Hubert Selby Jr. gave us the book "Requiem For A Dream" and co-wrote the screenplay to Aronofsky's movie of it. That movie succeeded on every level by delivering an intimate, and unbiased portrait of the horrors of the characters lives and the vices that destroyed them. "Last Exit To Brooklyn" still has the vice and the multiple characters living sad lives, but it hardly does them the same justice Aronofsky did.

The film seems laughably anti-gay at times. Especially when in the film homosexuality equals death. One gay character gets stoned, is launched skyward by a speeding car, and lands dead on the pavement. Another is crucified and still more are simply beat up. Another exaggerated piece of shock value, that might actually have been compelling if it were done well, are scenes of the union workers literally doing battle with the strike-breakers. Who'd have thought a drama about Brooklyners would feature action sequences and truck explosions?

The director, Uli Edel has a skill level like that of a TV director, but he is far below the cut for real movies. The film is clunky that can't even seem to settle on a genre. Lake is given a useless role that any mannequin could have filled and Baldwin only seems to know how to look stupid in his equally meager part. And then comes Jennifer Jason Leigh as our lead, a loathsome hooker named Tralala (believe it or not, I'm not joking). Her performance is nothing great and the fate of her character is dirty to say the least. Poor use of color and composition make it look cheaper than it is, and also takes the "real" edge off the more provocative bits. A failure.


When this was released, I thought this was one of the most profane films ever made. However, thanks to Martin Scorcese and a few other filmmakers like him, there have been mainline films worse, language-wise, than this....but this is a pretty brutal assault on one's ears. Hey, I can take a lot of it, but this got ridiculous. In the first six minutes alone, I heard a half-dozen usage's of the Lord's name in vain plus an untold number of f-words. I wonder how many people walked out of the theater watching this in 1990? I couldn't have been the only one.

Not surprisingly, some of the feature actors included Jennifer Jason-Leigh, Burt Young, Jerry Orbach and Rikki Lake. Since this film, Stephen Lang seems to have improved his image, at least playing the Godly "Stonewall" Jackson in "Gods and Generals." Lang's role here is just the opposite: perhaps the worst trashy person in the film and a character who falls in love with a transvestite by the end of the film.

Depressing, gloomy, semi-pornographic, repulsive: these are just a few of the adjectives people used - even some Liberal critics - in describing this story, which is painted even worse in the novel. Of course, some of the better-known critics, all extreme Libs, praised the movie. However, they were the only ones. Most critics were disgusted, as well almost all of the paying public. It's unbelievable that anyone could praise filth and garbage like this.

Trust me on this: there are no good, likable characters in this entire movie. This is a mean, sick film: one of the worst of the "modern era." That is, unless you enjoy seeing child abuse, drug abuse, teen prostitutes, on and on - two straight hours of nothing but atrocities and just plain evil people. No thanks.


Just too many incidents of violence.

The film goes from one scene to another, and in nearly every one violence erupts.

Now I am not one who is shocked by violence, and to me a film without a fight in it has something missing. But, please, not one after another. My reaction was not shock or horror, it was: "Here we go again." There is some semblance of a story in between the scenes of violence, but two thirds of the way through the film I had switched off completely, and couldn't wait for the end.

If this is the best the film makers can do, they should find something else to do with their miserable lives, like making shoes or delivering mail.


Welcome to Our Town, welcome to your town? As we are introduced into the worlds of its townsfolk of 1901 America, this three act play is opened before us with the help of "The Stage Manager", a visual narrator if you like. After his initial introductions, we are lead into the homes of two particular families; The Webb's and the Gibb's.

This is most definitely middle America at the turn of the century, and the progressive way of life of the American Dream and its saccharine overtones that can seem a little biased in this dream town. Here we see the everyday lives of some of its 2642 populace of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire, even if there are, too, the migrant Polish workers that add another 500 to is numbers, they, never get a look-in.

Once the daily lives of these families have been introduced; wives cooking, children home-working, fathers working, kids falling in love and the clean picket-fences painted white, the second act is started three years later, after young George (a young and unrecognisable William Holden, then aged 22) and Emily have fallen in love and intend to marry. Blossoming lovebirds reaching for the stars and reaching, too, a turning point in their own lives, from the nest they lived and now, into the anxieties and woes of young adulthood they nervously step. The third act is slightly more sour and foreboding, it is in this act that the movies intentions become apparent, here we see not life, not celebration but death, and it is in this predicament that the dead, as they return to revisit and reconcile their own life past, are here to remind us, to tell us, that life, and every last minute, every precious breath is not to be wasted and squandered.

It is in this last third that the movies own political stance also seems more apparent too, feeling more of a propaganda stunt on the moral lecturing on, and by, middle America and how it should direct its home and how it should also put it in order. This isn't just about "Our" town, this is moral diction aimed at "Our" souls and how America can better itself if its peoples', (excluding the Poles, the Irish, the Native American and the freed ethnic minorities', and minorities' in general, plus the supporting backbone of the Americana's who, still, have not had a fair part in this narrative), such as the middle classes, can live up to the expectations of the American Dream through honest, decent living. The purveyors of the American Dream with special invitation only.

I was entertained, slightly, by this movie too, but I felt that its narrative held a stronger impact than anything else that took part in it albeit the bland acting, the musical score or how well, or not, it was made. This was the movies intention to exclude other groups, and to only include the likes of the Webb's and the Gibb's, in the future of the developing country of the USA, a good movie, but also a slightly biased in its stance, I thought.

Taken from the play by US' born Thornton Wilder (1897 - 1975) this Pulitzer Prize winning play, and six Academy Award nominated movie, was the focal point on the perpetual motion of life and its three main attributes; Life, love and death, the plays translation onto celluloid comes across as a slightly to the right blurb of social consciousness. Our Town starts off with what seems a lesson in pointlessness, like other towns, nothing too exciting ever happens here, if anything at all, this town only has the "right sort of people", you can still leave your back-door unlocked here, we are seeing the developing lives of these two families, but it is their moral and social stance that is more important than them themselves. Our Town may just have been "Any Town", just as long as you came from the right part of town that is.


This is the version that even the author hated, because it's so schmaltzy. They gave it a 'happy ending' and changed a lot of the dialogue, and it's just a big pile of saccharine. The 'stage manager' is quite good, I believe he originated the role, but everyone else falls into that acting style of the 40's that is really just posing. The one great feature- the music. This has one of the best scores ever recorded, and it's worth seeking out in a record shop. Overall I think the 1989 Spalding Grey/ Eric Stoltz/ Penelope Miller version is far superior.


I read this Thornton Wilder play last year in eighth grade. I was also forced to sit through this weak translation of it on screen. Let me tell you, it's not a terrific play, it is easily surpassed, but man it deserves a much better shot. The acting was really lacking, the scenery-honest to God-looked like it was designed out of cardboard by a group of three-year-olds. As if it couldn't get worse, the sound quality is lousy...there is this mind-numbing 'buzz' whenever an actor speaks...and I also couldn't help but notice that the chemistry between George and Emily, well, is non-existant. The actors all seem very uncomfortable to be there. There is no music. It is in black and white, which would be OK but it brings out the cheesiness of it all the more. In any case I think that if you're going to make a point of seeing this movie, which I don't really reccomend, then don't aim your hopes to high. The play, as stalwart as it is, is probably better.


When I first popped in Happy Birthday to Me, I checked the timer to see how long the film was. I was amazed at the length. Both animated and horror films share a common ground: attention span of the selected audience and that should be at or right around 90 minutes. Anything more, and you'll lose the bulk of your audience.

This 110 minutes, or 20 minutes past its prime was a huge problem for me. I'd like to say half of this movie could've been edited out, but I would be too generous to say that. Go ahead and watch it and tell me how many scenes could've been edited, even without being a film major.

Regardless of the overstayed visit, the movie was below mediocre. It spent all of its time trying to be this huge mystery on which of the "elite 10" is killing off the remaining friends. For the most part, they not only over-do it, but they zoom in on a face and pretty much say "It's this guy! No! It's this gal!" You'll spend more time with the camera misleading you than actually enjoying the movie. And don't get me started on the acting.

Okay, that got me started. I had to laugh in the beginning trying to remember if Melissa Sue Anderson played the character that went blind on Little House on the Prairie (later, research proved my suspicions correct) because all the way through this movie, she genuinely looked blind. Strange, as an established actress, she should've been the best of the group, but turned out the worst. The rest of the staff, aside from Ann (Bregman) was pretty damn bad, too, but she, uh, took the cake.

The movie begins with a group of ten friends, and one's immediately killed off. Barely anyone thinks twice of this "dear" friend's disappearance, so they continue on their merry way. Slowly, then more rapidly, there are revelations about Virginia's (Anderson), the main character, past and her psychologist, who's a tad bit more personal (AND ON CALL 24/7, apparently) than most shrinks. All the while, more and more deaths occur.

What's funny is, just as the first "disappearance," the more "best buds" vanish, the less the rest care. Sure, they give a few seconds of air time to say "Wow, (that person) just wouldn't run off" etc, but then they're back to their sexual ways. And speaking of which, it's probably due to the horrid script, or maybe it was I who was losing interest at minute 30, but it was really hard to keep up with who liked who of the group as they all seemed to be sexual partners of the next or someone would either be freaked out to the MAX by another and best friends the next scene. SEE: the creepy guy that kept a mouse/rat in his pocket  literally  and was the most obvious suspect. I'm giving the film too much credit (and time,) but how he became part of the "elite 10" I'll never know.

But, I digress, there's a mystery here. Why are these kids targets? Why is Virginia thinking she's killed someone, when it was never proved ('till the end) that any of them actually has been slaughtered? And why would the trailer and poster claim these killings to be "Six of the most bizarre murders you will ever see"? Hell, even for 1981, most of these had been shown in any of the first two Friday the 13th films  coincidentally enough, Friday the 13th Part 2 was released 2 weeks to the day of Happy Birthday to Me. Perhaps, they're speaking of when they filmed it months prior, but were late to the, well, party.

When the "secrets" are revealed, trust me, you'll have to rewind 3-4x to actually get the laughable and incoherent motives, and even then, put the subtitles on to get all the mumbling victim/killer's words. Even if you get the first time, it's an unbelievably outrageous and hilarious finale. It's almost worth watching the whole movie again, but as a drinking game.

This birthday gathering should be avoided. It's a horrible and illogical first draft script  please, please know it takes multiple rewrites before the cameras role, it contains either way under acting or extreme over acting and it's 100% unrealistic on how people react in extraordinary circumstances.

Side Note: When I was a kid, or say 10-11 years old, I loved horror films. (Still do, oddly. Definite guilty pleasures, but they are getting harder and harder to watch as years pass.) We got our first VCR, and I taped as many horror films off network (or, EDITED VERSIONS) TV. All I remember of Happy Birthday to Me is getting the last 10 minutes on tape, which scared me to death  and obviously gave away the big mystery on who the killer was. Even though I have seen other clips of this movie, I think this is the first full-length viewing I've had. Thankfully, this awful movie didn't wound me as a child. I am older now, and I can take this trash. But never again.

Side Note 2: That said, that crazy "Happy Birthday to Me" song played in the end credits (and as a score throughout) still creeps me out tremendously. I guess, this movie (or last few minutes,) did have an influence on my childhood. Shame on you, Melissa Sue Anderson!


I think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone.


Roger Corman is undeniably one of the most versatile and unpredictable directors/producers in history. He was single-handedly responsible for some of my favorite horror films ever (like the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations "Masque of the Red Death" and "Pit and the Pendulum") as well as some insufferably cheap and tacky rubbish quickies (like "Creature from the Haunted Sea" and "She Gods of the Shark Reef"). Corman also made a couple of movies that are simply unclassifiable and  simply put  nearly impossible to judge properly. "The Trip", for example, as well as this imaginatively titled "Gas-s-s-s" can somewhat be labeled as psychedelic exploitation. In other words, they're incredibly strange hippie-culture influenced movies. Half of the time you haven't got the slightest idea what's going on, who these characters are that walk back and forth through the screen and where the hell this whole thing is going. The plot is simply and yet highly effective: a strange but deadly nerve gas is accidentally unleashed and promptly annihilates that the entire world population over the age of 25. This *could* be the basic premise of an atmospheric, gritty and nail-bitingly suspenseful post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi landmark, but writer George Armitage and Roger Corman decided to turn it into a "trippy" road-movie comedy. None of the characters is even trying to prevent their inevitable upcoming deaths; they just party out in the streets and found little juvenile crime syndicates. "Gas-s-s-s" is a disappointingly boring and tries overly hard to be bizarre. The entire script appears to be improvised at the spot and not at all funny. Definitely not my cup of tea, but the film does have a loyal fan base and many admirers, so who am I to say that it's not worth your time or money?


I don't hand out "ones" often, but if there was ever a film that deserved this sort of attention, it's "Gas!" This is self-indulgent crap that reaches for some of the ambiance of M*A*S*H and falls completely flat on its face in the attempt.

I see what Corman was going for - Malcolm Marmorstein and Elliott Gould tried to reproduce Gould's deathless role in the original movie version of M*A*S*H with a similar plot (in the movie "Whiffs" - look it up here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073891/ for more information).

Marmorstein and Gould got closer to the brass ring with "Whiffs" than Corman did with "Gas!" but didn't quite get there. Neither one of those films even got close to the success of M*A*S*H.

What's wrong with "Gas!"? What isn't? No one comes close to really acting at a level above junior high school theatrics. The production values stink. Someone else here mentioned the magically regenerating headlights on a getaway car, and there's more of that lack of attention to detail. Nothing works the way it's supposed to in this film, and nobody cares.

"Gas!" actually put me to sleep. It's not a sure cure for insomnia, but really close. On the Cinematic Sleep Induction scale, "Gas!" falls somewhere between "Last Year at Marienbad" and George Clooney's remake of "Solaris" (which itself was remarkable for being more boring than the Mosfilm original, despite that studio's seeming unfamiliarity with the idea of keeping the audience's attention by judicious editing).

Judicious editing would have decimated "Gas!" to about twenty minutes. The result would be pointless, but no more so than the original film.

Certain films are so bad that they have a compelling quality that makes them worth watching anyway. This isn't one of them. Don't waste your time. It's not even amusingly bad.


In one word... abysmal. I give it one star for the hippie sex scenes and eye candy women, otherwise forget it. Corman's worst effort, bar none. Ben Vereen should have had his name permanently stricken from the cast. I cannot believe that this is now going to be on DVD (as of 2/15/05) with "Wild In The Streets" - another retro stinker. I woke up sick in bed this morning with a cold, decided to watch a movie to cheer me up some, scanned the digital channels... the premise looked interesting enough because I like viewing B-movie sci-fi, hippie culture and rebellious teen flicks. It seemed familiar somehow and with Ben Vereen in the cast, I thought... why not? What a big mistake... it was a horrible start to my day.

Only after viewing it, I now know why the familiarity crept into the recesses of my newly-awakened brain. I remembered seeing coming attractions for this film as a 14-year old (I'm 45), back in the early/mid-seventies at the Sombrero, a local art theater that no longer exists... the whole theater laughed hysterically and even groaned out loud at how bad this movie looked. Acting: dreadful, story: awful, cinematography: nearly-awful, music: terrible, sound: horrendous, directing: a joke. If you choose to watch this after my warning, remember... "I told you so."

"Gass-s-s-s" is the perfect title for this film... you feel "gassed" after viewing this putrid movie - or maybe that you should be taken to a "gas" chamber for wasting your brain away. I have seen homemade Super 8 movies that put this film to shame. Definitely a new addition to my all-time Top Ten WORST films... it's up there (er, down there) with "Tentacles."

Ted in Gilbert, AZ


Bestselling writer George Plimpton(Alan Alda)takes on an assignment for Sports Illustrated. He is to go incognito to the Detroit Lions training camp and try out for a position as third string Quarterback. He is quickly found out by the team members featuring Alex Karras and Mike Lucci. The entire team finds it amusing to cause stumbling blocks in the writer's determination to Quarterback for a series in a real game.

This movie is Alda's debut and also helped Karras leave the gridiron for acting. Besides the 1968 Detroit Lions, the cast also includes "Sugar Ray" Robinson, Roy Schieder and Lauren Hutton.

Alex March directs this story based on Plimton's book.


Alan Alda plays real-life "Sports Illustrated" writer George Plimpton, who was once invited to join the Detroit Lions football team as an honorary member. Rather wan, uncompelling drama curiously tempered with fantasy. Director Alex March takes an interesting tack on this material, shooting it in a quasi-documentary fashion (with macho commentary) and yet giving the tale a touch of Capraesque whimsy; still, by bringing out the cinematic flashiness in this set-up, he turns the main narrative into a jumble. Alda's smug, uncharismatic performance is another handicap, though the supporting cast is filled with real-life pro-athletes (and scintillating Lauren Hutton as Alda's girlfriend--how's that for a fantasy?). *1/2 from ****


It's pretty clear that the director and production crew set out to paint a less than flattering picture of the Palestinian girl and her family. The film and it's website tries to imply that Ayat has a secret reason for blowing herself and Rachel up- a boyfriend problem- perhaps pregnancy. Neatly glossed over is the fact that Ayat had herself just witnessed the death of a close friend at the hands of the Israelis'-just outside her home. Gosh,so why on earth would a young, pretty, intelligent girl with plans for college go and do such a thing? Could it be that the hormonal, emotional teenager was traumatized by seeing seeing someone she loved die before her very eyes? This detail merits all of 5 seconds in the movie. Another neatly sidestepped detail is that Avigail Levy, Rachels' mother, could have prevented the destruction of the building the Akhras family lived in(along with 22 other families). One distinctly gets the impression that she's offering this as a "concession" - should Mrs. Akhras agree to speak with her."why should I?" she says.(since the movie was made the home has been destroyed- apparently the interview didn't result in what she wanted- so bring on the bulldozers)Mrs Levy claimed that she "wanted the movie to be cathartic as well as a symbol of hope, a chance to transcend entrenched hatreds"- instead she uses it as an excuse to harangue Ayats mother, while dangling the house as a carrot.Moreover although the two women live only 4 miles apart, she is so out of touch with the realities of the occupation for her Palestinian neighbors, that she really thinks that Mrs. Akhras can just drop over for a cup of coffee?Please.And she forgoes the one chance she had to meet Mrs. Akhras in person and see what kind of life she lives.(the Akras family originally came from Jaffa, but now live crammed into a refugee camp only 4 miles from where the Levys live in comparative luxury.Any sympathy I would have had for the obviously well to do Mrs. Levy is dissolved by her air of self-righteous bitchiness.By contrast, Ayats mother comes off as kind,forthright and loving- in spite of the best efforts by the post production crew to paint her and her family as monsters. Heck even the music and sound design was one sided- I guess the muezzin sings ALL day every day 4 miles from the Levy family home, always in a sharply contrasting key from the sappy new-age music that scores this drab excuse for a documentary.Also there is the small matter of translations - Mrs. Levy DIRECTLY addresses the camera in English when she has something worked out to say ahead of time, Hebrew when she doesn't. Mrs.Akhras spoke only Arabic which received sometimes a TRANSLATION, sometimes TRANSLITERATION, always awkward, and very suspect for a supposedly objective movie.They also "sweated" her under the lights, while Mrs. Levy sat in (air conditioned) comfort.Rotten editing for Mrs. Akhras' segments too. I gave it a 2 because I liked Ayats mother and father, who seemed like good decent people. Shame on HBO, producers and director, for releasing such a stink-bomb.


The filming crew did not have good access to the occupied territories, so filming of the Israeli side dominated. I was struck by the nearly completely opposite points of view of the mothers. The Israeli mother lost a child who had the possibility of a life of tremendous happiness. The Palestinian mother lost a child who had only the possibility of a life of privation and despair. With such completely different viewpoints, any meeting had no real chance of any meeting of the minds. The word "peace" did not have the same meaning to each of them. Peace to the Palestinian was freedom. Peace to the Israeli was security. With such an abyss, is this sort of film really worth much? I finished with the feeling that I had watched pointless propaganda -- both sides were unconvincing.


It's rare that I feel a need to write a review on this site, but this film is very deserving because of how poorly it was created, and how bias its product was.

I felt a distinct attempt on the part of the film-makers to display the Palestinian family as boorish and untrustworthy. We hear them discuss the sadness that they feel from oppression, yet the film is shot and arranged in a way that we feel the politically oppressed population is the Jewish Israeli population. We see no evidence that parallels the position of the Palestinian teenager. We only hear from other Palestinians in prison. I understand restrictions are in place, but the political nature of the restrictions are designed to prevent peace.

I came out of the film feeling that the mother of the victim was selfish in her mourning and completely closed minded due to her side of the fence, so to speak. She continued to be unwilling to see the hurt of the bomber's parents, and her angry and closed-minded words caused the final meeting to spiral out of control. It is more realistic, in my mind, to see the Israeli mindset to be a root of the problem; ignored pleas for understanding and freedom, ignored requests for acknowledgment for the process by which the Jewish population acquired the land.

I have given this a two because of these selfish weaknesses of the mother, which normally would be admirable in a documentary, however in the light of the lack of impartiality, it all seems exploitative. Also for the poor edits, lack of background in the actual instance, and finally the lack of proper representation of the Palestinian side. Ultimately, it is a poor documentary and a poor film. I acknowledge this is partially the result of the political situation, but am obliged to note the flaws in direction regardless of the heart-wrenching and sad subject matter.


I tend to love everything the great late Paul Naschy (R.I.P.) ever was in. While not all films starring Naschy are great, they all have a specific charm that can be found nowhere but in Naschy-flicks, and they are always entertaining. There is no rule without exception, however, as "El Mariscal Del Infierno" aka. "The Devil's Possessed" (1974) proves. While the film does have the specific Naschy-flick-charm, it sadly drags far too much and gets really, really dull in-between. Naschy stars as the evil Baron Gilles De Lancré, who oppresses the people and uses black magic and bloody rituals to stay in power. When Gaston de Malebranche (Guillermo Bredeston), who fought side by side with Gilles De Lancré against the British, learns about the Baron's evil behavior, he decides to turn against his former comrade in arms and help the people free themselves from the satanic Baron's tyranny...

Directed by León Klimovsky, who is best known for directing Naschy in "La Noche De Walpurgis" ("The Werewolf Vs. The Vampire Woman", 1971), the film was scripted by Naschy himself. Naschy often scripted his own films, and one must say that he mostly did a better, more original job than it is the case here. "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is mostly built up as a historical adventure rather than a Horror film, and it gets quite boring throughout the middle. It often resembles the Sword and Sandal films from the 50s, only that this film is set in medieval times. The Satanic part was probably only added because the great Paul Naschy's name is linked to the Horror genre. The film has its good parts: Paul Naschy giving weird speeches, Paul Naschy looking weird, Paul Naschy doing Satanic stuff, Paul Naschy torturing innocent victims, etc. But sadly, most of the film concentrates on the boring hero and the good guys, and these moments are boring. The female cast members are nice to look at, but, unlike most Naschy films, this one features no nudity and sleaze. There is some gore, but it mostly looks clumsy and isn't as fun too look at as it is the case with most other Naschy films. Overall, "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is only worth a look for my fellow Naschy-enthusiasts. There are dozens of films starring the Spanish Horror deity which should be seen before this one, such as "El Jorobado De La Morgue" ("The Hunchback of the Morgue", 1973), "La Orgia De Los Muertos" ("The Hanging Woman", 1973), "El Espanto Surge De La Tumba" ("Horror Rises From The Tomb", 1973), "Latidos De Panico" ("Panic Beats", 1983), "Rojo Sangre" (2004), or any of the 'Waldemar Daninsky' werewolf films. R.I.P. Paul Naschy. Legends never die!


Not the greatest film to remember Paul Naschy by.

Gaston (Guillermo Bredeston) is probably the worst swordsman I have ever seen. Zorro would be ashamed! His only salvation came as the competition was just as bad.

This film is described as adventure and horror. Forget the horror - there is none. No nudity, no blood, no monsters; just a Robin Hood adventure against an evil Baron (Paul Naschy) who wants to be King.

The main feature of the film was seeing Graciela Nilson, who only made four films in two years and disappeared to our regrettable loss. Where did she go?


Despite the (English) title, this seems to have little to do with Devils and much more to do with a power hungry ruler who seeks the Philospher's Stone & wants gold made from lead (& virgin's blood). Jacinto Molina plays Gilles de Lancre and seems to have little issue with having people put to death when he thinks they threaten his position or when he needs virgins for their blood. He's basically egged on by his lady love and an alchemist that he's employed and it's more greed and insanity that seems to be his problem than demonic possession (unfortunately). There are parts that are at least somewhat exciting like jousting and grown men trying to knock each other down with big sticks, and the film at least has a good look to it, but otherwise there's little about this to recommend. Little in the way of gore and nothing to be afraid of at all, and most unusual, for a Molina/Naschy film, not really any unintentional humor. Therefore, 4 out of 10.


This 1974 Naschy outing is directed by Leon Klimovsky, and a cursory glance at the publicity photos and packaging might lead you to believe that this medieval romp lies somewhere between "Inquisition" and "Sadomania". Sadly not.

This is a strictly PG affair with tame torture sequences, no nudity and little edge at all. Naschy (of whom I am a fan) struts his stuff as Gilles de Lancre, "antiguo Mariscal de la nacion". Sadly he is more pantomime villain than anything else. One gets the feeling with this film that we have seen him (and it) done all before. Strictly therefore for Naschy completest only.


Posh Spice Victoria Beckham and her alleged new adventures after just moving to LA for work purposes (footballer hubby David is now a Galaxy LA player after his transfer from Real Madrid) was originally going to be a full series,but was thankfully abridged to just one hour or so.But even in this form,it is still numbingly interminable.

Like virtually all 'reality' TV shows,most of the incident comes across as blatantly faked,with the programme itself even admitting that Posh's newly appointed personal assistant is an actress.An Ugly-Betty lookalike,we hear some lamely written and performed banter early on(with an obvious joke about Becks' apparent dalliance with a previous,and rather more glamorous PA Rebecca Loos,though her name is not mentioned) with further sequences involving a fake blow-up doll to trick the paparazzi and hopeless attempts to pitch a baseball.

This could have been more entertaining if all had acknowledged it was a piece of fluff,and had an actress or impersonator in the lead role.Talented impressionist Ronni Ancona would've been perfect and is better at being Posh than Posh herself is,and if this more sensible decision had been taken,much more fun and amusement would've ensued.Sadly,we are left with the real thing here (Ms Ancona may have rejected the script as too weak anyway),and although there are odd scattered attempts at self-deprecation and irony,it never remotely works because of prior info of La Beckham's considerable wealth beforehand,and her non-ability at delivering would-be jokes;despite the intentions to send up her image,Mrs Beckham comes across as a shallow egotist,and her weak one-liners don't persuade us she has any humorous self-awareness.I suspect that if a more realistic fly-on-the-wall documentary approach had been taken,namely Posh walking down any street in LA and being totally ignored (instead of the frantic,staged scenes of mild hysteria on show here), and associates making unscripted jibes about the previously mentioned Ms Loos,this would've made marginally better TV,but being sycophantic PR material,the bony one herself would never allow such events to happen.

Having said that,the later scenes where she made a special appearance at the baseball stadium where she was indifferently presented in front of an uninterested crowd show it will be tough times ahead if she wants to make it big in Hollywood.Her colleague Scary Spice (aka Mel Brown) also found it impossible to make it big residing in the movie capital despite her affair (which was not consummated) with big name Eddie Murphy.

The Spice Girls were of course a massively successful bubblegum pop group in the mid 1990's,more so in their native Britain but still popular briefly in other countries,including the US.They were certainly good fun at their peak of glory (1997) when there seemed to be a glorious period of optimism in the UK with Cool Britannia and a New Labour government which The Spice Girls seemed to sum up better then anyone else at the time,even if it was somewhat manufactured.But they were never outstanding musical or singing talents,and UK optimism seemed to fade rapidly later that year (the starting point was arguably the tragic death of Princess Diana),as did The Spices' themselves.Their presence on the music and entertainment scene soon became repetitive and obvious,and if they had all quietly moved out of the public eye permanently with dignity to enjoy their fortunes, then we would have all had pleasant memories encrypted on our mind without any guilt.Unfortunately,the emergence of the hideous 'celebrity' culture in the UK towards the start of the millennium has put paid to those imaginings,and we have all suffered thousands,if not millions of stories about the Spices since,Posh being the worst offender,with the rest of her colleagues not too far behind.It was recently announced that there will be a reunion tour soon,which is baffling as they have never gone away and they certainly don't require any additions to their swelling bank accounts.Maybe it's because two of them are struggling single mothers,perhaps?

Good,it's soon time for Becks' adventures on a revelatory documentary next,I can hardly wait.............

Rating:2 out of 10.


I'm grateful for one thing and one thing only - that this woman will now be thousands of miles away on an entirely different continent!!! Yay!!! This programme summed up perfectly just how obsessed Victoria Beckham has become with whoring herself and her family out to the media in the name of self promotion and 'Brand f*cking Beckham'.

A few years ago I used to really like 'Posh and Becks', I still very much admire David's talent, but I have no respect for him anymore. How can you respect someone who has his wife's hand shoved up his backside working him like a puppet.

It was clear the hand of Victoria was all over Beckham's premature departure from Manchester United and now the same thing has happened at Real Madrid. I hope Beckham can live with the fact that although he may be earning squillions of pounds - he's sold his soul for the American Buck and will end his days playing for a team who would struggle to gain promotion from Division One in England (no offence America - but at Baseball and Basketball you rule - football you don't!)

Anyway - I digress. It's been years since I've seen such an over-the-top, entirely false performance from 'Posh' - this being topped only during her cringe worthy red carpet performances following the Rebecca Loos 'debacle', when instead of throwing all the cr*p at David he deserved, she desperately clung onto his arm trying to save the million pound money-spinner her marriage has become.

This whole PR stunt was pathetic. Why can't she just go over there quietly, support her husband through the biggest mistake of his professional career and keep her head down? When did she become so full of self importance that she feels the move to America should be shrouded by this huge fan fare?

Incidentally, I saw the David Beckham documentary last night. At least he has retained a sliver of grace and humility. Two things his wife could do with learning.

One more thing Victoria - you complain about constantly being hounded by the paps. Little hint - stop tipping them off about your whereabouts you stupid woman.

Good Luck America!!


I honestly can't believe what passes for entertainment now. Death (and making fun of death), violence, sexual innuendo, adults threatening children, crudeness, alcohol abuse by minors, drug theft, dysfunctional parents, babysitter from hell, stereotypical jokes about African Americans, police and fat people, and kids sneaking out of the house in the middle of the night - yup, sure sounds like a kids movie to me - NOT!!! Add to that the dark and scary elements - a dead woman possessing and turning into a house and keeping her loving husband a prisoner inside for over 20 years, and also terrorizing an entire neighborhood - how sweet for kids. PARENTS - is this really what you want your kids to be watching - is this what you want to teach them about life?!

This movie is too scary for young kids, and i'm afraid that teens today may be living some of this movie scenario - so why rub it in their faces? As for an adult audience - you won't find it scary or amusing - just boring, contrived and predictable. And the characters are just wrong - clueless parents, ignorant police, stupid and annoying friends, nasty and manipulative babysitters, and beer drinking/womanizing boyfriends. What great material for kids - does this really sound like a children's movie to anyone? Even the computer animation and good voice work aren't enough to redeem this terrible flick. Save your money, save your time, and save your children's minds - go rent Ice Age, Monsters Inc., the Incredibles, Shrek, A Bug's Life - ANY of them are way better than this horrid film. Spielberg and Zemeckis - shame on both of you for making such a disaster and then billing it as a children's/family movie!!


The only reason I don't give this movie fewer than 3 stars is because it isn't quite on par with a movie like Manos: The Hands of Fate. This movie's greatest crime is the fact that it is head-meltingly boring & terribly, unforgivably British. The premise of this movie sounds potentially promising, the whole teleporting concept, but the direction they went with it was completely uninteresting. It was more a movie about research funding and bowties than projecting lasers. The actors were wooden, unemotional, and aloof. As was the love affair between the two scientists-- which was anything but intriguing. I never was able to tell what the attraction was between them as the chemistry was non-existent. Nor did I really understand why the melty-faced main guy decided to slaughter everyone he met. At least now I know that I should always give someone a fair hearing before I cut off their research grants, else they go rampaging about, killing wantonly with goofy hand gestures.


The film, a Universal release of a Protelco-MLC production, is a boring retelling of the theory of breaking down the molecular structure of an object, capturing it in a cell as "pure energy," and then sending it back complete to a "target area." There is no explanation WHY this is necessary, but Professor Paul Steiner (played by pock-mocked actor Bryant Haliday, "Devil Doll") thinks it's something to dedicate his, and his assistants', Pat Hill (Mary Peach) and Chris Mitchell (Ronald Allen), lives to.

During an experiment before noted Dutch scientist "Lembach" (Gordon Heinz), his machine fails due to sabotage, so he has himself "projected" by his secretary, Sheila (Tracey Crisp) to seek revenge. Of course, she screws up and he comes out looking like a "pork roast" with the power to electrocute people.

With this new-found power, he manages to zap some Cockney idiots, a security guy named Latham (Derrick de Marney) and his lab boss, Dr. Blanchard (Norman Woodland). He also is able to break into a pharmacy and steal a pair of rubber gloves and a black coat, as well.

In the end, though, despite Hill and Mitchell's attempt to help him, the clown destroys his equipment and himself. On the whole, a completely pointless movie with no message at all.

Also one of the most depressing color films you will ever see.


Professor Paul Steiner is doing research in matter transference. He has developed a machine that he can use to make an object like a wrist watch or rodent disappear, only to have that object re-materialize in a different location. But there are those at his research facility that do not like or approve of his experiments and will do whatever it takes to see that he doesn't succeed. After a failed demonstration that might have saved his funding, Professor Steiner decides to test his machine on himself. As expected, things go horribly wrong and he is transformed into a heavily scared madman whose mere touch will kill.

In hindsight, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to re-watch The Projected Man in the same week I watched The Fly, Return of the Fly, and Curse of the Fly. There seems to be only so many movies about matter transference and the potentially horrendous effects it can have on the human body that one person should be made to endure in a three or four day period. I'm not sure what those responsible for the movie list as their source material for The Projected Man, but much of it is so similar to the Fly movies that it cannot be mere coincidence. However, The Projected Man isn't even nearly as good as the worst of the Fly trilogy.

Besides being terribly unoriginal, The Projected Man has several other problems that really hurt the enjoyment of the movie. A big issue I have is with Bryant Haliday in the lead. He's such a horse's ass that, not only do I not care about his suffering, I actually root for it. Supporting cast members Mary Peach and Ronald Allen are almost as bad. They're so bland and dull they hardly matter. In fact, there's very little to get excited about while watching The Projected Man. The soundtrack  not very memorable. The "look"  I would describe much of it as "muddy". The plot  predictable. The action  there isn't any. Overall, this is one to avoid.

Fortunately, I watched The Projected Man via a copy of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. Funny stuff! While not an absolute, very often, the poorer the movie  the better the MST3K riffs. The guys hit almost all of their marks with The Projected Man. I'll give it a very enthusiastic 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


The title alone (along with the poster) is enough to give away "The Projected Man" as an obvious rip-off of "The Fly". And Bryant Haliday, while much better than the typical IMDb review would have you think, is nobody's idea of an acceptable stand-in for Vincent Price. Although, come to think of it, who would be, unless Micheal Gough was available?? Still, if you are in the mood to watch a British "Hammer" style movie with a science fiction theme about a teleportation experiment gone horribly wrong...well, you still might want to give "The Projected Man" a pass and rummage around in the 'remaindered' bin at your local Wal-Mart for another teleporter-accident movie. Because this one just isn't all that good.

Haliday caught a lot of good natured ribbing from the MST3K crew for his part in this movie and in "Devil Doll", but he is actually the best thing in TPM. Maybe he can't carry the movie, but he gets practically no help here from the screenplay. The script bogs down any forward momentum the plot may have in a mire of nonsense about funding and university politics and a guy named Lembach and some sinister cabal who want the teleportation machine to fail so they can steal its secrets...or something. So all the dramatic sequences in the first half of movie involve either phone calls or unconvincing special effects with transparent espresso machines and teleporting rats. Then when poor Haliday gets mutilated by his machine, he has to spend the last part of the film wearing a diaper over half his face and rubber cement over the rest while he electrocutes various Londoners who chance across his path. Tom Cruise and Eric Roberts using bullhorns couldn't have made this screenplay work.

Meanwhile all the other actors diligently try to inject life and interest into their roles for this turgid little project, but the screenplay just swallows their efforts whole. The corrupt project administrator frets and fumes and hisses into the phone to his blackmailers, all the while failing to notice that he looks like a werewolf outfitted in a tweed suit and a Tattersall vest. Haliday's research assistant and ex-girlfriend have the least convincing romance in the history of British horror cinema. His secretary is forced to parade around in her "smalls". None of it really works or gels into a real movie. And it all just kind of stops dead, leaving the viewer going, "Eh? excuse me, wasn't there supposed to be an ENDING here??"

Still, for all its problems, I can easily name a dozen horror movies from the same period that were as bad or worse, and so could anyone else who follows movies (or who has ever browsed the IMDb "Bottom 100"). I wouldn't actually pay money to own "Projected Man", but if it were included in some compilation along with a dozen other movies in a DVD collection, I'd probably feel OK about having it. It's a harmless diversion, perfect for a horror movie film festival, to watched with friends while consuming many beers and snacks on a Saturday evening.


Ok first of all, this movie sucks. But lets examine why. The proposition that a machine is capable of transforming matter into energy, storing it, and then transporting it and reasembling it is at the least intriguing. But that's as far as they take this premise. Instead of delving into what could happen if someone made this kind of machine, they break the damn thing. This could have been a good premise. Living with the responsibilty of this kind of power, and dealing with the constant temptation, ie.. the invisible man. But no.. they break the damn thing. And Lembach wants to leave. So then the doctor jerry-rigs the thing back together, and trys to transport himself. Only to have it goofed up by his beautiful but dumb secretary, (duh). Which wouldn't happened if Lembach hadn't decided to leave. So now he is roaming the country side killing people because his little experiment failed, and they wouldn't give him money. Wah. Then to make the movie worse, throw in a dry British relationship between the two semi-competent professors hired to assist him. Between their loving sessions, they make a couple of half-hearted attempts to find him while he kills off half of London. All of this could have been headed off by not breaking the damn machine, which would never have happened if Lembach hadn't left. This movie tried so I give it an honest 2 stars for effort, but it would have been better if they hadn't broke the damn machine, making Lembach leave, making him try it again. Damn you Lembach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I remember this film, exhibit in Barcelona (Spain) in 1970, for the time of a week. Although it could seems incredible, and I can't offer any explanation for it, this movie was exhibit in a theater dedicated to... movies of art and big quality (that, is, Bergman, Resnais, Malle, Buñuel, and... The Projected Man). Few people saw it (luckly people, no doubt) and no reference about this very boring SF movie can be found in the Peter Nichols Science Fiction Encyclopidie, or about the author of the original novel. Very indicative. I remember of it, after all this years, a no-story, a lot of special effects that seems ridiculous effects in fact, and no more. It seems that in some countries the running time is 90 mm. and in anothers 77 min. Well, it means only a little more of pain.


This movie is spoofed in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think MST3K was at its best when they ripped this movie.

Terrible acting, bad makeup, poor effects, chick in skimpy (1960's)underwear. I give it a 2.

The villain is hard to understand due to the makeup. The assistant says things like 'not you' that sound like NACHOO!! (think sneezing). It's just poor oration. The long eyebrows are hilarious on one of the characters.

I still don't know what 'The Projected Man' means in terms of the plot. I missed some of the beginning though.

What is up with this 10 line minimum on posting??


This is one of the worst things to ever come out of England, so that says a lot right there. The tension when we have to find out whether or not Lembach is staying is amazing though. The upside is seeing the nice secretary, Sheila, in her picnic table print underwear for awhile after being captured by Dr. Rat Face. This movie has several views of London too although none of them are good. There is also a point in which there is almost a car accident which gets your heart rate back to just below normal. There is also a watch that gets teleported away, and the fear of the woman not getting her watch back is parallel to the horror of "The Sixth Sense" only a lot more dull and British. Add on a furious gun fight between the British police and the Dr. Rat, which results in nothing, plus the electrocuting of a lot of people, plus a cat and you have yourself... ummm... A British movie. The MST3K version is pretty good although not one of there bests.


With that line starts one silly, boring British sci fi film. The Great Vorelli from the movie "Devil Doll" builds a teleportation machine only to have his funding cut off by Blanchard, a bearded man who has a thing for bow ties and men with large eye brows. When his experiment fails, the good doctor learns that Lembach, the man who controls all of the grants in the world, will be staying in London for a few days. He attempts to project himself into the house of Blanchard with the help of his comely lab assistant, Sheila. Needless to say something goes wrong and he winds up looking like a rat. The rest of the movie is devoted to the good orange haired doctor walking around London shocking people with his mutated hand and wearing a diaper on his face. There are some more killings, some modest paper work, and finally, the doctor vanishes to where ever rat faced doctors go. Thankfully no one decided to make a sequel.


This is a rather dull movie about a scientist that creates a teleporter device and gets horribly disfigured when he uses the machine to transport himself. Simple plot done before in the fly and others. Not only does he get disfigured, but he also can electrocute people with a touch. What is really dumb about this film is that we are expected to believe the place this guy works is against him. He could probably make millions for the institution that he is working at, but the head of the institution tries to sabotage his teleporter every step of the way. In the end the projected man electrocutes three people for no reason then goes after those that have wronged him.


(spoilers)The one truly memorable part of this otherwise rather dull and tepid bit of British cuisine is Steiner's henna rinse, one of the worst dye jobs ever. That, and the magnificent caterpillar eyebrows on the old evil dude who was trying to steal Steiner's invention. MST3K does an admirable job of making a wretchedly boring and grey film funny.I particularly like it when Crow kills Mike with his 'touch of death', and when he revives him in the theatre, Mike cries "Guys, I died, I saw eternal truth and beauty! oh, it's this movie..." That would be a letdown, having to come back from the afterlife to watch the rest of The Projected Man. The film could make a fortune being sold as a sleep aide. Some of the puns in the film were wicked: police inspector-"electrocution!" Crow-"Shocking, isn't it?" police inspector-"That's LOwe, all right" Tom Servo-"Very low, right down by the floor!" police inspector-"Can I get on?" Tom Servo-"He's dead, but knock yourself out" MST3K is definitely the only way to watch this snoozer.


Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn! :=8O

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.

Oh, um excuse me, sorry, fell asleep there for a mooment. Now where was I? Oh yes, "The Projected Man", yes... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.

Ooops, sorry. Yes, "The Projected Man". Well, it's a British sci-fi yawnfest about nothing. Some orange-headed guy projects himself on a laser, gets the touch of death. At last he vanishes, the end. Actually, the film's not even that interesting. Dull, droning, starchy, stiff, and back-breakingly boring, "The Projected Man" is 77 solid minutes of nothing, starring nobody. Dull as dishwater. Dull as doorknob dust. Dull as Ethan Hawke - we're talking really DULL here, people! But wait, in respect to our dull cousins from across the puddle, the MooCow will now do a proper review for "The Projected Man":

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. <=8.


It's not so much that SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION had little potential. Indeed the under-explored title phenomenon is quite intriguing and, for at least the opening half, this Tobe Hooper effort promises to entertain in a way only cheesy '90s horror can. But somewhere between Brad Dourif's on-again-off-again performance and the overly intricate plot, this would-be thriller loses its way.

Dourif, featured here before his built-in horror fan base had accumulated, is average guy Sam. Of course average guys don't stay average for long in horror movies, so after a well-done origin outline, we see Sam's various body parts start to ignite. Soon he's igniting other people, too, much to the consternation of gal pal Lisa, played unmemorably by Cynthia Bain.

While the title of the film implies a fire-happy monster on the loose, director Hooper opted to make Sam an unwilling killer. This approach gives the film an added human depth it would otherwise lack, but it also prevents us from truly fearing the human flamethrower. We're left wondering whether this would have worked better as a straight-up villain-versus-everyone effort ala NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.

SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION is a pretty nominal effort when all is said and done. It will carry added appeal for Dourif's fans and those who can't get enough 1990s horror, be it good, bad or in between, but only on a slow night.


Not as bad, as it's credited to being (Hooper's done far worse) more so disappointing for me. Such an imaginative concept, which is never really tapped in to by Hooper with his economical direction and even less so in the smoky (excuse the pun) writing. It goes so sinister and over-the-top in a dead serious tone, becoming ridiculous and unfocused letting the whole pessimistic mystery / conspiracy-laced narrative being easily telegraphed to end on something completely abrupt. Because of that, the pacing goes on to be rather sluggish and Brad Dourif (cool to see him in a leading role) seems to struggle with an off-balanced performance, despite etching out a bemusedly quirky intensity to his off-colour character. Even though it's cheaply done, there's a competent technical attitude to it. However it doesn't seem to go anywhere out of the ordinary with its idea and wants to plaster in nasty jolts (which some do work) and strikingly steaming special effects (flames, flames everywhere) instead. Hooper does display some stylishly frenetic imagery (more so towards the latter end), and the camera-work is swiftly manoeuvred and the beaming score is titillating. The performances are bit all over the shop with the appearances of William Prince, Cynthia Bain, Dey Young, Jon Cypher and Melinda Dillon. Also Geroge Buck Flower and John Landis have small, but amusing cameos especially Landis. Nothing surprises, but it's passably engaging.


Bizarre Tobe Hooper exercise regarding an unfortunate young man(Brad Dourif)with the ability to set people on fire. This ability stems from parents who partook in atomic experiments in the 50's. They die of Spontaneous Human Combustion and it seems that what Sam is beginning to suffer from derives by these pills his girlfriend, Lisa(Cynthia Bain)gives him to take for rough migraines. In actuality, Lisa was told to manipulate Sam into taking the pills by Lew Orlander(William Prince), pretty much the young man's father who raised him from a child. Lew has benevolent plans..he sees Sam as the first "Atomic Man", a pure killing machine in human form. Sam never wanted this and will do whatever it takes to silence those responsible for his condition. As the film goes, Sam's blood is slowly growing toxic, green in color instead of red. It seems that water and other substances which often put out fire react right the opposite when Sam's uncontrollable outbursts of flame ignite. Come to find out, Lisa has Sam's condition whose parents also dies from SHC. Dr. Marsh(Jon Cypher), someone who Sam has known for quite some time as his physician, is to insert toxic green fluid into their bodies, I'm guessing to increase their levels of flame. Nina(Melinda Dillon, sporting an accent that fades in and out)was Sam's parents' friend and associate on the experiments in the 50's who tries to talk things over with him regarding what is happening. And, Rachel(Dey Young)is Sam's ex-wife who may be working against her former husband with Lew and Marsh to harm him and Lisa.

Quite a strange little horror flick, filled with some pretty awful flame-effects. Dourif tries to bring a tragic element and intensity to his character whose plight we continue to watch as his body slowly becomes toxic waste with fire often igniting from his orifices. There's this large hole in his arm that spits out flame like a volcano and a massive burn spot on his hand which increases in size over time. Best scene is probably when director John Landis, who portrays a rude electrical engineer trying to inform Sam to hang up because the radio program he's calling has sounded off for the night, becomes a victim of SHC. The flick never quite works because it's so wildly uneven with an abrupt, ridiculous finale where Sam offers to free Lisa of her fire by taking it from her.


It's often said that Tobe Hooper just struck lucky with his grisly 1974 horror film 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and every time I see another Hooper film - that view is only reinforced. It would seem that Hooper wanted to make his own version of films such as Scanners and Firestarter in 1990 and so we end up with Spontaneous Combustion; a film with a couple of good ideas and a whole load more that are borrowed from other films. Put it all together and you get a messy, boring film that most people would do well to miss! The film leads the audience to believe that it might be half decent initially with an intriguing back story that focuses on some experiments carried out on two young people in the fifties. The couple have a child and shortly thereafter burn to death as a result of the experiments done on them. Fast forward some years and the baby is now an adult named Sam; but naturally he's not a normal person and soon finds when it's discovered that he has the ability to set things on fire at will.

The film stars Brad Dourif, who must have seemed like a good casting choice given his success with Child's Play two years earlier; but actually was an uninspired decision as the central performance is really terrible; and not helped by the terrible supporting performances. The turgid direction and dull script also don't do the film many favours and the trend of lacking in favours is continued by the special effects, which are very unrealistic and have nothing on the films that this one is ripping off; all of which were made some years earlier. The plot is really slow and it's almost an hour before anything of note happens, and I didn't care for it even then. It soon becomes obvious which direction the film will go in and it all boils down to the sort of tedious ending you would expect. The final confrontation is a big disappointment and nothing is really explained during the film. Not that any revelation would have been interesting anyway. Overall, this is a rubbish film and another reason why Tobe Hooper is a long way from being a great horror director. See Firestarter again instead.


I tried as hard as I could to sit all the way through this irritating mess, but I just couldn't do it. Brad Dourif absolutely sucked as the lead and all the supporting cast were only marginally worse.

The whole thing is just ludicrous, from the awful acting to the laughable FX to the stupid plot.

Complete waste of time; don't bother. Root Canal therapy would be more enjoyable. Bamboo slivers under the fingernails would be a lot more pleasant.

Watching a Uwe Boll movie would be only a little worse than this. Get the idea?


A man discovers that his parents were part of a nuclear experiment in the 50's and that he now has the power to... burst into flames!

I was really geared up for this film, what with being directed by the great Toby Hooper and staring wild card Brad Dourif. Unfortunately it didn't rise above the average individual-with-violent-powers movie. Spontaneous Combustion has an interesting premise behind it, unfortunately it never seems to live up to its potential and prolongs its plot too much. The special effects aren't bad though and help to carry the movie to the finale.

The cast isn't bad, Dourif does steal the show.

All around, no classic but it's not the worst of its kind either.

** out of ****


Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!

Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.

The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?

Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies.


First off, the lead, Brad Dourif is a KOOK. If you're trying to take this movie seriously, then, I guarantee he's going to ruin it for you. If you don't take him too seriously, then he's actually kind of fun to watch. As with another reviewer, I loved the scene where Lisa (Cynthia Bain) and Dourif are declaring their love for each other - in between dodging the jets of flame shooting out of his arm in the car. Another great campy scene was watching John Landis as a snotty radio show producer getting toasted and flailing around the room. In fact, I found the last 15 minutes of the movie to be a non-stop laugh-riot - I'm just not sure if Tobe Hooper meant it to be that way.


Others have already commented on the "decline" of director Tobe Hooper, but what about Brad Dourif? He was perfectly capable of selecting good projects (as he proved by starring in the same year's "Exorcist III"), so why did he agree to appear in this? Sure, he gives a suitably demented performance, and the film is not outright bad; it's just uninvolving, uninteresting and unappealing. That's three "un-"s too many. (*1/2)


Now, i hired this movie because Brad Dourif was in it. He is an excellent actor, BRILLIANT in everything...except this movie. And i think that was only because he realized how stupid this movie was, and didn't bother with a good performance. This movie is a unintentional-comedy. Some of the lines just crack me up. And them there are some lines that make no sense, and it seems like Tobe Hooper just throw lines in without thinking about the plot. Oh! BTW the plot is BAD! But it one of those films that is TAHT BAD that its actually PAINFUL to watch. I recommend this only for BIG Brad Dourif fans, or fans of any of the other actors, because the plot is pathetic.


Seriously, what is THIS? Hooper has made such classic films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then he made this god awful film, what happened? did he dip into the crack a little too much? This film is about some dude named Sam who has the ability to set things on fire,(Firestarter, anyone?) the acting was godawful, the plot was rubbish, and the special effects were extremely rubbish, they looked like something from the 70's. Van Damme should be pleased that Derailed is no longer the worst film ever, and what was with the ending? he started glowing blue, turned into a glowing blue blob, sucked out his girlfriends fire, and the film ended. WHAT WAS THAT? HUH? when the film ended I hoped the DVD would Spontaniously Combust to save me from my pain.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM.

DON'T THINK, OBEY, you'll thank me later.


Tobe Hooper has made great movies so I was certain this couldn't be BAD. I didn't read any reviews and tried to watch this unintentionally humorous film. At times this made me laugh, sometimes I almost fell asleep, sometimes made me almost CRY for Hooper.

I rated this 3/10 because its 1990 "horror"-movie and many interesting or funny things happened there. Throughout the movie I was thinking something like "they simply CAN'T add more things in this movie..." .. but they did.

Some tell this is some sort of Firestarter clone but truly isn't. It's based on that idea but thats all. This is combination of horror, comedy, weird religion/god things, funny gore, simple effects, drama, horrible acting, unbelievable script..and more.

*spoilers* Story is: Government tries to create ultimate weapon using nuclear power or something and fails, during process child is born for 2 test persons. When mom sings to her child after the birth, both husband and wife burns and it is SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION. Government buries whole thing and leaves this child live amongst other people and ... then after x years this kid is grown up and realizes he has been born for a reason and whoa he can burn things with his brains. Then everything goes unbelievable messy nothing really explains anything and .. Well when The Government realizes "okay now he can set this fire thing to work" they take him to normal hospital where is some nuclear toxic what they are going to use on this man BECAUSE they could kill him, no they can't shoot him no! .. and argh, I guess thats enough to tell, I promise there is 100 more weird things in this movie.

Well if you want good laughs watch this one. Gosh.


This film is a massive Yawn proving that Americans haven't got the hang of farce. Even when it has already been written for them! The original film "Hodet Over Vannet" is a witty comedy of errors that I would rate 8/10. It isn't just about a linguistic translation, but certain absurd chains of events are skipped entirely, robbing the film of its original clever farcical nature and turning it into a cheap "oops there go my trousers" style of farce.


Story starts slow and nothing funny happens for a while. All the action is in the end, but you won't have to laugh because the movie is funny, but because the story is pathetic.

The funniest part is when Harvey 'I'm not Paranoia' Keitel really loses it and the judge starts a massacre. Oscars for this guy!


This movie was billed as a comedy and a mystery. It fails badly at both. The only mystery here is why would anybody make such a poorly constructed movie. The only comedy is the laugh I got when I saw how high the readers here ranked it. Could there be two movies with the same name? The movie I saw starred a girl with pretty blue eyes and a plot that wasn't there.


Don't waste 90 minutes of your time on "Fast Food, Fast Women." It's annoyingly episodic script with three story lines patched together is laughably bad due to predictable writing, horrific acting, and even bad music. I found the anorexic main character upsetting to watch every time she was on screen. SHE needs the fast food.

Spend the 90 minutes you'd devote to this turkey doing something more exciting...like trimming your toenails. You'd have more entertainment value.

The only redeeming thing about this film is Louise Lasser, but she deserves much better than this tired script. It's as impotent as the elder guy she courts in the movie.

VIEWER BEWARE!


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I saw it at the Toronto film festival and totally regret wasting my time. Completely unwatchable with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Steer clear.


My girlfriend and I were stunned by how bad this film was. After 15 minutes we would have called it quits except we were too curious to see if the film could possibly redeem itself. It didn't.

I can't understand the praise given to this film. The writing was downright awful and delivered by some of the worst acting I have seen in a very long time.

One thing that especially annoyed me about this film was that often when people were talking to each other there was an unnatural pause between lines. I understand using a pause to create a feeling of awkwardness (like in Happiness). This was not that type of pause -- it was just simply bad directing. This film might actually be much better with subtitles, and maybe the overseas market is the best one for this film, because then the innane dialogue and bad acting wouldn't be noticed as much.

I generally like these types of small quirky films (The Real Blonde, Walking and Talking, Lovely and Amazing), but this one failed on so many levels that I consider it one of the very worst films I have sat through in the last few years.


This kid is rather bad, but in no way do they make him the type that outsmarts adults and can foil experienced thieves at every turn. No, he is not so much a brat, as he is a kid with severe emotional problems. A nice couple looking to adopt get rather suckered into adopting him and while the husband is a bit more willing to give this kid a chance the mother is not. Through in a bizarre Michael Richards character and the always annoying Gilbert Gottfried and you have yourself a rather bad movie with a few laughs in it here and there. I actually prefer the sequel to this film as I like the fact they brought Amy Yasbeck back as a different more likable character as there are one to many characters in this film that are thoroughly unlikable as it is. Even the kid is rather annoying at first in this one, and they kind of chill him out in the sequel too. The plot is simple enough though as the prospective parents go to adopt this kid that they think is great by the way the orphanage is throwing a party as they depart, they soon realize they have themselves a little hellion. Add to that this little hellion getting into contact with a convict of some sort. Not sure about this character, at first I thought it was supposed to be his real father or something. Not all that good, but I will pick this ahead of that Culkin kid any day of the week.


The first scene in 'Problem Child' has a baby peeing into a nun's face. For this movie, that's witty. A nasty, mean-spirited 'comedy', it's inept on so many levels it beggars belief. John Ritter is the kind father who adopts the child from Hell, and kudos to him for maintaining his dignity in the surrounding onslaught of one-note, annoying performances and puerile humour. And what the hell's Jack Warden doing in this mess? Slackly directed by Dennis Dugan and obnoxious in its attempts to turn on the sentimentality when it's done with the crudity, the movie is made so badly it's quite a bizarre experience. But never mind all that. The lowlight of the whole thing is Michael Oliver, the most repulsive and unlikeable kid actor ever to hit the screen  believe me, you will want to smack him right in the mouth.


I remember watching this movie several times as a very young kid, and there were parts of it (many in fact) that I did not understand. I think I have seen it once as an adult, and I then understood those parts. The only problem with viewing it as an adult was that it was not entertaining to me at all. So what kind of movie is this? Is it a "kids movie"? Not hardly. It contains language and subject matter not suitable for kids. Is it a hyperbole of what every parent feels like they are going through with their own children? Maybe, but then why wouldn't it focus more on John Ritter's character instead of Junior? When a film has a 7-year-old as its main character, in order to do well with it's audience, it should be a movie for the seven and under crowd, otherwise people older than that will have no way to relate (even 8-year-olds wouldn't want to see a movie about a kid who is whole year younger than them). I'm pretty sure this film did not do well in the box office, and the reason has to be because it was unable to find a niche in the market.


I have to admit I've caught this one a few times on the USA Network. There's just something about the, well, sheer stupidity of this flick which makes me want to watch it whenever it's on. Yes, you're right about the sub-par acting, the plot which only an seven year old could like, etc. But I can't help feeling sympathetic toward some of the actors. Then again, a few of these actors signed up for the even more atrocious sequel.


"Problem Child" is one of the goofiest movies ever made. It's not the worst (though some people will disagree with me on that), but it's not the best either. It's about a devilish 7-year-old boy who wrecks comic havoc on a childless couple (John Ritter, Amy Yasbeck) who foolishly adopts him. This film is too silly and unbelievable because I don't buy for one second that a child could act as unrurly as the kid does in this film. It's asinine and preposterous although I did laugh several times throughout (I really don't know why). But I can't recommend this film. I know I'm being too kind to it. If there is one positive thing about "Problem Child" is that it's better than the sequel which was just awful.

** (out of four)


PROBLEM CHILD is one of the worst movies I have seen in the last decade! This is a bad movie about a savage boy adopted by two parents, but he gets into trouble later. That Junior can drive Grandpa's car. He can scare people with a bear. He can put a room on fire! It is a bad movie as much as BATTLEFIELD EARTH. A sequel is an even worse fate. Rent CHICKEN RUN instead.

*1/2 out of **** I give it.


I can't for the life of me remember why--I must have had a free ticket or something--but I saw this movie in the theater when it was released. I don't remember who I went with, which theater I was in, or even which city. All I remember was how offended I was at this travesty someone dared to call a film, and how half the people in the theater walked out before the movie was over. Unfortunately I stuck it out to end, which I still consider to be one of the worst mistakes of my life thus far. My offense became pure horror when just before the closing credits the smarmy demon child sticks his head out from behind a sign and says "Look for Problem Child 2, coming soon!" That was hands-down THE most terrifying moment ever recorded on film.

The plot, if I recall correctly, involved John Ritter and perhaps his wife (Lord, how I've tried without success to block this film out of my mind) adopting a "problem child." Maybe they think they can reform him, or something. I really don't know. If that was their intent, they fail miserably because from first frame to last this child remains the brattiest, rudest, most horrid demon-spawn ever to hit the big screen. Forget Damian, forget Rosemary's Baby. This kid takes the cake. The only difference is, we are supposed to feel sorry for him because he's a "problem child." However, this is impossible since this child is quite likely the most unsympathetic character ever portrayed. You want to kill him through the entire film, and when (SPOILER, like anyone cares) John Ritter decides to keep the vile hell-child you will be yelling "Send him back!" in shocked disgust (like several of the people at the theater where I saw it did).

This is only the second movie I have given a "1" to on the IMDb. The other was Superman IV, and by God I couldn't tell you which was worse. John Ritter had a quote in TV Guide about the time that Problem Child 3, which he was not in, came out. He said something like "The only way I would do another [Problem Child] sequel is if they dragged my dead body back to perform." Amen to that!

I would rather watch a 24-hour marathon of Police Academy sequels than see even twenty minutes of Problem Child again. 1/10, only because I can't give it a negative score, which is what it really deserves. Someone burn the original negatives of this film, please!


People who actually liked Problem Child (1990) need to have their heads examined. Who would take the idea of watching a malevolent little boy wreak havoc on others and deem it funny? The movie is not funny, ever, in any way, beginning to end. It wants to be a cartoon, but the writers don't realize that slapstick isn't funny when people get attacked by bears, or hit with baseball bats. It may be funny in cartoons, but not in a motion picture.

The film's young hero is Junior (Michael Oliver) who, since he was a baby, has been placed at the front doors of foster parents for adoption. The families reject him, because Junior tends to give them a hard time.

He is then thrown into an orphanage, where he terrorizes the nuns, and writes pen pal letters to the convicted Bow-Tie Killer (Michael Richards). He is soon adopted by Ben and Flo Healy (the late John Ritter and his wife, Amy Yasbeck), who are dying to have a child, in order to be just like every other parent in their neighborhood.

Junior becomes a member of the Healy household, and "Little" Ben takes an interest in him, despite the fact that he destroys a camping trip by luring a bear onto the site, or throws a cat at his father "Big" Ben (Jack Warden), a bigoted politician.

I think that we're supposed to care for Junior so that we can root for him when he gets his revenge on people. His new mother, Flo, is a bitch, his grandfather is completely selfish, and one little girl--who despises adopted kids--is such a spoiled brat.

But what Junior does to get the last laughs isn't funny- -it's mean, cruel, and sometimes life-threatening.

And what is the film's message? That kids should resolve problems with violence and vandalism? That they should seek friendship by writing to convicted killers? They definitely don't what it's like to be a bad kid. Junior isn't a one--he's just a sadistic, little twerp. There used to be a time when it was bad for kids to beat up others. Now, everybody's laughing when Junior beats up kids with a baseball bat.

It's a shame that this movie has been marketed as a "family comedy." What's worse is that Problem Child is rated PG. What was the MPAA thinking when they saw this? There's a lot of profanity and mean-spirited pranks here, that one may wonder about the dividing between the PG and the PG-13.

Kids will enjoy this, but parents will be shocked at what is being depicted on screen. And to most people, Problem Child will be considered a "guilty pleasure" classic; a film that someone will shamefacedly admit to liking, even though the prevailing opinion, as put forth by more serious viewers, is that the movie is a piece of crap.


I joined this site to see what comments people would make about this absolute disaster of a film. I wasn't drawn in for even a second. The characters were all one-dimensional. They threw every topic they could think of hoping something would stick. I would bet (and hope) that everyone involved in Teachers looks back with embarrassment. There are some great actors here but you would never know it. Thank God it didn't destroy Morgan Freeman's or Judd Hirsh's or Nick Nolte's or Laura Dern's careers. There was no vision, no labor of love here, only a horrible effort gone wrong. BTW I don't think the writer ever set foot in a real school.


As an ex-teacher(!) I must confess to cringing through many scenes - 'though I continued to watch to the end. I wonder why?! (Boredom, perhaps?) :-)

The initial opening scenes struck me as incredibly mish-mashed and unfocussed. The plot, too, although there were some good ideas - the plight of a relief teacher, for example - were not concentrated enough in any one direction for 3-D development.

Not one of Mr Nolte's finer moments. As to young Mr Macchio, does he speak that way in *every* movie?

Plot and acting complaints aside, the hair-styles alone were a nostalgic (if nauseating) trip.


This movie sucks. Ridiculous "school" athmosphere, unbelievable students that are very bad and behave like criminals but then later after the "good teacher" Nick Nolte taught them they became as good and as quiet as kittens.

If this works for you, it doesn't for me. 0 out of 10


Though I never like to be the sort of person who negates another's personal taste; if you like something, that's fine. But, this movie was horrible and there is no way around it. I don't like Ani Difranco too much, but she's a great guitarist and songwriter, that I can admit. But I can't admit to there being any redeeming qualities to this film. Many people way that it is an accurate portrayal of issues that high school students face. Maybe, but everything is portrayed too far-fetched. There seems to be an attempt at a "Naked Gun" - esque kind of comedy, but the timing is off; there is too much space between each actors line, as if they're holding for laughter (there wasn't any). Whoever wrote the script was all over the place. They tried to cram as many controversial issues together in one film, almost never fully developing any of them (especially the girl getting impregnated by a teacher). I did not laugh once throughout this entire movie. I was too insulted by this attempt at humor and satire to do anything but roll my eyes at the screen.


WARNING! SMALL PLOT DETAILS REVEALED!

I can find virtually nothing positive to say about this film. It is written so badly that every character is a caricature, yet it seems to take itself seriously. It is poorly cast, especially Ralph Macchio (all baby-faced, 5-foot-nothing of him) as a streetwise tough. Plot elements are all drawn in black and white, with every situation almost immediately escalating to some extreme climax.

Most egregious of all (PLOT ELEMENT ABOUT TO BE REVEALED) it has perhaps the most gratuitous and contrived nude scene in the history of semi-serious film. One can just imagine the filmmakers saying, "We need JoBeth to shed her top...hmmm...I've got it!...early in the film, let's give Nick some ridiculous dialogue about baring yourself in the hallways...then JoBeth can use that line on him later and REALLY bare herself in the hallway...yeah, that's the ticket!"

I will give the producers credit for tackling a weighty subject in 1984, one that proved all too weighty in the late 90's with events like Columbine. However, the execution is dreadful. This film could have been a dark comedy in the vein of "Heathers", a campy political statement like "Network" or a serious examination like "Brubaker". Instead, it tries to be all of these things -- and ends up being none of these things. "Teachers" get an F.


In a recent biography of Alec Guinness I couldn't find too much about To Paris With Love. I'm sure Guinness did the film to get a free trip to Paris out of it. The film has no other reason for existence.

Paris of course is nicely photographed with that wonderful opening of Guinness and his son driving down the Champs Elysee with the Arc De Triomphe in the background. Unfortunately it goes downhill from there.

There is just no chemistry at all between Guinness and the young girl who he has a brief fling with in Paris. According to the recent biography of Guinness by Piers Paul Read, Guinness positively disliked the girl, found her conduct unprofessional. As to what Odile Vernois thought of her co-star, no record is available. They have as much chemistry as two neutered cats.

Guinness does have a good moment in the film which was straight from one of his Ealing comedies as he climbs a tree trying to retrieve a badminton shuttlecock. But I wouldn't wait through the film for it.

At least Alec got a trip to Paris out of the deal.


I love Alec Guinness. And that's saying a lot after this film. Actually, he is not bad in it. He just seems to stand aside, be urbane and his usual delightful self, but invest nada. It is obvious the girl he is matched with is a featherweight, even as an inexperienced young French girl. Sir Alec wouldn't have chosen her when he was young and very obviously isn't too happy about it now.

The interesting character is the brooding brother of the odd "Suzanne", another twit. "Donald" aspires to be a French Heathcliffe and I waited in vain for the source of his mystery. What deep dark secret was he hiding behind that forehead? Was he in love with the father's mistress? Why did he jerk Suzanne's hair when she plotted to bring the disparate parts of this turkey together on the country estate? Or perhaps he had simply had enough of her obnoxious acting.

The film would have been charming with Guiness and the "older woman" reminiscing and seeing Paris together. THAT would have been a great story! Two lovely experienced people in a beautiful city after the destruction of World War II. Why didn't somebody come up with that? I suggest watching Alec Guiness in "The Card", a little known but worthwhile film.


Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.

The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.

Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.

And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: "In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.

Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times!

Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."


Amelia and Michael are a married couple that are cheating on each other. Amelia has a long-time lover in the hospital and Michael hires a prostitute that doesn't satisfy him. The two smolder with their infidelity but manage to connect to each other in the end.

There's not a whole lot to this particular short. The direction is straight-forward and dramatic, which is good, the acting is sincere, but the story leaves a little bit to be desired. Why, exactly, do we care about these two people? It's a little hard to see how this story sticks out from any other infidelity story except that it's much more pared down and doesn't search for meaning in it (a welcoming change of pace if anything).

I don't know, it's possible I don't connect to these stories because I've never experienced them. But I have noticed that the blocking in these narratives are typically the same, i.e., a couple talking together while avoiding eye-contact by pretending to be immersed in magazines, etc. The nice things about short films is that they provide a bit more room for trying something different, and I'd like to see a different take.

--PolarisDiB


MY BROTHER TOM

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Dolby Digital

Following an episode of sexual abuse at the hands of a trusted neighbor, young Jessica (Jenna Harrison) forms a relationship with a strange boy (Ben Whishaw) she meets in the woods. Unfortunately, Whishaw has secrets of his own, no less troubling and far more dangerous...

Dour drama, sparked by brave performances by Harrison and Whishaw, in which two kindred spirits immerse themselves in a mutual love of nature after being traumatized by their experiences in the 'real world'. Unfortunately, their friendship unravels as harsh reality begins to intrude, leading to an inevitable tragedy. Directed by Dom Rotheroe and photographed in digital video format, the movie looks ragged in places (too many awkward close-ups and sloppy hand-held camera moves) and takes a while to find its feet, but the dramatic pay-off is quietly rewarding.


Cheap and manipulative. This film has no heart.

It's also got dire dialogue, unconvincing characters and a preposterous, or rather non-existent, story. It just lurches from bad to worse in a cynical effort to wrench some kind of emotion from an insincere and unengaging hysterion-afest!

And the HEDGEHOG!!!!How many cheap shots can a film take? The hedgehog, by the way, gave the most convincing and watchable performance in this ninety-minute cringe-athon.

If you have considered watching this film, don't. I'm sorry but I cannot find a single redeeming feature to this movie. It scores a big, fat ZERO with me. Strictly for sub-Dogma knicker-wetters. Yawneroony!

Still, if you liked Dancing In The Dark...


If utterly facile, regressive, self-indulgent, anti-establishment, anti-civilisation juvenilia appeals to you, then this is the ideal film. Very poorly scripted, with often inaudible dialogue and infuriatingly tiresome hand-held camera throughout, this is a film that presents the world in appealingly simplistic, Manichean terms: all adults (especially teachers, parents, priests and doctors) are insensitive and bumbling at best, and predatory monsters at worst. The only escape from the horrors of civilisation as a whole is plenty of primal screaming (yawn) and infantile regression (literally) in a primitive cave-like space in the woods, with utopia taking the form of a rave party - again, in the woods (naturally...). Displays all the weaknesses of a first film, and plenty more besides.


One of the most peculiar oft-used romance movie plots is this one: A seriously messed-up man falls in love with a terminally ill woman, who turns his life around before dying. Occasionally this story is done well and realistically (as in "The Theory of Flight", an excellent weepie), but more frequently it's done like it is here, where as usual the heroine dies of "Old Movie Disease". You know, the terminal illness that has no symptoms but one fainting spell and a need to lie down as you're telling your lover goodbye forever; and your looks aren't affected one bit (and since this is the 70's, neither is your sex life). This is one of the worst versions made of that particular story, where a very silly script puts two incompatible and unbelievable characters together, and they're played by actors who are completely at sea.

This has got to be the worst performance of Al Pacino's career, and I say that after having seen "The Devil's Advocate" only two days ago! He plays a control-freak, emotionally constipated race-car driver, and plays an unlikeable character lifelessly. He seems to constantly be asking himself why he's staying around the grating Marthe Keller (so does the audience), and spends most of the movie just... standing there, usually with his mouth hanging open. The only time he shows any sign of life is towards the end, where his character proves that he's changed from uptight to liberated by doing a hilariously bad Mae West imitation. Hey, it *was* the seventies!

Marthe Keller is equally terrible as the dying love interest; her character was conceived as bold and free and touching and uninhibited and full of life even though dying, and was probably meant to be played with an actress with the sensitivity of, say, Vanessa Redgrave or Julie Christie. Instead, they got the expressionless face and heavy German accent of Ms. Keller, who comes across as more of a scary Teutonic stereotype ("You VILL eat ze omelet!") than anything like lovable. She's supposed to be reforming Pacino and filling him with courage and spirit and all that, but it doesn't work that way, it's more like she's harping on his faults in the most obnoxious possible fashion. This makes for one of the least convincing romances in movie history, where you can't believe she'd be with someone she finds so worthless, and you can't believe he's with someone who gets on his nerves that much.

Some bad-movie fans call this a cult classic, mostly because of Pacino's silly "liberating" Mae West imitation. The scene is a scream, especially in context, but not worth sitting through the rest of the film for. No, only see the film if you're a serious bad-movie aficionado who is especially interested in studying Extreme Lack of Chemistry between leading actors, or Very Bad Casting (not only are the leads terrible, but Pacino's other girlfriend is played by an actress who looks and sounds just likes Keller with shorter hair, I got them totally confused). This isn't one of those laugh-a-minute bad movies like "The Conqueror", it's just a really, really bad movie.


I made a special effort to see this movie and was totally disappointed with the outcome. On paper, the script seems hopeful, and the choice of actors leaves one with hopes - I liked Pacino in Scent of a Woman and have seen Anny Duperrey and Marthe Keller in several French and other films of the 70s/80s. But I had forgotten how important a part dialogues can play in a film, and in this film they are absolute ..... trash ! The filming locations were also attractive but the hopeless, pretentious and forced dialogues pulled the whole thing down to sub zero level. In addition to that, I am pretty allergic to the world of motor racing and find no interest in this sport. Even the inelegant dialogues in "Love Story" were better than the ones in this film (and that's saying something !!). I was really expecting better from this film and was very disappointed to have been let down so much.


The entire thing is very beautiful to look at..the European location shooting was a good idea. The lead actors are attractive. The score is servicable.

BUT THEN THEY SPOKE! And the non-plot developed! And it was all downhill from there. Pacino is sleepwalking and Keller keeps talking about how bored she is..hello, dear, you're not alone. When he does a Mae West imitation, you might have to hide your face, its that painful to watch.

I can't imagine how either actor or director Sydney Pollack got involved with this, or a better question, why it ended up stinking so bad?

Since death is represented in almost every scene, one way or another, maybe you're supposed to have low enjoyment here. Maybe its supposed to feel as empty and cold as death. But I still can't recommend it.


From beginning to end, this is the most emotionally overwrought movie about NOTHING I have ever seen. The characterizations and interactions between the title character and Marthe Kller's character are pure torture. The racetrack as metaphor gimmick is so overplayed that it borders on cliche, yet director Pollack treats every hairpin turn as if it were something profoundly important.

Maybe there's some value for a MSFT3000 re-playing of some of the scenes, such as Pacino getting in touch with his inner female, for goof value. But, even such accidental humor is hard to find in this total turkey.