"The Dream Child" of 1989 is the fifth film in the (generally overrated) "Nightmare" series, and at the latest from this point on, the series became total garbage. The only good films in the series were Wes Craven's 1984 original, and the third part, "The Dream Warriors" of 1987. The second part was disappointing and boring, and it was the fourth part in which the formerly scary madman Freddy Krueger began to annoy with constant idiotic jokes. This fifth entry to the series has hardly anything to recommend except for (admittedly great) visuals, and one creepy scene, a flashback sequence to how Freddy Krueger came into existence. The rest of the film consists mainly of our razor-clawed maniac-turned-jokester yelling stupid one-liners, and the old formula of a bunch of teenage jackasses, who desperately try to avoid falling asleep, because good old Freddy awaits them in their dreams. Lisa Wilcox is back in the role of Alice Johnson, and a bunch of uninteresting crap, such as a super-dumb 'eerie' children's rhyme is added for no other reason than to have some sort of justification for making this superfluous and boring sequel... In Short: No originality, just a decline of the old formula, and an over-load of painfully annoying jokes. My (generous) rating of 3/10 is due to the great visuals, and especially to emphasize the difference to the terrible next sequel, "Freddy's Dead", which is awful beyond belief. In case you're not a hardcore Freddy Krueger enthusiast, "The Dream Child" should be avoided, and even if you are, this is more than likely to disappoint.


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

Alice, having defeated Freddy at the end of the last film, is now trying to re-adjust her life. But her unborn child is carrying a demonous presence- Freddy, trying to come out into their world again.

It's interesting to note the directors who got their big breaks directing Freddy films- Charles Russell (Eraser, The Mask) Renny Harlin (The Long Kiss Goodnight, Cutthroat Island, Cliffhanger, Die Hard 2) and here Stephen Hopkins (Lost in Space, Predator 2.) But while Russell and Harlin made a good job of it, Hopkins IMO has made something of a podge with this entry, that should be quickly forgotten.

The story is clearly being stretched as far as it can go here, with Freddy ludicrously a father himself and the ridiculous looking demon baby. Even at about an hour and a half, it all gets rather tiresome, and of course, not scary at all.

The "bon appetit, bitch" catch-phrase is the only memorable point of this other wise very forgettable entry. *


Like Freddy's Revenge, this sequel takes a pretty weird idea and doesn't go to great lengths to squeeze a story out of it. Basically Alice from number 4 is pregnant and her baby is haunted by Freddy which gives him an outlet to haunt her friends. This has the least deaths out of the whole series and the wise-cracks are quite poor, so neither the horror fans or comedy fans are happy.

 I've not alot to say about this. It's moderately interesting to see the characters of Alice and Dan returning from four, but not worth watching a movie over. Uninspriring and unenjoyable, possibly only the competant direction saves it from being the worst in the series.


I consider this film one of the worst in the Nightmare series. It was so boring that I couldn't remember a thing 20 minutes after the film was over, it even tires me to write a review on it.

Okay, #4 was a joke and Freddy was the joker. #5 tried to return to the roots of the series. It was darker and more atmospheric than Nightmare 4, which is a good thing, basically. They tried to shoot a horror film instead of a comedy. Unfortunately they forgot to add suspense and scares. Because of that Nightmare 5: The Dream Child is neither funny nor is it scary. What we actually get is a boring film with the usual bad actors (maybe with the exception of Lisa Wilcox).

The plot (Freddy killing Lisa's friends by using the dreams of Lisa's unborn child) has a good base but it just isn't enough for 90 minutes of film. Sometimes the story gets very confusing (maybe because there isn't any) and you can't stop wondering what the filmmakers were aiming at. The screenplay must have had more holes than Swiss Cheese and the film therefore was very cheesy itself (let me say that I don't like cheese though, even if I am from Switzerland). Not even the special effects were as good as for example in part 4.

Don't bother to rent/buy this film if not for completeness, it's quite a mess.

My rating: 4/10 (get used to it, #6 is also a messy one...)


I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.

At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.

Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.

By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.

Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.

I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.


This film is so incredibly bad, that I almost felt sick watching it. Up until this point, the other installments had at least one good thing about it. Part 1 was suspenseful and gory. Part 2 was off beat and entertaining. Part 3 was interesting with great effects. Part 4 had great music, good special effects, and a new entertaining Freddy Krueger. Part 5 is more boring than anything I've ever seen before. Alice, a much prettier blond, from Part 4 is back with her boyfriend Dan. At parts, this supposed Elm Street installment turns into a daytime soap. The newer characters seem harsh, and even that sweet Alice has a chip on her shoulder. Freddy seems to be completely out of this one. He looks tired, and doesn't seem to be as gruesome. His one-liners seem out of place and different, where as in Part 4 they could be pretty funny. Leslie Bohem's story never gets off the ground and Stephen Hopkins' direction is so bad, that it makes my grandmother look good! The whole plot of this movie is ridiculous and unrealistic. It's also confusing and pretty stupid. Avoid Part 5 at all costs!


It's getting worse, the series is on a serious down fall. The first two sequel were acceptable and from then on we have seen a buch of really, really terrible movies. Robert Englund gives another great performance as Freddy but the rest of the cast can't act. The story is Alice, having survived the previous installment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? Check out the first three, miss the next three then watch the last one.


Bottom-of-the-Freddy barrel. This is the worst film in the series, beating "Freddy's Revenge" for that title. A cheap-looking (with mediocre special effects), incoherent mess, with Freddy turned into a punster. He has one or two cool lines, but that doesn't save this illogical and sloppy sequel.


Come on. The new twist is nearly ok, but from avenging the Elm Street children Freddy is just killing people now. More of the same: Special effects with no actual character development or anything. Simply bad and insulting. SCARY..? Nope. Not at all. Just bad.


This one is just like the 6th movie. The movie is really bad. It offers nothing in the death department. The one-liners are bad and are something that shouldn't be in a NOES movie. Freddy comes off as a happy child in the whole movie. Lisa Wilcox is still the only thing that makes this one worth while. The characters are extremely underdeveloped. All in all better than the 6th one, but still one the worst movies of the series. My rating 2/10


A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child

This is a bad movie. There's no escaping it. I love the series and I think Freddy is probably the best character ever in horror movies. But even being a fan I can't help but see this movie is mediocre.

There's not even an effort to build an interesting story and strong characters. By now they had just given up. They don't even try. They are the production of course, hoping for a few more easy dollars.

The story doesn't grab your attention. Its so simple it's almost absent.

Alice, a survivor from part 4 is now pregnant. Freddy is coming back through the baby's dreams. At the beginning we learn that to stop him Alice must find his mother. And that's it.

The story advances slowly since there's so little plot meaning it turns pretty boring after a few minutes of bad dialogues and awful acting. In fact that's the only scary thing, the acting, since the deaths are not even slightly cool.

The characters are so uninteresting we couldn't care less for them.

The girls are as unattractive as possible. The whole cast reminded me of a bad amateur theatre group. I've seen better actors in school plays. It's embarrassing really.

Lisa Wilcox still manages to bring some class to this. She is beautiful, sexy and has some talent. But the material just didn't let her shine. What a pity.

Stephen Hopkins work is nowhere close to Renny Harlin´s brilliant direction in Dream Master. He tries some imaginative shots near the end but that tension Harlin and Craven created so well in the previous movies is no where to be found.

The Dream Child is just another unimaginative sequel. It's the kind of movie that give horror series a bad name.

The end for the once scary Freddy. It's too sad to see him now. A clown that's not funny. A bad joke. Goodbye Freddy.


What happened? Those were the first words to come to mind after this awful movie finished for the first and last time on my computer screen. Nightmare on Elm St. had gone noticeably downhill after it's cult-classic of a first film, but I doubt anybody expected this horrible aberration. Nobody expected this cosmic joke of a film, and nobody is more distraught about it than I am.

This is by far the worst ANOES film of the lot. It doesn't seem too bad at the beginning, with a genuinely creepy intro and a rather elongated shower scene featuring Alice. But then we hit rock bottom right at the beginning with bad acting and a jumbled sequence of events. I mean, sure, Freddy movies are supposed to be dreamlike and creepy, but this one is like a train-wreck in it's poor sequencing of events and awful plot setup. It feels like you're coming down with a terrible headache, not like you're getting scared. So the directing totally fails. None of the suspense and well crafted horror from previous sequels is found here, and even the death scenes are mostly just crass and moronic (the death by food especially), except for that one cool scene that's crafted like a comic book battle. That's why this movie gets a point.

The storyline...lame, lame, lame, LAME. It was an excuse to gross people out and to make the MPAA mad, and nothing more.

The acting...should I mention how Freddy has been turned into a childish boogey-man-like clown figure? How his rebirth scene made him look like a monster out of a 7 year old's horror book instead of the foreboding and nightmarish dream killer we've all known and loathed since the first film? That arm waving and stupid chuckling as he appeared again...ugh. And his one liners, too. Throughout the whole movie, they suck. Badly. A grade-schooler could come up with funnier stuff then the vomit Freddy spews throughout the 90 minute duration of the film. Hell, a chimpanzee could come up with much funnier lines than what Freddy's been told to say here. Who wrote the script for this? This movie is really irritating, too. It seems so pointless. Like a gnat buzzing around your head, a gnat that just WON'T go away. Freddy is just an annoyance now. We've seen him so many times before. This one's nothing different, and a lot of the time you just want him to take his awful one-liners and get off your TV screen. Alice, instead of the thoughtful and quiet girl from the last movie, seems annoying and very shallow, and this is obviously due to the horrible, horrible script this movie was fitted with. Lisa Wilcox may be a great actor, and sometimes it shines through the cracks here, but she can't save this movie. The other actors just suck, mostly.

The last 15 or 20 minutes of Freddy's existence in this film are awful and embarrassing. I hope Englund was ashamed of this. Who wants to see Freddy running around like a mutated gorilla with his limbs stretched out, laughing like a cartoon villain? This movie destroyed anything positive I felt for the Nightmare series. I can't ever watch them again without this image running through my head; of the mangled cartoon abomination that Krueger became. He was slowly becoming a jokey, retarded pop culture icon, but this is the lowest of the low. This is rock bottom. Nobody will ever take Freddy Krueger seriously again after seeing this film. He's naught but a joke, a clown that is long overdue for retirement. Pathetic.

Of all the movies I could hate, why did it have to be Nightmare on Elm St, a series which I once adored and liked a lot? The Dream Child represents the death of a legend, and the shattering of any hope I had in the Nightmare on Elm St. series. Freddy would go on to continue his downward spiral into clown status in the next installment, Freddy's Dead (which was more entertaining than this was, actually), and then he would go on to bring down the mood in Freddy VS Jason, and finally he would putter out into nothing, which is for the best.

I know this has mostly been a rant about why Freddy sucks now, but this movie is overall, horrible, and one of the worst movies ever made. Not recommended to anyone, and even ANOES completionists won't want to see this one again.


About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment.


This movie introduces quite an array of characters and their relationships in the first half-hour or so. None of them generate any interest or positive response. I waited for the intrigue to begin, hoping things would get better and ended up sticking around until the bitter end, but there was no reward for doing that.

If you want a synopsis, look elsewhere. To me the action isn't worth recounting. Not that the story was that bad, I guess you could say I had some problems with the script--i.e. I thought it stunk. A look at the credits will show you that there's a pretty strong cast here, used to no avail. Most of the old pros in this flick do good jobs; of the actors I hadn't seen much of before I especially liked Deborah Kara Unger. That's about all that I can find good to say about this picture.


I am glad to see most other people here don't think much of this movie, either. It has some big names in the cast, but that's it. There is nothing else to recommend, save ogling a few pretty women which you can do in a thousand films.

The story involves nothing but unlikable, self-centered, chain-smoking, "hip" characters that national film critics all seem to like....and most of the public can't stand.

The Oklahoma accents are so fake they are laughable, the southern racist stereotypes are right from Liberal Hollywood 101 and the story is depressing.


This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)

Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of "southern" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.

But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it.


If you want to see a mystery, don't watch this. Though there are elements straight out of Elmore Leonard territory, this comes closer to an episode of "Dynasty", since the filmmaker focuses on "character development" - i.e. long, boring talks between stupid, un-involving characters. Some people can make fascinating movies without real action (see "Exotica"), but not this one. Avoid it, especially if you like the actors involved in this one.


I have to admit, I don't remember much about the characters or the story, though I'm not sure there was one, I was soooo irritated by this movie that I had a bit of a hard time focusing on it. How can you name a movie "Keys to Tulsa" and then film it in Texas? The flat desert country around Arlington ( I think that was the location) in no way resembles the green rolling hills around Tulsa, and a celebrity in Tulsa would have a much nicer neighborhood to live in. Obviously no one in the movie has EVER BEEN to Tulsa or else they would have realized how nothing in the movie even resembled it. Hadn't anyone at least seen Rumblefish or The Outsiders? I know this sounds picky but I can't help it. I watched this because I love James Spader and I usually find Eric Stotz interesting. But even these two intriguing actors could not liven up this meandering,and mean story of self-involved people who are NOT IN TULSA!! I'm sorry, it can't be more expensive to film in Oklahoma. What if "To Live and Die in LA" had been shot in Toronto? Would that suck? Well so does this.


Perhaps the biggest waste of production time, money and the space on the video store shelf. If someone suggests you see this movie, run screaming in the other direction. Unless, of course, you're into self-abuse.


The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.

Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice.


Saw it at UCSB's reel loud festival and was *shocked* that it won the golden reel award. I wasn't the only one, considering the audience had mixed reactions to the piece. I thought there were many other better flicks out there, but then I learned that the judges were heavily rooted within the area of film theory and other artsy crap. While the cinematography and editing are on par with many other shorts out there, the storytelling is nothing more than your average student piece. Seems as though "serious" student films need to include one of these categories: sex, intrapersonal struggle, and eventual suicide -- Nick and Kate cops out and includes all three. Please, be more original!

Oh, and it might be my outsider's opinion, but the guy from montecito sounds a little fake. Does anyone else thing so?


I have been familiar with the fantastic book of 'Goodnight Mister Tom' for absolutely ages and it was only recently when I got the chance to watch this adaption of it. I have heard lots of positive remarks about this, so I had high hopes. Once this film had finished, I was horrified.

This film is not a good film at all. 'Goodnight Mister Tom' was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4.5/10 of the book was missed out. Particularly, I found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. There was not much dialogue, It was rushed and far too fast-moving, but I was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between William Beech and Tom in this film which was a true let down. The casting was not all that good,either. I thought this could have been really good, but it was so different to the book! Anextremely poor adaption, one of the worst I've seen. This deserves a decent remake that'd better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.


Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.

And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?

As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.

I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.

Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.


I came here for a review last night before deciding which TV movie to settle in front of, and those I found made this one look unmissable. How misled I feel!

Firstly, it needs to be pointed out up front that this is very much a housewife's daytime movie. The performances are wooden, every sentence is an attempt at 'poignant' in the way that housewife's daytime movies and bad soap operas always are, and it is based in that predictable and well-trodden premise that men (particularly soldiers) are essentially violent and incompassionate. The whole movie is about the 'drama' apparent in the moments when the male characters threaten to develop a second dimension.

If that sounds tolerable (or even enjoyable) to you, then be warned. Linda Hamilton's German accent, while quite good, is painfully distracting - as is her face, for some reason. The other performances are no doubt an enduring source of embarrassment to their perpetrators, with painfully thin and obvious characterizations being the order of the day. There are few surprises, but do watch for the 'Monty Pythonesque' endless supply of food and drink that miraculously appears from the hungry soldiers' knapsacks!

I wasn't expecting action, but I had hoped for beautiful or textural or emotionally charged. What I got was a particularly bad Christmas 'feelgood' story that will have an intelligent audience cringing with the crapulence of it all.

Watch it under the folowing circumstances: 1: There's nothing else on. 2: You are a fan of predictable 'housewife takes on men and wins' TV movies. 3: The only way you can appreciate a true story is when Hollywood turns it into a feature film. 4: You've imbibed enough nog that your emotions are easily stirred by unsophisticated storytelling.


Slow, boring, extremely repetitive. No wonder the Weinstein Company did not buy this. This Spurlock should eat more McDonalds while filming himself, and quit producing. There is no way you can watch this and enjoy. The preacher is a joke. The whole idea is not funny. You can make a 2 minute film with this idea not a feature. I am so sorry I rented this movie. I will never watch anything with the name Spurlock on it. It is completely garbage. Filmmakers like this should be on youtube and never be granted a distribution deal. The film states that the American Consumers and their shopping are at fault for the current depression when shopping and buying products, making money circulate in the system are the base of a healthy economy.


This film is just another distortion, among many distortions, on the so-called 'sins of consumerism'. Please note that 'Reverend Billy', an actor (Bill Talen), is nothing more than a bureaucrat against the 'sins of consumerism'. We might want to ask are questions, like: What does 'Reverend Billy' do for a living? How does he make his money? Does he make his living off his 'tax-deductible' organization? How does the Internal Revenue justify this as a 'tax-deductible' church or organization?

Everyone knows that Christmas is commercialized, but it affords one day out of a whole year in which people have an opportunity to be charitable, and allows a significant number of people to spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. Everyone is not charitable. Everyone does not spend time with their families, friends, or extended families. But, holidays and vacation time give people that chance and opportunity. Yes, America does have more than its share of problems--but, with perseverance, Americans have and always make it through great difficulties. And, even in times of strife, America has proved itself to be the greatest country in the world. That happens when Americans pull together and unite, rather than to separate and divide. Yes, there are problems with corporations and monopolies, but it will take Americans to bring back the small businesses, along with the ethics to responsibly care for people living in our individual communities. Yes, globalization has brought us its share of problems, but it will take Americans to bring production back to America. Americans and the U.S. government need to learn how to stay on a budget, no matter how large or small it may be, and we must stop our dependence on credit. Our over-reliance on credit will make, and keep us poor, from the cradle to the grave. It is important to buy--but, if we buy less, we will rely less on credit. And, if we are able to save, even a small amount of money, we will have money for a rainy day. Not to say that, as Americans, we will gain an equal share of wealth. Wealth is not guaranteed, and has never been guaranteed. But, stratification teaches us that only a small percentage of Americans hold most of America's wealth. There is a good proximity that you or I can reach the level of the upper, middle class. And, who knows what can happen from there?!? Be positive, work hard--and, at the very least, you and I will be able to reach at least some (if not all) of our dreams. In life, nothing is guaranteed, but we always have that something to reach for. And, if you or I don't have dreams, we might as well be dead. In America, there is always room for plenty of hopes and dreams. As individuals, we are a part of the pack, but we always can become the leader of the pack.

It has always been my experience that churches and religion do offer nothing more than additional distortions, but I pay dignity and give respect to people with other beliefs, values, and perspectives. But, as far as the distortions expressed, within this film, I do not have any faith in such beliefs, values, and perspectives. I rank this film with a 1 out of 10--but, in all honesty and truth, this film deserves a zero. This film has no integrity, and I cannot recommend it.


the intention the directors has for this films are quite honorable, but his history of his productions did get me aware that this might not get much to the core like other film makers would do it. keeping his great 30 days TV series in mind but also counting in his MTV production "i bet you will" that opposes his seriousness in any of the matters he documents and also counting in his rather disappointing production "supersize me" i did not had my hopes up high. sadly enough this movie disappointed me none the less. as with "supersize me" after a while i did ask myself what exactly the point of all this was. the main statement gets clear enough after half an hour but the rest of the playtime gets filled with rather pointless stuff and re-repeating stuff that were already shown in this way or another earlier in the movie, so it wears out and gets extremely boring towards the end.


Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so.


This British pot-boiler has one thing going for it: the young men are uniformly good looking. The older men are opinionated, right-wing Thatcherites whose behavior brings back all the acrimony of the Reagan/Thatcher years. Young or old, however, morals in this three-part mini-series are universally suspect and no one comes off particularly well.

Nick is a handsome young gay man fresh out of Oxford. It is not pivotal to the story, but he has an extraordinarily beautiful head of hair which makes watching this drivel much easier. Nick comes to London with a friend, whose father Gerald is a rich conservative politician, and babysits his sister Cat while the family frolics in the south of France. They neglect to inform him that, when upset, Cat cuts herself with an assortment of knives and other kitchen implements. Nick mistakes their self-serving 'gratitude' for affection and moves in, finding out too late just how much they despise and patronize him. Inexplicably, Nick lives in this house for four years but, as the plot depends on this point, it's best not to question it.

While Nick is most pleasing to look at, he is unbearably obsequious. His coy subjection to rich bigots soon had me climbing the walls. Deeply closeted except to Cat (she guesses his big secret on sight), he does like a little anonymous sex just so we know he is actually gay. Though it hardly seems possible, Nick takes a lover who is even more closeted than he.

Supercilious Tories scorn and insult the two blacks in the film, so imagine the venom which spews forth when Nick's sexual orientation is reported in a tabloid. Gerald, in true Tory fashion, has become involved in several personal and financial scandals, so the revelations about Nick add to his embarrassment. This gives Gerald one final opportunity to roundly castigate the hapless boy.

Except for one brief moment of indignation, Nick takes the abuse heaped upon him in silence and tacit agreement. Denial, self-loathing, naiveté, or ignorance? You decide, if you can manage to sit through this whole thing without throwing something at the set.


I decided to watch this serial after seeing the endless adverts for it on the BBC in the weeks prior to it starting. I watched it despite the fact that I don't like the pretentious kind of stuff that Alan Hollinghurst writes (sorry to his fans but I think we have a case of the emperor's new clothes with this author's work). I admit that the acting is excellent, it is beautifully shot and I was reasonably entertained by it - however- I found that the storyline was extremely thin and after watching all three episodes feel very unsatisfied with this rather empty production. The 'explicit' gay sex that the media droned on about has all been done before on TV - several times - so it was nothing very shocking I'm afraid. Full marks for production values but low ones for storyline/content I'm afraid.


Perhaps I couldn't find the DVD menu selection for PLOT: ON OFF. Clearly, the default is OFF. When the end credits began to roll, I couldn't believe that was it. Like our poor, but beautiful protagonist, I felt used, dirty, cheap....

The characters were drawn in very broad strokes and the writer's disdain for wealthy Thatcherites was all to apparent. I consider myself a "Roosevelt Democrat", but would appreciate a bit more subtlety.

Of course, the problem could be with me. I see that many others seem to find some meaning or message in this picture. Alas, not I.

The only thing that kept me from giving this a "1" was the nice scenery, human and plant.


So far after week two of "The lone of Beauty" I am a little disappointed.

Some of the acting is good, as long as we except that it is only drama.

I am unsure how people can feel that this FICTIONAL DRAMA is "factual" coverage of the "Thatcher" years - it is okay as drama, but I feel the award winning book is still much better.

I Wonder if the BBC will ever give us the follow up and the next part of the drama and the years that follow with "Things Can Only Get Better" finishing with 2006 and the Fact that we are still waiting! with that promise from a Government that is full of sleaze.


Italian horror/suspense film about a wealthy English lord who cruises pubs and taverns for girls with red hair just like his recently deceased wife Evelyn. You know he must have really loved his wife, because he brings them to his home - a huge, rotting castle - and makes them disrobe and then tortures them, whips them, and kills them. The most bizarre aspect of this film for me was that somehow by the film's end, we see this guy played by Antonio De Teffe as the HERO of the film. Anyway, soon, under the advice of his playboy uncle Roberto Maldera, De Teffe settles down with a girl he meets at his uncle's party. She moves in and strange things begin to happen to De Teffe's fragile state of mind. He begins to see and hear his dead wife and finally, well, just look at the title if you are still curious. Also, family members and friends begin to die in the most brutal fashions. Poor Aunt Agatha(she looks like she might even be younger than De Teffe and they have her in a wheelchair and trying to look old) meets her fate in a foxy fashion. Another man is injected and then buried alive. And of course, there is a whole explanation as to why/how Evelyn did what she did. Director Emilio Miraglia does do some things fairly well: the settings in the film are well-suited for this film though trying to make us believe it is England is ludicrous at best. None of the actors look English. Many having dark black hair and Mediterranean complexions and wearing clothes an Englishman wouldn't be caught dead in. The cars drive on their wrong side of the road. But all that notwithstanding, the crypt scene was effectively shot and I liked the cheesy resolution too. And of course any film with the sultry, red-headed Erika Blanc is always a plus. There is a streak of sexual perversion; however, which I found somewhat appalling with the idea that torturing women was quite alright and healthy in order to relieve one of his mental demons. C'mon.


This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull.


Wealthy widower Anthony Steffen (as Alan Cunningham) is a sadomasochistic lover, and British Lord. He brings sexy red-haired women to his castle, where he whips and murders them. Black-booted stripper Erika Blanc (as Susie) gets away, temporarily. Mr. Steffen is haunted by wife "Evelyn", who died in childbirth. As therapy, he decides to marry again, after meeting pretty blonde Marina Malfatti (as Gladys). By the end of the movie, they will have had to dig a few more graves. "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is great title, at least.

** La notte che Evelyn uscì dalla tomba (1971) Emilio Miraglia ~ Anthony Steffen, Marina Malfatti, Erika Blanc


Alan (Anthony Steffen), an English multi-millionaire with a few screws loose (thanks to his first wife's infidelity and untimely death during childbirth), entices sexy, red-headed women to his castle, offering them bundles of cash to stay the weekend. Once back at his ancestral pile, he gets them nekkid, proceeds to flog them with a bull-whip, and then kills them.

But when he meets blonde hottie Gladys (Marina Malfatti) and falls for her ample charms, he decides to give up his murderous ways and get married. Their wedded bliss is short-lived, however, thanks to Alan's iffy mental state, which becomes increasingly fragile when his dead wife Evelyn starts to appear outside his window and a spate of gruesome murders occur within the castle grounds.

So let's recap: a groovy 70s Euro-horror with loads of tasty women in various states of undress; spooky Gothic retreats and misty graveyards; a sadistic rich psycho with a penchant for drop-dead gorgeous babes with cracking bods; several vicious murders (including a great bit where one victim has her head bashed in with a rock and her entrails eaten by foxes). Normally, a checklist like that would guarantee me a good timeso why did I find 'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' so dull? Well, for starters, the plot is way too convoluted: there are red herrings, crazy plot developments, and suspects galore, and it all becomes a bit too much. By the ridiculous endingin which we discover that, all along, several people have been plotting to get their greedy paws on Alan's wealth, and that our red-head killing nut-job is actually supposed to be the hero of the moviemy head was hurting too much to care! Secondly, Emilio Maraglia's direction is pretty torpid. Stylish, yes; but as slow as molasses at times.

And then there's the bits that are just too damn silly, possibly even for a giallo: the death by poisonous snake bite (surely one of the most bizarre choices of weapon ever); Alan's Aunt Agatha, an old crippled relative who is played by a pretty young woman; the hiring of a group of identical curly headed blondes as maids; the poor attempt at convincing the audience that the film is set in England (mentioning 'pounds' and hiring a crap police uniform for one of the extras is not enough); and then, of course, there is the unlikelihood of finding a bag of sulphuric acid laying next to a swimming pool...

'The Night Evelyn Came Out Of Her Grave' isn't a total waste of time (how could it be, with so much female flesh on show?), but there are much better giallo's out there. Watch this one if you're a fan of the genre and you've already seen the bestbut don't expect too much.


Lord Alan Cunningham(Antonio De Teffè)is a nutjob{seen early on trying to escape an insane asylum}, with this castle slowly succumbing to ruin, likes to kill various hookers who resemble his deceased wife Evelyn, a woman who betrayed him for another man, with those red locks. This nutcase is quite wealthy and his bachelor status can be quite alluring. He, however, is overrun by his obsession with his late wife's memory(specifically her adultery..he saw her naked with the lover). While the memory of Evelyn is almost devouring his whole existence, Alan tries his best to find true love and believes he has with Gladys(Marina Malfatti, who spends most of the film naked..that's probably her lone attribute since she isn't a very good actress), who agrees to marry him after a very short courtship which should probably throw up flags right away{there's a key moment of dialogue where she knows exactly to the very amount what he is worth}.

The only real person Alan can confide in is his doctor from the hospital, Dr. Richard Timberlane(Giacomo Rossi-Stuart). There are other key characters in this film that revolve around Alan. Alan's cousin, George(Rod Murdock), seems to be quite a good friend who often supplies him victims..I mean dates, while holding onto hope of getting his lord's estate some day. Albert(Roberto Maldera), Evelyn's brother, is a witness to Alan's slaughter and, instead of turning him into the police, squeezes him for cash. Aunt Agatha(Joan C Davis), wheelchair bound, lives at the castle estate and is often seen snooping around behind cracked doors. We later find that she is having a love affair with Albert.

All that is described above services the rest of the story which shows what appears to be the ghost of Evelyn haunting Alan, someone is killing off members of the cast family that revolve around Alan, and the body of Evelyn is indeed missing.

The ultimate question is who is committing the crimes after Alan and Gladys are married, where is Evelyn's body, and will Alan go over the edge? I have to be honest and say I just didn't really care much for this film. It's badly uneven and the pacing is all over the place. It looks great on the new DVD and the "rising from the grave sequence" is cool, but what really hurts the film in my mind is that the entire cast is unlikable. You really have a hard time caring for Alan because he is a psychotic who is skating on thin ice in regards to holding his sanity. He can be quite volatile. Who commits the crime really isn't that great a surprise for after several key characters are murdered off, there aren't but a choice few who could be doing it. What happens to Alan doesn't really make your throat gulp because you can make the argument he's just getting what he deserves. Those behind the whole scheme of the film in regards to Alan, as I pointed out before, aren't that shocking because if you are just slightly aware of certain circumstances(..or advantages they'd have)that would benefit them with the collapse of Alan's sanity, then everything just comes off less than stellar. I thought the editing was choppy and unexciting, but the acting from the entire cast is really below par. Some stylistics help and there is a sniff of Gothic atmosphere in the graveyard sequences to help it some.


THE NIGHT EVELYN CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE (Emilio Miraglia - Italy 1971).

I only watched this delirious piece of Euro-tosh in the way of Alpha Video's dreadful DVD-release (looks like an extremely bad video-transfer), but from what I saw, not nearly interesting enough to purchase No Shame's recent DVD-release. Considering their excellent track record, it will undoubtedly be a major improvement over all previous releases. And don't pay attention to the ridiculous cover shown here, it's not taken from this film (some girl holding the head of a Jim Carrey look-a-like).

Spaghetti Western star Anthony Steffen sports a hip hairdo and assumes the role of Lord Alan Cunningham, a man haunted by the memory of his dead wife Evelyn. This leads to a nervous breakdown which has him being retained in a psychiatric clinic. Once released, Cunningham channels this trauma by taking redheaded prostitutes to his countryside castle, subjecting them to vicious acts of torture. His doctor and friend, Richard Timberlane (what do you mean, Italian horror names sound "made up?"), advises him to forget the past and remarry but Cunningham is obsessed with Evelyn and even organizes a séance at the castle. Eventually, after killing some more girls, he meets Gladys, another redhead, and marries her almost immediately, but the arrival of his new wife spawns a series of sinister events. Bloodthirsty creatures strike at Sir Alan's family, killing them off one by one. Becoming more distraught, Cunningham visits Evelyn's tomb and discovers it to be empty. Soon, a number of "outsiders" begin to suspect something fishy is going on in the castle and Lord Cunningham's treatment might not have been that successful after all.

Director Emilio Miraglia tries to blend Gothic horror with Giallo conventions with limited success. As usual, not the slightest effort was made to convince audiences the film is set in England. The cars drive on the right side of the road, everyone looks very Mediterranean and the castle (and the rest of the architecture) is patently Italian. This is common practice in Italian horror, but sometimes they just take this a little too far. The bad print made this even slightly bearable, since it's so dark, you couldn't see much of the surroundings anyway. But, then again, this is the kind of film where anything can happen in the name of exploitation and depicting reality isn't really the issue. A large part consists of sado-masochistic torture scenes in the castle torture chamber, but most of the time, Anthony Steffen hams his way through this and shows some horrible over-acting. I guess it all depends on your state of mind and this can be a fun piece of nonsense if you're in the right mood. I just couldn't take it, at least not with the print I watched. A pleasant score though by Bruno Nicolai which combines easy-listening tunes with some psychedelic rock numbers.

Camera Obscura --- 4/10


Exceptionally horrible tale that I can barely put into words. The best part of the movie was when one of the murder victims turns up at the end, alive and well, only to be massacred again. There is the chance that I missed some crucial plot elements since I may have been in a slight coma during the time this baby was on. The box that the movie comes in shows scenes that are never even in the film. I was lured in by the crude images of bondage torture and promises of a 'Euro-trash, sexy horror flick.' I get the feeling this was the budget version and about one quarter of the film was left out. All the good stuff more than likely. I got the PG-13 addition that made about as much sense as the end to the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie. Watch this one with a friend and a bottle of the hard stuff. You'll need it.


*SOILER* It's fake! The whole thing is a fake! There is no ghosts or zombies, Alan is a Lord and his cousin or brother or half brother or something like that wants the castle and his title for himself. So he invests this overly complicated and needless pointless plan ala SCOOBY-DOO to drive Alan to commit suicide. Most of the movie is him picking up redheads and attacking them. He's not even killing them. He drops off to sleep and the girl vanishes and he thinks he buried them someplace. If he looked at the so-called ghost of Evelyn, he could tell she was wearing gloves! My God what a waste of time. Don't bother watching it, renting and if you bought it and haven't watched it yet, sell it. Quickly! Do yourself a favor and stay away from THE NIGHT EVELYN CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE. I give this stinker the CRAP-O-LANTERN.


Oh, those Italians! Assuming that movies about aristocrats with weird fetishes, castles drowned in gothic atmosphere, and back-stabbing relatives trying to get their hands on an inheritance are inherently interesting to all! If you've seen one film of this type, you've basically seen them all (the MST3K favorite "Screaming Skull" fits the mold, too)...and "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is formulaic, by-the-numbers, and dull as hell. Even the luscious Erika Blanc is put to waste here.

zero/10


A great slasher movie -- too bad it was the producers and not part of the script. Basic plot summary - man with redhead fetish goes invites such women to his flat only to go into some kind of freakish coma and proceeds in offing them to various degrees of success. Only the cutting crew behind the scenes must have thought the movie was as ad as I did and chopped the heck out of the movie. Nothing flows, you get lost on which redhead he is with at the time (didn't he off that one earlier??), and most of the time it looks like the camera man passed out and resumed filming when he awoke. Not that I can blame him I passed out 2-3 times and had to rewind and resume to try to regain what little plot that does exist. Warning when you see the ending DO NOT try to connect it with anything that happens before -- you will just get an aneurysm. Not worth the time, effort, or God forbid money. Only reason to get a 2 instead of a 1 - the slim chance that the hacking occurred between film release and the horrible version that I watched.


This movie is an embarrassment to film-making. I can't believe it was even listed as a comedy - not funny. Not only was the script atrocious, but the casting people should be shot. Gail O'Grady is just a great actress, but beyond that... %99 of the rest of the cast...ouch. Pretty much everyone else...wow it is hard to even...wow. Here is the number one rule about comedy "DON'T TRY TO BE FUNNY". There are a lot of very talented actors in Canada who can do drama and comedy - none of them were used in this film. Canadian nepotism and casting directors are helping to perpetuate bad film-making in Canada. I realize this is technically a "US" film, but look at the director, actors, location, etc. I just saw this on Bravo - they should be ashamed that they bought the rights to show this film. Again, there are a lot of great films out there that can't get airtime and they show this crap.


Did Francis Ford Coppola have a brain aneurysm some time after directing "Apocalypse Now" that made him absolutely incapable of making a good movie?

You have to wonder what the director of "The Godfather" and "The Conversation" was thinking when he made this flabby film. It gives Kathleen Turner a starring vehicle, playing a woman who travels back in time and gets to redo her adolescence knowing all of the things that life as an adult has taught her, and Turner, the trooper that she is, does what she can with it, but this movie couldn't be saved by anyone.

It doesn't even have any style to it, and, given its director, one would expect that even if it had nothing else, it would have that.

Grade: C-


I wondered why I didn't like Peggy Sue Got Married more than I did, when it first came out in 1986, with all the hype. Somehow I found Nic Cage's character off-putting. Way off-putting. Then the plot didn't seem to make sense. Then by the end of the credits, the question came to mind: What point was this movie making? What was it saying? The answer, unfortunately, was not much, if anything. I really don't think this movie aimed at making a statement; unless it was "your life is your life, you're gonna make the same mistakes no matter what, so keep your eye upon the doughnut, and not the hole". Not a very profound statement, and I'm sorry, not profoundly made in this movie. The writing simply isn't that good. The direction is uneven, and is strangely overblown at times. Kathleen Turner was the best, and in my opinion, only worthwhile thing in this movie, and performed something of a miracle creating a whole character despite bizarre, unexplained circumstances, with a script that had no apparent statement to make.

She also finally cleared up the mystery for me of the main reason I didn't enjoy this movie more. She states in her autobiography that Cage made a point of fighting his uncle Coppola's direction every step of the way, doing it "his own way" (not a good idea for a new actor), and putting on a goofy voice she called "stupid". His voice was annoying, abrasive and unnatural, and his character was obnoxious and overbearing as a young guy. I understand what he was attempting to do: play a young-guy "hot shot" who is not as hot as he thinks he is, setting up his own karma for future failure. But he goes overboard, the way he does it is abrasive, not effective, and if he had listened to his uncle instead of "fighting the Man", we would have had a more enjoyable film. Cage slips a little with his obnoxious voice stylings in the movie and occasionally sounds like a real person, and those scenes are more watchable than others. But if I had to watch the movie through in its entirety, I would find myself wanting to pay someone in L.A. to pour a bucket of water over his head during some of his more affected (put-on) scenes.

The movie doesn't aim for a statement, doesn't make a point, is great to look at except when Cage is doing a demented Elvis impression (but without the voice), and is, ultimately, confusing and a waste of time. Given all this, Kathleen Turner surely deserved an Oscar in this flailing mess of a movie. I can't recommend anyone spending two hours watching this, unless you like Turner and have a remote to pick out all her scenes. Believe me, you will miss nothing plotwise by skipping the other scenes, and it will make just as much sense.

Kathleen Turner is getting a lot of flak from critics regarding her Cage comments, which proves that she's strong enough to be honest, and to hell with other people's comments. You go, Turner! I'm not particularly a fan of this actress any more than I am of any other first-rate actor or actress, but her candor is refreshing. Cage's acting can be good to annoying, and here it doesn't work. At least, in this film, now we know why.


Seriously, there is absolutely NOTHING good about this crap fest at all. Randolph Scott, a closet homosexual who lived with his lover Cary Grant for twelve years, is at his most wooden and boring in the least role. At 57 he was clearly far too old for these romantic roles, although it doesn't matter so much here because Gail Russell looks so much older than her 31 years and she is so ugly due to her chronic alcoholism and chain smoking. Lee Marvin plays his usual villainous role but it isn't enough to save this garbage. Thank God they don't make westerns any more, they're just dated, racist old movies that glamorise guns and murder.

0/10.


I knew I was going to see a low budget movie, but I expected much more from an Alex Cox film. The acting by the two leading men was terrible, especially the white guy. The girl should have won an Oscar compared to those two. This movie was filled with what I guess would be inside jokes for film industry people and a few other jokes that I actually understood and made me laugh out loud, which is rare. Without these laugh-out-loud moments I would have given this film 2/10. What happened to the Alex Cox who made all the 80s classics?

SPOILER:

There were a couple of questions I had after the movie was over. Why did the Mexican guy go to the other guy's house at the beginning? What did his daughter say he got 100 people fired from his last job? Why was she breaking her own stuff when she was mad at him? I guess I should have gone to the Q&A after the movie, but I didn't want to get up at 10am.


Although there were some amusing moments, I thought the movie was pretty lame. The longer it ran, the worse it got. Once the action entered Monument Valley, I found myself watching the magnificent outcroppings more than the increasingly silly and unconvincing interaction of the characters.

The character of the daughter was particularly incoherent. First she's in on the deal, then discovers the truth and she bails. Then she's back again, then deserts them again. Then she's back again. There's no apparent motivation for any of her decisions. There were interesting characters, some interesting scenes, and many missed possibilities. I would have to say the pictures was much less than the sum of its parts. Apparently the people who liked Repo Man were inclined to like this one. Searchers 2.0 is no match for The Searchers.


Jeez, only in the 70's... Antonio Margheriti brings us this quirky hybrid of spaghetti western and kung fu flick evolving around a treasure-hunt. The spices of this trashy co-production between Shaw Brothers and an Italian one-off company include humorous storytelling, off-the-wall happenings and some very tame T&A. Extra campy moments are being served by Lee Van Cleef's obnoxious wig, leather-clad bible-thumping psycho gunman Yancey Hobbitt (loveably hammed up by Julian Ugarte, the man who should've done way more obscure European genre productions than he did), wanna-be-witty dialogue, hilarious background music and completely laughable sound effects accompanying various little events (especially every jump made by Lo Lieh).

While this little piece of action falls fare and square into the Turkey Territory, it's great to see Van Cleef and Lo Lieh on the same screen, and you can't deny the charisma of this duo. Don't expect too much, and you'll get plenty out of it.

This is my truth. What is yours?


what kind of sh*t is this? Power rangers vs Freddy? It was watchable and as good as the first film in the beginning but from the part where the protagonists get super powers in theirs dreams, it started to become childish. This sh*t should have been rated PG or PG-13 rather than R. I expected to see some very mature stuff but it was only for the 1/3 of the film. The rest are for little kids. Plus it's focused too much on Christianity. I know Freddy's a demon but there are many religions that have different ways to fight demons. Why does it always have to be Christianity? This is total Orientalism and filled with white men/westerner's superiority. Don't' watch this, show it to little kids who loves power rangers.


Unless I'm sadly mistaken, I rented A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 several years ago and there was a music video, I'm pretty sure which was called Dream Warriors, at the end of it, and I rented this one on DVD hoping that the video would be there because it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's amazing how stuff from the 80s is so funny now, but nothing is funnier than 80s rap videos. There was this rap group singing that song Dream Warriors on the VHS version of this movie after the credits, and they're all wearing like denim jackets with no shirt underneath and form fitting jean shorts that are all frayed at the bottoms like Daisy Dukes. What could make a rap group look more foolish I can't imagine.

(spoilers) At any rate, I was disappointed in looking for that video on the DVD version, so all I had was this mediocre installment in the Freddy Krueger series. The movie sort of starts off with the same idea as part 2, with the main character witnessing all kinds of gruesome murders and then sort of coming out of a trance and finding himself with the bloody hands. Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has a nightmare about the infamous house that Nancy Thompson used to live in, then runs to the bathroom, the sink's handles turn into Freddy's hands and attack her, and then she wakes up standing in her bathroom having slit her own wrists. From there, the movie turns into the usual mental hospital installment.

`Larry' Fishburne, tired of always playing the bad guy in his roles, was happy to take on the role in this film as a nice-guy orderly, stern but accommodating when the patients want to bend the rules a little. Not surprisingly, he turns in what is by leaps and bounds the best performance in the movie. Arquette later goes on to become an accomplished actor, but had not perfected her acting skills when she starred in this film. The characters in the movie are mostly all patients at the mental hospital that Kristen is placed into after cutting her wrists. All of them are cynical and uncooperative, almost none believing that they really belong there at all. Eventually, they realize and are able to convince the staff that they are all having dreams about the same man and it's not just some kind of group hysteria.

Heather Langenkamp has returned in her famous role as Nancy Thompson, this time grown up into a dream researcher as a result of her childhood experiences involving Freddy Krueger. Not surprisingly, she is able to quickly relate to the hysterical Kristen and the rest of the patients, since she had experienced exactly what they're going through. There are some interesting murders in this installment, and the technology used for the special effects have taken a huge jump. There is a gigantic, worm-like Freddy that tries to swallow Kristen whole, there is a scene where a television turns into Freddy and with mechanical arms he picks up one of the patients there for some late night entertainment and punishes her for sitting too close to the TV, but there is also an unconvincing go-motion scene where a couple guys have a fight with Freddy Krueger's skeleton, which has been rotting in the trunk of some car in a car junkyard. And one of the more groan-inducing scenes was one where Freddy attacks one of the patients in his dream (the one famous for sleepwalking), tearing the muscles and tendons out of his arms and legs and leading him around like a puppet. Ouch.

We get a peek into Freddy's past in this installment. Not only do we meet his mother, but we also find out the circumstances that led to Freddy being fathered by more than 100 maniacs. In fighting Freddy, the patients all band together and, in their dreams, use their special powers (most of which reflect their shortcomings in real life) to fight him. One student, bound to a wheelchair, is able to walk in his dreams, another has the hilarious powers of what he calls the `Wizard Master,' another is `beautiful and bad' (she has lots of makeup, her hair stands up in a foot-high Mohawk, and she has knives). Clever, but the movie falters when it has only one of the patients, the one who can't speak, not have any powers in his dreams until the climax of the movie, when he suddenly realizes that he can talk in his dreams (at just the right moment to save the day). His dream power was a little too obvious to have been left out for that long, but collectively, now you see why the movie was subtitled Dream Warriors.

Altogether, this is not an entirely weak entry into the series. The acting is pretty shoddy, but it's actually pretty good for a horror movie. Larry Fishburne vastly overshadows the rest of the cast, displaying wonderful acting skills early on in his career, and the movie is not simply a rehash of either of the first two  a problem that plagues the Friday the 13th movies much more than the Elm Street films. The characters are never developed enough to allow for the later creation of much tension, which is why most of the deaths come across more as creative ways to kill off someone in a horror film than the tragic loss of the life of one of the characters that we've come to know and root for their triumph over evil. But then again, not a lot of horror movies take the time to really develop their characters to the point where you throw up your hands in defeat when they are killed, or are on the edge of your seat as they run for their lives. But it's important to note that the few horror films that actually do that are almost invariably the best ones


This UK psychological thriller is known in the United States as CLOSURE. Exploitation of X-Files' Gillian Anderson, who plays an attractive middle aged businesswoman of substance named Alice. She must attend a business party and invites Adam(Danny Dyer), who just installed a security system for her, to be her escort. On the way home, speeding through the woods on a narrow lane, Alice's auto collides with a deer. After pulling the wounded animal off the road, the couple is savagely attacked by a drunken gang of thugs. Adam is beat to a pulp; Alice is gang raped and both are emotionally and physically devastated by the ruthless attack. When the identities of their attackers are discovered, Alice and Adam set out to exact revenge...brutal revenge. The couple at times find themselves at odds on how to deal with the ruthless attackers. Their final decision is to avenge with no mercy. Let there be no mistake, payback IS hell. Also in the cast: Anthony Calf, Ralph Brown, Francesca Fowler and Antony Byrne. Brutal violence, disturbing images, nudity and graphic rape.


I was really looking forward to watching this, being that I love Danny Dyer and I think Gillian Anderson is a gifted actress. The beginning was interesting. I liked the relationship between the two stars. It then quickly jumps to the main plot, which is they get attacked by a group of strangers and Dyer gets beaten extremely bad while Anderson gets raped. They then decide to go for some revenge. Sounds good, right? Well, it's not. The story gets boring and side-tracked, and certain things get really weird. I won't give out any details, but things happen that I, for one, have no desire to see. I like to give all movies the benefit of the doubt, and I really wanted to like this one. It just didn't work out. I give it a 3 out of 10, mainly for the acting.


Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.

The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.


An unpleasant woman and an equally unpleasant man are violently and horribly assaulted by a group of two-dimensional psycho thugs during a night-time encounter on a forest road in Shropshire, England. The man and woman who were assaulted plan and carry out a revenge attack on their attackers...

Utterly repellent piece of voyeuristic trash, somehow masquerading as 'thought-provoking' drama, whilst actually coming across as sub-Michael Winner cr*p (you just know that Oliver Reed and Susan George would have been cast had it so easily have been made in the 1970s). What happens to Alice (Gillian Anderson) and Adam (Danny Dyer) is appalling and devastating, yet Dan Reed somehow manages to rub the viewer's nose in every last glob of its sexual nastiness. His camera lingers hungrily on Anderson's naked body both during and after the assault, whilst the script leaves almost all the characters floundering in a turgid sea of two dimensional cliché. His script forces his characters to behave in such a way as to alienate the viewer further from the 'victims' by shoving more ghastly situations into their faces (Adams's attempted post-incident assaults on both Sophie and Alice; Alice's assault on Heffer AFTER his suicide-attempt confession).

The quandary comes from the central protagonists' performances - Dyer is a horrible actor, incapable of light and shade as the young male victim of the initial assault (he'll end up in Eastenders, mark my words), but Anderson is extraordinary. Even as the atrocious script forces her character to behave in depraved and ludicrous ways, she somehow delivers an extraordinarily compelling and complicated characterisation as a self-indulgent, arrogant hedonist who encounters such horrors and needs to retaliate.

A vile and pointless film then, almost but not quite rescued by a compelling central female performance.


This movie is the worst I've seen in the last 5 years. It is surprising how brilliant actors like two main characters in this movie has accepted to act in such worthless peace of trash. The film is rape/beating and revenge genre. Couple has gone to party and on the way back they hit a deer and he went out to finish it when a jeep full of bad guys comes. He didn't go to their car, instead he has been kicked and well beaten while she tries to run the car engine which betray her and she has been gang raped.Then somehow she is in her fathers house and one of bad guys is her neighbor so she took shotgun and wanted to kill him... So stupid scenario! Bellow Hollywood ! He was against that revenge but "She is raped" "They laugh to her" so she must kill them all... But once inside the house she was satisfied by pushing rifle's top in bad guys anus and went away while he has gone crazy and execute bad guy. Personally I think that director run out of money before finishing this because movie ends before they execute anyone else involved in this gang-rape and beating which is not big surprise because sponsor obviously has seen this and wanted to take back his money. LoL This movie is not even for people who enjoy watching rape because they won't see anything they are looking for... This director should be banned...It is for upsetting that this peace of trash has been made by British cinematography which I personally like and that is the reason I've watched this. Don't do it yourself you have better things to do that watching stupid scenario film ...


This reminded me SOO much of Michael Winner's crappy 'Dirty Weekend' with it's awful English low budget feel.

Firstly I must say I am a fan of both exploitation and serious film. I appreciate, say, 'Demented' for it's ineptitude and 'Last House on the Left' for it's sheer unashamed brutality. And any number of inventive and increasingly brutal Italian spin offs.

This was just pointless though. Kind of like a British budget director thought 'let's remake "I Spit on your Grave" without making it too harrowing now that horror is back in fashion with Hostel.

The whole thing just doesn't hang together or have a point. What's with the rapists's daughter? Why bother having the man be an expert in security cameras? Crappy.


This is the biggest load of crap that I have seen in a long time. The last time I hated a movie so much was whilst watching "28 Days later" and "Magnolia". There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the "F" word at least a couple of times in it. It has extremely cheap acting and is very low budget. My friend and I eventually turned off the movie after about half an hour. We had tried to give it a chance, but nothing could save this crud. DO NOT WATCH IT!!!


A truly horrible film that left me feeling sullied by having watched the forty minutes or so I could stand. Not the actors' fault, but the writer/director, producers, financiers, etc., need a very stiff talking to. Maybe it thinks it is profound. It isn't. This rape and ultra-violence, unlike that central to Clockwork Orange, has nothing to say about or add to the sum of human understanding. It's no Straw Dogs, either, to which I have seen it compared. Rather it feels like something Pete Walker might have turned his hand to, yet even in saying that I'm probably being a bit unfair on Pete Walker.

Revenge is a powerful human desire, but The Bedroom Window has more to say about that and male emasculation than this pitiful effort.

I don't think it's particularly misogynistic, merely too gleeful in its depiction of certain details -- the blood running down GA's leg post rape, par example. It's neither challenging nor confrontational, though I'm sure the film-makers consider themselves very 'daring', just deeply unpleasant.

Is this as high as we can aim? Is this why those involved wanted to make films? ( I did write in here the Latin phrase which translates as Oh the Times! Oh the customs! But the new spell-check on IMDb wouldn't let me post until I had removed it. Likewise I had to remove square parentheses. Get it sorted IMDb.)

Where is the lofty aspiration? The noble impulse? When you look at British film - the joyful comedies of Ealing or the Boulting Brothers; Carol Reed's work with Graham Greene on Fallen Idol, Our Man in Havana or the sublime The Third Man (a film which has far more to say about evil than a thousand Straightheads); the work of Powell & Pressburger; or if you want to talk about sex, violence and male emasculation look at "The Offence' Dir. Sidney Lumet, from an original play by John Hopkins; check out "Tunes of Glory" for something worth making, that has something to say.

Unlike the foregoing, Straightheads is, alas, an altogether hateful waste of celluloid.


I'd been following this films progress for quite some time so perhaps expected a little too much. I consider both Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer to be good at what they do and was interested to see what Dan Reed could come up with but unfortunately it just didn't work for me.

The problem lies in the fact that the film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements because rather than focusing on one of them and doing it well it's a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none.

The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula and one that many directors have handled expertly over the years. Unfotunately in this case it's as if Dan Reed thought, "It'd be great to do one of those revenge films that goes a little deeper by showing a more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail...." Wrong! There are also a few key elements missing, in this type of movie there's generally some kind of warning. A don't do this or this might happen element which adds to the tension but there's nothing of the sort here. It just simply happens, then nothing happens for an hour, then something interesting happens and then it ends.

There's a lot of really stiff competition in this genre and hats of to Dan Reed for trying, I have no issue with his directing abilities but in term of writing... I'd say next time he should stick to the formula for the type of film he's making instead of trying to be too clever and he'll have a quality movie on his hands.


Well where to start here? Straightheads presents me with a bit of a dilemma. Had this film come out of Italy in, say, 1975, been directed by Ruggero Deodatto and starred David Hess, then I'd be lapping it up faster than Labrador drinks water on a summer's day. Because whilst Tarantino and Rodriguez are busy elsewhere with their homage to grindhouse cinema, Dan Reed has produced a rape/revenge grindhouse picture of his very own in England, and on seemingly the same budget as it would have taken Rodriguez to turn Rose McGowan's leg into a machine gun. Because if you want to play grindhouse bingo, then let me call out the 'numbers':

1. Rich, high flying career woman meets a bit of rough from the wrong side of the tracks in an implausible manner and, equally implausibly, gets the hots for him. Check.

2. Gratuitous shots of said high-flying career woman in various states of nudity. Check.

3. Convoluted and highly unlikely plot development that sets up characters that exist solely to do what they do and who cannot be imagined to have any existence outside the scenes they are in. Check.

4. Unnecessarily graphic rape scene perpetrated by a gang of males with no discernible depth of personality or background other than they are there to rape. Check.

5. Gritty and bloody scenes of murder and revenge to round it all off. Bingo!

Plotwise, Straightheads is pretty basic stuff: Dyer meets Anderson and she invites him to a party at a country pile owned by her boss. On the way home, they upset three locals in a Landover who take their revenge by giving Dyer a good shoeing and gang raping Anderson. The couple then set about getting their revenge. So far, so "Straw Dogs", "Late Night Trains", "House on the Edge of the Park", "I Spit On Your Grave" etc etc. So why didn't I think much of this film? A number of reasons: I suppose first off, having the likes of Gillian Anderson in the cast prima facie lead me to expect better, but it's the complete lack of honesty here than rankles most.

Because whenever anyone sits down to watch Hess and his ilk terrorising women and murdering their menfolk in those period pieces from the 70's, then they always know exactly what they are getting - low budget quickies designed solely to shock and appeal to the lowest common denominator. The baddies terrorise and murder the goodies, the goodies turn the tables on the baddies and kill them back, and everyone goes home satisfied, their desires to see a bit of nasty violence slaked and safe in the knowledge that the world order had been restored.

As writer and director however, Dan Reed clearly believes Straightheads has far more to say on the state of the human psyche than that, and desperately tries to imbibe his film with a philosophical depth that is simply not there. For instance, when Anderson and Dyer are planning revenge on their attackers, they learn that one of the rapists has a fourteen-year-old daughter who is an object of lust for the two men he hangs around with. When Anderson finally meets him face to face, he confesses that he only raped her as a distraction so that his two mates would take their attention away from his daughter!!! The casual and audacious way that Reed drops this little revelation into the plot is simply jaw-dropping, it's almost as if he expects this simple reference to paedophilia to be enough to throw the audience's moral compass into overdrive and make them leave the cinema thinking they've just sat through something of significance. To make sure we 'get it', at this point we are shown a run through of the rape sequence for a second time, ostensibly from the view of the attacker and his concern for his daughter, but Reed ensures that we get plenty more shots of Anderson rough-handled and raped across the bonnet of her car. Gratuitous does not enter into it.

After being told his reasons for raping her, Anderson ties him over a table, rams the business end of a sniper rifle (complete with bulky silencer, just in case anyone wasn't clear on the phallic imagery) up his jacksie but lacks the courage to pull the trigger, telling Dyer (who has no such moral qualms) that 'it's over'. Dyer argues otherwise and their moral dilemma is presented as something that Wittgenstein and Russell may have discussed in their rooms back at Cambridge over tea and cakes. It is almost unwatchable in its ludicrousness.

In fairness, Ms Anderson acts her guts out throughout the film. It's obvious she wants to leave Scully far behind and, bless her, she certainly does that; one wonders what Mulder would have made of his erstwhile partner squatting down to take a leak at the side of the road and then sodomising a man with a gun? Dyer, on the other hand, does what he's done in virtually every film he's made to date - that is, plays a gor blimey guv cockney type chappie with a roguish grin, a cheeky line of patter and a face that most people would never get tired of punching. This is particularly true at the closing scene where, after murdering his assailants in cold blood, Dyer gazes at the camera in, what I'm sure is meant to be, a look of existential anguish that invites us to sympathise at the hand fate has dealt him and the moral quandaries he has had to overcome, but instead is far more reminiscent of Oliver Hardy looking exasperatedly at the camera after Stan has landed him in yet another fine mess. Which incidentally, sums up this film quite nicely.


Gillian Anderson is an arrogant, driven, career woman who picks up working class oik Danny Dyer for a night of fun. After a stupid accident in the countryside, they are brutally attacked. After recovering, and after a chance meeting with one of the attackers, their thoughts turn to that of revenge...

I thought "Straightheads" was terrible. Violent, brutal, misogynistic and unpleasant. If I didn't dislike the phrase a great deal I would call "Straightheads" a video nasty. Certainly it was the kind of film that would have had a no budget release straight to video during the dark days of the 1980's. Frankly I don't know how "Straightheads" got a cinema release.

I am not a prude. I don't mind sex and violence in the movies, but they have to be married to a movie with a) a good plot or b) good characterisation or c) preferably both. "Straightheads" had neither. No progression in the plot or the characters and too much left unexplained and unsaid. Luckily "Straightheads" went nowhere fast. It was only 80 minutes long.

It was a shame, because there was the germ of an interesting film here, with an especially interesting turn in the plot in the last third. How often do I say this, but it could have been good if it had been done properly. What a shame. I really like Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer, but they were on a hiding to nothing with this film. She, especially, is very underrated (and is still particularly fit).

If you want to see a good British revenge movie, rent or buy Shane Meadows' "Dead Man's Shoes". It is a little masterpiece. Last weekend I should have seen his "This Is England" instead. Ce sera sera...


*WARNING* Contains MANY SPOILERS!

Let me start by saying I have a huge respect for Gillian Anderson's incredible talent as a varied and versatile actress - which is why I cannot comprehend her reasons for agreeing to make this film once she saw the script (or lack thereof.)

The premise of the film was, in my opinion, a great idea and there were some genuinely thought-provoking themes in there but it ended up like a collapsed soufflé. It exemplifies why I hate 99% of British cinema. It feels too long, it's tedious, for the most part, and not a lot happens after the first twenty minutes. Just when you think there's a chance of it picking up some speed it disappoints like Paula Radcliffe running a marathon. With little imaginative directing and a minimalist plot, there isn't much to keep the audience from nodding off into their popcorn. As for the script I can only surmise that the writer was trying to save a few trees, with the average scene reading something along the lines of "Alice: F*** OFF! (Adam stares. Adam runs off into woods)(Alice follows) Alice: ADAM! ADAM!" I suspect that, word for word, the actors probably got paid more than Kate Moss did for her Virgin Mobile adverts. What few lines there were didn't have a lot of variation with a frequent use of the f-word that would make Bridget Jones's friend, Shazza, proud. There is little establishment of the main characters before the main sordid event which leaves the audience lacking much sympathy for the characters beyond an automatic 'Oh that's terrible' reaction.

Alice isn't the kind of woman who courts sympathy either. She's got a great job, an expensive London apartment with roof space to die for yet she comes across on screen as conceited, bitter and dissatisfied before her life takes a turn for the worst. After the attack a few layers are peeled back which sort-of explain why she is this way to start with; she grew up with a tough-as-old-boots soldier who thought that teaching her how to shoot his gun was the ultimate expression of love so, instead of following in his footsteps, she ran away to the big city in search of something to make her feel like her life is worth living. Instead she found a group of stereotypical middle-class Toffs who look down on anyone not rich enough to drive a Lexus and the luxuries that come with an integrated security/entertainment system (i.e. becoming Mrs Robinson to a wanna-be Cockney wide-boy electrician) Someone pass me a tissue. The one saving grace of this character is that she is played by Gillian Anderson. In the hands of a lesser actress she would've been intolerably one-dimensional but Ms Anderson actually manages to inject a few fleeting moments of humanity into this otherwise lifeless human being, most notably when she's sincerely apologising for her road rage in a vain attempt to stop her attackers from continuing their assault.

I can't say that Adam fared much better either. Danny Dyer played him well as a fish-out-of-water Jack the Lad but a good performance couldn't save him from both the lack of a script and the total absence of any character background.

This film relied mostly on shock value but the timing was off and it felt far too engineered from beginning to end. As for the shock, the most shocking thing about this film is the unashamed demonstration of how painfully thin Ms Anderson has become; it was almost as unsettling to see as the brutal attack scenes. On a side note, only in a British film would a gang of violent sex attackers take the time to offer each other contraception before continuing to cheer their mates on - talk about stiff-upper-lip taken to the extreme! If this is the kind of film that the National Lottery is donating money to make then I'm not surprised that fewer and fewer people are choosing to spend their pound each week.

Saying that I hated this film is giving it too much credit, I didn't care enough about any of the characters to warrant that strong an emotion. I want that one-and-a-bit hours of my life back, please!


If derivative and predictable rape-revenge thrillers are your thing, then you're in for a rare treat... They don't really appeal to me, so I couldn't find any single thing to redeem this peculiar tale. It seems like something straight out of the 1980s, a different age when this would have gone straight to video. Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer do OK work with a weak script and a tedious scenario. But what is Gillian Anderson doing getting involved with a film like this after the brilliance of her performance as Lady Deadlock in the BBC TV adaptation of Bleak House last year? The director is said to have been influenced by witnessing a near-rape and by his work on documentaries, but even that's not an excuse for the bizarre scene where a pack of rural hounds beat up Dyer. I don't think I was the only person in the cinema laughing. What I can't understand is the involvement of the companies behind this film - FilmFour and Verve Pictures. Both have been involved in some great independent British films in recent years. Verve distributed Bullet Boy, Code 46 and Red Road - Straightheads doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. FilmFour and Verve take note: is this really the best you can do? What are independent British filmmakers going to make of your artistic judgement? It's a big blot on both of your reputations. Listen carefully: can you hear the thousands of fans of independent British films crying in despair?


I rented this movie the other night because neither my girlfriend or myself had ever seen it, even though we had heard from a mutual friend how "great it was".

Now, I am pretty conservative in my views, but I knew going in it would be pretty liberal given who directed it. I figured before the movie started Michael Douglas would play a compassionate popular liberal beloved by the masses, and there would be a stodgy conservative opponent as his antagonist. But I thought thats where the political statement would begin and end.

OK, the plot was solid: Single president falls for a lobbyist. OK, this has potential I thought to be pretty entertaining, since the plot was unique. But then the movie turned into a liberal infomercial. The movie became more about gun control and environmental issues than it did about the relationship between the President and Sydney(Annette Bening).

There were several ridiculous premises in this movie: 1) The character Sydney playing this six figure lobbyist who is a "closer". Could she have been more flighty? She was constantly disorganized and seemed in awe of everything. Hardly a "closer". I am an sales, and she could not "close" selling a glass of water to a man dying of thirst.

2) Secondly, is there anything more ridiculous than Richard Dreyfuss playing a right wing fanatic? This is the most liberal man in Hollywood and her is playing some right wing ideologue. Give me a break. I liked how he took his conservative character and made him as sinister as possible.

3) The speech at the end was simply ludicrous. The line about "I am a proud card carrying member of the ACLU" was a joke. First, no president would ever admit something like that, being an active member of an ultra fringe group. Second, why even bring something like that up. You just alienated off over half the movie going audience who is moderate or conservative.

I thought the plot was great and unique. I thought Michael Douglas was a good choice as president. But the movie went from being a "movie" to a left wing political statement, which is why the movie failed.

Its a shame to see a great plot ruined by Hollywood having to force their political views on the audience


The plot is so manipulative, counting completely on the most uncredible and unthinkable decisions of the adults in each and every parenting decision. The children are super as far as charm and delivery of the lines but as I say, the whole plot depends on each and every adult being complete idiots, and therefore in THAT case, making more sense out of their actions (and at the same time being the only way to explain the boys actions of total mistrust). Why would sweey charming little boys take a baby from the shore? How did the baby get to the shore and at the same time account for it being the LAST place to be searched? Why would the 2 boys NEVER be informed an instead at the same time a baby is missing nobody gives a fig about them running around with food and diapers with all that commotion going on and literally every other place it searched? There is just no possible justification to ask the audience to believe this. Asking to believe it would then do to trial (even the informal setting) is too insulting to bare.


In the last 10 years I have worked in 3 different indie professional wrestling organizations, managed many pro wrestlers (including 2 Backyard Wrestling stars), worked on 2 different wrestling TV programs and did voice-overs and commentary for many wrestling DVD's. I have NEVER witnessed the level of outright amateurish stupidity, lack of talent and skill, and shoddy production quality found in Splatter Rampage Wrestling. To even list this as a wrestling video of ANY kind is an outright misuse of the term. Shot with low-dollar video cameras, it's essentially home videos of kids play-fighting in back yards. The sound quality is bad, the video quality is bad, and the acting is horrendous. The "wrestlers" wear makeshift costumes with hand-drawn tee shirts and ski masks and hit each other with a variety of items and halfway imitate wrestling moves. Sometimes the "matches" are on the grass. Sometimes on a back yard trampoline. ALL are poorly acted and executed with a shameless lack of any wrestling skill. In short, don't bother with this stinker. Whether your interest in this DVD is entertainment or academic (both in my case), you will be terribly disappointed.


Yeah, unfortunately I came across the DVD of this and found that it was incredibly awful.

First of all, the characters suck. I mean, come on, if some dork in an orange hat who calls himself 'Orange Sherbert' is the best creative idea these guys could come up for a character, then they should definitely not be in the film-making scene. Poor "costumes", bad "interviews", and basically there is not one "wrestler" on this whole disc with any shred of charisma.

The "wrestling" in Splatter Rampage Wrestling is nothing more than these idiots gently and playfully bouncing together on a trampoline. They make sure to giggle together all the while, too, making the experience seem more like a toddler's playtime than a "wrestling deathmatch".

Basically, Splatter Rampage Wrestling is a pretty lackluster Backyard Wrestling clone. Only, instead of blood, weapons, mayhem, and WRESTLING, we get a trampoline, giggling kids, TERRIBLE audio, and some guy called Orange Sherbert.

Wrestling fan or not, avoid this DVD. It's awful.


Whoever wrote the "nice" post about this must have been a friend of these guys. This is bad even for backyard wrestling. In fact this isn't even backyard wrestling really, it's a few guys hitting each other on a trampoline. Each guys is about 45 lbs wet and there is not one ounce of entertainment value in this. It is just a few bored kids that even give yard tards a bad name, if that is possible. If you want to see some entertaining backyard wrestling, pick up Backyard Wrestling A Pleasure for Pain. It stars the 2 biggest names in BYW, MDogg20 and Josh Prohibition. These guys are good. They have actually went since yarding it and gotten professionally trained as "real" pro wrestlers. They went legit and have gotten better. I recommend checking out those 2 guys. MDogg is insane and off the hook. So don't waste your time or your cash on this crappy DVD, there are "better" back yard videos out there.


The movie starts out as an ordinary comic-hero-movie. It´s about the boy who is picked on, has no parents and is madly in love with the schools #1 girl. Nothing surprises in the movie, there is nothing that you can´t guess coming in the movie. Toby Mcguire shows us that either he is no good actor or that no actor in the world can save a script like this one. Maybe kids around the age of ten can enjoy the film but it is a bit violent for the youngest. You can´t get away from thinking of movies like X-men, Batman and Spawn. All of those titles are better. I almost walked out the last 20 minutes! One thing that could have been good though was the computeranimation, BUT not even that is anything to put in the christmas-tree! So my recomendation: Don´t see this film even if you get paid for it!


I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, "Burning Moon". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, "Premutos" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially "Braindead". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in "Bad Taste", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it)


Simply terrible! Why wouldn't you use actual actors? Look, this has to stop! Stop using non-actors! If you want any credibility or any message sent via these low-budget films...please for the love of god use real actors! Most will work for free...take advantage of that! Now back to my comment...anyway, the humour was lower than that of the bathroom variety and wasn't funny on any level. As for the quality...in one scene filmed on a public transportation bus you could see the reflection of the crew...guess what? It was one guy with what looked like a Sony Camcorder and probably not even his. Well, I assume the only audience for this film are people with a gore fetish...and it wasn't even good gore.