Humphrey Bogart clearly did not want to be in this film, and be forced to play a part-Mexican or he would have been suspended. Believe me , he made the wrong choice! Presumably, after the success of "Dodge City", Warners tried a follow-up with Errol Flynn and his usual list of buddies, like Alan Hale, Guinn (Big Boy) Williams, Frank Mc Hugh and the ever-present John Litel, but they made the huge mistake of trying to present Miriam Hopkins as a love interest for Flynn v. Randolph Scott, and as a singer to really make things bad, because she proved one thing, and that is she cannot sing. The story was not too bad, but with Bogie clearly miscast also, it turned out to be a poor Western that was overlong, and on a low budget, but in fairness, color would not have helped.


I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.

The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.

Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.

I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.

My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.

It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theatre owner would play this movie .


Following the appalling Attack Force, chances were that Seagal could only have a step up with Flight Of Fury. To out-stink Attack Force would take some doing. Flight Of Fury is a marked improvement overall, but still in the grand scheme of thinks, mediocre. Mediocrity is seemingly an achievement for Seagal these days, a sad insight into his movie career's decline. Where Attack Force was a hodge-podge of plot lines altered drastically from conception, to filming, to post production, Flight Of Fury keeps the plot line more simple. Someone steals a high-tech stealth fighter, planning to use it to fire chemical weapons (which we later, bizarrely discover, will destroy the whole world in 48 hrs). Seagal has to get the plane back. It's that simple, no annoying sub-plots, and conspiracies weighing the film down like far too many of his recent works. That's not to suddenly say the storytelling is good though, it's pretty poor. The introduction to side characters is badly done for example.

In filmic terms FOF is bad. It's badly acted by all involved, and Seagal looks bored to tears almost. He's just got the look of a toddler who's been forced to perform the school nativity against his will, and so performs with a constant grimace and air of half assedness. Can we blame Seagal though when the material is so un-ambitious and cruddy? Not really. This is the final film of his Castel Studio's, multi-picture deal. The producers can't be bothered to make anything remotely good, promising a 12 or so million dollar budget, and (after Seagal's obligatory 5 million) probably pocketing a nice hefty chunk of it themselves (If the film was made for the remaining 7 million, then I'm Elvis Pressley!). So in that respect why should Seagal put the effort into a film that's already got distribution sorted before it's made. Fan's though may argue, he at least owes them the effort. He's seriously looking jaded, and the continued use of stand ins and dub-overs is further indication of this. Michael Keusch directs with some efficiency, while the cinematography is quite good, but in all technical areas (and as usual with Castel, a bog standard stunt team) there's nothing more than mediocrity, and nothing to help the film rise above its material, and bored leading man. Again there's a few action scenes focusing on characters other than Seagal, which in all truth we don't want to see.

Overall the action isn't too bad. It's nice and violent, and on occasion we're treated to a few vintage nasty Seagal beatings, but overall nothing special. Partly due to a poor stunt crew, and the lack of time to film anything too complex or exciting. For me, Shadow Man was a more enjoyable film, because while ignoring the incoherent, jumbled, plot line, there were more vintage Seagal moments, and more of him in centre stage. He never disappeared for long periods during the film. Seagal disappears bizarrely during one action scene here, and re-appears after, with little explanation. There's far too much stock footage used. Using stock shots isn't an entirely horrendous thing, but using it as a crutch is. We're treated to countless establishing shots of naval ships, all the time, which get annoying. Plus the continuity of the stock footage is all over the place (just check the backdrops, chopping and changing).

The film is just middle of the road. It says it all that the films best scene is a completely needless, and gratuitous girl on girl scene, with two hot chicks. Seagal even perks up briefly then too! Overall this may be one of the better stock footage based actioners out there, but that's not saying much at all. This will please many fans, but they should bear in mind, Seagal himself would probably want to forget this one's existence. **


I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.

It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...

Simply... don't bother...

And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????


'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured

1/10


Steven Seagal appears to be sleepwalking through a dreadful movie shot almost entirely in close-up to disguise the complete lack of budget and resources. To pick on the technical flaws - silver F/A-18s and F-14s take of from a carrier for an air-strike, and miraculously become camouflaged F-16s for the actual strike - would give this movie more credibility than it deserves. Suffice it to say that the most interesting thing in the movie is the credit titles which fade on and then disappear in a lightning wipe, which presumably is available to all users of Final Cut Pro. Putting all your creativity into your own credit puts Michael Keusch in the same category as Marcel Mandu.


As Steven Segal movies go this one is bottom of the barrel. His best was just fodder for bored teenagers. This one tips the scales, then falls off. The characters are all cardboard. The story is double lame. I can't spoil it by telling you the ending. You already know how all Steven Segal movies end if you have seen one. Here goes. He is a super-dooper government agent who know too much to turn loose so they decide, instead of killing him, to dope his brain until he don't remember squat. He escapes, of course, gets arrested and is located by his old general who needs his one man in a million experience to get back a stealth plane that has been handed over to a terrorist gang in Afghanastan by a rogue Air Force pilot who, surprise, surprise, Segal trained. All the heroes, except Segal's character and his dusky girlfriend, die heroically and Steve-Baby save the whole world in one swell foop, or fell swoop. Whatever. Made with some surplus Air Force and Navy flying film. And a lot of boom-booms. Get some Popeye cartoons instead.


FLIGHT OF FURY takes the mantle of being the very WORST Steven Seagal flick I've ever seen...Up to now.

It's a dreadful bore with no action scenes of any interest, Seagal isn't really trying in this - he's fat and his voice is dubbed once more.

The Co-stars fare no better, being a rather sorry load of 3rd raters.

The Direction by Keusch is very poor and it comes as no surprise that he's also responsible for another couple of Seagal stinkers (SHADOW MAN & ATTACK FORCE) The screenplay Co-written by Seagal himself is laughably inept.

According to IMDb $12M was spent on this boring load of old tosh - If these figures are correct I sense a big tax fiddle as nowhere near that amount was spent.

FLIGHT OF FURY is actually a shot for shot remake of the Michael Dudikoff flick BLACK THUNDER - which has to be better than this tripe.

This has NO redeeming qualities whatsoever,Give it a MISS! 1/2 * out of *****


Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...

This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of clichés, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.

Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.

The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.

Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?


Steven Seagal, Mr. Personality himself, this time is the United States' greatest Stealth pilot who is promised a pardon from the military(..who attempted to swipe his memory at the beginning of the movie for which he escaped base, later caught after interrupting a gang of robbers in a shootout at a gas station)if he is able to successfully infiltrate a Northern Afghanistan terrorist base operated by a group called Black Sunday, who have commandeered an Air Force stealth fighter thanks to an American traitor. Along with a fellow pilot who admired the traitor, Jannick(Mark Bazeley), John Sands(Seagal)will fly into enemy territory, receiving help from his Arab lover, Jessica(Ciera Payton)and a freedom fighter, Rojar(Alki David) once they are on ground. Jannick is kidnapped by Black Sunday leaders, Stone(Vincenzo Nicoli)and his female enforcer, Eliana(Katie Jones), and Sands must figure out how to not only re-take command of the kidnapped stealth fighter, but rescue him as well. And, maybe, Sands can get revenge on the traitor he trained, Rather(Steve Toussaint)in the process. Sands has 72 hours until a General's Navy pilots bomb the entire area. On board the stealth, Black Sunday equipped a biochemical bomb, hoping to detonate it on the United States.

Seagal gets a chance to shoot Afghans when he isn't slicing their throats with knives. The film is mostly machine guns firing and bodies dropping dead. The setting of Afghanistan doesn't hold up to scrutiny(..nor does how easily Seagal and co. are able to move about the area undetected so easily) and the plot itself is nothing to write home about. The movie is edited fast, the camera a bit too jerky. Seagal isn't as active a hero as he once was and his action scenes are tightly edited where we have a hard time seeing him taking out his foes, unlike the good old days. One of Seagal's poorest efforts, and he's as understated as ever(..not a compliment). Even more disappointing is the fact that Seagal never fights in hand to hand combat with the film's chief villains, tis a shame. He doesn't even snap a wrist or crack a neck in any visible way(..sure we see a slight resemblance of some tool getting tossed around, but it's not as clear a picture as I enjoy because the filmmakers have such fast edits and dizzying close-ups).


This movie should have never been made.

What a shame of the budget.

Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie....

Definitely not worth watching.

They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.

It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.

His movies are getting worser every time.

Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.


You've gotta hand it to Steven Seagal: whatever his other faults may be, he does have good taste in women. If you pick a Seagal movie, chances are there will be one or more very beautiful women in it. And usually, they do not function as mere eye candy; they get involved in the action and fight, shoot guns, kill with knives, etc. "Flight of Fury" offers the duo of Ciera Payton (who has a very sexy face, with luscious lips to match Angelina Jolie's) and Katie Jones, and finds time to get them involved in both a catfight AND a little lesbian fondling! And if it seems like I'm spending a little too much time talking about them, it's because the rest of the movie, although passable, is so unexciting that it's hard to find much else to talk about. Ironically, the weakest aspect is probably Seagal himself, who looks as if he can't even be bothered to try to pretend to care. This being a military-type actioner, there is very little fighting in it, and he doesn't fit into his role (a stealth fighter pilot, "the best in the world", of course) very well, which may explain his almost offensive sleepwalking. (*1/2)


Over the years I've seen a bunch of these straight to video Segal movies, and every one holds the same amount of entertainment; unfortanetley, the entertainment level is at a low. Sure, the action sequences were amusing, but that was pretty much it. Seagal was really in his prime when he did movies like; Under Siege, Under Siege 2, and Executive Decision(at least on the action standpoint), but during the past ten years, these types of movies that star Segal really do not meet his past qualifications.

On the more positive side, the movie did make good use of time, like some of the action sequences and use of wit. Just when the movie seemed to just drag on, a pretty cool action scene brought it up out of the gutter. I honestly believe that more of Segal's movies would do better if he wasn't the only one that fans recognize in the movie. Supporting actors and actresses are a very important thing, and if his current movies had this known supporting actors and actresses, maybe the movie will get more popular results.


First of all, f117 is not high tech any more and it is not a fighter aircraft.

Secondly, the f14's and f18's cannot change their appearances; they are not transformers.

Thirdly, the f16 has only one m61 cannon, not two.

Last but not the least, at the end of the film, Seagle selected sidewinder missile. But somehow when he pulled the trigger, the actual missile fired turned out to be a maverick. As I have the experience of seeing f18's and f14's being mysteriously transformed into f16's, this small transformation of missiles is not a big surprise to me. However, there is still one question I have to ask: How did they manage to use an air to ground missile to shoot down a flying f16...

When students hand in really bad work, teachers assign 0's. Now I think for the sake of properly marking this film, IMDb should seriously consider adding a '0/10' option. Otherwise, it is not fair for those who receive 1 out of 10...


Nobody could like this movie for its merit but, if you have a sense of humor and enjoy schlock movies for their MST3 quality, then this is for you. It ranks up there with "Road House" for its preposterous characters, sets and story line. The bad writing really cracked me up: "I want you to dust those guys off" instead of ". . . dust those guys." F-14s take off from the carrier but, when they get into formation, they're F-16s! Without a hint of anger or skepticism, Segal goes back to work for the general who, only minutes before, was overseeing a covert "mind wipe" on Seagal. Segal runs out of bullets and resorts to a knife to kill the guards. So naturally, the guards all drop their guns and fight with knives too! The hand grenade is a dud but explodes anyway. The little stealth fighter can fly all the way from California to Afganistan without refueling. Then Segal flies it back to California - the long way, i.e., by way of Europe - even though there's a carrier giving him air support 20 minutes away in the Arabian Sea. The CIC in the carrier consists of 3 black PCs, 2 flat screen TVs and pictures of gauges and maps on the walls. What a hoot!


I just watched this movie on Starz. Let me go through a few things i thought could have been improved; the acting, writing, directing, special effects, camera crew, sound, and lighting. It also seemed as though the writers had no idea anything that had to do with the movie. Apparently back in 2007, when the dollar was stronger you could buy a super advanced stealth bomber that could go completely invisible for $75 million. Now-a-days those things cost about $3 billion and they cant go invisible. Apparently you can fly from the US to the middle east in an hour. There was a completely random lesbian scene, which I didn't mind, but it seemed like a lame attempt to get more guys to see it. The camera would randomly zoom in on actors and skip to random scenes. Oh yeah, since its a Steven Segal movie, its predictable as hell. All in all I rank it right up there with Snakes on a Plane.


Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.

This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.

Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.

In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.

Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan.


Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.

The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.

The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.

Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.

Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.


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

The American military has just launched a major new stealth fighter plane that can evade detection unlike any other. A renegade pilot (Steve Touissant) steals it and plots to hold the US government to ransom with it. So they are forced to send in their best man John Sands (Seagal, who else?) to stop him, in exchange for his freedom from a detention centre where his mind was to be wiped of all the incriminating information he's learned over the years.

I skipped Attack Force because I could tell from the cover and all the post production tampering that had occurred that it would be crap and when all the negative reviews and low user rating came pouring in it just confirmed what I thought. But I decided to give FOF a go because Shadow Man (by the same director) wasn't bad and, what the hell, Seagal was my favourite action star once and maybe, just maybe, he could make a great film again. Oh what a fool I was.

Dubbing, horrendous stock footage of aerial stealth fighter jets, awful camera work, cheap production values, risible, unconvincing fight scenes that have become Seagal's trademark and a boring, sleep inducing plot that doesn't go anywhere.

Thankfully his next film, Once Upon a Time in the Hood (which I'll be skipping), apparently marks the end of his contract with Sony, meaning no more of these awful European lensed action films and his next film Prince of Pistols might mark a return to theatres. Hell, he's done it before and Stallone will have managed to do it before him (Rocky Balboa.)

This isn't a Flight of Fury. It isn't even a flight of fun. It's a flight that fails to even take off the ground. *


Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.

It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.

It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.


I own almost every Seagal movie (yes even ones like this that are low budget), and I must say, this may be the worst, not only of his movies, but of all movies ever made. The only highlight of this film, and only reason I gave it 2 stars instead of 1, is that A. it is Seagal, and B. Seagal does have some sweet action sequences, specifically in the store, and also when ever else he takes out an entire army with a knife. Next time give me 90 minutes of Seagal killing people, and don't even bother with a story line, because the storyline not only stunk, but so did the acting, the fact that F-18's and F-14's somehow changed into F-16s, and also the fact that the Stealth was as fast as an F-16. Also the Stealth never had to refuel??? And since when is Afghanistan considered hostile territory from an Air Force stand point. last I checked, Afghanistan has no Air Force, we (USA) control the skies. Also, this top secret mission was played through speakers to all the crew in the room, yet the Admiral still whispers to the other guy that it is secret. Also, how did Seagal go from the bottom of the truck, to the top? PLease tell us why they jailed him, Since when are Air Force pilots great commandos (unless they are Owen Wilson?) And since when are their drunks in Arab countries, considering Muslims don't drink alcohol? Also on top of that, since when do Arabs listen to orders from females like the #2 in charge? The highlight of the film was definitely Seagal killing people in the store, and the other 50 people he killed with a knife, as well as the very brief and totally random lesbian scene that came out of nowhere.


I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life.


he was my hero for all time until he went along with {if you can call it a movie} I went to the show to watch it and come out and not just asking for me money back but asked for double the money thats how bad my hero's acting and the hole thing was.............I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.

The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.

Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.

I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.

My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.

It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theater owner would play this movie .


This show made me feel physically sick, and totally detached from British society as a whole. It was programmes such as this and Blue Peter that pretended that there were/are no class divisions in Britain. They'd always say things like; "Go into your loft and you may find this.." or "Go into your back garden tonight and..." - what about us 'scummy' working class kids who never never had a "loft", and a "back garden" which was nothing more than a 1 meter square of balcony on the 14th floor of a council block? Public service broadcasting - yeah right! And on top of that, it was awfully depressing to see those stupid, middle class, up-their-own-backside kids mess about with bits of old plastic having 'fun'... do me a favour, and "why don't you" go and slit your wrists or do a coke overdose on "Mama and Papa's" money... you make me sick


Granting the budget and time constraints of serial production, BATMAN AND ROBIN nonetheless earns a place near the bottom of any "cliffhanger" list, utterly lacking the style, imagination, and atmosphere of its 1943 predecessor, BATMAN.

The producer, Sam Katzman, was known as "King of the Quickies" and, like his director, Spencer Bennett, seemed more concerned with speed and efficiency than with generating excitement. (Unfortunately, this team also produced the two Superman serials, starring Kirk Alyn, with their tacky flying animation, canned music, and dull supporting players.) The opening of each chapter offers a taste of things to come: thoroughly inane titles ("Robin Rescues Batman," "Batman vs Wizard"), mechanical music droning on, and our two heroes stumbling toward the camera looking all around, either confused or having trouble seeing through their cheap Halloween masks. Batman's cowl, with its devil's horns and eagle's beak, fits so poorly that the stuntman has to adjust it during the fight scenes. His "utility belt" is a crumpled strip of cloth with no compartments, from which he still manages to pull a blowtorch and an oxygen tube at critical moments!

In any case, the lead players are miscast. Robert Lowery displays little charm or individual flair as Bruce Wayne, and does not cut a particularly dynamic figure as Batman. He creates the impression that he'd rather be somewhere, anywhere else! John Duncan, as Robin, has considerable difficulty handling his limited dialogue. He is too old for the part, with an even older stuntman filling in for him. Out of costume, Lowery and Duncan are as exciting as tired businessmen ambling out for a drink, without one ounce of the chemistry evident between Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft in the 1943 serial.

Although serials were not known for character development, the earlier BATMAN managed to present a more energetic cast. This one offers a group going through the motions, not that the filmmakers provide much support. Not one of the hoodlums stands out, and they are led by one of the most boring villains ever, "The Wizard." (Great name!) Actually, they are led by someone sporting a curtain, a shawl, and a sack over his head, with a dubbed voice that desperately tries to sound menacing. The "prime suspects" -- an eccentric professor, a radio broadcaster -- are simply annoying.

Even the established comic book "regulars" are superfluous. It is hard to discern much romance between Vicki Vale and Bruce Wayne. Despite the perils she faces, Vicki displays virtually no emotion. Commissioner Gordon is none-too-bright. Unlike in the previous serial, Alfred the butler is a mere walk-on whose most important line is "Mr Wayne's residence." They are props for a drawn-out, gimmick-laden, incoherent plot, further saddled with uninspired, repetitive music and amateurish production design. The Wayne Manor exterior resembles a suburban middle-class home in any sitcom, the interiors those of a cheap roadside motel. The Batcave is an office desperately in need of refurbishing. (The costumes are kept rolled up in a filing cabinet!)

Pity that the filmmakers couldn't invest more effort into creating a thrilling adventure. While the availability of the two serials on DVD is a plus for any serious "Batfan," one should not be fooled by the excellent illustrations on the box. They capture more of the authentic mood of the comic book than all 15 chapters of BATMAN AND ROBIN combined.

Now for the good news -- this is not the 1997 version!


...this would have been what you got.

Words alone cannot describe how bad this is. If you're having trouble sleeping pop this in and I guarantee you'll be out in fifteen minutes.

Robert Lowery was a pretty good actor in the 40s-- but he's phoning it in here. In an interview, Johnny "Duncan" Robin said that in one scene he and Batman had to run from the car to the house and that Lowery was doubled over out of camera range because his girdle was too tight! Duncan himself looks more like a motorcycle hood than a boy wonder-- in fact he's more like a guy in his thirties waiting for Lowery to kick off so he can wear the big cape.

Driving a Batmobile that looks like it rolled off Honest Al's Used Car lot at below sticker price-- the Dynamic Duo don't put a lot of effort into hiding the fact that it's Bruce Wayne's car they're driving-- in fact it's noted by several characters throughout the serial.

The acting is wooden-- the sets are cheap-- the dialogue is horrendous and if there was even a script they were following I'm sure it read along the lines of "Batman says something here" because it certainly seems like they're making it up as it goes along.

Batman's Utility belt is made out of thin fabric with no apparent pouches to hold his gadgets-- in one scene when Batman needs a full size blow torch the producers just tuck one in as the scene starts-- never to be seen again. His cowl is so bad he can't even see out of it and his ears look more like flopsy mopsy the disgruntled easter rabbit than they do anything batlike.

In one scene (I am not making this up), Batman substitutes counterfiet radioactive money that will burst into flames the second it is exposed to air as a payoff to some hoods. It's radioactive so he can trace it-- the reason it's so highly flammable isn't explained. Well, unfortunately the thugs open the package in a cardboard warehouse-- we know it's a cardboard warehouse because Batman sneaks in and pushes these boxes that look to weigh about six ounces on the hoods to knock them out-- and soon the whole place burns to the ground. Thanks Batman!

In another scene after the Batmobile is disabled, Batman flags down a passing motorist in the middle of nowhere and takes his car-- leaving the man to fend for himself and telling him not to worry because if Batman smashes up the car the police will surely buy him another one! Yes, you guessed it, said car careens off a cliff within a few short seconds. Not that it matters much to the motorist who has probably died from exposure trying to hoof his way back to Gotham City.

There is a tired subplot with Lois Lane clone Vicki Vale who is convinced Bruce Wayne is Batman-- she must have noticed the Batmobile parked outside of Bruce's house-- or maybe she saw Batman and Robin running up the walk in the clearly densely populated suburban neighborhood.

Everything about this serial is bad-- and all but the youngest in the audience will want to hurl toast at the screen. IF you're looking for bad cinema you could not hit a better mark-- if you want entertainment, try the Burton Batman films, the Adam West Batman TV Series or the earlier Lewis Wilson Batman serial.


there is no suspense in this serial! When one episode ends the acting is so shoddy, the effects are so poor and the script is so awful that the last thing on your mind is how Batman and Robin will save the day. No, in fact, the last thing on your mind is watching the next episode! This show is so boring that I can't see how it ever got made, let alone released on DVD! Obviously the effects are not up to par with contemporary Batman films, but even the script is awful. An incoherent babbling mess about some evil professor and a ray gun or something like that, I am not quite sure, because it is too awful to follow. Watch the 60s version, or the 90's versions, or even Batman Begins, just anything over this version!


I imagine when Hitchcock scholars and experts find themselves together, the talk is not of the Master's great films like "North By Northwest" or "Strangers On A Train", but a lesser-known effort like this one from 1931, obscure and seriously flawed, which showcases the great director in fledgling form.

Emily and Fred Hill (Joan Barry and Harry Kendall) are a middle-class London couple scrimping to stay ahead. He begrudges their lot; she accepts it. Change comes in the form of a letter from an uncle, saying he will set them up so they can enjoy a life of globetrotting luxury. They make plans for a world cruise. But their problems have only begun.

Just ask Richard Hannay, Roger O. Thornhill, or Marion Crane. Well, Marion's indisposed at the moment, but you get the idea. Travel and Hitchcock go together like moths and candlelight, setting one up for a perilous journey at best. This is perhaps Hitchcock's earliest foray into this theme, and not his most successful or memorable. Hitchcock tries to mix comedy with another element, in this case domestic drama rather than suspense, but the two do not cohere, at least not here.

The Hills are a dull, flat couple, with no chemistry or personality. When they find themselves at the Folies Bergère, in the form of cross-cutting with footage that looks ten years older than the rest of this film, they are abashed at the outfits of the female performers. "The curtain's gone up too soon!" gasps Emily. "They aren't dressed."

When the Hills drift away from each other on an ocean cruise, it seems a mercy killing more than a tragic thing, even if the people they partner off with are drips, too. Emily's man, Gordon (Percy Marmont) carries around photographs of himself sitting next to empty chairs, which he suggests be filled by Emily. Fred's girl "the Princess" (Betty Amann) has Clara Bow's eyes and Wallace Beery's five o'clock shadow. There's also an obnoxious fellow passenger, a dowdy spinster whom Hitchcock always introduces with a cartoonish horn cue. Subtlety was still to come.

Everything is shot in an abrupt manner, with confusing blocking and strained dialogue. Hitchcock tries for some early comedy with Fred and his umbrella that doesn't come off, and Kendall seems to aim for laughs while Berry plays for tears. When Fred and Emily break off, they are seen being jostled on a pair of wedged-together rickshaws, one of many clunky attempts at symbolism.

Emily's the only vaguely sympathetic character, in part because she really cares about her husband and agonizes over her affair with Gordon, but mostly because she's among the first of Hitchcock's many magnetic blondes, her platinum ringlets whipping around her face like a Botticelli aboard the open deck of a Chinese junk near the film's conclusion.

Matters conclude with a dangerous situation as set-piece for the protagonists to come to grips with, and presumably repair their relationship. Only they aren't active participants in the resolution, and except for the fate of a friendly cat, nothing about the ending resonates.

At least you get some enjoyable views of London in the early 1930s, and a chance to see Hitchcock when he was still working for food. "Rich And Strange" is Hitchcock paying his dues, and learning his trade, one for scholars but not casual film goers.


Yet another early film from Alfred Hitchcock which seems to have been done out of contractual obligation. As with Juno and the Paycock, you can tell that Hitchcock had little interest in this movie. There is almost no style or craft to it at all. The story revolves around Fred and Emily, a young married couple, who come into some money and go on a cruise which proves to be a test of their marriage. Emily is given a chance at a new life with a good hearted, wealthy man who falls in love with her, but chooses to take the high road and stay with her husband. This might seem more believable if Fred weren't made out to be a completely insensitive, pompous ass who jumps at the first opportunity he sees to leave his wife for another woman. The couple ends up staying together, but the movie lacks any real reconciliation scene. The third act goes in a completely different direction, with the couple stranded on an abandoned ship and rescued by an Asian fishing boat. Joan Barry does give a very stirring performance as the faithful wife of an unfaithful husband. That's about all you can say for this one.


Bored Londoners Henry Kendall and Joan Barry (as Fred and Emily Hill) receive an advance on an inheritance. They use the money go traveling. Their lives become more exciting as they begin relationships with exotic Betty Amann (for Mr. Kendall) and lonely Percy Marmont (for Ms. Barry). But, they remain as boring as they were before. Arguably bored director Alfred Hitchcock tries to liven up the well-titled (as quoted in the film, from Shakespeare's "The Tempest") "Rich and Strange" by ordering up some camera trickery. An opening homage to King Vidor's "The Crowd" is the highlight. The low point may be the couple dining on Chinese prepared cat.

*** Rich and Strange (12/10/31) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Elsie Randolph


This Hitchcock movie bears little similarity to his later suspense films and seems much more like a very old fashioned morality tale. A young couple receives an inheritance that they believe will make them happy. They spend the money traveling about the world and living a very hedonistic existence. However, after a while the excitement begins to wane and the couple become dissipated and pointless in their existence. However, out of no where, when they are on a luxury cruise, the ship sinks and they lose everything--and end up much happier in the end because they now appreciate life! What an odd, silly and preachy film! Personally, I'd like to inherit all that money and find out if it makes me miserable!

The production values are relatively poor compared to later productions--a rough film with poor sound quality and rather amateurish acting.


The animation in this re-imagining of Peter & the Wolf is excellent, but at 29 minutes, the film is sleep inducing. They should have called it "Peter & the Snails", because everything moves at a snail's pace. I couldn't even watch the film in one sitting - I had to watch it 15 minutes at a time, and it was pure torture.

Save yourself 30 minutes - do not watch this film - and you will thank me.

I can only guess that the Oscar nominating committee only watched the first few minutes of the nominees. Unfortunately, to vote for the winner in the Best Animated Short (short!) category, the voters will have to sit through the whole thing. I already feel sorry for them - and must predict that there's no way this film will come close to winning.


Acclaimed director Mervyn LeRoy puts drama on film that competes with the best of soap operas. High drama is found in the loves and infidelities in New York's social set. Oh yes, don't forget jealousy can bring about tainted hearts and murder. The all star cast features: Barbara Stanwyck, Van Heflin, James Mason, Ava Gardner, Cyd Charisse and Nancy Davis.


Wow. I went to the video store tonight because I was in the mood for a bad B Horror movie and I found this Gem. I looked at the cover and I thought it looked like just the movie for my mood. I brought it home and put it on.

This movie was not the B Horror movie that I had in mind. This was MUCH worse. I wanted a bad movie but what I got, I didn't know that crap like this existed amongst man. This movie seemed like a 5 year old wrote and directed it and that is being nice about it.

I am an aspiring director and this movie made me so mad that someone out there is actually paying this guy to direct movies. He needs to work at a garbage dump shoveling crap where he belongs.

If you are thinking about renting this or buying it. I will tell you the same thing that I would tell someone getting ready to commit suicide. "DON'T DO IT, IT'S NOT WORTH IT!" I really have nothing nice to say about this movie. DON'T DO IT!


I honestly want the last 30 minuets of my life back.

The only person that is fit to watch this movie is Helen Keller I kept saying to myself this has to get better this has to get better.

Then the zombies finally showed up and they had some raccoon paint on there eyes.

They talked like regular people.

One drove a car.

Some voodoo woman asked what one of the "Zombies" wanted and the " zombie" said ( I want to Dance)

( THAT WAS IT) Out came the movie I couldn't take it any longer Can I sue for a ½ hour of my life?????


I have made it my personal mission to go after those responsible for this film. I even got the rental company to give me my money back because I argued that they perpetrated false advertising.

It's not enough that the movie itself is a p.o.s., but the cover art is what sold me. I've done better make-up effects on my children at Halloween than what the movie actually depicts versus the cover art. Can you say "raccoon eyes?"

I'm not going to waste more of my time by going into the full details, but come on, the movie's main character is an L.A. cop who was born and raised in Alabama - but has a German accent!?! It's beyond insulting.


This is one of the worst films ever. I like cheesy movies but this is simply awful. Where are the images in the film that are on the box? I think more money was spent on the DVD box illustrations than on the entire film.

Why would a company release a DVD that the cover is so misleading? I feel like such an idiot for renting this movie based strictly on the box. As much as I explore IMDb I should have done a little research and made a list prior to visiting my local video rental store. I have no one to blame except myself. I want my money and time back.

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.

Even if curiosity is motivating you, stick cocktail umbrellas in your eyes instead. It will be much more enjoyable. You have been warned!


i've discovered that this film gets rented based off of the packaging. the zombie on the front of the DVD looks cool and scary. then you get to the movie and it's women with raccoon masks on. zero special effects...and even the fight scenes you can see them miss punches by 2 feet. the funny thing is that Lommel acts in the movie briefly himself and is worse than the rest of the crap actors in the movie. the only thing i can think is that Lommel is just trying to make such a bad film that people dub it a "cult classic"...however, i can't possibly imagine anyone thinking this is anything but one of the worst movies ever made. the real horror in this film is how bad it is. i'm embarrassed i rented it and vow never to see another Lommel film again!


Every year I watch hundreds of films, including many low budget amateurish straight-to-DVD abominations that nobody in their right mind would ever want to see. I have seen thousands of films in my time, many excellent, many forgettable. Zombie Nation I will remember forever as one of the most hopelessly laughable 'horror' films I have ever seen  in fact I still haven't recovered from the experience of watching it.

The day after, it seems like some kind of weird dream. Did I really see what I thought I saw? Why do the police work out of a warehouse? Did the voodoo priestesses really recommend that the 'zombies' eat cheeseburgers? Is it safe? Is it safe? Is it safe?

I wouldn't recommend Zombie Nation if you want to see a 'good' film, and neither would I recommend it as 'so bad its good'. However, if you are entertained by the prospect of watching probably the most indefensibly abysmal film ever  this is for you. Now, whenever anyone asks me what the worst film I have ever seen is, I will say Zombie Nation.

Seriously  I think it's a greater crime to make a boring film than a bad one, and Ulli Lommel deserves credit for producing a film that actually stuns you with its ineptitude. He really is the Ed Wood Jr. of the digital age, and I for one can't wait to see if he makes another film as consistently ridiculous as this one.


This movie was poorly written, poorly acted and very predictable. It was very low-budget and I can understand why it was never released and went straight to video. It wasn't even campy fun, it was just a complete disaster and I wish I could get the 1-1/2 hours back! The colors were horrible along with the plot which has holes so big in it you could drive a mac truck through them.

The plot itself had the young bride doing things that she absolutely was not physically capable of doing -- what a stretch! Skip this movie and watch something better in the horror genre. Just about any movie comes to mind that is better than this.

ejames6342


These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.


Awful. This thriller should have buried. What a piece of crap. Terrible writing, characters are less than believable. Horrible Schlock!! Stick some B- stars in a terribly written POS to try and give it a little credit, but it fails miserably. If I didn't have to write ten lines about this movie I would have given it a word word review, it starts with 'sh' and ends with 'it'.

Horrible ending, retarded. Who writes this crap. The ending of this film is so contrived, weak it's as if they had no idea what to do with this story line, or they just ran out of money. Most likely due to the number of cameos in this movie. It's a good thing that these actors are on the way out, because this would be a career killer. Good thing for them that hardly anyone will see it. At least no one important, like future investors. It could have ended a thousand different ways, but as it is, I feel cheated out of my precious time.

Don't bother with this one, you will feel like you wasted time you can never get back.


The book is so good that at least the opening of this made-for-tv movie will move you, but then, as it diverges more and more from the book, taking out all the religion and love and mathematics and putting in cotton candy cliches, it becomes boring. Still, from comments I've heard, people who have not read the book tend to like it, and if it leads even on child to read A Wrinkle in Time, it will have served its purpose. The most embarrassing change is to make the Happy Medium a clone of Mary Poppins' Uncle Albert (I love to Laugh). Nothing is quite so squirm inducing as characters on the screen laughing hilariously at things that are totally unfunny.


I have grown up pouring over the intertwined stories of the Wrinkle in Time Chronicles. My dream was that one day a screenwriter would come across their child sitting in a large sofa reading A Winkle in Time, and would think, what an amazing movie this would make. Sadly enough that screenwriter failed, changing characters, throwing in lame humor, and all out destroying the plot. I know that it is a hard task to change a well loved novel into a movie. But why can't you stay true to the book? Why must you change the way characters think and act? For those of you who have not read the book, pick it up, find a soft couch, and let your imagination run wild.


Disney? What happened? I really wish the movie had been set in the 60's ;like the book was. And I really could have dealt with cheap special effects in order to save the budget for a more accurate adaption..... I'm glad that, maybe, someone might be influenced to read the books..... but, The Man With Red Eyes interchangeable as IT? And what's up with the volcanic upheaval? Where was THAT in the book? Peter Jackson! Save us!!!! A long time ago (1978) I heard that there was European version of this film. I sure wish I could id it. I can only imagine it might be closer to the real story than this poor adaption. This movie needs to be X'd.


This ABC straight-to-TV failure does absolutely no justice to the brilliant fantasy novel that is A Wrinkle in Time. Ms. Madeleine L'Engle brought children and adults alike into a magical, fantastical and original world like no author before her. This novel, the first in her 'time quartet', is a beautiful take on life, the universe, and time itself. Yet it is easy for any child or adolescent to understand. Its unwavering morals are prevalent throughout the book. This film adaptation can be seen as nothing but a mockery of Ms. L'Engle's work of art. Honestly, what were they thinking? The effects look cheap and ridiculous, the plot is mushy and uneven, the dialogue is far-fetched and just about every magical characteristic of the novel has been lost. This was a horrible attempt at bringing this book to the screen. I sincerely hope that someday an intelligent, worthy director (Guillermo del Toro, David Yates, Alfonso Cuarón) makes another attempt at bringing this book to the screen and understands it for what it truly is: a masterpiece. This adaptation can only be compared to boring, fake and cheap motel-room art which holds no ground and makes absolutely no impact on its audience.


I got all excited when I saw the ads for this movie because I recently read the book and really enjoyed it. The movie, however, did not meet my expectations. Having read the book recently prepared me for big let down as often happens when stories are translated into movies. The characters didn't seem to fit very well with the book. The direction was weak. I had a hard time getting into the characters. There wasn't a real connection with the viewer about what was going on. The dialog didn't explain adequately what was happening. It just seemed slapped together and rushed through. All in all I was very disappointed with the movie. I suppose if you haven't read the book, it might be ok by itself. At the very least, it might entice you to read the book, which you'll probably enjoy more.


The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.

If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.

I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"

I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.


I have read the whole 'A wrinkle in time' book and then saw the movie. The movie contained all the elements in the book but since the book was 190 pages and the film was 2 hours it felt really crammed in with too many effects and bad acting.

A wrinkle in time is about a girl named Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin must team together to find Meg's father and get off the island Camazotz.

The beginning of the film is really a stinker. The acting is awful, the direction is laughable, and so far the situations aren't necessary. I really was crushed to see the same person Madeleine Engle that wrote the book and created the movie, made a great book, and a terrible film. The acting is worse than any straight-to-video acting. Yes, I got to admit there was cool effects. But seriously they were all done terribly and not serial in any way possible. If you read the book you will be crushed by the movie. I wish could give it a 0 but sadly I can only give it 1. A half could have been useful.


I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!


(this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.

A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.

I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.

I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.

Overall an artistic disappointment.


I have loved this book since my 5th grade teacher read it to our class many years ago. And I have read it to every one of my 3rd and 5th grade classes over my past 18 years of teaching. Supposedly a movie had been made in the past, but I'd never been able to locate it. Well, my students and I were all so excited when we heard that Disney had brought Madeline L'Engle's excellent book to the screen.

As I watched the movie, I had the highest of hopes. As the film went on, I became more and more despondent. They had botched it badly! Never had I been so let down by a favorite book-to-film adaption. I understand that films can't stick strictly to a book, but they don't need to change things for the sake of it! Most, if not all, of departures from the book were totally unnecessary!

I kept my opinion to myself at first and just listened to my students discuss the movie. Well, it wasn't just me. Nearly every single one felt the same way--cheated out of the great story that Madeline L'Engle had so skillfully created!

Why, they wondered, did Aunt Beast look like Chewbacca from the star wars movie? Why couldn't Calvin's hair have been red? Why did Mrs. Which not have the proper "witch-like" outfit that was such a clever play on her name? Basically, we all wondered--why did nearly every single detail have to be changed?

I have always dreamed of how wonderful a movie this book would make. I am still waiting for that movie. This one was A Wrinkle in Time in only the broadest of senses. I'm going to write to Peter Jackson and try to convince him to take on the task!


I was browsing through Netflix and stumbled upon this movie. Having fond memories of the book as a child, I decided to check this out. This is a movie that you should really pass on.

It is just not worth seeing. It is very boring and uninteresting. I feel that it would even be that way to small children. It has no magic that the book contains. This movie is not horrible, but you will just find yourself not caring ten minutes into it.

There are moments that just come off as weird. The witch character is not very good. The family acts like it is no big deal that these odd things are happening. I know this is a kids movie, so as an older audience we must not look too deeply in things, but the whole movie just feels like it was written and produced by people who have never had any movie making experience before.

The DVD that I had began skipping in the final moments of the film, and instead of trying to fix it I just turned it off and sent it back to Netflix. I really didn't care how it finished. Skip this film and read the book instead.


I have never read the book"A wrinkle in time". To be perfectly honesty, after seeing the movie, do I really want to? Well, I shouldn't be reviewing this movie i'll start off with that. Next i'll say that the TV movie is pretty forgettable. Do you know why I say that? Because I forgot what happens in it. I told you it was forgettable. To be perfectly honest, no TV movie will ever be better than "Merlin".

How do I describe a TV movie? I have never written a review for one before. Well, i'll just say that they usually have some celebrities. A wrinkle in time includes only one. Alfre Woodard(Or Woodward, I am not sure), the Oscar winner.

The film has cheesy special effects, a mildly interesting plot, scenes that make you go "WTF". The movie is incredibly bad and it makes you go"WTF". What did I expect? It's a TV movie. They usually aren't good. As is this one. A wrinkle in time is a waste of time and a big time waster. To top it off, you'll most likely forget about it the second it's over. Well, maybe not the second it's over. But within a few minutes.

A wrinkle in time:*/****


I only recently found out that Madeleine L'Engle's novel had been turned into a TV movie by Disney and ordered the DVD. The book was a favorite of mine when I was a child and I read it several times.

Despite some of the child actors not resembling the characters as described in the novel, the Murry family is well cast, with a likable (if too pretty) Meg at the center and a Charles Wallace who is convincing as a child prodigy without becoming irritating.

The first half hour is promising enough, doing a good job in establishing the relationships between the lead characters and at setting the scene. Unfortunately as soon as the non-human characters appear the adaptation starts to unravel and once the children leave earth the whole thing falls apart. Alfre Woodward is too youthful looking and much too regal as the eccentric Mrs Whatsit (think Miriam Margolis or Joan Plowright instead) and Kate Nelligan face is so mask like and inexpressive, she must have visited Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon in recent years. For some reason they make her Mrs Which look like Glinda from The Wizard of Oz when she should have resembled a benign Wicked Witch of the West.

In the end what lets this down most badly are the terrible special effects and art direction. I understand that this is a TV movie, but the CGI looked like something that could have been done 15 years earlier. Mrs Whatsits' centaur incarnation is a disaster as is the Chewbacca like suit for Aunt Beast, who in the novel is a velvety, elegant creature instead of the ungainly Big Foot like thing shown here. I could go on and on, nearly every artistic choice is a disaster, presumably because there wasn't a large enough budget to do this justice, but also because the design work lacks imagination and good judgement.

This really would have needed the sense of wonder Spielberg brought to his early films. What a shame that with the current popularity of adapting children's literary fantasy series nobody thought of adapting A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels for the big screen, giving it the scope it deserves.


This movie barely followed the story line of the movie. All of the fascinating points in the book didn't even exist in the movie. They ended up turning it into a cheesy "tween" Disney movie "crush" story between Meg and Calvin. It was so bad it should have been Hillary Duff playing the part, or one of the likes. This movie was nothing more than an insult to the intelligence and mysticism of the book. I can't believe Disney could even get away with making such a cheap, basic rendition. If you've ever read the book, I think you would agree it could easily be made into a movie of "Lord of the Rings" equivalence. This movie should have never been able to use the title of A Wrinkle in Time. Poorly done.


We all know that some of the greatest movies of all time were based on books. While not particularly accurate adaptations, these movies were nonetheless excellent films. Some great examples are the Harry Potter series, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and, to a lesser extent, almost every Disney film ever made. However, I must regretfully announce that A Wrinkle in Time is not one of those movies. Not only does it fail to meet some of the most basic expectations of Madeleine L'Engle's fan base, it manages to defy the standards of scriptwriting, acting, special effects and, ultimately, respect for the audience. Mind you, I'm not trying to be mean; on the contrary, I went into this affair with an open mind. I figured that a made-for-T.V. movie would make up for its lack of razzle-dazzle in its script. After all, the Star Wars spin-off Ewoks was decent, if a little silly. Come to think of it, the original Star Wars was made on "a lunch money budget", and look where it took George Lucas! However, from the first scene onward, disappointment started enveloping me as if I'd gotten too close to the Black Thing while tessering.

The same way Greedo shooting first became the symbol of the Star Wars Special Edition of 1997 (a disaster of monumental proportions involving a disgruntled director making several hideous changes to a beloved classic), Mrs. Whatsit has officially become my personal symbol for the confusion and stupidity that is A Wrinkle in Time. The reason for this is the fact that she has been mutated beyond belief. Aside from the slightly controversial decision of casting Alfre Woodard (Star Trek: First Contact and Radio) as our favorite star-turned-mentor, the filmmakers decided it appropriate to introduce her as a crow. That's right, a crow. Moreover, the heavenly centaurion form of this greatly beloved character has been hacked at by what looks to be a demented eight-year-old; the majestic half-man, half-horse with wings has become a huge human head with a creepy smile mounted awkwardly on the bowlegged body of a horse that happens to be sporting a pair of wings in the middle. Had I been five, this would have psychologically traumatized me for life. The worst part is the fact that when it spoke, it was shown from behind so as to avoid the responsibility to lip sync, resulting in a scene that was spent looking at the back of its head and seeing a single, unmoving cheek, thus rendering the piece of special effects less believable than E.T.

Having gotten the most painful part out of the way, I must go on to the tear-inducing one: the characters, the acting, and the story. I, personally, had always imagined Meg to look somewhat similar to Moaning Myrtle from the Harry Potter films: plain hair, glasses, and a figure most supermodels would find laughable. She was always a slightly anxious, humorously pessimistic math genius who quite simply could not have cared less about the imports and exports of Nicaragua. In the film, she is an unpleasant know-it-all for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, she makes me feel sorry for poor Mr. Jenkins, her school principal, who continuously has to deal with her. Calvin, the kind, intelligent kid who everyone thinks is a jock has becomea jock! The irony is horrible. As for the memorable Happy Medium, they took the pleasant old woman who liked to look at happy things and replaced her with a being who is "above gender" and likes to look at "funny" things, such as girls falling off of swings. The only three people I can think of who did a decent job are Charles Wallace, Mrs. Whatsit and the Man With Red Eyes (nicknamed "the Dude With Red Eyes" due to his complete reinvention as a character).

The story is a mess. A good comparison to this aspect of the movie is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which didn't do a good job of retelling the story found in the book, yet kept the sole of the original work. Here, the sole of the book is having a pleasant chat with Hades down in the underworld, apparently unaware that its body is being destroyed. As the Dark Lord complements the sole on how well it showed that truth has to be felt and not seen, the flat-nosed wookies of Ixchel (who replace the wondrous beings who hold Aunt Beast among their ranks) tear the spine up. As the God of the Dead notes how subtle the terror of the Earth-like Camazotz was, the torn pages are scattered in the sandstorm and lost in the darkness of the land of evil.

I am very sorry that this film exists. I do not believe that the actors were genuinely bad. It's the way the characters are written that ruins it. A Wrinkle in Time deserved to be adapted by Lawrence Kasdan, directed by George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, enhanced at Industrial Light and Magic, scored by John Williams, given its sound at Skywalker Sound, edited by THX and marketed by Twentieth Century Fox. In its current state, the film is unworthy to be shown to self-respecting people. Even Madeleine L'Engle thought it was bad. The book was Good, the film was Bad, and Mrs. Whatsit was Ugly.

Score: 0.1/10 (If I could)

Pros:

They got the names right.

Cons:

It had horrible problems with the Cliffs Notes level of adaptation, script, acting and special effects, not to mention lack of evidence of ever having read the book. Oh, and the main cover/poster has a picture of the three main characters riding a flying horse over a castle. Some might say that this symbolizes high adventure. I say it symbolizes the irresponsibility of the cover artist who didn't even bother to Photoshop Meg's arm on properly.


First of all, I am a huge fan of Madeleine L'Engle and was so excited to see that a movie was made for one of my favorite books, A Wrinkle in Time. This movie, however, ruined that excitement for me. I am sorry, but Meg was described in the book as having fizzy curls and glasses and as being considered very uncool. In the movie, she has straight hair and no glasses and is the "sporty type" with a deep voice. This is not how Madeleine L'Engle pictured Meg to be at all. In fact, Meg was based on Madeleine's character and depicted the way she felt when she was young. This is just one major example how the book and movie are different. So I would say, if you want to watch it for entertainment purposes, watch it but if you are a devoted fan of Madeleine L'Engle and her Wrinkle in Time series, I would suggest skipping this movie.


I was very excited to see that they had made a movie out of my favorite book ever. I didn't realize it was Disney until it was too late. I was appalled by the many omissions of crucial parts of the story. It was as if someone made a movie out of a 4th grader's book report on the novel. Meg did well in school and neither her nor her father wore glasses. Mrs Murray (Meg's mother) was not portrayed as much of a scientist at all; they left out her kitchen laboratory and replaced it with the internet. And that's just the beginning. By halfway through the movie I found myself shouting at the screen, much to the dismay of the other people who were watching the movie who hadn't read the book. I wish I had more thumbs so I could give four thumbs down for this one. The only good thing I can say is that for a person who has not read the book, this movie is kinda alright.


I just saw Adam Had Four Sons for the first time and the thing that struck me was that I believe that the model used was Theodore Roosevelt and his four sons. They were approximately the same ages as the four boys in this film. Warner Baxter in his portrayal of Adam Stoddard talked about the same values and family tradition that you would have heard from our 26th president without some of the more boisterous aspects of TR's character.

Like TR all of the Stoddard sons serve in World War I, in this case though the youngest only loses an eye instead of being killed.

But what if a female minx gets into this all male household and disrupts things? That's Susan Hayward's job here. In one of her earliest prominent roles, Hayward is a flirtatious amoral girl who marries one son, has an affair with another, and starts making a play for the third. It's an early forerunner of the kind of a part that later brought her an Oscar in I Want to Live.

I suppose that with as powerful a model of decorum as Theodore Roosevelt was and Warner Baxter portrays, everyone is afraid to tell Father what's going on. The sons and also their governess Ingrid Bergman. Here's where the plot gets a little silly. Bergman is introduced to us as a governess hired by Baxter and wife Fay Wray for their kids. Wray dies and Baxter suffers some financial reversals in business. Bergman has to be let go. She goes back to France and years later comes back to the family when the kids are grown up.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe the kids need a governess now. Hayward is quite right when she confronts her that it wasn't the kids who brought her back. In the normal course of things, Bergman would have gotten on with her life.

One of the previous reviewers said that a quarter to a third of the film I have was edited out. Possibly that could be the reason for the many plot holes we have.

It's too bad that Ingrid and Susan could not have done another film together in the Fifties when Hayward was at her heights and Bergman had just made a comeback.

Susan Hayward is the main reason to see Adam Had Four Sons. And I'm willing to believe that a good deal of Ingrid was left on the cutting room floor.


You'd think that with Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter that this film would have been a lot better. Sadly, the film suffers from difficult to believe characters as well as a major plot problem that makes some of the characters seem brain-addled.

The film begins with Ingrid Bergman coming to work for the Stoddard family. Everything is so very peachy and swell--the family adores Bergman and things couldn't be more perfect. Well, that is until the mother (Fay Wray) dies, the stock market crashes in 1907 (wiping out the family's fortune) and Bergman is forced to go back home to France. This portion of the film is a bit sticky sweet, but not bad.

Later, after the family's fortunes have improved, Bergman returns. The four boys are now all grown and there isn't really a conceivable reason why they'd hire her once again as a governess. But, briefly, everything is swell once again. But, when WWI occurs, the four all go to war--gosh! In the midst of this, one of the sons (David) brings home his new wife (Susan Hayward). Miss Hayward's character is as black and white as the others, though while they are all good and swell, she's obviously a horny she-devil. To make things worse, she comes to live in the family home while David is at war.

Now here is where the movie gets really, really dumb--brain-achingly dumb. Hayward begins an affair with one of David's brothers but when the father sees a silhouette of the lovers, Bergman enters the room from another entrance and pretends that it was her, not Hayward with Jack! WHY?! Why would any sane person do this to save the butt of an obviously evil and conniving woman? This was exactly the sort of excuse Bergman needed to get rid of the gutter-snipe once and for all! This is just a case of lousy writing and made me mad...and most likely did the same to the audiences back in 1941.

The rest of the movie consists of failed opportunity after failed opportunity for Hayward's evilness to be exposed. This just flies against common sense and made the film a silly melodramatic mess. As expected, however, the truth eventually comes out and everyone is swell once again---happy to be one big loving wonderful family minus the slut, Hayward.

The film suffers because of poor writing. Hayward's affair made no sense--at least in how it was handled. And, having characters who are so gosh-darn good or evil (with nothing in between) sinks this movie to the level of a second-rate soap. The only thing that saves it at all is the acting---they tried as best they could with a turgid script. Suffice to say that the Columbia Pictures writers who did this film should have been slapped with a dead chicken!


By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through  she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles  but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.


Saw this film ran in the wee hours on TCM. Several problems with the film were apparent from what I saw. First, the adults did not age when the children did for 10 years. Several parts of the film had continuity problems & for some reason the actor who played the youngest son looked like the oldest when the 10 years passed.

The copy I saw was missing about 20 minutes or so, at least a huge gap with black screen appeared. It is too bad, because even though the script left something to be desired, Bergman & Russell both did fine in the film in their roles. It is a shame the large chunk is missing, but what is here is watchable.

I just wish it was all intact. The script makes little sense in that Bergman's character is sent away when the kids are small but then brought back to take care of them when they are adults? Some of the time lines don't make sense either. There is a stock market crash that resembles 1929 but the kids grow up to fight in World War 1. All the acting by the support folks in this film is fine. Just wonder what was in the 20 gap of film I could not see as it was missing.


The Golden Era of Disney cartoons was dying by the time the end of the 90s. This show Quack Pack shouldn't even be considered a DuckTales spin off because the show barely had anything to do with DuckTales. It's about a teen-aged Huey, Dewey and Louie as they make trouble for their uncle Donald and talk in hip-hop lingo and they are fully dressed unlike in DuckTales. I prefer the little adventurous nephews from DuckTales. There are humans in Duckburg and the ducks are the only animals living in Duckburg. There's no references of Scrooge McDuck. The stories are repetitive, the plot is boring but the animation is good. If you want lots of slapstick humor, I recommend this to you. If you want a better Disney show watch "Darkwing Duck" or "DuckTales".


Jameson Parker And Marilyn Hassett are the screen's most unbelievable couple since John Travolta and Lily Tomlin. Larry Peerce's direction wavers uncontrollably between black farce and Roman tragedy. Robert Klein certainly think it's the former and his self-centered performance in a minor role underscores the total lack of balance and chemistry between the players in the film. Normally, I don't like to let myself get so ascerbic, but The Bell Jar is one of my all-time favorite books, and to watch what they did with it makes me literally crazy.


I rented this movie from the library (it's hard to find for good reason) purely out of curiosity. I'm a huge Plath fan and this movie was a complete disappointment. The Bell Jar (1979) is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The script is horrible, not because it strays from the original novel text, but because it strays without focus or intent. The scenes are ill-constructed and don't lead the viewer anywhere. What's with the hokey voice over of Plath's poetry? Lady Lazarus has little do with Greenwood's situation; Plath's poetry was completely misused. Marilyn Hassett is completely unbelievable as Esther Greenwood (or any 20 year old for that matter) partly due to casting (she was 32 during filming, the age Plath was when she DIED) and partly due to the fact that she can't act. Hassett is all emotion, no craft, no skill. The direction is mediocre; the director simply covers what's there, which isn't much. The only reason I'm giving the film a 1 is because 0 isn't an option. Sorry Sylvia, you'll have to wait for someone else to adapt your fine work into something more fitting.


This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I looked into it mainly out of a morbid curiosity since I loved the novel, and I wish I hadn't. I turned it off after a little less than an hour, though I wanted to turn it off after five minutes. I wish I had. It disregards the novel a lot and changes all sorts of factors. Unless the film managed to redeem itself in the last 50 or so minutes (which would be impossible) I would in no way recommend this. Its an insult to one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. I don't think, as many people say that it is, that "The Bell Jar" is necessarily unfilmable, but this particular rendition could have been done without. I'd almost like to see this one day in the hands of a director and screenwriter who can do it justice.


How did Mike Hammer live - in a penthouse with a GOLF BAG stashed in the corner next to a big screen cathode ray tube TV and a snazzy fireplace? Nah, he'd knock back a bottle of rye and twenty unfiltered Camels on the couch or floor of his fly-specked office or in the stink of a lousy downtown LA flop house, wiping the dried red crust and oil smeared mud off his face, that's how. Spillane wrote trash paperbacks, for sure, but how do you make it worse? Give some desperate scheming producer a blank check because he thinks any Film Noir titled crap will sell at the box office, add some over-the-hill hot tomatoes and just generally screw-up the story-line by some retard, drugged out screen writer, that's how!


This movie is just plain dumb.

From the casting of Ralph Meeker as Mike Hammer to the fatuous climax, the film is an exercise in wooden predictability.

Mike Hammer is one of detective fiction's true sociopaths. Unlike Marlow and Spade, who put pieces together to solve the mystery, Hammer breaks things apart to get to the truth. This film turns Hammer into a boob by surrounding him with bad guys who are ... well, too dumb to get away with anything. One is so poorly drawn that he succumbs to a popcorn attack.

Other parts of the movie are right out of the Three Stooges play book. Velda's dance at the barre, for instance, or the bad guy who accidentally stabs his boss in the back. And the continuity breaks are shameful: Frau Blucher is running down the centerline of the road when the camera is tight on her lower legs but she's way over the side when the camera pulls back for a wider shot. The worst break, however, precedes the popcorn attack. The bad guy stalking Hammer passes a clock seconds after our hero, except the clock shows he was seven minutes behind our guy.

To be fair, there were some interesting camera angles and lighting, and the grand finale is so bad that it must been seen, which is the only reason that it gets two points out of 10.


Man the ending of this film is so terribly unwatchable and dated that my entire film aesthetics class laughed like crazy. Now most of the rest of the film was okay. It had a few unintentionally funny scenes but had a few real good camera shots and editing. Yes Alderich is a great director who made FLight Of The Phoenix and Whatever Happened TO Baby Jane among others. The problem isn't with direction, acting or anything technical. The movie is just destroyed in the third act. Why? The murders, twists, turns and characters have all been revolving around NUCLEAR MATERIAL? What the heck was the writer smoking when he came up with that? The way it just comes out of nowhere may have been the biggest Deus Ex Machina in history. For all the complaints about Burton's Planet of the Apes, THe life of David Gale or Notorious I think THIS is the worst ending ever. What a let down.


I was really disappointed in this movie. Those that voted this thing a 10 have a screw lose. The acting was ok, kinda wooden and cardboard. The ending was sorry. I just didn't care for this at all.

No way could I recommend this mess.


Average (and surprisingly tame) Fulci giallo which means it's still quite bad by normal standards, but redeemed by its solid build-up and some nice touches such as a neat time twist on the issues of visions and clairvoyance.

The genre's well-known weaknesses are in full gear: banal dialogue, wooden acting, illogical plot points. And the finale goes on much too long, while the denouement proves to be a rather lame or shall I say: limp affair.

Fulci's ironic handling of giallo norms is amusing, though. Yellow clues wherever you look.

3 out of 10 limping killers


A story of amazing disinterest kills "The Psychic" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in "The Psychic."

3/10


What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.

Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.

The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!

azjazz


Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.

Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)

-Zaphoid

PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")

-Z


God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!


Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.

There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.

And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.

Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.


I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"

Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(


I think the show had a pretty good concept to work with. But the execution was poor. The script is poor and acting is bad. There were many issues that could have been portrayed in a better way, like the protest against gay marriage or finding the graveyard. The show can't be properly termed as comedy show as it lacks humor miserably. I should say this show was barely successful in putting the life of Muslim community to some extent.

Till now second season is worse than the first one. I had my hopes high regarding this show, but I was kind of disappointed. Still I appreciate CBC for putting up such concept in front of the viewers. Anyway I wish best of luck for the future.


This show is a perfect example of how the CBC should stick to either news, sports, or satirical sketch comedy. As a developer of situation comedy, CBC has shown it can combine the pizazz of "King of Kensington" with the belly laughs of "The Beachcombers". It is an embarrassment to great shows like "Kids in the Hall" and "Second City" that they have to share their comedic roots with this lame production.

I have to admit, that I didn't give this show much of a chance right from when I first heard of its concept. To start, half of the concept is a direct attempt to rip-off one of the few sitcom successes in English-Canadian history, "Corner Gas". The rest of the concept--the cultural clash--is far from being original and is too often used as a crutch for screen writing laziness. The selection of the Muslim religion as the basis for the "fish out of water" characters seems to be a desperate attempt to be "edgy" and "topical", but comes off as forced. Some of the jokes that are based around the local's reaction to the newcomers are cringe inducing and thoroughly insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, especially the audience.

This show is a perfect example of how CBC just doesn't "get it" when it comes to creating Canadian content, especially when presenting Canada as a multicultural environment. Cultural diversity in Canada does not have to be presented in such a heavy-handed and forced way. It would be a refreshing change to see CBC introduce diversity into a television show without making the show all about said diversity. I doubt that CBC has sufficient sitcom talent to pull off something so subtle. A comparison could be made to the way diversity is depicted in Corner Gas--i.e. the aboriginal characters are not set apart by their ethnicity nor is their heritage used to generate story lines. More realistically, their lives and the other characters lives intertwine in a way that makes ethnicity no more significant than any of their other personal characteristics.

That being said, even as a formulaic fish-out-of-water comedy this show fails. The acting is weak, the comic pacing all over the map, and the story premises that I saw were too far beyond the suspension of belief, even for a comedy. The only saving grace is the talented Derek McGrath, who is horribly wasted here. I doubt that even the addition of guest stars (Colin Mochrie, for example, as an Anglican archbishop) can save this dog. I decided to give the show a chance once the CBC's 'hype' had died down; but two episodes were all I could stand--I could almost feel my braincells shutting themselves down with each failed punchline. The time-slot would be better served by airing more Coronation Street, Air Farce re-runs, or Dr. Who. Even an infomercial would be an improvement.