In 1925, childhood friends Marie Dressler (as Maggie Warren) and Polly Moran (as Lizzie Praskins) oversee the wedding of their children, Anita Page (as Helen) and Norman Foster (as John). Before the celebration, Ms. Dressler turns the reigns of her small town bank over to her son, Mr. Foster. Six years later, the Great Depression brings many bank closures, and financial insecurity. Banker Foster is able to survive, due to mother Dressler's wise planning. But, Ms. Moran is worried about her fortune, and loudly demands a complete withdrawal. Other "Warren Bank" customers hear Moran's rant, and start questioning their own solvency. Soon, the family is in financial crisis.

Dressler's huge critical and financial film hit "Emma" had been released early in the year, and MGM had to have wanted to get a new Dressler film out as soon as possible. Dressler's 1931 hits, "Reducing" and "Politics" were still making a lot of money; and, Dressler had become 1932's US #1 Box Office Star, according to the industry standard list compiled by Quigley Publications. "Prosperity" certainly celebrated Dressler's status, but the production appears uncharacteristically sloppy, and rushed. The cast does well, considering. Some more care in direction and editing, and some retakes, would have helped apparently, they needed it in theaters for the holidays.

**** Prosperity (11/12/32) Sam Wood ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Anita Page, Norman Foster


Yes, Marie Dresler drinks prune juice that she thinks is poison and she exits running.

Dresler is good. Never my cup of tea but she is a solid performer who surely holds the screen.

I watched this for Polly Moran, whom I've seen elsewhere. Here, Moran is OK -- just OK -- as Dressler's shrewish friend/foe. Too bad she has sunk into nearly total oblivion.

The plot is good hearted. Bad guys try to rob the townspeople. Dressler triumphs and all ends well.

I do wonder about the central plot mechanism: bonds. This came out during the Depression so maybe everyone was familiar with bonds and what they can do if used well and if used wrongly. I, however, not of that era, am vaguely familiar with them. They're like stocks only different, right? It seems odd to build a story about The Little Man around a somewhat sophisticated monetary entity.


This one was marred by potentially great matches being cut very short.

The opening match was a waste of the Legion of Doom, but I guess the only way they could have been eliminated by Demolition was a double-DQ. Otherwise, Mr. Perfect would have had to put in overtime. Kerry von Erich, the I-C champ, was wasted here. And this was the third ppv in a row where Perfect jobbed. Remember, before that he never lost a match.

The second match was very good, possibly the best of the night. Ted DiBiase and the Undertaker were excellent, while the Jim Neidhart had one of his WWF highlights, pinning the Honky Tonk Man. Koko B. Ware continued his tradition of being the first to put over a new heel (remember the Big Bossman and Yokozuna?). This was a foreshadowing of Bret Hart's singles career, as he came back from two-on-one and almost survived the match. He and DiBiase put on a wrestling clinic, making us forget that the point of the match was DiBiase's boring feud with Dusty Rhodes.

Even though the Visionaries were the first team to have all of its members survive (and only the second since '87 to have four survivors), this match was not a squash. This was the longest match of the night, and Jake did a repeat of his '88 performance when he was left alone against four men and dominated. I think he could have actually pulled off an upset. These days, the match would have ended the other way around.

One of the shortest SS matches ever was also one of its most surprising. Possibly the most underrated wrestler ever, Tito Santana was the inspirational wrestler of the night, putting on war paint and pinning Boris Zukhov, Tanaka, and even the Warlord in the final survival match. It was so strange to see him put over so overwhelmingly, then go right back to his mediocre career. Sgt. Slaughter also did well, getting rid of Volkoff and the Bushwhackers, but that just wasn't a surprise. Tito was.

I think the only point of the survival match was to have Hogan and the Warrior win together at the end.

This show was boring and the matches were too short. The Undertaker's debut was cool, but Tito Santana is the reason I will remember this one.


Here are the matches . . . (adv. = advantage)

The Warriors (Ultimate Warrior, Texas Tornado and Legion of Doom) v The Perfect Team (Mr Perfect, Ax, Smash and Crush of Demolition): Ax is the first to go in seconds when Warrior splashes him for the pin (4-3 adv. Warriors). I knew Ax wasn't a healthy man but if he was that unhealthy why bother have him on the card? This would be his last PPV. Eventually, both Legion of Doom and Demolition job out cheaply via double disqualification (2-1 adv. Warriors). Perfect applies the Perfect Plex on Texas Tornado for the pin. He then attempts the same on Warrior but Warrior no-sells it and kicks out. Warrior comes back with a splash to pin Perfect and become the sole survivor. 5/10

The Dream Team (Dusty Rhodes, Koko B Ware and The Hart Foundation v Million Dollar Team (Ted Dibiase, Mystery Partner and Rhythm and Blues): The mystery partner is The Undertaker and, on his debut, makes an impact disposing of Koko straight away with The Tombstone(Monsoon still manages to say his correct height, weight and finishing move while pretending not to know who he is) making it 4-3 to Dibiase's Team. Niedhart power-slams Honky for the pin (3-3) and his career with the WWF is over. Shortly afterwards, it is Niedhart who falls victim to Dibiase with help from Virgil (3-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Rhodes next after an Undertaker double axe-handle off the top rope but doesn't leave quietly attacking Brother Love. Undertaker goes after Dusty and gets counted out despite not being the legal man (2-1 adv. Dibiase's Team). Almost straight after, Greg gets caught in a cradle by Hart trying to put the figure four leg-lock on him and gets pinned. It comes down to Hart v Dibiase and after a few minutes of nice wrestling, Bret gets his body-cross reversed by Dibiase for the pin. Dibiase is the sole survivor. At least Hart is put to good use. 6/10

The Vipers (Jake 'The Snake' Roberts, 'Superfly' Jimmy Snuka and The Rockers) v Visionaries (Rick 'Model' Martel, Warlord and Power and Glory): After spending some time in the ring, Marty Jannetty gets power slammed by Warlord as he comes off the top rope for the pin (4-3 adv. Visionaries). Snuka gets pinned in seconds by Martel who reverses his body cross (4-2 adv. Visionaries). Michaels gets caught in the Power Plex and pinned by Roma (4-1 adv. Visionaries). It is now Roberts against four men resembling his Survivor Series effort two years before. Despite hitting Warlord with the DDT, Roberts gets counted out chasing after Martel. The Visionaries are the first team in Survivor Series history to completely survive as one. Not much here worth watching to be honest as the psychology is rushed. 3/10

Hulkamaniacs (Hulk Hogan, 'Hacksaw' Jim Duggan, Bigbossman and Tugboat) v Natural Disasters (Earthquake, Dino Bravo, Barbarian and Haku): One Bossman slam eliminates Haku early in the bout (4-3 adv. Hulkamaniacs). Duggan gets his 2 by 4 out after whacking Earthquake with it to get disqualified (3-3). Bravo commits career suicide shortly afterwards by allowing Hogan to cradle him for the pin (3-2 adv. Hulkamaniacs). Earthquake manages to overcome Bossman with two elbow drops for the pin shortly afterwards (2-2). Hogan gets beat down and FINALLY Tugboat gets a tag (who knew he was there at this point?), he wrestles for about 30 seconds before getting counted out with Earthquake. Only Hogan and Barbarian left. Barbarian puts in some nice offence but inevitably gets caught in the big boot and leg drop for the pin. Hogan is the sole survivor. 4/10

The Alliance (Nikolai Volkoff, Tito Santana and Bushwhackers) v Mercenaries (Sgt Slaughter, Boris Zhukov and Orient Express): All of the Mercanaries wore camouflage face paint. Lightning quick pins here with Santana pinning Zhukov in his last PPV in seconds (4-3 adv. Alliance). There wasn't even a Bolshevik showdown. Bushwhackers hit Sato with The Battering Ram even though Tanaka was the legal man (4-2 adv. Alliance) and would be his last appearance on WWF PPV as The Orient Express get repackaged. Tanaka follows Sato when Santana stuns him with the flying forearm (4-1 adv. Alliance). Despite Slaughter getting in the ring against four men, he eliminates Volkoff (who's career is over after this), Butch and Luke in that order with relative ease. Finally, Santana beats Slaughter by disqualification when General Adnan hits him with Iraqi flag. At last some interesting booking even though the match was awful. Santana takes the upset victory as the sole survivor and becomes his last finest hour. 3/10

The egg hatches and it's Hector Guerrerro in a silly outfit. He dances with Gene Okerlund and gets booed by the crowd while Piper and Monsoon pretend they are enjoying it.

Match of Survival: Ultimate Warrior, Hulk Hogan and Tito Santana v Warlord, Power and Glory, Rick 'Model' Martel and 'Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase: Just merely another catalogue of eliminations as Santana pins Warlord in seconds with flying forearm at least avenging his previous Summerslam defeat (4-3 adv. Dibiase's team). Dibiase stun guns Santana afterwards for the pin (4-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Hogan kicks out of The Power Plex and proceeds to pin Roma after a clothesline, effectively killing off Power and Glory's push (3-2 adv. Dibiase's team). Hogan eliminates Martel by count-out and Dibiase with the leg drop for the pin (2-1 adv. Hogan's team). Hogan finally allows Warrior into the match who quickly disposes of former nemesis Hercules after a splash. A very predictable ending to the point of nauseous. 2/10

Overall, too many matches and too little time obviously had a detrimental effect as the wrestlers were almost waiting on a conveyor belt to be pinned. Most of the heels were decimated by Warrior and Hogan which is a poor way to handle a great roster of wrestlers.


I'd have to say that this was a little embarrassing for the 'King of the Cowboys'; made in 1948, the picture came out a decade after Roy Rogers' earliest pictures in which he had a starring role. Roy's character comes off as a bit clueless in this one, along with his female co-star Jane Frazee, who alternates her allegiance between Roy and Robert Livingston, portraying chief bad guy Bill Regan. The whole story seems kind of muddled, with missed opportunities for what could have been an entertaining hour or so. Like the legend of the 'Hangman's Hotel' for example, which says the hanged man comes to life at midnight. With Andy Devine in the cast as Cookie Bullfincher, you would think the story would get a little mileage out of that set up. Instead, you have some convoluted proceedings that would have been better served if this had been a Bowery Boys flick. It was a sad attempt at a haunted hotel gimmick that relied on poor old Genevieve, who truth be told, wound up getting more screen time than Trigger, who's contract as 'Smartest Horse in the Movies' didn't have anything to say about getting upstaged by a mule. And then you have Foy Willing and his Riders of the Purple Sage replacing Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers for your musical interlude. I don't know about you, but it was already half way into the picture and I was still looking for Pat Brady - oh well!

Yet there was still an interesting element to be found here if you were looking hard enough, and that turned out to be Roy's athletic dismount of Trigger while still on the run from the bad guys. OK, it was probably a stunt double, but I haven't seen that one before in a couple hundred Westerns.

Jane Frazee does the honors as the female lead in this picture, as she would in four other films opposite Roy in the 1947/1948 time frame. In "Under California Stars", she appeared as Andy Devine's cousin, appropriately named Caroline Bullfincher. You're never quite convinced what side she'll come in on in this story though, since she starts out pretending to be someone she's not, and winds up on the good guy side almost by accident.

Fans of the old Laurel and Hardy films might be as surprised as I was to see James Finlayson here as the Sheriff of Sintown. I would have liked a little more comedy relief written into his role, but he played it pretty straight after all. I had to wonder, when it was all over, why he and old Vanderpool (Charle Coleman) wound up in the mine shaft with Cookie when there was no reason for that to be. Just a way to close it out I guess, with about as much thought as went into the rest of the picture. I hate to be that harsh, but if you've seen enough Roy Rogers flicks, you've got to know that this was not one of his finer efforts.

Say, Sintown - I wonder if that's the same place that grew up to be Sin City?


Roy Rogers and company try to bring "Sintown" back to life - it's a ghost town which may go boom if silver mining is successful. Andy Devine (as "Cookie") slapsticks around. Jane Frazee (as Carol) loses a piece of her bitches to Mr. Rogers' sharp leer. Foy Willing and the Riders of the Purple Sage stand-in (or, is that sing-in?) for the A.W.O.L. Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers. James Finlayson (from the Laurel and Hardy films) adds to the "slapstick" look of "Grand Canyon Trail". A loose floor board delivers the winning comedy performance. Mr. Devine's mule kicks its heels. There are energetic human performances, too - but, the material isn't Grand.

** Grand Canyon Trail (1948) William Witney ~ Roy Rogers, Jane Frazee, Andy Devine


This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.

It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality.

This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.

It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.


How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.

Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.


You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).

And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.

What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!


This is probably one of the worst French movies I have seen so far, among more than 100 french movies I have ever seen. Terrible screenplay and very medioacre/unprofessional acting causes the directing powerless. with all that it doesn't matter how nice western french scene and fancy music can add to the story.

One of the key weakness of this movie is that these two characters do NOT attract people, as an audience I don't care what happens to them.

It amazed me how this movie won jury prize in cannes, man, I love almost all the awarded movies in cannes, but not this one. A major disappointment for me.


The first ten minutes of "Just Looking" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.

Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like "Kids" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.

Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. "For Better Or Worse" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 1/10


Although a film with Bruce Willis is always worth watching, you better skip this one. I watched this one on television, so I didn't have to plunk down cash for it. Lucky me.

The plot develops slowly, very slowly. Although the first 30 minutes or so are quite believable, it gets more and more unbelievable towards the end. It is highly questionable, if a seasoned soldier like Lt. Waters would disobey direct orders. And even if he would, if the rest of his platoon would. They know he puts them in direct danger, and they know they will certainly die if they follow him, but what the heck, he is our Lt. so let's do what he says (despite the direct orders, remember).

Still, there are some nice scenes in this movie. They somewhat save a village, where the total population is being massacred by the rebels. Well, they save a dozen villagers or so, the rest was already killed. The strange part of it, that they did take the trucks which the rebels left behind. They rather go on foot. Maybe because the roads are unsafe, but there was no explanation for it. Anyway. I think this was what earned the movie the one point I gave it.

What made this movie an insult to the brain and hence completely unbelievable is that a group of 7 soldiers can kill of so many rebels without being hurt or killed themselves. Only near the end they loose a few comrades. And that is only because they have to fight of an army of nearly 500 or more. Can you believe that?

They fight of an army of so many, kill hundreds of them, and only loose a few of themselves. And they have rounds and round of ammo. Never run out of it. Grenades and claymore mines, an M60 machine gun and even an RPG. Where do they get this stuff. Carrying it around or what? They even got a laptop which shows them the activity of enemy rebels. And this laptop has a battery which goes on for days. Really? Who think up this crap.

I guess if you turn off your brain completely and accept that the rebels are a bunch of idiots, you give this movie a high rating. If not, skip this one. It saves you time.


...for the Lt to have chosen this one. First, the film wasn't horrible, it was just Hollywood. Worst case I-need-this-to-happen-or-we-have-no-movie scenario: if Willis' mission was to save the doctor, but she was adamant that her "people" make it out of the missionary, he would have put her on that first chopper and marched those refugees to the border without her. He would not have compromised his package for the refugees. That's not how it works. But, as I pointed out, this is Hollywood, we must have drama. This is why we make movies, because reality isn't quite so complicated. However, I did think that Willis and the good doctor had workable chemistry. That said, there are also some well done battle scenes in the film. It's not a waste of time, "Tears of the Sun" is worth the dvd rental fee. Check it out on a rainy day and you'll be satisfied.


If you like to be entertained, do not go see this movie. If you like to see heroics of war, do not go see this movie. If you like to see good acting and an excellent screenplay, do not go see this movie. If you like typical hollywood war films that end just in time to give a politically charged appeal to the public about the greatness and glory of war, GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Otherwise, don't waste your time. I am always interested in war movies because I think that if they are done well, they can TEACH us something about the paradoxical and worthless qualities of war. This film shows a bunch of guys running around the countryside, saying whorrible cliche lines, doing the most predictable things, and defending the oppressed with the same exact force and brutality that was being given to the oppressed. This film is a disgrace to filmmaking and to the United States of America! Can you imagine being a person from Europe or Africa, or any other country and watching this, being told that this is how Americans truly are? No wonder everyone hates us! Please, please, please, don't waste your time on this piece of junk; if you must, wait and rent it. 4/10


This is just typical Bruce Willis, action movie schtick. Watch it with some popcorn and your buddies. Rent it, to save money.

None of it is realistic. The battles aren't realistic. The soldiers aren't realistic. The victims aren't realistic. And why was Tom Skerritt's character talking to Willis from the DECK OF THE CARRIER? What's up with that? He can't do that from inside the ship?

Of course, Bruce W. gets a machete wound. There's a bunch of average explosions.

If this movie accurately represents the Navy SEALS, then don't get stuck in Africa expecting them to come rescue you!

The noble attack on the village bothered me the most. "Front row seats to an ethnic cleansing"...as Bruce looks at the slaughter going on in town. So what does he do? He crawls into town on his belly. Yep. How many died while they were putzing around? Oh well...a body count was needed, I guess.

And if that one African guy was so important, why didn't he get on the chopper with the elderly and children? Can he say "Duh?"

Finally, the movie was very dark. Not just in plot, but so much happens at night it was difficult to make out what was going on.

Rent it.


Considering the risk of showing same-sex relationships before the late 1980's, Personal Best could have done better to play the same-sex relationship between Hemingway (Chris Cahill) and Donnelly (Tory Skinner) as a more than experimental phase of Cahill's life.

It seems to me that the creators of this movie threw in the same-sex relationship between two fairly attractive women in order to attract viewers. Also consider the 90 seconds of exposing the crotches of several women jumping backwards over a high jump pole. This random scene had VERY LITTLE relevance to the movie and it appeared as though this was done merely to keep the audience interested in this bland movie. I suppose the producers were trying to counteract the boring plot and the even more boring setting of the movie (the 1980 Oregon Track and Field Competition).

This review may seem harsh, but it is the truth. The exploitation of young Muriel Hemingway's body and the same-sex relationship ruined any credit that I would have given to this film.

Pepper Thompson


Bob Clampett's 'Porky's Poor Fish' is a so-so cartoon populated by appalling puns and one or two nice moments. Set in Porky's Fish Shoppe, 'Porky's Poor Fish' occupies an uncomfortable area between a standard black 'n' white Porky cartoon and one of the books-come-to-life Merrie Melodies that were popular at that time. Typically of many of the early Porky cartoons, Porky is far from the star, appearing only in a rather stilted opening musical number and the climax of the film. For the rest of the time the star is a scraggly cat who sees the fish shop as an opportunity for a free meal but gets more than he bargained for. Unfortunately, the audience gets far less than they bargained for. As was sometimes the case in the books-come-to-life series, the spotlight is thrown on punning signs which could have worked just as well in a non-animated medium. Laughs are scarce and, while the cartoon is just about saved by Clampett's energetic direction, there is very little at all to recommend 'Porky's Poor Fish' over any of the other below-par early Porky cartoons.


As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this "British Little Big Horn" was truly boring.

The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into "staging" and were determined to get their money's worth.

Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.

There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.


Billy Crystal co-wrote, co-produced and stars in this extremely safe and comfy comedy-drama about fathers and sons, adult irresponsibility, and growing old. Billy plays a heart surgeon who has a heart attack (ha ha) which causes him to seek out his estranged father (Alan King), a movie-extra who fancies himself a big star. The script is sub-Neil Simon nonsense with one-liners galore, a flat, inexpressive direction by Henry Winkler (stuck in sitcom mode), and family-conflict at the ready. Crystal and King try their best, but King is over-eager and frequently over-the-top. JoBeth Williams has another one of her thankless roles, but manages to bring her innate, down-home class to the proverbial girlfriend character. It's a comedy, I guess, but one that blinks back the tears...shamefully. ** from ****


I like Billy Crystal, and I thought it would be fun to watch this film, since I know he admired Alan King and they would be funny together. I thought I had seen all Billy's movies but couldn't remember this one, and now I know why. It's so full of clichés and phony emotion; you can smell each scene coming (and going!). Billy doesn't even get to be funny very often. He's too busy trying to cry fake tears or show his angst at how badly his father let him down. Alan King himself is fairly likable, as is the subplot about being an extra in the movies. But what a coincidence that Billy just happens to visit his father just as a major health crisis takes place, etc. etc. Or that two busy doctors can just shut down their practices to moon around in LA. And when the end comes, boy, does it come quickly! Almost as though the writers realized they had painted themselves into a corner and the only way out was to do a death scene. Mostly disappointing with a few glimmers of good humor.


(BIG SPOILERS) I've seen one other Takashi Miike film, and that was the very disturbing and brutal 'Audition', which was an examination of the Japanese ideals of femininity! In 'Visitor Q'- which I think means 'Visitor Question'- he examines, in a very disturbingly gross way, the family unit. Miike's surreal vision of a dysfunctional family almost tries to be Lynchian in terms of confusion and film-making, but ultimately lacks the style and intrigue. We, the audience, are introduced to a bizarre array of scenarios from the opening scene with the father figure (Kenichi Endo- who was actually quite good) paying for sex with his displaced daughter (Fujiko). Then, as the father returns home, he is struck on the head by "the visitor" (Kazushi Watanabe) wielding a fairly sizeable rock, and for some reason, they both end up back at the family home. The mother (Shungiku Uchida) is beaten and bullied by her son (Jun Muto) who is also beaten and bullied by his school peers. When the visitor enters the home, he somewhat menacingly establishes himself as part of the unit. Eventually, the family begin to improve their relationship, with assistance from the visitor, through milking breasts, murder and retaining a sense of family pride.

And there are other crazy scenes that somehow bring the family closer together. It's has uncomfortable humour, but is equally frustratingly silly, and over-the-top in its weirdness. There is a necrophiliac scene that is utterly disgusting, but ends up being ridiculously funny as the scene progresses. Partly because of the situation itself, and partly because you can't believe the filmmakers and the actors are actually doing this! The style of the film is poor to say the least, and the plot is stupid and unbelievably weak. The characters themselves are all over the place, and while I understand this is not meant to be realistic, there is hardly any interest in these confronting characters and situations as all of them border on the absurd! The camera-work is sloppy, and doesn't have that cinematic feel that Lynch's work entails. It's hard to take this film seriously on a surrealist level, or on an interpretation of examining the family unit in Japan. It just seems that Miike was out to shock, and the film seems self-aware that it's "trying" to be shocking, and it becomes almost comical to be taken seriously. All in all, I would say that this film is a bizarrely dark comedy, but it looks and feels amateurish, and seems to unnecessarily want to shock. Miike's previous film, Audition, was finely balanced between disgusting horror, character development and technique- which established more intrigue in the way the film was crafted to allow the viewer to become engrossed with the plot. 'Visitor Q' is a step down as it tries too hard to be outlandishly bizarre and intentionally confronting, without really having much to say in the process!

** out of *****!


Anyone who could find redeeming value in this piece of crap ought to have their head examined. We have the submissive, heroin-addicted, part-time hooker wife with lacerations all over her body, lacerations received from repeated beatings by an abusive son. Now, she is squirting breast milk all over the kitchen floor, the release so gained somehow akin to Helen Keller placing her hands in running water. We have the husband who starts out by patronizing a prostitute who just happens to be his daughter (she's upset with him because he came too quickly)and ends by murdering his female colleague, having sex with her corpse, and then chopping her up. We have the kid who is relentlessly bullied by his classmates and who comes home and beats his mom. You see, it's all circular. Deep, huh? The only decent moment in this horrendous pile of tripe is when the dad murders his son's tormentors. It's a good thing this turkey was shot on video because otherwise what a waste of expensive film it would be. If that guy who thinks artists ought to be interested in this slop is really serious, no wonder most people think artists are insane. We saw this lousy movie, then put on "Zero Woman, The Accused." Oh my God, it was a tossup as to which one was worse. What is going on in Japan these days? Sick, sick, sick.


I actually retired from Asian horror films some time ago after becoming completely sick of seeing samey ghost story rubbish. However, I've been getting more and more into exploitation flicks recently, and so decided to give them another chance. My first port of call was highly rated director Takashi Miike's highly rated 'Visitor Q'. I'd already seen Audition, and while I didn't like it much, I do rate it as one of the better modern Asian horror films. So, I went into this with sensible expectations; and unfortunately, found only boredom. I suppose this movie is actually really clever and it just went over my head, but what it seemed like to me was simply a collection of violent and nasty scenes with little or no coherency between them. Any comparisons to the work of Luis Bunuel and David Lynch is blasphemous as far as I'm concerned; all Miike has done here is make a film; any intelligence surrounding it has been implemented by pretentious fans, desperate to find some kind of meaning. My headache set in about 10 minutes in (after a father had sex with his daughter for some reason), and it didn't subside until the movie finally ended; at least twenty four hours later, or so it would seem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against violence in movies and in fact actively seek out the most notorious films around; but while this may be violent, it's also pointless and boring and I didn't get one ounce of enjoyment out of it. Takashi Miike may have a lot of fans, but I'm certainly not one of them; and I certainly hope this is the last time I'll come into contact with one of his films.


This film is a twisted nonsense of a movie, set in Japan about a dysfunctional family who end up with a strange violent guest who just sits back and watches the 4 members of the family at their worst. Nothing is sacred in this movie, with sex drugs and violence stretched to such a limit i'm surprised it got past the censors.

Overall, i think it will appeal only to those whom we shouldn't be encouraging, rather than any supposed underlying message coming out for the rest of us to consider. A film that panders to the worst element in society and is in anyway utter gash... A disappointment from a man who made the sublime Dead or Alive and Audition movies.


Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.


There is NOTHING cool, hip, or clever about this film-- liking it just reveals an ignorance of true art cinema. How can you so easily forget that the central fact of this entire film is that these mean & ugly people are . . . SERIAL KILLERS! If they have to dismember total strangers in order to "be a family again," then we don't WANT them to "be a family." What part of that did you have trouble grasping? Why applaud this filth?

THIS silly filth is what you do if you can't do art! One's head & life must be deeply empty to mistake this shallow viciousness as "interesting." This is a camera without a brain. What really makes an artwork cool is profundity, questioning the status quo from a perspective informed by a knowledge of history (or, in this case, a knowledge of ANYTHING would be preferable!). Instead, this is just randomly piling up the ugliest images available in a world in meltdown, thanks to just the sort of empty meanness glorified as "cool cause it's so far OUT, man!"). These same violent events actually HAPPEN, every day. They are NOT "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? A child could have thought this up, it required zero imagination, it is NOT surrealism. This lazy crap has no content, is saying nothing--it's just the worst of the evening news, & it is saying nothing new, nothing we don't already know. It's "the emperor's new clothes," the director hoping there are enough uneducated children, proud of their streak of inhumanity, for this sloppy filth to fly. I can see director Miike's demented fans now: chain-smoking teens-and- twenties drunks covered in tattoos, with metal hanging from holes punched in their faces, their knowledge-base inversely proportional to their intelligence estimate of themselves .

There is NO PLOT to this--it is just sheer exploitation of shock-value violence. There is no "hidden meaning" anywhere in this poorly made film. It is fine to explore a film to see if you can find cinematic devices that are ingeniously artistic, BUT you cannot uncover a hidden meaning if one is not THERE! To DO that you need to view & review a REAL piece of cinema. There are PLENTY out there, directed by Fellini, Bergman, Fassbinder, Herzog, Altman, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Lynch, Tarkovsky, Peter Greenaway, Tarantino, Guillermo del Toro, Richard Linklater, Eisenstein, Aronofsky, Gus van Sant, Soderbergh, Shyamalan, Ordet. Why don't you view a REAL art film by the likes of these giants? This wannabe director, Miike, will NEVER make a film equal to one of the geniuses I just listed because he just doesn't have the talent! Anyone could slap together some chaotic crap like "Visitor Q." Teenagers could throw that together in one afternoon! There's no message, no meaning, no plot, nothing to it at all. There are long lists of ART Films to learn from--but THIS "Visitor Q" is NOT an art film in any respect. It has no content to it. It's just one banal horror piled onto another, and the point to remember about those hideous crimes is that those things HAPPEN, every single day, somewhere in the world. They are NOT okay because they are "just in the film." They refer to actual soul-less people who would do those same things to YOU. Do you WANT those things done to you? To others? Why? Because this world is already ugly enough, thanks to people who enjoy thinking about horrific events like this.

There are sooooo many art films out there to use your mind to deconstruct, but you are wasting your talents with this piece of crap. There IS no deeper meaning. There is nothing to analyze; why keep trying? I've spent nearly 40 years watching practically every film ever made, and keeping up with all the new ones, but I've never seen anything as disgustingly pointless as this. It's not imaginative or even shocking, because these types of events happen daily all over the world. To make this film, or even to favorably review it, has caused over 50 young airheads who don't know any better to think it's "cool." They may grow up thinking that, convincing others, some of whom may end up DOING these things--convicted killers often reveal how they started out just this way, by being desensitized to the horror of this gruesome inhumanity. Trust me on this,--I know cool, and cool this piece of crap AIN'T. Visitor Q has the FEEL of a genuine SNUFF film, and I'm still not sure it isn't, actually.

Your actions have consequences, son. The world is awful enough already. Some violence like this COULD happen to YOU, or to the socially irresponsible director who cranked out this FAKE Art film. Believe me, you won't be thinking it's "Cool" when someone is sawing YOUR skull in half!


This movie stinks. I don't think I have ever seen a movie so strung up on shock value. The plot was relatively interesting, but the dialog was super flat and the acting was bland. This could have been an a good movie. I think it just relied on it's grotesque visuals. I can usually handle graphic scenes and human taboos, but it felt like Miike shot it for the sake of shooting it. Just one poorly executed film. There just isn't anything to be entertained by watching this film unless you are fascinated by exhausting yourself with explicit scenes of incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, self milking, parental and sibling abuse, and fecal dispersement. I think I just sold the film to many of you, but I meant it when i said this stinks. He has succeeded in other films, but I think you'd be better off watching someone pooping.


"Visitor Q" is a failed attempt at black comedy which focuses on what might be the world's most dysfunctional family including physical abuse from beatings to murder to incest to sodomy to necrophilia to a lactating mom who nurses her husband and adult daughter, etc. The film is so outrageous it garnered some critical praise and established a small cult following. However, with home video quality and a slapdash production, "Visitor Q" just doesn't hold up even as a curiosity. Genitals are blurred out and sanitary appliances clearly visible, make-up is awful, and everything else is amateurish at best. A waste of time. (C-)


This movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment.


You know those films that have you trapped in the cinema? You're stuck there in the best seat in the house, centre of the row in your own special sweet spot that you swapped three times before you got just the right seat - and after about what feels like 13 hours you are still trapped there, uncomfortable and itchy, thinking "When the F*** is this film ever going to END???" (You know the feeling - think of A.I. and The Village).

Well, Visitor Q delivers a weird variant of that feeling. I sat there for the first 30 minutes wondering when the thing was going to f***ing start! It is interminable! So "Arty" it hurts. This is the first Miike Takashi film I have watched. Apparently he makes films by the dozen and, if they are all pretentious w@nk like this, I suspect it will be the last.

I'm not against Pretentious w@nk. David Lynch is up there amongst the top 10 directors for me but Visitor Q is cut-rate, cheap, and nasty pretentious w@nk.

As you may have worked out by now - I hated it.


His first movie after longtime friend John Belushi's death, Aykroyd shows much fatigue trying to pull off a character that would have been a snap for Belushi.

Instead, "Doctor Detroit" gives us bookish professor Aykroyd masquerading as a weird, violent pimp to ward off a rival known only as Mom. That's bad enough, but he also has classes to teach, a school dinner to host, four ladies of the evening to protect and a Pimp's Dinner (or something like that) to attend. No wonder Aykroyd seems stupefied most of the time. Why should the viewer be alone?

It was on this film that Aykroyd met future wife Donna Dixon. At least some good came out of this chaotic mess.

One and a half stars. You want good Aykroyd, see "The Blues Brothers". You want bad, see "Doctor Detroit".


This movie is so bad, it can only be compared to the all-time worst "comedy": Police Academy 7. No laughs throughout the movie. Do something worthwhile, anything really. Just don't waste your time on this garbage.


This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. It is not funny. It is not interesting and should not have been made.


This dumb comedy really does a good job of wasting comedic talent. In particular, Dan Aykroyd and Howard Hesseman are misused badly here. I might have chuckled once or twice during this film, but in general, it's a boring movie, with a little bit of stupidity thrown in for good measure. The premise, although routine, still wasn't bad, but once the plot was set, the film went nowhere. Don't waste your time with this misfire.


Horrendous pillaging of a classic.

It wasn't written convincingly at all why Mary should develop such sympathy for Bates. He may be more stable until they start playing pranks with him, but he still doesn't help himself at all with his actions. (inviting a comparative stranger to stay alone with him in his until recently disused motel; telling the attractive young girl of his past mental issues; lying about the knives, etc... ) This, in addition to her previous knowledge should have kept Mary extremely wary of him, but this somehow doesn't happen just so they can play the 'mistaken-identity-murder-game later on. Which in itself is also ridiculous: 'So-and-so is the real killer - plus her as well - also him! There were too many contrived twists in order to slap a story on screen when the narrative didn't need extending.

It was good to see Perkins reprising his famous role again, but that's about the only small pleasure to be had. It's definitely not a patch on Hitchcock, and if you have no intention of even trying to get close then you shouldn't be bothering at all.


An interesting change from the first one. there was more mystery to this movie then the first. Even when it ends your asking yourself what happened who was the killer. There are some good parts through the movie, the first half starts off slow and then in the last half the pace picks up. All up the movie is enjoyable. The story is 22 years after the events that occured in the first film, Norman Bates is out of an asylum and back to the Bates motel, but when a woman turns up claiming to be his real mother, things start going wrong. Perkins plays an aged Norman well again and the scene at the end was excellent, he swang that spade awfully hard.


"The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film" is not a film as such, but it is a short series of clips with a comical slapstick theme. This 'film' got Richard Lester recognised and paved the way for him to direct the first Beatles film: 'A Hard Day's Night".

Richard Lester directed and wrote the music for his first film in 1959. This film was entitled The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film. It was intended to be viewed only by those who had aided in its production. Since the film was intended to be viewed by Lester and his partners alone, a small amount of money and time was invested. The sole purpose of this film is entertainment, but the main reason for its existence is the fact that it served as an experiment to work the camera. The film cost 70£ to make, and it was filmed in sepia-toned film stock in a field on a couple of Sundays. All of the shots that were filmed were included in the finished production; the finished production is eleven minutes in length.

The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film is a comedy about English Sundays and the small hobbies that people do to pass the time. All of the events in this film take place in a field. A few of these comical events include a woman scrubbing a lawn, a man running around a tree stump with a needle to play a record, a photographer developing film in a pond, an artist aided in painting by the numbers on a model's face, a man building a tent, an athlete running over the tent, and a duel between a man with a knife and a man with a gun. Not only does the film poke fun at the hobbies that people do to pass the time away, but it also pokes fun at English culture when compared to American culture. Another one of several events in this film includes a group of men and a kite, which has been constructed out of the flag of the United Kingdom. One of the men jumps inside the kite while the other men attempt to fly it, and the kite breaks. According to Neil Sinyard, author of The Films of Richard Lester, this event symbolizes the United Kingdom as lesser in power and technology when compared to the United States during the space age. According to this scene, the British fly primitive kites while the Americans, the world-power after World War II, fly highly-advanced rockets and space shuttles.


People love the original story for its ending. The Hollywood style ending made this 99 version of 'A Dog of Flanders' just for kids movie. I didn't cry this time because the story was too Hollywood. Japanese TV series are much better.


I rented this film thinking it was the sobbingly sad 1959 version I saw as a kid. It was not. I was therefore very disappointed with what I felt was marginal acting, poor character development, and most of all, failure to highlight the relationship between the boy and his dog. In this version... the "Dog of Flanders" is just a cute "aside" to the movie. Get the 1959 version!


The scenery is pretty and the dog is cute. Other than that, this film has absolutely nothing to recommend it. Jack Warden is pleasantly genial as usual, but the script is so awful that even he comes off badly. The plot makes no sense, the dialogue is dumb, and there are numerous smaller faults. But the dog is cute...


Absolutely one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time! It starts off badly and just deteriorates. Katherine Heigl is woefully miscast in a Lolita role and Leo Grillo manfully struggles with what is essentially a cardboard cutout character. The only cast-member with any enthusiasm is Tom Sizemore, who hams it up as a villain and goes completely overboard with his role. The script is dire, the acting horrible and it has plot holes big enough to drive a double-decker bus through! It is also the most sexist movie I have ever seen! Katherine Heigl's character is completely unsympathetic. She's seen as an evil, wanton seductress who lures the poor, innocent married man to cheat on his wife. It is implied throughout the movie that she's underage, and the message that accompanies that plot-strand just beggars belief! At the end, she isn't even able to redeem herself by shooting the man who's obviously (ha!) become demented with rage and guilt, but the script allows him to kill himself, thereby redeeming himself in the eyes of males everywhere. Horrible. Don't waste your time.


While it does crack the odd good joke, the humour is generally quite dry with members of the panel frequently pulling faces or resorting to coarse language and waiting on the crowd to applaud lame enough jokes.

Unlike what an other comment says I don't think this is the best RTE have ever made, its really dry and sarcastic. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, there are few truly funny intelligent gags that would make you genuinely laugh out loud. People seem to be convinced by the comedians well known names rather than by judging the quality of the gags which aren't really that good. Overall its mediocre with some good laughs to be had but often it can be fairly mediocre. Its not as good as Jasper Carrot or Dave Allens stuff. I find Benny Hill funnier.


Well, I'd be lying if I said that this could easily rival Spiderman or the Batman movies. Still, it was more appealing to me for it's moral value. I first bought the VHS when my son was about 2 years old and it immediately became his favorite. My wife and I are avid supporters of Robert Townsend and have been since he used credit cards to finance his first movie, "Hollywood Shuffle". True, he needs to take advantage of the talents and knowledge of technical advisors to make the films more believable, but his movies are still fun.

Meteor Man provides a hero with an Urban Contemporary feel. I always felt that, if there were superheroes, they wouldn't provide the same scenarios as depicted in the comics. Meteor Man is realistic hero with real problems: Car broken into, bad neighborhood, local drug-dealing gangs using children for distribution, etc. The scope of his mission stayed pretty much within the community.

What I found to be truly entertaining, outside of James Earl Jones' "young forever" performance, was how the neighborhood responded to his newly discovered powers. It wasn't long before they had a full agenda lined up for him, without his input, of course. It was hilarious to hear them offer to lend him out to other communities where their extended families lived.

Yes, the plot was weak, the movie was predictable, there was bad acting and continuity was rotten, but it ranks #1 with my kids. Robert Townsend works to bring movies "home" so to speak. I doubt he'll ever truly be recognized as the talented actor/producer/director he truly is, but there are and will always be, those that love him for his efforts.

One point to ponder about the film, which I find amusing: Throughout the entire battle with Simon, no one bothered to call the police???? Also, what mother and father do you know that will watch their son fight from a window? My mother would have been right there, scrapping by my side, toe-to-toe. Dad would be loading his pistol. lol

Rent it and check it out. It's worth seeing at least once and good for those of you that are fans of Sinbad, Luther Vandross, Bill Cosby, Big Daddy Kane, etc. Great job with the cameos Robert!


Let me tell you something about this movie. I have seen it twice. The first time I was a kid and the movie was quite entertaining to me. I really liked it. I thought it was funny and interesting and the main character was kind of cool.

I saw it again a few days ago. It was horrible. Really. I don't know why I thought it was funny before but now... I didn't laugh at all. There was nothing even slightly entertaining. It was just dumb. The story was weak. The acting was nothing special. There are great actors in this movie but still the acting is mediocre at best.

What is the worst is the fact that this movie is racist. Really. Don't get me wrong, usually I don't complain about racism in movies. However I have seen people complaining about the lack of black men in movies like 'The Shaolin Temple' or about the fact that the only black man in 'The Street Fighter' is one of the bad guys or... Whatever, you get the point. There are people seeing racism everywhere. I wonder how would they react to a movie like 'The Meteor Man'. Why? I will tell you why. There are no Asians in this movie. There are no white people among the good guys. In fact there is only one white guy in the entire movie and he is the leader of the bad guys. All the good guys are African Americans. Don't get me wrong, I don't care is the good guy is black or white or yellow or pink or green... What I do care about is the fact that we can barely see a white person in this movie. This is the only movie like that that I have ever seen. It is just not realistic. If there is only one black man in a Japanese movie which is the case with 'The street Fighter' there is no problem - in Japan most of the people are Asians. But if there is only one white man in an American movie there is some sort of problem - in USA most of the people are white. It is like filming a Japanese movie with entirely white cast and only one Asian as a bad guy. Just not real.

That is it. I am giving the movie the rate of 4/10. It would be 1/10 if I hadn't have fun with it as a kid.


The movie began well enough. It had a fellow get hit by a glowing green meteorite, getting superpowers (telekinesis, x-ray vision, invulnerability, flight, the ability to speak to dogs, superspeed, heat vision, and the ability to make plants grow large and quickly), and fighting crime. From there on it's all downhill.

Meteor Man gets a costume from his mom, fights with the resident gangs, and has many aborted encounters with the gang leaders which serves to set you up for the disappointing, overlong, and stupefying ending.

It wouldn't be so remarkably bad if it weren't like watching a boxing match where the two fighters pretend to hit each other while the audience stands looking onward while the fighters just continue to dance.

Despite all of this nonsense the movie has good points. It states clearly that if you try to take on a gang alone then they'll come back to your home and hurt you. It states that gangs & communities need to see their real enemies (the big bosses that use them for their own ends to crush honest people into a ghetto existence). It also states that people do not need superheroes if they are willing to work as a community do destroy the predators that harm them. The only message it really lacks is that the voters should ensure their elected officials (Rudolph Giuliani, Marion Barry, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, & George H.W. Bush) aren't crooks too.


Superhero movies pretty much always suck, and this is no exception. Its only redeeming quality is the fact the movie COULD have been even worse. I would put 'Batman & Robin' and 'Steel' above this movie, so yes it is that bad...

If your looking for a black superhero, check out 'Blankman' its not a "serious" superhero movie but at least its entertaining.


This movie is really wack. There is really nothing nice I can say about it, besides the moral truth expressed in the film's climax concerning people in the neighborhood participating in the fight against crime. Besides all that, the film had nothing: no good shots, no good acting, and no good script. I give this film a F and a 2 out 10.


Billy Chung Siu Hung's (the bloody swordplay film Assassin from 1993) film Love To Kill (Hong Kong, 1993) is among the strongest products of the Category III boom that inhabited the HK cinema in early nineties. It consisted of films with strong sex, nudity and violence, more or less gratuitous and shock valued only. Love To Kill definitely belongs to the "more" category with some unforgettable ideas and pieces of celluloid sickness.

The HK psycho Anthony Wong (from the award winning The Untold Story by Herman Yau, from the same year) plays a business man and a husband who likes to torture, humiliate and rape his young wife (Elizabeth Lee Mei Fung) who for some reason doesn't leave him and save herself and their little son from the disturbed tormentor. A policeman (Danny Lee, the famous police character actor from films like Dr. Lamb (1992) by Billy Tang (and co-directed by Lee) and The Killer (1989) by John Woo to name just a few) however sees the problem and starts to protect the wife and the son but Anthony naturally doesn't like this at all, and leads it all into the typical ultra-mean spirited and graphic finale during a rain storm.

The film is almost completely without any serious merits as it's just a piece of exploitation in order to cash in when these kind of films were so popular. The imagery and happenings are something never found in the Western cinema, at least in mainstream, and it all becomes even more mind-blowing when some/most taboos for Westerners, like violence and perversions witnessed by a child, are broken in these films so often that reading the plotlines alone would make most viewers feel sick, and that goes perfectly especially for this film too.

The film still has a rather interesting and creepy soundtrack in the tradition of the mentioned Dr. Lamb which practically started the whole boom in 1992. Usually the music and soundtrack in HK films is interesting and adds to the imagery, especially in these terror films. Also the cinematography is worth mentioning as the film bathes, especially in the finale, in blue colors and camera lenses (as does Assassin, too), and the raging storm is captured nicely on the camera. Otherwise there's nothing that would rate the film any higher other than on the nastiness-meter.

The actors and actresses are talented and professional and so don't make the film any worse with their acting. Still the film has the usual HK humor in it which makes the sick goings-on even sicker as some "humor" is thrown into the soup. That includes some jokes about Danny Lee's erection and so on..Something that could never be found in the Western "serious" films either. And that thing usually destroys mane otherwise noteworthy HK films as the humor is just so obvious way and attempt to entertain the audience and masses.

The film has a very high outrageousness level as it has numerous scenes depicting the abuse of Wong's wife in various ways. She gets raped and molested, beaten and kicked by her husband. We also get to see some flashbacks from Wong's own childhood which turns out to be equally violent as his own father killed too and turned his young son into what he is now. These flashback scenes, mostly at the end of the film, include also some totally unexpected experiences as the imagery is speeded up (for example the hits of an axe) and that creates completely insane and mean spirited atmosphere to the scene. Again something that only HK exploitation makers seem to be able to come up with. The ending itself includes plenty of sudden and shocking gore as the madman wields his axe and meets also some nails, for example, on his furious way.

The film is also genuinely pretty "suspicious" in my opinion as the violence and terror is realistically painful and deals with things that should NEVER be taken as entertainment, mostly I mean rape. The version I saw (I've seen two versions) includes a very long and completely nauseating rape scene that just tries to be as sadistic as possible. I'm not sure does the HK audience really like imagery like this but I think no one with some sense for morality in films/entertainment would never accept or make something like it. Women get brutalized and killed in the most sadistic and low ways so that the fates of the men seem almost tame when compared to the females.

The other version I saw, the newly released DVD in HK (without subtitles) has this "table brutality" scene in a much longer form than the subtitled Taiwanese DVD which is otherwise identical to the HK version. I've also heard that the old HK Laserdisc is different from these two and since the end credits are filled with scenes and images not found in the actual film, it is impossible to say how "uncut" versions these that have been released or shown theatrically are. Obviously plenty of footage has been cut out, possibly even before the theatrical release.

The film is written by Law Gam Fai and Lau Wing Kin, the former having written also films like Dr. Lamb, The Untold Story and Gunmen (Kirk Wong, 1988) but out of his other films that I've seen, Love to Kill is the most gratuitous. Dr. Lamb and The Untold Story both are very brutal and violent but have also some attempt to some criticism towards the authorities and men in general as how it is easy to turn into a beast when chasing or fighting one. The harrowing torture imagery of The Untold Story, the victim being the criminal, is very strong and definitely has its impact to change something that may be rotten in the society and among the police for example. But there's none of this in Love to Kill, it is just honest, calculated and fastly made exploitation which is, by the way, produced by a veteran director Kirk "Organized Crime & Triad Bureau (1993), Crime Story (1993)" Wong!

Love to Kill earns no more than 2/10 from me as I don't have too high appreciation on films like this. (HK) Cinema is meant to be and can be more and films like Love to Kill are only commercial parasites living among the real pieces of the art.


I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!


My kid makes better videos than this! I feel ripped off of the $4.00 spent renting this thing! There is no date on the video case, apparently designed by Wellspring; and, what's even worse, there's no production date for the original film listed anywhere in the movie! The only date given is 2002, leading an unsuspecting renter to believe he's getting a recent film.

This movie was so bad from a standpoint of being outdated and irrelevant for any time period but precisely when it was made, that I'm amazed that anyone would take the time and expense to market it as a video. It might be of interest to students studying the counter-culture of the 1960's, the anti-war, anti-establishment, tune-in, turn-on and drop out culture; but when you read the back of the video case, there's no hint that that is what you're getting. If you do make the mistake of renting it though, it is probably best viewed while on drugs, so that your mind will more closely match the wavelength of the minds of the directors, Fassbinder and Fengler. Regardless of your state of mind while watching it, I can tell you that it doesn't get any better after the first scene; so, knowing that, I'm sure you'll be fast asleep long before the end.


Oliver Gruner is totally unknown to me. My friend showed me this film because he had seen Gruner in, what he called a pretty good sci-fi film, Nemesis. So as we watched this, we found ourselves fastforwarding through the BS drama parts just to get to the unbelievable action sequences. Gruner loves to kick and kick and kick. And kick! haha

Gruner character is a graduate student who is forced to stay in a ghetto close to the one that he grew up in. He finds himself watching after the boy who lives with him because he really wants to join in the Mexican gang that keeps tormenting his family. Instead of joining up, Gruner tells the boy to fight back (against a gang? too crazy). Gruner plays a typical Van Damme character who kills everyone (or maims them pretty bad) and works to rid his block of these gangmembers.

The plot was very cheesy and easy to think of. Gruner is probably not very well known because of his script-choosing if this movie is anything to compare possible choices to. This ghetto is pure hell and I enjoyed seeing the motley crew of characters go through it as if they have a chance against Gruner's character. The music was typical action music (thumping pianos and timpani, swelling guitars) which actually wasn't as bad as I make it sound. The director really needed to keep the action going instead of taking a break every 5 minutes for a tense family moment.

Ultimately, I gave it a 4/10 because it really tried to be an average action film for Oliver Gruner to star in, but the overall feel of the film leaves you wanting more closure on what you just saw.


Olivier Gruner stars as Jacques a foreign exchange college student who takes on and single handedly wipes out a Mexican street gang in this obnoxious and racist film which is so horrible that it's laughable. Bad acting, bad plot and bad fight choreography make Angel Town a Turkey.


Times are tough for Angel Town, gangs rule with an iron fist and for reasons mostly unknown (Mainly due to embarrassing writing) the gangs want a street kid, Martine to join the gangs, so they beat him up everyday. However due to the presence of an Olympic kick-boxer (Olivier "World's lamest actor" Gruner) named Jacques, hope is on the way. Angel Town is seriously one of the most inept message movies ever made (And I've seen my share) it seems to consist of the idea that all gang infested neighborhoods need, are French kick-boxers who can't act. Worst of all there are so many awkward moments it's just truly hilarious. Best of all comes from the exchange between Gruner and Aragon which basically sums up how ridiculous this thing is. To Wit: "You like the fighting? (Olivier grabs his Asian best friend in a headlock) I could kill him right? When I want him dead he dies! The reason why I don't want him dead is because i'm afraid of him, and I know that if I kill him his son and wife will kill me, that's why he doesn't die!"

Of course the fact that it's wrong to kill someone, let alone your best friend is of course left out of the equation. Odd.

However don't let me make this sound that I hated this movie, far from it, it's so terrible it's priceless. The biggest laughs come at the end in the disastrous finale which sees Grunner going one on one with gang-members who (the film's biggest logic gap)decline the use of pistols. Also a handicapped Vietnam vet helps out by shooting his machine gun at the gangs, while Gruner kick-boxes the rest. All of this set to the sound of horrible "Mexican" accents and surreal energy that make this one memorable for fans of cinematic trash such as this.

The other treat about this movie, is that for some reason Olivier Gruner never attends college despite that's the main reason he's here in the states and not in France getting it on with his girlfriend (In a graveyard in the film's awkward beginning) Angel Town is without a doubt a failure on all conceivable levels but if you laugh at moronic martial arts movies with insane levels of action that make no sense on any level, this is the perfect movie for you. On the other hand make sure to down tequila, like the laughable opening song details "Ain't no mercy in Angel Town"

* out of 4-(Bad)


I had watched "The Eye" before I watched this one. I really liked "The eye", it was one of the best movies of the recent Asian horror-cinema. So, I picked this "Bangkok haunted" because it was the same director, and it was kind of popular round here. But man, what a disappointment... "Bangkok haunted" are three stories about love, revenge, ghosts, etc. that are no scary at all, not even disturbing (as "The eye" was)... no nothing. I can't even fill the 10 lines required for the comment...

100% boring.

*My rate: 2/10


The Lives of the Saints starts off with an atmospheric vision of London as a bustling city of busy, quaint streets and sunshine. I was hoping it would maintain this atmosphere, but it gets bogged down in a story that goes pretty much nowhere.

Othello works for big, fat Mr. Karva, his crime-boss step-dad (at least I think that is what he is supposed to be because it's never really defined, but he does drop kittens into deep fat friers, so trust me, he's a prick) doing scrappy little errands while his skanky girlfriend gives daddy hand-jobs. One of his colleagues is Runner, a black dude who is always dashing from A to B. Until the day he comes across almost mute homeless child who grants him his wish of being able to stop running. Runner dumps the lost boy in Othello's flat, where he promptly starts granting more wishes. Keen to have some of his own desires fulfilled, Karva has the boy kidnapped. But he isn't sure of what would really bring him happiness. Is it the innocence of being a child again or is it another hand-job? Either way, I don't want to see the little boy grant him the second.

It just takes ages to get going and there are loads of repetitive scenes. The ending tries to be shocking but since there's hardly any back-story on investment in any of these characters it only serves as a release for the bored audience.

Writer Tony Grisoni, a favourite of Terry Gilliam, tries to blend in some kind of religious allegory which ends up being pretentious as all hell, ironically. If he gave us something more accessible or at least had better explanations for the characters suddenly acting all weird then it would have been a more enjoyable film. As it is, we are introduced to a bunch of annoying loudmouths who then miraculously seem to develop intelligence when confronted by the mysterious boy. Who's origins are never revealed. That's just plain irritating!

Aside from sporadic moments of atmosphere and a moody score, this film has little to recommend.


Without question, the worst film I've seen for a long while. I endured to the end because surely there must be something here, but no. The plot, when not dealing in clichés, rambles to the point of non-existence; dialogue that is supposed to be street is simply hackneyed; characters never develop beyond sketches; set-pieces are clichéd. Worse, considering its co-director, the photography is only so-so.

Comments elsewhere that elevate this alongside Get Carter, Long Good Friday or Kaspar Hauser are way way off the mark; Lives of the Saints lacks their innovation let alone their depth and shading. In short, their craft. A ruthless editor could probably trim it down to a decent 30-minute short, but as it stands it's a 6th form film project realised on a million-pound scale; rambling and bloated with its own pretensions. That it received funding (surely only because of Rankin's name) while other small films struggle for cash is depressing for the British film industry.


i am rarely moved to make these kind of comments BUT after sitting through most of rankin's dreadful movie i feel like i have really earned the right to say what i feel about it! i couldn't actually make it right to the end, and became one of the half dozen or more walk outs (about 1/3rd of the audience) after the ragged plot, woeful dialogue and insulting characterisation became just too much to bear. this film is all pose and no art. all style and no substance. it is weighed down by dreadful acting, a genuinely dire script, indifferent cinematography and student-level production values. how it got funded, started, and finished is a mystery to me. i bet you a million quid it never goes on general release. the proper critics would tear it apart. a really bad film. shockingly bad. a really really really poor effort AND that is without even mentioning the gratuitous new-born-kitten-gets-dropped-into-a-deep-fat-fryer moment. totally meaningless, utterly lightweight, poorly put together; this movie is a dreadful embarrassment for uk cinema.


This is a very odd film ... I wasn't really sure what is was about, some N London lowlifes find a mute kid in the woods that they all believe is some kind of oracle and somehow makes them all, in their own way, change something about their lives that usually ends in disaster. The film ended after about 90 minutes leaving me feeling quite unsatisfied, almost annoyed at the pointlessness of it all. I didn't care about any of the characters - none of them get a chance to endear themselves to the viewer.

What was the message? Am I being dim? It was just too odd. What happens to Runner? Why does Emilio shoot the kid? ... that made absolutely no sense, pointless. Can someone help me understand this mess of a film?


RUN...do not walk away from this movie!!!!! Aimed at the very young kids, this movie will bore you to tears. If the Gamera trilogy of the 90's raised the bar, this film just lowered it. It's slow paced and the monster fighting is good, but seldom seen. This movie had me dry heaving in the cat box. Just a very poor offering after a phenomenal 90's series.

SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!!! Here are the top 10 reasons Gamera fans of the 90's series will HATE this film.

10. This movie is a drama that follows a kid trying to cope with the death of his mother and fears losing baby Gamera to a fight after knowing his father saw the adult Gamera die.

9. You see the adult Gamera for maybe a minute at the beginning of the film. He gets his butt kicked by a few Gyaos and self destructs??? He looks old and lethargic. Plus he looks nothing like any gamera you've ever seen. His suit looked cheap and rushed.

8. The young Gamera you see through the rest of the film looks like a Pokemon. Big-eyed and cute...it will remind you of the baby Godzilla from Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2. Gamera is now too cute.

7. This movie has the pace of watching a NASCAR race during a 3 hour rain delay. I watched this movie with 2 other Gamera fans and nobody was happy with how slowly this film moved along. I've seen an SUV full of fat people going up a mountain road move faster.

6. Like Godzilla:Final Wars, this movie had very little kaiju time on screen. Final Wars had much more, actually, and better fights although short.

5. Kids take the title role. The friend of all children theme and poor writing killed the original Gamera series in the 1970's and history repeats itself in the 2000's. The most successful Gamera films abandoned the Sesame Street feel and went to a darker place. Why go back to a failed formula? This was to be a new trilogy and poor ticket sales killed any hope for this story to continue (thank god).

4. Gamera lost his iconic roar. He now sounds like an Elephant with strep throat.

3. This movie may produce a new Olympic event.....Imagine a relay race that involves sending very young children into harm's way. You have to see the ending to understand this point. Where were the parents? Oh yea..right there sending their kids into a kaiju battle zone.

2. The special effects were good, but sub-par for a Gamera movie. Legion and Iris had better effects. The best effect was showing the apple sized baby Gamera fly. Not too impressive.

1. This movie is just not what adult kaiju fans come to expect. The director was involved in Power Rangers and it shows. It comes off like a cross between ET, Always: Sunset on Third Street and TMNT. Kudos if you know all 3 references.

Rental at best or watch once if you buy it to complete the DVD series.


An illegal immigrant resists the social support system causing dire consequences for many. Well filmed and acted even though the story is a bit forced, yet the slow pacing really sets off the conclusion. The feeling of being lost in the big city is effectively conveyed. The little person lost in the big society is something to which we can all relate, but I cannot endorse going out of your way to see this movie.


Some illegal so-called asylum seeker comes to Stuttgart and finds that Germans are "racist."

This is just another already-forgotten steaming nugget in a long list of post-WWII anti-German propaganda films, aimed to make Germans feel "bad" for not welcoming each and every degenerate in their country so he can chase German blonds and sell drugs to German teenagers.

If you're looking for good German films in General, see "Der Tunnel," "Der Untergang," "Europa Europa," and "Lola rennt."

But not this.

Also, "Das Experiment," with the same male actor from "Lola rennt."


I can sum this movie up using 20 words or less. Way too predictable of a story line with potential to be funny but instead falls flat on its face. See, 19 words, however, I didn't completely pan this flick with just one star but instead decided to bump it up to two stars due to the fact that Julie Bowen is smoking hot and provided just enough eye candy to keep me from ripping the DVD right out from the machine and blowing it up with an M80. My advice, take the $4.00 rental fee you would have paid to see this movie and just send it right to me as an advance thank you for saving you the time and frustration of having to sit through this train wreck, or you may want to send me the $50.00 replacement fee you would have been charged from taking out your twelve gage to use this piece of garbage as skeet shooting practice.


Oscar Wilde's comedy of manners, perhaps the wittiest play ever written, is all but wrecked at the hands of a second-rate cast. Sanders is, as one would expect, casually, indolently brilliant in the role of Lord Darlington, but the rest of the cast makes the entire procedure a waste of time. Jean Crain attempts a stage accent in alternate sentences and the other members of the cast seem to believe this is a melodrama and not a comedy; indeed, the entire production has bookends that reduce it to tragedy -- doubtless the Hays office insisted. Preminger's direction seems to lie mostly in making sure that there are plenty of servants about and even the music seems banal. Stick with the visually perfect silent farce as directed by Lubitsch or even the 2004 screen version with Helen Hunt as Mrs. Erlynne; or try reading the play for the pleasure of the words. But skip this version.


this has got to be one of those films where the trailer is 50 times better than the movie itself.I first saw the trailer in 1991, it looked great.Since then i have always wanted to see it but could never find it.....until today, yes, 14 years later.

lets just say I was so disappointed its unreal, OK i knew it wouldn't be an Oscar winner but still had hopes that it would be a fun no-brain film in the bloodsport mold. Unfortunately it was not, it's Pooh

whats with all the American rock and roll music and the acting was so bad it was quite frightening.

The fight scenes were rubbish and look fake.

this DVD only cost me £5 and I believe I was overcharged by £7

Now I'm sad as I know that I will never get that hour and a half back.


This seemed to be a good movie, I thought it would be a good movie, and throughout the movie I was hoping it would be a meaningful use of my time, and yes, I have to admit that the acting talent of Dimple Kapadia and Deepti Naval where truly commendable, but despite the best effort this movie falls short of effectively conveying a meaningful message, which it seems is it seemed was what Somnath Sen is trying to do. The final point comes short and the ending seemed kind of unsatisfactory after all that happens; a bit like real life in that respect but movies unlike real life ends in about 2hrs and the ending should leave the audience satisfied, if indeed that was the director's intention. This falls short in that respect and that is what disappoints me the most.

Another aspect that concerned me was the national stereo-typing of the American characters - they all seem to be carved out of the same block. Seems to me that most American characters in Indian English movies are based upon how common Indians themselves perceive Americans to be like and it is clear that no effort has been made to bring any sense of depth or complexity to any American in the movie.

These two aspects put together they make for a disappointing story.


Genghis Cohn is a (very) mildly entertaining British movie about a German police commissioner in the late 1950's who is haunted by the ghost of a Jewish comedian that he killed 15 years earlier while serving under Hitler in the SS. The ghost comes back and wants his killer to live as a Jew to atone for the murders he committed.

Otto, the German policeman actually knows this ghost's name because, the last thing he did before he died was said, in Yiddish, `Kiss my ass'. The policeman didn't speak Yiddish, so he asked around until he found the meaning. The `kiss my ass' left such an impression that everybody involved with that killing learned and remembered the comedian's name, Genghis Cohn.

There are a bunch of men who are murdered in the jurisdiction of the police commissioner, and there are no helpful clues. The men are murdered with a set of knives that are missing from the local butcher. The butcher announces that his knives are missing while the commissioner is in the store to get a liver and onion sandwich, so the commissioner is a suspect. The first man is killed while making love to the butcher's wife, so the butcher is a suspect. But the butcher maintains that he would be very busy if he killed every man that slept with his wife. All the men are killed immediately after the climax of lovemaking.

I think I might be a bit angrier than the ghost of Genghis Cohn if I was killed like he was. He seems to be very good-natured about it, as if he was just in a mild car accident. I can only guess that it is because it is a British movie and they are known for being a very polite people. He uses some of his material from his stand-up routing, and I just didn't find it very funny.

I gave this movie a 4 because it was just kind of goofy. I thought it should have been a little more serious than it was. The movie turns out to be a murder mystery (where did this come from?), and it seemed that Genghis should have been more helpful than he was. The movie gave me a tiny look into Jewish culture, but was only skin-deep. Do all Jews love liver and onion sandwiches? Do they all say `shtoop' and `meshuganah' in their daily vocabulary? Isn't there more important stuff that we should know about the culture?

I saw this movie at a Jewish community center in Berkeley, CA, and I was the only person in the room whose hair was not fully gray or white. (I have no gray or white hair.) There were 18 of us, and after the movie they stayed for about 20 minutes to discuss the movie. There were 2 main concerns expressed there: 1. The movie was way too light-hearted and future generations might not understand the gravity of what happened and 2. As the Holocaust survivors are dying off, future generations will not know what really happened. I thought that this second concern was ridiculous and I told them I thought they didn't need to worry because there is tons of literature out there and there will always be people who like to watch movies, like myself. The murder of 6,000,000 people by a very bad man will not ever be forgotten. I write this last paragraph because they charged me with telling others about my experience that day.


Yuck. I thought it odd that their ancient book on curses was made using a common script font instead of hand written. The acting is so apathetic at times and so over-dramatic at other times. Why would a "demonico" kill the two suspiciously quiet doctors who helped make him immortal? Just for the heck of it? And is it really necessary to show Lilith's motorcycle whenever she's out somewhere. We get it! You spent a little bit of money to rent some third rate crotch rocket. It doesn't mean you have to show it all the time! The "Faith's" lair looks like an old school Battlestar Galactica set with some last minute changes. There is a scene where we are introduced to a few people on a talk show for about 30 seconds before they are killed without apparent reason and without importance. Everyone is a throwaway character. Forgettable characters and an even more forgettable plot make this one of the most ill-conceived movies I've seen the SciFi channel come out with. Stay away unless you're into bad movies.


This obvious pilot for an unproduced TV series features young Canadian actress Shiri Appleby as an amnesiac with some pretty incredible powers that must be put to use when a man-turned-flying demon is let loose on the world. The CGI is par for a TV job, and Appleby is OK as an amnesiac but hard to swallow as a superheroine. Familiar TV face Richard Burgi is along for the ride as Appleby's mentor, but he can do nothing to elevate this dreck above the mediocre level. We see way too much of the cartoonish flying demon right from the start, a bad sign. Also, the scenes where Burgi is training Appleby for battle are actually laughable. They are a bad copy of similar scenes in several other movies, most notably REMO WILLIAMS.


Shiri Appleby is the cutest little embodiment of evil turned good girl demon-kicking Buffy clone, Elle. But I'm getting ahead of myself, you see Lilith was the first woman made by god as a companion to Adam. But she got all uppity evil feminist so god banished her from Eden. A clandestine order known as The Fath captures her but doesn't kill her, so now with amnesia (which is not really explained that well) Lilith (now Elle) is free to become the aforementioned Buffy-clone who has to battle with a mad scientist who got an injection of Lilith's blood.

If the previous paragraph sounded hideously convoluted, that's because it is. The movie is also dull, generic, and for a film with a plot steeped in theology it doesn't seem to know a lick about it. This bargain basement lousy-CGIed movie was apparently a failed series pilot. All I can say to the fact that it didn't get picked up is a resounding Amen.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Commentary by Writer/Director Bill Platt and Co-writer Chris Regina; and Stills gallery; video effects samples: before & after (it also has an "also available" selection that you would THINK would lead you to some trailers, but nope on DVD covers for other films, which is a stupid idea)

DVD-ROM extras: Final shooting script and Deleted scenes transcript both in PDF format


A good idea, badly implemented. While that could summarize 99% of the SciFi channel's movies, it really applies here. I love movies where a good back story is slowly revealed, and I like action movies, and I like all of the main actors, so this could have been great. However, despite some good acting, this movie fails due to Bill Platt's bad writing and directing.

Another review made the good point of needing to know where you're going so you can get there. This movie doesn't. It's put together in such a haphazard way that you know the words "second draft" are not in Bill Platt's vocabulary. There is one scene that is entirely unnecessary and could be removed without anyone noticing. This scene even begins and ends with them driving a car, so you could cut from one car scene to the other and never have missed the pointless scene in the middle.

This movie also had a strange habit of under explaining some details while over explaining others, some to the point where you can guess the entire "plot" up front. It also had a habit of aborting a fight early, probably just because they couldn't afford it. There are also a few laughably bad scenes where the "plot" is revealed on a computer and the final battle involving conveniently placed "toxic adhesive" (seriously, what *is* that?).

If you are a fan of Shiri Appleby, watch this movie because she's OK. She does manage to break out of her "Roswell" persona a few times and make for a good tough chick (but not always). John De Lancie plays the same character he plays in everything he's ever done since playing Q back in ST:TNG, so that's nothing new.

In all, I gave this movie a 4/10 rating.


The story behind this movie is very interesting, and in general the plot is not so bad... but the details: writing, directing, continuity, pacing, action sequences, stunts, and use of CG all cheapen and spoil the film.

First off, action sequences. They are all quite unexciting. Most consist of someone standing up and getting shot, making no attempt to run, fight, dodge, or whatever, even though they have all the time in the world. The sequences just seem bland for something made in 2004.

The CG features very nicely rendered and animated effects, but they come off looking cheap because of how they are used.

Pacing: everything happens too quickly. For example, "Elle" is trained to fight in a couple of hours, and from the start can do back-flips, etc. Why is she so acrobatic? None of this is explained in the movie. As Lilith, she wouldn't have needed to be able to do back flips - maybe she couldn't, since she had wings.

Also, we have sequences like a woman getting run over by a car, and getting up and just wandering off into a deserted room with a sink and mirror, and then stabbing herself in the throat, all for no apparent reason, and without any of the spectators really caring that she just got hit by a car (and then felt the secondary effects of another, exploding car)... "Are you okay?" asks the driver "yes, I'm fine" she says, bloodied and disheveled.

I watched it all, though, because the introduction promised me that it would be interesting... but in the end, the poor execution made me wish for anything else: Blade, Vampire Hunter D, even that movie with vampires where Jackie Chan was comic relief, because they managed to suspend my disbelief, but this just made me want to shake the director awake, and give the writer a good talking to.


I sat glued to the screen, riveted, yawning, yet keeping an attentive eye. I waited for the next awful special effect, or the next ridiculously clichéd plot item to show up full force, so I could learn how not to make a movie.

It seems when they set out to make this movie, the crew watched every single other action/science-fiction/shoot-em-up/good vs. evil movie ever made, and saw cool things and said: "Hey, we can do that." For example, the only car parked within a mile on what seems like a one way road with a shoulder not meant for parking, is the one car the protagonist, an attractive brunette born of bile, is thrown on to. The car blows to pieces before she even lands on it. The special effects were quite obviously my biggest beef with this movie. But what really put it in my bad books was the implausibility, and lack of reason for so many elements! For example, the antagonist, a flying demon with the ability to inflict harm in bizarre ways, happens upon a lone army truck transporting an important VIP. Nameless security guys with guns get out of the truck, you know they are already dead. Then the guy protecting the VIP says "Under no circumstances do you leave this truck, do you understand me?" He gets out to find the beast that killed his 3 buddies, he gets whacked in an almost comically cliché fashion. Then for no apparent reason, defying logic, convention, and common sense, the dumb ass VIP GETS OUT OF THE TRUCK!!! A lot of what happened along the course of the movie didn't make sense. Transparent acting distanced me from the movie, as well as bad camera-work, and things that just make you go: "Wow, that's incredibly cheesy." Shiri Appleby saved the movie from a 1, because she gave the movie the one element that always makes viewers enjoy the experience, sex appeal.


What is interesting is that the acting; was not bad, just not enough. It was rather lame., special effects nor the lines were the single culprit for this failure. Standing alone they weren't horribly bad, but put together was a tragic move. The show seemed long winded and slow with special effects apparently designed to speed the movie along, but it failed totally.

Much of the blame for this disaster was put on special effects.Don't believe it, they were kinda cool. Appleby was not the best choice for this endeavor. Though she may have been all they had to chose from with a bit of fan recogniton. An experienced actress would have brought something to the part, like Appleby never did. Scfi puts out some really good original movies, it's just too bad that this failed so drastically.


I think I found the most misogynistic film of all time: Darklight.

The gist of the film- Lilith was Adam's first wife and she was considered imperfect and banished from the garden of Eden because she considered herself Adam's equal and refused to submit to him. See, I took those words straight from the script. Then the film keeps going on and though she is the heroine of the film, the only time that she becomes acceptable is when she does what the men tell her to do! She ends the film under the control of The Faith- an all male group!

Other than that the script was predictable and the FX were awful. Apart from the obvious hatred of females that is usually a lot more subtle in modern film, there was nothing original about Darklight.