The 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.

In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.

On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.

I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided.


The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).


I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project


The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this.


Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right.


Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel


To this day when you speak of the Japanese cinema, most folks won't talk about Rashomon, or the Seven Ronin, or Ran. To the masses the Japanese cinema means all those monsters we've grown to love destroying those Japanese cities over and over again, lots of times in battles with each other. The first and greatest of these is Godzilla who's come back a dozen times or more and in a few films faced the three headed hydra like monster from outer space, Ghidrah.

Oddly enough in keeping with the times, the special effects got slightly better. But part of the charm of those old films was seeing those paper mache city sets destroyed, they looked so phony, maybe three steps above Ed Wood.

Some visitors from the future have time traveled to Japan to urge that Godzilla be destroyed from when he was first discovered. And in fact he was first discovered as a surviving dinosaur during World War II when he protected the Japanese garrison on a Pacific island from those American troops. But later on with atomic testing on Bikini, Godzilla the friendly dinosaur just like Barney became the mean machine we've grown to know in the cinema.

Of course you eliminate Godzilla than you give Ghidrah a clear field to wreck Japan so it does not become the economic colossus it was by 1991 when the film came out. More I won't say, but we all know Japan is doing reasonably well as 2010.

Like all the other Japanese monster films, just sit back and enjoy the mayhem.


This is one of those movies in which people keep saying "That's a great idea!" about the worst ideas you've ever heard. Then they act on them. I like it. This picture's funnier than any 3 dozen Seth Rogen projects. Well, so is SHOAH.

Gojira movies have been cannibalizing their own origin-stories since the 60s, but this one goes further. What can you say about a culture willing to rape its own sacred cultural icons for a quick buck? This travesty presents a WW2 suicide brigade on "the last of the Marshall Islands" presenting arms to a dinosaur who chased the US Marines away. Then the Japanese inexplicably decide not to fight to the last man, and instead abandon the territory annexed on their behalf by this giant lizard. They retreat to the mainland, where one of them becomes a business tycoon.

Then it gets complicated.

Blonde men from the future, irritable over not yet curing male pattern baldness, come back in time in a sort of flying saucer to ask a failed writer and a celebrity psychic for their help in eliminating Godzilla before he destroys Japan. The "help" is questionable, as all these 1992 citizens do is go back to 1944 to watch some closed-circuit TV, but, hey, they shot the script. You would think that by the 90s the Japanese would know better than to trust people in spaceships. Fortunately for Nippon, the white guys - you can tell they're American because they say "nucyaler" - erred by bringing back in time the one Japanese girl left in the future. In a touching display of ancestor worship, she outs their duplicity after donning a flying suit made from ductwork taped to a Sailor Moon backpack. Turns out these time-traveling, fashion-disabled Caucasians are just jealous of Japan's impending economic imperialist takeover of the known world (in the 22d century Japan's going to buy Africa, which sounds more like a liability than an asset). These blondes in padded chintz suits with nonfunctioning straps and redundant zippers want to replace Godzilla with King Ghidorah, who will destroy all of Japan except Tokyo. A strange choice, but Toho's been known to go out of its way not to have to build that Tokyo skyline set again.

Sure enough, we are given the alternate spectacle of Fukuoka ("my garden city") and some other heretofore unscathed-by-rubber-monster metropolitan areas being laid waste by a flying gold metalflake 1/3 of a hydra. In a surprise revelation, we are informed that King Ghidorah was created from some hand puppets left too long in the microwave. Godzilla also does his share of demolition as the movie winds down. Wait - didn't the spaceship blondes already destroy Godzilla? Yeah, they killed him in the third reel. But nobody expected that the Japanese of 1992 had a secret submarine filled with nuclear missiles - "Ha ha, don't worry. We don't keep it in Japanese waters" - with which to jumpstart a new Godzilla from the bones of an old dinosaur. Only they don't have to, because a leaky old nuclear shipwreck has already made Godzilla whole again. Oh, and Godzilla finally gets to Tokyo, reuniting with his old army buddy in a heartwarming moment of tearful recognition. They look into each other's eyes, and Godzilla nods as if to say, "Gotta do it, man." The tycoon nods in understanding. Then Godzilla blows him up.

I should also mention here that, in order to prevent Godzilla's revamped angry self from fulfilling his destiny and destroying Japan, the Japanese girl from the future goes BACK to the future to ask for help from - yes - a balding white man. Probably because he pities her as the sole Asian character from the 23d century, he agrees to build a Mecha-Ghidora and send it back to the 1990s, so that together, these two giant monsters can, uh, fulfill Godzilla's destiny and destroy Japan. In a wonderful nod to those notoriously self-willed whipping heads, the girl piloting Mecha-Ghidora has trouble controlling the joystick.

This Godzilla suit design owes much to the Sumo - his thighs are flabby enough to double for Rush Limbaugh's, and his belly and chest are thick and ponderous. But there's more exploding masonry in this picture than in most of his adventures, which makes up for a lot. Also features a man with a passing resemblance to Robert Patrick playing a killer robot. Yes, in the future even the robots will have bald spots. Plus Megumi Odaka, reprising her role as Micki, the only Japanese girl ever born with ears larger than her Disney namesake and an acting style even bigger than that. It's not her fault: many Japanese directors seem to feel that a seventy-foot screen isn't quite large enough to display the emotion of a human face. I did some acting for Japanese television, and I can tell you, they push you to go for it. They apparently urge their writers in the same way. Thank God.


"Godzilla vs King Ghidorah" is a perfect example how a great idea can be ruined by pathetic topics like pseudo-patriotism. Here, travellers from the future try to ruin Japan, replacing the local hero Godzilla with their puppy monster, the three-headed golden dragon King Ghidorah. They fail, however and in the end Godzilla fights Ghidorah. The battles between the two behemoths are very cool, but the plot of the movie is full with holes and the all thing about "Japan is great" is really stupid. The creators of this movie didn't even threat with respect the enemies of Japan, making them stupid big blond guys, who are easily outsmarted by the clever Japanese. The good thing is that in the end Godzilla and king Ghidorah nearly destroyed the both Japan and it's ridiculous enemies in one (actually two) spectacular combats. But till this battle royale, the film was really dull and pathetic.


I cant understand at all why so many Godzilla fans think this is excellent, one of the best Godzilla films ever in fact. This film is horrible and one of the very few Gojira films I cant stand to watch again (the other being G. vs Megalon).

The plot is too campy to be in the Heisei series, a series that attempted to turn the aging Godzilla franchise into bonafide action films, revolving around ideas that seemed more in place in 1974 than 1991. It just sounded ridiculous, especially with some of the subject matter, take for example the WW2 scene, with the Japanese soldiers praising a dying Godzillasaurus, a mournful and serious tone, take the exuberant former commander turn capitalist and his death, serious seens in a film its fans somehow denote as played for laughs, as a goofy romp with guilty illogical fun, if so than this is easily one of the most tasteless films I've seen, however I think its more likely it was only talent the filmmakers lacked and this was a case of a straight faced action movie gone bad. It was made ever worse by the fact that the special effects are terrible beyond compare, from the jet packs to the android, to the hokey sound effects emitted from everything, its impossible to take anything seriously, and yet the film expects you to, there's no nudges to the camera.

Like nearly all Godzilla films there's a pointless romance, and this is no exception, though something can be said about the fact that this one is especially pointless since and inexplicable. There is literally no reason at all presented for the romance, it just happens and there lives make 360 degree commitments for it. Aside from this the other terrible aspect of this film is dialogue, both the Japanese and English is horrible, clunky and possibly the inspiration for Battlefield Earth.

The Tristar DVD compounds the problems, making everything look grainy, blurred, dim and just plain ugly, the same was for the sound. I first saw the Japanese Region 2 version and the differences are night and day, with the original vibrant colors and texture, the noteworthy score, the fight scenes especially, are actually watchable.

In my opinion, the Heisei series is a disappointment, with the exception of Godzilla 1984 (Japanese version) there is little to praise here, and Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah is case in point of this failure. It doesn't even come close to deserving the reputation and fans it gets.

2 out of 10


Yet another colourful excuse for men in rubber suits to wrestle with each other. This time around, time travellers from the future arrive in 1992 and recruit a few people to go back with them to 1944 and prevent the creation of Godzilla, thus saving a future Japan from destruction. But having accomplished this task, the time travellers are revealed to be a bunch of double crossers whose own creature goes on the rampage, and with no Godzilla to stop it Eek! It all sounds very silly, and it probably is, but the plot is surprisingly decent and the final battle looks pretty good too. Unfortunately the rest of the visual effects are just rubbish rather than enjoyably rubbish, and the movie turns out to be just as dull as its predecessors. Look out for the shaky Spielberg in-joke.


Nothing new in this hackneyed romance with characters put into unbelievable situations, speaking dialogue that borders on the ridiculous. This is an example of another movie put into production before serious script problems were solved. Don't waste your time.


let's value it.

entertainment: a trashy script which has been typed by unintelligent people in front of typewriters a thousand times.. pathetic acting that is thwarted by the story...OK production value, including good set/location and gorgeous girl.. -rating 4/10

social message: the movie has no social message. it's thought free... .but if I pretend I were 10, and my IQ were 70. I feel the message is:don't be afraid to love? -rating 0/10

objectionable things: nothing special, just the mild Jewish hedonic and arrogant attitude that is presented by the writer/director. generally speaking, good , nothing degenerate -8/10

overall rating is 4/10


I've tried to like this film, really. In watching it, all I can think is, "This guy gives me the creeps, I would have gotten a restraining order". It also calls out CODEPENDENCE in capital letters. Was this really the conversation before making the movie? "Let's make a film that puts two chronically depressed, socially inept people into a relationship which deepens their isolation and encourages them to complain about how bad their lives are!" From what I've seen in life is that the last thing on earth we find attractive in a potential mate is constant self-pity.

The mood of the movie is distinctly 80-ish; brooding and slow. Don't get me wrong, the film has its moments, just very few of them.


Dolph Lundgren stars as a former cop/boxer who searches Boston's kinky scene to find out who killed his brother,who was well thought of in the community, however along the way he learns how his brother enjoyed kinky sex and that a serial killer is to blame. Dolph Lundgren is very good in this movie, in fact on the basis of his performance here, one would forget Lundgren's rise to fame involved action roles. That said the material gives Lundgren nothing to work with, in fact, Lundgren is completely left out to dry in a dreary thriller which is both predictable and incomprehensible. Co-Star Danielle Brett is also good, in fact the film works best when it centers around the chemistry of Lundgren and Brett, indeed had the film taken the time to explore their relationship the film would've been fairly decent. However the movie is lackluster, the action is non-existent, the plot not given enough exploration (Too much boring B.S around Lundgren's investigation of his brother's employer) and the film is needlessly gory and ridiculous. Once again, Lundgren is actually really good (As is newcomer Danielle Brett) but the film just lumbers from one sequence to the next, which makes this movie particularly disappointing. If anything else though, it shows how underrated Lundgren is, as an actor.

*1/2 Out Of 4-(Poor)


Okay, I rented this movie because of the director...he has made some interesting flicks in the past (if you haven't seen Waxork you are missing a fun ride). Anyway, I had my doubts about this movie from the beginning but I decided to suck it up and give it a look. It's bad. Very bad. If you haven't seen the movie and don't mind spoilers read ahead. First of all, the old saying 'You can't judge a book by it's cover' applies here. The box for this flick seems to indicate that Jill is the stone fox with long hair with highlights. The back of the box has a cool shot of the red-leather Jill and some other shots. The description makes you want to rent the movie because it SOUNDS good. You start watching it and suddenly you find out that the movie takes place (inexplicably) in 1977. Jill is a total dog who is not the girl on the cover. The movie is not quite as predictable as you would think...and that's not a good thing. Characters do so many stupid things without any modicum of motivation...it's embarrassing to watch. 10 minutes before the end of the movie Dolph and another lady have sex for no good reason. Also, what was the point of having Dolph kill this other lady in cold blood who had been helping him. Anthony Hickox the director should have seen a stinker when he read the script. Had it been set in the underworld of the new milennium and made the characters halfway intelligent it might have been decent. To set it in the 70's makes no sense and has no bearing on the story whatsoever. Avoid it!


Dolph Lundgren stars as Murray Wilson an alcoholic ex-cop who gets involved with a serial killer who kills during sex, after his brother is murdered, Wilson starts his own investigation and finds out a lot of his brother's secrets in this very dull thriller. Lundgren mails in his performance and the movie is flat and lethargic. Also when has anyone watched a Dolph Lundgren movie for anything but action?


I think Dolph Lundgren had potential at being a big action star a la Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and even Van Damme to certain degree. He had some big moments in his career but he also made some poor choices and this is definitely one of them although made later in his career. The strange thing about Jill The Ripper (or Jill Rips...or Tied Up) is that I honestly think they seriously thought they were making a provocative and serious thriller? It shows in the way that they describe it on IMDb, on the DVD case, in the commentaries, and this film is not serious. To call it campy would be a huge understatement. The film tries to be complex and intelligent when in fact it's nothing more than shallow, confusing and gratuitous. On top of that they put Lundgren, who is known for action films, in an attempt at a serious role which makes it even more campy because his range as an actor is pretty limited. The entire film revolves around the kinky sex world and yet they attempt at making it a serious thriller? Just the plot and premise immediately make it a B-Movie Porn at very best.

Dolph Lundgren plays disgraced former cop and raging alcoholic Matt Sorenson who decides to play Detective when his brother is murdered. I mean put aside the numerous plot holes that has Lundgren getting free roam to investigate crime scenes, and witnesses and everything else even though he's not a cop anymore and you still have a pretty strange and rather lack luster performance from Lundgren. Danielle Brett is Lundgren's eventual love interest and his brother's widow. Brett plays her role decently enough considering the script and campy story. The supporting cast is huge and no one particularly stands out in their performances unless it's on the negative side such as the absolutely horrible performance by Victor Pedtrchenko who seems to go by several different names in the film, boasts an awful accent and is a really awful villain.

I honestly tried to get into the mystery and film and watch closely but there wasn't any reason to because it was all a jumble of ridiculous plot and gratuitous sex games including a downright ridiculously hilarious scene where Lundgren goes under cover and is strung upside down nearly naked. To explain how classy and well done this movie is (sarcasm...sarcasm) the back of the DVD I picked up (it was really cheap) has Lundgren's character listed as "Murray Wilson" (not the name of his character in the film.) While somehow Lundgren manages to be usually watchable the film falls flat on it's face trying to be serious. Considering director Anthony Hickox is infamous for really B-Movie Horror flicks it only makes sense even though I think he was really trying to be serious. Hard core cult Lundgren fans will have to see it...no one else should...certainly for any sort of mystery or suspense. 3/10


Probably the worst Dolph film ever. There's nothing you'd want or expect here. Don't waste your time. Dolph plays a miserable cop with no interests in life. His brother gets killed and Dolph tries to figure things out. The character is just plain stupid and stumbles around aimlessly. Pointless.


Dolph Lundgren broods and scowls his way through this incoherent mystery/thriller that's not nearly as cool as the box would have you believe. He is actually quite good here, but the story is a mess of B-movie cliches (detectives, revenge, tycoons, hookers, S&M) that looks like it was made up as they went along. The film picks up a bit in the second half but for a more decent Lundgren flick, rent RED SCORPION instead.


This unpleasant film has little to recommend it. Dolph Lundgren gives a performance that is better than either this script or his other action films have allowed. And there are occasional snippets of dialog that suggest the film might have been able to provide some insight into a bizarre subculture.

But no. Motivations are either murky or trite. Most of the acting is sub-par. The script creates needless confusion. And the director's needless fascination with focusing on gore is distracting.

It's hard to imagine who the audience is for this film.


I saw this film under the title of "Tied Up". In general I have enjoyed Dolph's movies, so gave this one a try. It wasn't worth it. I have read some of the previous comments about the box enticing viewers. Don't be fooled. This is a poor film at best. The acting is nonexistent. The plot, what little there is of one, is very predictable. The movie in places seems to be chopped together. This one just plain stinks the place up. Not even worth the price of a cheap night rental. As a bit of a Dolph fan, I kept waiting to see him in action. By the end of the movie, you will still be waiting. Best to avoid this film, and spend your time watching almost anything else.


It just seems to run true to form, any movie starring Dolph Lundgren is bad! I don't know if it is the fact that the storyline in full of holes, or that Dolph is such a bad actor. No spoiler here, He seems to overdue the pushing and shoving and grabbing and touching thing in this movie. In my opinion it is a wonder that some of these projects find venture capital to get in the can and to the theatre.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The Avengers held this dubious honor but no longer. The acting in "Jill the Ripper" is terrible and was only eclipsed by the plot. This movie is as intellectually stimulating as the Telletubbes. It doesn't know whether it wants to be an S&M flick or a really bad thriller. Only watch under extreme intoxication or if you're bed ridden and need a leather clad distraction. This script should be reworked into a porn, it wouldn't take very much effort and would have a longer shelf life. A porn, even a bad porn, wouldn't do the damage to Dolf Lundgren's career the way that this movie has.


I wont take too much time here, just wanted to state that Darkman 3 is awesome. I have all 3 on DVD, added these to my collection of DVD movie sets. Darkman ranks up there with the best, like Indiana Jones, Aliens, Star Wars, Die hard, you get the point. There isn't too many good horror, thriller, sets out there. Many thanks to the whole crew, and set for giving us the Darkman trilogy. By the way if your wondering how I came across this one on DVD. I purchased it through the internet, it is however region 4, as you know most US DVD players are region 1. If you own a Sony Playstation 2, you have the best DVD player since it is an all region player. Just go to set up then choose witch region setting you want ( 1-9 ).


OK,but does that make this a good movie?well,not really,in my opinion.there isn't a whole lot to recommend it.i found it very slow,tediously,in fact.it's also predictable pretty much through and through.number one and two were somewhat predictable,but not as much.i also felt this movie was quite campy at times,which i didn't really think fits this series and the character.Jeff Fahey plays the main bad guy in this installment.he's a decent enough actor,but i felt he played his character too over the top.i guess that fit with the tone of the movie,which would have been great if i had liked the movie.plus,there were some pretty bad one liners.Arnold Vosloo returns in the title role,but is given little to work with in this movie.the character has not really evolved,as i had hoped.oh well.this is just my opinion.anyway,for me,while this movie is not abysmal,it is pretty bad.my vote for Darkman III: 3.5/5


Within the first 17 minutes of director Bradford May's "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die", we have already been subjected to a silly recap and accompanying voice-over on the first two films, hilarious over-acting, about three minutes of footage simply ripped from the second film and re-edited slightly to seem like new footage, and a lengthy advertisement the scarred and tormented title character watches about Universal Theme Parks- Universal being the company that distributed this film. Yes, "Darkman III: Die Darkman Die" is quite the handful when it comes to cheap cash-ins on the success of a previous film.

This time around, the disfigured anti-hero Peyton Westlake (aka, "Darkman"; portrayed by "Mummy" actor Arnold Vosloo) locks horns with evil crime-lord and lousy husband Peter Rooker (played in a brilliantly over-the-top performance by Jeff Fahey), and over the course of the 87 minute film grows to develop an affection for Rooker's wife and daughter, once again learning to care for another person.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

This film is basically just a silly way for the studio to make some more money off of Sam Raimi's original film, which I consider to be a great action-suspense film.

Oh yeah, and there are also a number of silly sub-plots, including a villainess who supposedly was one of the original doctors to save Darkman following his scarring, and her seducing our hero into thinking she is an ally before revealing her nefarious plot to help Rooker create more super-human powered thugs like Darkman. Apparently, she can't just do the same procedure on the thugs that she performed on Darkman. Why? I can't really explain it, because the movie certainly doesn't.

There's also an assassination sub-plot involving a District Attourney who is threatening to bring down Rooker's organization, and some other very silly things going on.

But it doesn't really add up. This film feels like two or three episodes of a television show edited together more than an actual film. The direction alternates between pretty good and downright sloppy (a scene where Darkman rides his train-like vehicle and dodges a rocket-launcher is just plain silly), and the editing is a mixed-bag. The film just moves too quickly for anyone to really care what's going on. And without spoiling it, the final 15 minutes of this movie, and indeed, the entire series is just kinda... I dunno... Another 15 minutes of mixed-bag footage.

In fact, commenting on the editing, one of my favorite things in this film is watching for footage re-used from the previous films, and then looking for footage within this film that is repeated multiple times. Yes, it's that cheap. It's one thing to do a re-cap at the beginning of the film, and maybe repeat a shot or two, but in the sheer volume they do it (minutes of footage repeated from previous films), it's just sloppy and amateurish.

Also, I have to say that Darkman's psychedelic montage freak-outs are a bit overdone in this film. They are so stylized and overdone that they do work, but only in light doses and in proper context, as Raimi did in the original film. Here, there are at least four or five, and they feel very abrupt and out-of-place.

That being said, the film is not without some good points. A few action scenes are well-done. The cliché story of Darkman yearning for a real life works suitably for a direct-to-DVD feature. Some of the acting is nice, particularly from Rooker's wife, portrayed by the beautiful Roxann Dawson. Also, while no Danny Elfman, composer Randy Miller composes some nice music that builds off of Elfman's original themes.

But overall, the film is too quick, cheap and silly to be taken seriously. Arnold Vosloo seems alternatively bored and exuberant from scene to scene, and Fahey, while a joy to watch as an over-the-top villain, just doesn't quite fit in with the series.

Like "Darkman II", I would recommend this to fans of the original, who will surely get a laugh. Otherwise, you need not apply. A four out of ten.


Normally I'm quite disposed to like low budget gonzo films, but Darkman III is so appallingly unengaging that I feel nothing but contempt for it.

It looks and feels like a TV show, and a particularly shoddy one at that. The sets are sparse, the lighting flat, the score and effects disjointed, and the camerawork is film school 101. There's no plot to speak of, the characters are one dimensional, and the actors are sleepwalking. Most of the cast look like they should be doing soft core porn..... In fact, the only reward that I got from this mess was spotting the startling squint faced Roxann Biggs-Dawson (B'Elanna from Star Trek: Voyager) without her Klingon bumpy head makeup on. Her skin tone is about two shades lighter than it is in Voyager; either she's been bleached down for this role, or blacked up for Voyager. Very strange either way.


Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die is directed by Bradford May, the same guy who made the first Darkman sequel too. Darkman 3 is worse than Darkman 2, and is nothing special, in my opinion. Larry Drake is no more as a main villain, who is now played by great Jeff Fahey, whose character once again wants to get Darkman's work and create this time some ultra strong humans in order to get the leadership of the whole city. The film is pretty much the same in plot and execution as Darkman 2, but I was mostly irritated by the presence of many scenes from Darkman 2. These sequels were made in short time and with little money, so these kind of decisions had to be made. Couple of scenes are pretty stylish and exiting, but still this is pretty tired film and often irritatingly stupid, too. The characters scream and laugh too much and it is very annoying. There is no any philosophical depth in the film, and this is like a remake of Darkman 2 which it still cannot equal. Darkman 2 had many great scenes and stylish camera work, and Larry Drake's ability to play great villain. Darkman 3 offers only some nice scenes and moments, but mostly this film is tired and full of cliches. The few positive things in this movie are flashback edits (Westlake's nightmares) and couple of truly surprising plot turns and tricks. And worth mentioning is also pretty nasty death scene of the main villain which was pretty comic book like and inventive without any gore. Far more interesting than the death of main villain in part two.

Darkman 3 is worst in the whole series, and we must remember that these two sequels were made directly to video and they don't come even close to Raimi's original Darkman with Liam Neeson. Darkman 2 was okay actioner with plenty of great scenes and suspense, but this last (?) entry is tired and often stupid and boring piece of sequel. It has some merits as mentioned, but overall feeling is that this should not been made in the first place. May is talented director so hopefully he can get some more noteworthy projects in the future.

3/10


This third Darkman was definitely better than the second one, but still far worse than the original movie. What made this one better than D2 was the fact that The Bad Guy had been changed and Durant was not brought back again. Furthermore there was actually some hint of character development when it came to the bad guy's family and Darkman himself. This made my heart soften and I gave this flick as much as 4/10, i.e. **/*****.


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


"This might mean the end of the white race!" gasps a general as a dozen Native Zombies wander around the battlefields of Europe during the "Great War". An expedition sets out tor the long-lost, back-projected city of Kennif-Angor to stop this sort of thing and keep the battlefields clear for decent honest white people to slaughter each other by the tens of thousands.

It is a bit hard to tell when people are zombies or not in this film as the acting is so wooden. Even by 1936 standards the acting in this film is bad. From a previous decade. It looks like it came out of a correspondence school text book on 'How to Act'

------------- Chapter Three: Emotions -------------

"How to express fear and loathing (Female) Clench both fists. Place fist of one hand on heart. Open mouth as it to scream. Place other fist, palm out, against mouth. Hold pose for 10 seconds longer than is comfortable then quickly turn head 90 degrees away from direction of loathed object and sob".

"How to have difficult, heavily emotionally charged scene with ex-fiancé explaining your love for someone else. Do NOT make eye contact. Do not move. Do not show any emotion. Do not move your eyes too much as you read your lines off the studio wall."

To give us a respite from the leaden acting the director cunningly cuts in long pauses where nothing much happens except that film keeps running through the projectors. Thus 35 minute's worth of story is padded out to 60ish minutes.

The revolt of the zombies when it comes is so slow! Released from mental bondage the armies of ex-zombiefied minions turn on their former master by ambling slowly up hill and then sort of stabbing a door a bit and smashing a window. "Yea... let's... oh, I dunnno yeah. Let's get him grrr. Frankenstein must be destroyed - manana." (though I have just found a bit of hidden symbolism. Jagger is shot by a Native as some sort of ironic counterpoint to all the Natives being shot by the Germans at the start of the flick. see, even downtrodden Natives don't want the end of the White Race!) The chase (it you can call it that) through the back-projected swamp is hilarious and worth the admission price alone. Roy D'Arcy has a hell of a time camping it up, but is totally wasted, as Col. Mazovia.

There is one interesting moment in this film. A nice little montage of the zombied natives and white cast members falling under the evil eyes spell. face after face, cross-fade into one another. It works, though there is a strange little blip in the middle of each close up like a frame has been cut. I guess these must be Neg Cutters' frames between the fades.

Best watched with friends and in a silly mood.


Though the title includes the word "zombies", this film is not what you'd expect from a movie made today, though for 1936 the concept is played out about as well as would probably be expected. Dean Jagger portrays Armand Louque, an officer in the French Army of World War I, who has stumbled upon an ancient tale of soldiers turned into automatons, or "zombies", who are impervious in battle and may hold the key to victory in the war, though on whose side is not certain. At first he has trouble convincing his superiors of this phenomenon, but eventually French General Duval (George Cleveland) orders a non military expedition into the ancient Cambodian city of Angkor to find the secret of the zombies and destroy it.

The story is played out against the backdrop of a love triangle involving Louque, Duval's daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone), and Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland), all a part of the expedition. When Louque laments over his lack of forcefulness and resolve, Grayson offers him advice to go after what he wants in life with all his power. That advice begins to transform Louque, particularly after he's successful in obtaining a stone tablet resembling a photo from the ancient city. Having followed a temple priest into a swamp, Louque now appears to hold the secret he had been seeking, though it's not made clear how he has instantaneously been able to command the power of "zombiefication". All it takes is placing his right fist to the forehead simulating a third eye, and casting his thoughts out to those he wishes to control. This comes in handy for winning back his girl, and taking Grayson's early advice as he comments to his servant, "Buna, we're learning to be ruthless".

Fans of early "B" horror flicks will recognize the use of Bela Lugosi's signature eye stare, plucked from the 1932 film "White Zombie", also from director Victor Halperin. Of the two movies, "White Zombie" is preferably superior, both in story content and in it's depiction of the undead, where the zombies have a more sinister appearance and are more threatening. In "Revolt", the zombies are enemy soldiers with a glazed over look that merely react to their mentor's commands. In fact, the actual revolt of the title occurs only when Louque releases the soldiers from his mental command in deference to his love for Claire; they overrun his compound and kill him in the process.

Not to be too harsh on the film, it plays out decently within the parameters of it's story outline, but if you're thinking "zombies!!!" within the traditional context, you'll probably be disappointed. If you want to sample an early treatment of the subject, the aforementioned "White Zombie" with Bela Lugosi is the way to go.


REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (2 outta 5 stars) No, this is not a long-lost ancestor to the classic George A. Romero zombie flicks. This is a low-budget potboiler from 1936 that probably seemed very cool to audiences of the time... but seems awfully routine these days. There is actually a pretty good scene at the start of a soldier firing off his pistol into a horde of approaching zombie soldiers... and a close-up of bullets entering the bare chest of one of them. The effect looks hopelessly fake these days but in 1936 I'm sure it had audiences gasping. The story concerns the search for the secret of mind control... ostensibly to create an unstoppable zombie army... but later as a means for one character to win the woman he loves. The movie is barely an hour long but moves at a snail's pace so it seems feature-length, believe me! There really isn't much to recommend it... you may get some amusement from the faked studio shots of the star "wading" through a "swamp". The ending is interesting... so I'd say the movie is worth seeing at least once. More than likely you will see it as an extra feature on some cheap "4 movies on 1 DVD" compilation at Wal-Mart for five bucks. Hey, it's well worth the money...


This film is something like a sequel of "White Zombie", since it is made by the same man (Halperin) and features zombies. Halperin, the George A. Romero of his day, fails to deliver with this one, though.

We have a man who can control the minds of people in Cambodia, and a search to destroy the source of his power so the zombies can be sent free. Also, a love interest for the evil man.

Where this film really excels is in the imagery. The Cambodian temples and dancers are very nice and the zombie look very powerful in their large numbers. Unfortunately, we don't really get to see much of the zombies in action and the love story seems to play a much too large role for a horror film (though this has a valid plot reason later on).

I would have loved to see some 1930s zombies attack helpless city folk, but this film just did not deliver. And no strong villain (like Bela Lugosi) was waiting to do battle against our heroes. And the use of Lugosi's eyes? A nice effect, but misleading as he is never in the film... why not recreate this with the new actor's eyes? Overall, a film that could be a great one with a little script re-working and could someday be a powerful remake (especially if they keep it in the same post-war time frame). Heck, if they can fix up "The Hills Have Eyes" then this film has hope.


"Revolt of the Zombies" proves that having the same director revamp and recycle an idea doesn't necessarily make lightning strike twice.

The Halperin brothers, responsible for the horror classic "White Zombie", made this trite piece of garbage a mere few years later to cash in on its popularity and even recycled close-ups of Lugosi's eyes from that previous film. There was a court battle with the "White Zombie" film's rights owners, who didn't want the Halperins to be able to use the word 'zombie' in this title. That word was the only thing that could help this film, because, as everyone knows, bad films can make much more money simply by having the word 'Zombie' appear in the title. Knowing what Victor Halperin was capable of a few years before only makes this uninteresting film more insulting. It seems he never directed another horror film after this debacle. The zombies here seem not to be true walking dead, but simply hypnotism victims.

Wanna create a mind-controlled army of zombies? Be ready to crack a few eggs, including your own.

THE LAME PLOT: Man falls in love with scheming woman who plays with his heart and becomes engaged to him only to make his friend, whom she loves, jealous. This sends man into a spiral of madness in which he tries using zombie mind-control techniques to change things to his advantage in an attempt to win over a woman who isn't worth spit.

This includes one of the most blatantly obvious plot developments I've ever seen. You'd have to be blind or stupid not to see the ending coming. The acting isn't even good. This movie makes the racially insensitive "King of the Zombies" (which appeared on the same double bill DVD I bought) seems like an atmospheric horror masterpiece by comparison and reminds us that not every black and white film is a classic. It makes the atomic age sci-fi alien zombie cheese fest "Invisible Invaders" seem like a serious drama. This is one big ball of cheese so ridiculously melodramatic it could probably make many a Korean film fan twitch (South Korean films are often known for their use of melodrama). The credits list the ironically named company Favorite Films. I'm not sure whose favorite film this would be, but they're obviously an idiot.

Not recommended for fans of: zombies, romance, or classic films.


While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.

A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.

So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans.


Seriously, I absolutely love these old movies and their simplicity but I just watched this for the first time last night and it easily slotted itself into my bottom five of all time. Was this supposed to be about the love story or the zombies??? This movie was so bad that after it mercifully ended all I could do is laugh at how ridiculously bad it really was. Thankfully I'm too anal to turn a movie off without seeing the entire thing or I wouldn't be able to brag about watching this all the way through in one sitting! I like to think something positive can be said about anything in life so in keeping with that theory I will acknowledge this film's most positive asset, it was very short for a full length film.


Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about "zombies" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The "zombies" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.

The film is set during World War I. A "French Cambodian" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to "wipe out the white race".

One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.

Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean "will to power"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.

Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusingHalperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.

If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable.


Ever since the cinema-loving universe made acquaintance with a guy named George A. Romero, the word "zombie" automatically gets associated with blood-soaked horror images and non-stop acting sequences. It's safe to say that his "Night of the Living Dead" formed the zombie movie as we know it now. Yet, in the earliest years of cinema, the premise of reanimated corpses was merely used in slow, nearly action-less psychological thrillers. Jacques Tourneur's "I walked with a Zombie" is a perfect example and so is "White Zombie", starring Bela Lugosi. This "Revolt of the Zombies" could have been another example but unfortunately it's a failure over the entire line and easily one of the most tedious movies I ever saw. Dreadful acting, a very poorly written screenplay and a complete lack of atmosphere and tension! The film only lasts 65 minutes and yet the first half hour is entirely wasted on stupid love-story intrigues and unexciting monologues. The setting in the legendary Cambodian city of Angkor surely could have resulted in a more compelling story but all we ever see are interior shots. The lead actress (Dorothy Stone, textbook blonde with curly hair and an ugly nose) irritated me enormously and I kept hoping a ravenous undead would suddenly appear out of nowhere to devour her. Unlucky again. If you manage to struggle yourself through 60 soporific minutes, you'll be rewarded with a fairly decent finale. Still, this is far too little to give this film a positive rating, let alone a recommendation. Avoid! This is the type of movie you should only see in case you already saw everything else.


After watching Revolt Of The Zombies starring future Academy Award winner Dean Jagger I was left with one burning question. How was a society that created these ultimate warrior fighting machines ever defeated in the first place?

That's the question you'll be pondering if you take time to watch Revolt Of The Zombies. Towards the end of World War I, the French discover a cult from occupied Cambodia where these undead creatures who cannot be stopped with bullets form a brigade of monks who go over the top and dislodge the Hun.

This scares the living fecal matter out of everyone concerned so an international expedition is formed to find out destroy the secret of these zombies so no nation can get their hands on it and rule the world.

But we've got some dissent in those ranks. First is Snidely Whiplash villain Roy D'Arcy who murders the Buddhist monk who has the secret and second is Dean Jagger. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac as we all know and he's determined to woo Dorothy Stone away from rival Robert Noland.

I think you've got some idea how this comes out, especially since a race of zombies didn't conquer the world for one country. Dean Jagger as he got the Oscar for Twelve O'Clock High must have shuddered every time he thought about this film and the awful dialog he tried to give a spark of sincerity to.

Moral of the story, you might make an ultimate warrior with the zombie potion and the zombie chant, but you can't make an ultimate love slave.


Wimpy stuffed shirt Armand Louque (blandly played by veteran character actor Dean Jagger in a rare lead role) joins a group of researchers who want to find and destroy the secret technique of creating zombies. Armand falls for the lovely Claire Duval (fetching blonde Dorothy Stone), who uses the meek sap to get Armand's colleague Clifford Grayson (the hopelessly wooden Robert Noland) to marry her. Furious over being used and spurned by Claire, Armand uses his knowledge of voodoo to get revenge. Sound exciting? Well, it sure ain't. For starters, Victor Halperin's static (non)direction lets the meandering and uneventful talk-ridden story plod along at an excruciatingly slow pace. Worse yet, Halperin crucially fails to bring any tension, atmosphere and momentum to the hideously tedious proceedings. The mostly blah acting from a largely insipid cast doesn't help matters any; only George Cleveland as the hearty General Duval and E. Alyn Warren as the irascible Dr. Trevissant manage to enliven things a bit with their welcome and refreshing hammy histrionics. The drippy stock film library score, the painfully obvious stagebound sets, and the crude cinematography are pretty lousy and unimpressive as well. In fact, this feeble excuse for a fright feature is so crummy that not even the uncredited starkly staring eyes of the great Bela Lugosi can alleviate the brain-numbing boredom. A dismally dull dud.


This is not really a zombie film, if we're defining zombies as the dead walking around. Here the protagonist, Armand Louque (played by an unbelievably young Dean Jagger), gains control of a method to create zombies, though in fact, his 'method' is to mentally project his thoughts and control other living people's minds turning them into hypnotized slaves. This is an interesting concept for a movie, and was done much more effectively by Fritz Lang in his series of 'Dr. Mabuse' films, including 'Dr. Mabuse the Gambler' (1922) and 'The Testament of Dr. Mabuse' (1933). Here it is unfortunately subordinated to his quest to regain the love of his former fiancée, Claire Duvall (played by the Anne Heche look alike with a bad hairdo, Dorothy Stone) which is really the major theme.

The movie has an intriguing beginning, as Louque is sent on a military archaeological expedition to Cambodia to end the cult of zombies that came from there. At some type of compound (where we get great 30s sets and clothes) he announces his engagement to Claire, and then barely five minutes later, she gives him back his ring declaring her love for his pal, Clifford Greyson (Robert Noland). It's unintentionally funny the way they talk to each other without making eye contact. This would have been a great movie for 'Mystery Science Theater 3000', if they hadn't already roasted it.

It's never shown how Louque actually learns the 'zombification' secret, but he then uses it to kill his enemies, create a giant army of rifle carrying soldiers and body guards. We won't see such sheer force of will until John Agar in 'The Brain From Planet Arous' (1957).

Finally Claire consents to marry him if he will let Greyson live and return to America. Louque agrees, but actually turns him into one of his hypnotized slaves. On their wedding night he realizes that Claire will only begin to love him if he gives up his 'powers.' To gain her love, he does so, causing the 'revolt' of the title, in which all his slaves awaken and attack his compound and kill him. Greyson embraces Claire, and we seem to be at the end of a parable: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

So really then, it's not that bad of a film, despite the low IMDb rating it currently has. On repeated viewings (?) one can see the artistry in the well formed script! Dean Jagger had yet to develop into a good actor, and is almost unrecognizable in his youngness -- is that really his own hair? We remember him more for his bald, old man roles in 'White Christmas' (1954), 'X The Unknown' (1956) and 'King Creole' (1958). The story borrows a lot of its basic themes from the Halperin brothers better, earlier film 'White Zombie' (1932) in which hapless Robert Frazier (as Charles Beaumont) uses 'zombification' to win the love of Madge Bellamy (as Madeline Parker).

If you want real zombie movies (of which there are hundreds!) I'd start with 'White Zombie' (1932), 'King of the Zombies' (1941), 'I Walked with a Zombie' (1943), 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968), 'The Last Man on Earth' (1964) and its two remakes. In the modern era of classy films, there are 'Horror Express' (1972), 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' (1988), '28 Days Later' (2002) and its sequel, as well as many, many, others too numerous to mention.

This one is not really a zombie film. Judging this movie on its own terms, it's more of a semi-Gothic romance. As such it ranks a little below some of Universal's bottom billed B horror movies of the late 30s and early 40s. So I'll give it a 5.


What? You were not aware that Scooby-Doo battled zombies? Well, you might also not be aware of this little film that was directed by Victor Halperin, who had also directed White Zombie four years earlier. That would probably make it the second zombie film made.

No, don't go looking for Dorothy Stone to expose her breasts as you would expect in most zombie films, and don't even look for any brains being eaten. This is 1936, you know.

So, what you will see is typical of the period - lots of talking.

You do get to see Dean Jagger (Twelve O'Clock High ) and Bela Lugosi's eyes, but that is about it. Zombies in Cambodia, indeed!


Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.


I think the biggest failing something can have is to be boring. Bad is actually better than boring. This thing has no breath. It does have the interesting fact of taking place in Cambodia. How many American made films of the 30's take place in Cambodia. Nevertheless, the conflict there is a little hard to figure out. Even the troop movements are a little confusing. What drags it to a resounding halt is the love story. Why those two guys are so totally transfixed on the dippy blonde I don't know. I thought he should continue to use his Zombies (such as they are) and forget all about her. The movie just plods along. The perfect microcosm is where one of the principle characters follows a Cambodian priest through the water to get to the secret place where the hieroglyphics (or whatever) that explain how to turn people into zombies is kept. I thought they would never get there. One guy takes two steps. He stops. He looks around. The other guy hides behind some columns. He takes two steps. He stops. He looks around. The other guy hides behind some bushes. This is the movie in a nutshell. Then there is the bad acting and insipid dialogue. I actually have a lot of patience when it comes to B movies. This one is insufferable. By the way, a more apt title would be Revolt of the Hypnotized.


I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES is one of the movies in the set. I am watching them with my soon-to-be seven-year old daughter, which makes most of these movies a laugh riot.

I had high hopes for REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES, after watching White Zombie, which is really the precursor to so much that is the mainstay of zombies in cinema (think Clive Barker's Serpent and the Rainbow and James Bond's Live and Let Die funeral scene, NOT Night of the Living Dead).

However, even though the title includes the word "zombies," it is little more than a love triangle, involving anthropologist Armand Louque, who is smitten with Claire Duval; who in turn is taken with his companion Clifford Grayson. What a yawn-fest, my daughter fell asleep half-way through.

I had a real hard time deciphering who these people worked for -- the allies or the axis; but, I guess that doesn't really matter.

I was shocked to see Bela Lugosi in the credits for this movie; but, of course those were his eyes (from White Zombie) serving as the mind-control device for the zombies.


Before the release of George Romero's genre-defining Night of the Living Dead, zombies were relatively well-behaved creatures. They certainly had much better table-manners in the old days. But social etiquette aside what thrills did these early zombies offer to the movie-going public? Judging by this film, none whatsoever.

The story is about an expedition to Cambodia, whose purpose is to find and destroy the secret of zombiefication. One of the party discovers the secrets on his own and sets about building his zombie army.

This film is basically a love triangle with zombies. But seeing as this is a 30's movie, the said zombies are more like somnambulists than the flesh-eating variety we think of today. They seem to respond to mind-control, rather than insatiable appetites. And, quite frankly, the 'revolt' is somewhat underwhelming too. The whole thing is really very dull. Aside from the lack of horror, there isn't any over-the-top melodramatic theatrics to keep us entertained. It seems unlikely that this could've provided much entertainment even 70 years ago. See it if you have to see everything with 'zombie' in the title but otherwise I would advise skipping this one.


The Revolt of the Zombies is not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is pretty far down on the list. When an expedition is sent to Cambodia to discover the trick to making zombies after World War I, one of the members decides to use the knowledge for his own evil ambitions. And he succeeds, at least at first. A love triangle complicates the story some.

This really was a tedious movie, with horrible acting that made it difficult to tell who were zombies and who weren't. The dialog was little better and the plot was unbelievable (not the zombie part of it but parts related to the "romance"). And while I am not any student or expert on cinematography, the camera work didn't seem to help the film much either.

While I have seen a few movies that are worse, this is unlikely to please anyone. It's bad, and NOT in a so-bad-that-it-is-good kind of way.


"After World War I, an expedition representing the Allied countries is sent to Cambodia to stop the efforts of Count Mazovia in creating a zombie like army of soldiers and laborers. Hoping to prevent a possible outbreak of war due to Mazovia's actions, the group presses through the jungle to Angkor Wat in spite of the perils. The group includes Armand who has his own agenda contrary to the group's wishes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Heads up! the zombie make-up department revolted before the cameras started to roll.

Also, this "Revolt of the Zombies" has little to do with its supposed predecessor "White Zombie" (1932) *****, which starred Bela Lugosi. If that film's zombies didn't thrill you, this one's certainly won't. A younger-than-usual Dean Jagger (as Armand Louque) stars as a man obsessive with blonde Dorothy Stone (as Claire Duval). A couple supporting performances are good: devilish Roy D'Arcy (as Mazovia) and subservient Teru Shimada (as Buna); however, neither are given enough material to really pull this one out of the dumps.

** Revolt of the Zombies (1936) Victor Halperin ~ Dean Jagger, Dorothy Stone, Roy D'Arcy


Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.

That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.

Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.

I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.

Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.


Revolt of the Zombies starts with Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) trying to convince General Duval (George Cleveland) that his mate Tsiang (William Crowell) is a priest who has the power to hypnotise people & render them under his control turning them into mindless zombies (a bit like the people I work with really). Anyway, Tsiang is murdered by Colonel Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) but fails to gain the knowledge of turning people into zombies. An expedition has been set up by General Duval to hunt for the secret since Tsiang ain't going to tell them much anymore. General Duval heads the expedition along with his daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone) who is engaged to Louque who also comes along. During the expedition Claire dumps Louque for his mate Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland) at which Louque isn't too pleased about. In a way that could only happen in a film Louque finds the secret to turning people into zombies by himself & starts to use his new found power to gain revenge on Claire & Clifford... Co-written & directed by Victor Halperin Revolt of the Zombies has a bad reputation & after watching it I can see why. The script by Halperin, Howard Higgin & Rollo Lloyd all uncredited, has a good central idea but is killed stone cold dead by being dull & as exciting as watching paint dry. Nothing much happens for ages & then nothing much happens afterwards either. How Halperin depicts his zombies is different to that which most modern audiences would consider to be a zombie, these zombies are just brainwashed people & filmgoing audiences would have to wait over thirty years before George A.Romero would define what a zombie is now thought as in Night of the Living Dead (1968). At only about an hour in length Revolt of the Zombies still feels too long. Technically the film is OK considering it was made 70 years ago, the black & white cinematography is adequate although some of the scenes look like they were shot against a photo of the background location. The acting is wooden & largely unimpressive. Revolt of the Zombies might have been hot stuff in 1936 but it hasn't dated well & in 2005 it's an absolute chore to sit through. I believe the film is now public domain as it turns up on lots of ultra cheap DVD compilations & budget labels, but it's still not worth watching no matter how cheap you can get it for.


With this movie only running 61 minutes and nothing all that good on television, I decided to pop Revolt of the Zombies into the DVD to pass the time. Even while realizing the era from which it was coming, I was sorely disappointed. It started with the oddly upbeat quality of the opening score (what - no brooding music?) and then the rather slow moving opening sequences. Gosh, I figured a movie about zombies - even from the 1930s - would have SOME chills to it (White Zombie, with Bela Lugosi, certainly did) but this had none. Zero. It was scarcely even dramatic (except for the few moments with the burning eyes superimposed on the film to indicate the mesmerization of someone). Like the equally dull King of the Zombies, this movie may be an interesting curiosity to own, but nothing more.


Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.

The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.

For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.

I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.)


Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.


The problem with family dramas is that, outside of TV movies on channels like Lifetime, most people don't want to watch them. And the ones that do get watched tend to be sensationalized and about current or topical problems or issues in the news (or recent news). Movies that explain or explore the human condition aren't popular. Particularly with the young crowd that would be Miss Lohan's fan base or the younger crowd that tends to make movies not simply popular but financially successful for studios.

The specific problems I had with this movie is the cartoonishness of some of the characterizations. It was a bit much to blame all of the Lohan's character's acting-out (wrecking the car, drug use, etc.) on what her step-father did to her. While not improbable,it's just a bit much to expect the audience to swallow. Additionally, other aspects, such as her giving the young Morman boy, oral sex, or that she would actually make a good assistant to the vet, who coincidentally happens to have a thing for her mother, etc., all these elements just did not really help this movie along. It placed it more in the element of a situation comedy trying one of their "special dramatic episodes" then it did for a fully realized, well-written feature film.

When you watch the DVD and listen to the commentary, particularly for the various alternate endings, you can really see all of this is sharp focus.


I disliked this movie for numerous reasons. Within the first ten minutes of the film, I grew extremely disappointed and came to the conclusion that if this movie was going to salvage itself, for me at least, that it was going to have to pull itself out of the enormous hole it had dug. Unfortunately, that did not occur. The two draws of the movie for me were to see Jane Fonda and Felicity Huffman. I don't know enough about Lindsey Lohan's work to have been interested in what she would bring to the film. Afterward, I just felt disappointed in and for all three of them even though there were "moments" in each of their performances. I imagine that for each of them to find their "moments" was a very difficult task given the fact that there was an amazing lack of character development and uninspired dialog. Although the plot is an interesting one, the movie on the whole is so poorly written, directed and edited that anybody's performance as an actor would suffer and be tainted by it. The disrespectful way in which it dealt with sexual abuse and the trite and insulting viewpoint of small-town America, I think, were the two main reasons why this film failed in hitting it's mark. As one reviewer has noted and I would agree, the movie is almost impossible to market given it's finished form. I suspect that, or at least hope that (for the actor's sakes anyway) there are some real gems on the cutting room floor. Sad for us but if that's true then the actors can take solace in that and feel somewhat good about lending their talents and time to such a flop. Oh yeah and another thing...I wished for just once I could go see an American movie which included the sadly disappearing but wonderfully bucolic settings such as the one in this film where the main characters weren't absentmindedly and/or disrespectfully littering the country side with pop cans, smashed CDs and, other such trash!


Georgia Rule has got to be one of - if not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The whole movie has a very surreal feel that made me gasp, "what?" out loud at least 7-10 times throughout its grueling two hour course.

Advertised in its trailer as a movie about three generations of women - Jane Fonda as the matriarch, Felicity Huffman as her daughter, and Lindsay Lohan as the rebellious, over- sexed, scantily clad grand-daughter, the viewer thinks this will be a cliché, light, chick-flick about growing up and coming together as a family.

Talk about false advertisement at it worst.

After many shots of animals doing "funny" things in the background of "pivotal" scenes and not to mention a whole five minutes focusing on an old woman who comes into a doctor's office weekly to have her diaper changed, or the fact that this movie is actually about Lindsay Lohan's character being sexually abused by her step-father, Georgia Rule creates its own genre of cinema : The ungrounded, horribly acted, inappropriate comedy dealing with extremely serious issues in the most awkward, surreal, strange way. If Garry Marshall wanted this movie to be a drama/comedy, then he should have watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Sideways. Junebug. And so on. And so on.

The only way I feel I can get a reader to understand the horrific genre that Georgia Rule falls under is to create a hypothetical situation. Say that the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was about the main character being celibate because he was sexually molested as a child. But instead of having the movie take a more dramatic turn, belly laughs and comedy would ensue, with all of the characters' reactions being that of fake, lifeless, human beings pretending to care.

Throw in a yellow parakeet, Dermot Mulroney as the flattest, most non-dimensional character that could have been cut completely out of this poorly written script, along with a male character who throws away all of his religious beliefs and morals to be with a trashy, too-tanned girl who shares none of the same interests as he, as well as an an unnecessary car chase scene, unreal moments of characters trying to relate to each other, and you've got Georgia Rule.

I found this movie to be an insult to any of those people out there who are struggling filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, editors, etc..who have a lot more talent and aren't getting noticed.

Don't see this movie : my rule.

And if you must, get sufficiently drunk before hand.


I have been searching for the right words to describe this film. At first I was inclined to simply skip to more significant matters, as the film does not rise to a level deserving comment.

Yet, I stopped, puzzled as to how to describe such stuff and somewhat intrigued by the challenge presented by the question: "What can one say about such a film?" Rubbish? No, its not rubbish, rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Greenhouse gas? No, its not greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases help plants grow large and healthy.

Finally, I struck on "Not even bad," a rework of the phrase "Not even wrong" used sometimes in theoretical physics to describe a theory that is hopelessly flawed and not even worthy of correction. That's it then, Georgia Rule: Not even bad.


I just came from seeing this movie and decided to see what others thought of it. I'm left wondering if these people who give glowing reviews saw the same film! This is potentially a very good story, but it fails to hit the mark. The script is very weak - the plot has so many holes that it would make a great dip net for the fishing scenes. The characters were not well developed and the storyline jumps around so much that I found myself asking the question "How did we get here?" at least a half dozen times during the movie.

There was a lack of any chemistry between the cast members. This is probably related to Lindsay Lohan's antics during the filming. It was pretty clear that everyone showed up and did their job, but didn't commit to their roles.

This is not a movie worth seeing...go for a walk, play a board game, take a nice warm bath and save your money for something that's worth it!


This movie was portrayed in the trailer as a comedy. It is an extreme tragedy. It left me sick to my stomach. I hated it. I think if they want to make a movie like this than they should be man enough to reflect the true intentions of the movie in the trailer. I would not have seen this movie if I would have known. I think the trailer should reflect the theme and intentions of a movie. I am tired of it. I really wanted to have a fun comedy and I am extremely disappointed. It has been several days now and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from this movie. I have never been more disappointed in a movie, nor have I ever written a comment on a bad movie. I really think that true deception was involved in this trailer because if they showed the true intention of the movie, no one would have seen it.


Okay, so the previews to this film only tells you that a rebellious young girl goes to live with her grandmother for the summer in order to straighten out. That is actually not the case! It's about a young rebellious 17 year old girl who reveals a secret and it's up to her mother to believe if she's telling the truth or not.

To be honest, I really enjoyed the concept of this movie. They had a really good plot and a really good theme of a love/hate relationship between mother and daughter. I did not however, enjoyed watching Lindsay Lohan's acting. In reality, this movie would have been GREAT if they had someone else, perhaps a better actress. The character of Rachel (Lohan) is a very sexually aggressive person and it sort of reminds us of the real Lindsay so it takes away a lot from the film.

I do however, think that if you put Lindsay aside, you will enjoy this film. The ending is pretty great (and sad).


I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until "poor little rich girl" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.

In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies

Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently "poison" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.

Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with "not being wanted".....is she going to be able to handle this?

I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?

All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information.


I'm only rating this film as a 3 out of pity because it attempts to be worthwhile. I love to praise a great movie and I'm not biased toward "male" movies. Legally blonde was an excellent film. Georgia Rule on the other hand, was a disorganized, weak, poorly written, unrealistic example of movie making at its worst. by the end of the film I didn't care who was lying or if anything was resolved.

The most important thing in a film is a good STORY. This story is weak and never develops (just because the subject matter is deep, doesn't mean the story is good). A good story has dynamic characters. A dynamic character is one that experiences a major character change, and is primed for that change over the course of the movie. In Georgia Rule, the character changes were abrupt and undeveloped. Secondly, there were too many ATTEMPTED dynamic characters. Pulling off a really good dynamic character is a tough job and takes time (you've only got a couple hours in a movie). That means that too many attempted dynamic characters will get too little attention to their personal change. Even if I ignore the poorly written story, and the litter of weak dynamic characters, I can't even say I liked anyone. Every character was a mess. That's fine if your're writing American Beauty but not when you're attempting a dramatic comedy. Georgia was a horrible mother, her daughter was a horrible mother and daughter, and Lohan was a horrible excuse for a human being (no I'm not cutting her any slack because she was molested, crap happens to everyone and we're all responsible for our own actions). The "Dudley Do Right" Mormon kid should have had the guts not to compromise his religion and commitments...and Simon, I mean seriously, what kind of guy lets a 17 year old girl who's been molested just stay over occasionally (unless he's an actor or a politician). This movie is worth watching if you want to remind yourself what good movie making is NOT!


I am uncertain what to make of this misshapen 2007 dramedy. Attempting to be a new millennium cross-hybrid between On Golden Pond and The Prince of Tides, this film ends up being an erratic mess shifting so mercurially between comedy and melodrama that the emotional pitch always seems off. The main problem seems to be the irreconcilable difference between Garry Marshall's sentimental direction and Mark Andrus' dark, rather confusing screenplay. The story focuses on the unraveling relationship between mother Lilly and daughter Rachel, who have driven all the way from San Francisco to small-town Hull, Idaho where grandmother Georgia lives. The idea is for Lilly to leave Rachel for the summer under Georgia's taskmaster jurisdiction replete with her draconian rules since the young 17-year old has become an incorrigible hellion.

The set-up is clear enough, but the characters are made to shift quickly and often inexplicably between sympathetic and shrill to fit the contrived contours of the storyline. It veers haphazardly through issues of alcoholism, child molestation and dysfunctional families until it settles into its pat resolution. The three actresses at the center redeem some of the dramatic convolutions but to varying degrees. Probably due to her off-screen reputation and her scratchy smoker's voice, Lindsay Lohan makes Rachel's promiscuity and manipulative tactics palpable, although she becomes less credible as her character reveals the psychological wounds that give a reason for her hedonistic behavior. Felicity Huffman is forced to play Lilly on two strident notes - as a petulant, resentful daughter to a mother who never got close to her and as an angry, alcoholic mother who starts to recognize her own accountability in her daughter's state of mind. She does what she can with the role on both fronts, but her efforts never add up to a flesh-and-blood human being.

At close to seventy, Jane Fonda looks great, even as weather-beaten as she is here, and has the star presence to get away with the cartoon-like dimensions of the flinty Georgia. The problem I have with Fonda's casting is that the legendary actress deserves far more than a series of one-liners and maternal stares. Between this and 2005's execrable Monster-in-Law, it does make one wonder if her best work is behind her. It should come as no surprise that the actresses' male counterparts are completely overshadowed. Garrett Hedlund looks a little too surfer-dude as the naïve Harlan, a devout Mormon whose sudden love for Rachel could delay his two-year missionary stint. Cary Elwes plays on a familiar suspicious note as Lilly's husband, an unfortunate case where predictable casting appears to telegraph the movie's ending.

There is also the omnipresent Dermot Mulroney in the morose triple-play role of the wounded widower, Lilly's former flame and Rachel's new boss as town veterinarian Dr. Simon Ward. Laurie Metcalf has a barely-there role as Simon's sister Paula, while Marshall regular Hector Elizondo and songsmith Paul Williams show up in cameos. Some of Andrus' dialogue is plain awful and the wavering seriocomic tone never settles on anything that feels right. There are several small extras with the 2007 DVD, none all too exciting. Marshall provides a commentary track that has plenty of his trademark laconic humor. There are several deleted scenes, including three variations on the ending, and a gag reel. A seven-minute making-of featurette is included, as well as the original theatrical trailer, a six-minute short spotlighting the three actresses and a five-minute tribute to Marshall.


There's a lot of good that can be said for this cartoon; the backgrounds are rich, lushly colored and full of nicely done art deco details. The animation is up to the usual studio standards of the time, which are unquestionably higher than those of the present day. However, I find it tedious for a number of reasons.

The Music: It's definitely not up to Scott Bradley's usual standards. Although it's probably supposed to be evocative of a "Great Gatsby" setting, it ends up being dreary, sleepy, repetitious AND monotonous (repetitious and monotonous are not the same, as Beethoven's 5th Symphony attests). Since most people (including me) tend to close their eyes when they yawn, there's a lot of the visual part of the cartoon that will be missed by the average viewer.

The Storyline: I'm not giving away any secrets that aren't already in the plot summary - country good, city bad. This is a common theme in films, both animated and live, from this era. It's a misplaced nostalgia for a nonexistent rural idyll, which, in the present day, is reflected in a similar nostalgia for "values" that never were.


I don't know about you, but what I love about Tom and Jerry cartoons is the (often violent) interaction between the two characters. Mouse In Manhattan sees Jerry leaving Tom behind to have an adventure in New York, and as far as I am concerned, this one definitely suffers from a lack of cat!

As magical as Jerry's exploration of the 'Big Apple' might be for the other T&J fans who have commented here on IMDb, I couldn't wait for this self-indulgent rubbish to end, so I could watch the next cartoon on my DVD.

In fact, the only part of the whole episode that I genuinely enjoyed was when Jerry almost 'buys the farm', hanging precariously off the end of a broken candle, hundreds of feet above a busy road.


I've noticed over the years that when a rock star makes his final album before his death, that album, if it's not his best, is usually prolific in some way and worthy of a listen at least. The album is usually good enough to cement a legacy. However, when it comes to comedians, especially mainstream comics who star in their own vehicles, their final movie is usually God awful. John Belushi had "Neighbors", John Candy had "Wagon's East", Chris Farley had "Almost Heroes", Phil Hartman had "Small Soldiers", and Rodney Dangerfield had this movie.

"Back By Midnight", although it may not have been Dangerfield's very last film, is weak in every sense of the word. It wrapped filming in 2002 according to this website, and it's safe to say that it would have stayed on the shelves if Dangerfield was still alive. I have been a big fan of Dangerfield's since I was in my early teens, and it pains me to see how rotten this film was.

What amazes me the most is that a number of other talented people took part in a movie with a very weak premise to begin with. Dangerfield, a great comedian who usually played his comic persona on film, is a prison warden who houses a close knit group of inmates. When the owner of the prison, Colonel-Tom-Parker-meets-Sam-Walton billionaire Eli Rockwood (Randy Quaid), cuts funding for the prison, the warden sends a group of inmates to break out of prison, rob Rockwood's eponymous convenience stores of consumer goods, and break back into prison with the loot. By taking what's in the convenience stores, they are (I guess) taking what they believe Rockwood owes them.

With this flimsy premise, the movie sputters and stalls frequently. On top of that, the jokes that you think would be this movie's salvation are not even close to funny, not even from Mr. No Respect himself. That is incredibly disappointing too, because you'd expect a movie with Oscar-nominated (!!!) Randy Quaid, Kirstie Alley, Gilbert Gottfried, Ed Begley Jr., Yeardley Smith, and others to be at least a little bit funny. Instead, Quaid plays a character we've seen before in countless other comedies, Alley plays a British heiress with an awful British accent (could this movie not afford an actual British person!?!), and every joke was poorly set up and poorly timed by virtually every member of this ensemble. It was just not a good comedy in any sense of the word.

"Back By Midnight" was rated R mainly for language (and one scene of nudity). The irony in this fact is that many of the jokes are so audience insulting that even kids (if you edit out the language) would walk out of this film. The physical gags are also incredibly predictable, especially when Alley's pet monkey torments Quaid's character. When the monkey grabs a pair of scissors and jumps on Quaid's couch, who wouldn't know where that gag was going?

Being a direct-to-video comedy, of course I didn't expect any Oscar-winning material on here. The truth is, though, Dangerfield has made some great, timeless comedies before. "Easy Money" and "Back To School" are hilarious still, and were definitely not Oscar-worthy in the slightest. However, there's a difference between making a dumb comedy that's funny, and making a dumb comedy. With the latter kind of comedy, it seems like the filmmakers don't even try, which is precisely the case with this lame excuse for a wasted 90 minutes. Rest in Peace, Rodney, but add this film to your batch of forgettable comedies like "Meet Wally Sparks" (1997) and "The Godson" (1999). This film, dare I say it, is not even worth seeing.