I don't really know whether Cabin Fever is supposed to be a joke or a film... But as far as I know, it's much closer to being a joke than anything else. A few years ago, the community of horror film makers decided to take a new step and make fun of the genre, thus giving birth to the Scream series. A list was given in Scream, of all the stupid things horror film characters will do that are predictable, and the characters in Scream ended up doing exactly the same things, which added a lot of humor and irony to this analysis of the genre, and led to hope that horror films from now on would show a bit different, either full of irony towards the genre, self-derision towards the film itself, or at least different in their dramatic process than all the "old" films that responded to the same tired criteria. In seeing "Cabin Fever", alas, many will see how unoriginal, serious, pretentious, boring and even not scary some supposedly "scary" films are now, even a few years later. First of all, this film lacks originality in a way few others do. It has been said several times, how little imagination horror directors have today, remaking remakes of foreign sequels, but setting the film in a cabin in the woods just doesn't seem to be an "hommage" to anything, it seems to be, simply, a ripoff. Whoever wishes to be surprised by other factors of the film's story won't be: once again, we are dealing with a film whose characters are all in their early twenties, who won't think rationally when placed in front of a problem, will rather argue for hours and pick up fights than try to think and do something about it. Not much excitement there either. For the umpteenth time in a horror film, they are tempted to kiss, make love and just basically have fun, all sorts of things that don't really make them any different than any other horror film victims seen previously. Secondly, this film is unimaginatively serious. Every situation the characters are in, every dialog, every situation in the film is treated with such seriousness that any viewer with a little sense of derision will be relieved when some characters finally end up dying. Nothing in the way the film is directed, written or acted shows any sign of humor or sarcasm, which is quite amazing considering the film is about an invisible-never-heard-of-before-flesh-eating-virus (no laughs please). I won't even bring up the acting, since there are no actors in this film. The cast was most certainly hired for being friends or neighbors with the director. Thirdly, and this will strike whoever has seen a "good" horror film before, the screenplay is absolutely empty. Nothing really happens, some actions are repeated several times ("let's try to get help!"), nothing makes sense, either in the facts, the psychology of the characters, or even the hilariously lame last sequence of the film, which is probably supposed to be funny according to the director and screenwriters. In the end I will only remark that a horror film is supposed to have something scary in it. Gallons of fake blood, whether they are being vomited, squirted from severed limbs or simply dripping from wounds, never were enough to scare an audience. Such major features as screenplay, ideas, and even cruelty are requested for whoever claims to have shot something scary. If I wasn't considering it to be a total failure, I would agree to reckon that the film has one talent: it is filthy disgusting to watch. Yet being grossed-out and being scared are two very different feelings, let it be known.

I would like to encourage anyone a tad curious or interested in seeing this film to check older major horror films first, why not from the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, films made by Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Sam Raimi, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Roger Corman, William Lustig, John Carpenter... it might not only give a good definition of what is scary, or self-derisory horror, but also convince viewers that "new" isn't necessarily "better". A good example related to the film is the few tracks composer Angelo Badalamenti provided for this film, even although they are unmistakably close to his previous compositions, they are below anything he has ever done before.


Okay I had heard little about this film, so when it came on the movie channels on TV, I wanted to watch it, being a horror aficionado. I think I can do a collective "huh?" for everyone who watched it.

I decided to move on with my life, but at a party with my closest friends, we saw it was coming on and some of us having seen it already decided we could laugh our way through it, both of us proclaiming "this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen". It wasn't scary; Ill give it to Roth (who I think is a young hack); characters do change throughout the film, ala "Cube".

HOWEVER despite your typical "rats in a cage" scenario- who will turn on who, etc., it was pretty average horror.

A few points: 1.) What was with that kid? I'm not even talking about him being weird and biting people. I'm talking about the whole "slow motion karate kicking", what was that? 2.) Okay I know Rider's character liked Jordan Ladd's, but as a young woman, I was appalled that he just went ahead and molested her in her sleep. Uh, thats illegal.

3.) Roth was in the movie just so Roth could be in the movie. Talk about pointlessly writing yourself in! 4.) What was with the deputy? 5.) So she was just instantly pulled apart by the dog? And there was little to no blood left? Just a scrap of her jeans? Anyway we were LAUGHING our asses off, and I love laughing during horror movies (Return of the Living Dead 2, Evil Dead), but I don't know if we were supposed to be laughing here...


**SPOILERS BELOW!!!**

Cabin Fever has my nod for WORST film of the year...that I've seen that is. This movie is straight GARBAGE! There is so much wrong with the film you can't help but be amazed at how bad it really is. This movie had so much potential to be good, but ultimately made nothing of it. The characters were as dumb as one can be; for the entire movie you're just asking yourself "why would you do that?" or "what's your point in doing this?"...this is how illogical and stupid the characters are. We get NO background into them, so naturally you really don't give a rats as$ about their fate...you could only laugh at their stupidity.

- The 'slut' (Marcy) for instance... was she that horny that she had to sleep with Paul (Rider Strong)? There was no point in that....its almost as if the filmmakers needed a excuse to give her the virus so voila! UGH.

- Would anyone really go into the woods and drink water from the faucet of a cabin WITHOUT looking at it first?

- Why didn't Bert just shoot the sick guy from the start? Movie would've been over that way....besides, they ended up killing him anyway.

- Why did it take them so long to finally decide to leave the cabin, even if they had to walk? 'No, I'll just wait until 2 of my friends are infected (one a blink away from death) to finally opt to walk outta there.

- What was exactly the reasoning behind Paul's attempt to fish out the body of the Hermit, only to fall in the contaminated reservoir and get infected with the virus? Pure STUPIDITY!

I swear, common sense was not a friend, much less an aquaintance to these idiots. I don't think there has ever been a worse ending to a movie. In the beginning the kids ask the hick store cashier what the rifle was for, and he replied that 'its for the niggers'. In the end of the film, 3 young Blacks (dressed in baggy clothes, one of them in a du-rag no less) go into the store....come to find out that the cashier was cleaning it for them to be used for hunting. THEN, he proceeds to give them all pounds and handshakes and joke around with them as if they're his homeboys.

Okay, WHAT THE HELL WAS THE POINT OF THAT?!?!?!? How tasteless can one be, what were the filmmakers THINKING putting that in the movie? I as a Black man was of course offended by the initial 'Nigger' comment. It was a tasteless, pointless remark. My question to the filmmakers: what was the point of the ending with the Black kids? Was that to force me to forget about the initial racist comment made earlier? To smooth things over with Black viewers, by making a joke out of it? Well, I for one, did NOT find that pathetic attempt at humor funny in the least bit. The whole movie was a joke....a PATHETIC attempt at filmmaking that shouldn't be given the time of day. Peter Jackson really thought this film was that good? What film was HE looking at?

ZERO * out of **** stars....if I could give it a lower rating I would. Please, fellow IMDb'ers, don't waste 1 1/2 hours of your precious life watching this abomination of a 'movie'. This is one of the worst movies I've EVER seen.


I've rented and watched this movie for the 1st time on DVD without reading any reviews about it. So, after 15 minutes of watching I've noticed that something is wrong with this movie; it's TERRIBLE! I mean, in the trailers it looked scary and serious!

I think that Eli Roth (Mr. Director) thought that if all the characters in this film were stupid, the movie would be funny...(So stupid, it's funny...? WRONG!) He should watch and learn from better horror-comedies such as:"Fright Night", "The Lost Boys" and "The Return Of the Living Dead"! Those are funny!

"Cabin Fever" is THE reason why I registered to www.IMDb.com so I can release my thoughts of discontent about it.

I've decided to watch the movie a second time >AAARGH!< and make notes for my partial "review" to show how foolish the movie is. "Resident Evil" (horror) or "Dude, Where's My Car?" (comedy) I can watch over and over again and still enjoy! But this...!

How bad can a script and a director be??? This bad. Here are the awful scenes in chronological order:

In the early scenes we see Henry, who doesn't realize his dog lying on the ground with its tongue hanging out of its mouth and dead-glazed stare is dead!

The movie doesn't explain anything about the blonde long-haired kid who like to bite people.

And my answer to Marcy's unanswered question ("What's wrong with the woods?") is "nothing". The script has that bearded guy warn them about the woods just for "suspense".

Then the "smartest" of the 5-pack, Bert, almost gives us an example of how to start a forest fire. He meets now-infected Henry who begs for help and from here on the movie wants to break the record in using the "F-word". Bert starts to freak out because Henry looks awfully ill. Bert:"Don't make me shoot you!" (he forgets to add: "...with my BB gun!")

Bert heads back to the cabin but how about that? He meets Marcy and Jeff who were having sex, but now suddenly decide to go out for a walk! Marcy wisely takes out the unguarded campfire Bert had started earlier (A moment of clarity for a change?) Bert doesn't mention a word about Henry because the fool thinks he has killed him with his BB gun.

Later, as the Five Estupidos sit around their campfire, another weirdo shows up with his dog. (Maybe that's what the warning about the woods is all about? It's filled with weirdos...and their dogs!?) They let him sit with them only because he has a huge bag filled with cannabis. (Their brains are completely intoxicated! No wonder why they are all so DUMB!) This is the last time we'll see this forgettable character...alive!

Henry shows up at their cabin, (NOTE: He was lying all the time a few yards from their cabin!!!) looking worse, almost like a zombie, covered in goo! He says he needs a doctor. But the Young Einsteins refuse to help the poor sucker. He gets into their unlocked truck which of course also has its key in the ignition. Henry almost seems smart enough to drive the Hell away from there but instead starts puking blood all over the dashboard, seats and windows. The Fantastic Five come out running, armed with: a BB Gun, a knife, a baseball bat (*huh? Ever tried playing baseball in the middle of the woods???), a poker, and a (insecticide?) spray-can, ready to combat the single, unarmed and terribly sick man. (clever script!) Bert manages to kill the car with one single shot of his BB Gun, which is only possible in the mind of director Eli Roth. "What else am I supposed to do?" Bert yells in his defense. Jeff and Paul try to knock Henry down with their bat and poker but miss and crash the truck's windows instead. Henry walks up to the dumb girls who say: "He's coming towards us!" (Thanks for the info, dumb broads, I can see that! But I don't think he wants to do you any harm!) Marcy sprays in his eyes, making Henry yelp! And our "hero" Paul touches Henry's arm with a burning log from the campfire, which they recklessly left burning while they were INSIDE the cabin! (Where has all that wisdom gone? I guess the cannabis had started to take its toll!:-) Henry turns into The Human Torch and runs away, screaming.

The following day, Bert and Jeff head out for a mechanic. And Marcy decides to "go for help" all by herself, in the woods, as Paul stays behind with Karen...Doesn't that sound idiotic? Marcy could have stayed with Karen and Paul because Jeff and Bert were already "going for help"!

I skip my comments now to how we suddenly see Marcy in a CANOE rowing over a huge and winding river! How did she get a canoe? Does she even know where she's going!? Anyway, she goes to the riverbank and finds a very big and seemingly abandoned cabin and, like in most horror movies, walks inside the cabin saying:"Hello? Is anyone there?" Bert suddenly pops up from behind a furniture and scares her (and me at first). And along comes Jeff, as well. How did THEY get here!? Did they swim across the river??? Do you see how brainless the script is!?

Deputy Winston meets Paul at the cabin. He somehow doesn't notice the blood on their truck. This happens around 35 minutes of viewing and I have decided to stop torturing myself anymore and popped the DVD out. (Before I take my own eyes out!...Now, THAT's funny!)

If you liked this movie, do yourself a favor and watch "Fright Night", "The Lost Boys", or "The Return of The Living Dead". Then you'll see they are MORE entertaining than this...thing. Even the "Toxic Avenger part 2", which is also a lousy film, is way MORE funnier than "Cabin Fever".


Liongate has yet to prove itself. Every single movie from lionsgate has been abysmal. i've tried and tried to give them more opportunities and they just keep slapping me over and over again. And Cabin Fever is definitely no exception.

I couldn't even pay attention to most of this movie it was so frustrating and bad.

here's the plot. Guy cuts up dead dog for some reason. Gets infected by random virus, transfers it to kids at a camp, kids start to get infected and die, town finds out about it and rather than help them, kills them. then the water is infected and everyone dies. the end.

Seriously, that's the whole movie.

all the characters are completely retarded, you don't care for any of them, and the one kid should have stuck with boy meets world. Me and my friend found that talking about how fat and bitchy our one classmate was to be far more enjoyable than paying attention to this movie. We did manage to make it all the way to the end while screaming bulls$@t, because this film will make you do that.

and i'm still confused by the random slow motion karate moves of the one random kid and how apparently everybody out in the country is completely retarded and hickish. And again, why did this dog attack the girl? why did the kid the hicks were trying to kill sit in a chair waiting for them to kill him? that was part of the two of their's plan? wow. best plan ever. i cannot believe this movie got a theatrical release. i could barely stomach the DVD, let alone have to sit in a theater not moving for an hour and a half. It wasn't scary, or funny, or cool, or anything. it's just a waste of 90 minutes that you could be using to...i don't know, plant a tree or something. it's more productive than this piece of garbage. The acting, special effects, and script are a joke. don't ever pick this up.

Cabin fever gets one nasty leg shaving scene, out of 10


This is probably one of the worst films i have ever seen. The events in it are completely random and make little or no sense. The fact that there is a sequel is so sickening i may come down with a case of cabin fever (I'M SO SORRY). I describe it as bug being smooshed to a newspaper because it seems to be different parts of things mixed together. e.g Kevin the pancake loving karate kid is just freakishly weird on its own, then there's the cop who is slightly weird and perverted, then the drug addict, then there's the fact that they attack some random guy who clearly needs help. then all of a sudden the main character is having sex with his friends girlfriend just because she says something stupid about a plane going down. then at the end some good old family racism followed by a rabbit operating on Kevin the karate kid. Its actually pretty despicable that they can use racism as a joke in this film. There is no reason for anyone to enjoy this film unless you love Eli Roth, even that did not make me like this film. Hate is a strong word but seeing as it is the only word i am permitted to use it will have to do. BOYCOTT CABIN FEVER 2!!!!!


Truly one of the most dire films I've ever sat through. I've never actually taken the time to write one of these but felt compelled to after witnessing this affront to film-making and feel somewhat aggrieved to be wasting my time on such a piece of turd to be honest. There were so many parts that infuriated me with their complete randomness and lack of sense (e.g. when would the police force ever shoot people with infectious diseases? When would hospitals ever through out such people for lack of a cure? Why was the guy who spotted him spying on his wife wandering around outside in his dressing gown whilst carrying a gun as she rolled around on the bed?). Also, the characterisation - as we've almost come to expect in such films - was awful (e.g. the way the blonde guy - I don't remember his frickin name and don't give a toss anyway - completely turned against his girlfriend and ran off to leave her) and I ended up wanting them all to meet grisly ends! The production was horribly disjointed and the cinematography nothing to write home about.


The premise of Cabin Fever starts like it MIGHT have something to offer. A group of college teens after finals (in the fall?) goes to a resort cabin in the woods where one by one they are attacked by an unseen flesh eating virus.

Unfortunately, the first paragraph is where any remote elements of film quality stop. Cabin Fever is little more than college kids looking for sex, booze, talking non-stop about nothing, and seeing how many F-bombs they can get into 1:40 minutes or however long this mess is.

The kids act and react stupidly to everything around them. One of them for instance discovers that the skin virus has infected her legs, so what does she do? She keeps shaving her legs failing to take proper medical attention for her wounds. The scene is little more than a gross out. In another scene, Rider Strong from "Boy Meets World" gets bitten on the hand by some kid who only says "Pancakes" and likes to do karate kicks on those who sit next to him. If you can figure out the reason for why the "Pancakes" kid was included, I'd love to know. Anyway, Rider pets a wild dog and goes off to wash his bitten hand in a most likely contaminated creek. Another kid likes to drop F-bombs in reacting to everything around him and shoot squirrels. Why? Your guess is as good as mine!

Rider Strong is the ONLY kid with any recognition in this movie. He tries to calm people down in-between the yelling and screaming and F*** Y**! bombs that people are throwing around. When the kids aren't yelling, they are having or talking about sex or talking nonsense to the other adult characters who are EVEN MORE (if that is possible)idiotic than the kids! The idiot cop with an IQ of 60 at best may be one of the WORST acting jobs I have ever seen in a movie. You talk about people not playing with a full deck, this dork doesn't even know how to find the cards! LOL! I was like, "Will you PLEASE shut up already?!" He makes the kid actors look like geniuses! The only part that I sort of liked was Rider's scary story (although gory) about the deranged bowling alley guy. In interviews, Rider said that he had a great deal of respect for director Eli Roth. But the problem is that Mr. Roth appears to be going for little more than shock and gore. There are far too many bad things about this movie for Mr. Roth to get any credit. I wish I could agree with Rider and find something likable about this movie. Maybe the fall scenery in the beginning? Actually, Rider Strong JUST saves this movie from being a 1! Hopefully, he was compensated for this junk!


I had heard some bad things about Cabin Fever almost as much as I heard the cultish hype. As it turns out, the first film from the new impresario Eli Roth, it's just a so-so effort with the IQ points dropping as the film progresses. There are worse movies out there, and surely more gory ones (while I'm not sure how the hype-meter got so high on the blood-count for Hostel, there is a good amount for genre fans here). The premise isn't necessarily bad either though: kids go to a cabin for a week of partying, only to come across a very sick man, covered in blood, whom in a panic they set on fire. He winds up dead in the water that feeds the reservoir, and soon the characters all succumb to the flesh-eating virus one way or another. The characters, either the lead college kids (including Rider Strong as the hero and James DiBello as the goofy side-bar) or the supporting 'village' folks are archetypal to the point of inertia, if not painfully so.

As they meet their fates, the townspeople get pretty weird, and it just seems to be non-sensibly thrown together without the many laughs; 'Pancakes kid' comes out of nowhere, and maybe might have been funnier in another movie or by itself, but in the context of the rest of the movie, it just doesn't work. There's also a young police character who is even dumber and less convincing than the others. And the family that goes after DiBello following an incident has some possibilities that aren't realized. But all the while, Roth pumps up his script with common sense out the window and sudden scares and frights with people hacking up blood on one another and a killer dog rambling around. Which isn't all for not either. Now, unlike lesser Troma horror movies or even lesser ones of the 70s or 80s- to which I'm sure Roth is a die-hard fan- he doesn't make it unwatchable. It's also smart to not have any explanation for where the virus comes from.

But unlike those films too, he also doesn't really have a fine idea of what makes for great campy-horror times. His film tries for that, of course, and only once or twice does he make it a goofy, bloody time (I did like the random bunny Strong sees while on the gurney). It's not even very poorly shot a lot of the time (albeit with its own contrived style-choices ala red tint on the lens or that story with the bowling-alley worker). It simply contains a lot of illogical scenarios and choices made (shave your legs with a deadly virus, uh-huh), and it aims for fairly typical ground. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you. But at the end I found it to be actually un-exceptional genre territory that doesn't offend audience sensibilities ala Saw, but doesn't swing for the fence either as a clever B-movie. Roth also has the temerity to end the movie on a true note of 'what-the-hell' as the Santa Claus bearded convenience store clerk from earlier in the film serves a bunch of black people. It could work if he followed up on it with something better, or if he dropped it altogether. Same could be said for a lot of the movie. C-


Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier "living dead movies",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's "Evil Dead".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel.


The first five minutes of this movie showed potential. After that, it went straight from something possibly decent to some sort of illegitimate comedy. The best part is that I couldn't stop thinking of Supertroopers thanks to Joey Kern. I would recommend watching this movie for the sheer fact of learning how not to make a movie. There are so many scenes in this movie that makes one just stop and wonder if the entire cast and crew just stopped caring at some point. The thing that amazes me most about this movie is that it grossed $22 million in the box office and only cost about $1.5 million to make. Congrats to Lion's Gate for being able to pull that one off.


There's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with "Cabin Fever" and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer.


This film is about a group of five friends who rent a cabin in the woods. One of the friends catches a horrifying flesh-eating virus. Suddenly, the friends turn on one another in a desperate attempt to keep from contracting the disease themselves.

"Cabin Fever" is a horrible film. For one, it tries to be many genres at once. Is it supposed to be a homage, a slasher, a black comedy, or a scary movie with unintentional comedy? Nobody can tell. There's a serious scene at first and a second alter, it turns funny. When the film tries to be funny, the humor is quite bland, excluding the ending. I liked the ending a lot.

But apart from the ending, I was pretty disappointed and disgusted. The violence is cringe-worthy, more looking away from the screen than being scared. The tone changes within each scene, sometimes funny, sometimes scary, and sometimes quite random. In fact, you see a girl doing karate in slo-motion. What are we supposed to get from that? This same girl would bite one of the characters. Was that supposed to be funny? I don't know.

Some of the performances were decent, and many were quite amateurish. I didn't care for most of the characters. I liked the plot but the execution was done horribly. As a horror film, I didn't know what it was trying to be. I didn't find it funny, tense, nor scary. By the end, you're left indifferent, thinking, "What have I just been through?" Unfortunately, you'll never know the answer to that question.


Sure I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the "Jeep" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the "Jeep"(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense.


no redeeming qualities can possibly be expressed. i wish i could get my time back. nice skull face broad really smiles, bright at the camera when the disease has already wreaked enough havoc on the ill informed script. i was ((spoiler)) happy to see all the characters dead or severely incapacitated by the end, especially the party poopers that drink the tainted juice on their way to the alleged sunset. Eli Roth does shine for moments of maybe ten, putting forth the theory on how well weed smokes in the woods when others really fiend on top of beer consumption. overall, i found most of it pointless, though not without gratuitous violence and not enough nudity, happy to witness the demise of cast, in a way though, wishing that journey never happened (probably should've been getting laid instead of watching TBS late night, ugh).


From the opening dialog and scenes, I knew I knew I was in for a train wreck. Didn't want to look, but couldn't turn away. If it weren't for the meer eye candy of this film, I would have given one star. The fact that the interaction between characters and relationship behavior were so far fetched, added by poor direction and horrible story make this movie nothing more than a low-budget disaster. Money is definitely not a necessity to make a good film. But this movie fails so horribly there was no chance to rebound.

If you were stuck out in the woods, your childhood best friend dying from an unknown disease, other friends dying around you, stranded in a strange place, what would you do?

A.) Run away from everyone and try your luck on your own. B.) Have sex with your friends girlfriend. C.) Take a hot bath to relax your sorrows to include shaving your legs. D.) Bash in the head your childhood best friend and life-long crush with a shovel. E.) All of the above.

According to Eli Roth, none of these answers are that far fetched. In fact, all are plausible and well represented in Cabin Fever. The total lack of reality and illogical attempt at explaining what people would do in traumatic situations throws this film in the bonehead bin at your local rental store. Stay away. Stay far away.


Columbo movies have been going downhill for years, this year it may have reached the bottom. Peter Falk gives the same uninspired performance and comes over as creepy in this movie. As is usual in this series, crime scene protocols are unheard of so plausibility is always lacking. Brenda Vaccaro chews the scenery and pulls pantomime faces and Andrew Stephens is a pretty unconvincing lady's man. (His faint, though, was a hoot!)The script was by the numbers and its delivery patronising. They should never have brought Columbo into the nineties, just left us all with one or two happy memories of clever plots, better scripts and sharp characterisations.


Well, finally got to see the remake last night in London, unintentionally hilarious, sexless and devoid of any real humour. I don't really know where to start, whilst I was entertained by this strange homage, it didn't really move me. The acting is screamingly hammy, there is no original music, the costumes are far too 'Disney' there is a ridiculous 'six months later' insert after the burning of Nic Cage (which didn't come soon enough for my liking) The bit with Cage in the bear suit had the audience suppressing mirth as did the comedy punching out of various 'baddies' on the island. It's such a weird remake that I cant quite believe I saw it, it reminded me of something that The Comic Strip presents would have done in the eighties, a bit like their Hollywood interpretation of the Miner's Strike, very strange!


OK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:

A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage


If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror.

I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel.

Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.

So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?

It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop.

That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.

I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever.


Sometimes laughter in the middle of a horror film is a signal of its greatness. I remember the nervous laughter from the audience in the re-release of The Excorcist really nervous laughter. It punctuated just how freaked out we all were watching the voice of Satan coming out of a 12 year old girl. In the case of the 2006 remake of the 1972 cult classic The Wicker Man however, it made me think that this new Wickerman is about as scary as the South Park character, Scuzzlebut, the friendly forest monster with TV's Patrick Duffy for a leg and a celery stalk for an arm who's favorite hobby is weaving wicker baskets.

3 years ago a friend of mine in Hollywood told me that he heard that Nicolas Cage was going to do a remake of the film. I started laughing and my friend (Keith) got mad at me touting Nicolas Cage as a great actor. I just didn't think that he could pull it off and unfortunately for moviegoers I was right. Gone is the realness, the outstanding original music, the originality, the creepiness and the wonderfully powerful dialogue. Instead we have horror movie clichés, affected acting and changes to the storyline that make any believability fall apart. Like many of the countless Hollywood remakes we have been inundated with lately this feels like we are watching 4th graders on a playground "playing Wickerman".

The original film takes place on a remote Scottish Isle where a Scottish police officer is lured there to find a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison. In the new spin a California cop (Cage) is lured to an island of the coast of Washington state by his ex-girlfriend to find her missing daughter. She sends a photo and the missing daughter looks exactly like a young girl he tried to save in a fiery crash not long ago. The crash still haunts him in part because the girl's body was never found. Yet even after he gets a letter with her picture in it that connection is completely cast aside as he heads north, alone, to help his ex-girlfriend find her daughter. He arrives to find an island full of actors pretending to be the descendants of Wiccans, many of whom seem like they didn't get call backs for roles in The Village. And like The Village it isn't long before you realize there is nothing to be afraid of here. Not even the cloudy eyed blind sisters who speak in unison.

I think that the opportunity in Hollywood to make great amounts of money on a film often comes at great expense to the artistry. I think someone like Nicolas Cage who is in so many films these days loses touch with the magic that film can be when it gets to the point where he has a personal chef on the set preparing his snacks. We needed a bad re-make of the Wickerman like we needed yet another '9-11' movie. I'm starting to wonder if Nicolas changed his surname from Coppola because he wanted to or because he was pleaded with to do so.


Waitress: Honey, here's them eggs you ordered. Honey, like bee, get it? That's called pointless foreshadowing.

Edward Basket: Huh? (On the road) Basket: Here's your doll back, little girl. You really shouldn't be so careless with your belongings.

Little girl: Yeah, whatever.

Crash! Boom! Whoosh! Crackle Basket: I think that something bad is about to happen.

(Later) Basket: Mmmm. Vicodin! What the ? (Tears open letter.) Wow! My ex-girl's handwriting has really improved. And look, her missing daughter looks kinda like the girl with the doll I accidentally was sort of responsible for getting killed, in a way. And she kind of has my hairline. I wonder, should I torture myself and go find her? Let's see what my friends at the precinct think.

Basket's fellow male cop: HAHAHA. Willow's a funny name.

Basket: I think that something bad is about to happen.

(On the island) Basket: What's in the sack? AHHH.

Tree-named crone: It's not her daughter, though.

(In the tavern) Basket: Can you swing that? Big-boned, tree-named tavern wench: Huh? Basket: (smashes a bee). Everything is OK.

Sensually pretty, formerly promising actress playing a lusty tavern scullery maid: That's good. Honey's not a plant, though.

(On the greensward) Willow: Oh, yeah, and I forgot, you are the father my child, Conan, er, I mean Rowen. (Yawns.) I could have stayed and had a life with you. But I didn't. I wanted to be princess of the beehive, instead. I mean, never mind. (Nods off, jerks awake, widens eyes to anime proportions). Mwah, kiss-kiss. Love ya! What were we talking about? Basket: Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Willow: Edward. Sniff. Blink. Why. Are. You. Yelling. At. Me? Is it because I jacked your Vicodin? Sniff. Snore. What were we talking about? Basket: I think something bad is about to happen.

Willow: My lips hurt.

(In the schoolroom) Rose: What is man? Unappealling twins, in unison: Phallic symbol, phallic symbol.

Rose: Echo? Echo? Basket: Step away from the bike.

Rose: And I'm the good twin.

Basket: I think something bad is about to happen.

(At the beehives) Basket: Hmmm. Hallo? Ow, ow, ow, oh bother. Silly old bear. Snore.

(At the Queen Bee's mansion) Sister Summersisle: You have so much potential. What are you doing here? Weren't you the stud Cher slapped in the face in Moonstruck? (Licks lips.) Basket: I was about to ask you the same thing. Where's the girl? Sister Summersisle: How you drone on. Let's talk about the significance of my superfluous "s." Basket: Look out for that semi-truck barreling toward us! Aaaaah! Oh. Never mind. Goddammit! (Pops another pill.) Mmmm. Thorazine.

(Back at the tavern) Big-boned, supercilious tavern wench: I've tried Weightwatchers, Jenny Craig, South Beech, and I still went up a bear-suit size since last year.

Tree-named crone: HAHAHA. All the better to roast that nosy cop in, my dear.

Big-boned wench: Totally.

Basket: That was the last straw that broke the Basket Case's back! Take that, wench! (Slugs her.) (Edward Basket is mysteriously attacked from behind) Voluptuous tavern wench: EEEE! Snap out of it! Leave the island already and take me with you! Do I have to tackle you or what? Snap out of it, I say! EEEE! Basket: Take that, wench! (Courageously kicks her in the face. Her eyes roll back in her head and become cartoon Xs.) Voluptuous wench: Snore (At the Nicolas Cage roast) Ellen Burstyn: And who can forget the part where Basket's cell phone rings in the middle of his bear suit scene and then the call gets dropped. It's like a wireless ad: Help me! Can you hear me now? Hahaha.

Kate Beahan: And remember when I produced the bullets I jacked from Basket's gun? He looked so surprised. You should be more careful with your belongings, Nick. Hahaha. And your movie choices.

All: The drone must die! Basket: (screaming) Oh, yeah, you bitches? Well, roasting me isn't gonna help your goddamn honey! Aaah. My legs! Honey, (honey, get it?) put down that torch and step away from the Basket Case. Honey! Smokey bear says don't play with matches. Hahaha. What the? Look out for that hurtling semi-truck! Ahh! Oh. Goddammit, these flashbacks from my drug experimentation phase in the seventies are getting old! Where's my heroin? Ouch. Ouch. My watch isn't fireproof. Ouch. I think something bad is about to happen. Can you hear me now? I'm ready for my close up. Goddammit! (Six months later) Voluptuous wench in modern-day slutty attire: I told that eponymous Basket Case to take me with him.

Innocent young drone: I like to help people.

Volptuous wench: Then get me out of my contract for the sequel! I think something bad is about to happen. EEEEE!


I'm a big fan of Nicolas Cage and I never thought he would work on a movie like this. I couldn't believe the other reviews and I thought it shouldn't be bad to watch it at least once...but trust me, it is.

I haven't seen the old movie..but why would they want to remake a movie like this. The very basic idea of a good horror movie is either it should have an extremely intelligent script or it should be extremely graphic. This film doesn't fall under any of those and just remains dumb.I just kept watching the movie hoping it would get interesting at some point , but it never does.

So this movie is a big no no for both Horror movie fans as well as for the Cage fans. You could probably for it show up on television.


It's unfortunate that you can't go any lower than one star. Prior to watching The Wicker Man, I had considered Aliens 3 to be the only movie that would actually merit negative stars. In all fairness, The Wicker Man doesn't detract from the enjoyment of an earlier film, but the fact remains that my cumulative movie enjoyment has been reduced by seeing it.

There is a cheap trick all too often used in Hollywood when the producers are too stingy to hire good writers or in too much of a hurry to allow them to bring a plot to a satisfactory conclusion: slap in a shocker ending and hope that the public will mistake it for something artistic or meaningful. It is a gambit that rarely succeeds and in this case manages only to splatter embarrassment on a fine actor and ridicule upon the producers. Even more so in that the "carefully crafted" (or however they put it) conclusion didn't seem to follow logically from the plot (which naturally I can't elaborate on without introducing spoilers), and instead negates what merit the plot had up to that point.

It is a film that might logically appeal to psychopaths, pedophiles, and possibly die-hard Nicholas Cage fans, but only to a few of the mainstream audience. If you really want something along these lines, I heartily recommend M. Night Shyamalan's The Village instead. Lacking some kind of memory-erasing pill, I suppose I need to watch something better to force it from my mind, say, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Pee-wee's Big Adventure?


First this movie was not that bad.It was entertaining...at least to me for probably all the wrong reasons. I have never seen the original so can't compare the two.

This movie reminded me of that weird Christopher Reeve movie Village of the Damned. THe two movies have different plots, but that creepy disgusted feeling and unwanted comedy exist in both.

The wicker man is suppose to be a mystery/thriller/men please don't anger the women movie. I don't know the whole pagan thing and sacrifice was a little off.

Nicholas Cage, his glorious bad self goes to a secluded Island called Summerisle when he receives a letter in calligraphy from his long lost fiancée who claims her daughter has been taken and hidden by fellow islanders.

Cage is a police officer and being the weary policeman he is he goes to the semi uncharted island leaving no word of his whereabouts to anyone who is located in the real world. Stupid.

Things get weirder when the large Amish-esquire women who populate the island snarl at him and lie about the whereabouts of the missing girl. His fiancée is no help who seems to be elusive and weary the whole time. Cage stays on the Island when he learns that the missing girl is his daughter and he is the lucky man tricked to come to this island as a sacrificial victim during the islands sick harvest festival.

In this movie males do not fare so well. A sick twisted display of feminism?

I found the movie laughable at times particularly when cage punches some women and runs around in a bear suit. I think there were too many potholes in this movie. I find the whole concept of angry women secluding themselves on an island without any care for males quite entertaining, but the way it was portrayed in this movie was just weird. While most women have had some jerk hurt and anger them this is clearly a form of sexism. I would have turned the movie off in disgust if the roles were reversed. This movie is something to watch maybe just once or twice. It is NOT a thriller it should be categorized as just strange.


A trooper is on the side of the road making sure every1 is obeying the speed limit (doing his job); he then pulls over a woman who appears she is a mother (there is a child in the back seat); he then is telling her what is wrong and BAM...they get killed. Okay, this is the start of what i personally thought would have been a good movie. When I was watching this movie in the theatre I was with some friends. This was our first night out after the summer so we wanted to go and see a good movie. We all decided to see a suspense/thriller that looked good to everyone in the group...this was one of the biggest mistakes of my life. Not only did I waste $7.oo on a movie ticket, but I had to sit through torture for the brain. This movie started off with mystery and suspense and I seriously thought "this cant be bad"...I was so wrong. The whole problem with this movie is that it makes no sense; even if you can get passed the bad acting, the "not so scary" storyline, and the over all horrible mess this movie was, you will still be puzzled. It's not because you're not smart enough to understand it, it's because no human with a brain could comprehend what this stupid movie is about. Right now you may be thinking "Oh man! I have to watch this movie just to see if it's as bad as this person says it is". GET THAT THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR HEAD RIGHT NOW!!! I'm trying to save you the trouble of watching this movie by telling you that it is so bad that there is no point in even considering seeing it. Please people don't make the same mistake i did thinking that this movie has potential...it doesn't. I give this movie 1 out of 10 (if I could give a zero I would), and I do not recommend anyone to ever see this movie, you'll be saving yourself many sleepless nights trying to think w.t.f. that freaking movie is about.


This movie is suppose to be a mysterious, serious thriller about a man looking for a missing girl. However, 30 minutes into the movie, it turns into a funny, unrealistic story with annoying characters and random scenes. I can't imagine anyone not laughing when Cage randomly Karate kicks that blonde girl or when he "bear" punches that old lady. The lines, characters, and acting are all poorly done from the get-go. I've always liked Nicolas Cage as an actor, but he has made some terrible movies this year; this being by far the worst one (yet...).

I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone who wants to watch an intense story-gripping thriller. If you really want to enjoy this story, go rent the original. However, if you intend on watching it, get ready to laugh at some of the lines and end scenes rather than taking them seriously; that's the only way you enjoy this film.


great mystery, but the film goes down hill from there. The beginning is promising with a car wreck and a woman and her daughter being burned alive in front of a police officer, Edward. He is traumatized over this and is seen popping pills. A mysterious letter turns up from an old girlfriend asking for help in finding her missing daughter. So Ed travels to an island commune of mainly woman. They don't like outsiders. A lot of filler is with Ed shown looking around town for the girl. That made the movie too long. It finally gets a little better toward the end when we learn of the crazy rituals the woman perform and finally of the sinister plan in store for Edward.

Overall, not a well written story and too long.

FINAL VERDICT: I would skip this.


The Wicker Man, starring Nicolas Cage, is by no means a good movie, but I can't really say it's one I regret watching. I could go on and on about the negative aspects of the movie, like the terrible acting and the lengthy scenes where Cage is looking for the girl, has a hallucination, followed by another hallucination, followed by a dream sequence- with a hallucination, etc., but it's just not worth dwelling on when it comes to a movie like this. Instead, here's five reasons why you SHOULD watch The Wicker Man, even though it's bad:

5. It's hard to deny that it has some genuinely creepy ideas to it, the only problem is in its cheesy, unintentionally funny execution. If nothing else, this is a movie that may inspire you to see the original 1973 film, or even read the short story on which it is based.

4. For a cheesy horror/thriller, it is really aesthetically pleasing. It's pretty obvious that it was filmed on location instead of using green screen or elaborate sets, so we get to see some very great scenery. There are also many nicely composed shots. It is a very good looking movie.

3. Nicolas Cage is not so much an actor as he is a force of nature. Whether you're a fan of his or not, it seems as if it's impossible for Cage to play a "normal guy". There is always some kind of eccentricity or nerdiness he brings to the characters he plays, and personally, I am always fascinated by watching him in any movie he does. Whether Nicolas Cage is great or terrible, he always brings his unique energy into play, and he is never boring to watch. He is terrible in The Wicker Man, but in the most wonderful kind of way.

2. A student could probably write a hell of a paper on this movie, as it seems to be the strongest anti-feminist movie ever made. "See?" you could write, "this is what happens when women are allowed to run a society!" Also, the similarities between this "Summersisle" society and a bee colony are pretty interesting and worth noting.

1. If you're reading this, there's probably a good chance you may have seen a YouTube video that has become very popular: a collection of "highlights" from the movie, including Cage running around in a bear suit, and of course, the infamous "AAGHH!! THE BEES!! MY EYES!!!" line. These scenes are hilarious out of context, and they are still fairly funny while watching them in the film's entirety.

I bought the used DVD at Blockbuster for about 5 dollars...when you work that out, it's about a dollar per reason. It's a pretty good deal.

NOTE: The Unrated version of the movie is the best to watch, and it's better to watch the Theatrical version just for its little added on epilogue, which features a cameo from James Franco.


Where oh where to begin in describing the comprehensive wretchedness of Neil LaBute's latest attempt at film making?

There are many kinds of film fans out there, but by far the most annoying and shallow is Mr. Intriguing. You know Mr. Intriguing, don't you?

He's the fellow that no matter how stupid, lame, and incomprehensibly dull a film is, he says "Gee, I don't know why everyone hated it, I found it intriguing." He's the kind of guy who finds the scent of dog poop intriguing. Especially when he smears it in the shape of a Hitler mustache on his upper lip and marches about the house ranting about the brilliance of science fiction that features thinly veiled references to Greek mythology. He's also the guy this version of The Wicker Man was made for. No one else could stand it.


I watched this movie because I like Nicolas Cage and well, I found it strange and completely pointless... so I decided to poke around a little bit and got my hands on the 70s copy of it. Wow. what a difference. The original one was way better. I'd like you all to know it did originally actually make a statement, it's existence did have a purpose. It was really the Christian public expressing their fear of paganism. If you dig deeper into it it also makes comments on life but I don't want to go into details, just, simply put, if you were disappointed and you'd like to know what it SHOULD look like, feel free to watch the 70s version, a little dated, but A lot better.


And I thought The Beach was bad, with the difference that this movie has one of the greatest actors of our time, Nicolas Cage. Don't blame him for the awful script, if any one can make any sense of what the hell was the point of that movie, give your self a pat on the back. Its a cross between The Village and a crappier script. Its starts off kinda catching your eye, and then as it goes further into the plot, it just makes no sense, and don't get me started about the ending!!!! What was that? The only thing that makes this movie exist is Nicolas Cage usual great humor, and his ability to be funny in the weirdest situations. If you go to a blockbuster and this is the only movie to watch, save yourself five bucks and just go back home and turn put some thing on fire and when some ones asks you why, just say the stupidest thing that comes into your mind, and there you go!


I'd like to start off by saying that I am NOT an anime fan (with a few notable exceptions), and I generally have a low opinion of so-called otakus, as they are so in love with their particular brand of cartooning that they label every movie starring spiky-haired, big-eyed characters as a work of art without even considering other more vital factors, such as the plot. And no anime movie better represents this division between otakus and people with actual taste than this elegant piece of trash, Fatal Fury: the Motion Picture.

 As seen through the glassy, witless eyes of an otaku, there's little to find fault with in Fatal Fury-- there's plenty of quirky Japanese-y humor, one-on-one duels, some "dramatic" moments, and everything is beautifully drawn. But everyone else will be turned off by the cliched, predictable plot with cliched, predictable characters, culminating in a cliched, predictable ending. The love scenes are hilariously overblown-- the scene in which Sulia "heals" Terry is obviously intended to be a tender moment, but it's virtually impossible to not be thrown into spirals of giddy laughter by the sheer ludicrousness of it. And of course, Fatal Fury is not without the obligatory cartoon T&A-- this is supplied gratuitously by the huge-breasted Mai Shiranui. And since Fatal Fury IS based off the video game series of the same name (oh boy), we're treated to numerous pointless cameo appearances by popular characters with little or no relevance to the plot whatsoever (they go through all the trouble of introducing Kim early on, only for him to disappear from the movie totally after that point). This mess of a movie reaches its climax with the unintentionally farcical final battle, in which all the main characters engage the all-powerful main villain in one-on-one combat in turn. That's some thing that's always amused me... even when battles in animes AREN'T taking place in a tournament, they always happen as if they were, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever!

 Otakus always rave about how anime movies should be treated as MOVIES as opposed to merely cartoons, and a disturbing portion of those same people love Fatal Fury. So would Fatal Fury have been good if it wasn't an anime? The answer is an emphatic "no"-- all of this movie's charm, what little of it there is, resides in the actual drawings. Had Fatal Fury not been an anime, it would have been worthy of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, if the show was still on the air. That's the key-- this is nothing more than a laughably bad B-movie in the guise of an anime epic. If you're a fan of movies so bad that they're actually entertaining, consider renting Fatal Fury (or catch it on the Sci-Fi channel), as it is definitely one of those. If you're an otaku, please WAKE UP and realize that a good 90% of the stuff you're watching is garbage. As for everyone else, buy a Dreamcast and Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves, but don't even consider seeing this movie.


its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!!


A mummy narrates vignettes about men, women, and the sex between them. Huh? At the beginning, the mummy randomly asks the viewer, "Imagine having sex with this girl. Imagine having sex with this boy" about 37 times, while flashing pictures of half naked mod youths. Later, said mods boys pelt mod girls with...vegetables? If you ignore (or fast forward) through the mummy's rambling, the shorts aren't bad in their own right. I found a few of them rather funny. My personal favorite is one where the sexually-confused man tries to convince a girl to have sex with him while his pet lizard sits on the bed. This is one, well, bizarre movie.


The film had some likable aspects. Perhaps too many for my taste. It felt as though the writer/director was desperately trying to get us to feel the inner conflict of ALL of its characters. Not once, a few times...but all of the time.

This is the job of television, not cinema.

The location of the train station was well chosen and I enjoyed Sascha Horler's performance as the pregnant friend.

I felt as though Justine Clarke's performance was wan. Her reactions to things felt forced, as though the director were trying to vocalise the themes of the film through her protagonist's expressions. I also can't believe that a director can make the wonderful Daniela Farinacci into an unbelievable presence.

I cannot understand the choice of pop music slapped over entire sequences. This is a lazy device, especially where the pop music comes from no place diagetic to the film and/or where the lyrics of the song feel embarrassingly earnest.

That said, there is a breezy quality about the film that evokes the Australian heat and local attitude with originality. It does create an atmosphere of heat and sunshine. Especially with the usage of wonderful animation sequences that rescue the film from complete mediocrity, infusing it with passion and hand-crafted charm.

I am curious why the dialogue feels so overworked. "Who knows if there's a god? Like some guy sitting there up in the sky telling us what to do" or whatever the line was.

Perhaps one of the more embarrassing moments was the friend returning home from cricket with a bunch of flowers to declare to his wife "I'm giving up smoking."

An anti-smoking commercial? A TAC ad with some tasteful animation? I had to leave the cinema at the 50 minute mark -- it was all too much.


Something I really love about this woman's short films was the elusiveness of theme -- especially in "Living with Happiness." This film has some nice beginnings -- unusual location and the potential for a strange cinematic treatment, but fails to succeed with clunky expositional dialogue, patchy performances and very television coverage.

It's once again charming television and very ordinary cinema. The ideas are so fleshed out that they almost feel pat like a television commercial. But the sentiment is good so we can't complain too much.

I really would love to see this director make a full length animation and try and work with a producer who doesn't demand so much boring clarity.


This is, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful.


I found this movie boring, monotonous and quite uninteresting with a hurried, shallow "upbeat" ending that didn't ring true to the overall story. Following these characters through a weekend of awful events, unfriendly attitudes and bad news just isn't my idea of a watchable, interesting movie and I got very tired of its "one note" theme and couldn't wait for it to end--in fact I almost stopped about halfway through. The whole movie just seemed pointless and wandering, and the characters were for the most part depressing and unpleasant, though the acting was good. A small movie with small ambitions and small appeal--sorry, but it just didn't make it with me, and I love good, small films! This one just didn't jell, though I kept watching it hoping and trusting that it would. I was disappointed, especially after two local reviewers put it on their "Year's 10 Best" list. I'd strongly recommend watching "The House of Sand" instead--now there's a good, small film!


Bruce Lee was a great martial artist, but this film still is probably one of the worst films ever made. It has Bruce Lee die as the result of falling off a helicopter after being hit by some kind of a ninja knife to the back of the neck but it doesn't explain how he came to be on a helicopter since the prior scene has him near but not on the helicopter which is already 200 feet in the air. It just gets downright absurd from then, like something out of a cheap comic book. Maybe the idea isn't so rotten but it isn't done with any degree of artistry from a film making point of view. There are dozens of such martial arts bombers out there, usually all made in Hong Kong. I think that Jean Claude van Dam improved the genre with adding plausible stories in his films and having film makers who know how to use the camera. Even Steven Seagal's films are way better than 90 percent of the martial arts junk movies made during the 1970s and early 1980s in Hong Kong. 'Game of Death II' falls into the category of junk cinema in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee being in it.


This is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to "Billy Lo" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise.


There are so many stupid moments in 'Tower of Death'/'Game of Death 2' that you really wonder if it's a spoof. At times, it felt like I was watching a sequel to Kung Pow rather than a Bruce Lee film.

To be honest, this film has bugger all to do with 'Game of Death'. If anything, it's more a sequel/remake of 'Enter the Dragon', incorporating many elements of that film - particularly the actual footage. Bruce Lee's character Billy Lo (apparently) investigates the sudden death of his friend and encounters a piece of film that was left with the man's daughter. When the body is stolen during the funeral (!), Billy is also killed and it's up to his wayward brother to avenge both men's deaths.

Tong Long stars as brother Bobby Lo and doesn't really have the sort of charisma to carry the film. His fighting abilities are very good however. Bruce Lee obviously turns up thanks to (no longer) deleted footage simply to cash-in on the legacy. Saying that, on the whole, the footage is actually edited-in better than in 'Game of Death' but it doesn't stop the film from being a mess.

OK, so the fights are actually very entertaining (dare I say mind-blowing) and make the film at least watchable. But there are so many daft elements to this film that it really tests your patience. First off, there's the supposed villain who lives on his palatial estate... or is that mental institution? Seriously, the nutter eats raw venison, drinks deer's blood, carries a monkey on his shoulder and owns some peacocks and lions (?!). This attempt to make him look tough and intelligent just makes you feel sorry for him - you half expect someone to escort him back to his room.

In fact, this middle section is awful and when the scene involving a naked hooker and a lion suit arrived I turned it off. However, I did finish the film and was kind of glad I did because the fight scene towards the end (much like 'GOD') was the whole reason for watching. While the story is an embarrassment, the action is very good and contains excellent choreography.

But even the finale disappoints if the premise was anything to go by. What we were told was that the 'Tower of Death' was a pagoda that was upside down and underground. This sounded great, like a twist on Bruce Lee's original idea with different styles of fighting on each level. Could this be the 'Game of Death' that was originally planned? No! The film should have been named "Generator Room of Death" because thats as far as the tower goes. Of yes, there were indeed one or two 'different' styles... there were foil clad grunts, leopard-skinned henchman and stupid monk. It's as though Enter the Dragon had never been made, with the plot being a poor imitation.

Worth watching once for the fast paced fight scenes, but so stupid sometimes that it hurts. If this was intended, then fine. Thumbs up, however, for recreating that projector room scene from 'Enter The Dragon'.


This is high grade cheese fare of B movie kung fu flicks. Bruce "wannabe" Lee is played by Bruce Li...I think. Of course, let's show quick clips of Bruce and do closeups of his eyes and if you quint at the right angle during a certain time of the day during the winter solstice, it kind of looks like Bruce. You'll laugh in awe at how the film splicing isn't very good, but some cool deleted scenes from Enter the Dragon are thrown in the mix. According to the movie, Bruce Lee was killed by a dart while hanging from a helicopter. Of course, they think this can excuse Bruce Li for trying to be Bruce even though his character is supposed to be Bruce's brother (who for some reason still mimes Bruce's gestures and fighting style - very POORLY). See Bruce go one-on-one with the cowardly lion. The props department stopped by Kay-Bee, you see. Bruce also finds nothing wrong with savagely beating up a crippled man. Towards the end, the director decided "let's throw a flashback" for a scene just shown 3 minutes ago!! They must've thought that only one-celled organisms with attention deficit disorder could fully understand this film.


In this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.


A handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)

I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues.

Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act.

On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film.

In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame.

In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did.


Once again I took a chance and rented this bag of crap. Billed as a horror flick, there wasn't one scene, not one, that was even remotely scarey. NOT ONE!! Sure there was some nudity, but all the lesbian action got a little old. I guess maybe that was suppose to be this movie's saving grace? And Dan, what an annoying ass bag!! Right from the beginning I knew I was in for it when good ol' Dan first spoke. And he was suppose to be intimidating? What a laugh!! All in all, this movie is dreadfully awful! How in the hell do movies like this get made? If you want a movie with a few thrills in it, don't rent this one. This movie is about as thrilling as the Teletubbies.


Wow...where to begin...picked this up at Big Lots for only $2.99. That's three bucks I'll never see again...ever...and for what? I'll tell ya. An hour and fifteen minutes of boring, boring, boring chat and college angst that seemed more suitable for a Lifetime movie than the horror flick advertised on the box. (May the marketing droids who designed it burn in Hell for all eternity). Follow that up with a little bit of cheap gore (not even good gore mind you...) and a plot twist at the end that comes out of nowhere, and makes no sense. Awful, awful, awful...

Was there any redeeming qualities? Well, on the Joe Bob Briggs scale, there WERE six breasts involved, but that's hardly worth my long lost three bucks. Without those, this coulda been on Sci-Fi at, say, two or three in the morning...

Bmoviefreak


I probably give this more credit than it deserves because it's Halloween, I was just at "Knott's Scary Farm" and I was in a mood to watch a really cheesy Halloween movie.

Oh, and it only cost me one dollar.

Usually I'll ffwd through a movie like this to get to "the good stuff," but I resisted the urge here and I'm still not sure why. It was obvious from the opening shots this wasn't a "real" movie, not even a B-movie. It's more in the category of the DeCoteau "horror" movies like "The Brotherhood" that are shot on film-look video for about 50 cents (in fact, I was half afraid any minute one of his beefy college boys would stagger out rubbing himself in his underpants or something). There were no cutaway shots (too expensive to do multiple camera setups) and flat lighting but...it's hard to pinpoint. There's something refreshing about watching a director with no money pull off a half-decent movie. The fact that he's doing even a half-decent job is commendable, and this movie has it's share of merits--the acting isn't bad, the photography is pretty good (if too bright to be scary), there are some surprises, and the whole thing is sort of...different somehow.

A bunch of college kids are (for some unknown reason) stuck in the warehouse where they are decorating the annual haunted house. A creepy old man gives them a satanic book and they accidentally summon up the powers of hell. This results in the costumed people in the haunted house becoming who they are made up to be, and causing a lot of mayhem and human suffering. Along the way we are treated to an oddly complex and thoughtful lesbian relationship subplot--it's interesting that this couple seems to be the most well-rounded in the movie. Yes, there's a sex scene but it isn't salacious--or at least no more so than you'd find in any legit movie about lesbians that shows them having sex. It's rather unusual for a horror film to take the time and effort to do this without resorting to cheap exploitation.

The other thing about this that held my interest was how it was clearly trying to emulate the "stupid kids have sex and get killed" vibe of the 80's slashers. It's hard to take that on because there are so many of those films that already exist, the genre has been done to death. I'm not sure if it's good or bad that these filmmakers simply tried to make another entry in that genre, without irony, as if it was still a LIVING genre, but I appreciated the attempt.

Which is why I sat through it; sometimes you just want to watch a mindless, no-budget, "A-for-effort" horror film. There really was too much set up, not enough gore, endless plot-holes, dead-ends and clichés and the unfortunate overall feel of a movie that simply did not have enough money behind it to be the film the producers envisioned...but at the very least the haunted house scenes were pretty cool. I'd pay to go to that haunted house if it existed, and didn't mind paying a dollar to see it on DVD even if I'll never watch this again.

Oh, and **possible spoiler**, but there was great, brief business with the vampire girl in the coffin: "I used to be claustrophobic. But I've changed." Ha ha, good one.


This movie proves that you can't judge a movie by the awesome artwork on the DVD cover. It also goes to show that you should learn more about a movie before you buy it (or get it for someone at Christmas). The beginning of this movie actually looks somewhat promising. Well, until you meet the characters. Pumpkin Jack (the old guy from down the street) brings the college co-eds a book full of witch's spells that he leaves at their annual haunted house (where the movie takes place). After that there is some drinking, fighting, and soft core porn. Then the action of the movie finally takes place after over an hour.

Overall, Hallow's End was predictable, unsuspensful, and reminiscent of a soft-core porn. This movie is probably best viewed with a group of friends who have nothing better to do, as it is a good movie to make fun of. And for first-time viewers, it is really fun making predictions of the order of people who die.


*WARNING. THERE MIGHT BE SPOILERS AHEAD, IF YOU CARE.*

Okay, the basic premise of this homegrown Texas film is: College kids + spookhouse + evil magic book = scary stuff. In practice, it equals a lot of time looking at the time to see how much longer this movie is going to drag on. A bunch of frat boys, along with assorted girlfriends & volunteers, is setting up a charity haunted house. The project is being presided over by a thoroughly repellent character, whose main purpose seems to be verbally & physically assaulting as many cast members as possible. I had a hard time believing that anyone would even attempt to work with this person in any capacity: he's nothing but rude and abusive to everyone, including his girlfriend and his buddy. Regardless, the kids are visited by local character & annual pumpkin-carving champion "Pumpkin Jack", an elderly coot who is described as the "Santa Claus of Halloween", and who drops off a load of props for the house, including an ominous book that figured prominently in the irritatingly strobe-flashed prologue(where a gaggle of robed cultists get turned into stir-fry). Needless to say, some damn fool starts messing with the book, and eventually most of the costumed monsters turn into real ones, and the remaining few normal folk have to try and survive. There's some good stuff in this film, but not much: everything is shot well, and the makeup effects are decent. On the other hand, the performers either underact, or overact drastically; much of the plot makes little sense outside of a "this happens so that can happen" series; there is hardly any musical score to speak of, just snatches of songs throughout the film; and the movie takes an hour to actually get anywhere. That last problem is the most telling: two-thirds of the 90 minute running time is used to repeatedly set up the characters. Tom is a nice guy dating Heidi the control freak, but he used to date Jill, who is now dating Dan the jerk, but she's started a relationship Kira the girl who wears too many shawls/capes. Dan is a really big jerk, Gary likes to play jokes, and Steve & Lily like to have a lot of sex. Stuff that could have easily been dealt with in 20 minutes or so drags on and on, to the point where the lesbian "sex" scene(calm down, it's pretty tame) left me looking for the fast forward button. That leaves us with half an hour of lo-calorie scares, a klunky ending and a deep-seated dislike of ol' Pumpkin Jack, who I blame for the whole mess. Unless you can get this on some sort of deep-discount rental(and really have seen everything else in the store), put it back on the shelf and keep looking.


Horror movies can be a lot of fun with low budgets, bad acting, and a bit of panache. I think the film is just missing panache, because, one thuddingly dull scene after another, people make laughably harmless claw-handed grabs at the air. If it weren't so boring, it might be funny.

A horror film can go a long way with a tired concept like "college kids in a haunted house," in much the same way the Evil Dead movies had a lot of fun with a similar standard plotline. Hallow's End, unfortunately, doesn't go a long way. Actually, it doesn't go anywhere. It spends the better part of an hour setting up faceless and anonymous characters with what seem like endless interpersonal drama. I have nothing against character development, not even in a horror movie, but these are strictly one-dimensional characters (the alpha-male, the milquetoast, the... um... throwaway characters that exist mostly for sex scenes.) Spending forty-plus bloodless, droning minutes with them was more horrific than when the bloodshed started.

Well, implied bloodshed anyway. When the college kids turn into whatever they dressed as for their haunted house (one's a vampire, one's wearing O.R. scrubs and some white pancake) they look pretty much the way they did in their amateur haunted house costumes; The Dead Hate The Living, using a similar theme, is a masterwork in comparison. There isn't really any gore to speak of, nor are there any real scares.

I've thought about this one from almost every approach. If it was supposed to be a tight, suspenseful horror movie (which would explain why things moved so slowly), the pathetic sex scenes and cheap monsters would invalidate it. If it was supposed to be a genuine blood & guts horror movie (which would explain the schlock)... where's the blood and guts? And the anticlimax is one of the unexciting endings to a movie I've ever seen. It's the kind of movie that, though it doesn't have a narrator through the film, is bookended by voice-overs because all of the meaningless dialogue just wasn't enough.

This was a hard one... coming out of it, I wonder if I've just sat through a christian horror film. Maybe the "I know hell exists" of the opening wasn't meant that way, but there are some hints (or misdirection-- I'm not sure which). For all the profanity in the film, a line like "gosh-darnit" comes off a little absurd, and so does most of the crucifix worshipping, god-fearing, and satan-dreading, especially after some lecherous T&A sex scenes (one heterosexual, one lesbian).

If it a christian company (Highland Myst's logo even has a bit of a crucifix resemblance), then this film weighs in heavily for the atheist camp. An omnipotent being can't be this bad a filmmaker.


***One Out of Ten Stars***

Because if it was, it gets an F. Holy Mother Mary of God was this bad. I mean, I gave it every reasonable accommodation considering it was a straight to video film, but it let me down at every turn. Like so many other B movies, the basic storyline was decent and the filmmakers seemed to have a reasonable level of resources, but the execution was ridiculous. It's a shame they attached the good name of Halloween to this fiasco.

The basic premise surrounds some frat douche bags hosting their annual Halloween haunted house fund raiser, when a satanic spell book shows up out of nowhere and hurls the frat boys into a living hell. Well that's the idea anyway, but instead most of the film is devoted to displaying these frat boy's relationship escapades, abound with an outrageous lesbian subplot. Very little of the actual story is devoted to Halloween or the mysterious spell book. It actually makes me mad that the film makers thought they could get away with making such dribble.

The film is essentially about frat boy relationships. This IS NOT what the movie is billed as. I'm tempted to track down the producers and at the very least threaten them with bodily harm. The acting is about as bad as it gets, it's atrocious! The script is unintentionally funny. The cinematography is just plain lazy. The whole film is amateur night. This movie actually makes the SyFy channel movie productions look like masterpieces.

The last half hour of the film felt like the film makers realized they weren't producing a soap opera and had to throw in some sort of horror sequences. The evil spell book finally comes into play and turns everyone in the haunted house into the character their dressed up as. I almost feel like crying as I write this review. Wow! I mean wow! This thing was an undecipherable chopped up disaster.


Ya I rented it, so shoot me!

A decent premise sets up an otherwise awkward story with no real payoff, but at least it's shot well. Director Jon Keeyes takes the simple idea of a fake haunted house with real danger inside. In most cases this should be a slam dunk, but this little stinker derails quite quickly. The cinematography is above average and the acting is mediocre at best, but the story and writing is just plain awful. Slower scenes drag on forever and the scares are too few and far in between with no real climax to the film. An eerie mood is set at the beginning but loses it's luster before any type of horror transpires, and I found myself bored to death and making another sandwich... The cover art is appealing and I suppose it's worth a rental if you're looking for mindless low budget dreck, but if you enjoy a good story and eventful ending, reach for something else.


SUcks. That's all I got to say about this sorry excuse for a film. Sucks. Sucks. Sucks. I mean, what the hell were they thinking? The idiots involved should never be allowed to make another films. The acting was so bad that it even failed to entertain on a bad level. The attempt at a "lesbian scene" was sad. I felt so bad for the ladies involved. This movie sucks! Sucks! Sucks!

I heard rumors of a sequel.

God

Help

Us

All


A low budget effort from Texas that's at least filmed well, but that is little consolation. Bad acting, or, should I say, bad over-acting, a pretty limp story line that's nothing new, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Seems like a bunch of young folks are putting together a haunted house for Halloween, which is done every year, but this year things are different. Has a long extended lesbian theme that is not only annoying but definitely fills out the empty spots, of which there are a lot. Putrid, puerile, definitely avoidable, at all costs.


What can I say? I think I have to write "Spoiler alert" and then "reveal" they used the F-word a LOT in this movie - like in every two sentences. I did not like this movie at all - too much hints on sexual perversions, sidesteps and cheating. And that swearing was totally out the window. I gave this movie "3" and two of those points are for Mira Sorvino's sexy movements on the dance floor.


I had to walk out of the theater. After an hour, all I was seeing was people cheating on wives, schtupping like dogs in a rut, and using the f-word like a diabetic using Equal.

No thanks.

It was especially frustrating because the movie could have done a lot. Any one of the characters could have been quite interesting if they were given more to do than fornicate, talk about it, and swear at each other.

The few times that it looked as if there were about to be some sort of character development, all that happened was another sex scene. Plot development in the 1st hour can be summarized as 1)several murders occur, 2) Vinnie sees murder scene 3) Vinnie stares moodily across Atlantic/East/Hudson River 4) Vinnie cheats on wife, and 5) Joey (most sympathetic character in the show) gets kicked out of his parents' house. More than that, I didn't wait to see.

The photography and the interplay between the characters were superb, but THERE WAS NOTHING for them to DO. The flood of sex and vulgarity was hardly worth waiting another hour for SOMETHING to happen.

Sorry, Spike. Take some lessons from Notting Hill, or Shawshank Redemption. Either one is a better study in community and interpersonal relationships.


This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever! What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud.


The film is a collection of cliche's on just about anything out there. It has no focus whatsoever, no goals, no real message. Symbolism is pushed over the top and stereotyping is abundant and outrageous. This movie can't resist the temptation of making drama where non exists. Every small exchange of words turns immediately into a lengthy, unjustified dialog that is so typical of an acting class rehearsal. Where there is no substance to this exchange, the actors (regardless of how good they are normally) can't help but compensate with exaggerated emotion, aka "raising the stakes". Over acting, to put it simply. The directing is of no help here. Nothing can save this non-story. It is forced, faked and boring to tears. Inaccuracies in portaraying punk rock with The Who, piercings and flashy 90's outfits. Characters wander without a role, detail and motive. Locations are arbitrary. This is Boogie Nights cum The Good Fellas cum Saturday Night Fever, with meaning and art ripped out.

Good DP. I'll give it that.

Some films have flaws. This film is Lee's flaw. He sold out, like the rest of them. Became irrelevant. He has nothing of interest to say anymore.

I have no desire to see anything again from this guy (whom I'll refrain from naming from now on).


"Why?"

That simple question had to be on the lips of every single New Yorker during the 12 months of terror that David Berkowitz created in 1976-77. That same one word will surely become the same perplexing question 22 summers later as people exit theaters exhibiting the trite and exploitative "Summer of Sam".

Director Spike Lee attempts to weave the story of a pack of misguided thugs searching for the celebrated psychopath -- who paralyzed New York City for over a year -- with a stark and graphical depiction of the killings, the demons inside Berkowitz's head and the frustration of a futile NYPD manhunt. He presents an ensemble of despicable losers who hear their own "barking dogs" as they live lives devoid of love, honor and humanity -- no different than Berkowitz. Lee browbeats the audience in nearly every frame with "not one of us are what we seem to be". Often a critic of the white establishment, Lee perpetuates the stereotype by including a scene where Mira Sorvino, playing a newlywed with a cheating husband (John Leguizamo), hopes to have oral sex with a black man "in the back of a big black Cadillac". An Italian Mafioso tells a black detective that the famous Willie Mays' over-the-back center field catch was "lucky". Lee even makes sure to deliver the racist musings of one middle aged black woman who declares "I'm happy it's a white man killing all these white people because if it were a black man killing all these white people - there would be the biggest race riot in NYC history."

Other than an outstanding opening pan shot of an arrival at a disco (reminiscent of shots from Martin Scorcese's "Goodfellas" or Orson Welles' "The Third Man"), this film has no soul, purpose or passion. He parades characters on the screen bereft of human decency. Although we learn nothing about the true victims of this horrible spree, Spike Lee seems to be saying New York City got what it deserved during that frightening, boiling summer over two decades ago.

"How could anyone wreak such havoc on his beloved city?" "How could someone show such hatred toward his fellow man?"

Are these appropriate questions for Berkowitz or Lee?

You decide.


I wish Spike Lee had chosen a different title for his film. "Summer Of Sam" conveys the impression that the film is about the infamous serial killer, David Berkowitz. It's not. It's a gritty, earthy portrait of NYC street life during the hot summer of '77 when Berkowitz terrorized that city.

The film follows several young fictional characters in an Italian-American neighborhood, and their reactions to the Son of Sam threat. There's Vinny and his wife Dionna; there's Richie and Ruby, and several other characters.

The problem is that these characters are not likable. They are routinely annoying, and at times unbearable. Lee then belabors their high energy, chaotic lives, which are filled with anger, lust, and general turmoil. There are at least two protracted fight scenes between Vinny and his wife, redundant disco dance scenes, countless gabfests ... Over and over I kept wondering: where's the film editor?

Meanwhile, with all that bulk, the film passes up the chance to convey any real sense of fear or dread arising from the Son of Sam menace, which is too much in the background. Lee is more successful at showing a different kind of menace, that arising from neighborhood vigilante groups.

The acting is uniformly good. That, combined with 70's disco music, and lavish attention to costumes and production design, make you really feel like you are in an Italian-American neighborhood in NYC in 1977.

The film's atmospheric authenticity, however, is not nearly enough to offset a rambling, overblown script about the lives of grossly irritating people.