This "clever" film was originally a Japanese film. And while I assume that original film was pretty bad, it was made a good bit worse when American-International Films hacked the film to pieces and inserted American-made segments to fool the audience. Now unless your audience is made of total idiots, it becomes painfully obvious that this was done--and done with little finesse or care about the final product. The bottom line is that you have a lot of clearly Japanese scenes and then clearly American scenes where the film looks quite different. Plus, the American scenes really are meaningless and consist of two different groups of people at meetings just talking about Gamera--the evil flying turtle! And although this is a fire-breathing, flying and destructive monster, there is practically no energy because I assume the actors were just embarrassed by being in this wretched film--in particular, film veterans Brian Donlevy and Albert Dekker. They both just looked tired and ill-at-ease for being there.

Now as for the monster, it's not quite the standard Godzilla-like creature. Seeing a giant fanged turtle retract his head and limbs and begin spinning through the air like a missile is hilarious. On the other hand, the crappy model planes, destructible balsa buildings and power plant are, as usual, in this film and come as no surprise. Plus an odd Japanese monster movie cliché is included that will frankly annoy most non-Japanese audience members, and that is the "adorable and precocious little boy who loves the monster and believes in him". Yeah, right. Well, just like in GODZILLA VERSUS THE SMOG MONSTER and several other films, you've got this annoying creep cheering on the monster, though unlike later incarnations of Godzilla, Gamera is NOT a good guy and it turns out in the end the kid is just an idiot! Silly, exceptional poor special effects that could be done better by the average seven year-old, bad acting, meaningless American clips and occasionally horrid voice dubbing make this a wretched film. Oddly, while most will surely hate this film (and that stupid kid), there is a small and very vocal minority that love these films and compare them to Bergman and Kurosawa. Don't believe them--this IS a terrible film!

FYI--Apparently due to his terrific stage presence, Gamera was featured in several more films in the 60s as well as some recent incarnations. None of these change the central fact that he is a fire-breathing flying turtle or that the movies are really, really lame.


There's not much to say about this one. Gammera is some kind of fire breathing turtle. He is loosed by a nuclear explosion. He heads for land and begins to destroy building and tanks and other junk (oh yeah, power lines. I almost forgot). At one time, early in the film, he befriends a little boy, and instead of just throwing him away, or squashing him, he places him down on the ground. Safe. From then on we have to watch this chubby faced little twerp show up and run away, show up and run away, show up and run away. For some reason, Gammera is able to hear this kid from 20,000 feet away. Oh, well, the plot is to try to get Gammera to get to a place where he can be put on board a rocket and shot into space. As usual, the monster is lumbering and uncoordinated (a guy in a Gammera suit). The Japanese army (with the help of Americans), uses up enough ammunition and fire power to solve the national debt, and, of course, it does no good. They should know this anyway. We've seen a lot of monsters stomp on Tokyo. Not to put these down because they can be fun, but it's really not very good.


Nobody, but nobody, could chew the scenery like the Divine One, Ruth Elizabeth Davis, and "Elizabeth and Essex" is a great example why. Although she overplays the part at times, watch her when she gawfs about Raliegh writing the lyrics to a song her ladies-in-waiting are about to play: in that one moment, she makes us understand how Elizabeth was able to rule and rule absolutely! At other times, she is done in by the script's sappiness. When Elizabeth has to be vulnerable, she comes off as weak and shrewish. This has the added effect of undermining her authority: when she blows her stack and threatens to dispense justice, it's hard to take her seriously.

Flynn exudes charm, making us see how Essex was able to worm his way into Elizabeth's heart, but he is totally inept at conveying the complexity and sheer evil of the man. It also doesn't help that Essex is badly underwritten. Why is he this hothead who wants to overthrow his Queen - even as he swears fidelity to her - except only that he is more blue-blooded, thus, more "worthy" of rule? And why does Raliegh betray Elizabeth by intercepting her and Essex's letters? He's in no risk of falling out of favor, and we know where Essex (and his head) is headed. So why does he risk his own head by speeding up the inevitable?

What did Curtiz do with all the $$$ he was given? He doesn't even bother to try to hide the fact that his battle scenes are shot on a sound stage. He should've ended it with Elizabeth the first time alone at The Tower; everything else that follows (especially the final scene between her and Essex) is unnecessary. The costumes are fantastic. And is it me, or does Bette look exactly like Susan Sarandon?


Oh dear, this movie was bad for various reasons. I was expecting to see a very low score for this film and was a bit surprised by the over-all score.Sorry, but to rate this highly as many have, is a joke! Once you get past the one shot/black and white movie gimmick, which was a nice idea, the movie drags on, even at a run time of only 66 minutes. The credits sequence at the start was so annoying too!In the van the guys suffer a flat tyre and change the wheel, wow, that was needed in the story! How slow were the guys chasing and actually managing to wound Campbell?? They did not seem to bother continue chasing him...sigh..I am only too glad I got this free with a special Edition of Evil Dead!!


This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. The story was boring, the dialogue was atrocious and the acting hammy. I'm not sure if this movie was the result of a film school homework project, but it certainly played like one. It is not even particularly successful in its central conceit of trying to appear as a single continuous take. The whooshing horizontal camera pans are a cheap and unoriginal way of hiding cuts.


This is the most messed up entry on IMDb that I've yet to stumble across. All the previous reviewers act like this is the movie. This is NOT the movie. Rather it's merely a featurette that's an extra on the DVD of the movie "The One" It also nowhere near being the 90 minutes that it's listed here as. In actuality it's barely over 13 minutes of how cool Jet Li can do martial arts. and his reflections on the movie. So yeah this IMDb entry is quite a bit fubar. Don't listen to any of the other reviews as they are ALL wrong. You can trust me, because I never feed you, dear reader, BS.

and that's the truth. i guess u can say that i'm "the One" Reviewer that matters.


This film was a waste of time, even rented on DVD. If super-speedy camera shots get any faster than this, we might as well pay twenty bucks to get in the laundromat, get popcorn, and watch the dryer spin. Jet Li is so much better than this. One can only hope that he won't be making deals anytime soon to make another cliche-ridden film like The One.

If there's one film you should avoid, this is "The One".


I rented this film just to see Amber Benson, though after reading the box I thought it sounded like a good story.....however the first problem was that there really wasn't a story...or actually there was a story but it made absolutely no sense. The second problem was there was no set up for these characters...yes I got that they all went to school together, but within the first 3 minutes of the film you realized they had nothing else in common and didn't like each other...so why did they keep getting together. Flaw number 3...the director though long pauses and tight camera shots equaled suspense (especially with the typical suspense music dubbed in)...he was sadly mistaken. It was painful to watch a terrific actress like Amber Benson waste time trying to bring this back to life....my only hope is the money she made here was put toward producing her own film.


Just finished this movie... saw it on the video shelf and being a Nick Stahl fan I just had to rent it. In all honesty, it probably should have stayed on the shelf. The concept was an interesting one and there were several fairly smart twists and turns but somehow I guessed almost all of them before they came along. And the movie just went a little too far in the end in my opinion... if you have to suffer through a viewing of it you'll see what I mean!

On a positive note, Nick Stahl's acting was great (especially considering what he had to work with). Eddie Kaye Thomas was also good but he always plays the same type of character... too much Paul Finch from "American Pie" coming through for my liking.

And finally, the worst part of this movie has to be January Jones' emotionless performance... I guess a pretty face really is all that matters in Hollywood.


The name of Nick Stahl, the young cast and the attractive cover of the VHS made me buy and watch this flick, expecting to see a good teen slash movie. What a crap! The full of clichés screenplay, the dialogs and the performances are awful, dreadful, very bad, terrible, horrendous  summarizing, a complete waste of time. There is no horror, black humor, only an absolutely boring story, with shameful plot points. The film begins with six characters, indeed three couples, together like a group of friends, but indeed very nasty persons that seems to be enemies, playing a ridiculous senseless game called "Taboo", and with each one of them writing yes or no for certain taboo issues. That is it: no previous development of the characters, the viewer does not know who they are, their motives and relationship. Then, there is an ellipsis to one year later, and the same group is gathered together in a New Years Eve party, insulting each other in a very sordid way. But the plot and the twists are so ridiculous, predictable, mediocre and unbelievable that do not deserve any additional line in my review. One advice only: do not waste your time or money on this garbage, you will certainly regret. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Taboo  Jogando Com o Assassino" ("Taboo  Playing With the Killer")


As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iám surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish.

A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?

The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.

Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.


The movie has the longest, most tortured and agonized ending of any movie I've seen in a long time. Unfortunately it starts right after the opening credits. January Jones gives such a wooden performance, I was surprised she didn't go up in flames when she got near the candles in the film. I don't really remember her from the other films she's done (a blessing I have to believe. I never criticize an actors performance because in film there are too many things which can affect it but in this case,it is so bad that it actually stands out from the ATROCIOUS script. Granted she's given lines and situations Meryl Streep would have trouble with but I swear at times shes reading from a cue card off set. At other times I thought she might actually be learning disabled or slow in some way. For REAL! The plot, dialog and pacing are as bad as you'll ever see but there is still no excuse for this performance nor for the director that let it be perpetrated. I feel sorry for the other actors. Cruel intentions/ 10 little indians/breakfast club shoved into a rotten burrito then regurgitated by a grade school writer- director. Take that back this has Studio exec crayola all over it.


I won't argue with anyone who pronounces this film execrable, as is January Jones's performance, but please check her out, if you haven't already, in the AMC TV series 'Mad Men," starting later this month. She's excellent, as is the entire cast. I'll charitably assume she took on the "Taboo" role strictly for the money, and, realizing what a putrid mess it was going to be, turned in a minimal acting job to avoid starvation. Don't know if that's the case, but I (now) know for sure that she can act.

At first, watching "Taboo," I was convinced her flat delivery was a shrewd choice that would later give rise to some significant revelation about her character or the plot. No such luck. Hard to believe the director didn't suggest to her at least once that not changing expression for 17 successive scenes could cause lockjaw.

Ironically, her winning performance in "Mad Men" comes as a character who, at least in her early appearances, is very repressed, reserved, unsure of herself, and rather colorless, not unlike her "Taboo" role. But as the TV series progressed, she began to blossom into someone who questions her traditional early-60's whitebread Mom role. Can't wait to see where they take her character in the 2nd season.

To sum up, avoid "Taboo" like leprosy, but definitely check out "Mad Men."


I watched this movie on the grounds that Amber Benson rocks and Nick Stahl is generally pretty cool - I figured that any film featuring two actors I like and respect couldn't be all bad. And in that sense, I was right - considering the cringe-making dialogue they were given, both of them perform reasonably well. Not well enough to stop the movie from sucking, you understand, but well enough that I was able to make it through the 75-odd minutes of movie (and that's the main sign of an awful film: when, at 40 minutes through, you're already praying for it to be over).

It's hard to know where to start with the problems in "Taboo". The dialogue, as mentioned, is appalling; wooden and completely unnatural. January Jones' acting is unbelievably bad, and since she's the character we spend most of our time following around the house, this is an unforgivable flaw. The plot manages to be so convoluted that it makes no sense while simultaneously being so clichéd as to be completely predictable (literally, not one of the major 'twists' in this film would surprise anyone but a toddler). A few interesting shots aside, the director tries far too hard with far too little success, awkward tracking shots and jittery camera-work distracting from what little element of story there is.

Three of this movie's stars are awarded for the fact that it contains Amber Benson, and the last is tossed in on the grounds that one of the jokes made me snigger a little bit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Avoid at all costs.


...And I never thought a movie deserved to be awarded a 1! But this one is honestly the worst movie I've ever watched. My wife picked it up because of the cast, but the storyline right since the DVD box seemed quite predictable. It is not a mystery, nor a juvenile-catching film. It does not include any sensuality, if that's what the title could remotely have suggest any of you. This is just a total no-no. Don't waste your time or money unless you feel like watching a bunch of youngsters in a as-grown-up kind of Gothic setting, where a killer is going after them. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth watching. Max Makowski makes the worst of Nick Stahl.


Don't waste your time or money on this one. The half decent cast might fool you into thinking that this teen-thriller, whilst hardly about to break any records, might lightly entertain for 80 minutes.

It won't.

It won't make you scared, laugh, cry or even challenge your intellect. It will leave you wondering how on earth this movie ever finished production. Yes, it really is that poor.


This was quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The plot didn't make a whole lot of sense and the acting was awful. I'm a big fan of Amber Benson, I think she's usually a wonderful actress, I can't imagine why she decided to do this film. Her character, Piper, is drunk for almost the whole film, with the exception of the opening scene. On the plus side, there was several points in the film where the acting was so bad, I actually laughed out loud. But despite that, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's only 80 minutes long, but that's 80 minutes of your life that you will have completely wasted.


There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.

Don't spend the time on this one.


Nothing like a movie about a group of friends who not only all dislike each other to the point of loathing, but they have little to no redeeming qualities to make an *audience* like or empathize with any of the characters either. There are movies so bad they are good (a la Ed Wood or Tod Slaughter films), and there's just plain bad (like 99% of Uwe Boll's "work"). This film is barely tolerable even if you are a brilliantly talented MSTie riffer (e.g., Mystery Science Theatre 3000). Thankfully while I am rather talented in that regard (it's how my mind works All The Time), for those who are not so naturally talented in MSTie riffing, eventually into *this* film you'll just want to pull your own head off, painfully aware the movie "Taboo" robs you of about an hour and twenty minutes you'll never get back. Even my MSTie talents were barely a match for this slow paced, boring waste of time. The most puzzling aspect of this film is that *someone* green-lit and/or funded it... I rented "Taboo" solely for the normally talented Amber Benson, who clearly must have been blackmailed into doing this film. I've another lesser known film of hers in my rental queue, the reviews to which I'd better read first. Ironically the best aspect of the film was its impressive labyrinthine mansion for its interior location.


A cheesy, compellingly awful (and NOT in a fun way) C Grade movie. Everything shouts 'amateur', from the crumby script (bizarre premises, limited coherence and predictable endings; the turgid lighting, sound and hand-held wobbly camera angles; the coy and passe sexual inneundo and references; the patchy and unbelievable dialgoue to the Z rate acting. I saw it on DVD and kept hoping Edward Wood would pop out. All is forgiven - your Worst Films are works of art, and more coherent than this twaddle.

But still, preferable to the warbling 'Every night in my dreams I hear you' - are you sure the Titanic crew weren't involved in this on the side?


Wow it's ironic since this movie has been out for awhile I think that someone else JUST reviewed it a couple days ago.

Anyways, I watched this movie simply because it has Nick Stahl, for the record.

The movie was ridiculous. The characters drove me INSANE, they were SO Cliché and STEREOTYPED. This movie had some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. It had way too many plot twists too.

There is ONE scene in the movie worth seeing however, the scene: "Warm heart, cold gun" where Nick Stahl kills the obnoxious girl in the shower. (Well, actually they were all obnoxious.) But his acting in that scene was excellent. The look on his face, it reminded my of American Psycho (a good movie). The scene is worth seeing but not worth seeing the rest of the movie for, do yourself a favor and don't watch it.


I'm embarrassed to be writing this review. I say that because those of you reading it will know that I sat through the whole thing and that is embarrassing to admit even to strangers. But I just had to warn those who read the viewer comments on IMDb before they watch a film not to watch this one. It's the least I can do. This is a bad movie! Trust me. The plot is goofy. The acting is amateurish. And the directing, camera work, sets, costumes, etc. are all second rate. Let it go.


How did such a terrible script manage to attract this cast? Ridiculous, predictable and thoroughly unbelievable, this is well-acted and slickly directed, but the material is so bad it still qualifies as one of the all-time worst thrillers I've seen in years. Amazingly bad, and not in a fun way. Avoid at all costs, even if you're a fan of someone in the cast.


I don't know why I'm commenting this stupid reality-show I happened to watch a few episodes of(a cable marathon broadcast when they aired 5 episodes in a row or something,I didn't watch the entire thing though.Only like three episodes)as I was nine months pregnant and about to go into labor any day.Maybe I'm just bored today:-)

I feel sorry for Britney,I really do.For all her money and fame she seem to have very little sense of dignity.Or she's self-centered to the extreme.She married the nitwit Federline(okay anybody can make a mistake) and before that she "starred" this horrible show about her everyday life with him,where she shoves a camcorder wherever she feels like it,no matter if it is in someone's face or into the shower as Federline is standing in there. She's babbling about her sex-life without leaving anything to your imagination,I don't care for my part,but I can't help wondering how she feels about it now when she's divorced.And yes,for her sake I'm embarrassed.But I shouldn't be.She seem to live a pretty empty,shallow life though.I don't want to swap lives with her even if I could. Road-kill TV if you like.


This is probably the worst excuse for television programming since, oh, I don't know, WHATS HAPPENING NOW? NOTHING ever happened on this ridiculous "series". Even though it's mostly shot by Britney and Kevin themselves, you don't get any good details into their personal lives. It's mostly just them making stupid, jokey small talk and acting like white trash. Look, I love Britney's music as much as the next babe, but this show is just pure filler for a nation so addicted to Britney that they would watch her clip her toenails (yes, that could be an actual episode). Thank God these two broke up, because they were PAINFULLY dull together. This show is TOXIC!


i'm ask... what a f*** are whit the real-TV never i see some b******* in my life is: a******, dirty, f****** bad and other a******* things but anything more is just a piece of American s*** all time Britney saying ''oh s***, i wanna see his cock, i wanna f***, and stuck his d***'' and he thinking ''oh like i gone to still her money'' it's just another show of s*** any one more the only good are what Britney sell in interior clothes but noting special noting it's just like i say another s*** show in this s*** sill out the money pure sex all f******* time, i just see for i sleep on the before show for this i wanna my f****** money


this one of the best celebrity's reality shows a ever saw. we can see the concerts we can see the life of Britney, i love the five episodes. i was always being surprised by Britney and the subjects of the show i think that some people don't watch the show at all we can how a great person she his. she his really funny really gentle and she loves her fans and we can see how she loves her work. i just don't give a 10 because of k-fed he his a real jerk he doesn't seem to like Britney at all. I they make a second season of this great show because it shows at some people how Britney really is. Go Britney your the best and you will never leave our hearts.


...but it's certainly not without merit. Already writer-director Preston Sturges is experimenting with unusual cinematic effects in telling his stories, creating broadly drawn yet distinctive characters and situations, and writing clever and sometimes unexpectedly wise and compassionate dialogue. (No wonder the Coen brothers' next movie is going to be an homage to Sturges.)

The major problem is that the plot's not all the way there yet; it lacks surprise, the unexpected plot twists and sudden changes of fortune that keep viewers guessing. The coffee slogan is a lousy thing to hang the plot upon, and the ending is thoroughly predictable. Frank Capra does this sort of thing much better.

If you're new to Preston Sturges, check out "The Lady Eve" or "Sullivan's Travels" or "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" first. If you've seen these already, then go ahead and watch this one.


I really enjoyed the first half hour of this movie but, wow, did it turn corny, or should I say, "just plain stupid." This is just another example of outdated humor. It might have been funny in 1940, but not now....not even close.

Dick Powell is always interesting to watch. I especially liked him once he started switching from his boyish looks and high voice of the Busby Berkeley musicals to where he's mature and sounds it, too.

He was fine as "Jimmy MacDonald," but the rest of the cast just played stupid characters, the worst being the boss (Raymond Walburn) of the Maxford House Coffee Company, who did nothing but shout all the time. He was brutal to hear and was a big detriment to the movie.


I found it a real task to sit through this film. The sound track was not the best and some of the accents made it difficult to understand what was being said. There was little to move the plot along and often the action simply stopped and there was a prolonged period of conversations which seemed extraneous to the movie. These conversations switched between family groups and the observer was left to try and piece together what the common thread was that tied them together. It is rare that I rate a film this low and do so in this case as the entire viewing experience left me thinking "so what" and "why did I waste my time watching this."


Good movies are original, some leave a message or touch you in a certain way, but sometimes you're not in the mood for that.

I wanted something simple, no thinking just plain action when I watched this one. It started of good and was quite entertaining, so why a bad review. Well in the end the movie lost it's credibility. The storyline wasn't that cheesy at all, the action was not too special but overall good, acting was OK, so more than enough to satisfy my needs. But all got ruined because things happened that were over the top, and it left me with a bad feeling. They should have put a little more effort in making everything credible and would have gotten a 7 in the "no thinking just plain action" category. So in conclusion if you know you'll get irritated because things are happening that seem completely illogical: don't watch! otherwise I'd say go ahead...


Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if "Rambo" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them.


This movie is just another average action flick, but it could have been so much better. When the guns come out they really needed some choreography help. Someone like Andy McNabb - who made that brilliant action sequence in Heat as they move up the street from the robbery - would have turned the dull action sequences into something special. Because the rest of the film was alright - predictable but watchable - better than you would expect from this type of movie. Then came the final scene, the show-down, the one we had been waiting for, but was like watching something from the A-Team in the 80s. They shoot wildly, nothing hits, and they run around a house trying to kill each other - same old, same old.


This film came recommended as a good action film, which I don't really think it is. I found the story convoluted and not all that easy to follow. There really isn't that much action until the end of the film and it's pretty dark and hard to see what's really happening. I was sure hoping for something different, but, alas, didn't find it here.


Wow, the spookiest thing about this episode was the price of houses 40 years ago. I'll preface by saying I'm not a fan of narrated episodes. If the story/actors/etc. are worth their salt, they should be able to convey the bulk of the narrative without having to read it out, reminded me of personages who can't think off the cuff but rely on teleprompters. The psychobabble was tedious and boring, but some enjoy that kind of thing, it's just not my cup O tea. They could have kept the narrative but at least made it much more believable and interesting if it was coming from a psychiatrist or maybe a newspaper reporter or something. Niggling little things like Peugeot being at the house, which has a singular half circle driveway, yet he seems to have parked his car in the tree he was standing under, because it's nowhere to be seen on the road or on the property. Sloppy editing, as she pulls into the driveway (for what seems the 100th time) exactly who are those 2 guys you see at 24m30s walking towards the car as she pulls into the driveway of the deserted house? The dolly close-ups were also overdone, like some Jr. High drama student discovering the zoom function on his camera for the first time. I could keep picking apart, but that might get almost as boring as this episode was. It kept dragging on and the true purpose seemed to be to use absolutely all the stock footage they had shot of Elaine driving the Newport convertible. I fully expected to see the Chrysler logo and a nice jingle play while a voice over told us all about the 8 track player, automatic top etc. The only good thing I have to say about his one is that it just ends, abruptly. No loose ends tied up, nothing explained or terminated. Not that many would notice, I suspect most had already changed the channel or dozed off by the end.


I am a current A.S.L. Student & was forced to watch this movie in class, and what I got out of it was the blatant bias involved in the film. The film is obviously leaning towards to P.O.V. of the "common deaf perception" their is no middle ground. Also, the film didn't make mention or take into account other situations that are also under debate in this topic. I.E. Deaf People who were born hearing and later went deaf. Is it right or wrong in that instance? The film is biased and virtually all in the opinion of the Deaf w/ a capital "D". Not that this is bad, but for it to be a true documentary film is should attempt to be slightly unbiased.


If you are having a bad day,or bad week. If you are looking for a film that will make you laugh and forget about your troubles. I don't think Role Models is that movie for you.

The film centers around Danny(Paul Rudd) and Wheeler(Seann William Scott) Two juice promoters, who go to schools promoting the product, telling kids to stay off drugs, and more juice. But Danny is having the worst week ever, and crashes his company car, with Wheeler in the seat next to him. His soon to be ex girlfriend Beth(Elizabeth Banks) who is a lawyer, manages to avoid getting them jail time, by doing hours of community service, volunteering at a big brother place called Sturdy Wings led by Gayle(Jane Lynch). Wheeler is assigned to Ronnie(Bobb'e J Thompson) who is 10 years old, and has a foul mouth like he's Chris Rock. Danny is assigned to Augie(McLovins, Christopher Mintz-Plasse) who likes to dress like a knight, and fight like he is in medieval times. But will this be good for Danny and Wheeler, or will they be better off in jail?

Okay I'm not gonna beat around the bush, this movie was very unpleasant in many ways. Namely the Ronnie character, hearing those bad words coming out of a kid that young, was very shocking. If he was a little bit older, it would not have mater'd as much. I mean what where his parents thinking, when they sign'd him on to this. Elizabeth Banks character is so unwatchable, maybe I was supposed to feel bad for her character, but I felt nothing, because she is annoyingly predictably portrayed as a female who would be played in these types of comedies. And Jane Lynch, who's the worst of the worst. She delivers the most overacting performance ever. Playing a former drug addict, who acts like she still is on drugs. Listening to her give all that annoying dialog, made me want to throw my head up against the wall. Seann William Scott once again playing another Stifler like character, he should really try to separate himself, and this film won't do it. And the more Scott tries to hard to be funny, is what keeps him from being funny.

Now Paul Rudd on the other hand, I'm gonna separate from the others in the film, cause he manages to deliver a solid performance, although he does not get higher laughs, but he is the most interesting character from the rest. Cause Rudd does not overact, and does not try so hard. The scenes with him and Mintz-Plasse are watchable. But the rest of the film is so stupid, it picks up at times. But it becomes so predictable and uninteresting. It is a reminder that these types of comedies try nothing new, there all the same, they take no chances. Role Models is an example of that.


Make up your own mind. Personally I found it as much fun as receiving a spinal tap from Stevie Wonder. No offense Mr. Wonder. Maybe it is comedy, but I just found it stupid. Not exactly the first two choices to babysit your kids; Wheeler(Seann William Scott)and Danny(Paul Rudd),two energy drink salesmen, to avert jail time are court ordered to mentor two kids from a development center run by Gayle Sweeny(Jane Lynch). One of the misfits is Ronnie(Bobb'e J. Thompson), a foul-mouthed fifth grader and the other is Augie(Christopher Mintz-Plasse), a bashful young man that roll plays in a fantasy medieval world. Wheeler and Danny desperately try to give their charges an invaluable inside view of life, love and heavy metal. Lynch is hilarious with her dry wit analogies. Supporting are: Elizabeth Banks, Ken Jeongg, Kerri Kenney-Silver, Amanda Righetti and David Wain.


well, i hated knocked up, i despised 40-year-old virgin, and this little gem is a worthless piece of trash movie. do yourself a favor, and skip it. i admit, i don't like the actors in this movie, and after my 18-year-old son showed me the cover of the DVD, i was like, "i wouldn't like that movie," but at his insistence, i decided to give it a try, unfortunately.

about two minutes into the movie i turned it off, i was so offended. it's just disgusting. any decent person would be offended by the filth in this movie. call me old fashioned, but shoving your pussy juice-covered hand into your friend's face so he will know you "got some" is over the line of decency, in my opinion. yeah, that's how this putrid little film starts, and i can only imagine it gets much worse from there. another real winner for Mr. Rudd. i bet he's proud as punch. imagine if you could only get worthless roles like he gets, would you stay in movies? despite the pay, i wouldn't.

i should have known better; next time i will.


Tell the truth I’m a bit stun to see all these positive review by so many people, which is also the main reason why I actually decide to see this movie. And after having seen it, I was really a disappointed, and this comes from the guy that loves this genre of movie.

I’m surprise at this movie all completely – it is like a kid’s movie with nudity for absolutely no reason and it all involve little children cursing and swearing. I’m not at all righteous but this has really gone too far in my account.

Synopsis: The story about two guys got send to the big brother program for their reckless behavior. There they met up with one kids with boobs obsession and the other is a medieval freak.

Just the name it self is not really connected with the story at all. They are not being a role model and or do anything but to serve their time for what they have done. The story is very predictable (though expected) and the humor is lame. And haven’t we already seen the same characters (play by Mc Lovin’) in so many other movies (like Sasquatch Gang?). I think I laugh thrice and almost fell a sleep.

Well the casting was alright after all he is the one that produce the screenplay. And the acting is so-so as expected when you’re watching this type of movie. And the direction, what do one expect? This is the same guy who brought us Wet Hot American Summer, and that movie also sucks. But somehow he always managed to bring in some star to attract his horrendous movie.

Anyway I felt not total riff off but a completely waste of time. Only the naked scenes seem to be the best part in the movie. Can’t really see any point why I should recommend this to anyone.

Pros: Elizabeth Bank? Two topless scenes.

Cons: Not funny, dreadful story, nudity and kids do not mix together.

Rating: 3.5/10 (Grade: F)


As soon as it hits a screen, it destroys all intelligent life forms around ! But on behalf of its producers I must say it doesn't fall into any known movie category, it deserves a brand new denomination of its own ! It's a "Neurological drama" ! It saddens and depresses every single neuron inside a person's brain.

It's the closest thing one will ever get to a stroke without actually suffering one. It drives you speechless, all you members go numb, your mouth falls open and remains so, and the most strange symptom of all is that you get yourself wishing to go blind and deaf.

No small feat for such a sort of a "movie".

The only word that comes to my mind just having finished my ordeal is OUTRAGE !!!!!!


I watched this film based on the very favorable reviews that I read about it here by others.

They definitely saw something in this movie I didn't see, that's for sure.

The movie starts off at a good pace, and the first 15 or 20 minutes of it are interesting, then it begins to get logged down and draggy, not to mention completely unbelievable.

Eventually you find yourself saying: "What?!? He's going to do that too? Just how far is he going to go with this thing?"

The plot begins with Jeff Goldblum's character, John, going into a deli to purchase a bottle of wine. There is a robbery and a new store clerk, Auggie Rose, gets killed during the robbery.

John gets in the ambulance and goes to the hospital with the guy. This seems a little much, but wait, there's more.

John becomes totally obsessed with Auggie Rose.

For reasons that never make any kind of logical sense, John, who has a very good life, a beautiful, loving girlfriend, a secure, well-paying job, nice house, nice car, expensive suits--decides he wants to be a loser like Auggie Rose was, and experience life in a low paying job, living in a dump with a dippy girlfriend and possible connections with dangerous people.

Why this dim-witted, half-baked film got favorable reviews I'll never know. Sure Goldblum does a good acting job - he always does - and his looks have improved with age -- but unless you have a BIG infatuation with Jeff Goldblum and have to see every film he's in, I wouldn't recommend this turkey. It's approximately two hours of your life you're not going to get back - and believe me - you'll have nothing to be thankful about when those two hours are over, other than being grateful you're not still sitting there watching this film!


I don't understand the positive comments made about this film. It is cheap and nasty on all levels and I cannot understand how it ever got made.

Cartoon characters abound - Sue's foul-mouthed, alcoholic, layabout, Irish father being a prime example. None of the characters are remotely sympathetic - except, briefly, for Sue's Asian boyfriend but even he then turns out to be capable of domestic violence! As desperately unattractive as they both are, I've no idea why either Rita and/or Sue would throw themselves at a consummate creep like Bob - but given that they do, why should I be expected to care what happens to them? So many reviews keep carping on about how "realistic" it is. If that is true, it is a sad reflection on society but no reason to put it on film.

I didn't like the film at all.


One of, if not the worst film to come out of Britain in the 80s.

This tawdry tale of a middle aged lecher who 'seduces' two teenage scrubbers who babysit for him and his faux-posh wife has nothing to redeem it.

In turns gratuitous, puerile, uncouth and unrealistic, this film plumbs the depths as it fails miserably in its attempts to be funny, provocative, intellectual and controversial.

Perhaps the worst thing about this film is the way the strong cast of George Costigan, Michelle Holmes and Siobhan Finneran are completely stitched by such a lame script. It's no surprise that this was the late Andrea Dunbar's only work to make it onto the screen. Complete and utter rubbish on every level.


my friends and i saw this film about a week ago and i feel it absolutely necessary to tell all the world (or at least those who will read this) that this movie is not only on the top five worst movies i have ever seen but actually has the honor of being the number one. i have seen quite a lot of films but none beats this one in being stupid. you could say i suffered watching it ... my only excuse is that we were waiting for a few hours and weren't able to go anywhere else without freezing our buttocks off. i do not recommend this to anyone. at first i thought we were watching some really bad porn movie but figured out after 10 minutes that is not the case. it is not a comedy, it is not drama, it is not action, it is not horror, it is just horrible!


I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'.

I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.


This is a strange sex comedy because there`s very little comedy but a whole lot of sex , most of which takes place in the back of a car and is so graphic it makes BASIC INSTINCT look like an edition of TELETUBBIES . I kid you not , the sex in this film is so in your face it might just choke you , especially if you`re watching with your grandparents .<br /><br />As for the rest of RITA , SUE AND BOB TOO there`s not much else worth mentioning except the language where every single sentence seems to contain the F word . This a rather bleak hyper-realist British film made at a time when Channel 4 was the main investor in British movies which explains its made for television low budget feel


Pretty awful but watchable and entertaining. It's the same old story (if you've lived through the 80s). Vietnam vets fight together as buddies against injustice back in the States. A-Team meets Death Wish, my favorite!

Time goes on, the soldiers go home, and years later a friend is in trouble. No, wait -- in fact, the friend is dead and it is his dad that's in trouble. Our first hero, Joey, is killed by an exceedingly horrifying (super pointy) meat tenderizer as he tries to defend his father's small store from the local "protection" gang despite being wheelchair bound from the war. Desperate for help, the father talks to Sarge, the leader of Joey's old unit from Vietnam, when Sarge shows up for the funeral.

Well, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the old gang saddles up for the city. You can pretty much imagine most of the rest of the movie.

The one thing that drove me crazy is that Sarge keeps haranguing his men about planning, and about how they're really good at what they do when they plan ahead. But Joey wouldn't have been put in a wheelchair by a gunshot in Vietnam in the first place if the unit hadn't been messing around! Then when things are going really well in the city as they battle the gangs, they do it again. For no reason at all, they completely bypass their plan and try to nail the gang without everyone being present. Phh!!!! I raise my hands in disgust. Foolishness!

There is also a suspicious moment when all present members of the unit make sure to try out the heroin they snatch from the gang to make sure it's real. EVERY single one of them. Hmm....

What are you going to do? Keep watching, I guess. The movie isn't too horrible to watch, but it IS a tease. There are all these climactic moments when nothing actually winds up happening. The most dramatic things that happen are those at the beginning of the movie -- the explosives in Vietnam, Joey's death battle, and the gang brutally kicking an innocent teddy bear aside (poor Teddy!).

I guess my main beef with this movie is that I feel let down by it. Even the confusing subplots with "mystery helpers" and their bizarrely cross-purpose motives wasn't enough to save it at the end. But someday maybe it'll all come right and they'll make a sequel. Ha ha ha ha!!!


Becky Harris plays the female shopper whose misfortune it is to be in the store at the wrong time and obviously ONLY purpose to be in this film is to supply a reason to wear out remote controls! Miss Harris seems to me to be in her fifties or older when she first comes on the scene. Once the red haired thug is done with her it becomes apparent that this is no AARP queen. If these are not some of the finest assets ever displayed on celluloid, I want someone to clue me in. Absolutely breathtaking in my opinion and I literally wore out my VHS copy capturing her charms. I would like to know if this movie is available on DVD.

The rest of this movie really is not worthy of mention. I was hoping to see something fairly convincing and intelligent, however I was disappointed on both counts. God Bless Becky Harris!


One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of "The Magnificent Seven" (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2)


Although Robert "Knox" Benfer has his fans, I'm not one of them. His films are asinine and amateurish, and and just not very funny, unless you're a 14 year old with an underdeveloped sense of humor.

He's certainly not famous, as him immature fans would like you to believe, by harassing people at Wikipedia, or stuffing the ratings votes here at the IMDb. He's certainly not been profiled by any major media outlets, which speaks volumes about his and his creation's "fame".

Benfer does have some slight skill at limited animation, but he needs to get away from his young sycophants and learn to write some actual funny material before he'll be taken seriously as a real entertainer. As of this moment, though, he's just a kid with a camera, and it shows.


boring stuff we got here. His 5 minute shorts are better than this. know why? because there only 5 minutes and not 91 minutes or how ever long this is.

The plot is kinda... eh.. the last half hour is alright the rest is boring and not funny =( I had my hopes up, the trailer made it look funny but the pace of this movie is pretty slow and sadly not funny. Just plain boring klaymen running into each other and trying to make us laugh.. not working.

Maybe next time knox.

Maybe re-cutting this movie and adding better scenes would do a lot of healing but for now its just not good.


I saw this movie the other night. I can't even begin to express how much this movie sucked. The writing, the voice acting, even the claymation. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible. It's like watching 24 hours of C-Span for the sake of comedy. It just doesn't work. It literally falls flat at about every spot possible.

Also, the movie's animation is very poor quality. I know that this is an movie made by one person, but to think that he could make 97 minutes worth of crap, maybe he could at least make 1 second worth of funny.

This show may take the cake for being the worst film of all time. Yikes. It really was that bad. If you're looking for a movie that will make you laugh, steer clear from this abomination. My advice: Don't even buy it, or look it up for that matter. Your brain will than you.


........and an extremely bad one at that!!! How long did this train-wreck last?? 14 episodes or something?? I can see why now.

I bought the "Serenity" episode from Amazon Unboxed. It was my first purchase, so was free. That is the ONLY good thing about the experience (incident??)

I won't comment really on the acting, since these were, I guess, fairly new people who hadn't really gotten the job down just right yet. At least I've never seen them before in any type of major show, theater or TV. If I did, then I have easily forgotten them.

But the special effects were absolutely horrendous. True, this isn't exactly a multi-million $$ project, but the original Star Trek did better than this & that was THIRTY-FIVE YEARS ago. I especially got a laugh out of the bad guys (reapers or something like that) ship as it chased the hilarious looking Firefly, with smoke coming out of the engines looking something like a gigantic model rocket. I fully expected to eventually see the Wiley Coyote riding on top, while chasing after the Roadrunner. MODERN jet/rocket engines don't even do it that bad.

And that wasn't even the worst of it. The wild-west type shoot-outs had me wondering if I was actually watching a sci-fi film or a Gene Autry one.

Regardless of the hype, don't waste your time...I did...all 80-something minutes of the disaster called "Firefly".


This was one of the lamest movies we watched in the last few months with a predictable plot line and pretty bad acting (mainly from the supporting characters). The interview with Hugh Laurie on the DVD was actually more rewarding than the film itself...

Hugh Laurie obviously put a lot of effort into learning how to dance the Samba but the scope of his character only required that he immerse himself at the kiddie end of the pool. The movie is based on the appearance of a lovely girl and great music but these are not sufficient to make good entertainment.

If you have never seen Rio, or the inside of a British bank, this film is for you. 2 out of 10.


This Drummond entry is lacking in continuity. Most of them have their elements of silliness, the postponed wedding, and so on. However, this has an endless series of events occurring in near darkness as the characters run from one place to another. The house seems more like a city. There's also Leo G. Carrol who is such an obvious suspect who no-one seems to even look at. He is a stranger and acts rather suspicious, but Drummond and the folks don't seem to pick up on anything. Still, it as reasonably good action and a pretty good ending.

I know that Algie is supposed to be a comic figure, but like Nigel Bruce in the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes flicks, he is so buffoonish that it's hard to imagine anyone with taste or intelligence being around him. Is there a history behind him that will explain how he and Drummond became associates?


A mix of Ninja stuff mixed with a sub-James Bond storyline. The result is incredibly awful and boring, being just the stage for endless gun battles. I can't believe this was released in theaters. Terminate this movie.


Shamefull as it may be, this movie actually made it to the videomarket, bringing shame on my proud country - any attempt to watch this movie without stopping or pausing, will be a fruitless attempt. one cannot bear to see more than one hour of this, then having either fallen asleep, or visited the bathroom for puking.

Note: if you haven't seen anything else from Denmark, please remember this:

some things were never meant to be - but still some idiot goes ahead and makes it anyway!


This is really a very bad movie. Why? First of all, the story is bad. It is an artificial story, combining all sorts of things together that make no sense. It just seems a wrong experiment. Secondly, the actors cannot play in a realistic manner. They cannot even talk as an actor should. Why did I buy this movie? And what must I do with it now?


Hello I am from Denmark, and one day i was having a film evening with my friends. One brought this movie with him "Russian terminator" and it was extremely awful. After watching less than half a minute we decided to fast forward only stopping at some laughable "highlights" or should i say "lowlights" in the movie. I was actually mostly surprised to find out that this film was produced here in my homeland Denmark...that must have been the biggest mistake this country ever made.


A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).

He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.

Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.

Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.

About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.

I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it.


"Metamorphosis" hold a tiny bit of cult-value, simply because it was written and directed by George Eastman. This Italian bloke is more or less the personification of male sleaze and starred in pretty much every rancid Joe D'Amato production during the late 70's/early 80's. Wouldn't it be interesting for avid Euro-cult purchasers to own the only movie directed by the guy who walked around bare-butted in "Erotic Nights of the Living Dead" all the time? I thought so! Now, unlike the movies he starred in, Eastman's own "Metamorphosis" is kind of disappointing in the gore & sleaze departments. There are a handful of nasty murders, cheesy monster effects and naked female bodies (a guest appearance by sleaze-queen Laura Gemser!) on display, but it's mainly a talkative movie. The handsome & eloquent Dr. Houseman is on the verge of a scientific breakthrough with his research on human DNA codes when suddenly the university he works for threatens to cancel his funds. He developed a theory to decode genes and block the human ageing process, but if he doesn't come up with detailed reports any time soon, his research will be stopped. So Dr. Houseman does what any intelligent scientist would do and injects the untested serum into his own veins. Needless to say (and like the title implies), he slowly turns into murderous monster that actually ages much quicker! In other words, his research sucked! Like the other reviewers already mentioned, this movie "borrows" a lot of ideas from David Cronenberg's "The Fly"  the dramatic romance sub plot included - but doesn't add any originality from its own. The big difference is that you constantly feel connected with Jeff Goldblum's character in "The Fly", whereas Dr. Houseman becomes just another monster that needs to be destroyed as fast as possible. The rapid-ageing-syndrome aspect also reminded me of Ruggero Deodato's sadly underrated giallo "Phantom of Death", only the protagonist in that film inherited the disease and didn't inflict it on himself. The physical deterioration of the carriers is very similar in both films, though. Few scares or excitement to discover here, instead the movie features loads of bad acting, poor lighting, lousy editing and a completely retarded climax to boot. Feel free to skip this one.


All the elements for a bad night at the movies are in place: dialog riddled with biological techno-babble, chintzy sets, balsa-wood acting, a horrific late-'80s Casio score, and an overall look that suggests anything on the Sci-Fi Channel's programming schedule, circa 1993. Though "Metamorphosis" starts off with a lot of promise, the film unravels into bland idiocy and MST3K-style cheese as Clark Kent wannabe 'Doctor' Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock) is pressured into releasing information on his secretive projects. But when he tests his vague experiment on himself, he transforms into a vaguely-defined creature (that bears more than a passing resemblance to 'Dr. Freudstein' from "House by the Cemetery"). The FX work is fairly good for such an obviously low-budget production (though I suspect most of it is kept in shadow for a reason), but overall, "Metamorphosis" leaves a bad retro aftertaste in your guts, in spite of its hopes to sway us otherwise. I can't help but agree with one character's closing remark: "(It was) A nightmare...from the past!"


Meet Peter Houseman, rock star genetic professor at Virgina University. When he's not ballin' on the court he's blowing minds and dropping panties in his classroom lectures. Dr. Houseman is working on a serum that would allow the body to constantly regenerate cells allowing humans to become immortal. I'd want to be immortal too if I looked like Christian Bale and got the sweet female lovin that only VU can offer. An assortment of old and ugly university professors don't care for the popular Houseman and cut off funding for his project due to lack of results. This causes Peter to use himself as the guinea pig for his serum. Much to my amazement there are side effects and he, get this, metamorphoses! into something that is embedded into our genetic DNA that has been repressed for "millions of years". He also beds Dr. Mike's crush Sally after a whole day of knowing her. She has a son. His name is Tommy. He is an angry little boy.

Metamorphosis isn't a terrible movie, just not a well produced one. The whole time I watched this I couldn't get past the fact that this was filmed in 1989. The look and feel of the movie is late seventies quality at the latest. It does not help that it's packaged along with 1970's movies as Metamorphosis is part of mill creek entertainment's 50 chilling classics. There is basically no film quality difference whatsoever. The final five minutes are pure bad movie cheese that actually, for me at least, save the movie from a lower rating. Pay attention to the computer terminology such as "cromosonic anomaly". No wonder Peter's experiment failed. Your computer can't spell! This is worthy of a view followed by a trip to your local tavern.


'Metamoprhis' is the story of a dashing young scientist, revered at the local college, is brought under investigation by financial providers for the college. This forces him to take shortcuts in typical bad-Hollywood melodramatic fashion.

My first thought after this movies conclusion was this. "Not good, but not bad, for early-to-mid eighties." Of course, I then realized that it was made in 1990, which almost propelled it down to a '4', but decided to keep it at the mediocre '5' that it is.

'Metamorphis' does on a few occasions, seem like a good movie desperately trying to get out. The acting, while not stellar, is mostly competent. You can even see the occasional glisten of a modest quality. Pacing is a large problem with the movie. After thinking I had been watching for ninety minutes, I realized I'd only been watching an hour. Special effects aren't stellar, but the director seems to be mostly competent enough to work around that weakness.

The lead, a mildly charismatic male that seems to be attempting a blended channeling of Tom Cruise and Christopher Reeves, reminded me mostly of Matt Dillon's character in 'Wild Things'. The female heroine does an OK job, but does not distinguish herself in anyway. There's a 'naughty girl' role in here, and the actress does what she can with it, but it doesn't seem like much. There is a child actor that the director can't decide if he's morose, cheerful or just weird.

Pacing, as I said, is the worst problem with this movie, until a final battle with the bad guy that would make a Power Ranger blush. It is bizarre and inexplicable, until the final scene which is supposed to be dramatic but simply hilarious, saturated with every bad camera trick and overacting that can be compressed in about thirty seconds.

A decent one-time watch on the 'Mill Creek 50 Chilling Movie Pack'. Nothing that is going to bring you back, and nothing to buy on its own.


It's the same old, "If I can't get the funding for my project, I'll inject myself" monster movie. There is nothing new here. It's a lot like the Jeff Goldblum "Fly" movie. The man manages to keep some semblance of sanity, but eventually succumbs to the effects of his experiments. The acting is pretty bad. There are people acting stupidly all along the way, putting their lives in danger for no apparent reason. The guy keeps going back to the lab he has been forbidden to enter. Then there's his relationship with a young woman and her son. Admittedly, he is good looking, but he seems like a lot of trouble. It's just a pretty big waste of time. Even his tyrannosaurus suit looks like it came off the rack at a Star Trek convention.


METAMORPHOSIS I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and METAMORPHOSIS is the seventh movie in the set. Released in 1990, METAMORPHOSIS seems to be a remake of "The Atom Age Vampire," which also featured a scientist striving for similar results. Set in modern times, METAMORPHSIS is not my kind of horror movie.

A university researcher is working to crack the human genome in order to create a serum that would prevent aging. Pressured by the administration to publish his papers; and, produce some results (or risk losing funding), the scientist decides to use himself as a guinea pig! At first thinking that he suffered no adverse side effects, he eventually discovers that the serum has indeed altered him in the most unexpected manner!

The acting is stilted; and, the performances left me with a much diminished interest in the film. The score is pandering. And, the science behind the experiments and their findings is not only fallacious; it's absurd; it's ridiculous  at best.

As others noted, the end turns into a 30+ minute gag, which is seemingly endless. Without giving too much away, I'd call this one, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meet the Creature From the Black Lagoon meets Home Alone."


As others have mentioned, this movie is similar to THE FLY (both versions) and the lesser known sci-fi flick ALTERED STATES. The big difference is that those two movies were well made by people who knew what they were doing and were good at it. METAMORPHOSIS did not have these advantages. METAMORPHOSIS is a potentially interesting science fantasy story that had the wrong people in charge of it and the wrong actors playing the roles.

The story follows scientist Dr. Peter Houseman (Gene LeBrock), an obsessed man working on a genetic cure to aging and death. When the university he works for threatens to cut funding, he decides to inject the anti-aging serum into himself. As a result, Dr. Houseman spends the rest of the movie slowly turning into a lizard. And oh yes, watching the good doctor go through the process of becoming that lizard is a great joy. It really is so bad that it's good. Some of the lines are classic: "What WAS it?" "A nightmare...from the past!"

Many of the reviews that I've read for this point up how stupid and ridiculous the last five minutes of this movie are. I'm just going to go ahead and spoil it: the good doctor goes from being a shuffling half-man, half-lizard thing to being what appears to be a man in a rejected Godzilla costume, when the police finally gun him down. In the final scene, some obnoxious kid is seen with a little pet lizard which he claims will never die, and the movie's heroine, Sally Donnelly (Catherine Baranov) evidently decides that the little lizard is the final incarnation of Dr. Houseman. The camera then gives us a close-up of the lizard's face; this is, I assume, the director's way of showing us that the lizard is EVIL. Yes, it is goofy, but I fell over laughing so I can't complain.

I watched this movie because it was a part of the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Megapack that I purchased. I'm sure many of those who are reading this did exactly the same thing, as the 50 pack is the only way to see this movie on DVD. If you have recently bought the boxed set and haven't watched this movie yet, it really is worth your time, even if I did just ruin the ending for you. It might also be possible to find this movie online for free.


I unknowingly had this movie on my shelf for a while in a Mill Creek Collection, and one night I just decided to watch it; though not expecting much. As the beginning credits roll around I'm surprised to discover this film was made under the Filmirage company. Filmirage brought the world such amazing stinkers as "Troll 2", "Ator the Invincible", and "Quest for the Mighty Sword", so I was compelled to watch.

As the movie started out it had potential to be pretty decent, even though it was unoriginal. The gore scenes could have been improved if they were extended and more frequent. But after a while into the film, the pace started dragging and I found myself thinking "Okay someone better get killed soon",or "Someone better mutate". At the onset of this drag, when I was having these thoughts, though someone may have gotten killed or have mutated, however as noted, the gore and effects weren't very good. What made matters worse was that the scene transitions were confusing; example: first Dr. Houseman would be at the Zoo, then he'd have a flash back about possibly killing someone, finally he'd wake up in a cold sweat in bed-- making the audience ask "Was he dreaming he was at the zoo?". Like the movie's pace, these scene transitions got progressively worse.

I could try to say the character development of Dr. Houseman was pretty good, but towards the end of the film, that is, once you've seen what the Doctor has metamorphosed into, hopefully you'll laugh-- which really, is the only reason to see this movie at least once; this movie unintentionally runs like a long-winded joke.

The costume of the um, thing that Doctor Houseman becomes can also be seen in Joe D' Amato's "Quest for the Mighty Sword", which was made in the same year. You've gotta love Filmirage movies, they're always re-using the same stuff!


Ha. without a doubt Tommy's the evil one here. i don't know why, but for some reason, little kids in horror movies tend to come across as little butt munches. and since they're kids, they won't die. because they're annoying...well..except for asylum of terror. but those are few and far between.

Anyway onto the movie. Can't find this movie on DVD? sure you can! all you have to do is buy the Chilling classics DVD pack! not only do you get Metamorphosis on DVD for $15, but you also get 49 OTHER MOVIES! what a bargain! pff. OK. i'm done advertising for these cheesy movies. let's just say, this movie ain't worth the 15 bucks on its own.

So we have a chemist scientist. yeah. cause all chemist scientists look as handsome as this guy playing Peter. He's trying to come up with a serum to stop deterioration of the body. the college he works at wants to pull the plug on his project, so he tries it on himself. but because this is a horror movie, he sucks it up and starts and incredibly long transformation sequence that takes nearly 3/4 of the movie.

To pad out the movie he gets into a relationship with some woman who has a son. and she was never married! scandalous! But of course Tommy is one of the most irritating characters....no. i take it back. HE IS the most irritating character. Far worse than the old crippled guy who wants to take over peter's work and gloats over him while he's in the hospital. that's right, even as an old cripple, you can still be the villain.

So we see Peter start to randomly kill some people in visions he has until he realizes he's the one doing it and just decides to kill everyone in his path to get back to normal. However at the end he ends up de-evolving into a lizard. yeah, i know don't ask. The ending really doesn't make any sense. And if you're hoping for any really good payoff, you're not going to get it.

This isn't a HORRIBLE movie....it's just frustrating because of the lack of a good payoff. if you already own the 50 movie pack and this is next on your list, you're not in for a snoozer, but you're also not in for a great movie. Just sit back, relax, and eat a lot of snack food. Because this movie isn't going to be making you jump out of your skin anytime soon.

Metamorphosis gets 4 plastic lizard heads, out of 10.


First let me be honest. I did not watch all this movie. I watched the first five minutes and when i realized that I had nearly fallen to sleep i decided that I may as well fast forward and see if it got any more interesting later on... It didn't. This film is just a collection of lame attempts to make a story which is already uninteresting and badly told into something that it would never become: a decent horror movie. Because I feel it is important to say that even a movie with poor special effects can still be good if it is well made. This film isn't and will only put you into a deep sleep if you attempt to watch it. Lastly I feel it is important to say that I think this movie is in the publicdomain so if you feel that you must absolutely watch it than a littlesearch on the internet will surely show you a place where you won't need to pay to watch this pile of cinematographic dung.


Ok so I was bored and I watched it all the way through.

This film is mild, inoffensive and lacklustre. The story is so sugary it rots your teeth on the opening titles. A tail of two 'traumatised' children learning about 'God' the fairy story way which frankly left me rather traumatised. It uses the Irish 'blarney' in such a stereotypical way one hopes no true Irish ever see it. Aimed at children who frankly would switch off after the first attempt at an 'OIRISH' accent. All in all why do they pump these out.


This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up.


Anemic comedy-drama, an unhappy, seemingly rushed affair featuring Cher as a woebegone housewife who slowly makes friends with the hit-man who's been hired to kill her by her husband. Chazz Palminteri, as the talkative hired gun, adapted the screenplay from his own play, with stagy set-ups and back-and-forth dialogue that quickly tires the eye and ear. An air of gloom hangs over the entire project, and director Paul Mazursky can't get Cher out of her perpetual funk (she's listless). Despite all the top talent (including Robert De Niro as one of the producers), "Faithful" is fraudulent, with no substance to the story and characters who rarely come to life. *1/2 from ****


Adapting plays into cinema is often a bad idea because they're two different mediums . Do you think it's a great idea to make ZULU into a stage play ? Imagine it where two valiant redcoats sit in a tent gasping " Blimey there's thousands of them out there " Great movie and a bad stage play

In order for a stage play to make great cinema there's two essentials needed

1) A fine cast that creates on screen chemistry

2 ) Great dialogue

On paper Cher and Chazz Palminterri would be a good casting choice but not in these roles . The story revolves around a hit-man played by Palminterri breaking into a house to kill a wife played by Cher with most of the action taking place inside the house . I was unable to take these two characters seriously though perhaps it was the fault of the script which can't decide whether it was trying to be serious or funny . Since the story is very static it's of the utmost importance that the dialogue shines and once again because of the bizarre tone of the screenplay it embarrasses more than anything else with much of the conversation revolving around sex acts . if you want to see a great translation of a stage play transferred to the silver screen give FAITHFUL a miss and watch 12 ANGRY MEN instead


Minimal script, minimal character development, minimal steady camera. Maximum stretched scenes, maximum headache inducing jerky zooms, maximum characters walking around in the woods doing nothing. Up until the time flashes on the screen of 12:01pm, you can fast forward and miss nothing, since there are three hunters who we know nothing about doing nothing. To be fair, the movie does have some string music that was interesting, so perhaps a music video would have been the way to go with this. Unfortunately that was not to be, and what should have been a twenty minute short is stretched beyond belief. Forget about "Trigger Man", I know I am trying to. - MERK


"Trigger Man" is definitely the most boring and silliest movie I've ever seen in my life. My aunt's holiday videos are more fascinating.

The actors seem to be recruited at uglypeople.com. They do not have any talent to act in a convincing manner.

They walk and walk and walk through the forest. There's more walking-around than in all three parts of "The Lord of the Rings" together. After the first hour, I began to read a Porsche brochure while watching "Trigger Man" along the way. Awful.

A total waste of time and money. I'd give that movie 0 stars out of 10, since this is not possible, I have to give 1 star.


I have seen poor movies in my time, but this really takes the biscuit! Why oh why has this film been made? There just is nothing here whatsoever. Please put your trust in me, flick the off switch and destroy your copy of this film. There is a plot... that could take about 5 minutes to show on camera. This is the key problem, the story 'based on a true story' (mmm... whatever) just in no way lends itself to be padded out for 80 minutes. And so we therefore have to sit through over an hour of watching people walk around. That is it! In the whole first half an hour absolutely nothing happens, apart from watching someone walk to a shop... and then 3 guys walking through a wood. This time could perhaps have been spent on developing character... but no. And so there is absolutely no connection to the people on screen, and so when they start to get shot, we couldn't care less! In fact I was in the end vouching for the baddie so that the film would end! On top of this the camera work is truly horrific! This director/editor/writer/producer, Ti West is rubbish. I hate to hit a guy, but really, his work is pants! These dull close ups continuously, and then long single takes following people as they walk - I'm sure he thinks he's clever, but the results are so dull I just wanted to stop the film and slit my wrists! How this man has been brought on to direct the next cabin fever movie is beyond me! To finish, the acting is also woeful,... which goes for the film as a whole. Preserve your sanity, stick clear of this heap of total excrement!


Contains spoilers The movie plot can be summarized in a few sentences: Three guys go hunting in the forest. Two of them along other people get shot in the head without explanation. The last guy can stand in the clear, shout and do anything without getting shot. He gets to walk through an old factory and has the evil people walk right into his scope without a struggle. The villains are conveniently dressed in black and look like villains.

That is the whole story, not summarized but in detail. Everything is drawn out with a guy standing ringing a door bell. We wait with him. Long shot of guys being bored in the woods and sleeping. We can take a nap with them. The one drawn out shot of following a female jogger could have been redeeming, if we could see her butt or boobs bouncing.

There dialog is less then Terminator and it is not because there is so much action. The characters just don't talk. And, then they don't even have something corny to say like 'I'll be back.' If my buddy shot this on the weekend, I'd cheer for him, because it is quite a feat to figure out the camera controls. To pay money to rent this as a DVD is totally inappropriate.

The one thing that is a little funny is the extra with the director telling, how they local police didn't realize that they were shooting and treated them like a random guy walking around with a gun. If they'd have filmed that, I'd be sure it would be more fun to watch then the movie.


The story is seen before, but that does'n matter if you can figure out to make a proper storyboard. It is clear that the director haven't spent his work on the storyboard. Alongside this, the cameraman spent far too much time leaning angles that do not match the message of the movie. The funniest is, however, if you take a look at the movie's website, you can read that it was on purpose that the director has chosen to make the film with bad camera angles. Because it remind us about hunting. But I have never heard of hunting with poor camera angles ;-) It will have 1 stars because the story is OK. It is a pity that Ti West, has not spent more time to review his story. It is as if the movie was more important than the planning. Because you have a camera does not mean you should make a movie right away... come. Everyone can make a movie, but not all will be just as good. So a word of advice to Ti West are: stop and labeling what you want. Use your time to start planning and not filming until everything has come down on a storyboard. You certainly have the ability and desire - so don't abuse your talent.


This movie is very very very poor. I have seen better movies.

There was a bit of tension but not much to make you jump out of your chair. It begins slowly with the building of tension. Which is not a success. At least if you ask me. Though at some points or moments I must say it was a bit funny when people got shot and how they went down.

They should had made it something like Scary Movie, then it might be a better movie. Because I watched only pieces of the movie by skipping scenes and it got to boring through out the movie. I must say that i felt sleepy watching this movie so I sure can say it is not worth it.

Don't waste time on even thinking to do something with this movie besides leaving it where it already is. Somewhere very dusty..


In the first 20 minutes, every cliche possible was trotted out by the hack writer and director. There was the NTSB primary investigator with the tortured family life; the politically-tortured NTSB board member played by [I can kill ANY TV] Ted McGinley; the tortured father of a crash victim; and the torturing sleazy ambulance-chasing lawyer.

Hollywood still has no concept of the fragility of aircraft. The crashed plane was a 737 and it was mostly sitting on the ground like a hippo who decided to take a nap. The first third of the fuselage was intact, the rear half of the plane was intact and the debris field showed no wings or engines. Most of the people should have walked away in light of how many people survived that plane that got shredded in Iowa after it lost its hydraulics. Most of this TV plane wasn't even burned.

It reminded me of the scene in "Air Force One" where the 747 hits the water and then skips along like it's made of inch-thick steel.

The show was so bad it was impossible to watch. Even my wife, who is more accepting than I, was commenting on technical flaws. What had me stunned was how this POS could ever get made. Are the producers of these things so used to clichés that they can't even recognize them? Somebody read this script and said: Yes, I want to spend a million bucks making this real. I wish I was the guy's next appointment. I have title to a wonderful bridge in New York that I'd sell cheap.


This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I really can't recall when I've seen a worse one. I thought this would be about an aircraft accident investigation. What it really was is a soap opera, and a bad one at that. They overplayed the 'conflict' card to the extreme. The first hour or so seems like a shouting match, with some implausible scenes thrown in.

*Possible spoiler*

The 40-or-so minute 'memorial' scene (with requisite black umbrellas and rain) to fictitious crash victims was lame, and I thought it would never end.

Avoid this one at all costs, unless you revel in 'conflict'.


Weaker entry in the Bulldog Drummond series, with John Howard in the role. Usual funny banter and antics, but not much plot. Barrymore gets something to do as the inspector, swapping disguises to follow Drummond, Algy, and Tenny on a wild goose chase (mostly in circles; perhaps the budget was tighter than usual) to rescue poor Phyllis, who is being held captive by people who want to lure Drummond to his doom. For those keeping score, in this one, Drummond is planning to ask Phyllis to marry him and Algy is worried about missing the baby's christening. It's fun to see Algy and Tenny dressed up as fisherman to blend in at The Angler's Rest, but little of it rises above silly.


Though a bit more polished technically than the previous film in the series, BULLDOG DRUMMOND ESCAPES, this is a weaker escapade in both a plot that's less thrilling and a leading man who simply doesn't have the charisma of Ray Milland.

That said, several actors and characters continue in their roles and manage to keep the flag flying. Also John Barrymore is present, popping up all through the film in a variety of outlandish disguises.

Anyway it's another endless night for BD as he and his cohorts chase around trying to rescue the poor girl he intends to marry. The clues are stupid but again the supporting actors often make them entertaining.


I had heard (and read) so many good things about Weeds that I was looking forward to getting hooked on another great cable Series (like Entourage, Sopranos or Mad Men) but that slowly eroded away with each episode I watched from Season One. (didn't make it past the first six episodes)

The writing was unoriginal, contrived and the portrayal of Blacks embarrassing. The dialog felt forced, like the writers are trying way too hard to be clever and hip . It was a rare moment when I actually emitted an audible laugh.

The characters never developed enough for me to care about them, they were selfish and unappealing. I absolutely HATED the addition of the Brother-in-law (who should have been hauled away on To Catch A Predator) and the removal of the Hodes' daughter Quinn from the cast by sending her to boarding school in Mexico was so unoriginal and cliché, I had to conclude the writers were testing the viewer's loyalty.

Episode after episode I liked the characters less and couldn't get past many of the technical flaws in the story line.

Add to that I heard that Season Two wasn't as good, so I lost all motivation to continue to watch this play out.

If you're a fan of good casting and writing, I suspect this show will be a challenge for you to like, unless of course you're stoned and then all bets are off.


Don't get me wrong , I want to see marijuana legalized as much as the next guy. I shall digress now. The writing, though, was unrealistic. A PTA mom dealing drugs but adamant about her drugs getting into the hands of an underage person. Give me a break. The smugness of very pretty Mary Louise Parkers character was an insult to my intelligence. The characters were not at all likable. Basically, the plot lines went nowhere. I understand its only TV land . The hypocrisy was blatant. Mary Louise Parker is supposed to be a great mom and I am supposed to believe this.... WHY ???? I just got the feeling I was being preached by a show reeking of seediness. Its like saying its OK to cheat on your wife , but with someone of legal age status. OK not exactly the same thing , but I think you people get my point. That save the children stuff is wonderful for campaign trails , I guess, but it does not hold water in a cable sitcom about a suburbanite mom , as the local pot dealer.


Another turgid action/adventure flick from the Quinn Martin Productions factory. Roy Thinnes plays undercover agent Diamond Head (Mr. Head, to you), working for his G-Man handler "Aunt Mary", looking for "Tree", who's on a mission to...well, just watch the movie.

This one deserved and got the full MST3K sendup. As the boys and various reviewers have pointed out, the movie "Fargo" had more Hawaiian locations than this film. Apparently shot on a puny budget, this movie highlights Hawaii's broken-down dive shops, gas stations, and cheapo hotels. Zulu -- later to star as Kono in Hawaii-Five-O -- appears as Thinnes' lumpy, inept sidekick, while France Nguyen models the Jenny Craig diet gone horribly wrong. Others sharing the flickering screen include a drunken Richard Harris knockoff, a George Takai imitator, a not-so-smart hit-man with sprayed-on Sansabelt slacks, and the villain "Tree", sporting a veddy British accent. You can pretty much figure out the plot halfway through the opening credits, but relax--just enjoy the giddy mediocrity of this 70's movie-of-the-week.

Whenever I think of this movie (and I think of this movie often), I catch myself humming the theme, written for flute and tuba...no one knows why.

Trivia note--Diamond Head was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, one of three contract directors at Universal who would go on to make much bigger films, in his case Jaws 2. The others were John Badham (War Games), and a young fellow named Steven Spielberg...


It doesn't take long to see why Code Name: Diamond Head didn't make it onto the network schedules. The TV pilot movie doesn't get past the credits before it's obvious just how bad it's going to be. Maybe I missed something, because the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense. Based on what I got out of the muddled mess, a terrorist or thief or something named "Tree" (Ian McShane) goes to Hawaii to steal something to do with a secret weapon. The world's dullest secret agent, Johnny Paul (Roy Thinnes), is out to stop him. There might have been more, but trust me  it really doesn't matter anyway.

Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word "turgid" to describe this made for TV snoozer  and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.

I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


Ahh, the dull t.v. shows and pilots that were slammed together in the 70's to make equally dull t.v. movies! Some examples would be Riding With Death(the most hysterically cheesy of the lot), Stranded in Space(confusing and uninteresting), San Francisco International(horribly dull and unbelievably confusing), and this turgid bit of Quinn Martin glamor.

Shot in Hawaii(although you wouldn't know it from the outside shots), it's apparently a failed pilot for a lame spy show. The real problem is that you don;'t like most of the characters, including the drab main character Diamond Head, who seemed half asleep for the entire movie; his boss 'Aunt Mary', who had a really weird delivery of his lines and shellacked white hair as well as the a tan that looked like it had been stuccoed on; Diamnd Head's girlfriend/fellow agent(hell, I can't even remember her name) a skinny, wooden woman with a flat way of speaking that is just not sexy or interesting; and the singing sidekick Zulu(again, i can't remember his character's name)who wasn't bad in small doses. The most interesting person in the whole production was Ian McShane, who sucked as a bad guy but still proved his acting chops. Alothugh the make-up jobs this so-called 'chameleon' used to disguise himself were just laughable. I have absolutely no idea what he was doing or what he was trying to steal from the lab that caused him to dress as a South American Dictator cum American General. Nor do I care. The plot simply wasn't interesting enough to hold your attention for even ten minutes at a time, let alone the hour and a half or so it goes on. Just call this one - Hawaii Five No!


Think of this pilot as "Hawaii Five-O Lite". It's set in Hawaii, it's an action/adventure crime drama, lots of scenes feature boats and palm trees and polyester fabrics and garish shirts...it even stars the character actor "Zulu" in a supporting role. Oh, there are some minor differences - Roy Thinnes is supposed to be some front-line undercover agent, and the supporting cast is much smaller (and less interesting), but basically the atmosphere is still the same. Problem is, "Hawaii Five-O" (another QM product) already existed at the time and had run for years. It filled the market demand for Hawaii-based crime dramas quite adequately. Code Name: Diamond Head may have been intended as the hier to H50 as the older series eventually dwindled away...but it comes across as a superfluous, 2nd rate copy. It doesn't suck, but it's completely derivative and doesn't do anything as well as the original.

There is some decent acting talent involved here. Thinnes is an old pro, and he gives the role his best shot, and he isn't bad. But Thinnes is only as good as his material and his director. Ian McShane is in here as an evil spy master named "Tree", and McShane tends to be the most interesting actor in any scene he appears in. But he's phoning his part in here. Frances Ngyuen is reasonably exotic looking, but her astounding skinniness, opaque features, thick accent and wooden delivery aren't the stuff of which dreams are made. Relying on her to supply the 'romantic interest' for Thinnes was probably the series' biggest mistake. At least for for a series aimed at white audiences brought up with Marsha Brady and Peggy Lee as our love goddesses. Give her another 30 lbs and a year with a dialog/voice coach, and she might cut it. Zulu is, well, his usual self - enjoyable in bit parts, but he isn't a person who can carry a feature by himself.

In addition, the plot and dialog are strictly by-the-numbers, with nothing to distinguish them from any other Quinn Martin production. And by this point, the American TV audience had seen a whoooole lot of QM productions....I think "CN: DH" was one too many, and it sank without a trace. It wasn't the really the actors' fault, and I hope they walked away from this with a decent paycheck and one more entry on their C.V.s.

MST3000 revived this for their treatment in their sixth season, and they had a lot of good natured fun with it. Worth seeking out in that version if you enjoy the MST approach to movie japery and lampoon, but I can't imagine anyone caring about this pilot for any other reason.


This series would have been a lot better if they had just done one simple thing: Made Ian McShane Code Name: Diamond Head instead of Code Name: Tree. Diamond Head the character needs someone who could handle the role of the lovable rogue, which McShane proved he could do with the Lovejoy series. Roy Thinnes, the actual Diamond Head, is really only so-so in the role. McShane is not really that good as the bad guy Tree. France Nuyen's character, Tso-Tsing, can't seem to make up her mind as to whether she's the hapless victim or the tough-and-ready-to-fight woman. She really earned her pay at the end when she had to play the role of Diamond Head's lover. After viewing an episode or two, I ended up not caring what happened to anyone. Tree gives us a lot to hate him, but Diamond Head gives us nothing to like him. Unfortunately, the spy genre in the 1970s was not quite as it was in the 1960's.


TV pilots, don't you love them? Quinn Martin tried this one out after being successful in a bunch of other TV detective movies, but this one goes nowhere except in the realm of MST where it belongs. Roy Thinnes is Diamond Head who takes orders from Aunt Mary to find super spy Lovejoy, I mean Tree. Zulu and Tso-Tsing are there for ethnic comic relief and not much else. Tree sucks as a bad guy despite all his disguises that makes him look exactly the same as he normally does. There's more unnatural clothing fiber here than you can ever imagine (required in the 1970's)and the show itself is so anti-climatic. Why did it not go to series? You figure it out, it's quite blatant. Again it's fun for MST, but not a lot else!!


I'm not going to approach and critique the theories of RAW. I mean, this is a site about movies and whether the movie delivers or is well-made, and not a site debating philosophy.

Having said that, this video really blows. It's one talking-head shot of RAW after another. Some of it is archival video, so you can see how he has aged over the years, and that's pretty cool. But, otherwise, the viewing experience is relentlessly monotonous.

It's a strange comparison, but I kept thinking of the Sunday afternoon when I watched some of the Barbra Streisand star vehicle *Funny Lady* (another really bad movie). After a while, I was so OD'd on Barbra, I kept wishing there would be one scene that she wouldn't appear in: you know, a "meanwhile, other characters in the movie were up to something else..." moment. But it was all about Barbra. Well this video is RAW's *Funny Lady*.

So, if your idea of a good time is to look at multiple takes and angles of the face of RAW while he prattles on with his theories, assembled in a lame structure that doesn't add any interest or insight, then be my guest. For me, I couldn't take it after 20 minutes.


RKS films always have been commercial films which suited the 90's, from GHAYAL, DAMINI

His last few films KHAKEE were watchable FAMILY was crap

This film is a decent film but could be better

The problem lies in there is lot of old fashioned clichés thrown in and many scenes come out too filmy and lengthy

Ajay Devgan's character is shown very well but his character gets heroic which could be subtle

The lengthy flashback could be avoided as thigns are simply long drawn

Even the street play in the second half look too simplistic and hardly a solution though the message is well brought out

Direction by RKS is decent, though it could be better Music is okay

Ajay Devgan looks the part very well and is at ease playing his part mostly though at times he does look ill at ease in light scenes He excels in dramatics Vidya excels in the scene front of media Pankaj has a not proper defined role and too filmy yet he excels in his part Darshan Jariwala hams as the old age villain the rest are okay