Normally I wouldn't feel qualified to review something I only saw a half hour of, but I'll make an exception for this one.

Let the dialogue speak for itself! Here's some of the bad guy's lines: "I smell...teacher!" "Sorry, teacher! You get an 'F!'"

Bad guy and bad girl ( right after killing 2 cops and stealing a van full of drugs, they're getting hot and heavy):

Him -"So how do you feel about shooting some innocent bystanders?"

Her- (purrs) "You sure know how to show a girl a good time..." One generic kid who ran for his life instead of helping someone, gets to sum up his life and personality in this line -"I AM a CHICKEN-TWIT! (this was the USA network version) My old man was right! No wonder he left us..." Boo-hoo.

(Not actually a spoiler ) Bad guy (on fire) screams "Aargh! Fire!"


I should preface this by stating that I am a Dolph Lundgren fan. The man turns out some of the funniest action clichés imaginable and Detention is probably my personal favorite. *Spoiler* even though there is no such thing as a Dolph spoiler since the scripts are so absurd to begin with: a chase scene with a handicapped kid carrying a pistol versus a guy on a Harley with a sub-machine gun, through a high school hallway and the kid wins? Good game, the Oscar goes to Detention. Dolph, if you're reading this, thanks for the laughs, old friend.

In summary: Terrific movie that is a guaranteed laugh. I recommend inviting some friends over for this and forcing them to sit through it. Hilarious.


Interesting story about a soldier in a war who misses out on saving the life of a young girl from the enemy and is haunted by this event, even though he did save many other captive children. The film flashes a head and this soldier is now a teacher in a high school that is managed mostly by policemen patrolling the hallways, bathrooms and even class rooms. In other words, the High School is a prison and most of the kids pay very little attention to their teachers or principal. Dolph Lundgren,(Sam Decker) plays the soldier/school teacher and decides he is going to quit teaching and go into another field. However, the principal asks him to have a Detention Class as his last duty as a teacher. It is at this point in the film when all Hell breaks loose and the story becomes a complete BOMB. Try to enjoy it, if you decided to View IT !


I wasn't expecting a lot from a film directed by Sidney J. Furie and starring Dolph Lundgren but I was surely expecting more than a got. A one-liner user comment - 2nd rate action movie - didn't seem too depreciative to me for a Lundgren film. On the other hand, I wouldn't have bothered to watch this film if its rating was below 5.0 but hey, the movie had a 5.9 out of 10 score, which seemed pretty acceptable to me for this kind of production.

Now I understand that the 37.5% of people who rated this film a 10 (excellent) was clearly a publicity stunt because DETENTION is the regular Nu Image garbage you have seen before, over and over.

Lundgren does not convince as an ex-military turned a history teacher assigned to a rough school. His acting is just plain terrible, emotionless and contrived. Lundgren's inability to act becomes more visible in the scenes with the juvenile delinquent kids. Either they are great actors or, compared to Lundgren, they seem great actors - just because they seem natural and believable.

DETENTION has some elements that could have been potentially interesting for this low budget movie - a closed-for-weekend high-security high school, four teens in detention with a war-veteran teacher and a group of ruthless criminals trying to get in - but the story (something like THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets DIE HARD, or is it PANIC ROOM?) is full of unbelievable situations, lots of clichés and stereotypical characters. And let's not forget Dolph Lundgren is the main actor.

Alex Karzis and Kata Dobó play a Bonnie and Clyde couple in love and they deliver the most acceptable performances of the movie, even if he seems a low-budget version of Sam Rockwell and she, a Milla Jovovich wanna-be. In a movie where everything fails, their craziness and style supplied enough fresh air to prevent my interest from dropping to ground zero.


I just rented this movie to see Dolph Lundgren, whom I hadn't seen in any movies since Rocky IV. Unfortunately this movie was a big disappointment. The acting of all the parties was bad except for Mr. Lundgren, who was okay-ish. Kata Dobó was something nice to look at despite her ridiculous outfit and make-up.

The plot is not at all clever, it's something that's been repeated a million times in different movies. The crooks were utterly stereotypical, and Lundgren's character hadn't any depth in it. I didn't really expect a movie masterpiece, but unfortunately this is not even decent action. Every turn in the plot is extremely predictable and the unbelievable amount of over-the-top unrealism and comic-book like characters started to annoy me strongly pretty soon.

I would recommend this to young kids wanting some comic-like action, but only if nothing else is available.

1/10. (I guess the current average vote of 7.0 with 6 votes must have been influenced by somebody involved in making this movie)


This is the kind of movie that wants to be good but sucks. First thing, what the hell are those punk trying to do with the school? I think the kids doesn't seem to realize the gravity of the situation. Deker guy say to the girl that they under his responsibility when she ask why he wants to go back for them but right after this he gives a gun to the wheel chair dude and wants him to go alone repair the phone line. Where is the responsibility there? I understand poor actors must pay their food but why not just give them the money that takes to make a stupid movie like that or give that money to a charity. Oh yea and none of them knows how to aim. The stupid punk guy shoots in the cafeteria nowhere like a crazy. They all want to look professional but they all suck. One more thing I don't believe that there's no emergency exit in the school the kids are trying several doors but they all locked. What happens if there's a fire and the dumass security guard is dead? It is illegal to not have an emergency exit in school. Anyway there's a lot more to say but it would be too long. I spent some time of my life to watch a crap.


Barry, a medical transcriptionist has his mind corroding from his job coupled with memories of an abusive upbringing at the hands of his stepfather, Barry (the original Leatherface Gunnar Hansen). He spirals into madness and eventually a serial killer. Good (in the form of a gay man) and evil (in the form of a bald mute guy) battle for control of his soul. This film is undone by some bad acting and unintentional humorous scenes. Not to say it's horrible or anything, just that you cal tell that it's only as known as it is on account of Bruce Campbell's rabid fan base (of which I am one) who will likely see anything he's in or involved with in some way.

My Grade: C-

DVD Extras: Commentary with Michael Kallio, and Bruce Campbell; Second commentary by Kallio and Sound designer Joel Newport; 'Hating every minute' a 17 minute documentary; deleted and extended scenes; alternate takes; outtakes, footage of the world premiere; Poster & still gallery; Talent bios; and theatrical trailer

DVD-Rom: Screenplay in .PDF format

2 Easter Eggs: highlight the eyes for a laughing outtake (left eye) and one minute of nothing but an actual Easter egg (right eye)


It took 9 years to complete this film. I would think that within those 9 years someone would have said,hey, this film is terrible. I've seen better acting in porn movies. The story is tired and played. Abused child turns into serial killer. How about something new for a change. How about abused child turns into a florist? At least that would have been a new twist. Why is it that everyone with a camera and a movie idea (especially unoriginal movie ideas) thinks that they can be a director? I do admire the fact that they stuck with this film for 9 years to get it completed. That shows tenacity and spirit. With this kind of drive hopefully next time they can focus it on a better script. If you want to see a failed experiment in indie film making from a writer/director from Michigan see Hatred of A Minute. If you want a good movie from a Michigan writer/director stick with Evil Dead.


Casting aside many of the favorable comments that have obviously come from friends and/or relatives that pepper this and many other low budget independents listed on IMDb, one is lost when it comes to using these reviews as an accurate gauge. So eventually you have to go out and rent the flick just to see for yourself. One of the first things you must understand are the catch phrases that camouflage the reality of the movie. In this case the term "dark psychological thriller." Read: "hack writer/director who thinks he's an auteur, who replaces plot, story, and action, with what he believes is a deep insight into the human soul. His great insight? Festering and repressed childhood traumas emerge to wreck havoc when we become adults. Wow, I bet Freud would be really impressed! Too many would be film makers like Kallio, who were raised on low budget horror flicks of the last few decades, fail to dig their own fresh grave. Instead, they fall into the pre-dug graves of the many other directors that came before them. They are content with rehashing old and tired horror clichés that they borrowed from a dozen or more films. The result is an unoriginal, uninspired, unbelievable waste of film stock.


This movie was so predictable. Its a complete rip off of those, "I was abused by daddy I'm gonna kill women" movies. Stupid scenes, bad acting, unoriginal storyline, really low budget piece of crap film.

Don't waste your time people. Trust me.

My rating: 0/5.0


This Cannon Movie Tale is the worst of the lot, and is positive proof that a five minute fable does not a full-length film make. Poor Sid Caesar as the vain emperor, is made to look so stupid, it's hard to watch him. As the sly tailor, Robert Morse hasn't an ounce of charm. Neither does his hapless nephew (Jason Carter) The "songs" are dreadful and only slow what there is of the plot down. The direction is practically nonexistent, and the supporting characters add very little. Lysette Anthony is pretty as the emperor's daughter, but her voice has obviously been dubbed for some reason, a fate shared by many of the minor players. And the film crawls at a snails pace. Hans Christian Andersen must have been turning somersaults in his grave when this appeared. It can honestly be said, at least of this movie tale, it's no surprise that it went straight to video oblivion.


This scared the hell out of me when i was a teenager. Now I find it more amusing than scary, but with some pretty unsettling moments and with a kind of sleazy quality to it that I like. And, come to think of it, the plot is rather disgusting actually...but handled with some kind of taste. If there is a problem with this movie, it is that there are HUGE gaps where nothing exciting or interesting happens. Also, the ending goes on forever, making a potentially tense climax seem silly after a while with Barbara Bach screaming and screaming. The "monster", after it is exposed, isn't very scary either unfortunately. The somewhat drab look of the movie also works against it, making it appear as a TV-movie more than something made for theaters. But it is an example of films that are rarely made nowadays so I urge horror fans to watch it and feel a bit nostalgic...


Much like the early horror film The Boogens, the devious unseen killer is quite a letdown when it finally becomes seen. Although Animal House's Stephen Furst obviously had fun in the role as a product of incest, his performance is more comedy than horror.

The plot, an extremely tired one, has three sexy women(Bach, Lamm and Lois Young) unable to find a hotel for the evening, so they willingly accept to stay with a seemingly kind museum curator, exceptionally played by the deceased Sydney Lassick. If you have ever seen any horror film, you know that lovable IL' Sydney is a deranged psycho, so one knows what will happen to the lovely ladies.

The three women are all very attractive, especially Barbara Bach, but Lois Young(a Helen Hunt clone) is the only one to go nude, as Sydney watches her take a bath.


I purchased this movie at a car boot sale, so I was not expecting it to be a horror movie on the same level as A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) or The Hills Have Eyes (1977) but I thought that it would still be fairly enjoyable to watch. However, it proved to be not at all enjoyable, but instead the acting and the general movie was mock-able, such as the ways the the 'unsees killer' murders his victims and how all of the people killed just happen to be young blonde women. It was a stereotypical horror film. I say this because of the following reasons:

1) Three blonde women in danger, the majority get killed. 2) One survives by crawling around in the dark while being chased by the killer. 3) Surprise surprise, help arrives in the form of a shotgun!

By using three simple points, I have saved you two odd hours by summarising this poor excuse of a horror movie, so you are now lucky enough to not have to watch it.


Dreck about three beautiful women in California who go to cover some festival (or something). All the hotels are booked so they have to spend the night in a creepy old house. What they don't know is that there is a creepy inhabitant there who likes to kill...

Yawn. Boring, pointless, utterly stupid "horror" film. Bach and her two buddies are certainly beautiful but the movie itself is dull dull DULL! Bach and her friends are no actresses--their faces are blank all the way through. The final "revelation" is laughably predictable and there's no blood or gore to keep you interested along the way. There is some expected gratuitous female nudity but that's not enough to save this. Boring, pointless and unknown (for good reason). A 1 all the way.


This movie features an o.k. score and a not bad performance by David Muir as Dr. Hackenstein. The beginning and end credits show along with the most of the actors and the "special effects" that this is a low budget movie. There is nothing in this movie that you could not find in other mad scientist, horror/comedy, or low budget movies. Not special for any nude scene buffs or bad movie lovers either. This movie is simply here. Anne Ramsey and Phillis Diller are nothing to get excited about as well. If you are curious as I was and can actually find this, you will realize the truth of the one line summary.


Take your basic Frankenstein flick, inject some Reanimator (but not the good parts), and you have Doctor Hackenstein. Certainly, this was obviously inspired by aforementioned films but it never materializes as anything special on its own.

A scientist accidentally kills his wife, so the whole movie takes place over the course of one night as he attempts to revive his wife. To revive his wife, he decides to chop off body parts from some women that have become stranded and, coincidentally, decide to stay the night at his place.

I can't really say the acting is bad, nor is the directing. Everything here is just way too standard. What little attempts there are at humor actually work (check out the scene when Hackenstein keeps hiding behind his deaf assistant because she would undoubtedly be very upset if she saw him clutching a woman and a needle), but that's hardly enough to recommend this film. The music is decent, what blood that's there is decent, and the cast looks quite good. And for half of the time, I was even entertained by this film. But I never felt like this was anything more than a time waster. Avoidable.

Try Frankenhooker instead.


Apparently there's a very good reason why I never heard about "Dr. Hackenstein" before me and a couple of mates accidentally stumbled upon it and stupidly decided to give it a chance. That reason is: it sucks! It's a very pointless, dull, imbecilic and totally unmemorable horror comedy/parody. Actually, to be honest, I'm not even sure if this was meant as a comedy because sometimes the script takes itself quite seriously and tries really hard to be a really ambitious and original late 80's horror effort. In the year 1909, at the dawn of a new era in medical science according to the opening sequences, Dr. Elliot Hackenstein needs exactly three women  no more, no less  to refurbish his beloved wife whom he accidentally killed. She's only just a living head left now, but the stupid body snatchers only provide male cadavers. So when Dr. Hackenstein yells out "I need three female bodies to bring back my wife", his words aren't even cold and there just miraculously appear three young females (and one really annoying nerdy kid) with car trouble show up at his doorstep. Why doesn't that ever happen to me? "I need a bunch of sexy voluptuous women to fill up my empty harem!!!"  See, nothing! Anyway, the good Doctor sees his wish fulfilled, but unfortunately  for science that is  he develops sympathy for one of the three girls. "Dr. Hackenstein" is a lame film that tries to cash in on the success of "Re-Animator" and even blatantly steal some of the comical aspects of that classic, like a severed head talking one-liners. It's easy to see why this film is never mentioned anywhere, as it doesn't appeal to fans of neither the horror nor the comedy genre. The funniest character is undoubtedly the loud-speaking female grave robber Ruby; depicted by the anti-cherubic Anne Ramsey. 80's horror buffs will certainly remember her from Wes Craven's "Deadly Friend", where she played the nasty old hag neighbor who gets decapitated by a basketball. "Dr. Hackenstein" supposedly takes place in the early 1900's, but there are hardly any attempts to re-create the atmosphere of that era (except maybe for some automobiles). Dr. Hackenstein's laboratory is a quite clichéd 80's set piece, with all sorts of smoky cauldrons and test tubes full of fluorescent colors.


If there was a scale below 1, it would get a -10, following in the footsteps of Godspell. The acting (if there was such a thing) was atrocious, the plot in shambles. And Rene Russo was sickeningly sweet in her role, enough to make a person retch. Ten thumbs down for a dumb movie. Saving grace: kudos for era costuming.


No, it's not the horror movie...This one is actually a love story.

The Ring is a silent film from 1927 that stars two boxers and the woman that comes between them. She loves the boxer known as "One Round" Jack. She loves him until the champion comes along, that is. Even though she marries One Round, she starts overtly flirting with the champion until the climactic final boxing fight between One Round and the champion. She comes back to One Round's corner, just when things look their bleakest, and he miraculously finds the inner strength to win the fight and win his wife love back.

This film was very early in Hitch's career, but the limitations of the time must not have made him make a lasting film. Although there are special film tricks, and some comedy relief, this film just does not hold up to any of his later work. It must have been extremely risqué for the time period though, with the shameless adulterous wife. That may have been the draw back in 1927. While looking through all of these old films, it is amazing how I think that they could be redone on today's screen and really come off. Maybe I should be the one....

Skip this movie unless you are planning on watching all of Hitchcock's films. You could fall asleep in the middle.


I haven't been able to decide if this movie is so bad it's good, or, to quote Enid Coleslaw, "so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." No matter, it forced me look much the same way a pile of weird coloured vomit might, and it offers up a number of scenes that you won't forget even if you want to. There's a sneering young Ray Liotta telling a pigtailed Pia that her creative writing trophy looks like a penis. A bit later, there's Ray again, molesting Pia, not with the appropriately shaped trophy but a garden hose. There's a firm chinned Pia telling her domineering Mom that she wants to go to bed with Ray's geezer father, Walter. There's the actress in the graveyard scene yowling the best line ever written by Pia or anyone else: "WWWWHHHYYYYYYY!" There's that garden hose again, as Walter waves it Pia's face and roars "Is this more to your liking!?" There's Pia and her date so turned on by closeups of each other masticating salad that they start tearing each other's clothes off. There's Pia showering but forgetting to remove her dress. Perhaps best of all, there's Pia's typewriter, but instead of keys there are the miniature talking heads of those who have tormented her the most (afterwards, I was afraid to open my laptop). And finally there's Pia at "The Awards" exposing Hollywood for the cesspool it is, spitting out the second best line ever, "I guess I'm not the only one who has ever had to **** her way to the top." I see I have already spent more time commenting on "The Lonely Lady" than I have on far better pictures, so I'll quit. Be forewarned, though, that once you start watching you probably won't be able to take your eyes off the screen until two hours of your life have vanished forever.


The memory banks of most of the reviewers here must've short-circuited when trying to recall this Cubic Zirconia of a gem, because practically everyone managed to misquote Lloyd Bochner's Walter Thornton, when in a fit of peevish anger, he hurls the phallic garden nozzle at his new wife, Jerilee Randall-Thornton, (a nearly comatose Pia Zadora) which was used to sexually assault her earlier in the movie...but I'm getting ahead of myself. In any case, poor Lloyd could've been snarling that line at the speechless audience as much as he was his put-upon co-star.

Hard as it is for most of us to believe, especially these days, nobody in Hollywood sets out to INTENTIONALLY make a bad movie. This is certainly not the most defensible argument to make, since there just seem to be so damn many of them coming out. But then again, there is that breed of film that one must imagine during the time of its creation, from writing, casting and direction, must've been cursed with the cinematic equivalent of trying to shoot during the Ides of March.

THE LONELY LADY is in that category, and represents itself very well, considering the circumstances. Here we have all the ingredients in a recipe guaranteed to produce a monumentally fallen soufflé: Pia Zadora, a marginal singer/actress so determined to be taken seriously, that she would take on practically anything that might set her apart from her peers, (which this movie most certainly did!); a somewhat high-profile novel written by the Trashmaster himself, Harold Robbins (of THE CARPETBAGGERS and DREAMS DIE FIRST fame); a cast who probably thought they were so fortunate to be working at all, that they tried to play this dreck like it was Clifford Odets or Ibsen; plus a director who more than likely was a hired gun who kept the mess moving just to collect a paycheck, (and was probably contractually obligated NOT to demand the use of the 'Alan Smithee' moniker to protect what was left of his reputation.) Like Lamont Johnson's LIPSTICK, Meir Zarchi's I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, Roger Vadim's BARBARELLA, Paul Verhoeven's SHOWGIRLS or the Grandmammy of Really Bad Film-making, Frank Perry's MOMMY DEAREST, THE LONELY LADY is still often-discussed, (usually with disgust, disbelief, horrified laughter, or a unique combination of all three), yet also defies dissection, description or even the pretzel logic of Hollyweird. Nobody's sure how it came to be, how it was ever released in even a single theater, or why it's still here and nearly impossible to get rid of, but take it or leave it, it IS here to stay. And I don't think that lovers of really good BAD movies would have it any other way.


Immediately after renting and watching this movie several years ago, a friend and I decided that it defined the absolute zero on the movie scale. There was nothing about the movie that could have been done worse than it was. To this day we still rate movies, even very bad ones, by how much better than "The Lonely Lady" they are.

A long time ago I saw an interview with Eleanor Perry, who wrote the screenplays for, among other things, "Last Summer" and "Diary of a Mad Housewife," and she related that she had been asked to write a screenplay for the Harold Robbins' book "The Lonely Lady." She said that she sent in a treatment and it was rejected because they didn't think she understood the difficulties of a female screenwriter in Hollywood. She then said "I think they got someone else to write it." The interview was filmed before the movie was released. She died in 1981, and I bet the first thing she did on arrival in heaven was personally thank God for saving her from involvement in the result.


There is absolutely nothing to redeem this movie. They took a sleazy story, miscast it, miswrote it, misfilmed it. It has bad dialogue badly performed in a meandering and trashy story.

As badly as it fails as art, it fails even worse as commerce. Who could have been the target market for this. What age group? What interest group?

Someone should make a movie about how and why they made this movie. That I would pay to see.

I've seen thousands of bad movies, and this ranks with "Sailor Who Fell from Grace" and "Manos" ... my choices as the three most unredeemably bad movies I've ever seen. Everybody associated with it should be forced to make conversation with VanDamme for all eternity.

I challenge you. Watch this movie and perform an academic exercise - how could you take this and make it worse? I can't think of one way.


This early Pia Zadora vehicle followed a familiar Harold Robbins formula: ambitious main character wallows in decadence while pursuing the path to the top of some randomly chosen but glamorous world, in this case the movie industry. But despite being so formulaic as to be completely predictable, this movie manages at the same time to be completely unbelievable. Zadora (to call her inexperienced as an actress is to be charitable) never convinces as a screenwriter. One would expect a movie about movie-making to have some insights into its own industry and creative process. But the script gives her none of the qualities which make writers interesting movie characters: observance, skill with words, a love-hate relationship with one's own creative abilities. Her character is as empty as a donut hole. And this is just a taste of the incompetence on display here. The cinematography is so murky that it is sometimes hard to see what is happening. And the scenes never really hang together, so everything seems like a succession of random moments at bad Hollywood parties. Avoid.


Even when I saw this movie at a teenager, I wondered just how ironic it was that Pia Zadora starred in a movie about an artist who slept her way to the top. As beautiful and sexy as Ms. Zadora is, even she couldn't keep this sorry-ass excuse of a movie from tanking. Not even her photoshoot for Penthouse, in which "The Lonely Lady" was promoted "back in the day," could keep this movie from tanking. The only thing that could have saved this movie? A completely different script. Give this one a miss.


Once again, Pia Zadora, the woman who owes her entire career to her husband, proves she can't act. This disaster of a film butchers the Harold Robbins novel. Ray Liotta must have been hogtied and carried to the set to appear in this one.

Avoid this at all costs. I doubt even doing the MST3K thing would save it.


I simply could not finish this movie. I tuned out after what I would say is my nomination for the most wretched attempt at sexual suggestion award: a scene in which Pia Zadora, at a picnic, stands between two boys who want her. One (the good boy) pleads for her to see the error of her ways. The other (the bad boy) simply asks if she'd like a hot dog, which he then holds out for her. At crotch level. I hope I'm not spoiling anything to say she turns, and takes the hot dog, with a smile. Just pathetic.


This film is a Pia Zadora special! When viewing it, I was reminded of the classic cartoon showing a Hollywood starlet; in urgent need of another role but afraid of becoming typecast for 'B' movie or soft porn roles; who says at her casting session "Well of course I do not normally do roles requiring nudity, but if it is artistically necessary for the film...............". This recollection brought up a very naughty image of a similar cartoon showing Pia at such a session saying "Well of course I do not normally take any roles requiring actual acting, but if it will really give me sufficient exposure to enhance my status as a sex symbol..................". This is probably grossly unfair, the rather sordid tale is the fault of Harold Robbins book; considering the nature of the story Pia's exposures certainly do not receive undue attention, and perhaps Pia (who once won an acting award in Butterfly) is deliberately satirising her part rather than attempting to act in an almost unplayable role. Critics usually point first to the actors as the problem whenever a film proves disappointing, but this is grossly unfair; the scriptwriters and director are far more often the guilty parties. The real problem with "The Lonely Lady" is that the screenplay, like the original book, looks for sensation rather than substance, and nothing can help with this.

	The screenplay for this film is abysmal, but whether the story could have been filmed more successfully with a better script, tauter directing and really competent acting must remain a matter of personal judgement. As it was released, my viewers rating for it would depend upon whether I am assessing my personal opinion, or assessing to what extent the film succeeds in providing what it aims at doing. My personal rating for it would be two out of ten; but to some extent this film probably provides exactly what its sponsors intended, and judged on this basis a quality rating of four out of ten would be reasonable. Being in a charitable mood, and wanting to make it clear that I am not blaming Pia for my disappointment, I will give an IMDb rating of four.


The wonderful "Z" Channel in Los Angeles showed this Pia Zadora film about six months or so after "Butterfly". I had such high hopes for the actress, and then she goes from bad to obviously WORSE in this film.

Again, it was the 80's and I gotta tell you Harold Robbin's work had been eclipsed by smarter writers. Jacqueline Susann ripped into him (she hated his way of writing women), Irwin Shaw's work caught on with many women, and of course Sidney Sheldon had his kingdom in the late 70's early 80's and then came Jackie Collins who made women stronger and as equal to men in every way in her books, even more so. Which is why this work smelt. Harold Robbin's work in the 80's just didn't catch on with audiences. Pia Zadora acting in one of Robbin's work was like throwing kerosine on a fire. The supporting cast was not a help either.

Oooooh... this was awful to look at then and even 20 more years later, it looks even worse. I had a hope for Pia as an actress and it all got shot to heck when this was done. It would be tough for Pia to redeem herself as an actress (although John Waters casting her in "Hairspray" was a spark) although she has a nice singing voice.

Hey, Pia, wherever you are...Hairspray may go on tour! Join the show. You may be the biggest comeback story yet.

I just hope they burn this film for ya if you do.


The super sexy B movie actress has another bit part as future "Goodfellas" star Ray Liotta's girlfriend in this box office bomb. She plays Marion, has only one line of dialog, well, one WORD of dialog actually. She shouts out "Joe!" as Ray's character is violating poor Pia Zadora with a plastic garden hose sprinkler. This movie is so bad though it becomes funny, hilarious at times. The guys at Mystery Science Theater 3000 would love this! Check out the hysterical scene at the end where Pia has a nervous breakdown and all the cheesy editing and effects they do to try and show how badly Pia's character is freaking out. Pia plays an aspiring Hollywood screenwriter in this. Pia Zadora as a screenwriter? Yeah, right. Pia can barely talk, let alone write! Pia is utterly and absolutely miscast in this dumb role. But who cares? The real star is the hot and fresh Glory Annen in her bit part in this cat's opinion! Rock on Glory!


This is absolutely the worst trash I have ever seen. When I saw it in the theater (arghhh!), it took 15 full minutes before I realized that what I was seeing was the feature, not a sick joke!


Wow! Only a movie this ludicrously awful could inspire the similar "Showgirls." I mean where to begin? The indescibably horrid theme song? Pia Zadora's non-expressions throughout the movie? The fact that despite being set in Los Angeles, aka "land of the casting couch" EVERY single man (and woman!) is fawning all over themselves to sleep with Pia Zadora, by any contrived means necessary? Or what about the fact that every person in the movie is totally unsympathetic because they're either mind-numbingly stupid (Pia) or obvious despicable sleazeball (everyone else)? And given that this flick was written by actual "screenwriters (sorta), it shows a shocking lack of understanding of the movie-making industry (who the Hell would admire and kiss up to a SCREENWRITER?)

But it's (unintentionally) funny as hell though. The "breakdown" scene alone will have you giggling, and after seeing the climatic "I'm not the only one who had to **** her way to the top" scene at the "Awards" (all done in the usual bargain-basement acting level we expect from such quality thespians as Pia), I sincerely hope that our dear Pia actually reused that speech when she "won" her Golden Globe. It's fitting and that would totally make my day.

Anyway, if you're a fan of bad, tashy camp, give this otherwise tacky movie a try.


The truth is that a film based on a Harold Robbins novel is not going to win any awards. This is no exception. "The Lonely Lady" is a pure B picture in budget, cast and execution. Technically, it looks like a made-for-tv film. The acting is very uneven. Joseph Cali is especially terrible. Anthony Holland is an embarrassment. As one reviewer said of a certain Katherine Hepburn performance, her range goes from A to B. Ms Zedora manages to get to G. The rest of the cast is solid (and wasted in their respective roles). Lloyd Bochner and Bibi Besch deserved better. Still, the whole thing can be a great deal of fun in a trashy sort of way. As befits Robbins, everything revolves around sex and nudity. If you're looking for some fun...and you're not too sober...this could be for you.


A family with dad Louis (Dale Midkiff), mom Rachel (Denise Crosby), 10 year old Eileen (Blaze Berdalh and about 3 year old Gage (Miko Hughes) move to this beautiful house in Maine--seemingly unaware of the semis that roar down the highway in front of their house every 90 seconds or so! The neighbor across the way (the wonderful Fred Gwynne) makes them feel at home...and shows them a pet cemetery where children bury their pets. But a little further on is a sacred ground which can bring the dead back to life...but the dead come back in a nasty mood.

""DEFINITE SPOILERS** The novel by Stephen King was good--it was long but it developed characters and situations that made you care what happened. This movie jettisons ALL the character development and just plays up the gore and violence. Animals are killed ON camera (I know it's faked but it's still repulsive); a little boy is hit by a semi and his casket pops open during the funeral (in a totally sick scene); he's brought back to life and attacks and kills people including his mom (I DO wonder how a 3 year old was able to hang her); a ghostly jogger (don't ask) tries to help the family for no reason...The movie just works the audience over shoving every gruesome death or violence into your face. It just goes out of its way to shock you. **END SPOILERS**

Acting is no help. Midkiff is just dreadful as the father--he's handsome and buff but totally blank. Crosby isn't much better. The two kids are just annoying. Only Gwynne single-handedly saves this picture with his effortless good acting.

This picture shows a total contempt for the audience taking large leaps in logic and having characters do incredibly stupid things (especially Midkiff at the end). This movie was (inexplicably) a huge box office hit in 1989 which led to the even worse sequel in 1992. I saw it in a theatre back then and was disturbed how the audience kept cheering on the violence and was just appalled by what I saw. A sick repulsive horror film. A 1 all the way.

When you think it's all over and can't get worse the Ramones sing a title song!!!!!! ("I don't wanna be buried in a pet cemetery"). Truly beyond belief.


Now, I haven't read the original short story to know all the literary points that went wrong here, so I'm not going to go down that path here.

But I have some time ago learnt that Stephen King movies simply -are not- horror films, with perhaps a couple of exceptions. This was not one of them. It started well enough, and for once I'm not going to complain about the acting, although Fred Gwynne was as usual wonderful.. Also I will forgive the total lack of parenting skills, as they were necessary to make the story here move forward...

But there was one consistent point that I couldn't help but get annoyed with. And that came pretty close to the end of the movie, and at least 2 characters partook in the activity of dumb stupidity. The moments I refer to are thus: There is a tiny zombie running around the house. You suspect it is under the bed. Do you

(a) get as close to the bed as you can before blindly raising the duvet cover up, exposing pretty much your whole body to whatever damage such a teeny undead cannibal might inflict on you, or

(b) move a little away from the bed so you can peer under the completely open end from a position of slightly increased safety, or at least see the mini terror coming at you, giving you a little reaction time.

I know, let's go with (a). I feel like offering myself up for the slaughter today. Bleh

Fun enough film though... Just not very scary.


Stephen King is generally known for the morbid, and that's fine, but this story is too morbid. Some movies, by the end you feel sad for the characters or the situations they were put through...here you just feel depressed. The movie has a nice feel to it (at first), with the family moving to the country, and creepy old Fred Gwyne greeting and warning them of the pet cemetery, but this plot leads nowhere. It starts with so much potential, but by the end, it loses the potential to be a good horror movie, and becomes corny, extremely stupid, and ultimately depressing.

Louis (Dale Midkoff), his wife Rachel (Denise Crosby), their kids Ellie and Gage, and their cat move to a new home in Maine. They are warned by the loony farmer neighbor Jud (Fred Gwyne) about the local pet cemetery and how it is cursed. Louis thinks nothing of this and everything's fine until the family cat is killed. He bury's it in the cursed cemetery and it comes back to life, constantly hissing at the family and wanting to be left alone. One day, infant Gage runs out in the road and is run over and killed by a truck, and Louis knows he must bury him in the cemetery. When Gage comes back to life, he is changed and wants to murder.

With many of Stephen King's works that don't translate well into films, I blame the directors and screenwriters. In this case, Mr. King was the screenwriter, but I'm going to blame him for his awful story. By the end it's so pointless, and though unfunny, the premise is laughable. A little boy comes back from the dead and manages to kill people with what looks like a tiny scalpel, and not only that, but he manages to lift their bodies and in one case, carry a body from the ground to the attic!(?) I know this isn't set in reality but seriously, how stupid can this get? The scene where Louis injects his deceased, now living again cat to kill it is strangely sad, because the cat did not deserve this. All it did was go around minding it's own business and he killed it. The scene where he injects his own infant son is almost unbearable. Not unbearably sad, but the whole situation is just awful to think of. After being injected Gage staggers drunkenly around before falling down dead....why did they need to make a movie ending with the death of an infant? But...even worse, the actual ending of them film involving Louis burying someone else (Not going to give away who) in the cemetery after Gage kills them....what did he expect? Why did Mr. King write this horrible story and why was it made into a movie? It's depressing and pointless!

My rating: * out of ****. 90 mins. R for violence.


Pet Sematary , though a nice 80's Horror movie, with a nice Director and atmosphere, IS a copy of the Italian movie ZEDER by Pupi Avati. It's clear that Stephen King has copied almost all the ideas from this director (the movie Zeder was made before King wrote the book)

The cat, the ground, everything was copied, this is a case of plagiary , but, being Stephen Kind a famous American writer , it's totally normal that he can get away with this , it's obviously due to the huge difference between this kind of Italians movies with no -budget (and in part, it's crap itself ... ) but the original idea, I repeat it, it's Italian director Avati

Let the world know


Fot the most part, this movie feels like a "made-for-TV" effort. The direction is ham-fisted, the acting (with the exception of Fred Gwynne) is overwrought and soapy. Denise Crosby, particularly, delivers her lines like she's cold reading them off a cue card. Only one thing makes this film worth watching, and that is once Gage comes back from the "Semetary." There is something disturbing about watching a small child murder someone, and this movie might be more than some can handle just for that reason. It is absolutely bone-chilling. This film only does one thing right, but it knocks that one thing right out of the park. Worth seeing just for the last 10 minutes or so.


"Indian burial ground": If those three words appear anywhere in a real-estate listing, look for a different neighborhood. A young couple with a young daughter and a toddler-age son move into a Maine house adjacent to a pet cemetery--and, after a l-o-o-o-ng hike, an ancient Indian burial ground. Seems the Indian ground can bring Fido or Fluffy back from the dead--if you don't mind having a raving hell beast for a pet. It can do the same for dead people--if you don't mind having a homicidal zombie around the house.

Throw in a busy two-lane blacktop, speeding big rigs, a well-meaning (if somewhat dim) old neighbor, and one kid who really doesn't get enough supervision, and I think you can figure out what happens from there--an over-the-top, illogical mess, which, in all fairness, does offer up a few scares.

Well, there are worse Stephen King adaptations (such as "Maximum Overdrive," which King also directed). But there are far better ones, too (such as "Salem's Lot," "The Dead Zone," and both versions of "The Shining").


Stephen King adaptation (scripted by King himself) in which a young family, newcomers to rural Maine, find out about the pet cemetery close to their home. The father (Dale Midkiff) then finds out about the Micmac burial ground beyond the pet cemetery that has powers of resurrection - only of course anything buried there comes back not quite RIGHT.

Below average "horror" picture starts out clumsy, insulting, and inept, and continues that way for a while, with the absolute worst element being Midkiff's worthless performance. It gets a little better toward the end, with genuinely disturbing finale. In point of fact, the whole movie is really disturbing, which is why I can't completely dismiss it - at least it has SOMETHING to make it memorable. Decent supporting performances by Fred Gwynne, as the wise old aged neighbor, and Brad Greenquist, as the disfigured spirit Victor Pascow are not enough to really redeem film.

King has his usual cameo as the minister.

Followed by a sequel also directed by Mary Lambert (is it any wonder that she's had no mainstream film work since?).

4/10


For me this is a story that starts with some funny jokes regarding Franks fanatasies when he is travelling with a staircase and when he is sitting in business meetings... The problem is that when you have been watching this movie for an hour you will see the same fantasies/funny situations again and again and again. It is to predictable. It is more done as a TV story where you can go away and come back without missing anything.

I like Felix Herngren as Frank but that is not enough even when it is a comedy it has to have more variations and some kind of message to it's audience....


A young couple Mandy Pullman (Mitch Martin) and Roy Seeley (Matt Birman) are relaxing on a beach in the small town of Galen. They decide to start playing practical jokes on each other. Mandy hides in an old run down cabin, she is attacked and raped by an unknown assailant. Roy tries to help her after hearing her screams but is killed. Dr. Sam Cordell (John Cassavetes) and his daughter Jenny (Erin Flannery) are both new to Galen after the death of Sam's wife. Sam is called into action by Police Chief Hank Walden (John Ireland) when Mandy and Roy are found. He performs the autopsy on Roy and treats Mandy for her horrific injuries. Soon after a curator at the local museum named Carolyn Davis (Denise Furgusson) is also attacked and raped. A local journalist named Laura Kincaid (Kerrie Keane) reports the events and suggests to Sam that a similar string of rapes and murders occurred in the town 30 years earlier. More rapes and murders occur. Meanwhile Jenny's boyfriend Tim Galen (Duncan MacIntosh) has been having strange dreams and nightmares and is convinced that he has something to do with the horrific acts. Tim's story and digging into the towns past makes Sam become convinced of the existence of a creature known as an Incubus - a shape-shifting demonic entity that exists only to reproduce! Directed by John Hough this is one seriously dull horror film. The script by George Franklin based on the novel by Ray Russell is slow to say the least. Nothing interesting or exciting happens and it finishes with one of the most boring none event of a twist ending I've ever seen and frustratingly it just finishes suddenly. As the story plods along at a snails pace there are a few rapes, but none are shown on screen. There is only one gore scene in the entire film too. The monster itself is only shown at the very end and has all of three short scenes. Everything about this film production-wise is very static and flat, the film has no energy or pace. The acting is dull and you don't feel or care for anyone. Check out the scene in the autopsy room where you can clearly see the boom mike at the top of the screen on several occasions. The type of rubbish horror film making that you'll forget within a day. A real waste of time, don't bother.


Based on Ray Russell's dark bestseller, this John (WATCHER IN THE WOODS) Hough-directed bust has little going for it.

Though it does not lack gory violence, it lack narrative sensibility and "characters".

The "Incubus" of the title is a demon endowed with a mammoth penis that shoots red sperm into vaginas during intercourse -- or, to be more precise, rape.

John Cassavetes, moonlighting from his successful directing career, is convincing as a doctor who questions the circumstances of the bizarre attacks on young women.

Horrific possibilities of the victims spawning demonic offspring are not considered -- and neither is the audience's tolerance for slow moving garbage.

The script's reluctance to explore the dramatic repercussions of a fertile premise exemplifies the major problems with this vapid Big-Schlong-On-The-Loose exercise.


Seriously, I can easily stomach a lot of on screen blood, gore and repulsiveness, but what really makes this film disturbing & uncomfortable to watch is how the doctor character keeps on rambling about the physical damage done to raped women. He, John Cassavetes of "Rosemary's Baby", talks about ruptured uterus, dry intercourse and massive loads of reddish (?) sperm like they are the most common little ailments in the world of medicine. That being said, "Incubus" is an ultimately STRANGE horror effort. It isn't necessarily awful  although it isn't very good, neither  but just plain weird. The muddled & incoherent script initially revolves on the hunt for a rapist-killer of flesh and blood (even though the title clearly suggests the involvement of a supernatural creature) and it never seems to stop introducing new characters. None of these characters, especially not the main ones, come across as sympathetic and for some never-explained reason they all seem to keep dark secrets. The aforementioned doctor has an odd interpretation of daughter-love and continuously behaves like he's a suspect himself, the town's sheriff (John Ireland) appears to be in a constant state of drunkenness and doesn't even seem to care about who keeps raping & killing the women in his district, the female reporter is even too weird for words and the Galens (an old witch and her grandson) are just plain spooky. All together they desperately try to solve the mystery of whom or what exactly is destroying the towns' women reproducing organs. The sequences building up towards the rapes & murders are admirably atmospheric and the vile acts themselves are bloody and unsettling. Basically these are very positive factors in a horror film, but the narrative structure is too incoherent and the characters are too unsympathetic for "Incubus" to be a really good film. Also, there are quite a few tedious parts to struggle yourself through (like footage of a Bruce Dickinson concert!) and the usually very reliable John Hough's direction is nearly unnoticeable. The final shot is effectively nightmarish, though. For me personally, "Incubus" was a bit of a disappointment, but there are still several enough reasons to recommend this odd piece of early 80's horror to open-minded genre fanatics.


You know you're in trouble when John Cassavetes is operating at half-speed instead of full-throttle in a movie, and "The Incubus" is a dreadful, worst-case scenario of a great actor going through the motions to pay the bills. Actually, observing the hammy script and John Hough's 'baroque' art direction, one can hardly blame him. The movie has something to do with a series of rape-murders going on in a small town, with a lot of supernatural hokum mixed in. Somehow, the direction manages to suck tension and interest out of every scene, and Cassavetes seems visibly P.O.'ed at times. The Incubus itself, which doesn't show up until the last scene, is a well-done creation, but it's not worth waiting for.

1/10


Years ago a movie going friend and I went to see a horror film that we thought would be good because it starred John Cassavetes. For the uninitiated, John Cassavettes was an actor, screen writer and director (married to actress Gena Rowlands), nominated for Oscars three times, who wrote and directed a variety of good low-budget films using his income as an actor to keep himself afloat. Up until seeing The Incubus, we did not understand that John Cassavetes income was made from any movie that was offered to him. Had we known what the film was about before seeing it we may have avoided altogether. But we did not walk out. At the time, my friend and I jokingly indicated it was the worst movie ever made. Now frankly, this is not true. I have seen many poorly made films on Friday nights on Cinemax (did I just say that out loud?) that are far worse than The Incubus. Almost any movie starring Brian Bosworth is by definition a worse movie than The Incubus. Certainly Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a worse movie than The Incubus. However, I have since consistently used The Incubus as a threshold below which I do not want to fall. When talking to this friend about a movie I may have seen I will always remark that it was better (or worse) than The Incubus.

http://thevillagevideot.blogspot.com/


I rented this back in the 80's and honestly can't remember anything specific about the movie - only that it is THE worst movie I have ever seen. This isn't one of those "it was so bad, it was funny". This isn't one of those "it was so gory, it leaves you with a bad feeling" movies. It wasn't even one of those "what the heck was that?" movies. I can't recall the performance of the actors, but it was poorly shot, the story was disjointed, and it had no definable style. When it was over, I was angry that I had wasted the time.

I've seen plenty of movies I didn't understand because of unfamiliar cultures, styles and/or story-telling, but it was clear that those movies had some of those properties. The incubus has none.

I actually contemplated NOT making a comment on this "piece" for fear that someone may watch it out of curiosity, but I am compelled to warn anyone who appreciates film to skip this movie.


"The Incubus" is a mix of the good (an interesting murder mystery), the bad (a disconnected script, a sloppy resolution, badly made attack scenes) and the weird (strong incestuous overtones, a strangely sleepy and stiff performance by John Cassavetes - was that character really meant to be so "wacko"?). Not nearly as offensive as it's reputed to be, but not particularly successful, either. (*1/2)


I've finally seen THE INCUBUS after waiting 20 something odd years to see it and well, it surely wasn't worth waiting all this time to see it. THE INCUBUS is strictly by-the-number horror film: unseen killer/monster is raping and murdering women in a small town.

The film goes like this: movie opens with killing; then blah blah blah; more blah blah blah; then another killing; even more blah blah blah; continuing with blah blah blah; yet another killing (surprising, huh?); blah blah blah, etc...

The film is totally predictable from beginning to end. Even the stupid "big" red-herring used throughout the movie wouldn't convince a 5 year old. And I figured out the secret identity of the incubus the moment I saw the character, so when the "shocking" surprise ending arrived, I wasn't shocked or surprised. In fact, it was so funny that I kept on chuckling days after I saw the movie. It's so silly!

Anyway, the film is so by-the-number that the "rock band" sequence is one of the few stand-out moments in this dreary flick. It's a stand-out scene not necessarily because it's good but because it's so funny and pointless: the movie playing on the big screen shows a rock video-like moment with a guy in red leather pants getting his obviously fake long hair cut, all of this edited with scenes of a girl who is being attacked in the movie theater's washroom by the incubus. The best thing I could say about this film is the cinematography, which I actually liked. But aside from that, there's almost nothing worth mentioning about THE INCUBUS, except that it's unintentionally hilarious.


This movie is just plain terrible!!!! Slow acting, slow at getting to the point and wooden characters that just shouldn't have been on there. The best part was the showing of Iron Maiden singing in some video at a theater and thats it. the ending was worth watching and waiting up for but that was it!! The characters in this movie put me to sleep almost. Avoid it!!!


I run a group to stop comedian exploitation and I just spent the past 2 months hearing horror stories from comedians who attempted to audition for, "Last Comic Standing." If they don't have a GOOD agent, then they don't even get a chance to audition so more than 80% of the comedians who turn up are rejected before they can show anyone that they have talent! If they do make it to an audition, I was told that it's "pre-determined" if they get a second chance. So what the TV audience sees is NOT the best comics in the US.

If the comics do make it to the show, then most of them don't get IMDb credits. I know this because I did the credits for all 6 seasons of, "Last Comic Standing" and I don't get paid for doing the Producers' job. It's really a disgrace. A month ago, I asked, "Last Comic Standing 7" on Facebook why the Producers aren't giving IMDb credits and I was banned from their Facebook Page!!! I am not a comedian so I do not have a personal stake in this. I just want people to know the truth. I don't like seeing ANYONE getting exploited and that's why I've been helping the comedians. Comedians get exploited on HBO, BET, TvOne and other cable networks but NBC is a BIG THREE network so those in charge should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this exploitation to happen.

Please watch this video of a comedian who was victimized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMb4-hyet_Y


Do you like stand up? Then stay away from this...

During the early rounds, there are in fact good comics, but unless they got some cute qualities, they got a snowballs chance. Any controversial material and you are OUT! ...and I think I hurt as much as the discarded comedians, when I see who the crooked judges are letting in.

1 out of my top 4 made it further than the preliminaries. Half+ of the finalists have given me 0 laughs. Several of them have lifted their material elsewhere, something the judges doesn't seem to have problems with.

It is more entertaining than a lot of what else is on TV, but incredibly hard to watch without contemplating what it could have been.

If the producers changed the name of the contest to "Last Clown Standing", all my criticism would loose validity. Maybe an idea?


For those who like depressing films with sleazy characters and a sordid storyline, this one is for you! From the bleak New York City atmosphere, which comes across as an extremely grim and almost hopeless place, to two diverse lead characters devoid of much sense of morality, this movie is a real downer.

Why it won the Academy Award was because it was so shocking at that time that Hollywood, brand new its freedom to show anything it wanted with all moral codes abandoned, wanted to celebrate that fact. Filmmakers then were like an immature six-year-old with an unlimited expense account at the local candy store. So, Hollywood gave theater viewers (for probably the first time) a dose of rape, prostitution, homosexuality, child nudity, homeless existence and other such wonderful sights and sounds only its twisted brain would think is appealing....and then awarded its work.

It also hoped, I'm sure, to shock mainstream audiences. Well, it succeeded on that level. Audiences were stunned at what they say and heard and the Academy, proud of itself for being able to display filth and make money at the same time, couldn't help but bestow honors upon this piece of gilded garbage.

Forty years ago, as a very young man, I found this film fascinating, too. However, seeing it again in the 1990s left such a bad taste in my mouth I never watched to view it again.

The acting was good, but so what? Acting is good in many films. Nobody ever said Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight couldn't act. Hoffman was particularly good in his younger days in playing wacked-out people. He was kind of like the Johnny Depp of his era, playing guys like "Ratso Rizzo" in this film and then going to be the "Rain Man" later on. Yes, "Ratso" is a character you'll never forget, and "Joe Buck" (Voight) is one you want to forget, but the story is so sordid, it overwhelms the fine acting.

This movie isn't "art," and it isn't worthy of its many awards; it only pushed the envelope big-time in 1969 and that's why it is so fondly remembered in the hearts of film people and critics. It's two hours of profanity and ultra-sleazy, religious cheap shots, glorifying weirdos (Andy Warhol even gets in the act - no surprise), and generally despicable people.

I did like the catchy song, "Everybody's Talking'" that helped make Harry Nilsson famous, but even that was bogus because Fred Neil wrote the song and sang it better, before Nilsson did it....and few people have ever heard of Neil (which is their loss). And - as mentioned - the name "Ratso Rizzo" kind of stays with you!

The film is a landmark, but in a negative sense, I fear: this marked it as "official" that Hollywood had gone down the toilet, and it has remained in the sewer ever since.


David Chase's "The Sopranos" is perhaps the most over-praised television show in recent memory. Not only is the series devoid of intellect and passion, it's devoid of a soul. As anyone reading likely knows already, James Gandolfini *IS* Tony Soprano, a big, fat a**hole of a mob boss with a spoiled b*tch of a wife, and two bratty, sh*t-brained kids living in - you guessed it - the armpit of America (that's New Jersey, by the way). Not only is Tony a womanizing adulterer, he's also an unrepentant murdering scumbag, with a crew of "Saturday Night Live" skit-worthy caricatures for subordinates. It's not the fact that Tony is a piece of sh*t mobster that offends me (and apparently only me). Allowing characters to be who and what they are, without judgment, is something American TV hardly allows. But Chase - and his entourage of money-gorged, Emmy-gored writers - have not simply allowed us to observe Tony and his crew as they behave, nor have they even attempted to provide any insight into the action / reaction reality of (even obviously fictionalized) organized crime (a la "The Godfather"). Instead, Chase glorifies and endorses his characters' greedy, violent, and corrupt lifestyle in the same way that Tony, his wife, and even his hair-brained psychologist do week after week (or should I say month after month. Or is it year after year? It seems like the show's paltry 13-episode seasons come out with the same regularity as a lunar eclipse). Much has been made of the series' refusal to adhere to "network" structure, with plot lines that go nowhere, and characters that pop-up and disappear like backyard vermin. But if the show is so brilliant in its lack of structure, why does it always feel like I'm watching a soap-opera? Tired mob clichés, bored housewives, self-serving, irredeemable characters AND plots that go nowhere. More than ever, I can see why so many Americans of Italian heritage are p*ssed at this show. It's enough to make you want to curl up with a good book (Danté's "Inferno" springs to mind).

People on IMDb love to claim that there's nothing good on television, and therefore "The Sopranos" is a breath of fresh air. Are these same people too busy paying their cable bills to watch "The Shield"? (It's included in Basic, ya know). How about the (still good) "The West Wing"? Or the brilliantly acted (if erratically written) "Boston Legal"? What about possibly the best comedy of the last few decades, "Arrested Development"? And lest we forget that we live in an age of DVDs - nobody *has* to watch *anything* new. I'd much rather shell out $40 for an over-priced boxed set of, well, pretty much *anything*, than give HBO $10 a month (or $80 a DVD set!) to continue to prove how much of a hack-factory it can be.

You want good television? Watch "Homicide: Life on the Street." Or "Murder One". Or "Picket Fences". Or even Chase's prior show, "Northern Exposure." If you're already among "The Sopranos"'s legion of brain-washed fans and critics, it's too late for you. But if not, leave Tony and his worthless kin where they all belong - rotting with the fishes. ("Sleeping" would be way too kind)


Spoilers ahead -- proceed at your own caution.

My main problem with this movie is that once Harry learns the identities of the three blackmailers -- with relative ease -- he continues to cave into their demands. And then the whole scene with his wife being kidnapped, he decides to wire his classic car up to explode (with the money in it), which makes us take a pretty tall leap of logic.

Okay, so he wanted to keep his affair with Cini out of the public eye due to his wife's involvement with the DA campaign. This I can see, but why not hire someone to slap these turds around a bit, or even kill them once he'd determined there was no actual blackmail evidence (e.g, Cini's body?) This was a pretty interesting movie for the first 2/3 of it. After that, it sort of falls apart.


The film "52 Pick Up" simply does not work. See it if you are at all interested in Elmore Leonard or John Frankenheimer, or anyone in the terrific cast, especially John Glover who's admittedly brilliant. But the book--a slow-burning, noir thriller with lots of pulp--should have translated into an Oscar-contending film instead of this dud that couldn't figure out whether it should faithfully portray the hard-boiled, gritty crime story of the book, or opt for a 1980s Schwarzenegger shoot-em-up spree. Shifting the scene from the original locale in the book, Detroit (an area where Leonard has resided for years and knows very well), to Los Angeles makes for a substantial problem that Leonard tries to fix in his script, but ultimately can't. It was, for example, a clever device making Mitchell's wife a City Councilwoman (she had no job in the book), if you think about it: that's the only way you could ever plausibly blackmail someone in a sex-crazed city like 1980s Los Angeles for adultery, or any type of potential sex scandal. Even then, it's more plausible in a more conservative Eastern state like Michigan to believe that a) its tiny porno "industry" is a sleazy, money-grubbing hell where three losers could desperately set up a not-so-stupid upper-middle-class fellow going through a mid-life crisis, and b) adultery alone might be something you could blackmail someone with, if their upstanding careers and old-fashioned wives couldn't handle the shock. As consultant Ron Jeremy will tell you, 1980s Los Angeles was a colorful, stylish porno Mecca, more like the movie "Boogie Nights" than Leonard's dark, shadowy world of hijacked tourist buses, grimy apartments, and drug deals in depressed urban squalor. Then again, Los Angeles could be the backdrop of such a tale if one arranged the scenery more carefully--there are still plenty of dark crannies and psychopaths there. Unfortunately, Roy Scheider's Harry Mitchell comes off in the film as a sexy, handsome Uebermensch dancing through his problems without even working up a sweat. In the book he was fending off a jerk union official while struggling with a business that was failing. He also had a skeleton in the closet during the war involving friendly fire that he was responsible for, but never appeared to come to grips with. Elmore Leonard's stories usually have a central image involving a bizarre civility between criminal and law-abiding citizen. Here, Harry Mitchell sitting in his office with his blackmailer, Alan Raimy, turning over his financial books to him and negotiating a more practical ransom, makes for such a central image. Glover's blackmailer plays the scene with convincing intelligence, but Scheider portrays the victim here as a cocky "good guy," in charge of the situation as if he were more a Rambo with an M-16 than the everyman barely staying afloat as his world crumbles around him. "52 Pick Up" ends with one of the worst throwaway conclusions ever, considering all the thought that went into the original story and then the film. Trapping Raimy inside Mitchell's Jaguar and blowing him up with marching band music blasting out along with a sadistic monologue by Mitchell, plays to an audience wanting the "sweet revenge" conclusion of a Chuck Norris movie, not the intelligent balanced world of Leonard's book, where Mitchell barely escapes in the end and the conflict between good and evil could easily go either way. I left the theater shaking my head and depressed. What a waste of talent.


Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read "Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!" This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...

*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***

Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say "Tarka the Otter" the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.

Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not...


Been lurking for a couple of years or so. I have never been moved to post on here before, so perhaps this movie is worth a star for that, but I doubt it. I just watched it on DVD, having missed it in the movies due to illness and never got around to watching it till now. I had not read extensively about it, certainly not even thought about the movie in some months. It was just what the buddy picked up in the store, so it got watched.

Bad mistake.

The shot I spoke of in the the summary up top is in the trailer and on the poster. Right from the off, Jason Statham has hair. Like in no other GR movie. Or any JS movie that I've seen. At least not in the quantities on display here. And Ray Liotta in underpants SHOULD be advance warned. It's scary and funny but not in a ha-ha-humour way. Its more in an almost-TheOffice-but-slightly-mutated-and-so-failing-sort-of-humour way. They each say the same thing: "This movie is not like anything you expect this movie to be."

Now, based on previous, extensive, movie-watching experience, I expected this movie to be a few things. Like:

() Coherent,

() Interesting or engaging,

() Not a complete and utter farrago of navel-gazing,

() Something more substantive than a motley bunch of badly-realised fables from what is just a standard eastern mystic ideology dressed up as a "cool, modern, self-aware art-form",

() Hopefully better than "The Idiots".

As you may have guessed by my tone, it thoroughly failed to check any box above. Instead it was:

(x) Badly edited {pace all over the shop, 70s-amateur high-8 style jump cuts, incomprehensible "plot" "twists!!!" delivered through hackneyed flash-back montages, I could go on...},

(x) Shot as if by a depressed 14yr-old goth who'd just spent the weekend watching Truffaut and Godard with the drapes drawn

(x) So up its own behind with the whole "I'm really smart, me" motif/ message, that it feels determined to repeat it every 20 minutes or so, just to make sure the dumb people (ie: everyone who doesn't like it) in the audience make sure they get the point,

(x) A genuine waste of my time.

As for the undoubted ability of some people to "get" something from this, fine. I'm glad you enjoyed it. One poster said something that caught my attention: under-25s probably understood it better because of the editing. Maybe, but editing is supposed to make your work more accessible, not less. As for the "Genius is only recognised by the enlightened" brigade out there, go suck an onion and grow up. There is nothing more presumptuous and self-serving than people who say the reason another person doesn't know great art is because they don't understand the 'craft /materials /moon cycle /filaments of supreme rational thought' which the 'auteur /poet/ artist/ palm reader/ idiot savant' is using to explain his or her 'vision /grand scheme /oneness with Gaea /great big bucket of dog-sick'.

For me and many, many more people, its garbage.

Movies, art, stories, poetry, anything designed to be viewed by another human is supposed to be engaging and moving. In some direction be it metaphorical, spiritual, emotional or whatever you're having yourself.

The only way this moved me was forward in time, two hours closer to my own inevitable demise. "The greatest trick He ever pulled was making You believe Any Part of this movie meant Anything at All"

And now, please, by all means, toast my buns for me.


Having read the comments on the site I feel compelled to write in for the first time. It seems this movie is like Marmite and has split the audience. I have to say that while I agree films don't have to make sense to be enjoyable (see MULHOLLAND DRIVE) they still have to engage you with the characters. Now while I was totally absorbed by the murderous lesbian affair in Lynch's opus, I have to say I couldn't give a turd about Mr Green or the other cardboard gangsters that inhabited this dayglo world.

Also, while so many people seem to try and say you didn't enjoy because you didn't get it I would have to disagree - I didn't enjoy because I was bored. I wanted the film to end and constantly listening to those quotes over and over again did not help. Call it clever if you will - I think it's repetitious.

However, my main reason for writing is to ask all the other reviewers a question - there were no end credits on the print of the film I saw. Just music over black. Did I watch a dud print or is this evidence of GR's pretentiousness? Or, did everyone involved in the movie watch the rough cut and have their name removed???


What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.

His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.

Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?

There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.

A waste of two hours of my life.


Guy Richie's third proper film (not counting the God-awful "Swept Away" is a complex action thriller concerned with gambling, gangsters and chess. Fans of Richie's previous efforts will probably hate Revolver as much as I did, with its twists and turns. Richie stalwart Jason Statham plays Jake, a newly-released ex-con, out to wreak revenge on the ridiculously named Dorothy Macha (a superbly OTT Ray Liotta) but instead gets embroiled with a couple of other cons, (one of which is Andre 3000 from rap outfit Outkast) who throw him and us the audience, a number of red herrings throughout the film, all of which becomes extremely tedious. The high point of this mess of a movie is the bit in the restaurant, where the dialogue gets turned down in favour of a superbly shot, slow-mo shootout set to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. All in all, Revolver is a flawed work, not truly awful but far from Richie's best. That would still be Lock, Stock. If this film was a school homework assignment it would be graded 'must try harder!'


Ritchie's first two films were snappy, stylish entertainment. Here, he raids two recent classics  'The Usual Suspects' and 'Fight Club'  and still comes out empty-handed.

Despite parading itself as a con-mystery (with the sub-'Usual Suspects' twaddle "the greatest con he ever pulled was convincing you that he was you" or whatever it was...) and attempting a 'Fight-Club' twist about which characters are real and which are internal manifestations, the film struggles to maintain interest in its second half. By the last third, you know you're being lead down a blind alley, and tediously slowly at that.

Cons, chess and game theory are all great subjects, but Ritchie delves into them too superficially and too repetitively to make much use of the material.

The only thing that keeps the movie (almost) watchable is Ritchie's bold way with with a scene and Maurice-Jones's dynamic camera. If Ritchie stuck to a more satisfying plot, and succumbed to tighter editing, there's no reason why he couldn't have made another enjoyable gangster caper.

As it is, Revolver is a waste of your time. Incomprehensibility does not equal profundity. If you want to see a great film that doesn't make logical sense but makes a virtue of it (and, incidentally, which also involves an inexplicable escape from solitary confinement) watch 'Lost Highway'.


After seeing "Driven" on a plane flight to America 3 years ago I truly believed I had seen the worst film ever created, and I could relax safe in the knowledge I would never have to suffer that much in front of a screen ever again. Unfortunately as I found out last night this was not the case. Revolver is so monstrously bad I am actually thinking about recommending friends to go and see it, just so I don't feel like I'm the only one stupid enough for being conned into watching this. Its really quite amazing how much this film falls completely on its face with the constant, and I mean CONSTANT voice overs of the main characters, with totally inane pretentious nonsense! I was actually getting angry in the cinema listening to Andre Benjamin's utterly relentless droning for what seemed like half the film, whilst all the time thinking - what would Turkish have done to this complete joke of gangster/con man, whatever he's supposed to be, when he made his "offer"? I'll tell you what. He would have told him to f**k off, blown his head away, and watch with utter disdain as his equally inept partner waddles away as fast as his chubby little legs would carry him. I mean what are we supposed to believe is going through Jake's head when they offer him their "solution" to his problem? They're con men, therefore they must obviously also have the skill to cure incurable blood diseases! I mean ffs. Doesn't he start to wonder why his symptoms aren't getting worse? Doesn't the penny drop on the third day what is happening instead of Richie subjecting the audience to a painfully patronising phone call from Avi to Jake to let him know he's been conned.

Anyway, I can add a small positive note to the film by moving on to the dry humour if provides, thankfully of a similar standard to his previous films. bulls**t! This film doesn't try anything as smart as redeeming itself through some well timed amusing lines, oh no. It somehow managed to be so disastrously unfunny I genuinely didn't hear so much as a titter from a completely packed cinema  and anyone who knows the UGC in Sheffield knows how full a main screen can get, and not 1 person so much as smiled. Maybe he never wanted the film to be funny, and fair enough you can still make good gangster films without comedy, but what was he planning on hanging this film on may I ask? The unnecessarily baffling plot!?? I sincerely hope not!

By far the most satisfying moment I went through last night was hearing the very loud sighing coming from ALL directions of the audience as everyone desperately prayed for the film to end. It was also really quite amusing watching just how fast patrons were fighting and dashing for the exits after they realised it was over, and they were free from their torment!

I'll round this off (I've got to finish, writing this is making me angry again) by elaborating on the "end". I mean sh**t! The ending.. no, sorry I can't, your just going to have to go and see it. It can't be put in words, it just can't, and after you've seen it you'll know why. Uuhhhhh  shudders


Was convincing the world that he didn't exist...

This is a line that is probably remembered by a lot of people. It's from The Usual Suspects of course in relation to Kaiser Gold..I mean Sose..

I got another one like that: -The dumbest trick a director ever pulled was trying to convince an audience he actually had a storyline-

This movie is one of the saddest pieces of film-making I have seen in a long time. It starts out so well, with really fantastic cinematography, great acting and a very smart premise. But alas, the only way this movie is heading is on a course of self-destruction. And it does so, not by a single blow but with nagging little wrist-cuts.

Pay no attention to the comments here that marvel at the fact that they found a way to explain this donut. With enough booze in my brain I would probably be capable of explaining the very existence of mankind to a very plausible degree. I have seen and read about a dozen totally different ways people explained the story. And they vary from a story set totally in someones head, playing chess with himself, to a cunning way for a criminal to play out his enemies by means resembling chess gaming.

And that's all jolly swell. But at the same time it is a painful giveaway that there is something terribly wrong with this story. And apart from that, it is in any case a blunt rip off of a score of movies and books like "Fight Club, Kill Bill, Casino, The Usual Suspects, Snatch, Magnolia and Shachnovelle. And we are not dealing with kind borrowing here, it's a blatant robbery.

What ultimately goes wrong here in this movie is that the storyline swirls like a drunk bum on speed. If this movie was a roller-coaster ride, you'd have crashed into the attraction next to it shorty after take off. There are so many twists in this movie which will never be resolved, that if it was a cocktail, you'd be needing a life supply of hurl-buckets to work of the nausea after drinking it. Nothing is ever explained and when you finally get some grasp of the direction you think it's going, you get pulled in yet another one.

I guess this story wasn't going anywhere on paper and Ritchy must have thought that is was awesome to make a movie out of it anyway, being the next David Lynch or something.

1/10 for totally violating one's own work (Ritchy: seek professional help). What could have easily been a gem instead becomes a contrived art-piece, food for pseudo intellectuals to debate on at sundayafternoon debating-clubs.

Spare your soul and stomach, avoid at all cost!


I don't think I've ever felt this let down by a film before. After loving Guy Ritchie's two previous films (I don't count Swept Away - he was pussy blind), I was so looking forward to seeing this.

The reviews were poor, then again, I don't trust the press anyway. More worrying was the fact that the internet buzz was that this was a bit of a stinker, so it was with some trepidation I handed over my £4.80 yesterday afternoon.

I'm not even going to try to explain this film, mainly because I haven't got a clue what was going on and at one point I was honestly close to standing up and asking if it was just me who didn't get it!

Unfortunately I think Ritchie seems to have fallen into his wife's trap of taking himself far too seriously.It seems it wasn't good enough for him to make films with good plots, laughs, snappy dialogue and good characters. It's almost as if he had a checklist of films he wanted to rip off, here are some of the ones I noticed:

The Matrix, Fight Club, Kill Bill, The Usual Suspects, Vanilla Sky...

I think the most frustrating thing is that the performances from the two main actors, Jason Statham and Ray Liotta, were actually very good and it was really the self indulgent story and editing / direction that let the film down.

So a big, big thumbs down from me.


Okay. Who was it? Who gave Revolver 10 out of 10? Are you tripping of your head on Ecstasy pipes? There were so many of you. Did you do it for a dare? Is this some kind of cult? Or did Guy Richie himself sign up 788 times under different names?

Before I say anything else, I'll say this. Just because you don't understand a film doesn't mean that it's not great. Maybe you've had a bad day at work, or you sat down to watch a film after you had a row with your wife and then weren't in the mood. Maybe there's a more fundamental stumbling block- like you just don't have the mental capacity or a highly enough developed philosophical sense to engage with it. BUT. And this is a very, very big but. The XXL elephant-sized mega-but to end all buts.

PLEASE don't confuse incoherence for complexity, and please don't confuse this two hour non-squirter for an interesting film. Really. You may think you are pretty smart. You may even think of yourself as somewhat of a romantic figure: an independent thinker championing a masterpiece against a chorus of sheep-like naysayers. Please don't. You're embarrassing yourself.

Revolver's a waste of everyone's time. If you thought about if for a few minutes, you'd recognise it too. It was a waste of the cast, a waste of the crew, a waste of the caterers, and definitely a waste of the precious minutes (you can't get them back you know) of anyone unlucky enough to sit through this unutterable, wretched mess.

"No - wait," comes a voice in the darkness. "You just don't understand. Its NON-LINEAR. That means the story doesn't go in a STRAIGHT LINE. This is actually the COMPLEX and SUBTLE work of an AUTEUR. It addresses difficult EXISTENTIAL questions. And anyway - they slated FIGHT CLUB when it first came out - didn't you hear? -Because they couldn't deal with the COMPLEXITY. They're eating humble pie now. Bet you hate Lynch films too, doncha?"

Hate to disappoint you, but I am quite a big Lynch fan. I rather like Memento, so a narrative told in an unconventional fashion doesn't necessarily fill me with fear. And although I've only studied it briefly a few years ago, philosophy interests me greatly. I don't dislike Revolver for these reasons. I dislike it because it purports to be about weighty, big-brained topics but deals with them in such an insultingly superficial way as to be laughable. I'm not much of a chess player, but Richie's idea of how chess works seems to be that of a precocious four year old. I dislike it because the characters, without exception, totally alienated me. "Aha!" cries the Richie apologist. "Guy is cleverly tipping his hat to Brecht!" Just maybe you're right. I think its more likely that he just can't write a decent script for toffee.

Comparing Revolver with Fight Club is actually really instructive. Fight Club has acid-tongued, nihilistic dialogue that makes you laugh. Revolver has stale fortune cookie reject one-liners that make your ears bleed. Fight Club has a great twist that makes you reassess everything that has happened. Revolver has, as far as I can tell, several incomprehensible twists that offer no satisfaction because... well, they don't make sense. If you keep pulling the rug out from under people, they eventually kick you out of their house. And then they lock all the doors and windows. And they never let you back in. Ever.

Guy Richie seems to assume that being philosophical entails repeating a mantra of little buzz-phrases. Mostly they are spoken, but often they flash up on the screen with attributions. It's almost pathological.

But what makes this film particularly notable is the way in which something so incomprehensible can be married so neatly with all tired gangster clichés in the world. Ultimately its so inconsequential. You don't care about anything. You don't understand anything. You go home.

Actually, there was a bit I really liked: the uptight assassin who has a crisis of confidence. He's great. But I can't recommend you see the film just to see him. He's only in it for a few minutes.

Please believe me. It's horrible.


I would rather of had my eyes gouged out with rusty ice picks than have had to sit through this abortion. There is no plot. There is no acting ability . Ray Liota has shamed himself and should be blacklisted from any more work. I am so sorry that the industry allows crap like this to be shown on any type of medium.

Rumor has it that Maddona threw herself to the floor to break her other arm so she could be taken away on a stretcher. Actullly, she deserves to be married to this loser and wanna-be-actor-director. I hope she stays in London and never returns to the USA. Please do not waste your money on this so called film. I beg of you.


Let this film serve as the death knell to the "big twist" films borne out of the 1990s. Known in some circles as The Kyser Soze Syndrome, this cinematic slight of hand has now been done to death by M. Night Shayamalan and even Ron Howard used a variation in A BEAUTIFUL MIND. However, in REVOLVER, director Guy Ritchie (known in some circles as "Mr. Madonna"), utilizes the Soze motif in a far more obsequious manner.

Jason Statham (with a highly questionable head of hair) stars as Jack Green (known to all as "Mr. Green.") He may or may not also be criminal mastermind Mr. Gold. Or, perhaps Mr. Gold is an irritable spirit who can possess members of the underworld. I'm not quite certain, but I certainly don't care. REVOLVER is one of the most overwrought examples of cinematic excess I've had the displeasure to endure in quite a long time. Witness the fractured time structure, the painful jump cuts, the ceaseless inner-monologues, and the painfully pretentious animated sequence. This "everything and the kitchen sink" directing style makes Quentin Tarantino's oeuvre look sedate. The cinematic smoke and mirrors only lead me to believe that Ritchie was as bored telling this trite tale as I was watching it.

The film is filled with moments of revelation that are supposedly shocking but they only come as news to Mr. Green. I wanted to like Green as I always enjoy Stratham as a character who is two steps ahead of everyone else. Here, though, he struggles along like a remedial reader in a University English Literature class. His lack of wit is only matched by the lack of restraint shown by his nemesis, Macha (Ray Liotta). Feasting on scenery like a starving man at a smorgasbord, Liotta spits, cries, and fumes through the film in an embarrassing display of overacting and leopard print speedos.

There are no redeeming qualities to REVOLVER. It's yet another filmic faux pas from Ritchie and might even outdo his wretched remake of SWEPT AWAY as his worst film yet.


Its like if you took the general themes of The Usual Suspects and Fightclub, take away all their style and class and mixed them together with a lot of pretentious new wave "i'm intellectual so my movie must be hard to make sense of" film maker rubbish, mashed in a few extra styles for good measure, chopped off the ending, there you have Revolver.

Yes, I did think about it for a little bit after watching, and yes it did kind of make sense, however that doesn't stop it being garbage.

Waste of money. Waste of time.

Up there as the worst Movie I have ever seen, with not even a bad movie novelty value to redeem it a little.


This movie is now my gauge against which all other movies will be compared...as in, "was it as stupid as Revolver?" I too was in the Toronto International Film Festival audience last night where a room filled with over 2000 people walked out in an eerie silence after being absolutely dumbstruck by 2 hours of sheer nonsense. Jason Stratham would have been amazing if only he had a purpose. Within the first 10 minutes he's given a proposition by Andre 3000 and Big Pussy (of Soprano's fame) which makes NO SENSE AT ALL! Then there's some shooting and then there's Ray Liotta wearing embarrassing bikini briefs, then there's some animation, Ray Liotta's naked butt, lots of shooting, teeth gnashing, art house wanna be pretensions and more of Liotta's embarrassing body that elicited laughs at every showing...which I'm not quite sure was the reaction he was looking for...not 5 times anyway. Everyone in this movie thinks they're smarter than the average bear and Guy Ritchie thinks he's Yogi Bear incarnate. The story lines might have went nowhere but the posturing was outta sight! The only way this movie could have been worse is if Madonna herself was in it.


When Ritchie first burst on to movie scene his films were hailed as funny, witty, well directed and original. If one could compare the hype he had generated with his first two attempts and the almost universal loathing his last two outings have created one should consider - has Ritchie been found out? Is he really that talented? Does he really have any genuine original ideas? Or is he simply a pretentious and egotistical director who really wants to be Fincher, Tarantino and Leone all rolled into one colossal and disorganised heap? After watching Revolver one could be excused for thinking were did it all go wrong? What happened to his great sense of humour? Where did he get all these mixed and convoluted ideas from? Revolver tries to be clever, philosophical and succinct, it tries to be an intelligent psychoanalysis, it tries to be an intricate and complicated thriller. Ritchie does make a gargantuan effort to fulfil all these many objectives and invests great chunks of a script into existential musings and numerous plot twists. However, in the end all it serves is to construct a severely disjointed, unstructured and ultimately unfriendly film to the audience. Its plagiarism is so sinful and blatant that although Ritchie does at least attempt to give his own spin he should be punished for even trying to pass it off as his own work. So what the audience gets ultimately is a terrible screenplay intertwined with many pretentious oneliners and clumsy setpieces.

Revolver is ultimately an unoriginal and bland movie that has stolen countless themes from masterpieces like Fight Club, Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. It aims high, but inevitably shots blanks aplenty.

Revolver deserves to be lambasted, it is a truly poor film masquerading as a wannabe masterpiece from a wannabe auteur. However, it falls flat on its farcical face and just fails at everything it wants to be and achieve.


I heard this film was much more stylistic than the films director Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch) had directed before, the problem is, it is possibly too stylistic. Basically Jake Green (Jason Statham) is released from prison after seven years in solitary,and within two years he gambles loads of his money. He is ready to seek revenge against the violence-prone casino owner who got Jake sent to prison, Dorothy 'Mr. D' Macha (Ray Liotta). In the process, doctors tell Jake that he has three days left to live as he is dying from a rare blood disease, oh, and Macha puts hit men on him. Loan sharks Zach (Vincent Pastore) and Avi (André Benjamin) are demanding Jake pays their cash back, and do some odd jobs for them. The film is filled with Jake narrating through some flashbacks, and through his last three days before coming to the big revelation about Zach and Avi, and Macha, well, I assume that's what it was. Also starring Terence Maynard as French Paul, Andrew Howard as Billy, Mark Strong as Sorter, Francesca Annis as Lily Walker, Anjela Lauren Smith as Doreen and Elana Binysh as Rachel. The are sequences involving a little bit of animation, repeating lines twice in different perspectives, and changing speeds for moments, and all of these are irritating to the point of confusion and boredom, making it a silly crime drama. Pretty poor!


There are so many comments on this film, yet I found them to be misleading. This a corner-cutting, over-used scenario where a normal human being becomes a partner in crime to someone of the opposite sex for no apparent reason. Boy meets girl. Girl holds boy up at gunpoint for something ridiculous. Boy is intrigued.

You know the drill: The antagonist turns out to be a wild, free spirit instead of a sociopath... Toss in a few words of wisdom from Alice Drummond and you have a recipe for Love. Sheedy's 'is she crazy or does she just need a hug?' role from The Breakfast Club simply reeks as a lead character. And all that is left is a truly ghastly turkey of a movie.


had to see this cos it looked like a great scary premise- prisoners finding magic book,oo err! claustrophobic terror ensues, etc.

but there didn't seem to be a story to go along with the great idea. rather than chilling/physcological horror, it relied on effects out in the open- fire and OTT body horror- , which didn't scare at all if your over 12.

The logic at the end is ridiculous, with characters being killed off for nothing other than bodycount. waste of good characters- which were the best thing about this film.

obviously low budget, which doesn't spoil it, the film really goes nowhere, and- icant believe im going to say this- it needs a Hollywood remake. you simply loose interest in this version. definitely not in the same league as other french films coming out in the last few years like crimson rivers which were at least watchable/entertaining, malefique isn't watchable to the end to be honest. and i bet you can guess the ending before you have watched the film. really really disappointing- impossible to recommend.