Pretty incoherent movie about a man who belonged to and left a 1960s superficially hippie religious cult, who fights them sixteen years later. The man has a child with one of the other cultists, who during a raid by the police is hidden away, and taken by another man named Hawk who lives in a small cabin by the river. The cult kills some of its followers or some of the people in town. It's hard to keep track of who characters are, or what time period the scenes are supposed to be taking place. The leader gets paroled sixteen years later (I got that from the box - I missed the amount of time in the movie). Nobody is made to look any older, not noticeably, anyway.

One murder is done with a large circular logging saw, others are done with knives or a crossbow. I never heard the title character's name mentioned in the movie, but he's the one who overacts the most, hooting and hollering.

The movie is patched together pretty poorly, with voice-over helping (not much) to explain what is going on. Some of the sound effects were pretty bad. A man is getting punched, and we hear the sound of a whip cracking. A woman fires a gun, and we don't hear it fire, but hear a ricochet instead! It doesn't seem to have been done for comical effect.


"Igor and the Lunatics" is a totally inept and amateurish attempt at a crazy-hippie-cult-killing-spree horror movie. Apparently even nearly twenty years later, Charles Manson was still inspiring overenthusiastic but incompetent trash-filmmakers. This is a typical Troma production, meaning in other words, there's a lot of boring and totally irrelevant padding footage to accompany the nonsensical plot. There's a bit of random gore and gratuitous nudity on display  which isn't bad  but it's all so very pointless and ugly that it becomes frustrating to look at. "Igor and the Lunatics" is so desperate that it's even using a lot of the footage twice, like the circle saw killing for example. The incoherent plot tries to tell the story of a hippie cult run by the drug-addicted and Charlie Manson wannabe Paul. One of Paul's lower ranked disciples, named Igor, becomes a little bit too obsessed with the Bible stories and drug orgies and gradually causes the entire cult to descent further into criminal insanity. Just to illustrate through a little example exactly how crazy Igor is: he tears the heart straight out of the chest of a really sexy black hitch-hiker girl! There's an annoying synthesizer soundtrack and some truly embarrassingly lame pseudo-artistic camera tricks, like slow-motion footage and lurid dream sequences. Maybe there's one sequence that more or less qualifies as worthwhile for trash fanatics and that' is when a poor girl is cut in half with a machete. For no particular reason, the camera holds the shot of the blade in the bloodied stomach for fifteen whole seconds.


First off, the title character is not even the main character of the movie. He is the sidekick of the cult leader. The actor who portrays Igor believed that screaming loud, laughing hysterically, and having a crooked smile while bugging out your eyes would be an excellent way to scare people. Igor also had the annoying habit of yelling (because he never actually just spoke) in a high pitched voice. He would also say idiotic one-liners. For example when the cult leader murders one of his followers with a buzz saw, Igor upon seeing this, yells out "Paul! No Paul! Why'd you do it? I could have cut her clean! So clean!" In another scene Igor tells a victim that she would have to 'get her own tools for surgery because right now, it was his time to operate.' Aside from the bad acting, the ending did not make sense because while the story builds up what little steam it has towards the climax, which is Igor getting a crossbow arrow to the head and the rest of his lunatic buddies being killed, he shows up again two more times to kill the remaining 'good guys'. The movie offers no explanation of this, only telling the viewer that Igor escaped from the mental hospital. What??? Bottom line is do not waste your time watching this movie. I wish I could get back the moments I lost watching this.


This movie is truly one of the worst pieces of garbage ever. It really is surprising that something so completely terrible could be made. But, if you can stand the mind-numbing plot, character development, and direction, you may get a kick out of the soundtrack which is so appalling that it is funny. The movie begins terribly and quickly becomes unwatchable. Someone should give anyone involved with this movie some sort of consolation because their career was probably ruined because of involvement in this movie. If you do end up seeing this movie or have seen it already (I feel your pain) then these words have come too late. For anyone else, Stay away at all costs or realize that the movie is so bad that it will waste 2 hours of your life. Then at least you can clean up or something while viewing it.


i didn't enjoy this movie at all.for one,i just found it crude and vulgar,for no reason.i also felt it's misogynistic(against women.)also,the movie really doesn't appear to be about anything,and i didn't find any of the characters likable.really,the there doesn't seem to be any point to it all.maybe i'm missing something,but for me,this movie is pretty much a waste of time,when i could have been doing something more productive and enjoyable.like using my face as a pin cushion.James garner is in this thing,as are C.Thomas Howell and Shirley Jones,and James Cromwell.all are wasted here,and i'm sure this was a low point in each of their respective careers.Jennilee Harrison(from the later years of Three's Company)is also in the movie,and it is nice to see her in a non ditsy role.but other than that,she can't rise above the mediocre script.for me,Tank is a 3/10


Watching "Kroko" I would have liked to leave the cinema very much for the first time in my life. I would not recommend to watch this movie: flat main characters - absolutely no development e.g. Kroko the metaphoric German problem child remains a pure metaphor without any capability of positive involvement despite several plot-wise chances to do so. Uninspired actors, non-evolving plot. I guess the movie attempted an environmental survey but did not succeed: camera appeared shaky rather than motivated. Pictures were low - contrast, gray and dark - i am sure deliberately but the components did not add up to a convincing impression of the social milieu. The story had certain potential though, it could have made a good short story.


Made the unfortunate mistake of seeing this film in the Edinburgh film festival. It was well shot from the outset, but that's the last positive comment I have about the film. The acting was awful, I wonder if actual gogo girls were hired? But it was the plot that was truly laughable, in fact that it was laughable and not boring is the only reason I gave this 3/10.

** Spoilers below **.

I just want to mention a few of the scenes that really got the audience laughing:.

Shoving the girl in the field: who would have thought that a kid shoving another kid could be acted so badly. A real eye-opener.

The getting on the bus scene: the girl is getting on the bus. But, according to the music, the world is ending.

The rolling under the clothes line: Wow, this one really demonstrates the plot writer's skills. In the room, followed by raw meat and skill selling. Why not just get her to perform all three 'sins' at once? At least then the film might have been slightly shorter.

The running down the stairs of the mall: watch as one of the girls takes to flight down the stairs pursued by a flesh eating Dau, no wait .. she *is* just walking quickly trying not to break her nails.

The running covered in blood: this is definitely my favourite scene, and a fitting end to the movie. A half marathon in red paint, completed by vaulting up stairs and over the bridge, only to be sent flying most unrealistically by a passing car. Not only this, but this suicide is undertaken by the most self obsessed girl in the film, now that's sticking to character for you.

I'd like to think that this film was created by a 16 year old and their mates. Sadly, having met the director at the presentation, this is not the case.

But, if you're in a sarcastic mood, and fancy a laugh with a few mates.. then still don't even think about it.


I have come out of several years of lurking on these boards due to the sheer lack of intelligence that is communicated through the reviews that periodically appear on this film's IMDb space. I saw this movie courtesy of subway cinema's new york Asian film festival (which had an otherwise excellent selection of movies this year, see vital, snake of june, CHA NO AJI, Survive Style)and have regretted every day that a scene from that movie disengorges itself from the back of my mind, and becomes a vivid memory.

I'm sure that you can read a laudatory summary of the film off of Subway Cinema, which is probably why I made the mistake of dragging my friend to the film. The description built up the kind of horror film that I had longed for for a while, one that relies on sheer terror rather than cheap scares. P was in fact different. It relied on cheap laughs.

The incredibly annoying announcer described this movie as "Lesbians team up to fight monsters." Completely untrue. There is a subplot built up in this film to make it seem like the relationship between the girl and Pookie is actually going somewhere. More lies. This film seems like a short made for "Are you afraid of the dark?" The story is ridiculous, and only succeeded in eliciting laughter and confusion from the audience after they finally rescinded their attempt to view this film with any semblance of seriousness and try to forget the $9 that they wasted at the door. I almost wish paul spurrier was in the audience so that I could laugh at him and ask him why he wasted 5 years in thailand to make a bad softcore horror-cum-porn that belongs on the spice channel, which only succeeded to get the actress excommunicated from her family, and caused a minor stir at the belgium film festival. The only stir that this caused was a gurgle in the lower intestine as it couldn't extract itself from the sh*te that it is. Anyway, I hope I can dissaude anyone from making the grave mistake of seeing this film, it was truly one of my top 3 worst movie experiences, knocking out soulplane for the number 2.


I will be short...This film is an embarrassment to everyone except its cinematographer. The very fact that it is a critique of the sex tourism industry seems valid until we are "treated" to a lingering dance scene. The plot is ridiculous no one except the most ardent fan of BAD horror will get anything out of it. And for the love of God please stop saying this film is a tale of innocence lost or even of female empowerment because it is quite clearly not (childish fumbling lesbians, what the hell?). this was by far the worst film at the Edinburgh festival (that i saw anyway), someone even collapsed halfway through the film probably because they couldn't take any more of it. this may seem like an overly critical rant but i genuinely cannot find a redeeming feature of this film except for perhaps if you take it as pure comedy. In short this film is best watched on a cocktail of class A drugs.


This was shown as part of the 59th Edinburgh International Festival, though for reasons best left to the powers that be. A lot seems to have been made of the fact that it's the first Thai language film, made with Thai actors & crew, but directed by a westerner. Needn't have bothered to be honest, as this film is dull, dull, dull. Why hint at something, why shroud an idea in mystery, why subtly invoke a feeling, when you can hammer the point home with terrible voice overs, obvious shots and over the top scenes> Nothing is left to the imagination as time and time again director Spurrier clumsily churns out endless clichés. No hinting, no guessing, it's all up on screen, no need to use our imaginations. Wonder when the 'scary' bit is coming? No you wont, 'cause the soundtrack will get more and more intimidating, rising to a crescendo of ominously. Hell, I'm making up words to describe how bad this is. Wonder whether the conjured demon is real or imaginary? Why tax yourself - it's really is a snake, and yes it's really is biting his crotch, and there's blood splattering everywhere. it's a strange, uneasy film for several reasons. It's supposed to be a horror film, but it's not scary - the jolts are signposted & obvious. It might be a scathing attack on the seedier side of Thailand, yet the director has a sleazy, lubricious style when it comes to showing barely pubescent teens. Maybe it was casting himself as the virginity-taking westerner that planted the seeds of doubt in my head. Or maybe the whole thing was just pants. Uninspired, insipid, repetitive, hackneyed - all candidates for best description, but dull seems most appropriate and honest. It's all been seen before, probably better, often with more thought, rarely with less imagination or flare. Sorry. Thumbs down on every count. Truly dire.


'P' (or Club-P) should really be called 'L' for lame. Every festival has a disappointment and this is the one that fails to live up to its much-hyped logline: "Thai lesbians fighting monsters." Rather, this is the tale of a Khmer country girl who's grandmother has taught her a little witchcraft along with a few odd (but specific) rules: "don't walk under a clothesline," "don't eat raw meat," and "don't accept money for your powers." Well, guess what folks, the girl moves to Bangkok to raise some money as a 'bar-girl' and manages to break all the rules granny taught her which subsequently releases an evil spirit that conveniently kills the 'foreign johns' who pay for her services.

While this film can't even be released in Thailand due to it's controversial subject matter most American audiences will find this ho-hum horror pic a cross between "Showgirls" and "Interview with the Vampire" as directed by Walt Disney.

If not for a few scenes with significant amounts of blood the MPAA could probably rate this for pre-teens only. There is literally broadcast TV adult fare, although you'd expect at least a sex scene considering the fact that the film is about a brothel and one of the actresses is a Thai porn star in real life.

As for the 'lesbian' angle, there's one brief smooch and a couple of "I love you's" to prove that the two main stars really are a couple (on brother). And the P-bar has got to be the only exotic dance club on the planet where the girls keep their sarongs on and do carnival stunts (there's a swordsman who cuts cucumbers out of a girl's mouth ... ooh, phallic imagery).

NO nudity, NO real monster (unless you count a five foot high Thai spirit with yellow eyes), and no way any ADULT should ever pay to see this kind of stupidity except on DVD. You've been warned!


Somebody owes Ang Lee an apology. Actually, a lot of people do. And I'll start. I was never interested in the Ang Lee film Hulk, because of the near unanimous bad reviews. Even the premium cable channels seemed to rarely show it. I finally decided to watch it yesterday on USA network and, wow....

SPOILERS FOR ANG LEE'S HULK AND THE INCREDIBLE HULK

Was it boring! I almost didn't make it through Ang Lee's Hulk. Eric Bana was expressionless, Nick Nolte was horrible, Sam Elliott was unlikeable (and that's no fun, he's usually a cool character). In fact, I honestly think they chose Eric Bana because his non-descript face was the easiest to mimic with computer graphics - and it was clear that the Ang Lee Hulk was meant to facially resemble Bruce Banner in his non-angry state. When Hulk fought a mutant poodle I was ready to concede Hulk as the worst superhero movie ever.

But then something happened. About 3/4 of the way through this tedious movie, there was a genuinely exciting and - dare I say it - reasonably convincing - extended action scene that starts with Hulk breaking out of a containment chamber in a military base, fighting M1 tanks and Comanche helicopters in the desert, then riding an F22 Raptor into the stratosphere, only to be captured on the streets of San Francisco. This was one of the best action sequences ever made for a superhero movie. And I have to say, the CGI was quite good. That's not to say that the Hulk was totally convincing. But it didn't require much more suspension of disbelief than is required in a lot of non-superhero action movies. And that's quite a feat.

Of course, the ending got really stupid with Bruce Banner's father turning into some sort of shape-shifting villain but the earlier long action sequence put any of Iron Man's brief heroics to shame. And overall, apart from the animated mutant dogs, it really did seem like the CGI in Hulk tried hard to convince you that he was real and really interacting with his environment. It was certainly better than I expected.

OK, but what about The Incredible Hulk? Guess what... It's boring too! It has just a few appearances by the Hulk and here's the thing - the CGI in this movie is horrible. Maybe the Hulk in Ang Lee's version looked fake at times and cartoonish at others - but it had its convincing moments also. The Incredible Hulk looked positively ridiculous. It had skin tone and muscle tone that didn't even look like a living creature, just some sort of computer-generated texture. It was really preposterous. The lighting, environment and facial effects didn't look 5 years newer than Ang Lee's, they looked 10 years older. And there really is no excuse for that. We truly are living in an era where computer programmers can ruin a movie just as thoroughly as any director, actor or cinematographer ever could.

Worse, the writer and director of this movie seemed to learn almost nothing from Ang Lee's "failure". All the same mistakes are made. Bruce Banner is practically emotionless. The general is so relentlessly, implausibly one-dimensional that he seems faker than the Hulk. The love interest is unconvincing (I have to give Liv Tyler credit for being more emotional than Jennifer Connelly, though both are quite easy on the eyes). Tim Blake Nelson overacts almost as much as Nick Nolte, even though he's only in the movie for a few minutes. The Hulk really doesn't do much in this movie, certainly not any more than in Ang Lee's version. The Incredible Hulk was slightly more fast-paced, but since nothing really happened anyway that's not worth much. Oh yeah, the villain is every bit as phony looking as the Hulk. He's actually much more interesting as a human than as a monster.

This is how I can definitively say Ang Lee's version was better: if I ever have the chance to see Ang Lee's version again, I might be able to sit through it to see the good action sequences, or else to try to appreciate the dialogue a little more (more likely I'd just fast forward to the good parts). But there is absolutely not a single scene in The Incredible Hulk that is worth seeing once, let alone twice. It is truly at the bottom of the heap of superhero movies. The cartoonish CGI is an insult to the audience - at least in Ang Lee's version it seems like they were trying to make it realistic (except for the giant poodle, of course).

It is absolutely mind-boggling how the filmmakers intended to erase the bad feelings associated with Ang Lee's Hulk by making almost exactly the same movie.

It is to Edward Norton's credit that he seems to be distancing himself from this film.


This reboot is like a processed McDonald's meal compared to Ang Lee's very good but very underrated 2003 "The Incredible Hulk".

Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a comic book movie for the thinking person. The Hulk takes some time to appear (about 40 minutes), but when he does we see the conflict at our protagonist's core. He does his best to avoid losing control, but as he admits, when he does give in to his rage, he likes it.

Now compare this to Edward Norton's turn, where there is no display of conflict in his personality, and he turns into the Hulk whenever he becomes excited and his pulse rate hits 200 beats per minute (not 183, not 197, but exactly 200). To this reviewer, this felt akin to the introduction of midi-chlorians in The Phantom Menace, which tell how strong the "force" is with one, as if mystical abilities can be gauged through a blood test. In the 2008 movie, all Ed Norton's Bruce Banner has to do is to keep his pulse rate under 200, as monitored by a device strapped onto his wrist. And for the record, it is extremely difficult to get one's pulse rate up to 200 even through a very exhilarating run, especially for a physically fit person.

Emotions drive Eric Bana's Hulk. He has repressed memories of his mother's death and his father's role in his early life. On the surface he is calm, but there underneath there is significant anger, enough rage to fuel the Hulk when it is unleashed. But the Hulk never kills intentionally, even his attackers. Mostly, he just wants to get away or close to Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). He incapacitates his shooters and in one critical scene, saves a fighter jet pursuing him from a collision.

In the 2003 movie, the visual effects are there, but as necessary. The action scenes (and there are plenty of them) are necessary to the plot, unlike the 2008 movie where action is inserted for the sake of action.

In his quest to turn it into a "fugitive" story, Ed Norton loses focus on how Bruce Banner feels about the Hulk. To him, the Hulk is a dangerous side effect of an experiment went awry. And Louis Leterrier, the director picking up on Ed Norton's cue, fails to add any emotional dimension to the Banner-Hulk relationship. The story can be summed up as: Banner is pursued and Hulk kicks butt, Banner is pursed and Hulk kick butt. Repeat as necessary.

The only thing that went against the 2003 movie is that it is perhaps not as true to the comic books as the 2008 version. However, even as I am a fan of the comics, I would prefer a movie that is not as true to the comics as a fanboy's dream but has heart over the comics-loyal but manufactured and soulless 2008 version any day.

Perhaps Ang Lee should have read more comics. Iron Man, also released in 2008, is a perfect example of a movie that is true to its comic-book roots and has heart.


I had somewhat high hopes for this since I like Tim Roth. I was not pleased with this film. I liked the Ang Lee The Hulk a few years back so I figured this would have more of a bang to it. First I was very disappointed with John Hurt's performance here. He looks as if his eyebrows were re-shaped for this. His performance was not convincing. He was not as good as one would expect. Tim Roth is cool as always here. The Gama thing didn't really stick to the original story line I don't think. I guess the best part of the film was the end. It had some cool action. The only problem with the original was that it was too long. This one is not as long but it got a bit boring at times. I remember some time ago when Walmart had this movie really cheap for sale and I always wondered why?. Now I know. I was hoping to to get blown away, but I was not.


It's difficult to know where this adaptation starts going wrong, because I think the problem begins with the books themselves. Alexander McCall Smith has worked out that you read them not for the detective stories, but for his deeply condescending and completely spurious vision of an Africa that does not exist. He's done for Botswana what Borat did for Kazakhstan - not as successfully, but based in as much fact.

Once I realised this, it ceased to gall me that Jill Scott, an American singer/actress, is cast as Mma Ramotswe. If she is to represent a land that is not Africa, how appropriate that she is a black woman who is not African? She's not the only American on the cast; Mma Makutsi is played by Anika Noni Rose. Both women are far, far too young for the roles they're playing, and far too glamorous. Both brutally murder the local accents, and both focus so entirely on this brutality that they fail to offer much in the way of acting. Scott's Mma Ramotswe is bouncy, cute and soft. Rose's Mma Makutsi is an annoying motor-mouthed bitch.

The result is almost unwatchable. The principal cast is redeemed only by the presence of Lucian Msamati, who turns in a decent performance as Mr JLB Matekoni. Hes comes off smarter and more intense than in the books, but I find myself unable to blame Msamati for this - he's a shining light in an ocean of suckage. The contradictions between his performance and the books are clearly laid at the feet of whichever committee of butchers wrote the script.

To me, McCall Smith's writing has always been highly entertaining yet notoriously bad. He refuses to be edited. As a result, his books contain experiments in grammar that border on the scientific, and characters that change name mid-sentence. It is therefore something of an achievement that the writing team on this project actually made it worse.

The dialogue is now largely Anglicised. Characters speak of "opening up" and "sensitivity to needs". Mma Ramotswe and Mr JLB Matekoni flirt openly. Mma Makutsi moans about not having a computer, but given her constantly restyled hair, makeup and jewellery, I'm surprised she doesn't have a MacBook in her handbag along with her Visa card.

So what are we left with here? It's difficult to be upset with this crappy adaptation because honestly, most of the things I like about the original books are apocryphal anyway. McCall Smith paints a fictional Botswana populated with cute, non-threatening black people who are full of amusing and palatable wisdom-nuggets. It reads well despite linguistic travesty, but it is a vision of how a certain type of white person wishes black people were. It just isn't true.

Given that, it's hardly surprising that this show sucks as much as it does. It remains to be seen whether European and American audiences will even notice, however.


You know what you are getting when you purchase a Hallmark card. A sappy, trite verse and that will be $3.99, thank you very much. You get the same with a Hallmark movie. Here we get a ninety year old Ernie Borgnine coming out of retirement to let us know that as a matter of fact, he is not dead like we thought. Poor Ernie, he is the poor soul that married Ethel Merman several years ago and the marriage lasted a few weeks. In this flick, Ernie jumps in feet first and portrays the Grandpa that bonds with his long lost grandkid. We have seen it before. You might enjoy this movie but please don't say that you were not warned.


I have to say I was really looking forward on watching this film and finding some new life in it that would separate it from most dull and overly crafted mexican films. I have no idea why but I trusted Sexo, Pudor y Lagrimas to be the one to inject freshness and confidence to our non-existent industry. Maybe it was because the soundtrack(which I listened to before I saw the film) sounded different from others, maybe it was because it dared to include newer faces(apart from Demian Bichir who is always a favorite of mexican film directors) and supposedly dealed within it's script with modern social behaviour, maybe because it's photography I saw in the trailers was bright and realistic instead of theatrical. The film turned out to be a major crowd pleaser, and a major letdown. What Serrano actually deals here with is the very old fashioned "battle of the sexes" as in "all men are the same" and "why is it that all women...;" blah,blah,blah. Nothing new in it, not even that, it uses so much common ground and clichè that it eventually mocks itself without leaving any valuable reflexion on the female/male condition. Full of usual tramps on the audience like safe gags about the clichès I talked about before(those always work, always) and screaming performances(it is a well acted film in it's context)..and by screaming I mean, literally. The at first more compelling characters played by Monica Dionne and Demian Bichir turn out to be according to Serrano the more pathetic ones. I completely disagree with Serrano, they shouldn't have been treated that way only to serve as marionettes for his lesson to come through...he made sure we got HIS message and completely destroyed their roles that were the only solid ground in which this story could have stood. Anyway, it is after all, a very entertaining film at times and you will probably have a good time seeing it (if you accept to be manipulated by it).


Yes. I'll admit it. I believed all the hype surrounding this piece of work, about the trials and tribulations of 6 people, living in Mexico City concerning their sexual lives. And so, I was really expecting to finally see a Mexican movie (in ages) that was both popular and interesting to watch. Unfortunately the film was utterly disappointing. The story presents us with two couples, both with very obvious marital problems. When a third party comes into the life of each couple, their problems reach a pivotal point. Or absolute absurd. The plot then turns into a battle of the sexes. The stance taken by each group (yes, they literally group, girls with girls and boys with boys) is blatantly stupid and childish (I guess the humor was supposed to be there). And it all goes from bad to worse. The performances range from good (Miss Zavaleta) to mediocre (Mr Bichir), with Serrano doing an acceptable job on his opera prima. However, the flat circumstances that make up the plot, the one-dimensional characters, the very poor (if not stupid) perception of what sex represents in a mature relationship etc, make the movie fail. Miserably. SPyL has had an (impressive) good reception at the box-office. Believe the hype at your own risk.


As a South African, it's an insult to think that someone was actually paid to produce this nonsense!

Despite the fact that the director was one of the writers for the original Shaka Zulu mini, this "addition" to the series is appalling! The original series was based on historical facts about a man who was a great strategist, leader and warrior. A man who played a large role in shaping the history of local tribes in South Africa.

The plot of this film, however, is nothing but hogwash, scraped from the bottom of the barrel by a writer that has failed to impress since the mid-nineties.

While Omar Sharif and Henry Cele are good actors, what is David Hasselhoff doing here, rescuing drowning slaves with his red buoy and bleached smile?

I kept expecting blond, busty women to appear out of nowhere and run across the screen in their tiny red bathing suits, for no apparent reason. Not that this would've been any more bizarre than the fantastical plot line that was probably dreamed up after 10 pints of beer at a fancy dress party, where someone's caveman costume inspired the writer to return to an African theme for his next "blockbuster".


Complete drivel. An unfortunate manifestation of the hypocritical, toxic culture of a decade ago. In this movie, pedestrian regrets for slavery go hand in hand with colonialist subtexts (the annoying redhead feeding Shaka rice?). Forget historical reality too. Didn't most western slaves comes from West Africa? An American slaver easily capturing Shaka with a handful of men?. Finally, David Hasslehoff could not have been any more obnoxious. One can only ponder, how would he have fared in the miniseries? (Promptly impaled most likely). The miniseries was superb, and it is unfortunate that DH should have gotten his hands on something unique, and made it mundane. (I tend to think that he had hand in creating this fiasco).


Amen to Magsel. There was a lot of confusion going on. First off, how do you know which movie you are purchasing? Henry Cele stars in every one of them. I bought this movie thinking it was the miniseries...WHAT A LETDOWN!! It would have been a comedy but for the young girl being raped. David Hasselhoff (spelling?) is OK for popcorn TV but he was not believable in this film (where was his English accent?) AND WHAT'S WITH THE LOVE STORY??? The movie was supposed to be about a young man's rise to military power - not the slave ship captain getting jiggly with the English maiden looking for her daddy...

If I had paid more than $7 for this movie, I would have to call the police - because that would be a crime!


For those looking for a sequel for the fine South African miniseries of the 1980s, this isn't it. Nor is it a historical drama. Rather, it is a dreary little fantasy which has nothing to do with the historical Shaka, but merely uses his name to give a certain cachet to Sinclair's idiotic story about an African superhero who is a combination of Jesus, Lincoln, Superman, and Nelson Mandela.

On the other hand, there are a few laugh-out-loud moments, as when Shaka breaks the cross to which he is chained and kicks some serious slaver butt. You know, like Jesus would have done if he hadn't been such a wimp.

True, I saw only the 98-minute version, but I can't imagine that twice as much of this crap would have been better.

And what kind of a name is Mungo?!


I saw this movie with low expectations and was not disappointed. Its so bad that it is actually funny in a very cringe worthy way.

Gael is absolutely terrible, I mean he just cannot act, period. He should give up now, as acting is clearly not his thing.. His co-stars are about the same caliber, i'm sure my 5 year old cousin could do a better job than all of them! The director should be ashamed to have put his name on something so ridiculous.. Somehow I don't think an Oscar is on the cards for this guy.

I have never written a comment on IMDb, but this movie was so bad I felt compelled to do so.

If you get the chance to see this film, don't 0/10 if there was a 0


Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel.


Only children below the age of 12 should be allowed to see this film. The rest of us should take a book, MP3 player, or just take a nice nap to endure the experience of this event. This can be best summed up as a "blown-up" TV movie being distributed into theaters. Children will want to see this film, and they will like and be amused by the movie.


this is a great movie. I love the series on tv and so I loved the movie. One of the best things in the movie is that Helga finally admits her deepest darkest secret to Arnold!!! that was great. i loved it it was pretty funny too. It's a great movie! Doy!!!


I have to admit that I'm a great fan of this show, so you must know how disappointed I got when I watched this movie. First of all, the plot was awful, I thought it was going to be something more interesting, like to see what happened to Arnold fathers, or something more interesting, but NOOOOOOO, a maniac wants to destroy Arnold's house, between many other places, so many people tries to stop this.

I must admit that the plot wasn't so bad after all, but what really sucked were the steps that Arnold and his friends do to stop this maniac, they become friends of a spy,; they drive a bus (based on a video game, for God sake), and to worse everything, they make super-moves on the bus, things that many persons had already tried and died, but not Arnold, Gerald and Helga, 'cause they are experts on a video game.

Honestly, my mom, my sister, even me got really disappointed after watching this movie, 'cause it was the worst way to finish a really good cartoon. I must admit that I used to enjoy "Hey Arnold!", it was one of my favorite cartoons on Nickelodeon, but after this crap of movie, I'm not quite sure if I'm going to watch "Hey Arnold!" as I used to watch it on the past.

Other thing Nickelodeon, with that enormous number of dynamite I can assure you that not a simple street would explode, I think that the whole city could explode with that, oh, and please, if all of your future movies from good cartoons are going to be like that, don't do more movies, you give a bad critic to cartoons that used to be good.

Honestly, I think this was the worst way to end this show, a good show transformed into this crap of movie.


tries to be funny and fails miserably. The animation is just terrible, looks like a 2 year old threw it together in his sleep. Plot is dull and cliched. IF you have a young child, maybe rent it. but don't waste hard earned money to pay to see it.

1/10


I like animated shows. I enjoy the Nick fare pretty much, including Hey, Arnold. But moving a TV show to the Big Screen isn't easy and this just didn't feel big enough. It was more like a long episode of the show, and it just didn't move along that well. Judging by the behavior of the kids we had with us, it didn't score that well with them either.


When HEY ARNOLD! first came on the air in 1996, I watched it. It was one of my favorite shows. Then the same episodes started getting shown over and over again so I got tired of waiting for new episodes and stopped watching it. I was sort of surprised when I heard about HEY ARNOLD! THE MOVIE since it doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as some of the other Nickelodeon cartoons like SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS. Nevertheless, having nothing better to do, I went to see the movie anyway. Going into the theater, I wasn't expecting much. I was just expecting it to be a dumb movie version of a childrens' cartoon like the RECESS movie was. I guess I got what I expected. It was a dumb kiddie movie and nothing more. There were some good parts here and there, but for the most part, the movie was a stinker. Simply for kids.


the guy who wrote, directed and stared in this shocking piece of trash should really consider a carer change. Yes Rob Stefaniuk, i mean you! Seriously, who funded this crap? there are so many talented writers out there whom money could be better spent on. I think the idea is great but the acting, script and directing is just plain awful! The jokes are so not funny, I understand that they are supposed to be taking the mickey. BUT do it with style, this movie is screaming 1995 Saturday night live skits. Why, I say again why do studios give money to hacks like Rob Stefaniuk - NEVER GIVE A COMEDIAN THE Opportunity TO WRITE DIRECT AND STAR IN HIS OWN MOVIE. DUH!


Phil the Alien is one of those quirky films where the humour is based around the oddness of everything rather than actual punchlines.

At first it was very odd and pretty funny but as the movie progressed I didn't find the jokes or oddness funny anymore.

Its a low budget film (thats never a problem in itself), there were some pretty interesting characters, but eventually I just lost interest.

I imagine this film would appeal to a stoner who is currently partaking.

For something similar but better try "Brother from another planet"


This movie has got to be one of the worst I have ever seen make it to DVD!!! The story line might have clicked if the film had more funding and writers that would have cut the nonsense and sickly scenes that I highly caution parents on.... But the story line is like a loose cannon. If there was such a thing as a drive thru movie maker-this one would have sprung from that.It reminded me a lot of the quickie films that were put out in the 1960's, poor script writing and filming.

The only sensible characters in the whole movie was the bartender and beaver. The rest of the film, could have easily been made by middle school children. I give this film a rating of 1 as it is truly awful and left my entire family with a sense of being cheated. My advice-Don't Watch It!!!


Although it got some favorable press after playing at the Toronto Intl. Film Festival, there were a number of reasons not to expect too much from this. One -- it's an ultra-low budget Canadian film. Two -- it's written, directed and starring the same person (usually a bad sign, unless it's Woody Allen, George Clooney or one or two other respected filmmakers). But despite my watching it with lowered expectations, it still turned out to a far bigger disappointment than I thought possible.

In a nutshell -- bad script, bad acting, terrible directing! Don't waste your time or money on this turkey. It claims to be a comedy, but I only laughed twice. Plus, there is awful music blaring throughout. How this got any attention I'll never know.


Well this film has certainly had a fair amount of hype; From the buzz at the Toronto Film Festival to gushing reviews on CBC Radio. A refreshing, wacky, hilarious indie movie apparently. I'd been looking forward to it for months.

How can I put it this simply? It sucked in a very big way. An exercise in cinematic lameness that makes Adam Sandler look like a comic genius.

At best it was mildly amusing and at worst coma inducing. An amerterish script badly directed and shoddily edited into a ramshackle mess.

And what was with the music being 500db louder than the rest of the sound track? That was about the only truly odd thing about it.

If you want to see a genuinely funny, bizarre movie involving aliens then try Repoman. There is no comparison!


The fact that I did not like the music is a very personal opinion, the historical innacuracies are not. I do realize that it is an opera and not a documentary, but some important aspects are missing, especiallly if other people comment falsely because of it.

Abbu Abas was the mastermind of this operation, which was staged and reorganized due to discovery on board the shiph, in order to free 50 terrorists from Israeli prisons, one of which was Samir Kuntar, a heinous terrorist whose story you can find by searching for "klinghoffer samir kuntar" on google. Abbu Abbas was responsible for many other terrorist operations, even if he never set foot on the Achile Lauro. Ben Laden never set foot on the planes that hit the WTC, did he?

*** possible spoilers ***

The movie almost excuses the terrorists' actions and reactions because of horrors they might have lived, always accentuating and exaggerating how much the Israeli's have done to hurt them. However, they never portray the hurt that the Palestinians have ever caused to the Israelis. The movie uses (quite horrid!!!) images from the Sabra and Chatila horror, and nothing is said, understating the general belief that it was Israel who was responsible, without ever mentioning that it was a Syrian-les Lebanese army who conducted the massacre.

The acting was generally very bad, but I guess that's what can be expected from opera singers?

On another note I am shocked at how a person can excuse terrorists killing a hostage because the hostage tried to stir the 400 innocent hostages against the armed terrorists, and add that the person should not be considered sympathetic because he is a supporter of zionism. Imagine how unsympathetic his wife was, spitting on the terrorists who shot her husband and threw his body into the sea. I hope no one in the world is as cruel as she is(wink wink)


After finally viewing this movie in its entirety, I am completely mystified by the adoration it has received by critics and online users alike. Is it the worst Western ever? No, I wouldn't say that. But "the last great American Western", a phrase I saw applied to it more than once? Not even close.

A movie that tries to tell a story like this needs believable characters that speak believable dialogue, and the dialogue in this film is among the most hackneyed and clichéd that I've ever seen. The movie can be measured in groaners per minute; as in, how many times is an actor or actress forced by the script to say something that no human being would say in real life? There's so many instances of this that it's distracting. Cheesy lines come at you in waves; predictable, unoriginal, and often.

If bad dialogue doesn't bother you, then how about bad gunfights? Few Westerns can show you gunfighting that's completely unbelievable while desperately trying to make you take the action seriously. It's okay if there's a comic edge to such gunfighting, such as in Silverado, but in Tombstone the very staged and very stiff choreography of the early gunplay is just another reason to leave this movie off the list of good Westerns. The final showdown somewhat redeems the director on this score, but by then, I was so disinterested in the movie that it was beyond saving.

Other than those flaws, I can say the visuals are stunning - the movie's well shot and the settings all look great. The acting is passable, especially considering what the actors were given to work with. However, if you're looking for the last great American Western, do yourself a favor - go rent Unforgiven instead.

3 out of 10


I really can't say anything bad *or* good about this thing. Its characters are likable enough, it's capably produced and designed, and professional-looking (except for that cheesy monster suit). However, it has no originality, no ideas, and nothing you haven't seen in ALIEN, PREDATOR, ARMAGEDDON and/or OUTLAND. It's just another formula, cookie-cutter, "grimy corporate drones in deep space versus unstoppable monster" flick. Pretty much a waste of time.


This crew-versus-monsta has been done a hundred times, sometimes better. This one was pretty slow-moving ; only the monster's resurrection was really worthwhile. Attempts at character developments gets botched by routine. Yeah, "routine" is the word. Went straight to video in France. No wonder


his costume drama is ill cast and without charm.

George Sanders was a superb character actor. But he is thoroughly implausible here as the lead, an Eighteenth Century rogue known for his philosophy and great good looks. His costar is, of all people, Akim Tamiroff. Some Frenchman! Then there's Signe Hasso, in a dark wig, as the virginal daughter of a wealthy family. Carole Landis fares best. The movie opens with her in silhouette. She is a soubrette, and a naughty girl at that. She disappears for a while but turns up in an improbably situation. But she's good. She was always an appealing actress. Here she is cast closest to her usual type of role.

It's meant to be a little naughty, kind of ooh-la-la. It ought to have had a light touch but it's a leaden affair from start to finish.


Positively awful George Sanders vehicle where he goes from being a thief to police czar.

While Sanders was an excellent character actor, he was certainly no leading man and this film proves it.

It is absolutely beyond stupidity. Gene Lockhart did provide some comic relief until a moment of anger led him to fire his gun with tragedy resulting.

Sadly, George Sanders and co-star Carol Landis committed suicide in real life. After making a film as deplorable as this, it is not shocking.

The usual appealing Signe Hasso is really nothing here.


The often-reliable Leonard Maltin says this is a "delightful romance" and that Sanders is "superb." Maltin must have confused this movie with something else. Sanders is snide and droll and superb, as usual,  you can imagine his delivery of the line regarding adultery, "Sometimes the chains of matrimony are so heavy they have to be carried by three," but dull, wooden and dated describe this movie more accurately. The storyline itself, an autobiography with Sanders as a suave jewel thief, Francois Eugene Vidocq, who becomes chief of police but can hardly resist the lure of fine jewels, is entertaining enough, but it has the same kind of hollow historical Hollywood treatment that marred such period epics as *Marie Antoinette*, and certainly the deplorable *Forever Amber* (which screams for a classy remake). Though, in his defense, Sanders tries mightily to add some depth to his character, it is all for naught. I am an unabashed Douglas Sirk fan, but this is 1946, and it is one of Sirk's earliest American efforts, lacking many of the signature touches that would define his florid, breast-heaving potboilers. Sirk is just getting his feet wet here, and made a number of unmemorable films over the next ten years until he struck gold with *Magnificent Obsession*, and hit his stride, bombarding us with such estrogen-fests as *All That Heaven Allows*, *Written on the Wind*, and *Imitation of Life*. But *Scandal In Paris* is hardly his best work  a relatively low-budget affair with cheesy sets and ineffective costuming.


"Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness".

Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone.

While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple.

The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa?

With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy.

While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.

The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.

I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.


Well, I don't think the picture is as bad as most of the reviews make it out to be. . . but there's no denying that it's got problems.

Mostly, the problems are in the script. There's a plot - but not much story, and certainly not one that anybody could call plausible; it trots out any number of self-consciously strange and/or stereotypical characters, lines, moments, what-have-you and, by the end, it just hasn't added up to much in this department.

Sorry, but I couldn't care less about whatever "social ill" Farnsworth might be trying to address; there will always be a sector of the population willing to do just about anything to shred their brains, even if it requires running around corn fields trying to steal ammonia, or whatever it is those morons do. So, as a film, you won't find me calling "Iowa" "important." But, at a stylistic level, the picture is more than interesting and some of Farnsworth's choices in depicting a meth-head's wigged-out state are beautiful, hilarious, disturbing and - yes, I'm going to say it - inspired.

The acting is uneven, but that just may be a casualty of the afore-praised stylistic reaching. Look, Rosanna Arquette is a fine actress - but she's not very good here, so a discriminating audience member does have to ask, "What happened?" It's weird that Diane Foster manages a simplicity and grace that so few of the other actors can come anywhere near. For example, I might seriously consider whatever explanation Farnsworth could provide for Michael T. Weiss's over-the-top turn as a probation officer, but I doubt I'd ever buy it; It Just Doesn't Work.

Then again, it's the most alive and in the moment that I've seen John Savage appear in years. So go figure.

This is the sort of work that tantalizes, but does not promise - and that's okay; neither Farnsworth nor anyone else is required to make movies. So, whether or not Farnsworth has another film in him remains to be seen, but if he does, it seems pretty likely that it won't be bland pap. In an age when people are planning their lives around the latest installment of "American Idol," perhaps we could allow, not scorn, Farnsworth's legitimate and undeniably flawed film.

What is more, perhaps we could welcome, not berate, his energetic and sometimes blessedly idiosyncratic imagination.


The week before I saw Iowa, I saw Art School Confidential, in which a pretentious student makes a film and can't decide whether he wants it to be art or violent exploitation. Iowa could be the film that he made. I can see elements of much better movies in Iowa - Spun and Natural Born Killers. However, in addition to artiness, both those movies had good character development and coherent story lines. Iowa. This movie stumbles to a preposterous end. I have to admit that it had consistency. This movie is bad from beginning to end and not particularly worse or better in any part. The actors all did what they could. Roseanna Arquette deserves better. She demonstrates that she is very talented, very funny, and very sexy. But why does she have to demonstrate it in this turd ball.


This movie made me really mad because the main characters or all the characters have a southern accent. I've lived in Iowa for 29 years and I know that people don't have a southern accent here. This movie is about a guy who does meth and I don't know the real plot or what the movie is suppose to be about. It has some pretty graphic drug use in it and it's really insulting so see these people use meth like it was sugar. I lost my brother to meth and this movie makes me sick to my stomach because it glamorizes the drug. The movie makes it look cool to use the drug but I was happy at the end when the guy almost made it across the state line. I also know that most women who experience a traumatic rape don't want to make love to their boyfriend or husband the next day. The movie is just wrong in all directions. I would suggest "The Basketball Diaries" if I was going to suggest a movie about drugs.


Tasteless. I can't even write intelligently about the movie. I laughed the entire movie. It wasn't supposed to be funny. Matt Farnsworth has no clue what he is doing. His story is written, it seems, without any knowledge of Iowa culture and the meth problem. I know Farnsworth is from Iowa, which makes his movie even more puzzling to me. Why do the two main characters have accents? It doesn't make any sense. The acting was mediocre at best and at times hard to watch. Gratituous violence and sex filled the movie. I am guessing that the violence and sex were supposed to make the movie edgy, but it came across as unbelievable and offensive. The ending of the movie is so brilliantly bad that all I could do was laugh and look at the rolling credits with disbelief. As I walked out of the theatre everyone else who was leaving was laughing along with me. The ending of the movie was meant to evoke tears, but it did the exact opposite. Do not waste your time on this horrible movie, unless you want to see ignorant, sappy, overacted, clichéd drivel.


I'm shocked that there were people who liked this movie..I saw it at Tribeca and most of the audience laughed through it at scenes that were not meant to be funny. I felt bad because the lead actress was in the audience, but honestly the plot to this movie needed MAJOR revision..it didn't even make sense, one second the characters question what exactly it is that they're snorting..the next scene they're hopelessly addicted and figure out how to make it?? Also the ending just took the cake..I'm not going to spoil the magnificent conclusion..but it pretty much blended right in with the rest of the horrible plot/script...see this movie for comedy if you must..


the IMDb guidelines state that you have to declare if your comments contain 'spoilers'.

well, this whole film is something of a spoiler... a cautionary tale that glorifies what it cautions against, a tale of lost youth that doesn't know where it itself is going.

i just saw this at the tribeca film festival. this film wasn't just bad, it was really bad.

the acting is inconsistent, the characters are the mostly cliché offerings with little depth, and farnsworth's acting was very bad in particular.

from the patronizing accents to the pointless plot line to the out of place 'graphic' elements to the repetitious dialog and scenarios... it sucked the big one.

i think he was looking for sort of a more edgy, updated 'drugstore cowboy' with a touch of 'natural born killers' but it is no where as sensitive to the characters as the former and no where as shocking (outside of some frat-level gore) as the ladder.

more than anything, someone needed to really A) edit the screenplay

(there are some things in there to build on and clearly

deals with a worthy subject... if ham-handed in it's attempt.) B) edit the film. if it was cut down to a core, it might be passable.

i would go lower than 1 if i could... like maybe zero kelvin.


As far as I am concerned this silent version of The Merry Widow is the worst version ever made. There is no tenderness or love or spirituality about this version, it is all macabre, Germanic, sinister nonsense. It reminded me of Nazis falling in love; who cares?

This silent version by von Stroheim is not a faithful adaptation of the original story. In this one we have leering John Gilbert and his gross relative the Prince lusting after this silly American actress, played by Mae Murray, possessed with a modern permed hairstyle and implausible feminist manner that threw me off again and again. I like my romances light and beautiful, with slow build ups; not harsh and sadistic like this one. And come on, those bee stung lips, get rid of them, girl!

Go see a live performance of the show if you would like to get a real idea of the sweetness of the original operetta by Franz Lehar. Failing that, wait till TCM shows the Jeanette MacDonald - Maurice Chevalier sound version. It's much better.


Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after "The Night Strangler". Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding "Night", with understandably less success.

Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are "Dark Shadows" alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires!

**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox


Virgin is selected to marry rich guy. Rich guy urinates. Woman on boat likes sailor. Sailor urinates. Virgin attends gross-out commune dinner. Man urinates on dinner table. Boatwoman does strip tease for little boys. Man pretending to be baby urinates. There is an underlying theme here. Makavejev is trying to say that he is pi$$ed off at the world. To say that this is a bizarre movie is an understatement. To justify the title, there is a scene where Laure, who hardly speaks ten lines the whole movie, bathes in chocolate syrup. It is a sweet scene indeed but the rest of the movie leaves a bad taste in one's mouth unless one happens to share the director's fetishes.


Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a "worst case scenario" of playing "strong" feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...

I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.


I wouldn't call it awful, but nothing at all shines in this movie, and it is encumbered with some seriously unbelievable basic plot development. It starts out well, but once the main hit is done, it devolves into a long subplot around a young girl which is not compelling, and some action scenes which are theatre of the absurd unrealistic. For example there is a prolonged shootout at the airport in which the lighting is all stroboscopic. No explanation for that. How credible is it that a airport storage area is going to have lights that flash on and off confusingly, and just enough to let Snipes do his incredible escape schtick? This is one of far too few action scenes punctuated by pointlessly drawn out set ups that just fails to draw one into suspending belief.

In addition, the whole premise seems to be that the United States CIA team can shoot the place up but get away with it by saying "national security" to the Brits. This gimmick relies on a stereotype that is to far afield from reality to be satisfying.

There are a lot better action movies out there. Better formulated, better executed. This one is entertaining at times but there is just not enough meat on the bone and after a while it becomes downright boring -- something that should never happen in a good action movie.


Wesley Snipes is James Dial, an assassin for hire, agent of the CIA and pure bad-ass special operative. During his free time Dial dons a cowboy hat and breeds horses with macho names such as Beauty.

Enter agent Collins, his supervising officer. Enter a new assignment - kill a terrorist that is in UK custody. Of course the United Kingdom being an allied state is a great place for covert ops and head-shots outside of courtrooms.

The assassination is a big success apart from the fact, that the escape plan blew. So Dial's partner and local liaison gets killed in action trying to escape the police, whilst Dial becomes hot property with the London coppers trying to get to him and CIA trying to dispose of him.

Fortunately for Dial the safe-house is routinely visited by a teenager Emily Day (Eliza Bennett), who loves hanging out with cold-blooded killers with arrest warrants and help them escape from the evil UK law enforcement...

With a script like that need I say more? On the plus side Wesley Snipes is Wesley Snipes (be that a pro or a con) and the movie is quite engaging. On the minus editing is very disjointing and has a hurl effect on the stomach.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

James Dial (Wesley Snipes) is hiding out on his ranch in Montana after failing to capture a notorious terrorist. Then he's approached by the agency again to travel to London to have another go. His target has been apprehended there and is under heavy police protection- but they don't want him merely to capture their man- they want him taken out. All goes well but then the mission gets botched and when a senior police chief, Windsor (Charles Dance) is killed, the blame falls at Dial's feet. Hunted like an animal, he takes refuge in a nearby house and befriends a young girl named Emily (Eliza Bennett) who's dealing with issues of her own and becomes his unwitting sidekick as he goes about clearing his name and working out who betrayed him.

This latest Snipes straight to DVD escapade came out of nowhere, with a minimal of publicity even for something so small time (I don't recall seeing any advertisements or trailers for it anywhere.) With this in mind and after Snipes's history of duff DVD efforts, this might have seemed like one which Snoop Dawg would tell you to drop like it's hot. But I felt compelled to give it a go anyway. It doesn't rank among his worst, but it doesn't reach any higher than the standards of some of his better ones (The Detonator, 7 Seconds, says it all, really), either.

This is, at best, mildly suspenseful, with a minimal of action, naff all in the way of cool dialogue and Snipes not exactly at his best in the lead role. Likewise, in a main supporting role, it's quite clear Dance has only showed up for the pay cheque as well and this is generally one that none of the cast are going to shout for the hills about on any of their CVs.

It says a lot that by the end the only 'contract' that's keeping you interested is when Snipes's will end with Sony and with it an end to any further sub par EL DVD action films. **


I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.

Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in "The Contractor".

One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, "unconsidered" directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bloody Sunday") might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for "action-enhancement". But the "Bourne Franchise," as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.

Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.

And "The Contractor" goes so far as to emulate "The Bourne Ultimatum" in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling "Yankee-Romeo" one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view "The Contractor" again.

I recommend to those of you who have yet to see "The Contractor": just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.

2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1.


Don't really know where to start with one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to watch in a very long time. From the setting which was quite obviously and very clear to anyone who has visited London for even 1 day will agree...was not London. To the much unexplained way how Snipe's character managed to escape the country back to the US without a single problem. Then he convinces the girl and grandmother to visit him in America, how on earth did Grandma agree to that...he's an assassin! Well that's the ending how about during the film, well unfortunately that didn't fare much better. We have British cops driving an amazing range of cars, I'm sure it was an eighties Vauxhall Belmont which chased the taxi after the assignation, but a modern Subaru Imprezza escorting the prison van in a few scenes prior. SO19 or whoever the gun toting arm of the Met they were trying to portray was happily running around the streets with their guns out chasing after Snipe's along with the CIA. There were children walking around, but the police were still stating they had a clear shot to shoot him, does this happen in London? No it doesn't, I live there. We also have the very implausible travel from central London to the airport (let's say Heathrow for arguments sake) within 5 minutes of receiving a call. We also have terrible American accents, a young girl who's posher than the Queen, but lives in Elephant & Castle. What does it say for British police when helicopters and a number of officers at Snipe's location can't find Snipe's and he manages to evade capture by hiding behind some stairs? The train station was obviously not even on UK soil and the fight scene sound effects were terrible. The plot was also extremely poor, boring and been written and filmed a lot better a thousand times before. But there were a few notable actors cast in this film, what were they thinking and please don't let that sway you to watch this film! This film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, if you are going to concentrate on the dramatic aspects from the aftermath of an assignation then you need a strong rigid plot with plausible scenery and setting, this is something the viewer has time to take in and appreciate and if you do it wrong then you notice it. If you want an all out action film (which this is not) then continuity and scenery can be put to the side.


The problem with THE CONTRACTER is summed up by the opening scene . The CIA want an international terrorist dead so contact black ops assassin James Dial . The terrorist is appearing at the Old Bailey court in London which begs the question why do they want to bump off a terrorist if he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail ? He's going to be out of circulation either way . Didn't the CIA have a chance before he was arrested ? If by some chance he gets a not guilty verdict then kill him . There's no logical reason to kill someone who is going to spend life in a maximum security prison

Since the premise sets up the story an audience might be choose to ignore the plot hole but the assination itself pours fuel upon the fire . Dial's colleague is killed by a police bullet and the taxi they're driving in crashes but Dial manages to escape . So the police were close enough to shoot someone but too far away to apprehend someone from a car crash ? The film of this type of plot connivance . Later Dial finds a police inspector pointing a gun at him saying " this airport is surrounded by armed coppers " yet Dial manages to escape very easily without explanation . The whole film cheats its audience by relying on things that are never explained . This includes an important supporting character called Emily Day . Why does she help Dial even though he's a wanted fugitive ? Your guess is as good as mine

This is a fairly poor thriller and don't be taken in by the " big name " cast . Wesley Snipes used to qualify as a film star but killed his career by starring in more and more inconsequental films . Charles Dance also appeared in big budget Hollywood productions such as LAST ACTION HERO and ALIEN 3 but again he's someone best known for appearing in straight to DVD fare these days , and he's basically playing a cameo role anyway . The likes of Lena Headey may go on to become big players in cinema but they'l certainly fail to put THE CONTRACTER on their resume


This film was horrible. The script is COMPLETELY unrealistic yet it is written to take place in the real-world, the editing and lighting effects are worse than most first projects in film school.

I do not recommend this film to anyone who: A) knows any detail about the world of police or covert operations. B) knows any detail about film making or appreciation.

I do recommend this film to the average or below-average mind, I think it would be enjoyable if I was a dumber. If you must watch this film on a full mind, I highly recommend some kind of inebriation

It is a total waste of what little production value it has.


I read in the papers that W.Snipes was broke so no wonder he would take parts in low budget projects like The Contractor.He is just the next action star to join a growing club:the penniless action stars of the 90s (Van Damme,Segal,Lundgren,Snipes). Here he stars the lead in a cheap action flick which was shot in Bulgaria( we are supposed to believe that the location is London, like only a complete moron would buy that)The story is the one of 1000 other movies: retired special forces good guy gets hired by the government again to do a wet job- after that government wants to get rid of him- good guy gets away after killing bad guys (was that a spoiler? guess not!) The star of the movie: the little girl (Eliza Bennett) outperforms everybody else of the cast!!!One star is for her plus one star for eye candy Lena Headey, makes 2 stars. Only for die hard Snipes fans!Everybody else:avoid!


In the words of Charles Dance's character in this film, "Bollocks!" No plot, no character development, and utterly unbelievable.

Full of stuff that just doesn't happen in the real world (since when were British police inspectors armed with handguns in shoulder holsters?). Full of mistakes (Bulgarian trains in London?). Full of dull and artificial dialogue. And the directing/editing is awful - wobbly hand-held camera shots that add nothing to the film except a vague feeling of seasickness; confusing jump-cuts; no structure.

Wesley Snipes' character is totally unsympathetic - why should we care what happens to him? Direct to video? Direct to the dustbin!


It is incredible!! ..yes, someone before me wrote that it was a time wasting to seat and watch this film.. it is! Don't do so! I'm totally rankled! I liked Wesley Snipes, and I founded funny that he played his name's meaning in a movie. Anyway, I wanted to see this film (at home only of course) but now (just after) I am absolutely disappointed! It was his worst movie ever. Inwatchable!! Bad actor-play! Bad cameraman! Bad scenario! ..Only one good think: that wonderful girl! Must be a manikin surely! Eeeeh!! MB ..10 lines minimum?! I don't want to waste you're time anymore to read my opinion! I hope, i was clear and under-stable, because English is not my native method of speaking. So have grate time, and see good films, like i try too.. Peace!


A lot of themes or parts of the story is the same as in Leon, then other parts felt like some other movie, I don't know which, but there are an familiar feeling over the whole movie. It was kind of nice to watch, but it would have been fantastic! if the story would have been more original. The theme little girl, bad assassin from Leon, is just tweaked a little. The opening scenes are really good :-) It is strange that people like to fight in the kitchen, in the movies :-) My biggest problem was to remember which parts was from Leon, Nikita and if they where from the French or American version. If you have not seen Leon, then this is a good movie. If you liked this movie, then I can recommend Leon.

Best Regards /Rick


After watching this I thought to myself, there are either too few good writers & directors or lots of producers.

At any rate, this is a terrible movie. Terrible in a way that it's not fun, but rather makes you grit your teeth and quiver. Makes you shout "this is wrong" at the movie. Immersion is zero. By now most of you are probably used to the terrible errors/weirdness-es in movies that has computers hackers etc. in them. This movie is like that in every aspect.

The only good thing about the movie is the little girl Emily, brilliantly played by Eliza Bennett. I hope she becomes big, and make this ..thing at least worth something.

Do yourself a favor. Don't watch this. There is not even proper action in it. Total waste of time.


haha! you have to just smile and smile if you actually made it all the way through this movie. it like says something about myself i guess. the movie itself was created i think as some sort of psychological test, or like some sort of drug, to take you to a place you have never been before. When Wittgenstein wrote his famous first philosophical piece the tractacus (sp?) he said it was meaningless and useless, but if you read it, after you were done, it would take you to a new level, like a ladder, and then you could throw away the work and see things with clarity and true understanding. this movie is the same i think.

As a movie it is without a doubt, the worst movie i have seen in a long long time in such a unique way. first of all, this is snipes. i loved watching this guy kick ass in various movies. and i have suffered through a few weak ones. however, although you know the movie might suck, you would never suspect that it could be as bad as it actually was. which is the fun of it. i mean this is snipes. you know it might be good, but it will be alright, right? smile.

so this thing on every level is pure boredom, pure unoriginality. the reference to the professional is both dead on and obvious, yet so poorly done as to be comical. there is not one character in this movie that is interesting, in the least. and to make the whole thing more surreal, they have a soundtrack that sort of sounds like parts to various Bourne identity type movies, only isn't quite right. in fact, although it seems close to action movie background music, it just so happens it is done in a manner that will grate on you fantastically.

then all the scenes in the total pitch black, where honestly since the characters are so flat, you don't really care whats going to happen, but regardless, after it happens and someone is killed, you just say to yourself, was i supposed to see that? what else? how about scenes with blinding, obnoxious flashing at a strobe lights pace, for a period of time that is too long to bear. sure let's throw that in. how bout this though. when you are straining and your eyes cant handle it any longer, do some more of these in the dark kills where you really don't see what happened. and on top of that, lets face it you don't care. you were past bored way from the beginning.

so i drifted in and out a couple times, but i caught almost all of this movie. and it becomes something you can watch, without something that engages your mind on any level, therefore, it becomes something you can effectively zone out with, and begin to think about your life, where its going, where its been, what we are as people.

and that... that is the true magic of this film.


The US appear to run the UK police who all run around armed to the teeth and did you know that CID officers change into uniform when they stop work and go down the pub! This has got to be one of the most unrealistic films with the worst portrayal of "real" UK police that has ever been foisted on the unsuspecting public. I can see that Mr Snipes might have needed the money to pay his back tax bill but what the heck a good actor like Charles Dance was doing in it is a mystery.

Worse than the worse low budget "B" film of the 50's. An hour and a half of suicide and time I will never get back.

Avoid it like the veritable plague.


Just a warning... This is the worst movie I have seen in years... I couldn't watch it to the end... It is a pure waste of time... I really feel sorry for Snipes that he ended up in such a movie. There really is not much to say about it. Horrible acting, incredibly bad lines, story, everything. The only reason I would advise you to watch this movie is if you really want to see how a movie shouldn't be. Just to tell you one scene: the police are searching for Snipes, and they are surrounding the building with helicopters and cars, they are shooting around inside the building, but still they are whispering so that Snipes doesn't suspect a thing.


The only reason I remember this movie is because it was (and still is) the biggest waste of time and money ever spent. I was 17 and my friend was 18. We were the age when action movies were our thing to enjoy most (ok 2nd most). We walked out feeling so insulted, we wanted our money back, but the time could never be regained.

The editing is what killed this movie. As the truck gets attacked by more and more vehicles with rocket launchers attached the movie completely insults the intelligence of the audience by having these rogue bad guys in 4x4 VW Bugs shooting rockets at the truck. Please, rockets at a truck known to be carrying plutonium? What's worse is the these VW's manage to get 15-18 shots off of a 4 rocket launcher. You would see on VW with 4 rockets fire 2 of them, cut around the truck with the last one attached, come back a second later with two rockets attached, fire another, then go in front of the truck and now it's back to a full set of 4 rockets.

We toughed it out hoping for a big finish that never happened. It looks like they just ran out of money and stopped.

Just ridiculous.


An okay film, with a fine leading lady, but a terrible leading man. Stephan Jenkins, who plays the husband, is a truly bad actor. Joyce Hyser, on the other hand, is the movie's saving grace. She's the best actor of the bunch.

NOTE* the first comment, by the fellow who heaped praise upon the movie (and, according to his IMDB.com account, has only written ONE review -- and guess for what movie?) is obviously a plant. While the movie is nicely shot, it's by no means subtle or great or whatever other hypobolic descriptions the reviewer used.

"Art of Revenge" is a fair movie, but it's a big tease. It offers up all manner of sexual situations but never goes through with it. Like watching a Skin Flick on Cinemax, but with all the "naughty bits" edited out.

The film, as a whole, is a bit unfocused and the ending, and much of the third act, is really a big mess. There's a twist ending, of course, since every movie nowadays finds it necessary to have a twist ending.

A 4 out of 10.


There is only one reason to watch this movie if you are not related to one of the stars or a producer: actress Nichole Hiltz. She is the show in this slow moving and wildly unlikely story of revenge. Directed by Simon Gornick, the film stars Joyce Hyser as a betrayed wife who decides to seek revenge on her cheatin' spouse. Oh, but not by conventional means. She plans a total guerrilla war and recruits bad girl Nichole Hiltz as her weapon of choice. She wants Nichole (as Tuesday) to get close to her ex (the handsome but dull Stephan Jenkins, who should stick to music) to embarrass him and ruin his life. David DeLuise is good in his few brief moments, and former "Crime Story" star Anthony Dennison is given virtually nothing to do but scowl. Hiltz on the other hand comes off at various times as sexy and playful, then evil and devious. She also handles vulnerable and "maybe a bit psychotic" well. She's also quite hot (though there's no naughty bits show) so you can understand how she might be able to get to any guy she is aimed at. But the performance is kind of wasted in this movie, which is just not edgy or interesting enough to recommend.


You've heard it said to live every moment as if it's your last? Whether it's your last day or not, I beg you not to waste any part of it watching this! Nichole Hiltz provides some nice moments of eye candy (that alas, stays wrapped) and David DeLuise shows why he should stick to the small screen or dog food commercials. A shallow, unrealistic plot with dreadful dialogue means there is no "Art" in the "Art of Revenge".


blows my mind how this movie got made. i watched it while i worked at home writing emails and answering the phone -- i ONLY watched it because i hoped the "revenge" part would be good. needless to say, the revenge and the forced plot twists were not worth the emails during which they were watched. in fact, i'm not even sure what happened at the end any more. the acting was as bad as re-enactment scenarios on the "FBI Files" show -- by far, the worst re-enactments (really only "Arrest and Trial" can possibly be as bad at re-enactments). i didn't even know that the leading man was in Third Eye Blind until i looked the movie up here on IMDb, but its obvious why he hasn't made any movies since. i hope he is a good singer.


This 2003 made for TV movie was shown on a women's channel, naturally. As a man, why do I even attempt to watch this? I don't know, but I should have my head examined. And director and writer Simon Gornick should be ashamed of himself to give men an injustice as he does. He takes away any strength and conviction a man could have by having several boring women do him in. Number one bore is Joyce Hyser as the wife. I couldn't wait for him to drop her. Her revenge was silly and stupid and very confusing through most of the movie. The other femme fatale was Nichole Hiltz, about the coldest person you'd ever want to meet. Her looks didn't warrant our leading man to go that ape over her and her acting was so obvious, only a fool could miss. Definitely a loser. Tembi Locke was pretty good, but slow on the uptake as to the slut seducing her own husband, again played as a guy who is a loser, by David DeLuise. Rounding out our cast of losers is Anthony Denison as a boss who has little to do but scowl at our hero. Stephen Jenkins as our hero, or should I say victim, was not that good. At first I thought he just a bad actor, but later I believed it. He never got the part off the ground and was repetitive throughout. Although, as a man, I became enraged when the two women got away with it. Men, beware of this channel that puts men down and women get away even with murder. LMN is the channel. Beware. Note: Having watched this a second time by mistake, I am convinced on my initial thoughts. Especially on the writer/director, Simon Gornick. I still believe he has disgraced the male species and should be horse whipped. Only saving grace in this film is Tembi Locke who doesn't have a chance to show her talents with the awful acting of Jenkins, Hyser, Hiltz and DeLuise around her. Plus the stupid plot that only makes it worse. Down with Gornick's movie and his vacant stars in it. Please LMN don't show this trite again.


A novel by Remarque. A cast that looks great on paper. A left-wing refugee struggling to remain in Paris between the wars. A Gestapo officer undercover.

It's a pity there's no synergy here. The bits and pieces never coalesce.

Stories about left-wing refugees in France don't have to be this dull. Read Arthur Koestler's memoir "Scum of the Earth" (if you can find it). Or his chilling "Dialogue With Death" (ditto).

To me, the only interest in this film lies in some of the incidental details.

The leads spend a lot of time drinking calvados, the Norman apple brandy. I welcome any prompting to have a nip of calvados myself. It certainly made this film appear to pass more quickly. But, according to the film, it's only sold in cheap, low-class saloons. Vive le tabac parisien! That's what I say. References to intoxicating liquors do abound here; that would seem to be a preoccupation of the scenarists.

I enjoy films set in France because it can be amusing waiting for the inevitable full-size alcohol ad to pop up on a wall in the background. I wasn't disappointed. This time it was for Byrrh, a very unusual choice. This film would rate a 10 if only we were judging it on the refinement of its booze murals.

The film's indifferent score is by Louis Gruenberg. Gruenberg is best known -- if you can call it that -- for his opera "The Emperor Jones", based on the O'Neill play. It premièred at roughly the same time as the film version starring Paul Robeson. The opera survives today in a recording or two by Lawrence Tibbett. It should surface again soon though; they're running out of potentially marketable operas to revive.

Opera seems an appropriate subject to mention here since Charles Boyer's character operates under his "Czech" aliases. Two of them are "Wozzeck" and "Gunther", both prominent roles in German opera. Is that just coincidence?

Name-dropping just seems to be part of this film. Notice that they call up "Himmelstoss" on the phone. Himmelstoss happens to be one of the main characters in Remarque's earlier "All Quiet on the Western Front".

Well, the in-jokes are all in place; guess there wasn't time to develop any drama.


This stuffy melodrama is quite easily the worst film starring Ingrid Bergman that I've seen. Even her luminous screen presence can't save this insufferably slow and meandering movie that's nearly impossible to sit through without fast-forwarding a lot of it.

Only for die-hard Bergman fans; others are very likely to fall asleep. I suggest you to watch "For Whom the Bell Tolls" instead.


One of those, "Why was this made?" movies. The romance is very hard to swallow. It is one of those romances, that, suddenly, "click" - they are in love. The movie is filled with long pauses and uncomfortable moments - the drive-in restaurant being the most notable. Charles Grodin does a credible job but for most of the movie it's just him and Louise Lasser. Ask yourself, do you want to watch Grodin with his neurosis and Lasser with her neurosis together for a hour and half?


You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. "Don't give up your day job" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.

Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. ("You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...")

This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. ("All I can think about is food," he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...

(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...

In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By "evil" perhaps I mean "inexplicable" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.

By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: "I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT..." [big dramatic pause] "...I don't think you'd like it at all."


No, I haven't read the Stephen King novel "Thinner," but I choked down the film version. Horror movies are an acquired taste. Regular movies give an audience a hero to applaud as he strives to achieve a goal. In horror movies, audiences are invited to savor the demise of characters. In director Tom Holland's low-fat but tasteless revenge chiller "Thinner," nobody wins and everybody deserves the bite that is put on them. Gluttonous New England attorney Billy Halleck (Robert John Burke of "Robocop 3") has a weight problem. Although he rocks the bathroom scales at 300 pounds, he appears happily married to a trim, delectable wife, Heidi (Lucinda Jenney of "G.I. Jane") with a yeasty teenage daughter.

Fat doesn't mean stupid here. Halleck displays his sagacity in court when he wins an acquittal verdict for sleazy Mafia chieftain Richie Ginelli (Joe Mantegna of "House of Games"). Driving home from a victory feast, Billy hits an old gypsy woman crossing the street and kills her. A cover-up occurs, and Halleck's friends get him out of the soup. The disgruntled gypsy father Taduz Lemke (Michael Constantine of "Skidoo") retaliates with a curse on the corpulent lawyer and the two town officials that exonerated him. Suddenly, Halleck finds himself shedding pounds no matter how much chow he chomps. When he begs the vengeful Gypsy to lift the curse, the old man refuses. Desperately, Halleck resorts to Richie. While Halleck struggles with the gypsies to remove the hex, he learns that his loyal wife has turned his attentions to the town's hotshot doctor.

"Thinner" qualifies as not only laughably inept horror flick, but the filmmakers also rely on stereotypes of men and women. Tom Holland, who directed "Child's Play" (1988), and scenarist Michael McDowell, have served up such a slipshod script that you cannot relish watching Billy get his just dessert and shrivel up. "Thinner" boasts few shocks and fewer surprises. The filmmakers may have regurgitated King's novel, but they have filleted whatever sense of horror and humor it contained. Holland and McDowell introduce characters, such as the Mafioso, then inexplicably let them off the hook. One minor character shows up long enough to die and have a chicken's head stuffed in his mouth.

The stereotypical behavior of the characters may offend audiences, too. "Thinner" depicts women as oversexed vixens and men as swine. When Halleck sneaks home from a clinic, he finds his doctor's sports car parked at his house. His suspicions ripen into jealousy and he cooks up a scheme to get the curse transferred to this wife. Even the premature ending lacks any satirical flavor. Oscar-winning special effects wizard Greg Cannom of "Van Helsing" and make-up artist Bob Laden do a fabulous job beefing up actor Robert John Burke to look obese. They succeed, too, in making him shrivel.

Only die-hard Stephen King fans will be able to stomach this misogynistic gooledyspook.


Just another example of why Stepehn King's books should not be made into movies. (Even Carrie, one of the best, is ruined in the adaptation from book to screen.) The premise of the story revolves around a fat lawyer, always on a diet, who "accidentally" kills an old gypsy woman. In court, with the help of the judge and the local police chief, he gets off, even though the accident was sort of his fault as he was not paying attention as he was driving. The father of the dead gypsy woman places a curse on the 3, with our main character, Billy (the lawyer) getting thinner and thinner by the day. Though the movie kept with the book, for the most part, and has your typical King ending, the acting was stilted and felt forced. We went from one scene to the next without much of anything in between, sort of like reading acts in a play. King himself made a cameo in the movie (sort of like Dave Barry), which reinforces my belief that authors should stay just that: authors. Leave the acting to actors. Not that anyone in this movie was that great. I've seen the major characters in movies where they were much better.


I was really looking forward to seeing this film, but after watching it I was really disappointed. The best bit was when Stephen King was in it. Rober John Berk cannot act to save his life and neither can any of the others. A few of the performances even made me laugh out loud! The film was was not as I imagined it, after reading the book which was awesome, I imagined it darker and a lot scarier. If i was Stephen, I would be really mad!

I don't know why they changed the ending, I thought the ending of the book was very good. If you just found out the pie killed your daughter, you wouldn't feed it to anyone else would you?!

Book was so much better!


The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror.