the comedy may well appeal to your tastes. The film is worth a view for those who enjoy independent films, fans of director Hal Harley, or devotees of Parker Posey (who has the most camera time).


First off, I really loved Henry Fool, which puts me in a very small pool of movie goers. Parker Posey is one of best actresses on-screen today. But this film was a full-out travesty. Watching Hartley and the actors talk about the film in the extras - so full of pride, and making pointless analogies to Star Wars - was stomach-turning. This was hype on the producers part (HDNET) realized to the max. A true example of the Emperor and his new clothes. Mostly I feel that Hal has spoiled HENRY FOOL forever. I don't think I can ever see it again in it's pure, innocent light.

Remember Hal, you can FOOL some of the people some of the time... etc. The director would be nowhere today if all he did was churn out meaningless garbage. Sadly, it's a pure example of the lesson taught in the film ADAPTATION. The story must be exciting and active, or its box-office hopes are dim indeed. Never mind a decent story. For the actors, it was like trying to act in a straitjacket.

The score, I believe Hartley's, is tasteless. With drum hits walking all over dialog. There was one Apple Soundtrack loop I recognized that gave me a smile.

When I saw the trailer, I thought, oh, they're just trying to grab a new audience. But it's really this ridiculous ride. I'd be happy to spoil this movie for you, but it's been done. It's rotten. The FOOL franchise is dead. Long live Henry Fool.


I have been a fervent Hal Hartley supporter since I saw his short "Surviving Desire" in high school, and even then was still completely unmoored by his searingly brilliant "Henry Fool." But this 10-year-later sequel is not only unnecessary, it's disgraceful.

After a choppy and expeditious start, "Fay Grim" devolves into pseudo-intellectualism, flat out boredom, and finally unwarranted - and unwanted - nihilism. And that's just the plot.

The majority of the new faces are as frivolous and poorly-developed as the movie: one particularly flat character ends up hogging half the time we spend with the infamous Henry Fool himself, and it's his only spoken scene in the film!

Jeff Goldblum's Agent Fulbright, it seems, is the only bright character (a pun surely intended by Hartley as well). How, then, is he left? **SPOILER** Dead via a car bombing, easily making this the gentle-natured Hartley's most violent film to date, and tonally all wrong in a film that's already all wrong from the word go.

As for the other new characters, Angus James, Ned Fool (or is it Grim?), not to mention Fay herself... well, I won't spoil their fates, as the movie does a good enough job of that all on its own (when it isn't busying itself with yet another godawful canted angle, which gives the disconcerting impression that Hartley is moving backwards from Auteur to crappy film student).

This piece is a complete disaster, a dreadful mess that isn't even good-humored enough to revel in its messiness. Instead it self-indulgently crams the typically fun hipster pretenses of its director into the "real world", one uglier and meaner than it need be but not nearly ugly or mean enough to come close to having anything to say. In doing so, Hartley tracks sh*t all over my memories of these people and the marvelous world he originally created for them.

I have rarely been so depressed at the movies, and I'm counting "Leaving Las Vegas," which at least developed fresh new characters we grew to love before destroying them, instead of immediately disregarding characters already beloved.

Grim, indeed.


You MUST be kidding!!!! Let's entertain the possibility that Parker Posey is really an actress, and not just some entry in the "quirk of the month club" of actors. Really, unless this is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek satire on David Mamet-- terse, confusing dialog delivered alternately in machine gun rapidity or monotone (think Ben Stein) blandness--or a flat out dry comedy; this film has got to be in the running for a Rotten Tomato Award---or worse.

As if the stiff and uncomfortable Posey weren't enough, we've got the stiffer and even more uncomfortable Jeff Goldblum. There's more wood in this film than a toothpick factory.

Adding to this already bizarre casting, are several other roles, all populated by forgettable actors, who look or sound like escapees from America's Next Top Model, Don Pardo, or even the kid, who pronounces the word "been" like "bean", which just brings our attention to the fact that there is so little to like about this film, we are analyzing his accent to guess if he's Canadian or not!! I think I laughed heartily in places that are supposed to be serious, and took seriously sections that are meant to be humorous. Even the soundtrack sounds like a caricature of Alarik Jans music for Mamet's "The House of Games". If taken as a spoof, the film is almost droll; if taken seriously, just a self-conscious piece of drek.


BE WARNED. This movie is such a mess. It's a catastrophe. Don't waste your time with this one. I warned you!

The acting, story, dialogue, music... basically everything is so over the top, it's absolutely annoying and ridiculous. It made me want to throw up (if the dialogue/acting/story wasn't doing it, it's everyone being shot crooked). You'll feel like you're watching a comedy. The problem is, the parts that are supposedly funny isn't even funny. The acting, story, cinematography, you can feel everything is just trying WAAAAY too hard -- but it never succeeds. Practically every shot is canted, but so what?! This movie just feels like a student film. No wonder they shot this in HD because it would be a waste to spend more money to shoot this on film.

If you're easily amused or like poor acting, writing, editing, directing, full of clichés, everything that's forced in your face, oh and did I mention poor acting? (well, actually, it's not all the actor's fault - it's the director!) then I guess you'll like this movie.

I had to watch this for a class. I would have turned it off right away if I could. If you still can't tell by now, I HATED this movie. It made me want to throw up and get my time back... at least I didn't have to pay for this garbage.

Jeff Goldblum, you know... the guy from Jurassic Park/Independence Day, is in this movie but he sure went downhill from then -- accepting roles for movies like this catastrophe.


Despite the lavish production numbers and wonderful costumes this film is a chore to watch. The murder-mystery plot is just a vehicle to mount the musical numbers on but it often brings the proceedings to a staggering halt besides not being very involving. Although there has obviously been a lot of money spent on them the numbers are badly staged and poorly photographed. It's obviously a pre-code film because the girls often wear very little clothing and there's even a song singing the praises of marijuana! The performances are all one-note although it's nice to see Carl Brisson in a musical but when Victor McLaglen, as the police Lieutenent, lurches into view for the umpteenth time on the hunt for clues, you may want to throw in the towel or at least fast-forward to the next number. Pity the patrons who were trapped in the cinema on its release though!


I used to always love the bill because of its great script and characters, but lately i feel as though it has turned into an emotional type of soap. If you look at promotional pictures/posters of the bill now you will see either two of the officers hugging/kissing or something to do with friendships whereas promotional pictures of the bill a long time ago would have shown something to do with crime. This proves that it has changed a lot from being an absolutely amazing Police drama to an average type of television soap. When i watch it i feel like I'm watching a police version of Coronation Street or something similar. I have to say i still like the bill as I'm interested in Police work and that type of thing but i really miss the greatness that The Bill used to have. I want to rate it as 2 out of ten because you have to admit it has been totally ruined by the people who took the bill over.

As for the script and characters they have both gone downhill, most of the great characters are gone now (although a few still remain i think) and I'm not saying that the newer characters are poor or anything because they definitely aren't, its just that they lack the tough looks, personalities and script lines that all of the old characters used to have because most of the new ones are at the moment involved with silly relationships and family trouble.

Overall being one of the only Police programs on television these days, The Bill will always be a crappily interesting thing to watch, but like i say it has lost a lot of its uniqueness (if thats the right spelling) and would now be classed as a terrible, unreal television soap.

Recommended to watch for a good laugh over the stupidity of the police officers involved - 2/10


Veteran sleazeball Bruno Mattei is at it again with this erotic thriller that clearly echoes Joel Schumacher's 8MM. But, as expected, Mattei does his movie on a minuscule budget - so that it already looks obscure when it's newly released.

After her daughter gets abducted, a mother enters the dark world of underground pornography, because the kidnappers belong to an international organization that direct snuff films as long as the exclusive clients pay well. The search for her daughter does not only lead the mother across Europe, but also into prostitution. She goes to bed with some guys to get her clues. When she finally reaches contact with the snuff organization lead by the mysterious Doctor Hades, she's getting into great danger herself.

There is not much good to say about this one, even though it starts promising. Problem is that the movie is by far not as sleazy or explicit as one might expect from the director who made films like BLADE VIOLENT. SNUFF TRAP (which was first released in Russia!) is neither gory enough nor does it contain the amount of nudity and sex to really keep the viewer's attention. The plot isn't that special either, except maybe for the surprisingly many different locations throughout Europe. The ending is hugely disappointing. The acting isn't really remarkable either, except for Anita Auer who plays Doctor Hades: She looks and acts extremely creepy. You don't want to meet her like this in a dark alley (or Your bedroom, for that matter).

All in all, SNUFF TRAP only appeals to collectors of Bruno Mattei's films. But it's good to see the man back on the helm again: It was his first thriller since 1994's giallo GLI OCCHI DENTRO.


This film is terrible. Every line is stolen from 8MM (the Italian dubbed version, at least). If you like trash... real trash, give it a try; but beware: this ain't the "so bad it's good" kind of flick. In its cheapness, it may really look like a porno but, believe me, if you're looking for "snuff", s & m, hardcore, softcore... or even an ordinary erotic thriller, go find something else in store! I'm telling you this, 'cause the absolutely uninspired and unconvincing shooting, acting, plot, dialogues (the only good lines, as I said before, are the ones they stolen from Joel Schumacher's 8MM!) will bore you to tears in a few minutes and the "happy ending" is absolutely revolting! I'll give it one star: a half for the sudden shot in the back scene, after "the eyes of the victim" monologue (stolen from 8MM as well) and a half for mom & daughter's sexy bodies (that didn't manage to keep me completely awake while watching this turkey, anyway!)


Unfortunately the only spoiler in this review is that there's nothing to spoil about that movie.Even if B. Mattei had never done any master piece he use to do his job with a bit of humor and craziness that made him a fun Eurotrash director. But for the last 10 years he seemed to have lost it.This film is just empty, nothing at all to wake us up from the deep sleep you sink into after the first 10 min.No sex, no blood(it's suppose to be about snuff?),no actors, no dialogs, just as bad as an 90'T.V film.It's even worse than his last cannibals and zombies epics.So Rest in peace Bruno, you will stay in our minds forever anyway, thanks to such unforgettable gems as:Zombi 3, Robowar,Rats, l'altro inferno,Virus, Cruel jaws and few others.So except if you want to see B Mattei possessed by jess Franco's spirit's new film, pass on this one.But if you don't know this nice artisan's career track down his old films and have fun.


A cheap exploitation film about a mothers search for her daughter who has been kidnapped by people who make snuff porno films. The trail leads the mother all over Europe as she searches for her child and we in the audience struggle to stay asleep.

This is one of the countless soft-core sleaze films that are made for people who want the excitement of porno with out the stigma or danger of it showing up on their credit card bill.Personally I'd rather have the stigma since those films tend to be more interesting and honest about what we're seeing. This is suppose to be a sexy thriller but its not. Mostly its people talking about things followed by lots of walking from place to place and lead to lead.Periodically through out the film various people get undressed and everything has more than a touch of S&M to the proceedings. The violence and fetish material is of the sort to provoke laughter rather than horror or even excitement, its all so incredibly fake. Worse there is not even enough nudity to keep it interesting. (Basically par for the course for many of these films)

You'll forgive my lack of details but it simply is a dull boring film that I stayed with to the end hoping for something remotely prurient to occur, but there was nothing. The most interesting thing was the blonde haired villainess with the huge over bite and nose the size of a Buick. I watched her with morbid fascination wondering what she had looked like as a young girl and wondering whether she had had plastic surgery, not the type of things you should be thinking about in a gripping thriller.

Avoid.


Well what can I say, there are B-Grade Movies and there are B-Grade Movies and this definitely falls into the latter. However since it's obvious that even the makers of the film know that it's not a credible movie (take a look at the closing credits) it can be forgiven.

The plot is basically a convicted psycho killer is killed. He accidentally has his genetic material mixed up with some experimental acid that get combined and then lost in the snow. The killer now takes on the form of a snowman - if you can believe that. The snowman, Jack Frost, is after the country town Sherif who put him behind bars. In doing so, Jack Frost ends up killing half the town.

This movie lacks any real scares and the effects alone remind me of the B-Grade movies of the 50's. This alone makes it worth watching for a laugh. A movie to pass the time away.


I may not be a critic, but here is what I think of this movie. Well just watched the movie on cinemax and first of all I just have to say how much I hate the storyline I mean come on what does a snowman scare besides little kids, secondly it is pretty gory but I bet since the movie is so low budget they probably used ketchup so MY CRITICAL VOTE IS BOMB!!! nice try and the sequel will suck twice as much.


and this movie has crossed it. I have never seen such a terrible movie in my life! I mean, a kid's head getting cut off from the force of an empty sled? A snowman with a costume that has the seams clearly visible? This was a pitiful excuse for a movie.


It's not just the plot alone that makes this movie an instant turn-off for bored audiences. It's the terrible direction with a horrible script and mistakes left and right that makes this too agonizing to watch. I'm sorry but I do not see the 'fun' in this. Just the thrill of pointing the many mistakes and stupid one-liners. Well I'm wondering how dumb the directors think of their producing company when this movie was first introduced. Probably as dumb as that sheriff who dove into the pickup truck full of antifreeze with a gaping bloody wound. Oops! Did I forget to mention this sheriff's not only a poor actor but also can shrug off an impalement with a load of antifreeze drenching the exposed flesh? I guess he kind of forgot when he won a not-so-thrilling victory over the snowman.


You know what kind of movie you're getting into when the serial killer main character is being transported to the electric chair (in what seems to be a bakery truck), only to have the prison vehicle collide with (and I'm not making this up) a genetic engineering tanker truck. The goo which spurts forth melts him, and fuses his DNA with the snow, creating our protagonist, the killer snowman.

My favorite portion of the movie, however, is an over-the-shoulder shot of the snowman thrashing some poor schmuck, in which his hands look suspiciously like a couple of white oven-potholder gloves.

Mmmmm, schlock...


The 1998 Michael Keaton kiddie comedy of the same title was roundly condemned for it's, um, shoddy special effects, but compared to what Screaming Mad George cooked up for this horror comedy they're positively mind-boggling. The killer snowman seems to be made out of styrofoam and his arms look like oversized oven mitts. Which they probably were. The cast lays it on thick in this parody of dozens of other (much worse) movies and Paul Keith as the town doctor is particularly memorable in a small but hilarious role.


Boy this movie had me fooled. I honestly thought it would be a campy horror film with absolutely no humor in it whatsoever, boy I got the cold shoulder that time. This movie was, and I'm truthful, pretty damn good. It was not scary at all but the campiness and the sly humor really mad this movie interesting. Some to the horrible acting and cliché killings were so painful to watch, I almost laughed at how bad it was, but to some extent I enjoyed it. The killings all vaguely relate to snow sports and Christmas, which made things more intriguing. The POV camera angles were awesome.

The movie is about a viscous killer who dies in a car accident collision with a chemical truck while being transported to prison. He is later resurrected in that very same chemical with snow spliced into the mixture. These were the ingredients chosen to make the perfect killer snowman. He than takes his revenge, as the snowman, on the police officer who convicted him.

This movie had such bad acting, with the exception of Christopher Allport, that is was funny. I will say that I am also pretty disappointed that this movie was not a horror, but in fact a dark sitcom. They had a great story with a good plot but it wasn't executed right. All in all I like the movie at first but now it is really annoying. But this movie is way better and darker than the sequel.


A serial killer dies in a snowstorm and gets mutated into Frosty the Snowman's evil twin. Then goes on a killing spree. Interesting plot. Sounds scary. And it is scary. If you're five years old. Otherwise, it's kind of cheesy. I saw it on cable and I'm glad I didn't pay money to see it. It has all the charm and style of a low-budget movie which may become a cult film. I'm sure it has a loyal fan base somewhere. I'm just not in it. Even though I didn't like the movie as a whole, there were some scenes I found amusing. Such as the bathtub scene and the post-explosion scene with the Picasso reference. It was also enjoyable to watch the many ways the heroes try to kill Jack and he just doesn't seem to want to die. In short, "Jack Frost" is a good low-budget B-movie comedy, but a bad low-budget B-movie horror.


Jack Frost, no kids it's not the warm hearted family movie about a dad who comes back from the dead in the form of a snow man. It's about a sadistic killer named Jack Frost who is sprayed with some acid fluid and is morphed into a killer snow man. I happened to catch a copy of this movie so I could have a nice sit back and laugh at it. A killer snow man? Ha, sounds like the perfect comedy/horror movie! Well I was wrong, very wrong.

Jack Frost is about a killer who is being transported via truck to jail so he could fry in the chair at midnight. But it's a snowy night and it collides with a government tanker carrying a new DNA fluid. Jack escapes only to be burnt to death by the acid and morphs into a killer snowman. He returns to the small town of Snowmonton where he was caught by a small time sheriff. Here he is ready to kill again, now as a snow man with cooler powers. He can condense into water, shoot out ice cycles as spears, and grow killer fangs. The only question is, who can stop Frost? This movie is below the typical B-Movie line. The movies begins cheesy but as soon as Jack is burned by the acid, it quickly drops below the cheese line and goes flat. The acting for one is appalling! Here we have a whole cast of unheard of actors who either can't act, can act but has a pointless character, or is just here for a few extra bucks. The only good actor is Scott MacDonald who plays Jack. He looks like a young Richard Kiel combined with Frankenstein. Sadly his appearance is only reduced to three minutes and all we ever see of him is his new snow man form and his wise cracking voice. Plus his wisecracks are anything but funny. Groaning, stupid, and bad.

The plot is horrible! Throughout history there have been numerous murderers. A killer in a hockey mask, a killer with a razer glove, a chainsaw wielding moron, a rapid St. Bernard, but now we stoop to a tacky killer snow man? Oh come on! And the way the characters are introduced are terrible. For one I really wanted Jack to kill the sheriffs son, I mean giving his dad oats with Antifreeze in them so they won't freeze? All the characters are dumb and pointless and the deaths are to cartoony. One woman in strangled with Christmas lights and has her head smashed into a decoration box and a girl is humped to death in the shower (where is the carrot in that scene eh?).

And to top of this horrible movie is the special effects. The first big special effect we have is Jack's DNA mixing in with snow and boy is it terrible. I mean it looks like a 60's fashion of art design, PU! Jack looks fake as well. He looks like a person covered with rubber snow man skin. All the blood and gore is cheesy and the film never takes off with greatness but instead stoops to low levels.

Jack Frost is one of the worst slasher movies ever made. I thought it would be a riot but no! It doesn't try to be funny and it actually tries to be scary. Jack Frost gets 4 out of 10, it at least made me laugh from it's awfulness. Don't even bother with this piece of trash. Jack Frost= D+


I am so happy and surprised that there is so much interest in this movie! Jack Frost was my introduction into the films produced and distributed by A-pix entertainment, and without exception, everything this company deals with is pure crap! First, and this is very important, never ever watch this movie sober! Why would you? Unlike many other entertaingly bad movies, this one I feel was made intentionally bad. I just can't get over how fake the snowman is, which is why its always shown only briefly, the way it moves is the best! This movie is Waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Michael Keaton piece of crap, becuz that was made too be a good movie, and that version is as bad as this.


This is the crappiest film I have ever seen but in all fairness it's watchable and rather funny. I don't think the film-makers intended it to be your typical Hollywood blockbuster quality. It's just a stupid film about a serial killer who gets doused in a load of toxic waste causing a reaction with him and the snow (as it's the middle of winter). He then turns into a killer snowman which is enough to to make you laugh on it's own. This film is really stupid but it's funny. The killings are hilarious.I wouldn't advise you to go and buy it (like I did -the cover looked good!)but if it happens to be on TV one night and you're up for a laugh then stick it on.


THis movie may be the worst movie I have ever seen. Basically it is right above Leprachaun 5, the only difference is that it missing Ice T. The scene where he does the chick with the carrott...priceless. Oh yeah they made a second one, genius


This movie, no correction, this THING, this abysmal abomination from the burning pits of hell should have been killed before it even left the writer's head. I could not possibly come up with enough adjectives to describe this movie. But let's try anyway. Horrible, bad, nauseating, tasteless, crap, vomit inducing, gut wrenchingly bad, hideous, nasty, putrid, there just aren't enough words in the English language! The "plot" involves a serial killer who becomes a snow man. Don't ask how, not important. The killer snowman runs about killing people. How, you may ask, can a snowman kill someone? In tasteless ways that make you want to remove your eyes if only so you don't have to endure that Styrofoam snowman anymore. In ways that make you want to fill your ears with hot wax so you do not have to endure his snow puns anymore. Don't watch this movie! Destroy it on sight! For the sake of your very soul don't watch it!


Whoever made this movie must have done it as a joke. I mean, this was the stupidest movie I think I have ever seen!! A killer snowman terrorizes a small town? Give me a break. Love it when he takes off driving the cop car. More like a comedy than a horror movie. If you want a laugh, rent this. If you truly want a horror movie, stay the hell away from this one!!


A "friend", clearly with no taste or class, suggested I take a look at the work of Ron Atkins. If this is representative of his oeuvre, I never want to see anything else by him. It is amateurish, self-indulgent, criminally shoddy and self-indulgent rubbish. The "whore mangler" of the title is an angry low budget filmmaker who murders a bunch of hookers. There is a little nudity and some erections, but no single element could possibly save this from the hangman's noose. The lighting is appalling, the dialog is puerile and mostly shouted, and the direction is clueless. I saw a doco on American exploitation filmmakers during the recent Fangoria convention. Atkins was one of those featured. He spoke like there was something important about his work, but after a viewing of this, I see nothing of any import whatsoever. There is no style, either, and the horrible video effects (like solarization) only enhance the amateurishness. Not even so bad it's fun. Avoid.


Director Ron Atkins is certifiably insane. This ultra-low budget film chronicles a few days in the life of one Harry Russo (John Giancaspro, who also co-wrote), a nut-job who receives a Rubberneck doll from his bitch girlfriend. He starts to take orders from the doll to take massive amounts of drugs, rape and kill, not always in that order. What starts off as being a balls-to-the-wall exploitation film, well stays like that, but it gets VERY repetitive VERY fast. I'm leaning more toward the certifiably insane. It IS hard to forget once seen though. Kinda like if Tom Green ever did a horror film.

My Grade:F

Eye Candy: Laurie Farwell gets fully nude; Jasmin Putnam shows tits and bush

ANTI-eye candy: seeing John completely naked repeatedly


I was interested to see the move thinking that it might be a diamond in the rough, but the only thing I found was bad writing, horrible directing (the shot sequences do not flow) even though the director might say that that is what he is going for, it looks very uninspired and immature) the editing could have been done by anyone with 2 VCRs and the stock was low budget video. I would say that it wasn't even something as simple as mini digital video.

There are some simple ways to fix a film with what the director has, like through editing etc. But it is obvious that he just doesn't care. There is as much effort put in to this movie as a ham sandwich. It could be made better, but that would mean extra work.


There are bad movies, then there are the movies that are SO bad, that they become almost art. This is one of those films. My partner and I are still both kind of shell shocked, you know, staring off into space and drooling! You can tell that the people involved (I hope they changed their names to protect themselves) were having a blast, and they definitely weren't shy. I give this one a three out of ten just because of the gratuitous smut and REALLY bad gore effects. I laughed out loud during most of the movie, so I guess you could say that it showed me a good time. Beware viewer, the above words in no way construe that this is a good film, because it is not. All I can say in my defense, is that it was impossible to pass up a movie with such a GREAT title!


SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER is another example of what happens when you get a bunch of untalented people together to make an "extreme" horror film. Any sort of acting, production, storyline, FX, etc...go out the window in an effort to create "shock-value". Now don't get me wrong - I consider myself a connoisseur of "shock" films, and the sleazier/gorier/nastier the better - but it's still nice to see SOME sort of talent from SOMEONE involved in the film.

SCHIZOPHRENIAC chronicles the life of Harry Russo - a drug-addicted freak-show who takes orders to kill from his ventriloquist's dummy, Rubberneck. He goes on a few sprees killing hookers and other random people, and screaming about how much he hates "hoo-uhs" (that's "whores" for those of you that don't speak New York-ese...) and how he wants to rape them in the ass. There are a few weak necrophilia scenes, very little gore, and some nudity to mix things up a bit - but nothing that you haven't seen in a better film...

The only redeeming thing that I can find in this retarded film are the often (unintentionally?) hilarious screaming-fits from our main man, Harry. He goes on-and-on-and-on about wanting to kill everyone and do them in the ass, and it really becomes quite comical after a while. In fact, I'm almost tempted to believe that there's supposed to be some sort of homo-erotic undertone to this film, with all the ass talk and constant shots of Harry running around with his dong hangin' out. In all honesty, that joker is nekkid more in this film then the few chicks that show some T-and-A (and some full-frontal, for good measure). SCHIZOPHRENIAC is mildly amusing as a 1-time watch, but I can really only recommend this to those that want to be able to say that they watched a film called SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER. To be honest - the title, by far - is the best thing about this trash...A generous 3.5/10


Well, I like to be honest with all the audiences that I bought it because of Kira's sex scenes, but unfortunately I did not see much of them. All sex scenes were short and done in haphazard manner along with all the weird and corny background music just like all other B movies - it just doesn't look much like two people having sex. There is a tiny bit of plot toward the end - Kira's new lover is a killer. Whoa!!! how shocking!!! Why don't we nominate this movie for Oscar Award? I can't imagine how bad the movie would look like if it were R-rated (Mine is imported from UK, rated 18). Conclusion? Put it down and walk away, so yon won't end up with being a moron like me.

Score: 2/10


Losing Control is another offering in the erotic thriller genre which could be considered as the pulp fiction of the film world. Usually, they involve a roundabout route to murderous intent, interspersed with copious disrobing. This is not a complaint, especially when it is done by the stunningly beautiful women who invariably inhabit this make-believe world.

Kim Ward (Kira Reed) is suffering a bout of writer's block. Just by chance, (or is it?) she meets a man (Doug Jeffery) who engages with her in ever more risky sexual encounters. The man refuses to divulge any information about himself, yet Kim steadfastly refuses to stop the affair. Her agent, Alexa (Anneliza Scott) thinks it will do wonders for her book sales. As in most films of this type, the denouement comes near the end but some things do not add up. I have seen enough of this kind of film to think, no change there, then - but I like them. They are so undemanding.

Performances of the cast vary. Doug Jeffery carries the film as the psycho/sociopath you do not want to cross. Kira Reed looks good but fails to convince as the woman in peril. Clay Greenbush as the PI did not convince either.

Finally, a note of caution about the DVD under review. Both the cover and the disc state R-rated and running time as 93 minutes but the run time is less than 86 minutes. This probably explains why the sex scenes appear truncated and why Jennifer Ludlow's performance is cut short just as she's getting started. 4 stars.


Personally I think this show looks pretty cheaply made. Some of the actors are terrible. They over do it & seem fake. I can always tell how it's going to end within the first 10 minutes or less of watching because they make it so transparently clear. It's not very well written either. I love to watch it to laugh at it. You know the saying "It's so bad that it's good?" Well, that saying applies to this show. I also like to watch just to see if I'm right when I guess how it's all going to end. So far I've been right every time. It's like a little game that I play. It's nice when you are bored & you feel like laughing at something.


Wow. Simply awful. I was a fan of the original movie, and begrudgingly sat through part 2, 3 was and improvement. 4,5 and Freddy's Dead were pretty bad. But NOTHING is as bad as Freddy's Nightmares. Freddy acts as a Rod Serlingesq host of this anthology series.

I can accept how Freddy became one punchline after another, but at least in the movies the appeal of Freddy carried the movies, but here these were so poorly made, they looked like high school productions of a horror series. The poor actors, if you really want to call yourself that after doing this show were obviously exactly what they paid for. I'm nearly certain this was a stopping point for two types of actors. Ones just starting on the Hollywood ladder, brand new willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week, or seasoned actors on their way down the Hollywood ladder willing to take any part that would put off their having to take that porn job they were offered last week.

I half expected Dana Plato to guest star, but she was already dead by the time this was in production.

To paraphrase Nancy's line in the original Elm St,"What ever you do try not to fall asleep watching this."


This is my first movie review on IMDb. I was forced to register after watching this movie. I cannot in good conscience allow this movie to be unreviewed by me. The people must be warned!

First of all, my rating is: 0 (as in "zero")

I love Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Rachel Weis, and Christopher Walken, and yet, I hated this movie. There is a plot, but who cares when there's no script. The dialogue is unreal and plain boring, the situations are contrived, the flow of events is slow and somewhat arbitrary, the characters are unsympathetic and uninteresting, and the story, although based on a good premise, is stupid. This movie is a piece of poo.

Never mind wasting MONEY on this movie, it's not even worth your TIME spent watching it. Please do not see it... I beg of you!


This could be looked at in many different ways. This movie sucks, its good or its just plain weird. The third one probably explains this movie best. It has strange themes and just has a strange plot. So who else but Christopher Walken would play in this no matter how bad, average or even how good it might be.

The acting was what you would expect especially out of Ben Stiller. Jack Black I have always liked so you know what you will get out of him but this is not bad. Christopher Walken is always off the wall. He is always enjoyable to watch no matter how bad the movie is. Comedy wise it is somewhat funny. This of course meaning that it does have its moments (though very few) but can get a little over top here and there which makes me feel like the movie is just desperate for laughs but of course not in a good way.

The directing was average as well. Barry Levinson is a slightly overrated director and really did not do a good job here. This movie seemed that it had a lot more potential and he did not do much to reach it. Just very average and did not seem like a lot of effort was put into making this film.

The writing is the key to a good comedy. Obviously that means the writing here failed. At best it is below average. Considering it does have its moments it was not too horrible. That is never a good thing to say about a movie though.

If not for Christopher Walken and it stupid ridiculous ending I would have given it a lower rating. He is always quite a character in his movies. Stil this is just a whacked out strange movie with strange characters that really don't go anywhere. Not completely horrible but I would not really recommend it though because it is a very forgettable movie.


This has to be the most brutally unfunny "comedy" I've ever seen in my life. Ben Stiller, Jack Black, and Christopher Walken as a crazed homeless man CAN'T make me laugh? Something's got to be wrong with this picture. This is the only movie I've ever felt like walking out of. I used free passes, and still felt like I wanted my money back. I can wholeheartedly say that the only movie I've ever seen worse than this one was HOUSE OF THE DEAD. The. ONLY. worse. movie. I laughed very slightly at the merry-go-round scene, and that's it. Spending 2 hours in something billed as a comedy should get you more than one laugh, right? I don't know, I guess the filmmakers thought that "flan" was a funny word, or something. And the other running joke really is beating a dead horse--literally.


I couldn't wait to put this movie in my DVD player when I rented it. Then after I started it, I couldn't wait to get it OUT of my DVD player. Actually I watched all of the movie. My wife and I kept waiting and waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny ever does. The box read like the it would be really funny. The premise of the movie sound good. Ben Stiller is funny. Jack Black is funny. How could this movie miss? Well....it does miss! This is the unfunniest "comedy" I have ever watched. Nobody I have talked with thought it was even slightly funny. It is just a really lame movie. Trust me. Avoide it....AVOIDE IT!!


"Envy" is bad for a number of reasons. Yes, there are unlikeable characters. That's not the problem. It is that they are unlikeable and we do not care for them at all. "The War of the Roses" featured unlikeable characters but due to proper introductions we grew to at least find ourselves interested in their fate, whereas in "Envy" the introduction is thin, the characters are never believable, and the plot only makes things worse.

Ben Stiller is simply repulsive in his role and I'm a fan of his work most of the time. Stiller campaigned to have this released straight-to-video and now I can see why. The movie proposes that he's "best friends" with Jack Black, but from the first five minutes we are given footage that seems to indicate Stiller hates Black. I thought this would develop into some sort of one-sided relationship (a la "The Cable Guy") but it never does, instead Stiller insists he's his "best friend" and I felt confused as he seemed to treat Black like, well, "poo." The movie's plot is ridiculous but it doesn't matter, because it's supposed to be an exaggerated morality tale. Unfortunately the message is lost in the mess. Walken gives a good performance but Black is off-key and annoying (and I usually find him very funny). No, it's not a horrible film but I still can't believe Barry Levinson ("Rain Man," "Sleepers") is responsible for this - it's not one of the worst films of all time but it could certainly be a whole lot better. I wish Va-Poo-Rize did exist - so we could make this film disappear forever....


I admit to liking a lot of the so-called "frat-pack" movies. No matter how bad they are, I can find something to like about Ben Stiller or Owen Wilson or Vince Vaughn or Will Ferrell or Jack Black. But "Envy" just left me about as cold as the white horse that Ben disposed of. This time, it's Ben and Jack Black as a couple of nutty neighbors, one of whom (Black) discovers a aerosol spray to make animal poop disappear and becomes incredibly wealthy while the other (Stiller) writhes in envy. That's supposedly the plot, but then it veers off in other directions that don't really make much sense.

I guess the 'Vapoorize' thing is sort of amusing at first. The problem is, they try to sustain the gag for the whole picture (Black has a license plate that reads 'Caca King') and it gets fairly tiresome. But even Ben and Jack are used poorly; the energy level for both of their performances seems significantly dialed down. The two best performances by far are Rachel Weisz and Chris Walken. Walken's neo-hippie-dippie guy is so offbeat and so well-modulated a performance that it really never suggests any of Walken's other familiar nutcase characters. It's completely unique, yet comes across as unmistakably Walken. And Weisz is about the best actress in the business that nobody knows about. Even with limited screen time, she still dominates every scene she's in.

The whole crux of the so-called drama is that Ben, in a jealous drunken stupor, accidentally shoots Jack's prize white stallion, and then goes to ridiculous lengths to cover it up, fearing his best friend will find out and cut him dead. But the plot twist isn't believable because there's nothing about Jack's character to indicate that he would do such a thing. He plays such a sweet guy that it renders the whole excruciating horse chase null and void. You discount it completely. It's all filler. And what's the point of the out-of-control merry-go-round, except that Barry Levinson wants us to know that he's seen "Strangers on a Train"? The screenplay is painfully bad and the acting of the two leads poorly directed. Someone with Levinson's track record should know better. Maybe someone will invent something to make this film disappear. Oh, wait, they already have.


How can Barry Levinson possibly assemble white-hot comedy talents Ben Stiller and Jack Black, the gorgeous Rachel Weisz, old pro Christopher Walken and still deliver such a humourless stinker?

Stiller and Black are friends until the latter invents a spray to make dog mess vanish and becomes a conspicuous consuming multi-millionaire.

The premises is thin but sound enough in the right hands to have been a springboard for some great bitching between the two stars but all concerned overplay every hand, every chance they can.

Stiller and Black are simply not funny for way too much of the time, Weisz looks sensational as always but is criminally underused and, with the exception of Walken as a batty barfly who urges Stiller's character to take revenge, it's a turgid trudge to the end of this strained farce.


Start with the script. I have seen cartoons with more depth than "Envy". Anytime characters keep repeating what you have already seen, and was not funny the first time, a movie is in deep trouble, which "Envy" certainly is. A movie that relies on one joke had better have somewhere to go with it. Here we have a film that goes absolutely nowhere. Christopher Walken especially would like to forget this bomb, because his character is so weak. Ben Stiller has been in some pretty good black comedies, "Flirting With Disaster", and "Duplex", immediately come to mind. Be certain that "Envy" is not a black comedy. There are no double meanings, just total nonsense. "Envy" deserves it's low rating, because like it's subject matter, it stinks. - MERK


I can't say much about this film. I think it speaks for itself (as do the current ratings on here). I rented this about two years ago and I totally regretted it. I even /tried/ to like it by watching it twice, but I just couldn't. I can safely say that I have absolutely no desire to see this waste of time ever, ever again. And I'm not one to trash a movie, but I truly believe this was awful. It wasn't even funny in the slightest. The only bits I enjoyed were the few scenes with Christopher Walken in them. I think this film ruined both Jack Black and Ben Stiller for me. All I can think of when I see one of their films now-a-days is this terrible movie, and it reminds me not to waste my money. Amy Poehler is so very annoying, too.

Overall, well, I think you get my point. The stars are for Walken, by the way.


Please, someone stop Ben Stiller from acting in ANY movie. Write the studios, hell, write your local congressman even. I've gotten more laughs going to a funeral then I have watching ANY Stiller flick. Jack Black tries to make something about a comedy about disappearing dog crap, and Christopher Walken, perhaps on of the greatest actors of his generation, simply looks embarrassed to be there. Stiller is his unfunny self,but now even with someone to bail him out, proves that he is way overrated as a comic. It's no wonder why this movie tanked badly, and was available of the dollar movie theaters after only a handful of weeks. I warn you, and you must warn your friends, Do not watch this flick, it is just awful, worst then Gothika (personally, i'd never thought i'd say that), worst the Plan 9, Worst the Ishtar, worst then The Golden Child. Please Hollywood, quit allowing Ben Stiller in your movies, he's not funny, he's a god awful actor, and he's bringing others down with him. The following film was ranked 1 because there are no negative scores allowed, so while the board says one, I'll give it a Zero.


It seems that the people behind Envy realised that recent comedies - especially ones involving Ben Stiller and to a lesser degree Jack Black - have been situation spoofs, which have steadily declined in originality and generally laughs. I found the sheer absurdity of Zoolander utterly hilarious when it was released, Starsky and Hutch was also enjoyable, and then Dodgeball kept the laughs going for a lot of people, although personally i was a bit tired of the over-the-top characters - especially when the scenario wasn't quite so funny (perhaps the comedy of a Dodgeball tournament doesn't quite translate to Australia, where it's rarely played). So in an attempt to do something a little more original, Envy moves away from an absurd scenario and instead revolves around the absurd creation of Jack Black's character (i won't spoil what it is for those who intend to see the movie). The problem is that the movie seems to drag, i'm not a big enough movie buff to be able to think of examples, but it seems like this set up has been done a thousand times before - and very rarely successfully. So instead of a nice, crisp, enjoyable and fresh comedy, you get a film that seems to just go through the motions. Sure the motions can be quite amusing, and they're centred on an idea that is quirky enough to provide a few laughs - especially with Jack Black playing the excited and amusing, though a bit 2D, creator. Ben Stiller on the other hand seems a bit lost, he's asked to play a fuller role than the ridiculous characters of his Zoolander breed of movies, but he struggles as a family man, whether his fault or the scripts, there isn't enough depth to the character and the result is a movie of Ben Stiller doing those typical mannerisms and generally becoming tedious. The performance doesn't leave an imprint on the viewer (he's just Ben Stiller, Jack Black manages to actually portray a character - though not a challenging one). The last annoying element of the movie is Christopher Walken's role as 'The J Man', which is about as typical and two dimensional as characters come, and naturally he becomes monotonous and frustrating very quickly.

It's really not as unbearable as some people would have you think, it's watchable, especially if you're in the right mood (feeling silly would be a good prerequisite for seeing this film). Hire it on a movie night with friends and watch it after you've watched a scary film and feel like something light - hopefully you'll also be somewhat tipsy by then too. In that scenario i can imagine it would be quite enjoyable, but generally it provides too few laughs to carry itself and most of the time just drags along.


I usually like comedy movies. I really enjoy them. But I don't really get the point of "Envy". I mean, it has a dull content/topic, and it's not really funny.

Although the acting is generally good, it's not enough for the movie to get at least a bit interesting. Stiller and Black don't show all their talent in this movie.

So, if you're about to rent a comedy, I suggest you definitely don't go for this one. Unless you want to get bored, and I can see I'm not the only one with this opinion, because even Jack Black apologized for it (take a look at Trivia).


this is the worst movie i've ever seen. i'm not kidding. the next time it comes on, i will just continually run my head into a wall. it would me more enjoyable to sit in an emergency room trying to explain to a doctor why my brain is swollen than attempting to make it through this movie again.

i hope that black and stiller never work together on a project this bad again. they are both good comedians, so i was shocked this was so awkward.

if they had to do it all over again, i'm pretty sure that they would decide to not do it. the folks that fronted the money, must have lost a ton. not really- because the special effects (all 2 of them) were terrible.


Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! I can not stand Ben stiller anymore. How this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. I can't understand how this happens if I performed at work the way he acts in a movie I'd get fired and I own the company.....I would have to fire myself. GOD! This movie was just a plain, steaming, stinking pile of POO, that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. Something else I have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. What is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie? I will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary.


I watched 'Envy' two nights ago, on DVD, at a friends house. The premise of this film is quite promising, Jack Black and Ben Stiller in a comedy with a lot of potential, but it completely fails to deliver. I watched it with about five friends and no-one laughed for the entire film. The jokes (which are few and far between) are NOT funny in any way... the story line is crap, and they never answer the question... WHERE DOES THE SH*T GO? Of course the answer to that is NO ONE CARES. This film lacks any sort of comedy value, and as a few other users have said the only thing that makes it even almost worth watching is Christopher Walken as the J-man. None of the characters are developed, the plots so thin it's nearly transparent - and is that song throughout the film supposed to be funny??


Envy stars some of the best. Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, and the great Christopher Walken. With such a cast, one can only expect the best. However, with "Envy", no one could save this disaster.

Tim Dingman (Stiller) and Nick Vanderpark (Black) are best friends and co-workers at a sandpaper factory. Both are making a decent living, but because Tim has a better performance at work, he's able to afford more than his buddy Nick. Nick is a dreamer who's always coming up with new ideas for inventions. One day, Nick comes up with the idea for a spray can that makes dog poop disappear (Yes, I'm serious). Falling in love with the idea, Nick decides to really invent this product. He makes an offer to Tim to invest in his idea and share the profits 50/50. Tim refuses thinking the idea will never work.

Nick's invention, titled "va-poo-rize" (again, i'm serious), ends up making millions. He enjoys spending his money on things like a much larger house, a horse, a personal trainer, and fancy deserts. Tim starts feeling envy for Nick. Hence the name of the movie.

The concept isn't bad, but it still turns out awful. This movie contains some of the worst dialog and very poor performances from all the cast. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, none of them could save this mess. Not even the great Christoper Walken, playing a homeless character named "J-man", made this movie funny. The movie is bad from the start and only continues to get worse.

I recommend this movie if: *you like crap (no pun intended) *you want to see Jack Black in a white tux

I say, avoid this movie at all costs, but avoid ESPECIALLY if: *you're offended by bathroom humor *you love animals


i saw this movie last night and even after a couple of beers the only giggle this movie got out of me was when i realized that i was actually watching it. in a word, it is unfunny. UNfunny. i totally believe the trivia tidbit about jack black apologizing for making this garbage. i can't believe that barry levinson didn't just toss this script when he read the first page. moreover, i can't believe that i watched more than ten minutes of it.

i gave it 3 out of 10* because i love to see christopher walken make terrible movies for the paycheck. also, the horse "corky," by merely existing as a character in this movie, is actually quite ridiculous.


I'm not sure what. I just couldn't laugh at it. I had an open mind. I didn't want to be a tight-@ss about it. But I seriously just couldn't laugh at this film. It was just not funny to me. Some parts it seemed like Ben Stiller and Jack Black tried too hard. Just because you put two very funny men together doesn't mean that this is going to be an excellent comedy. Some movies just shouldn't be made. This is one of them. Because it does a lot of old jokes and the acting was just stupid. I know, I know it's a comedy. Sort of at least. But I was just not impressed. I'm sorry, but I cannot give this anything lower than a two. And that's all I'm giving.

2/10


I do not envy Barry Levinson, Rachel Weisz, Ben Stiller or Jack Black for doing this film. It's, in one word, boring. Maybe the fact that is too predictable, the more-than-exploited Ben Stiller's loser role or the not-at-all funny scenes make this film just something to forget. Even Christopher Walken's appearance finishes in a pathetic way. I was very disappointed. I love Ben Stiller's acting. I loved it in most of his films, the last one I saw before this was Duplex with Drew Barrymore and was not that bad. About Jack Black... Well, apart from High Fidelity I've never seen him doing something good. What about School of Rock? Ooops, frightening.


Jack Black's character, Tim Dingman the "Dreamer" in Envy, finds wealth and success in the idea of a aerosol spray "Vapoorize" that when sprayed on doggie dung, makes the poo disappear into thin air.

For a moment I was hoping that Vapoorize was a real product so that I could spray it on this "stinker" of a movie and make it disappear into thin air as well.

Although Envy is not the worst movie that I have seen in the past 12 months (that honor goes to The Cat in the Hat), it does get the honor of a close second.

Not funny, not sad, not anything. A real "Stinkeroo"!!!!!

A 0.2 out of 10!!


Greetings again from the darkness. What ever happened to the great Barry Levinson? He directed two of my all-time favorites in "Avalon" and "Diner". He had some fine movies as well ("Rainman"), but always provided something of interest ... until now. I believe the worst thing you can ever say about a comedy is that it is boring. "Envy" is the definition of boring. Never of big fan of pure slap stick ("Dumb and Dumber"), I was just stunned at how god-awful this movie is. There are maybe 2 chuckles in the whole thing - if you can pay attention that long. The best part of the film is the running gag of the title song by a Redbone sound-alike. If the film had been written as well as the song, it would have been tolerable. Rachel Weisz is a wonderful actress and I realize they all want to do comedy (even Julianne Moore), but the real world exposes one weaknesses. SNL cast member Amy Poehler is her usual over the top in her role as trailer park trash turned princess. The disaster of the film is Jack Black and Ben Stiller. The first work commute together flashes some promise, but after that their chemistry disappears due to the poor script. This script is like most of Jack Black's character's ideas - not a bad thought, but no hope for success.


Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.

Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form.


Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?


I sought out this film for one reason--Al Adamson. He is among the worst directors of all time--right up there with Ed Wood, Jr. and Ray Dennis Steckler and the pantheon of awfulness. However, I was a tad disappointed because although the film was indeed bad, it never approached the levels of awfulness of some of his earlier schlocky movies. Because of that, this film wasn't particularly fun to watch for us bad movie fans.

Now I was wary about watching this film, as the title "Naughty Stewardesses" makes the film sound like a pornographic film--something I wouldn't be reviewing on IMDb. However, this film appeared to be this at times--particularly the first 10 minutes. But, you could tell that the script underwent many changes, as for much of the film there isn't any titillation at all and towards the end of the movie there is a plot that comes out of no where that is violent and certainly NOT sexy! The result of all this is total confusion.

Sadly, none of the many parts are even good. For example, as a porn video, it shows surprisingly little AND it's incomprehensible why they would put a 71 year-old guy in some of the love scenes. Sure, for a 71 year-old Mr. Livingston looked pretty good--but he was still an old man and no one would want to see him getting it on with young nymphet! Then, when the final 20 minutes becomes very violent, as Livingston became a Rambo-like guy! Talk about weird and inappropriate.

Overall, there is little to recommend this sad movie. It's not bad enough or sexy enough to care about and the film manages to be rather boring even with such a crazy title like "Naughty Stewardesses".


Connie Hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times.

That's it, folks. The sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not.

These 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers, big hair, Zapata moustaches etc.). This one isn't.

The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad.

The title, hinting at a sex comedy, is grossly misleading.

I heartily recommend avoiding this one like the plague.