Warped take on the Pinocchio theme, and set during the Christmas season(..after the previous entry abandoned ties to Christmas) has booby-trapped toys sent to murder a child(..yet through this, other victims are accidentally harmed in the process)perhaps by a toy maker's "son". Screaming Mad George was responsible for the killer toys(..including a larvae which enters a victim's mouth and out his eye, another where soldier toys actually shoot real bullets at a babysitter after her boyfriend was practically strangled by a severed hand toy, operating from a remote control). The little target is a mute child named Derek(William Thorne)whose stepdad was murdered by a red ball with extending arms that ensnare his face, causing him to land on a fireplace poker. Mother Sarah(Jane Higginson)worries about her son's mental state, figuring his reluctance towards opening presents or, more importantly, talking, derives from watching her husband's horrific murder. Derek's real father, Noah(Tracy Fraim)fears for his son't safety, and informs, reluctantly, his ex-girlfriend Sarah that the local toymaker, Joe Petto(Mickey Rooney)once was arrested for setting traps in toys to harm kids due to the loss of an unborn child when his wife was killed in a car crash..kind of a retaliation in saying that if he couldn't have a son, then others shouldn't either. Still quite a heavy drinker(..often seen swigging Jack), Petto seems to have set aside his feelings towards kids, but his creepy son Pino(Brian Bremer)hasn't and Derek he harbors angst towards. Why? You'll soon understand.

Pretty disappointing special effects and rather goofy premise. Rooney's name adds an allure to the film, gaining it a notoriety, but his histrionics can only help so much. Attractive lead actress Higginson(Slaughterhouse)and Fraim as the man who re-enters her life aren't so bad, but the lame plot that develops is hard to take seriously. I'm guessing that's the point, but Rooney has no reason to be in such a film as this..he has no room to bring any personality to his toymaker other than rage and desperation, quite volatile, barely holding himself together as he explodes in anger towards Pino, when not downing liquor. Bremer is appropriately weird and "robotic" as Pino, longing to have Sarah as his mama. The practical effects used during the attacks on victims are rather unconvincing..Screaming Mad George's work with Savage Steve Holland was far more effective than what we see in this film. The sex everyone talks about isn't as gratuitous as many would have you believe(..I can't even recall any nudity). Probably the best of the numerous sequels greenlighted, but that's not exactly an endorsement. I'm pretty sure written on paper, this was an entertaining concept, the idea of spoofing Pinocchio using horror elements, but the result doesn't exactly blow you away.


This movie wasn't that bad when compared to the first two sequels to the original. It's directed by Martin Kitrosser of Friday the 13th fame. The acting is very bad indeed, but the gore and special effects help make it interesting. Thats one thing I like about Screaming Mad George (make up effects artist for the film), his effects are so off-the-wall and bizarre that they will keep you watching a bad movie just to find out how crazy they're gonna get. The movie isn't really all that gory, but there is an EXTREMELY nasty eyeball-munching scene in the middle involving a toy maggot (what!?!) Mickey Rooney makes a guest appearance that he probably wasn't too enthusiastic about but needed the money at the time, possibly? If you liked the weirdo 4th installment (my favorite of all 5), you'll probably like this one. I liked it better than the Matrix! Enjoy.


Silent Night, Deadly Night 5 is the very last of the series, and like part 4, it's unrelated to the first three except by title and the fact that it's a Christmas-themed horror flick.

Except to the oblivious, there's some obvious things going on here...Mickey Rooney plays a toymaker named Joe Petto and his creepy son's name is Pino. Ring a bell, anyone? Now, a little boy named Derek heard a knock at the door one evening, and opened it to find a present on the doorstep for him. Even though it said "don't open till Christmas", he begins to open it anyway but is stopped by his dad, who scolds him and sends him to bed, and opens the gift himself. Inside is a little red ball that sprouts Santa arms and a head, and proceeds to kill dad. Oops, maybe he should have left well-enough alone. Of course Derek is then traumatized by the incident since he watched it from the stairs, but he doesn't grow up to be some killer Santa, he just stops talking.

There's a mysterious stranger lurking around, who seems very interested in the toys that Joe Petto makes. We even see him buying a bunch when Derek's mom takes him to the store to find a gift for him to bring him out of his trauma. And what exactly is this guy doing? Well, we're not sure but he does seem to be taking these toys apart to see what makes them tick. He does keep his landlord from evicting him by promising him to pay him in cash the next day and presents him with a "Larry the Larvae" toy for his kid, but of course "Larry" is not a good toy and gets out of the box in the car and of course, well, things aren't pretty.

Anyway, eventually what's going on with Joe Petto and Pino is of course revealed, and as with the old story, Pino is not a "real boy". Pino is probably even more agitated and naughty because he suffers from "Kenitalia" (a smooth plastic crotch) so that could account for his evil ways. And the identity of the lurking stranger is revealed too, and there's even kind of a happy ending of sorts. Whee.

A step up from part 4, but not much of one. Again, Brian Yuzna is involved, and Screaming Mad George, so some decent special effects, but not enough to make this great. A few leftovers from part 4 are hanging around too, like Clint Howard and Neith Hunter, but that doesn't really make any difference. Anyway, I now have seeing the whole series out of my system. Now if I could get some of it out of my brain. 4 out of 5.


This time we get a psycho toy maker named "Joe Petto" (get it?) who makes living, evil toys that kill people. He goes after the family who has the bad luck of just simply living in the same house where he and his mutant robot son "Pino" (again, get it?) used to live.

Easily the worst (and hopefully [presumably] the last) in this semi - series, this one and the previous one look like soft core porn movies, but without the sex and nudity. It's kind of like a low rent hybrid of "Halloween III", "Puppet Master", "Dolls" and bad home movies. Supposedly in 2000 they started to do a sixth chapter in the series, but it was abandoned and never completed. We can all only hope that it stays that way...

1/2 a star out of ****


Bad actors, terrible script, totally unbelievable ending - this film had it all. After seeing films like this, you wonder why the makers bothered at all. This film has absolutely nothing to say, all the methods used to create a scare have been used over and over again in previous horror films. A total waste of time.


The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.

The original 1943 novel, called "The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate.

Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about.


This romantic adventure must have seemed shockingly subversive in its day. A wealthy upper class English woman schemes, plots and manipulates everyone around her for her own satisfaction. She uses her privileged position to embark on secret activities of a decidedly anti-social kind. There's a clever sex-role reversal as her activities prove her more daring and dashing than most of the male characters. But naturally there's a tall, dark and handsome stranger to keep up the love interest, and this wicked lady is not backward in coming forward when she meets the right man.

The wishy-washy weakness and gullibility of every other character make the plot unconvincing in the extreme, but those who thirst for Romance will overlook that.


Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.


I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.


Please don't waste your time. This movie rehashes the worst of Bram Stoker's Dracula (Van Helsing), Anne Rice's Vampire Lestat (rock music and silly biblical references), and Blade (high-tech toys). I really like vampire movies and novels, and there are many out there that are very good . But not this stinker. Not even the soundtrack helps it, mostly because the movie resorts to ridiculous scary classical music rather than the "kick-ass metal" some reported. Only a few times did I hear any metal; mostly it was tortured violins. Avoid it like garlic and crucifixes.


This film is really bad. It maybe harsh, but it is. It really is. Poor script, every vampire cliché in the book is used, and no sympathy is given at all to the origins of the main character ... i.e. ole Dracula. There have been some truly brilliant Dracula/vampire movies in the past, but this doesn't even make it into the "dire" slot.

Take a selection of people who seem to have dropped out of a teen-slasher move, add a dribble of Dracula Lore and mix in a heady tonic of religious/surreal day-dreaming ... and you get a confusing mess of a film - Dracula 2000.

I really cannot find any good things to say about this movie, as if it wasn't bad enough that it was made in the first place, they seem to have made Johnny Lee Miller effect an English accent ... Whats the problem with that I hear you cry ... Well, he is English, but he sounds like an American trying to do an English accent.

All in all you may as well say your money (if you were thinking of buying it), or rent it out, watch it, and discover for yourself why it's about as scary as the Tellytubbies.

P.S. Although La La is pretty frightening!


This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, "What the hell is this?" What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash.


DRACULA 2000 is a horror film that was continually shown on Sky Movies in Britain and considering it seemed to be screened about three times a week for a whole year I have absolutely no idea how I managed to miss it until it`s first broadcast on network television tonight . Actually seeing as I`m not much of a fan of horror movies the reason was probably down to my theory that this was going to be tripe . My theory was proved right for the most part

!!!!! MINOR SPOILERS !!!!!

What makes DRACULA 2000 such a bad movie is the amount of dumb scripting involved . For example early in the film the bad guys are flying Dracula`s coffin from London to America ( In a twin engine turbo prop plane ! ) and one of the bad guys is left alone in the cargo hold where Dracula comes to life . A fight breaks out , there`s lots of noise but the bad guys in the cockpit don`t hear a sound until the script demands it . It also appears in this segment`s climax that Dracula can control the weather but this seems forgotten about as the film progresses . Sloppy scripting , and there also seems to be a problem with the structure where there`s numerous scenes of characters being at the New Orleans mardi gras then the characters being at a different location such as police station in the following scene then they`re back at the mardi gras the scene after that which means the lack of credibilty in the plot is enhanced

There`s something else that yanked my chain - Product placement . There`s umpteen scenes where the logo for a certain record label/retailer chain is in full view . I won`t dare publicise the company brand ( Except to say they also run a train company which is a national joke in Britain ) but I was under the impression this type of advertising was against British broadcasting guidlines and I`m surprised the BBC showed this movie if that`s the case

There are some positives in DRACULA 2000 like the visuals for example . This is actually a good looking movie with a good looking cast and boy were those vampire chicks hot , but it`s something we should expect from Hollywood over the last few years - A very good looking movie that`s very dumb


Put the blame on executive producer Wes Craven and financiers the Weinsteins for this big-budget debacle: a thrash-metal updating of "Dracula", with a condescending verbal jab at Bram Stoker (who probably wouldn't want his name on this thing anyway) and nothing much for the rest of us except slasher-styled jolts and gore. Christopher Plummer looks winded as Van Helsing in the modern-day--not just a descendant of Van Helsing but the real thing; he keeps himself going with leeches obtained from Count Dracula's corpse, which is exhumed from its coffin after being stolen from Van Helsing's vault and flown to New Orleans. This is just what New Orleans needs in the 21st Century! The film, well-produced but without a single original idea (except for multi-racial victims), is both repulsive and lazy, and after about an hour starts repeating itself. * from ****


A very slick modern (keeping it sensually hip) revamp on the Dracula story (although staying with the traditional customs) with quite an interesting, if not fully grasped back story of the prince of darkness. The first time I tried watching it I could only make it halfway through, before losing interest. Again it gets off to a good start (especially the scenes with the thieves and then their encounters with Dracula), but then for me it got less involving when it hits New Orleans to focus on Van Helsing's daughter. A great place to set it, but never took advantage of its settings (despite etching a paradise in damn, where Dracula could flourish). Produced by Wes Carven (and yeah they throw that name out there), but written / directed by Patrick Lussier. Artistically it had its moments with few dreamlike visuals, but some kinetic editing and cheap jolts don't help. The messy script does get considerably silly. Lussier does a polished job that remains rather glassy, inserting a lot of blood (the make-up is suitably achieved) and a lot of "Virgin" advertising. No I don't mean virgins, it's the music company, as it does get in numerous shots and Helsing's daughter works there too. Oh that wasn't obvious planting. The soundtrack is an amusing choice of rock tunes. Now the performances are all over the shop, but there are few familiar faces to spot (Danny Masterson, Sean Patrick Thomas, Nathan Fillion, Shane West and Lochlyn Munro). Gerard Butler as Dracula just didn't come off, as not much of a presence was formed. He was simply out-shined by the succulent ladies of the night; Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Jeri Ryan as Dracula's brides. The likes of Jonny Lee Millar and Justine Waddell are respectably okay. Christopher Plummer gives out a grizzled turn as Van Helsing and Omar Epps has fun with his role.


I've rarely been as annoyed by a leading performance as I was by Ali McGraw's in this movie. God is she bothersome or what?! She says everything in the same tone and is horrible, so horrible in fact that, by contrast, Ryan O'Neal is brilliant.

There is not much of a story. He's rich, she's wooden, they both have to Sacrifice A Lot for Love. His father is Stonewall Jackson, hers is called by his first name, in case you didn't notice the Difference in The Two of Them that They Overcame in the Name of Love.

The Oscar nominations for this movie indicate it had to have been a bad year. John Marley is fine as Wooden's father, but a Supporting Nomination? At least Ali didn't win.

I still think Katharine Ross should have played Jennifer, but then again, if it were up to me, Katharine Ross would have been in a lot more movies. She's certainly a better actress than McGraw.

I didn't even cry when she got sick, never occured to me to even feel sad.

It was nice to see Tommy Lee Jones looking like he was about 15, and the score is good. But this one is so old by now it has a beard a mile long, and the sin of that is its not that old, but it feels it.


A wealthy Harvard dude falls for a poor Radcliffe chick much to the consternation of his strict father (Ray Milland).

Syrupy, sugary, and most of all, sappy story about a battle of the 'classes' when rich-kid Ryan O'Neal brings home a waif of a librarian for his snobbish parents to ridicule. Ali MacGraw is the social derelict with the filthy mouth while John Marley plays her devout-Catholic father, but no one in the film is more annoying than O'Neal himself with his whimpering portrayal as Harvard's champion yuppie.

Followed 8(!) years later by 'Oliver's Story'.


**** SPOILER WARNING ****

Absolutely without a doubt, one of the funniest comedies ever created for the screen. Totally impossible to take any of this seriously. It would take a major novel to list all of the comedy routines in it. During the glory days of her program, Carol Burnett and company, who often did take-offs on films, skewered this one in ways that were hard to imagine. Carol played Jenny who suddenly became ill with only a slight cough and immediately the treacly music came up and everyone looked around wondering where it was coming from. Harvey Korman played Oliver with flowing locks and almost look liked Ryan O'Neal. The only thing funnier than this bit, is the real film.

What a death scene at the end. Jenny really looks like she's dying alright...dying for her make-up artist to come in and give her a little color. And of course, we all know how often hospitals encourage a loved one to get in bed with them during the patient's final moments. The ending scene with Ryan O'Neal sitting on a bench in the snow contemplating his future in the movie business is an instant classic. He had plenty to worry about. He never did recover from this.


This 1970 hit film has not aged well, but frankly, it was not that good when it was released. Yet, it was a hugely popular success perhaps because the idea of fatalistic young love must have appealed to audiences saturated by constant TV coverage of the Vietnam War. The plot is pure drivel as it concerns Oliver Barrett IV, a privileged Harvard hockey player, who meets and falls in love with Jenny Cavelleri, an antagonistic Vassar music student proud of her working class background. His old-school father naturally disapproves of Jenny, and in a typical act of rebellion, that means the young couple gets married in one of those hippie-era, extemporaneous ceremonies. He lands his dream job in New York, but she gets unexpectedly ill and dies of her terminal disease. There is a veneer of then-contemporary film-making techniques displayed by director Arthur Hiller, but none of that can hide the old-fashioned, cliché-ridden story at its core. The inevitable ending left me particularly unmoved.

Both Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw became stars with this movie as Oliver and Jenny but inexplicably so since neither seems able to convey the depth or complexity required to make their characters compelling. At least the boyish O'Neal is sincere in his weakly defiant approach, but MacGraw is so wooden and smirky in behavior that it's hard to see what Oliver sees in Jenny beyond her sarcastic façade. John Marley (two years before finding the decapitated racehorse in his bed in "The Godfather") does better as Jenny's plainspoken baker father Phil, as does Ray Milland as the seemingly insensitive Barrett paterfamilias. The overly familiar Frances Lai music has almost become parody in itself over the years. The print quality on the DVD is good, though the only extra is a rather effusive commentary track by Hiller. The most interesting bit of trivia is that author Erich Segal (upon whose book this movie is based) conceived Oliver as a mix between two Harvard roommates he knew  Vice President Al Gore and actor Tommy Lee Jones, who happens to have a bit part in the movie as one of Oliver's roommates.


One of the previous reviewers wrote that there appeared to be no middle ground for opinions of Love Story; one loved it or hated it. But there seems to be a remarkable distribution of opinions throughout the scale of 1 to 10. For me, this movie rated a 4. There are some beautiful scenes and locations, and Ray Milland turns in a fabulous job as Oliver's father. But the movie did not do a particularly compelling job of telling its story, and the story was not so unique as to warrant multiple viewings, at least, not for me. I may be a bit of a snob, but I tend to avoid movies with Ryan O'Neal -- I still haven't seen Barry Lyndon -- because most of them, but not all, are ruined for me by his presence. The lone exception is What's Up, Doc?, in which his straight performance is the perfect underlining for Barbra Streisand's goofball protagonist -- and, not coincidentally, he takes a shot at Love Story for good measure! McGraw and O'Neal tend to mug their lines, rather than act them.

This movie is notable for the beginning of one fine career: it was Tommy Lee Jones's first movie.


I love a good sappy love story (and I'm a guy) but when I rented "Love Story" I prayed for the end to come as quickly and painlessly as possible and just the opposite for Ali McGraw's character.

Ali McGraw as Jenny alienated and irritated the heck out of me within the first 15 minutes. When we learn that she has been diagnosed with a life threatening illness I couldn't help but wonder if her death would be such a terrible loss for poor Oliver or if anyone watching this film would even care. If she didn't die her grating personality would probably have pushed Oliver over the edge and eventually landed them in divorce court.

People love this movie but it's one of the worst of the 70's.


Another wonderful Patterson book made into an incredibly awful movie. If the big budget movies don't work then why make a low budget made for t.v. movie that's 10 times worse! I am desperate for a good movie that will do ONE of his books justice!


Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.

Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.

Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.


First To Die 2003

I'll admit my mistake first: I didn't realize this was a made for TV movie. I was "thrown off" by the "R" certification. The plot is strong, but the movie is about 40 minutes too long. The direction and continuity were excellent. For the most part the cast was exceptional and did a good job with their characters. The down side of the movie is that it definitely falls into the "chick flick" genre. Although there are some violent scenes, none of the violence should call for an "R" rating. There is no nudity or gratuitous sex scenes. Actually, there are no sex scenes. Ona Grauer (who is absolutely beautiful), Kristina Copeland, Sonya Salomaa, and Glynis Davies were all guests on the SG-1 series, but this movie did nothing to advance their careers since they were all used as low level supporting actresses. Robert Patrick was fantastic, as he usually is and Mitch Pileggi made me think of a modern day Lee Marvin. The very talented Megan Gallagher who I came to respect as an actor during the Millennium series, was given nothing challenging to show her range of abilities. The greatest disappointment with regard to the cast was Tracy Pollan. Aside from being a below average actress and not particularly attractive, her voice is absolutely annoying. I found myself muting the TV during her dialogue. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys the Lifetime TV type of programs. I would not recommend paying any money to see this movie however. Considering I found nothing that would cause censorship, this is a movie that is worthy for only watching on TV, since nothing will be cut out. As a TV movie I would rate this as a 5 out 10. As a feature film with an "R" certification and such as strong cast, I rate it as a 2 out of ten.


The word "1st" in the title has more ominous meaning for the viewers of this film than for its crime victims. At least they don't have to stick around and watch this interminable film reach its own demise.

1st should refer to: 1st draft of a script; 1st takes used in each performance in the final film; 1st edit in post production; etcetera, etcetera.

The movie is not cast too badly, it's just that everything about the film come off as worse than third rate, from the goofy script, to the wooden performances. And while suffering through this cobbled together film, by the 2 hour mark you want to be put out of your misery. At 160 minutes long it is readily apparent that it should have been edited to under 2 hours.

Going into details concerning the lame script and acting serves little purposes. Even in the equally awful, Lake Placid, at least the performances Bill Pullman and Bridget Fonda constructed out of an extremely weak script, were nuanced enough to make you laugh at the movie. In 1st to Die, one ends up grieving only for the time lost in waiting to see what happens after the opening scene of the preparation of the female lead's suicide.

The editing is so bad one is never introduced to one of the main characters, who I think (were never quite told) is a D.A. She just appears in one scene in the middle of a conversation. Obviously the scene where she is introduced to the viewer was dropped on the editor's floor. And no one realized that a character appearing out of nowhere was an unusual film ploy.

In a word, don't waste your time with this one. My wife and I wish we didn't. But at least we created our own diversions by commenting in various places in the film like it was Mystery Science Theater. "Meanwhile, in Cleveland . . . ." !!!!


That's right, you heard me. I am a huge fan of James Patterson. I own 10 of his books, and I have read the entire series about Lindsey Boxer. In my opinion, the screenwriter should be shot.

What right did any film maker have to slaughter a terrific work of fiction and make it into a mockery of the mystery genre? If I ever thought that Harry Potter was butchered, then Michael O'Hara has proved me wrong.

I can only pray that the next screenwriter who tackles this fabulous book will do it a great deal more justice. To Michael O'Hara and Russell Mulcahy: don't quit your day job.


This movie is supposed to be taking place in and around Seattle. The, why is Porteau Cove P-R-O-V-I-N-C-I-A-L Park shown? Provincial parks are in CANADA, and not the United States. The Inspector uses a Palm Pilot complete with stylus to 'read' that someone has hacked into the computer of the bridal shop. I did not know that this was possible using a database storage device. A woman appears in the movie without any introduction and is never introduced. We learn half-way into the movie that this woman works in the District Attorney's office. Then, in the correctional center a guard actually PRECEDES Jenks through a door and keeps his back to the offender!! This would NEVER happen in a real correctional setting. The director really messed on this one -- this doesn't happen in real life. The acting is adequate. The Plot is good. The Cinematography is good. However, the many errors found in the continuity lead to a 3 out of 10 vote.


SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!

I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.

This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.

There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.

The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.

I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.


Well I don't know where to begin. Obviously this was a made for TV movie, so my expectations were low. I was pleasantly surprised by the overall direction of the second hour, but anything before or after that seemed to be a paint by the numbers sort of movie.

And talk about bad chemistry between the tow lovebird detectives. ..

I would go more in depth, but this movie doesn't really deserve it. Grade: D+ (IMDB rating 3/10)


I am usually disappointed by network movies. Even flix that attract big name actors are usually ruined by the TV people. However, this one is the worst of the worst. The screenplay is weak and the acting, especially that of Tracey Pollan is abominable. I've trudged off to see my kids'high school plays and been treated to better acting. Pollan acts as if she is reading the script as she speaks. When she tries to express fear, anger or grief, it's extremely hollow. Because of the overall quality of the production I found it difficult to take it seriously. If you decide to brave this one just be prepared for a big disappointment. Scary things won't scare you, sad things won't make you sad, romance won't make you feel warm and fuzzy and you will likely be as anxious as I was to see the end arrive. "First to die" says a lot about this movie.


Teamo Supremo are three kids, consisting of their leader- Captain Crandall, Rope Girl and Skate Lad, all with their own battlecry (buza! chika! woopa!) and outfit and moves. They work for the governor, Kevin, and were recruited after wishing to be heroes and playing at that game. They lead normal lives as well, and have family and school duties, but most of the action takes place away from school fighting villains. The villains all have rather unique and singular traits, such as Mister Vague and his men who never seem to know what their plans are but act anyway. From an evil robot to a wicked baron the three have to encounter them and stop their evil, and often strange, plans to gain power, take revenge etc.

The animation itself is quite nice and smooth, but the style appears to be simple on purpose. The backgrounds have overlapping colour and the buildings seem futuristic. The music is quite nice, and the show isn't too bad altogether, although the style isn't my favourite.

The plots are almost always nonsensical and ridiculous, but after all this is a cartoon and one can't blame them for that. However this would not be in the same rank as Fillmore! or Pepper Ann.


I am never a big fan of Taiwan movie production as opposed to Korean, Hongkong or even China. Strong acting quality is hardly found in them as clearly shown in this film. I don't consider myself as hard-to-please audience as I am, in fact, a fan of indie movies. However this movie shows weak plot and slow pace. I found myself lost in the middle as to where the plot is going. The acting certainly does not make it better. Rainie's acting is sub par as she 'over-act', trying to be perky and cute. Although I have to admit she is a pleasure to look at. Isabella Leong on the other hand plays a more suitable role as a confused, sad, regretful, extremely reserved character. Overall I find this movie is a disappointment.


Almost in the same league as Yonfan's rather atrocious Color Blossoms, Spider Lillies drives the point home that you can make cutting edge cinema without the edge, or much in the way of cutting. It's a Taiwanese film, which in this day and age is becoming a novelty at an alarming pace, but more than that tidbit, we can find very little in the way of the noteworthy here.

You should know that ostensibly Spider Lillies is also a lesbian-themed story, but in every aspect this is nothing but a plastic ploy to lure in the easily seduced and gullible. In several ways we have here a repeat of fellow recent Taiwan release Eternal Summer. Then it was gay men getting the shortchange treatment, now we have the same thing with women. Zero Chou presents, for your non-existent edification, a tale likely to titillate at most a fifteen year old. They managed some of the art house stance, but in the end this results in a most inane, simply uninteresting foray.

The Hong Kong angle comes in the form of Isabella Leung (Bug Me Not, Isabella, Diary), here sporting her most butch look yet. Although somewhat likable in her previous jobs, Isabella in Spider Lillies is listless and lacking in most departments. Either her heart wasn't into it or the whole lesbian drama pitch didn't quite appeal to her sensibilities.

She does a Taipei tattoo artist who's shy, reclusive and in charge of a mentally challenged younger brother, played by John Shen, who thankfully grants the movie its only thespian-related redeeming feature. Isabella's character, oddly named Takeko but supposedly hailing from Hong Kong, soon hooks up with disaffected youth Jade (Rainie Yang from fondly-recalled Meteor Garden). The latter lives with her grandmother and has a whole list of grievances due to being left behind by her parents and life in general. Sure, the grandmother component works well and is touching, but otherwise Jade as a protagonist is just as unmoving as her counterpart Takeko.

The two women share a past and lots of inadequately covered angst, with Jade working as a webcam girl while Takeko keeps her father's legacy alive with a unique tattoo of a spider lilly emblazoned on her arm. Jade also wants to acquire this very design, which leads to Takeko exploring internal feelings of the issue via flashbacks and rather minimal discourse with the spunky Jade.

Well, if there's little discourse to write the homebase about, is at least the intercourse memorable? In a word, no. They kiss and feign doing the nasty close to the end, but just as Eternal Summer reminded us not long ago, there's a gulf measured in lightyears between showing sexual content and making ticket buyers think they're about to see sexual content.

This cynical expectation-building seals Spider Lillies' fate. With a weak story, ho-hum acting and an overall dearth of relics to take away from the theater with you, this one kind of makes Color Blossoms look good, come to think of it. At least there we got a bit of Teresa Cheung's mammaries. No, Spider Lillies is no AV masterpiece and should be stricken from the playlist of even the most mundane and timid GLB movie festival.

Amazingly for a pseudo-indie release, not even the soundtrack and cinematography produce moments of inspiration. That's just as well, since it makes passing on Spider Lillies much easier. Believe you us, avoid it and you won't be missing out on anything good.

Rating: * *


The BFG is one of Roald Dahl's most cherished books, but in this animated adaptation the magic just isn't there. This version remains pretty faithful to Dahl's original story so one can't lay the blame on John Hambley's script. If anything the fault lies with the colourless animation, the lethargic pace and the generally lacklustre voice-overs. One would be right to expect this story to make for a happy, vibrant, fun-filled movie..... instead, the film is a hopelessly dull affair that becomes quite tedious to watch. Children who are not familiar with the story should definitely read the book first! All the film will achieve is to put them off read what is actually a children's' classic.

Young orphan Sophie (voice of Amanda Root) lives in a none-too-friendly orphanage under the cruel supervision of Mrs Clonkers. One evening she is peering through the window when she spots a massive figure walking stealthily down the village street. The figure realises it has been seen, so it reaches in through the window and scoops Sophie from her bed, placing her into its enormous pocket before fleeing into the night. Sophie soon discovers that she has been kidnapped by a giant from Giant Country, and fears that he will eat her. But to her relief he turns out to be a kind and sensitive member of his species who introduces himself as the BFG (voice of David Jason). The BFG refuses to eat people, instead restricting himself to foul-tasting vegetables known as snozzcumbers. However, Giant Country is populated by numerous other giants who DO feast - every night, as it happens - on poor unsuspecting humans. Sophie and the BFG become great friends, and soon they come up with a plan to thwart the other giants. Together they go to the Queen of England (voice of Angela Thorne) with their remarkable story and beg her to send the army and the air force to fight the man-eating giants. The Queen agrees and so begins a dangerous operation to capture the bad giants before they can harm anyone else.

Jason voices the BFG quite well (one of the few pluses in the film) but his good work is almost ruined by somewhat poor sound quality. The rest of the voice work is decidedly uninspired, with very little to bring the characters to life. Similarly, the BFG is the only character that is imaginatively animated - Sophie lacks appeal, and the giants are boringly designed (and look almost indistinguishable from each other). Even the places are uninventive; Giant Country especially comes up short, being nothing more than a barren wasteland with occasional rocks and canyons. At 88 minutes the film is not exactly lengthy, yet it drags quite badly in parts due to the soporific handling of several sequences. Little of Dahl's mischievous humour is conveyed satisfactorily. One chapter in the book deals with the BFG's love of "whizzpopping" (farting) and is laugh-out-loud hilarious. In the film, the same section is totally killed by unfunny handling. I came to the The BFG expecting lots of zest, fun and enjoyment, but what I got was pretty much the opposite! This one is a failed misfire that simply doesn't match the calibre of the book in any department - unfortunately, therefore, it must go down as one to skip.


SEX WISH was actually released (minus ten minutes of more, ahem, 'extreme' footage) here in the UK back in the early days of the video boom, and caused a tabloid storm in a teacup when it allegedly inspired a copycat murder case. Strangely enough, the papers brushed this ultra-disturbing flick under the carpet in their headlong rush to get the comparatively innocuous likes of FROZEN SCREAM and NIGHT OF THE DEMON canned, and the film has been all but forgotten as a result. I jumped at the chance to watch it on a DVD-RW and spent most of the film's duration with my jaw on the floor. It's not so much politically incorrect as utterly demented, a triple-X take on Michael Winner's DEATH WISH (did the title kind of give the game away as far as inspiration was concerned?) with hardcore sex and some truly nasty violence thrown into an already bubbling brew of seventies sleaze. If you don't consider yourself to be squeamish, this may force you to think again. By the time SEX WISH is over, you'll want to scrub your eyeballs clean with disinfectant and take a long hot shower to purge yourself. If any film truly deserves the "it's only a movie, only a movie, only a movie" tag-line, it's this one.

Highlights (or lowlights) - a rapist using a vibrator on a victim as he masturbates over her, Harry Reems's scene-stealing moustache, the helpless young black couple who are forced to screw in front the sword cane killer (they'd have won Oscars for their entirely credible performances if the Academy had gone mad) before the man is castrated for his troubles, and some jarringly slick direction that threatens to lift the proceedings above their obvious grind-house origins. Don't say I didn't warn you. If you thought the world was a more innocent place thirty years ago, SEX WISH will prove you very, very wrong.


After Harry Reems' teenage girlfriend is raped by Zebbedy Colt (The Night-Walker), Reems becomes despondent and consoles himself by having sex with some lesbians. Meanwhile, Colt, who carries a cane and dresses like a magician, rapes some more women. Eventually, Reems decides to track him down and end his crime spree. Despite being shot on film and marginally nasty, it looks like any other 70's porno and is ineptly executed. The rape/abuse scenes are surprisingly restrained and the attempt to cash in on "Death Wish" is laughable. R. Bolla ("Cannibal Holocaust") plays a cop. Colt, who is usually over-the-top, wigs out in a couple of scenes, but he's too well behaved for my money. This roughie could have been much rougher.


The Wayward Cloud is a frustrating film to watch. Infuriatingly enigmatic, it treats each shot like a work of art. You get the impression that the composition of each shot has been designed and prepared with a degree of exquisite care that borders on obsession; Expressing how far cinema has progressed since the very first films were cranked out in the nineteenth century and mimicking their construction, the camera here hardly ever moves  apart from during the camp and colourful musical numbers. Ambient noise is kept to a minimum and barely a word is spoken. This curious but effective device forces the audience to focus their attention on visual stimuli alone so that, even as the story progresses at a snail-like pace we feel ourselves becoming immersed. Unfortunately, for me at least, this immersion begins to unravel somewhere around the hour mark. I began to feel as if the film was challenging me to keep watching while becoming more difficult as the minutes dragged so that the mere act of watching became a battle of wills.

Had the content of this film not been as sexual as it is it would no doubt been even more obscure to Western audiences. As it is, there's an abundance of female nudity and an act of sexual abuse on an unconscious (or possibly dead) woman that is so repugnant that, while it may speak volumes about the degradation to which pornography subjects both men and women (the users and the used) it is so over-zealous in the manner in which it chooses to make its point as to effectively render it ineffective. Of course the worst and most enthusiastic participants of the explosion in available pornographic content will seek this film out for all the wrong reasons and watch it with their sticky finger on the fast-forward button of the remote.

For all its problems, the film is definitely a stayer, and the more you think about it the more sense certain aspects of it seem to make. Ironically, for a film in which so little happens, the viewer would probably be proportionately rewarded by watching a second or even third time. For me, however, once was enough


This film comes as the ultimate disappointment in Tsai Ming-Liang for me. It oozes laziness from its every frame. So I'm not going to analyse it thoroughly either. But some observations:

1. If the premise is drought, why we get to see city landscapes with blooming green trees? I wonder if that was supposed to mean something in the metaphorical context of the film (in which thirst notifies the craving for intimacy, and watermelon the trivial substitute, sex). Or it is only a matter of lousy film-making, not giving a damn about being coherent.

2. We don't get to know what had happened to the porn actress, why she is unconscious or, presumably, dead. It seems a question of no importance as long as the message of supreme alienation is successfully (=bombastically) delivered, but in retrospect, her inert body proves to be a cheap dramaturgical gimmick, a pretext  just as gratuitous and exploitative as the activity it is employed in.

3. Nothing is expressed in this movie that Antonioni hadn't expressed better 40 years ago  and without needlessly humiliating his actors.

4. The musical numbers (recycled from 'The Hole') felt like a secondary-schooler's idea of artistic counterpointing, executed on that very secondary-school level of skill. If that was the point, the point sucked.


I'll start with what I liked.

I really liked the songs, everything about them was great, the costumes, music, lyrics (as long as the translation was good :) ), choreography, everything.

I loved the crab scene and the cooking scene.

But that's about it.

I get it, arty cinema, blablabla, but too much is too much. Too much silence (it was interesting for an hour, but two hours of hearing steps and moaning from time to time, really...), too much boredom (no movie should ever be boring, no matter how deep it was to be!), too much porn-like scenes (I do get it really, I get that they were filming a porn movie there, but really, REALLY, really that is too much) I truly think, that cinema should be for watching and this one is definitely not watchable in no way.

3 stars for the songs.


the acting itself wasn't even that bad, since it did't come to mind in the movie but whatever had this director in mind? the intended climb towards some climax completely missed the mark,..

almost all scenes involve acting that stand so far from our own intentions and way of reacting on things that you don't really attach to any actor in the movie,..

Empty silences,..In this case, see through cheap method of boasting your way into potential metaphorical brilliance,..which just wasn't here at all,..

I guess I'm bitching but shit,..2 hours of my time,..


Redundant, everlasting shots, useless shots, useless scenes are what you will find in this film. In other words, it seemed technically poor to me. The musical bits are amateurishly directed (no synchronization in the would-be dancing, badly post-synchronized, bad and obvious improvisation of the actors from time to time, etc).

The film is long and boring. Eventually, it makes few point and even less sense.

There are some good ideas though. Some of the comic elements are actually efficient, especially the opening scene. However, the film gets worse and worse so that it is completely unbearable and impossible to understand by the end.

The trailer I saw was very dynamic, that is not true for the film. That is to say the discrepancy between the trailer and the actual film is something very close to a rip off.


The movie is actually too slow. There are some nice images but it cannot outweigh the fact that the movie is in fact boring. You see a sexual intercourse a lot of watermelons and a sexual intercourse while eating a melon and maybe a little bit more. It may sound even interesting to someone but believe me to watch it for 2 hours isn't fun at all. Though you laugh several times but it's really not enough and it may be more out of despair and disbelieve than out of fun. To disturb the boredom director tries to put few movie video-clips into the movie. They are really colorful clips of absurd songs maybe from the 50's but it's hard to say exactly and they are trying to be funny so hard that it's really sad. Several times you have a feeling that the plot could evolve into something, that a powerful scene is being created but at the end it just somehow evaporates and that's it. Beside the clips there are hardly any dialogs let alone music. The director is trying to be original and artistic at all cost. Personally I cannot recommend the movie. I believe that art is something that shouldn't be boring. During the projection there was yawning all around the cinema which just corroborates my short review.


they have sex with melons in Asia.

okay. first, i doubted that, but after seeing the wayward cloud, i changed my mind and was finally convinced that they have sex with watermelons, with people dead or alive. no safe sex of course. the (terrifyingly ugly) leading man shoots it all into the lady's mouth after he did the dead lady. never heard of HIV? guess not.

the rest of this movie is mainly boring, but also incredibly revolting. as a matter of fact, in parts it got so disgusting i couldn't take my virgin eyes off. sex with dead people! how gross is that? and what's the message behind it all? we need water, we need melons, we need to be dead to have sex? sorry, but this stinks!


I want to clarify a few things. I am not familiar with Ming-liang Tsai movies, and I am very familiar with art cinema; I grow up in the seventies times of Goddard, Fellini, Bergman, Bertolucci and many others.

Art movies then were really ART; like paints. People did it to express their inner feelings, not really worried about if other people understand anything. They were beyond commercial values; just look some old Antonioni (or early Picasso) and you will understand.

Tian bian yi duo yun (The Wayward Cloud) has nothing to do with that. It is an opportunistic movie, intended to fool festival judges and critics, playing many things without saying anything.

The story makes no sense. The lack of water makes the government to promote the use of watermelons to hydrate. A girl in desperation, steal water from the public bathrooms WC. There is also a porno start (neighbor) trying to make a movie with an actress he does not seems to feel comfortable with. There is some romantic awakening between the girl and the porno star. The mess ends with a sexual scene (not pornographic) that many people feel shocked about, but I believe it is less provocative than you can see in American Pie or History of Violence.

The two main characters never talk. Sometimes, a musical number 60 style appears and explains (through a song) what is happening in characters minds. These video clips, are really welcomed because the previous scene, without dialog or music only people looking at each other, takes sometimes 4, 5 or even more minutes which in movie times is TOO MUCH.

There is also a few bits about "the difficult to make sex without love", the "selfish mind of the porno industry".

It is obvious, this movie intended (get away with it) to fool festival juries and critics. It have a few pseudo-shocking scenes (within the limits of Taiwan censorship) and many subjects are open, but nothing is concluded or goes anywhere.

These tricks, got the movie a few (disputed) important prices in film festivals and get the movie an undeserved commercial success (I see the movie in France and the theater was packed).

However, please, do not be fooled. There is nothing new or original or even originally told or filmed in this movie. It is boring and empty; really a fraud to public. Boogie Nights (which I did not really liked), Intimacy and 9 Songs are far better movies.


A movie about Vixen (Erica Gavin) who has a Mountie husband who she loves...but she loves sex too! In the course of the movie she gets multiple men in bed--including her husband AND brother! Also there's a (tame) lesbian sequence.

This film put Russ Meyer on the map and was (I believe) the first critically acclaimed X rated film ever. It was a big hit when it came out. Unfortunately, it doesn't date well.

It is well-directed and Erica Gavin is just great (whatever happened to her), and it was VERY colorful...but by today's standards it's extremely tame. I'm surprised it has an NC-17 rating now--there's no hardcore sex and it only has topless females and no male nudity at all. Also it's (sadly) pretty dull and the addition of politics at the end was confusing (and pretty silly). It is worth catching though to see what was considered very shocking in 1968. Purportedly I saw the cut version (which has an R rating) but I've heard only a few seconds here and there are missing.

Meyer's next film "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" is much better and dates VERY well. Catch that instead.


The line is funnier in England, where, away from Vixen!'s native America, the word "fanny" has a whole new meaning. Sadly, it's the only laugh you'll get in this terrible sex comedy that is neither sexy nor funny.

Oddly unalluring with painted-on eyebrows, Erica Gavin (Acting ability: zero) is a nymphomaniac who lusts after her own brother, but rejects his black friend while making derogatory remarks about watermelons. As if in revenge, he asks her if she would go with a Shetland pony. Reference is also made to "making it with monkeys". Gavin's ability to shake and tremble with orgasmic pleasure at the slightest touch is matched only in it's lack of appeal by her seduction dance  which involves a bonfire and a haddock. Personally, I preferred the haddock.

For '68 this was pretty tame stuff, and belies the controversy it attracted at the time. A character claims to be "getting stoned", though it's only on bourbon, and for one of the original "X" certificates, there's no full frontal nudity. Just six years later we would be getting Timmy Lea and his Confessions, but here we have to make do with topless shots. Only Gavin's final seduction of her own brother really shocks. Another activity for Vixen is where she helps settle the sexual problems between a married couple by sleeping with them both. The two women clearly aren't enjoying acting out their scene together, and make a poor effort to disguise it. After Vixen irons out their disharmony, the romantic husband concludes of his wife "I guess she's got it coming to her!"

The only near-worthwhile segment involves an unusual discussion of Cuban Communism. It seems out of place with the rest of the film, though is spliced with shots of Gavin's breasts to rope it in to continuity. This then leads into a vague anti-Vietnam stance, which is commendable, though dropped in the middle of such a frivolous film it seems trite and insensitive, not to say downright tasteless. Incidentally, the part of would-be Communist Niles Brooke is taken by Harrison Page, the same Harrison Page who played Captain Trunk in amusing comedy Sledge Hammer! Page must be embarrassed by his back catalogue (Which also includes Meyer's Beyond The Valley of the Dolls), though Meyer apologists would have you believe the terrible dialogue, lousy acting, sloppy direction and dire editing are not just part of the charm, but wholly intentional. As a defence, it fails to hold water.

The irritating incidental music  a cross between the tunes they play in cinema restaurant ads and muzak used by TV stations when the transmission breaks down  is omnipresent and intrusive; while even the silly, amateurishly skewed camera angles can't generate interest. A wonderful world of jazz saxophones, where women have been "asking for it", black men  or "shines"  aren't good enough for anyone, and rape is an acceptable form of revenge. Absolutely abysmal.


Nick Millard aka Nick Phillips should have left well-enough alone when he made "Criminally Insane" 10 years before the release of this god-awful waste of time and effort. The fact that the original "Criminally Insane" was less than an hour in length should have clued him into the fact that he had probably milked this storyline for all he was going to get out of it...but instead he opts to use TONS of footage from the original in this one as well, even to the point of recycling the original opening credit sequence! Unfortunately, bringing back the rapidly aging Priscilla Alden did not save this one. What little bit of original footage there was in this flick looks as if it were filmed with a rented hand-held camcorder! If this film cost more than $100 to make I would be very surprised and I would be equally surprised if it made anything close to that amount! Avoid this one and watch the original instead!


The first movie is pretty good. This one is pretty bad.

Recycles a lot of footage (including the opening credits and end title) from Criminally Insane. The new footage, shot on video, really sticks out as poorly done. Scenes lack proper lighting, the sound is sometimes nearly inaudible, there's even video glitches like the picture rolling and so on.

Like all bad sequels, it basically just repeats the story of the first one. Ethel kills everybody who shares her living space, often for reasons having to do with them getting in the way of food she wants.

At least it is only an extra on the DVD for the first one, which also includes the same director's film Satan's Black Wedding. Too bad it doesn't include the Death Nurse movies though.


Due to budget cuts, Ethel Janowski (again played by Priscilla Alden) is released from a mental institution (even though she killed six people) and delivered to the Hope Bartholomew halfway house. Once there, she immediately relapses into her criminally insane ways and kills anyone who gets between her and her food.

HOLY MOLY! Does this movie suck! You know you are in trouble when the open credits start up and they are just the credits from the first film, apparently filmed off a TV screen. Nick Millard (under his pseudonym Nick Phillips) decided to return to the world of Crazy Fat Ethel over ten years later and with a budget that probably covered the cost of a blank tape and a video camera rental for the weekend. Let's just say that Millard's unique style doesn't translate well to video. Seriously, I have made home movies with more production value than this. And Millard tries to pull a SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 2 by padding half the running time with footage from the first film (which looks like it was taken off a worn VHS copy). Alden is again good as Ethel but the film is so inept that you start to feel sorry for her for starring in this garbage. I mean, at least the first film tried. Here we have no music, weaker effects (if that is at all possible), shaky camera work, horrible audio and editing that looks like it was done with two VCRs hooked up. Avoid this at all costs!


I should have listened. I was warned, and still, I paid money for this, after reading all the reviews, after knowing the original is "so bad it's good", and that part 2 does not fit into that category at all, still, even then, I couldn't resist. Exactly what happened here? Part one was Hilarious, it had so much politically incorrectness, and other Crazy, Fat Entertainment, and this one, there just couldn't possibly be a worse sequel on God's green earth, not Basket Case 2, hell, not even Troll 2. This is truly the worst sequel in history and that's really saying something considering the groundbreaking, bottom of the barrel qualities of the original. Criminally Insane part 2 was just a completely different brand of bad. Shot on Video, zero score, zero entertainment value, 1/3 consists of flashbacks of the original, and on top of all that, crazy, fat Ethel has lost a portion of her girth. I mean, honestly, is this some kind of sick joke?!? Thank's a lot, Nick Milliard. 1/1


Criminally Insane 2 is included on the new DVD of Satan's Black Wedding/Criminally Insane, and it's a good thing too, because when I've seen a movie and know there's a sequel (especially something that's as obscure as this) I'm always curious. I've now had my curiosity satisfied and will never watch this again. Most of CI2 is nothing but "flashbacks" to CI, and footage of Ethel asleep, recalling fond memories, I guess. Thanks to Proposition 13 she's released from Napa State (wonder if she got to see The Cramps play while she was there?) and sent to a halfway house run by a nice old lady that Ethel promptly takes to calling "granny". This is all filmed with a video camera so the picture and sound are rather pathetic, and it's even complete with a couple of "rolls". Of course Ethel does her thing, which is to dispatch anyone between her and food, especially the guy that witnesses one of her acts of mayhem and extorts her dessert. Also, you have to wonder about any halfway house for murderers having a big drawer full of sharp knives in the kitchen and rat poison under the kitchen sink. Guess that's all a matter of misguided "trust". If you liked or disliked Criminally Insane, either way there's no good reason to watch this except out of curiosity. One wonders why the makers of this even bothered. 2 out of 10.


During the cheap filmed in video beginning of Crazy Fat Ethel II, I wondered if it was the same film that was on the cover. Unfortunately, it was. The story itself is mindlessly simple. Ethel, a homicidal maniac with an eating disorder, is released into a halfway house because of hospital overcrowding. She is by far the most sane resident watching while one man puts dead flies into another's soup. Ethel is then teased by one of the halfway house employees with a chocolate bar after he hits on the cost cutting measure of feeding the residents dog food. Ethel retaliates by strangling him with a wire noose on the stairs and then....well, you get the idea. If this all sounds like fun, it isn't. This film was poorly made with cheap effects and even worse acting. The characters are so wooden when delivering their lines that they should be standing out in front of a cigar store. To make matters worse, half of the film consists of flashbacks to the first Ethel movie, Criminally Insane, which is little better. A VERY poor effort.


There are some bad movies out there. Most of them are rather fun. "Criminally Insane 1" was one of those flicks. So bad that it was enjoyable and had re-watch value to it. "Criminally Insane 2" has to be one of the worst movies ever made and coming from me, that's saying a lot because I am not the type of person to say anything is the worst. But trust me, this was just completely awful and running just 1 hour is 1 hour too long.

The movie has a rather incoherent storyline, but who cares about story when all you want to see is a big fat woman running around killing people because she isn't being fed. Well, you don't see that in this movie, except for all of the flashback sequences that are from the first one. The new storyline could have been really funny with Ethel being sent to a halfway house and murdering everyone in there, but nothing happens until the last 20 minutes of the movie and at that point you are already falling asleep.

The camera work in this movie is just atrocious. This literally reminds me of something I shot with friends of mine back when I was 15. The sound quality is something else as you can't understand a word most of the characters are saying. To give an example of how bad it is, go into a New York Subway and try to understand what is being said over the loud speakers, that is what this movie sounds like. Not that it matters what they are talking about anyway because the actors are about as dry as a dead piece of wood.

Now I know that saying this is the worst movie out there is pretty harsh but words can't describe just how bad this movie is. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself. 1/10


This is the most boring worthless piece of crap I've ever wasted an hour of my life on. All I can say is thank God it was only an hour. Over half of this 'movie' is footage from the original "Criminally Insane". At the very least, I was able to see the highlights from that rare exploitation classic, since for some reality-defying reason my video store only has "Criminally Insane II" (as it had it, "Crazy Fat Ethel II"). But the rest of this movie is some of the absolute worst home-video acting and backyard filmmaking you'll ever see. Why is it my video store has this and not the original? Why does stuff like this actually end up in video stores? Why do people rent it and not immediately burn the copy once they've seen its sheer horror? Why - AAUUGGHH - Why, God, why?

Unless you enjoy seeing annoying fruits eating an entire candy bar in an excruciatingly slow scene, or said fruit getting hung from the stair railing in an even slower scene, or a character getting stabbed sideways (don't ask) multiple times in the back, or brain cell-murdering monologues about giving poisoned tea to one's wife and then complaining that all the talk has made one's own tea go cold, or the mentally-retarded eating fly soup, or just simply want to see Crazy Fat Ethel dancing with a bloody knife in a garden: Don't watch this movie. Repeat: Do NOT watch this movie. Do not rent this movie. If at all possible, do not walk past a shelf in a video store that has a copy of this movie setting on it. You can still be saved, but it is too late for me now. . .


After "Central City" loses its mob boss to murder, partner-in-crime Robert Armstrong (as "Doc" Rogers) decides to take drastic measures To preserve criminal continuity, he recruits the dead mobster's milquetoast son, Richard Cromwell (as Edward "Baby Face" Morgan), to run the family business. The naive Mr. Cromwell is taken to the city, and installed as President of his father's "Acme Protection Agency", a front for gangsters. While Cromwell sells innocently sells insurance, his "employees" run an extortion racket. Cromwell falls for pretty client Mary Carlisle (as Virginia Clark); and, the duo find themselves in great danger "Baby Face Morgan" catches star Cromwell and Ms. Carlisle nearing the end of their once "promising" film careers. It's a quick, light, and inoffensive little crime drama.

**** Baby Face Morgan (1942) Arthur Dreifuss ~ Richard Cromwell, Mary Carlisle, Robert Armstrong


Is there anything worse than a comedy film that lacks humor? The answer is Yes; one that fails to generate any interest throughout the picture. The premise is not too bad - a naive front man for an illegal business - but this is a potboiler with a poor script and screenplay and just does not work.

Was this considered a good 'B' in 1942? Hard to imagine. The only positive aspect of the picture is the cast, which contains several well-known faces from the '30's and '40's, such as Warren Hymer, Vince Barnett and Robert Armstrong (I always dismiss Richard Cromwell as the weakling who got Gary Cooper killed in "Lives of a Bengal Lancer", so I wasn't counting him).

Can't recommend this one and gave it a rating of 3 - if you have a choice, get a root canal.


If you want to make a movie like this, have the threat be real. Don't surround your patsy with a bunch of Bonzos. There is no credibility here. The plot is dull and unbelievable. The acting is even worse. I thought that I was watching Arthur Lake (Dagwood) who is one of the worst actors in history, when I saw the main character. Oh well, at some point he has to face the music and get fighting mad. I don't care. Do you? There are all these long scenes set in this austere office (the furniture made out of cardboard or masonite). People talk and smoke and don't do anything. Most of the action happens in a five minute sequence. After that, it's over. Don't bother.


Frank Capra's creativity must have been just about spent by the time he made this film. While it has a few charming moments, and many wonderful performers, Capra's outright recycling of not just the script but considerable footage from his first version of this story, Broadway Bill (1934), is downright shoddy. It is understandable that he would re-use footage from the climactic horse race, which is thrilling. But he uses entire dialogue scenes with minor actors, then brings back those actors and apparently expects us not to notice, for example, that Ward Bond is 14 years older! Unless you want to see one of the last appearances of Oliver Hardy, skip this one and watch Broadway Bill instead.


...when he remade Broadway BILL (1934) as RIDING HIGH (1950). Recasting Bing Crosby as DAN BROOKS did not help a screenplay that was 'dated' in 34 let alone 50. This sad film has entire scenes lifted from the original with many of the supporting cast repeating their roles, unless they were dead. Though being older did not seem to matter to the Director. Nor that the Cars and Clothes in the background plates from 1934 did not seem match up too 1950s' standards. Not even 'der Bingel' singing can redeem this effort.

We rated both the original and the remake IMDb Four****Stars. Frank's touch was long gone and all that was left was CAPRA-CORN. That did not stop Mr. Capra though. After floundering around the 50's making some educational documentaries he wound up his career remaking LADY FOR A DAY (1933) as POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES (1961). Again a fine cast was let down on that IMDb Six******Star effort compared too the originals Eight********Stars. Sometimes it is better to quit while you were still ahead, right after STATE OF THE UNION (1948).


My grandmother took me and my sister out to see this movie when it came out in theaters back in 1998, and so we happily bought the tickets, the popcorn and soda, and walked right in to the theater and sat down to watch the movie. When it was over, the audience didn't applauded strongly, I remember that I heard a few people say that they didn't like it at all, I didn't like it, I thought that it was rather stupid, and not worth seeing. Eddie Murphy was hysterical in this, but apart from him, the whole movie was bad, I rarely laughed at the parts in this, I also remembered that the other people in the theater almost hardly even laughed. And what I really thought was bad was making the animals talk, because talking animals only exist in cartoons, in live action movies, they are totally a mutt! I said that apart from Eddie Murphy's hysterical twist he brings in, this movie is not worth watching, it is rather stupid.

I have seen Eddie Murphy in several of movies and I thought that he was funny in those, I have just said that he was the only funny part of this movie, I also have not seen Eddie Murphy in the really "great" movie, The Adventures of Pluto Nash. This movie is not a movie that I would really recommend that you see, because apart from Eddie Murphy, you probably are not going to like this, especially because of a lot the the talking animals in it!

I'll give this movie a rating of 3 stars out of a possible 10 stars.


Too bad neither the animals or Eddie Murphy had anything to say worth saying. this movie is just bland.

Children's movie? Well, if you're trying to get them to take a nap, then maybe. It's just 90 minutes of some eye-wrenchingly poor animal lip animation to quips that aren't funny. And the lip-sync'ing makes the old Godzilla films look brilliantly done by comparison. Meanwhile, Eddie "Pluto Nash" Murphy drones on with a suppressed understated delivery that is painful to experience. Apparently, he's trying to modify his old manic persona, but to what? In short, all the magic and wonder of the 1967 original version is lost in this re-imagining, or whatever it is. A town wants to bully some forest creatures and blame them for doing bad stuff. No, really. And Pluto Nash can psycho-babble with them. Things chain along with some stale jokes to a dull uninspired conclusion with no surprises.

Rent the '67 movie. Or some old Yogi Bear cartoons.


This is definitely a stupid, bad-taste movie. Eddie Murphy stars in what is written like a sitcom. He is surrounded with his perfect family, full of good family values. If you're looking for politically correct entertainment, this movie is for you. But if you hate the idea of being the only one not to laugh at obscene gags in a movie-theater full of pop-corn addicts, just flee.


Production line collection of fart jokes that pretends 'Babe' was never made; the writers clearly hoped that the gimmick of seeing animals talk would be enough to keep the movie going. It's not. Eddie Murphy sells out yet again as a doctor who rediscovers his forgotten childhood gift for understanding the incessant and witless chatter of guinea pigs, tigers, rats, dogs and pigeons. The voice cast is impressive (Albert Brooks, Julie Kavner, Reni Santoni, John Leguizamo, Garry Shandling, Ellen DeGeneres, Paul Reubens, Brian Doyle-Murray) but the script is so unimaginative, charmless and depressingly unfunny that the whole thing rattles down the bin chute pretty quickly.


...And that's why hard to rate.

From the adult point of view (hmm, student point of view:)). i must say i fell nearly asleep here. Sure, there is some laughing scene (all the credit takes here Eddie), but that can't save the disney type of script and whole movie, that's why

2 out of 10


The movie is bad. Nothing special - just a "kid" movie with no serious thing in it. There is though one reason to watch this for: the animal talk. Some of them are so funny in what they say, you just can't stop laughing. So if you want to hear a dog in the dog pound saying "I'm Keyser Soze", or another animal saying "You're a dead cat walking", or many other funny one liners, see it. Cause there's no other good movie to watch it. Vote: 4 out of 10.


This film failed to explore the humanity of the animals which left me with an empty feeling inside. [Spoiler ahead] I was not convinced that Dr. D really had a compelling reason to forego the big buyout deal to help his furry friends. Whereas Babe (the original) bucked the trend of big-budget hits by focusing on the human virtues of the animals vs. their humans counterparts, all the animals in this film were nothing more than comical caricatures which one would gladly stuff in the meat-grinder (even more so if one could understand their pointless babble). Without Eddie Murphy's zany behavior, this film would be a flop.


At first i thought that it was just about Eddie Murphy talking to some stupid animals. I was right. Some people called this movie Eddie Murphy's comeback! Who are these people? Jesus if this is the best he can come up with he can just stay away. What was the story again? I was so annoyed by all the lame jokes i forgot. I should have walked out on this one.


Just what we need! Another remake of vintage Hollywood cinema, with Eddie Murphy miscast again in his second time around after THE NUTTY PROFESSOR (1996)! This shows why we're running out of special ideas in making a quality movie, ladies and gentlemen! It has some signs of hope for its likeable and delightful imagery of animals who can act and speak with humans. Things can only get more worse, unfortunately. Bathroom jokes and sexual references kill this piece of "family" funfare instantly. Even parents and children saw the trailer ad on The Family Channel, which was followed by utter angst and disgust in the movie theater. Sad to say this is the more progressive pre-millennium era, but enjoy it while it lasts 'cause things can only get worse with time. More went wrong with the all-new DR. DOLITTLE. It is absolutely plotless, feeling too flat. I also hate that irritating voice of Chris Rock!!! We need more talented voice-overs than a bunch of overpaid celebs who don't want to declare bankruptcy. I'll have to agree on my local newspaper giving this among the top five worst movies of 1998. Then again, the original version wasn't any good, either. Murphy's next project could be PATTON if he's not careful!


I have a feeling that Dr. Dolittle was intended for an audience composed entirely of children. I think I would have had a better time if I sat at home and watched a sit-com. My favorite characters in the movie were the pet hamster and the two alley mice.


I just did not enjoy this film. But then I loved Babe, a Pig in the City and have been spoiled by talking animal films that are exceptionally well done in every way. The animals were not likeable. They were all irritating especially Chris Rock's guinea pig, but then what could I expect, it's Chris Rock. I believe I smiled once or twice at a couple cute lines, but that's it.


Everyone involved with this project should be ashamed as to the result of their efforts. Oh. I laughed a coupe of times , but I laughed a couple of times during Schindler's list also. They really screwed up a good premise.


This movie isn't about football at all. It's about Jesus/GOD!! It's the same kind of sappy sanctimonious religious drivel you get from those arch idiots who wrestle for Jesus, or pump iron for Jesus. Yeah, Jesus was totally buffed, liked contact sports, and definitely owned a full set of dumb bells. DUHHH! This movie should have been entitled "Hiking for Jesus," or something along those lines just to let the general public know that the real intent of this movie is to convert people to Christianity, and to pander to those whose brains have already been thoroughly washed in the blood of the lamb. That the title is derived from the Bible is made clear when the head coach is reading his Bible and asking Jesus for help. The recent sports movie "Invincible" was 100 times more inspiring than this was, and Jesus wasn't even a factor. It was just the desire and determination of an individual with a dream.

Any broad appeal as an inspirational sports movie is ultimately lost amidst all of the blatant Bible thumping and sanctimonious religious propaganda. One gets the impression that the sole message is the only way you can succeed and make positive gain is if you accept Jesus as your personal savior. But this is simply not true, and is therefore a lie being perpetuated by those who believe that it is true and want everyone else to believe it. The image of the winning athlete thanking Jesus when he wins comes directly to mind. What does he do when he loses? Does he curse Jesus? Of course not! When he loses Jesus isn't responsible. Jesus is only responsible when he wins. And the logic goes round and round and round, and it ends up exactly where the true believer needs it to be, every time!! I had to hit pause when the scene with the coach receiving a brand new truck came on so I could stop rolling on the floor laughing my ass off and catch my breath. Materialism is not what Jesus taught. I find it odd that most so called "Christians" seem to either forget or ignore this message from their "savior," especially when I see a Jesus fish on the back of a huge gas guzzling SUV that passes me like I'm standing still.

Another message this movie implies is that Jesus apparently cares more about the win loss record of a mediocre high school football team that he does about the millions of starving children in the world. The final scene where the insecure and unsure kicker boots a 51 yard field goal and it is hyped up as an unbelievably incredible miracle puts the final gag me with a spoon religious red flag on this turkey. I only gave it three stars because the guy who played the black coach could actually act.


I am a Christian and I say this movie had terrible acting, unreal situations and a completely facade front for Christianity. You might as well watch "Remember the Titans" and at least not mix Christ in a football film like a formulaic steroid for losers. Let me make some really pressing comments of what bothered me in this film.

1. The school was in Georgia and was a white academy school. I did not notice a single black student or player in the school. I deal with the White "Christian" Academies in the south and they were built for no other reason than to reestablish segregation. This is troubling when the movie is about Christianity and Christ changing lives...how about changing the hearts of segregation? (note: I loved the token black coach; like it made up for the entirely white team and all the black 'Giants' players.)

2. The uncritical acclaim by everyone Christian about this movie. Can I get a couple people to say that it was bad acting, bad filming, bad writing and in short poor compared to other movies. If we were to compare this to another football movie, would it have the same charisma and energy?

3. The half-baked Christianity which was shown made even less sense to me than the unrealistic ending. If Christianity is about simply reading a little scripture and praying to begin a complete life change, then don't wonder when no one will listen to what Christians have to say. We want to sell Christ as a cure-all. He doesn't need sold and He doesn't need to be attached to such whimsical lifestyles. No wonder everyone considers Christianity to be anti-intellectual with this unreal presentation.

I recognize this film may be inspirational to a few people. To most, it will not be. It will not give a real picture of struggle and heartfelt tension. Most importantly to me, it is not Christian by any means or stretch. It has values but it falls short as a 'pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps' message as shallow as positive thinking. If you live alongside people who struggle and/or those in third world living conditions, this movie will be hollow as most churches are today in their religion.


I want to state first that I am a Christian (and that I do work in the film and TV industry) so I understand what it is like to work on a feature length film so props to the filmmakers in that regard. I'm all for positive, uplifting messages if they are true to the nature of life (that this is a fallen world and that things don't always work out ... even for followers of Christ). I'm glad that others are having such overwhelmingly positive reactions to the overt Christian message; for me it was just that the execution is where the film fell on its face. A movie lives and dies on its story and here you have one dimensional stereotypes, exposition aplenty, and spontaneous changes in character behavior that are inexplicably to say the least. I believe that a film does not have to club you over the head with its message to get the point across. I'm sure the Kendrick bros. will improve with time and that their storytelling methods will as well. Maybe they could direct someone else's screenplay as their next project.

* Sports films are not exactly my first love but a good one (Hoosiers, Field of Dreams, etc) can inspire in a multitude of ways. If you would be interested in a PG-rated film that inspires, give Steven Soderbergh's 'King of the Hill' a look. All truth is God's truth ...


I rented this movie today thinking it might be a good football movie, since I'm a big football fan. Boy, was I wrong. This movie is way too religious and preachy and is REALLY unrealistic. This movie pretty much says that if your a Christian you can get anything you want in life easily, like become a great football player! You don't become a great football player by becoming Christian and asking God, you do it through practice and hard work. All you gotta do is ask God and he'll give you anything....puh-lease. Thats not true at all, duh. I laughed several times because of this embarrassment. The only part that was funny was when they were being dumb (Shultz the cartoonist? no, the dude that flew over the Atlantic, etc etc..) but really this movie wasn't that great. I don't recommend it, especially if you aren't a Christian, lol.


This had to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen and I'm 64 years old and a football fan. I went expecting to see a football movie. About 10 minutes into it, I began to wonder exactly how such a bad movie (particularly the acting) could have gotten into a theater. About half way through, I whispered to my husband that it was awful and he explained to me the facts behind the movie. Although I was a little offended (and can see how some could be VERY offended if they were not Christian) at being preached to in a movie theater, it wasn't that big a deal. It was, however, a big deal to be subjected to such predictability and unrealistic behavior and, above all, the quality of the acting. It is an appropriate movie for a church outing but to be shown in a church auditorium and not in a theater. Do I go to church? Yes. Do I want to go to church when I attend a movie? No. Would I recommend this movie? Absolutely not!!!


This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched "Surface to Air" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously.


This movie was way too slow and predictable.I wish i could say more but i can't.If you enjoy action/adventure films,this is not one to see.I'd suggest you go see movies like;Behind Enemy Lines with Owen Wilson and Iron Eagle with Louis Gossett Jr.


Awwww....yes, it is heartwarming and all that some unlucky family gets adopted by ABC/Sears and has their home "renovated." That's where the humanistic appeal ends. I liked it early in its run, but now this show has become disgustingly excessive.

Ten needy families could be given relatively luxurious homes with lots of goodies for every one family that each episode of this show splurges on. The people at Habitat For Humanity must be shaking their heads in disbelief. For example, is it necessary for a healthy sixteen year old boy to have a jacuzzi in his bedroom, or have his bed tricked-out with "Low Rider" hydraulics? Does the mom really need her dilapidated, non-running and rusted out old pick-up truck restored and "pimped" by some of the best customizers in California? A new one would have done the job quite nicely, and probably for a third of the price. Do people really need a sixty-five inch plasma screen in every room of the house? And then there's the issue of who pays the increased property taxes and utility bills. Even after the zaniacs at "Makeover" leave, somebody still has earn a living. I doubt the friendly folks down at Social Services will see the humor in all of this largess.

This show is nothing more than a ratings grabber for ABC, and a tacit commercial for its sponsors.


I used to be an avid viewer until I personally spent long cold hours helping build a home for the White Family, only to be sickened to see the house a year later. All of the beautiful rock landscaping has been removed, the gorgeous rock sidewalk and front fountain have been removed, all the pine trees and pecan trees in the front have been cut down, sprinkler system has been ripped out. It now looks like a disaster area. They don't even live there any more... they live "in town" and come out only for the weekend. It sickens me to think of all the hours that the great people of Oklahoma donated to these people and to see the result. The story that we all saw on TV wasn't completely the truth... don't believe every thing you see and hear.


I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing "contestant" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is "doing good", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar?


"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is yet another 'feel-goody', so-called 'heart warming', and out-for-ratings show that ABC has had the time to put together.

I understand the troubles that these families go through. For that, I am sorry. But wouldn't you think that putting four wide-screen plasma televisions, three flat-screen desktop computers, an inground pool taking up half of a backyard, and closets full of expensive designer clothing is a BIT too excessive for ANY family? Sure, these families have been through a lot. Sure, they deserve nicer things that what they had previously had.

But honestly, the things that Ty Pennington and his crew put into these houses are enough to suit an entire neighborhood.

Another thing that really irks me about this show is how Ty and his crew always have something good to say about every little thing that relates to the family, or the family's condition. Telling a wheelchair-bound person that he or she is 'so strong', or 'very brave' really does get old after a while. That may sound rude, but believe me; watch this show, and you'll see what I mean.

All in all, this show is overrated. If you want to watch it, go ahead. This comment is just a heads-up for what you'd be watching.


I can't help but laugh at the people who praise this show as heartwarming and tear-jerking. For one, it's entirely unrealistic that these people will have perfect lives after their new homes.

How can these families afford to maintain these new mega-houses? And what about their poor neighbors? Property taxes must surely increase after this happens. Plus, the noise would annoy me.

Second, how excessive can a reality television show become? It's practically the same repetitive junk week after week. We're introduced to a suffering family, they renovate the home, then surprise the family and everyone breaks out the Kleenex boxes.

Not to mention how boring the renovation part is. The only interesting part of the show is to see what the house looks like, but even that segment is destroyed by the phony confessionals and constant sobbing.

"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is a show pretending to be heartfelt but it falls flat. Skip this one. If you like reality television, "Survivor" is far superior and moving.


There is a uk edition to this show which is rather less extravagant than the US version. The person concerned will get a new kitchen or perhaps bedroom and bathroom and is wonderfully grateful for what they have got. The US version of this show is everything that reality TV shouldn't be. Instead of making a few improvements to a house which the occupants could not afford or do themselves the entire house gets rebuilt. I do not know if this show is trying to show what a lousy welfare system exists in the US or if you beg hard enough you will receive. The rather vulgar product placement that takes place, particularly by Sears, is also uncalled for. Rsther than turning one family in a deprived area into potential millionaires, it would be far better to help the community as a whole where instead of spending the hundreds of thousands of dollars on one home, build something for the whole community ..... perhaps a place where diy and power tools can be borrowed and returned along with building materials so that everyone can benefit should they want to. Giving it all to one person can cause enormous resentment among the rest of the local community who still live in the same run down houses.


ALIEN LOVE ( As this movie is known in Britain ) is a very strange movie . I don`t mean that it`s an esoteric art house movie in the style of Peter Greenaway or Derek Jarman , I mean it`s a TVM with swearing , sex , some really good T&A , a bad script and a very retro feel . You can just imagine someone like John Hughes directing this ten years earlier , though of course he would have cut out the T&A

Going back to the bad script , one of the problems is that few of the characters have any type of motivation especially Amanda . Why does she pick up Connie at the bar ? Just so she could meet an alien ? Do you see what I mean about retro ? ET , SHORT CIRCUIT and a whole lot of other movies from the mid 1980s had this type of plot with most of them being more defined and convincing than the one seen here . The storyline continues to follow an ill defined , unconvincing and illogical path

That said I did find ALIEN LOVE watchable and not only down to the T&A on display . As a a sci-fi sex comedy it`s much better than FLESH GORDON and EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY


I guess there are some out there that remember Nicole Eggert from her little girl days on such TV shows as T.J. Hooker, Charles in Charge, and Who's the Boss? You perverts, you! Maybe you remember her from Baywatch when she grew up and got breast implants. No matter, you will certainly forget her in this supposed comedy about man-eating aliens.

There are so many things that do not make sense and are never explained. How did she recognize the alien? Why was the alien hot for paprika and cinnamon? Why didn't the alien eat her? You get the picture.

Before the alien eats her boyfriend and assumes his identity, you get to see her in the body of Alex Meneses. This Mexican/Ukranian beauty is the only reason to watch this trash. Stay for the shower scene and the boyfriend, and go on about your business.