There is no story! The plot is hopeless! A filmed based on a car with a stuck accelerator, no brakes, and a stuck automatic transmission gear lever cannot be good! I would have stopped that car within one minute whether I was in it or in the police car constantly following it. I feel sorry for the actors that had to put up with such a poor script. The few scenes that some similarity to action was heavily over-dramatized, and as far from reality you can get. In addition, there were a lot of blunders, for instance the hood of the runaway car, which was popped doing 100mph. At first it just folded over the windshield, like it would in reality, but then, afterwards, it blew off. The car was later in the movie observed with the hood on....

This film was nothing but annoying, stay away from it!


How this piece of garbage was put to film is beyond me. The only actor who is at all known to me is Judge Reinhold, an accomplished actor whose presence is merely a justification for putting it into production.

I don't even think it is worth a nomination for a rotten tomato award, this film really does make B movies a cinematic enjoyment. A car travelling along the freeway with police in tow, and no one knows how to stop the car, yeah, right.

The script must have been written on the back of a cigarette carton. Most made for TV movies are awful but this redefines the word. Check out the acting skills of the bridge operator, pure Oscar material.


Quite one of the worst films I have ever seen. Terrible acting, laughable 'action' (it's clear that the cars are travelling slowly), atrocious script, hideously unsatisfying ending and incompetent direction make a hash of a movie. We know Judge Reinhold is a fine actor, but he should be ashamed of this detritus. There is no great tension within the car and, when the characters stumble upon moments of hope, they laugh like inane banshees for some reason, even 'high five-ing' when they see the bridge lowered!

Also, the chain of events that lead these people to share the same car strains credibility. Apparently based on true events, though? If that's the case, truth is evidently stranger than fiction! Unfortunate then, that it was portrayed in such an inept manner.


Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...

There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.


Comment this movie is impossible. Is terrible, very improbable, bad interpretation e direction. Not look!!!!!


Weak plot, unlikely car malfunction, and helpless fumbling characters. At first I thought this movie was made during the seventies, since the picture quality, as well as the storyline and drama seemed taken from an old Kojac episode. When I checked and found that it was really made as late as -97 I was astonished. This is by far one of the worst and least (thriller) movies I have ever seen.

If you read this, be advised, if you see it you waste time when you could have done something more exciting, like watching paint dry.


To call this anything at all would be an insult to everything else. Some expletives might describe it, but still too positively. Normally one ignores this kind of rubbish, but it was so stupid that one can but despair. Would have though that even Americans and commercial TV-stations would have given this piece of s**t a miss. But as the Germans say: Gegen die Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst Vergebens!


I've had to change my view on the worst film in the world having just seen this one. THIS IS IT!

Make no mistake this film is awful.

Here's a list of reasons:

Hopeless storyline (despite being based on a true story). Dreadful acting (what was Judge Reinhold thinking) Unbelieveably bad stunts. Childish dialogue. Non-existent continuity. Lack of atmosphere.

Get the picture?


For the knowledgeable Beatles fan, the main value in this movie is to just sit back and pick out the flaws, inaccuracies, combined events, omitted events, wildly exaggerated events, omitted people, timeline errors, mis-attribute quotes, incorrect clothing, out of place songs, and (shame shame) incorrect instruments and other boners I just cant think of right now. The flaws come fast and furious so you'll have to be on your toes.

I didn't give this a "1" primarily due the fact that it is filmed in Liverpool and the actors (the band Rain) give it their all (the Lennon character is credible and does a good job). Also, the song "Cry for a Shadow" is heard at one point and THAT counts for SOMETHING.

So,,, watch it for fun, but please don't take it as historically accurate.


The movie uses a cutting edge title for a lame story. Kill Kill, would have been nice. The movie incorporates taboo scenes to make the viewer move back in their chairs. The scenes are unnecessary and choppy. The movie is something a novice screen writer could have conjured. Just a waste of movie props and network money. I have to write 10 lines of text to critique this film when it is not worth 10 lines of my time, but I have to push on to let the people know to avoid the nonsense. If people are counting on you to choose a good movie for movie night, pick something else. If you have a soul don't damage it by subjecting yourself to this filth.


...was so that I could, in good conscience, tell everyone how horrible this movie is. I barely made it through twenty minutes before I started thinking to myself,"Wow, this is pretty bad.". And, to be honest, I would've given this movie 1 star if it wasn't for Esai Morales (though he had very little screen time). He's the movie's only well-acted role, which is a shame because I really like Gil Bellows...or at least I thought I did.

While watching this I started thinking back to his part in "Shawshank Redemption" and realized it wasn't as good as I thought it was. Problem: his jail-house/tough guy act seems like it's just that, an act; his dialogue sounded like he was doing a very poor impression. Has he ever met someone who speaks like his character was SUPPOSED to? I doubt it, but maybe he should have.

And, to make matters worse, they've managed to inject a little jail-house philosophy and make it seem nothing short of contrived, especially when you consider that the rhetoric was being spouted by a "rasta" who's accent was so strong that it seemed unnatural.

I wouldn't normally slam a movie like this, but when I saw the movie it had a fairly favorable review. I felt like I was cheated and lied to, and I thought I should try to save someone the misery of having to watch this movie.

I say BOOOOOOOO.


I saw this movie at Sundance 2005 and was stunned at how bad it was, although based on the catalog description I was excited to see it. Supposedly a "mockumentary" of two high school students making a documentary of high school life, it featured bad acting, bad directing, completely lack of engaging characters as written, and all-around is a total bust. I love good movies about high school, and this is not one of them. The characters are one-dimensional and self-consciously "cool" although they are supposed to be outcasts. You get the overall impression of a bunch of people sitting around making an on-purposely-bad movie to show their friends, yet somehow it got into Sundance. Mystifying.


The only saving grace of this movie is that it serves as the 0 end of the movie rating scale. Now if I see a movie that really stinks I say this movie was a real Pecker. I believe this movie is a perfect example of Christina Ricci's one dimensional acting. Horrible


Whoever gave this movie rave reviews needs to see more movies.

A loser takes his camera and photographs his mental family. The movie is filled with idiots and includes live "teabagging". That should sum it all up for you.

Do not waste your time. You may want to watch the entire movie in the hopes that it gets better as it goes on - it doesn't!


This film can not even be said to be bad for it is sadly, just painfully mediocre. Lacking any real wit or imagination, a thin plot is stretched to the absolute limit and the `jokes' (which are predictable and threadbare) are spun out to such inordinate length that boredom and yawns quickly overtake the viewer. Another notch to mark the sad decline of John Waters and a reminder that what `shocked' or amused us 30 years ago doesn't work quite the same way now. We've seen it all before, and it no longer breaks any taboos because they have long since evaporated. A major miss.


This may very well be the worst movie I'll see if I live to be 100. I think a group of first-graders could have come up with better plot lines as a class project than this. I'm dumber for having watched it, and God have mercy on the souls who were paid to produce this film.

And after I finally turned it off, I actually had the urge to vomit.

No one had a clue about photography when made this. No one had a clue about acting. No one had a clue about just about anything.

I can't believe F/X shows this crap on occasion. The only time I had seen it was on one of the Starz! channels - not even the main one. And it was on at about 3 a.m. at that.


This was one of the worst movies i have ever seen. The plot is awful, and the acting is worse. The jokes that are attempted absolutley suck. Don't bother to waste your time on a dumb movie such as this. And if for some reason that you do want to see this movie, don't watch it with your parents.


The movie is basically a boring string of appalling clichés which do not offer a real cross-cultural insight. The Middle Eastern leg of the journey is described in a particularly irritating way: there obviously are mud brick villages, dirt tracks in the middle of the desert, women clad in black robes and belly dancers. I wonder how camels and date palm trees were missing from the whole picture. The personality of the two main characters is very clumsily sketched and many situations are hardly credible.

The original idea might have been interesting, but at the end of the day if you are looking for cultural insight, you should skip this movie.


I was China in this film. I choose the screen name Sheeba Alahani because I was modeling at the time in Italy and they couldn't pronounce my real name correctly, so I choose Sheeba and then added Alahani since it was similar to Alohalani.

I had never acted before (and it shows), but it was so much fun to film. They gave me "acting lessons" each morning (which obviously were not useful). They dubbed my voice (thank goodness).

David and Peter were a blast on the set, full of good humor and jokes. This film was never meant to be taken seriously, it was a tax write off according to inside information.

I give it a 1 because I have a sense of humor, but a 10 for the fun I had "acting" in it.


When I decided to watch THE BARBARIANS, starring those twin bodybuilders, Peter and David Paul, I thought it couldn't be that bad because the film was directed by Ruggero Deodato, who has a reputation for creating sleazy movies but well made sleazy movies. Well, THE BARBARIANS is remarkably trashy action/adventure movie that wants to be another CONAN THE BARBARIAN, and fails at every level. The look of the film is all wrong. Some scenes were well shot but the tone and the schintzy, tacky "disco" look of the clothes and hair people are adorned with just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, even for a low budget flick like this one.

Richard Lynch looks like an old woman with that ridiculous hairdo and costume. He's supposed to be menacing but he comes across as a buffoon. And it's funny to see Eva LaRue Callahan, one of the stars of ALL MY CHILDREN, appear in her first movie, walking around in skimpy fur bikini. I'm sure she wants this dreck to disappear from the face of the earth! The so-called Barbarian twins are okay as the muscle bound heroes but it's almost impossible to construct a proper critique of their acting because their roles are, like everything else in this mess, really ill-conceived. The only way the film tries to differentiate one twin from the other is by having one twin wear a loincloth that covers his ass, while the other twin's loincloth barely covers his muscular butt. I'm not kidding! Don't ask me who's who though.

Deodato must have been really desperate to agree to make this film. And his desperation is reflected perfectly in this trashy flick. It's just bad.


Cannon pulled off a real visual beauty of a medieval epic that appears fascinating (except for the dragon prop). Now just how did the long-gone studio known for Chuck Norris movies ever come up with a complete lack of knowledge in the first place? Case in point: the amateurish acting and horrible plot is a sign that reviving the medieval legend is no cure for some lousy execution. They actually went on and made another cheap exploitationer featuring hundreds of lusty bimbos, just to make this look even better. For the two "Barbarian Brothers", they sure know how to make weird noises than becoming brave warriors so strong and bold enough to save their native land. This is the single greatest waste of potential I've seen from an "expensive" low-budget movie, and worse enough to let an axe strike through the gorgeous print without mercy. All of this followed an advertising campaign that sold T-shirts based on THE BARBARIANS! The movie alone makes a great souvenir!


This movie really deserves the MST3K treatment. A pseudo-ancient fantasy hack-n-slash tale featuring twin barbarian brothers with a collective IQ of hot water, character names that seem to have been derived from a Mad Libs book, and such classic lines as "Hold her down and uncover her belly!", The Barbarians crosses over into the "so bad, it's good" territory.


This film was very well advertised. I am an avid movie goer and have seen previews for this movie for months. While I was somewhat skeptical of how funny this movie would actually be, my friends thought it was going to be great and hyped me up about it. Then I went and saw it, I was sunk down in my seat almost asleep until I remembered that I had paid for this movie. I made myself laugh at most of the stuff in the movie just so i wouldnt feel bad and destroy the good mood I was in, plus I wanted to get my monies worth out of the movie! I always go into a movie with an open mind, not trying to go into them with too many expectations, but this movie was not that funny. Now it wasnt the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is definitely worth waiting for HBO. If you havent seen many previews for the movie or you like very slow and corny comedies you may enjoy it, but for true comedy fans Id say pass. Maybe even check out The Kings of Comedy again. Something told me to go see Meet the Parents instead!!!


The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.

Rating: 6/10


I honestly don't understand how tripe like this gets made. The worst junior-high talent show skit you've ever seen is more entertaining than this film. Will Ferrell's wrestling fetish provides the only (briefly) humorous moments. Utterly horrible.


While Leon is cute on SNL, he's only on for a minute. Like most SNL skits-to-movies, this one can't fill 90 minutes. It has some cute moments (the ones you've seen in the trailer) but the actors are largely wasted. Tim Meadows does his best but the plot just doesn't have many high points. Will Farrell has a bit part. Farrell may be the funniest man alive... but not in this movie. What a shame.


Lorne Michaels once again proves that he has absolutely no business producing movies.

You'd think that after such dismal flicks "Superstar", "Night at the Roxbury", and "Coneheads", he'd start to get the notion that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to movies (and many would argue that he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to television, as well). Trying to make feature films out of skits that wore out their welcome the third time the were done on SNL makes no sense.

I personally like Tim Meadows, and think that he would be great in the right movie. It's a shame to see a talented guy wasted in a film that features unfunny after unfunny situation, and caps it all with a dreadfully bad song and dance scene. Any laughs here will be because the movie is so bad, not because it's funny.

Oh well, at least we can be thankful that there are many other tired SNL characters who will never have films done about them. It's just too bad that this one made it to the big screen.


I could name plenty of funny movies. There are comedies that set out to be funny, and are. Some movies, like a Gymkata for example, try to be serious but end up funny. The Ladies Man is a film that is desperately trying to be funny, but could not be less funny if it was about a guy who got a lot of chicks in the middle of the wreckage of a nuclear holocaust. It's anti-funny.

I don't think I laughed harder than a chuckle at anything in this movie. It's simply unfunny. It's boring, stupid, inane, annoying, mind-bogglingly bad, but not funny. I don't particularly care for Tim Meadows, or this character from SNL, but I expected better than this.

The movie is completely lacking logic or common sense. It's like the script writer had a bag over his head while he was typing and he couldn't see which keys he was hitting. They tell the "origin" of the Ladies Man, but fail to include a motivation for his bizarre fascination with acting like it's still the seventies. The movie tries to get humor out of a man who appears to pleasuring himself to porn, shortly after he tried to hang himself. This is comedy? I like to consider myself having a pretty keen sense of humor (Spending a lot of time writing comedy as I do), but maybe I'm just not quite bright enough for this film.

Lee Evans, so funny as Tucker in There's Something About Mary, is outrageously bad here. I was pleading with him in my head to shut up.

By the end I was pounding on my chair, muttering under my breath, and had the film gone on any longer, would probably have attempted suicide. This film might not be as bad as Battlefield Earth, but it's the first movie I've seen that's come close.


I rented this movie for a few laughs. I had never seen the SNL skit, but with hits like Tommy Boy, and Waynes World, it couldn't have been that bad, could it? The answer: it was. This movie hardly was a means of relaxing after a hard day at work. I just kept waiting for a plotline and a funny part, but there wasn't any. The highlight was tiffany amber thieson, and thats just about it.


First of all, I'd like to say that I love the "Ladies' Man" sketch on SNL. I always laugh out loud at Tim Meadows' portrayal of Leon Phelps. However, there is a difference between an 8-minute sketch and a feature-length movie. Watching Leon doing his show and making obscene comments to his listeners and coming up with all sorts of segments for his show, like "The Ladies Man Presents..." which is reminiscent of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents..." is absolutely hilarious. There's a great episode where Cameron Diaz role-plays Monica Lewinski, and Leon plays Bill and they call it "The Oral Office." See, that's funny!!!

In the movie, we don't see Leon on the show too often. In fact, he gets kicked out of almost every radio station in the country. And the plot revolves around his quest for true love, involving a mystery letter that got dropped off at his houseboat, signed by "Sweet Thing." Karyn Parsons, who is famous for playing Hillary on "Fresh Prince of Bel Air," works with him on the show and has a secret crush on Leon. The movie just piles on one boring subplot after another. And the gags are boring as well. The first time we see Leon mention the word "wang" it's pretty funny. When he uses it over and over again, supposedly trying to get a laugh, the joke has run dry. Most of the jokes he uses in the film are jokes we heard before, and done better, on the SNL sketch and played out tediously for a whole hour and twenty-five minutes. They even try to insert a musical number by Will Ferrell and his gang of Ladies' Man haters, who all want to destroy him because their wives had an affair with him, to bring some life into this witless comedy. Ferrell has some funny moments, and tries to make the best out of an otherwise unfunny role. Ferrell just has that unique comic talent, and he's funny at almost anything he does. Even Julianne Moore gets a cameo. Watching her, you can't but wonder "What the hell is an Oscar-winning actress doing in this movie??!!!!" Her name wasn't mentioned in the opening credits--probably by her consent. And of course a movie of this theme has to include the Master of Love himself, Billy Dee Williams. Billy Dee is charismatic as always, but even he can't breathe enough life into this film. I also have to add that the soundtrack is full of soft R & B hits, which impairs the film even more, giving it a horribly downbeat tone--as if the script isn't boring enough. I mean, this is "supposed" to be a comedy. The soundtrack would've been appropriate for something like "Love Jones."

"The Ladies Man" only has sporadic laughs. There are exceptions in which SNL can produce a great movie out of a short sketch. Watch both of the "Wayne's World" movies, and you'll see how it's done. But this movie, just like adapting Mary Catherine Gallagher's character to screen in "Superstar," shows the flip side. Some sketches are meant to be remembered on SNL, and not on the silver screen.

My score: 3 (out of 10)


I think I laughed twice. The line where the main character says something about being from the streets. And then I forget the other time I laughed. It was probably in the beginning.

This has to be one of the thinnest movies ever. Doesn't Hollywood realize that this kind of humor is degrading and sad, really. You can only insult yourself so many times.

2/10


I rented this tape a couple of years ago, and boy did it suck. From the commercials, I was lead to believe that this was a movie about a guy who had no no luck with women, and that was where the comedy would lie. Boy was I wrong. The jokes were vulgar, and they were just not funny. Don't bother. 1/10


was this tim meadows first acting role in a movie? the character, leon, is funny enough but shortly after that the sexual jokes and humor are too dumb to listen to anymore. some movies can get away with the sexual jokes, and base their audiences to know that right when the advertising comes on. some movies that do this are american pie and scary movie. scary movie was stupid, and american pie wouldnt have done well without the sexual jokes. the only role, besides leon, that had some humor that followed was will ferrell. the character really was dumb and that was all, the dumb humor was all that had me watching. the movie was ok, and nothing else. i dont really understand why the snl people that are dying to leave the show always get a movie based on a character they played on the show. the skits last about 5 minutes, and if they can make a movie off a 5 minute skit, then what is the world coming to? molly shannon had superstar, cheri o'terri had scary movie, but she wasnt a leading role, and will had elf. but that was good, but he did some dumb movie, but i cant remember, and mike myers with wayne's world. how come the mad tv crew dont ever get movie deals? seen only one guy break through, but only in like 2 movies and a tv show with andy dick. but that guy relies on comedy for his life to continue, funny or not. this movie is not good, but had some positive humor. what a waste of film and people's money. (D D-)


I disliked this film intensely and left during the scene where the loyalist gang are shot up by the British. The film effectively blames the people of NI as being the cause of their own troubles. It suggests that the 25 year war was a question of intransigence and nothing to do with Britain's partition of Ireland and domination of its history i.e. NI was created by Britain in 1921 irrespective of the wishes of the rest of Ireland.

The characters are portrayed as hapless fools, even though I despise loyalist paramilitaries they were fighting for a cause - maintaining their artificial privileges over the Catholic community. It is a known fact that British Intelligence collaborated with loyalists during the war, no doubt to keep the Catholics at bay and demoralise republicanism.

Nineties' values about 'machismo', masculinity etc are transposed on to 1970s Belfast and are portrayed as part of the supposedly unique Irish 'psyche' which leads to violence. The stupid song from the woman in the club - old Ireland of green fields ..blah..blah.. - is given a symbolic stature, i.e. poor young fools fighting for an impossible cause. Tedious, ahistorical, cheap and nasty trash. O'Sullivan has made a personal statement on a conflict which requires serious political analysis.


being a NI supporter, it's hard to objectively review a movie glorifying ulster nationalists. characters who are hard to root for, typical heavy-handed anti-violence messages, and a predictable 'poetic justice' ending makes this an awkward watch...


I'm a big fan of Westerns but this one.... whew, what a stinker! I think what turned me off almost right off the bat was the inane dialog. I think I could have written better dialog than this when I was in eighth grade. And the poor actors! Given this terrible dialog, none of them came across looking anything but ridiculous. Really, I'm not kidding. Some of this is little better than what you'd get in an Ed Wood film.

The biggest tragedy is Sterling Hayden. He was probably THE "big" star in this movie which if you called it a B-Western, you'd be lavishing praise upon it. This is what should be called a B-minus Western perhaps. Pity Sterling Hayden, who appeared at other times along with Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Frank Sinatra, and other major talents. For him to appear in a vehicle this poor must have been something he tried to downplay for the rest of his life.

One annoying thing about this movie is all the men look like they haven't shaved in a week and their faces are all greasy. I know in the old West guys weren't always well groomed but to a man this is a movie that makes you want to just go 'EWWWW!' Really, this is a crummy Western. Denver Pyle also had to live this one down, especially after appearances in so many great Westerns. Bad, bad movie.


What a shame that a really competent director like Andre de Toth who specialized in slippery, shifting alliances didn't get hold of this concept first. He could have helped bring out the real potential, especially with the interesting character played by William Bishop. As the movie stands, it's pretty much of a mess (as asserted by reviewer Chipe). The main problems are with the direction, cheap budget, and poor script. The strength lies in an excellent cast and an interesting general concept-- characters pulled in different directions by conflicting forces. What was needed was someone with vision enough to pull together the positive elements by reworking the script into some kind of coherent whole, instead of the sprawling, awkward mess that it is, (try to figure out the motivations and interplay if you can). Also, a bigger budget could have matched up contrasting location and studio shots, and gotten the locations out of the all-too-obvious LA outskirts. The real shame lies in a waste of an excellent cast-- Hayden, Taylor (before his teeth were capped), Dehner, Reeves, along with James Millican and William Bishop shortly before their untimely deaths. Few films illustrate the importance of an auteur-with-vision more than this lowly obscure Western, which, in the right hands, could have been so much more.


Really bad shot on video "film" made by not one, not two, but three amateur video makers.

If you're going to make a bad horror film at least throw in some blood, gore and nudity. There is some blood provided by latex cut off arm props bought at a Halloween store. There are lesbians and hookers but no nudity or sex. The lesbians spend a lot of time in bed but only talking.

There seems to be no editing effects- fades, wipes etc. Once in a while a bit of black appears to separate scenes.

Terrible music by bad heavy metal bands whose websites take up the majority of the end credits.The werewolves are represented by rubber masks that are attached to just the "actors" face. They didn't even bother to apply brown makeup to their necks, arms or wrists.

I guarantee a 10 year old with a video camera could put together a better movie.No reason at all to buy, rent or watch this film except as an example of how not to make a low budget video.


It's like this ... you put in the DVD and the most professional-looking thing you see over the next ninety minutes is the logo of the distribution company. And at this point, you know you've just been jerked around.

People are generally trusting enough to assume that if something has been put on DVD, it's going to be of a certain level -- at least financially if not creatively. But sadly this isn't the case. Distribution companies are perfectly happy to throw together DVDs of amateur movies and ship them right out into the stores to await the unsuspecting buyer who is drawn in by the well-designed DVD cover. The weight behind this particular project is most likely independent horror movie pioneer Kevin J Lindenmuth, whose name may be known amongst genre fans since he's responsible for various other low-budget werewolf movies -- "Rage of the Werewolf", "Werewolf Tales" and so on.

"Blood of the Werewolf" is made up of three short independent werewolf stories with no real connection other than the fact that they deal with hereditary shapeshifters. The first segment, "Blood Reunion", pretty much sets the tone for the whole thing ... a man returns to his home town to look up a girl who had a crush on, only to find that her domineering grandmother refuses to let her have relationships with men, and for reasons which are somehow related to a dark family secret. This instalment is poorly directed, poorly directed, and basically nothing superior to what you could throw together yourself with a few friends and a home video camera.

The second story, "Old Blood", is probably the strongest out of the three and is directed by Lindenmuth himself. It tells the story of a lesbian couple, one of whom is a shapeshifter and the other wishes to be given this power. Her wish is granted, but she doesn't become the creature that she envisioned. This short movie shows that Lindemuth has more talent and experience than the other filmmakers who worked on this project, but still not enough to raise it above the level of an amateur movie.

And finally we have "Manbeast", in which some army guy runs through the woods while being chased by two other fellas. They wish to kill him as he has been bitten by the beast and is believed to be dangerous, but all might not be as it seems. This one has an interesting concept, but it's stretched out to be far too long, and if you don't guess what the "twist" is in the first ten minutes then you probably ain't too bright. This pretty much sums up the problem with this whole DVD ... a few good ideas just aren't enough to justify spending money on something like this. After all, would you pay for a picture you could have painted yourself?


What's with the murky video in the beginning and sporadically throughout the movie? It's like someone put muddy water on the camera lens.

The violence and nudity might turn some people off but, that, along with the mostly bad acting is what makes a good cult movie I suppose.

My favorite line is delivered by Tarquin the Vampire, "Alas, your breed is dumb." Okay, no one should ever say "alas" in a movie line unless they're English and living in the 18th century.

The acting by the Van Helsing character and bad girl "Rally" isn't bad. I also liked Master Little played by Ron Little. Wicked martial arts! Don't take it too seriously and you'll enjoy it.


This was a "cute" movie at first, then then got too sappy and featured mediocre songs, at best.

There is too much King James English spoken with is not only annoying in today's world but not always easy to interpret. Can you imagine young people of today trying to listen to this film? Forget it.

Bing Crosby has some good lines in here and is likable as "Hank Martin." Rhonda Fleming ("Alisande La Carteloise") was, too, in addition to her good looks and beautiful, long red hair.

It's a nice movie with a feel-good ending, and I can't knock that. Maybe this is worthy of a rental, for historical sake or if you're a big Crosby fan but, overall, it's not that much.


Although I have enjoyed Bing Crosby in other movies, I find this movie to be particularly grating. Maybe because I'm from a different era and a different country, but I found Crosby's continual references to the Good Old USA pleasant at first, trite after a while and then finally annoying. Don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-American whatsoever - but it seemed that the English could do no right and/or needed this brave, oh so smart American visitor to show them the way. It's a "fish out of water" story, but unlike most movies of this sort, this time it's the "fish" who has the upper hand. To be fair to both myself and the movie, I have watched it a few times spaced over a few years and get the same impression each time.

(I watched another Crosby movie last night - The Emperor's Waltz - and that, too, produced the same reaction in me. And to my surprise even my wife - who for what's it's worth is American - found the "in your face" attitude of American Crosby to be irritating. One too many references to Teddy Roosevelt, as she put it.)

As for the premise of the movie, it's unique enough for its day and the supporting cast is of course very good. The scenery and the music is also good, as are the great costumes - although I agree with a previous reviewer that the wig on William Bendix looks horrid (picture Moe of The Three Stooges).

All in all for me this would be a much more enjoyable picture without the attitude of Bing Crosby but because he is in virtually every shot it's pretty hard to sit through this movie.


Giving credit where it's due, only the technicolor, costumes and sets deserve any honorable mention.

This is undoubtedly the lowest point in BING CROSBY's long career at Paramount. The script is about as clumsy as you could possibly imagine and neither the casual Bing nor William Bendix nor Sir Cedric Hardwicke can do a thing about repairing it.

Bendix looks extremely foolish in a page boy wig. And poor Rhonda Fleming has a stock costume heroine role requiring her to look adoringly at Bing and little else except for warbling a couple of uninspired ballads in a voice probably dubbed for the occasion.

Just plain awful! Mark Twain's wit is not evident in any of the screenplay. Only die-hard Crosby fans can possibly appreciate this mess of a film given uninspired direction. Even the extras look as though they don't know what they're supposed to be doing.

Summing up: Dull as dishwater. Not recommended, even for children.


I liked Batman: Dead End. A dark edgy film-noir setting for Batman was perfect. Batman: Dead End is good. This is not.

First of all let me start off with the acting. None of it is really that good. The best would probably be Clark Bartram as Batman. But that isn't saying much. He is good at first glance, and then you realize he is what he is, a body-builder who happens to be a tolerable actor. But mainly the problem is that Batman doesn't belong in the daylight, he looks like a freak running around in a Bat suit. Instead of a horribly scarred man trying to make up for past mistakes. The daylight also reveals an irritating dorky scowl on Bartram's face which never leaves and unoticeable in Batman: Dead End, probably because of the darkness of short which is so desired in this trailer. Bartram seems to think that scowling and stubbornly shaking his head is acting, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It's called posing, something real actors avoid like the plague.

Something I never understood why Collora casted body-builders as the leads. It makes much more sense to give the role to an actor who can manage it, instead of a bodybuilder who can kinda manage it but HEY HE LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE THE COMIC! Of course, they might have done better if Collora's dialouge didn't leave much to be desired.

The entire trailer (yes, trailer. There will not be a full-length film) is more centered around Superman then Batman. But everything on the Superman side is corny, cloying and amateur. Michael O'Hearn (Superman) is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He stands around, smiles, says his lines. That's about it. Although I'm not surprised since he is just a bodybuilder they hired and possibly received a few acting lessons. Once again I say to Collora, cast ACTORS. Not bodybuilders. Actors will be so much more compelling that we will forgive the fact they don't look exactly like the comic book.

The costume is what you would expect Superman to wear. As for the Batman suit. Well, I guess it only looks good in the dark. I say this because in some shots the suit looks like something you would buy from a Halloween gift shop.

Superman flies in this movie. But that isn't a good thing. These shots look especially amateur. This and a lot of the entire "film" looks like it was shot in their backyard with a VHS camera.

The best shots are a shot of Superman catching a car in his hands. And the final shot of Two-Face and Batman at the very end. For those of you who have seen the trailer. You know what I'm talking about. Now if only he could have stretched that shot through the entire trailer.

Finally I ask. Why if you're trying to show your ability as a director, would you make a trailer as a short film? This proves nothing when it comes to being an actual director handling story. My only piece of advice for Collora here is, there is a difference between the ability to tell a story and being able to work in marketing.

Batman: Dead End didn't feel amateur. I can't figure out where this went wrong.


So on the Chills Network on cable they are having "Vampire Month", I'm such a dork, but I love vampires. So after a few duds that they showed I was pretty disappointed, but then I noticed Sleepwalkers was written by Stephen King. So I decided to go ahead and check it out, well much to my surprise, this movie was really bad. Most Stephen King films are entertaining and some are very scary. While Sleepwalkers was bad, it was a beautiful kind of bad. I had a good time laughing at this movie and just taking it for what it was. I've never read Sleepwalkers, from what I understand this is the only real vampire story by King, so I can't really compare book to film. I don't know if it was just my TV, but Sleepwalkers looked like it was made for TV. The special effects were corny and the story was a bit far fetched, even if it is fantasy, it had a lot of problems.

Charles Brady and his mother Mary are vampires who feed off the life force of virgin women. They are considerably more resilient than humans and have powers of both telekinesis and illusion. Their one weakness is cats, who are not only able to see through their illusions but whose claws are capable of inflicting severe to fatal wounds upon them. They also maintain an incestuous relationship. Charles and Mary have taken up residence in a small Indiana town. Charles attends the local high school, and there he meets Tanya Robertson in his creative writing class. Tanya does not suspect the real reason why Charles wants her so much; to take her life force for his mother, who is starving. At first, it seems that Charles has fallen in love with Tanya. On their first date, however, a picnic at the nearby cemetery, Charles attempts to drain the life force from Tanya while kissing her. As it happens, Deputy Sheriff Andy Simpson who had earlier tried to pull Charles over for speeding, drives by the cemetery and notices Charles' car. When Tanya runs to him for help, Charles tracks Andy down and kills him. When Charles then turns to resume his life force-depleting make out session with Tanya, the deputy's cat, Clovis, rises to the occasion and nearly kills Charles by scratching him in the face and chest. Mortally wounded by Clovis, Charles staggers back home to Mary. Mary then seeks vengeance on Tanya's family.

So to sum this movie up basically you should expect the cheese to overflow. The scene where Charles attacks Tanya for the first time is very cliché and you almost vote for Charles to win just because Tanya is one of the dumbest female leads in horror movies. Then you gotta love the scene where Mary has a gun and shoots it at a cop car and somehow the whole thing explodes, God bless Hollywood explosions and exaggerations. I'm taking the movie for what it is, it's just so deliciously bad that it turns into a dark comedy for me that I could just enjoy making fun of. I'm not sure if this is what Stephen King wanted to see for his story, but he does have his typical cameo in the film. So my suggestion if you watch this movie, just take it for what it is and don't over think it, it's mindless entertainment with corny effects, bad casting, a silly story and enough cats to make the crazy cat lady from The Simpson's say "Wow, that's a lot of cats".

4/10


.... And after seeing this pile of crap you won't be surprised that it wasn't published

!!!! SPOILERS !!!!

This is a terrible movie by any standards but when I point out that it's one of the worst movies that has the name Stephen King in the credits you can start to imagine how bad it is . The movie starts of with two characters staring open mouthed at a scene of horror :

" My god . What happened here ? "

" I don't know but they sure hate cats " *

The camera pans to the outside of a house where hundreds of cats are strung up dead and mutilated . Boy this guy is right , someone does hate cats and with a deduction like that he should be a policeman . Oh wait a minute , he is a policeman and when a movie starts with a cop making an oh so obvious observation you just know you're going to be watching a bad movie

The reason SLEEPWALKERS is bad is that it's very illogical and confused . We eventually find out the monsters of the title need the blood of virgins to survive . Would they not be better looking for a virgin in the mid west bible belt rather than an American coastal town ? Having said that at least we know of the monsters motives - That's the only thing we learn . We never learn how they're able to change shape or are able to make cars become invisible and this jars with the ending that seems to have been stolen from THE TERMINATOR . Monster mother walks around killing several cops with her bare hands or blowing them up via a police issue hand gun ( ! ) but if her monster breed is immune from police fire power then why do the creatures need the ability to change shape or become invisible ? The demise of the creatures is equally ill thought out as there killed by a mass attack of household cats . If they can be killed by cats then why did the monsters not kill all the cats that were lying around the garden ? There was a whole horde of moggies sitting around but the monsters never thought about killing them . I guess that's so the production team can come up with an ending . It was that they started the movie my complaint lies

We're treated to several scenes where famous horror movie directors like John Landis , Clive Barker and even Stephen King make cameos . I think the reason for this is because whenever a struggling unknown actor read the script they instantly decided that no matter what , they weren't going to appear in a movie this bad so Stephen King had to phone up his horror buddies in order to fill out the cast . That's how bad SLEEPWALKERS is

* Unbelievable as it seems that wasn't the worst line in the movie . The worst line is - " That cat saved my life "


OK, I taped this off TV and missed the very start. The film was about 10 or so seconds into the titles (I assume) so if anything happened before that I missed it.

Lots of people say Mark Hammill is in this, I didn't see him. I did recognise Clive Barker, John Landis and obviously Stephen King doing some really awful acting as the graveyard attendant.

Alice Krige looks lovely apart from the scenes where she has the cat face or is in full alien make-up.

Even with the opening titles it's never really explained very well exactly what Sleepwalkers are or where they come from. From the title sequence I assume they are catlike bipeds who live by extracting life-force from humans. I assume they live a long time and these particular 2 are possibly the last of their kind.

Add to this a very large dose of incest (Yes! I thought it was a bit suspect too), shapeshifting, killer cats and invisibility and you have Sleepwalkers.

It's a very bad story that has no real explanations behind the main 2 characters and far too many cameo's to try and distract from the simple fact that not enough is explained to the viewer.

Avoid.


There are no spoilers here... Because there is no plot to spoil. Madchen Amick is living proof a face can make a living acting-- no talent required. The only bright spot are a few really good one-liners delivered very nicely by Alice Krige, but then again, she IS Alice Krige. Her soft dreamy voice gives the only hint at just how seductively dangerous these odd creatures can be. She is believably creepy in this otherwise unbelievable plot. How they got her to agree to this project remains a mystery. The screenplay writers must have been medicated when they submitted this script. It has major continuity problems, superficial stereotypical characters, horror formula writing, and simply falls short of making any sense what-so-ever. The creatures, while they have neat skills like going "dim", the question of where they come from and what they are is never so much explored.

Don't waste any time on this one.


A charming boy and his mother move to a middle of nowhere town, cats and death soon follow them. That about sums it up.

I'll admit that I am a little freaked out by cats after seeing this movie. But in all seriousness in spite of the numerous things that are wrong with this film, and believe me there is plenty of that to go around, it is overall a very enjoyable viewing experience.

The characters are more like caricatures here with only their basis instincts to rely on. Fear, greed, pride lust or anger seems to be all that motivate these people. Although it can be argued that that seeming failing, in actuality, serves the telling of the story. The supernatural premise and the fact that it is a Stephen King screenplay(not that I have anything specific against Mr. King) are quite nicely supported by some interesting FX work, makeup and quite suitable music. The absolute gem of this film is without a doubt Alice Krige who plays Mary Brady, the otherworldly mother.

King manages to take a simple story of outsider, or people who are a little different(okay - a lot in this case), trying to fit in and twists it into a campy over the top little horror gem that has to be in the collection of any horror fan.


Written by Stephen King, but this treatment is not as solid as most of his stories on film. A mother and son move into a small Indiana town with a secret. They are Sleepwalkers, feline type creatures that feed on young virgins. This little story has its share of gore and special effects; plus hints of incest.

Alice Krige is outstanding as the mother. Others appearing are Madchen Amick, Brian Krause and Cindy Pickett. Look for very small roles for John Landis and Clive Barker. Stephen King cameos as the caretaker of the cemetery.


this movie was so gay like its a mom and son cat that have sex, they also get scared of little kitty cats. they get set on fire by them. the mom cat alien thing kills a guy by stabbing him in the back with an ear of corn? they are bullet proof. invisible. and what not. the star of the movie, Clovis, is the cops cat, Clovis leads the cops to find the mom alien, and after the mom kills the cops, Clovis kills the mom by eating her head then she catches on fire. this movie sucks. it was way way more funny than it was scary, it wasn't even scaryt at all. the girl hits the alien on the head with a camera, it knoks him out. she then goes and hugs her. the then grabs her and begins to rape her. once again, Clovis comes to the rescue


It Could Have Been A Marvelous Story Based On The Ancient Races Of Cat People, but it wasn't.

This work could have been just that; marvelous and replete with mythological references which kept my fascination fueled. The lead characters (Charles Brady played by Brian Krause; and his mother Mary, played by Alice Krige) were shallowly done, had no depth of personality and were hardly likable or drawing. Not even Mädchen Amick (who played Tanya Robertson)'s character fit into that description.

However, as I've said many times before, when you adapt a Stephen King novel for TV, you simply must take into account the fact that his books aren't written for TV, and his screenplay talent sadly lacks the fire and depth he exhibits as a novelist.

This is another botched attempt to take the magick of Stephen King writing, whether that is of his novels or an original screenplay. To simply cut and paste his work onto the small screen. His novels get completely bastardized in the process and all you end up creating is a nice movie; nothing less but certainly nothing more. His screenplays are hit and miss. Unfortunately, this screenplay translation was a miss.

Sorry, Sorry, Sorry movie.

This movie gets a 1.0/10 from...

the Fiend :.


I have nothing against a fast-paced fright-flick, but this Stephen King-derived nonsense is too freshly-scrubbed, too bright and modern. The plot, about a new teenage boy in a small town who is a "Sleepwalker"--sort of a cross between a vampire and a werewolf--and who feeds on the blood of female virgins, begs for a more mysterious, ambiguous treatment. This thriller is given an inappropriately colorful look and feel, with hardly any atmosphere. The kids are predictably pretty and energetic, but the big plus is Alice Kridge as the boy's mother; Kridge, from "Ghost Story", never broke out of the filler-female mold, and it's a huge loss that she hasn't been used more. Her performance is creepy and intense, and gives hint that "Sleepwalkers" might've been a much better film with a different focus and tighter direction. It's too over-the-top and commercially-driven, with an uneven tone that swings wildly from thriller to comedy to drama. Stephen King pops up in a cameo, as do real-life directors John Landis and Tobe Hooper. *1/2 from ****


If you're the kind of movie-goer who enjoys original content and intelligent suspense...then look elsewhere, kids, cause Sleepwalkers really sucks. Usually I'm more eloquent than that, but...wow...this was bad. I especially love it when Charles offers Tanya a ride home, she declines, and then he is seen WALKING HOME. Where's his car?? Anyway, just don't see it, folks. I really want to be more specific, but words escape me. Cats jumping on people. A guy getting stabbed by corn. Cheesey lines up the proverbial "wazoo". Just don't see it. Wait, I take that back! See it for writer Stephen King's cameo as the guy who owns the graveyard. He's actually pretty good. Even with guest appearances by Mark Hamill and Ron Perlman, King gives the best performance of the film. But, other than that...wow...BAD.


This film has its share of negative comments and I have to agree with those who consider it one of the worst movies ever made. True, most of the films based on the works of King are pretty bad, but this one goes beyond bad into the realm of horrible. There is not one scary moment in it unless you consider stupidity scary. It is typical King garbage -- myths twisted around that made no sense in the first place, mixed with obvious and belabored so-called "scares" that are about as shocking as PeeWee's Playhouse (which, at least, is entertaining). It is full of ridiculous moments, not the least of which is Alice Krige's character. When she goes on a rampage and starts quipping like the villain in an old Batman TV show, it is so absurd as to be sickening. All the people who had cameos in this (including John Landis)are lucky they still have careers. But the most absurd part has to be the cat costumes towards the end, which look like cheap rubber outfits someone bought at K-mart. The best part of the movie is the appearance of some real cats who actually out-act the people in the movie.


Based on the average short story by horror writer Stephen King about so called 'Sleepwalkers' ancient and immortal cat-like creatures that suck the life out of virgins in order that this energy may sustain them They have supernatural abilities- they can make themselves 'dim' which means they become invisible and can create subliminal mirages to fool people.They have been fleeing humans for century's we are told and have one by one been picked off till there are only two left.The film starts when a beautiful mother and her son arrive in a sleepy town, they are the last of the sleepwalkers and they are on the prowl for virgins to feed on. The mother sends her son out to enrol at the local high school so he can find a virgin, he does (Madchen Amick) and proceeds to try to get her alone so he can suck her dry. It is not made clear why the mother cannot seek out virgins herself- it would make things easier one would imagine as teenage boys are much more apt to follow a older beautiful woman to a secluded area than a teen girl follow a teen boy. However his plans are thwarted as the girl fights back, jabbing a pencil in to his ear. The police are called and the hunt is on!. The son is sick from his injuries and so the mother goes on the rampage killing cops left and right in her hunt for the girl who hurt her son and spouting some painfully unfunny one liners amidst the gore. Finally the girl kills the mother- end of movie. This movie is rubbish!. The acting is variable, from the average Brian Krause to the excellent Alice Krige. The special effects are average,and showcase some early computer effects which is mildly interesting as it shows how far such things have progressed in such a short time. The direction is muddled and the film falls in to camp in places. The director seems unsure whether we are supposed to fear the sleepwalkers or sympathise with them and when in doubt allows the film to become hysterical. Stephen King makes a mildly amusing cameo as an annoying gardener as does Mark Hamill, as a puzzled cop. Alice Krige seems to shoulder the film, her character is given depth and she gives an indication of what the film could have been with a better screenplay and better direction.


Ok, I first saw this movie like at 9:00 on Cinemax a few weeks ago and thought it would be award winning, boy was I 180d on that. This movie bit the big one. I mean, the mother of the monsters shows her true form only at the end of the movie. I'm going " That's it? Why doesn't she show it briefly a little bit more earlier in the movie." The plot being the mother and son feast on the blood of young women. Wouldn't it be better if they just went on, you know, a killing spree killing like a couple of young women each, then having the sheriff or a cop find out about and get into the old find a way to kill the monsters,save the young woman/women, and have 1 or 2 more people killed in the process? I think it would be a hell of a lot better that way. It also sucks because the son is the main character and he gets killed first. Why not get rid of the mother first? Plus, how does she have that strength at the end of the movie when she starts killing people? She said it herself she was too weak. What the heck was wrong with Stephen this time? I can never, ever dis the acting on any movie by any actor, after all, they try their best. If it weren't for good acting, I'd have given this movie a 1/10. 3/10.


Oh dear me! Rarely has a "horror" film bored me, or made me laugh, as much as this one. After a spirited start with an intriguing premise, it descends into not much more than a slasher flick, with some supernatural and sexual asides. The usually excellent Alice Krige is wasted in this one, and the plot twists are ludicrous. Don't bother unless you're really desperate. Rating: 3/10.


"Sleepwalkers" is the first film which Stephen King has written a script for. Given this, and the excellent Santo & Johnny song that they used as the theme of the movie, you would be expecting a odd, and ultimately fulfilling viewing experience. Unfortunately, that's not what you'd be getting. The thing is, they could have probably made it a good movie. The beginning is intriguing what with it's small town spooky atmosphere. But something strange happens about 20 minutes into the film. The film turns funny for no apparent reason! From that moment on the whole atmosphere of "Sleepwalkers" is ruined.For those of you who have seen it, who can ever forget good old Johnny screaming out "COP KABOB!!" after jabbing the pencil into that one cop's ear?!? But don't get me wrong, the humor has no redeemiing quality. I just rented it again to see if mabye I was wrong the first time around, given how original the plot sounded, but I was right. Man, what a waste. I can't believe they got the rights to that Santo & Johnny song. I gave this a 2.


This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen without a doubt. The only thing interesting in this film is the cameo appearances from some great genre directors and King himself. The film has a great premise, but falls apart about 15 minutes into the story. I did like Madchen Amick in this film and think she could have a very good career in film.


My wife and I both agree that this is one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly in the top ten of those I've watched all the way through. At least "Plan 9" was enjoyable.

I DID really enjoy "Christine", "The Dead Zone", "Firestarter", "Carrie", and some of his other films. I didn't care much for "Cujo" (only because the sound was so bad on versions I've seen and I often couldn't tell what people were saying), or "Pet Sematary (Pet Cemetery)".

But this mess was a total mistake in every way possible. The "creatures" themselves seemed designed by a 9-year-old. (No offense to 9-year-olds.)

Even the "one-liners" made us groan and weren't remotely amusing.


1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a "sleepwalker" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it.


This is another one of those movies that could have been great. The basic premise is good - immortal cat people who kill to live, etc. - sort of a variation on the vampire concept.

The thing that makes it all fall apart is the total recklessness of the main characters. Even sociopaths know that you need to keep a low profile if you want to survive - look how long it took to catch the Unibomber, and that was because a family member figured it out.

By contrast, the kid (and to a lesser extent, the mom) behave as though they're untouchable. The kid kills without a thought for not leaving evidence or a trail or a living witness. How these people managed to stay alive and undiscovered for a month is unbelievable, let alone decades or centuries.

It's really a shame - this could have been so much more if it had been written plausibly, i.e., giving the main characters the level of common sense they would have needed to get by for so long.

Other than that, not a bad showing. I loved the bit at the end where every cat in town converges on the house - every time I put out food on the porch and see our cats suddenly rush in from wherever they were before, I think of that scene.


one may ask why? the characters snarl, yell, and chew the scenery without any perceptible reason except someone wanted to make a movie in barcelona. billie baldwin, is that the right one?, is forgettable in the cop/estranged-husband/loving-father-of-cute-little-blond-girl role. the story seems to have been cut and pasted from the scenes thrown away from adventure films in the last three years. ellen pompeo's lack of charisma is a black hole that seems to suck the energy out of every scene she is in. her true acting range is displayed when she takes her blouse off as the movies careens from one limp chase scene to another. unfortunately, the directing rarely goes bad enough to be camp or a parody. it is all just cliché, familiar in every respect. the director cast his own daughter as the precocious brat probably because no respectable agent would have permitted a client to ruin a career by being in such a lame, contrived and uninteresting movie. the only heist here is the theft of the investor's money and the viewer's time.


Baldwin has really stooped low to make such movies. The script, the music, just about everything in this movie is a waste of time.

The sound FX do not sound real, they stick out way too much (technical gadgets etc.) If they are trying to make a movie about things like this, at least try to get real with it and drop those extra bleeps and beeps, because those gadgets don't really make loud sounds like that. Natural sounds like footsteps and such are non-existent, which gives it a void-like atmosphere.

Directing seems to be OK for such a low budget film (I sure hope it was a low budget production), although it does seem fairly amateurish at times.

Most characters seem empty and false, they simply haven't casted this movie very well. I'd imagine it would've been a better idea to make Baldwin speak some Spanish than to make Spanish actors speak English, when we all know that theirs is the language which is more vibrant and alive, that is why the actors performance can suffer greatly if an odd language is used. I mean, could finally someone realise how stupid it sounds to make international actors speak English with a bad accent? It's should've a long ago buried corpse in movie production. The production team ever heard of subtitles? This movie again manages to depict European police as lazy and corrupt, the societies as vulnerable and helpless. I mean if the plot again goes like "The Interpol can't do jack, so let's call one American to bring down this international syndicate" or whatever.

Sony Pictures treads on the same path as Columbia before it, just producing movies for the hell of it. I'd imagine them to have some self respect also. Are buyers supposed to buy every dirty title just because Sony puts out something good a few times a year?! Maybe they should've used the same team as who were making Di Que Si - Say I Do. It's spoken in Spanish and Paz Vega and Santi Millan do a decent job keeping the movie afloat. Looks and sounds much better! Come on Sony, wake up, produce less, sell more.


OK - the helicopter shots are fantastic, and the director made good use of some of Barcelona's top sights. Otherwise...production value was blown in the first few minutes and the rest of the film felt like a movie of the week. Ellen Pompeo was charming and fun to watch, Abel Folk had the most depth and was very effective, and William Baldwin was...well, William Baldwin. He got to put his martial art training to good use and be a running-jumping-earnest action figure. The rest of the cast was wooden at best, but mostly paper. So - if you're nostalgic about Spain - it's a picture postcard with an action twist, and a healthy dose of El Greco. If not, skip it.


Although in many ways I agree with the other reviewers comments. I find that the plot and idea are very good. Many of the supporting actors were very good. The fatal problem with this film is Ellen Pompeo. I am sure, I have never seen a less talented "actor" How this person has ever been in a film or on television, I cannot imagine. In my opinion she would be better as a greater at a Wal-Mart. To see a person with this low level of talent involved in paying roles, does beg the question...... "Who does she know"? I would very much like to see this film re-made with some talent. I do not fault the writer for the failure of this film to be worth the time to view it.


This is one of the worst movies ever made. Trite. Predictable. Flat.

The only thing that rated one point was there was a few nice scenes highlighting Barcelona. I imagine they would use films like this in Guantanamo or some other hidden CIA/NSA prison to torture suspects.

Often bad movies have some redeeming features, this has nothing. If I was in it or worked on it, I would change my name. Truly a turd. Hard to write more than this, but I feel the world's film watchers needed a head's up on this. On the other hand it will make a great gift for people you can't stand.

You could send it to politicians you dislike, in laws, ex-wives, Teachers you hated, former employees, Dick Cheney, W., and a host of others.


This film seems to be a rip off of many movies that have dealt with the same subject in the past. Let the future viewer be forewarned that "Art Heist" doesn't add anything to the genre. Director Bryan Goeres has no clue what to do with the film.

William Baldwin keeps reappearing in films, and frankly, one wonders if he has a great agent, or is it that directors and producers love his unusual goofy looks, complimented by that strange hairdo he sports in most of his movies. The only good movie in which he has appeared, is "The Squid and the Whale", in which he only speaks two, or three lines. Ellen Pompeo, his leading lady, doesn't fare much better; there is no chemistry between Ms. Pompeo and Mr. Baldwin.

A movie to be seen at the viewer's own risk.


First, I realize that a "1" rating is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst. This movie gets that from me because, as one reviewer points out, it's not bad in a self-aware, over-the-top sort of way that might allow it to have some comic or cult value. It simply misses its mark on every count. **Contains possible spoilers** The dialog is completely disingenuous. The continuity is so deliberate it's painful. Daniel just finishes speaking of his lost love, and with his final word the flamenco dancers start. The mock-shock of what's her name (see? I don't even remember her character's name, let alone the name of the forgettable actress) when her husband (the Baldwin) first tells her that her friend is the bad guy. The car and the motorcycle chases did all the right things. Vegetable carts gone flying. Cars crashing into each other. Motorcycles going down the stairs. People nearly being hit, but remarkably, no one is. Oh, that's right... except for the one guy who has been stabbed several times, is obviously stumbling along the curb with knife wounds, and an approaching car apparently didn't notice him there. Hmmm.

It's becoming more and more remarkable to me that movies like this can be made. There is so much pressure in the film industry to make money, you'd think that someone in Hollywood would think of making good films worth seeing. Now there's a novel idea.

My suggestion: don't see this film. Don't rent the DVD. Don't watch it on cable. There are lots of other things you could be doing that will leave you feeling more satisfied.


This movie makes several mistakes. a few American actors in Spain , and the Spanish actors speaking English. the 'spaniards' English is OK, but the way the acting is performed it makes it all quite annoying. the dialog through the whole script is very weak; it may have been a Spanish script but translated incorrectly, who knows and who cares. i can only assume that these are famous Spanish actors forced into the English language , they may be good, but not in this flop. you will figure out the movie within the first 5 minutes, thats how pathetic it is. then the rest is just bad . lots of waste of time, lots of UN-necessary plots. Oh did i mention one of the Baldwins' is in this.


This effort was like a glitzy TV movie...I don't recall this ever being released in theaters...If so, it must've died a quick death. Watching the DVD, in the comfort of our bedroom, it was obvious this film was meant for not much more...Ed Lauter an art critic with a greed streak? What a fun turn that must've been...I haven't seen Ed since "The Longest Yard"...Everyone else pretty much acted by the numbers, led by Baldwin, except for Pompeo...She had zero charisma and seemed to be sleepwalking thru most of the picture...Pompeo's daughter had one dimension...she played every scene like a lovable little puppy...slowest line delivery of any 3 year old I've seen yet...

The chase scenes gave my wife and I headaches...too much quick-cutting and angle-bashing...If you 're going to shoot a chase scene in Barcelona, you might want a few WIDE shots to exploit the beauty of your backdrop, right? The whole story was pretty implausible and far-fetched, but hey, we liked it better than "The Life Aquatic..."


If you haven't seen this yet, I say just move on, take a walk in the park, don't waste your time. Neither the scenario nor the acting is worth your money. *Spoilers*- I can't decide which was worse: The movie itself or Baldwin's hairstyle? Ellen Pompeo's acting talent is very questionable I hope she can improve it over time. The storyline is just unbelievable. Loose cannon American cop fighting criminals in Europe on his own?? Infamous Slavic mafiosi protected by only two hunks??? An emotional art teacher leading a ruthless gang??? Spanish police executive dumber than a sack of hammers??? Give me a break. There's only one good thing about this movie, though: At least, the production costs must be lower than "Ocean's 12"'s which was as meaningless and over the top as this one.


Don't get me wrong, Dan Jansen was a great speed skater. If there was one guy who deserved his gold medal at the Olympics it was Dan.

But how can it be possible that Bill Corcoran has made such a bad movie about the incredible Dan Jansen story, because the real Dan Jansen story is truly incredible! Especially when you look at this movie through the eyes of a sportsman everything is wrong, the way Matt Keeslar and the other actors skate, their technique, the dimensions of the speedskating oval, it is all wrong!

Shame on you, Bill Corcoran, Dan Jansen deserves better, a lot better!

1 out of 10


On the back burner for years (so it was reported) this television reunion of two of the most beloved characters in sitcom history started off badly - and went straight downhill from there. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore) and her best friend Rhoda Morgenstern (Valerie Harper) meet in New York after a long estrangement and catch up on each other's lives. What a novel concept! But, sad to relate, nothing worth talking about (let alone making a movie about) has happened to either of them in the intervening years. So, instead, the script contents itself with throwing out one hoary old plot device after another (most having to do with older women in the workplace), while completely missing the quirky charm and sophistication that made the original show a winner. The supporting cast is instantly forgettable, the humor is nonexistent, and the chemistry which Moore and Harper once had together is gone. Moore allegedly stalled this project for years, waiting for "just the right script" before committing herself. If this was the one she considered "right", what on earth were the ones she turned down like? It's not the age of the characters that does this in (for time inevitably marches on), but the almost complete lack of imagination coupled with a blatant disregard for the elements that made the series work. At one time this was intended as a pilot but, all to obviously, it failed to generate any interest among potential sponsors. Or for that matter, among potential audiences. Quickly and mercifully forgotten, the film is a travesty and an insult to a classic.


This film is not devoid of charm and also shows a bit of warmth, but ultimately this effort is too vain and too strongly focussed on the leads. There is no doubt that Mary Tyler Moore knows what to do with all her screen time but she takes too much of the limelight away from the rest of the cast.

Another problem is the overburdening of the script with cliches. The daughter who secretly drops out of college, an older woman finding it difficult to get a good job (and first ends up with fairly demeaning work), the sleazy network executive with his executive toys who goes for glitz over substance, the journalist who sticks up for her beliefs, etc. There is nothing really wrong with any of these, i.e. they are all firmly rooted in reality, but in combination they are just too much and leave us with too much deja-vu and too few surprises.


Why did the histories of Mary and Rhoda have to be so dour? Divorced women with indifferent daughters. And why very little reference to the original show and characters? The daughter characters were silly and uninteresting. Why can't there ever be daughters who like their mother's on TV? It makes sense that Mary would leave Minneapolis, and Rhoda would return to NYC, but why couldn't Phyllis or Sue Ann Nivens be guest stars? It just seems a pitiful way to remember such wonderful characters. It was good to see Mary and Rhoda together of course, but it could have been better, much better. Well, there has been a Mary Tyler Moore Show Reunion, a Dick Van Dyke Show Reunion, hopefully Mary will do better next time if she revisits her old Mary Richards stomping grounds again.


Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to "The Cost of Discipleship" by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives "Christian Films" a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith.


I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched "Garam Masala". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that "air hostesses" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous.

The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play "Boeing Boeing." The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.)


Watched on Hulu (far too many commercials!) so it broke the pacing but even still, it was like watching a really bad buddy movie from the early sixties. Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis where both parts are played by Jerry Lewis. If I were Indian, I'd protest the portrayal of all males as venal and all women as shrews. They cheated for the music videos for western sales and used a lot of western models so the males could touch them I usually enjoy Indian films a lot but this was a major disappointment, especially for a modern Indian film. The story doesn't take place in India (the uncle keeps referring to when Mac will return to India) but I can't find out where it is supposed to be happening.


Priyadarshan's HERA PHERI was a nice situational comedy This film however actually lacks a story but is quite funny but illogical

In fact they is no proper story yet it somehow manages a nice flow though it isn't anything great

The first half has 2 funny scenes like the one where Akshay and John invite Neha for a lunch and another when Paresh enters

The first half gets boring slowly but the second half is funnier though they is no script

The jokes are funny though one does wonder how they never hear each person's voices from inside the rooms?

The climax confusion is treated like a stage play but it's quite funny But the film ends abruptly

Direction is okay Music is good

Akshay Kumar excels in his part which is now become his second skin, but this is his film completely and he overshadows everyone else

John stumbles throughout and fails in comedy Paresh Rawal is hilarious Rajpal is okay The girls are loud at times and awkward too Nargis, Daisy and Neetu(only Neetu is seen now) are good in parts but shriek too often Manoj Joshi is okay


i have to say that this was the worst film of priyadarshan(releasing alongside much better kyonki which was also his directorial venture) ,it contains no specific storyline and just focuses on body showing by debuting actresses and some silly comedy sequences. I think priyadarshan is becoming too much repetitive in his comedy flicks just like govinda and David dhavan had done in the past after giving some good entertainers they also went on to loose their audiences.So it will be good for him to concentrate more on script and try some variations in his direction.Give us more of herapheri's and malamal weekly's rather than giving duds like garam masala!


Do not waste your time with this movie. This is a total thrash in terms of acting, directing, sound editing, soundtrack... There was such a waste of performance by some of the very good actors. The movie does not do justice to Paresh Rawal who is perhaps one of the most talented actors in Bollywood. Akshay Kumar who is also an emerging star did quite a poor job. John Abraham, what is wrong with him? Is that what you call acting? I mean he should thank God that he has a pretty face otherwise he'd be winning Razzie awards in India if there were any such awards in Bollywood. Asrani a great talent, but overdoes his bit as before.

Screenplay which was not to mention a rip-off from the 1965's Boeing Boeing was quite badly framed. First of all, people in Bollywood just can't make something original. On top of that they don't even know how to copy well. The jokes in the movie were so overdone, it was getting painful to sit through them. Priyadarshan may be a star in the south, but he's just not fit to make a decent Hindi movie. The sound editing is amazingly crappy. I can go on and on this matter, but the bottom-line is that Bollywood should be shameful of making such a film.

The worst part is that some people seemed to love this movie. What is wrong with you guys? This is the reason why Bollywood is where it is. Did you know that Bollywood makes more movies than Hollywood every year, however, most of the movies are unheard of abroad, because of movies like this one. I am an Indian and I am utterly shameful of Bollywood for producing this piece of thrash. Movies like Dil Chahta Hai and Lagaan were just terrific. They are world class films which are timeless... among the best of this decade. Garam Masala, however, is perhaps one of the worst of this century. Period.

I give it a 1 out of 10.


It begins on a nice note only to falter quickly and let down expectations.

Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Sam's (John Abraham) characters are not properly built before Mac's boss decides to hitch him with three air hostess. Rest of the drama is about how Mac, Sam and Uncle Mambo (Paresh Rawal) deal with situations which at times seem forced.

About the cast, Paresh Rawal is a very talented actor, I thought was wasted in the role of a moody cook. Akshay Kumar is tolerable, John Abraham is very bad keeps stumbling over furniture & Rajpal Yadav is the only saving grace in the movie.

The second half of the movie is funny at times, but in all a DUD (songs are boring) and a major let down if you are hoping for some wholesome entertainment and comedy.


Probably the worst Bollywood film I've seen.

No plot line. Very little character developments.

Full of silly and pointless humor. The whole film was chaotic and direction-less. There was no proper ending to the story. The airport was filmed in a shopping mall.

Same story chewed over and over again until you want to say "please, just move on with it!!" Even the song and dance was pointless and badly choreographed.

The only good thing about this movie is that there were hot bods all around... but then most of the Bollywood movies have that anyways these days.

Btw I'm not from an Indian background

2/10


The first half hour of the movie had a steady pace and introduced the characters. however all of a sudden everything was happening too quick, a lame reason for Akshey Kumar to date 3 girls, very loud over acting by both Akshey and John Abraham. Neha Dupia was the highlight of the movie, Paresh Rawal did well but not as good as his performance in Hera Pheri. overall this movie was the biggest disappointment the film does no justice to its trailer. save your money and don't watch this movie, watch Hera Pheri and Hungama again!

summarising it: a cheap stage show performance and appearance to the film no story or substance, the plot was extraordinarily non-sense good music by Preetam the man who bought us Dhoom! keep it up! movie shot all in one room, new comers (female cast) were okay as it was their first film but established actors like Akshey and John totally disappointed an established director like Priyadarshan gives his worst movie ever!


I watched the Malayalam movie "Boeing Boeing" made in 1985 (which in turn is probably inspired by an English movie of same name) long back. The basic story of garam masala is the same - but it is told in a pathetic way, the classy jokes replaced by routine ones which are found in normal Hindi movies (probably the director did this to suit the taste of Hindi audience)...

I haven't seen the English original. But had really enjoyed the Malayalam film (made by Priyadarshan himself)which was a side splitting comedy, back then. Of course the acting by Mohanlal,Mukesh and Sukumari (who did the cook's role) was so natural and spontaneous.

Probably, I am too smitten by the Malayalam film that I cannot tolerate even the smaller flaws in its Hindi remake. But I still feel that Akshay Kumar and John Abraham have overacted. Paresh Rawal has done a decent job - but doesn't reach anywhere near Sukumari.

But all in all its OK, if one compares it to other recent Hindi comedy movies.


Contrary to its title, this film offers no spice and thus audience is subjected to a tasteless dish. All Humor appears forced, theatrical, mechanical, staged, reminiscent of those Pakistani plays available on video, including even the mannerisms. Everybody is screaming, shouting and doing odd things for no reason. The premise looks interesting as it is a straight lift from Hollywood's 'Boeing Boeing". John Abraham who is so natural in almost all his films is a complete misfit here. If we keep morality factor aside, even then the bizarre events looks trite. Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal, two experienced stalwarts try hard to lift the film by being natural but in vain. At least, the characters of three girls should be made contrasting in order to bring some interesting elements but sadly here too all of them appears those brainless, buxomed bimbettes (3Bs) who talk, behave and even scream in quite similar fashion. The major hole in the plot is what made the protagonist keep the three girls at his same home pretending that they will never get to know about each other? Just to do some Sex, what else? The same could be done in hundreds of other ways. Therefore so much dramabaazi for no reason is not something audience will digest easily. But surely, great flesh show and tempting promos always gives such films a great initial. Now for those who call it a situational comedy, I call it a pathetic taste. Sense of humor of such cinema going audience is surely gone corrupted and demented to the extent that they are connecting to a sadistic, weird and maddening type of humor, where it is not the characters that they laugh at but rather at themselves and at their own frustrations that look how senseless we have become that in order to laugh we have to bear with such things?


Well, maybe I'm just having a bad run with Hindi movies lately. I asked the video store guy for Apharan (Prakash Jha) but being a new release, wasn't available yet. So I had to settle for this one. It turned out to be the stupidest Hindi movie I've seen (and I've seen quite a few). No wonder BOllywood is the laughing stock of the whole world! If IMDb had negative ratings, I would give Garam Masala a -10.

I remember seeing a TV show about the jazzy premiere they had for its release in Mumbai. All the usual celebs and their sideys showed up. For some strange reason, people expect good stuff from Piyadarashan. I did not like Hulchul, Hungama, or his other films. Hulchul, probably dubbed from Tamil or Telugu, came across as very loud, in-your-face fare that again didn't make much sense except in a Bollywood flick. This latest piece of utter CXXP proved that this guy has NO BRAINS. Who made him a director, even a Bollywood director at that???

Anyhow, to the film now. What starts off as a romantic escapade turns into a non-sensical woman-hunt. Two fashion photographers working for a magazine share an apartment (isn't it similar to No Entry where the 2 dudes work for a gossip magazine and share an office? Jezuz Christ, now they're copying their own stories!) Well anyways, there's some cook or chef that tries to help one of the dodos in his quest for multi-lateral love (aka multi-tasking + multi-timing). What happened in the end, I've no idea. I switched off mid-way. What ridiculous junk. I can't believe they even released it. And how sadistic to wallow in their own filth! For which audience did they make it - the poor illiterate Indian masses (700 Mil at last count) or the well-heeled NRI desis staying in Phoren? Either ways it doesn't matter. Neither group has any clue what makes a good movie and probably deserves such god-awful stuff.

Its a short review because there's nothing to write about but the usual bag of F-grade garbage. Bollywood should change its name to Follywood. And yes, this review is much better than the movie itself.


The Priyadarshan/Paresh Rawal combo has been golden before with the likes of HERA PHERI and HUNGAMA so I went into the movie (at an Indian multiplex) with high hopes, especially after the slick promos. Unfortunately, like HULCHUL before it, this movie was a huge disappointment.

Like others have commented, the premise of the movie, which was already stale to begin with, just gets stretched on and on without any development or additional layering. After a while, you just want the movie to end so you can go home (if I had been watching this at home, it would have been much easier to cut my losses). Akshay Kumar's performance is average at best and John Abraham should not try doing comedy again. The comedy aspects of the movie overall were pretty week. I only remember giggling like twice the entire movie. Definitely no sidesplitting belly laughs that consumed me in HERA PHERI or even to a lesser extent in AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA. Paresh Rawal had a few of his expected classic moments, but overall, because his role and character wasn't given much room to grow, he didn't make much of an impact in this film.

Neha Dhupia, who makes only an appearance in the movie, was fun to look at while she was on screen. And some of the songs are fun. Especially the opening and closing songs of ADA and KISS ME BABY, respectively. Otherwise, you're better off just passing on this movie.


The movie was a huge disappointment. Especially since it was directed by Priyadarshan, it was sad to see such dismal standards. Poor screenplay(almost non existent) and song sequences with bad songs every minute and at the most odd times killed whatever humor the movie could offer. some of the scenes were funny, but it amounted to probably only 5 mins of the whole duration. The editing was pathetic. Dismal! overall the movie disappointed as the lack of story was only too evident. In fact only a few people stayed to watch the second half of the movie after the interval.

One wouldn't miss anything at all if you don't watch the movie. Not worth spending valuable ticket money on this movie. wait till it appears on TV...


Watching That Lady In Ermine I was wondering what Betty Grable was doing in a project that seemed to be aimed for Marlene Dietrich to do. Someone over at 20th Century Fox may have decided one sex symbol is as good as another. Darryl F. Zanuck should have known better.

Betty plays a 19th century Italian countess whose domain has been invaded by a troop of Hungarian Hussars captained by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Her ghostly ancestor whose portrait hangs in the palace hall along with the rest of her distinguished family tree, sees no small resemblance in Doug now and another invader some 300 years earlier whom she dealt with when armies failed.

Besides that the current Betty has just been married to Cesar Romero and the invasion has come at a most inopportune moment, before things have been consummated. That's going to give anyone a bad attitude, I guarantee.

Fresh, wholesome all American Betty is NOT the actress to do seductive and mysterious. Marlene Dietrich might have put this over, but with Betty it falls flatter than yesterday's presidential candidate. She and Fairbanks have no chemistry at all, though Doug is as charming as ever and someone I can watch in anything.

Frederick Hollander and Leo Robin wrote the score for this film and This Is The Moment got an Oscar nomination for Best Song. That Lady In Ermine's one chance for Oscar glory fell to Buttons And Bows.

Ernest Lubitsch died midway during the film and Otto Preminger finished That Lady In Ermine. I can't believe Lubitsch had Grable in mind for the lead here. Neither will you if you see That Lady In Ermine.


This miserable film is a remake of a 1927 film. They should have let it remain that way.

What a colossal bomb! Douglas Fairbanks displays absolutely no charisma here. Cesar Romero is subjected to a role as a real jerk and Bette Grable sings with a chorus- What I'll Do to that Hungarian!

The ridiculous plot deals with a picture of a woman in a castle in 1561 Rome that saved the day by killing a conqueror. (Fairbanks) Now, let's fast forward to 300 years later, where Grable, just married to the Count Romero, faces a similar situation, when on her wedding night, there is an invasion by Hungarian soldiers.

Romero acts cowardly and flees before the army arrives. He disguises himself as a gypsy and is made to remain at the castle when his violin playing pleases Fairbanks. The ending is worse than the entire wretched film when Grable meets Fairbanks to tell him the good news-an enraged Romero has annulled the marriage.

This poor imitation of a movie was made in 1948. As Harry Davenport, a veteran supporting player who is in it, died in 1949; this must have been his last film. What a bomb to go out with after such a distinguished career.

Walter Abel co-stars but he can do little with such poor writing. The costumes look more like those that would come out of the stone age. I can't fathom what Fairbanks was wearing.


The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from ****


Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from "Down Argentine Way", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got "round" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one!


I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. "PAINFUL" is the best word I can think of to describe it.

On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.

Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it.