Very, very humdrum movie fare here with Stella Stevens taking directions from someone in disguise(it didn't take me long to guess who it was) in Old Nevada Town outside Vegas for a money heist in the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas. Stevens leads her girl gang of three, and they find out that they must act much quicker than had been anticipated. Despite some neat looks at Las Vegas in the 70's, very average yet credible acting from most involved, and a plot line with potential, Las Vegas Lady lays one big boring egg. It seems forever for the film to kick into gear,and when it does it just sputters here and there and never really speeds up. I was somewhat disappointed with this film. Sure, I wasn't expecting anything great, but I at least thought this might be one of those neat exploitation films from the 70's or something like it. Not even close. No one dies. There is a lame gunfight between creaky Stuart Whitman and officious George DiCenzo, one year prior to his grand performance as the prosecuting attorney Bugliosa in Helter Skelter. The gunfight has all the suspense of watching a waterfall. There is one punch and one head hit with a blunt instrument. Beyond that nothing in terms of action. And as for the girls, don't expect much there either. Stella and her girls(both very mediocre yet pretty talents, get in a sauna and a bath. What do we see? Nothing but a fleeting side profile. Stella wears these nice open blouses accentuating her real talents, but I wish she would have been a bit more open with her performance. That way I could write one thing that would recommend the film. Alas, it was not to be, and I have little to say in this film's favor. It isn't a horrible film in any way, it just has nothing going for it either. YAWN.


Snow White, which just came out in Locarno, where I had the chance to see it, of course refers to the world famous fairy tale. And it also refers to coke. In the end, real snow of the Swiss Alps plays its part as well.

Thus all three aspects of the title are addressed in this film. There is a lot of dope on scene, and there is also a pale, dark haired girl - with a prince who has to go through all kind of trouble to come to her rescue.

But: It's not a fairy tale. It's supposed to be a realistic drama located in Zurich, Switzerland (according to the Tagline).

Technically the movie is close to perfect. Unfortunately a weak plot, foreseeable dialogs, a mostly unreal scenery and the mixed acting don't add up to create authenticity. Thus as a spectator I remained untouched.

And then there were the clichés, which drove me crazy one by one: Snow White is a rich and spoiled upper class daughter - of course her parents are divorced and she never got enough love from them, because they were so busy all the time. Her best girlfriend, on the other hand, has loving and caring parents. They (a steelworker and a housewife) live in a tiny flat, poor and happy - and ignorant of the desperate situation their daughter is in. The good guy (= prince) is a musician (!) from the French speaking part of Switzerland (which is considered to be the economically less successful but emotionally fitter fraction of the country). He has problems with his parents. They are migrants from Spain, who don't seem to accept his wild way of living - until the father becomes seriously ill and confesses his great admiration for his son from a hospital bed.

And so it goes on: Naturally, the drug dealer is brutal, the bankers are heartless, the club owner is a playboy and the photographer, although a woman (!), has only her career in mind when she exposes Snow White in artsy pornographic pictures at a show.

This review doesn't need a spoiler in order to let you add these pieces to an obvious plot. As I like other films by Samir, e.g. "Forget Baghdad", I was quite disappointed. Let's hope for the next one.


This is a badly made, poor remake of Bimalda's classic Parineeta. The story is based on Sarat Chandra's book of the same name and it is a distortion of the original. Well one can appreciate some degree of creativity but not sham creativity. The acting by everyone is affected and the entire movie is a sham. Shekar's father's choice of words in abusing Lolita ( Balan ) sounds cheap and morbid and destroys the spirit of the original story. Again the scene where Shekhar ( Saif ) slaps Lolita is quite out of place with the flow of the movie and the characters, is quite jarring to the senses, and could have been easily avoided. Similarly the sex scene between Saif and Balan is quite unbecoming the movie and a cheap gimmick to attract the audience. When a creative work is not faithful to the original and destroys it's spirit, the work falls apart. The song "piyu bole" is quite OK. Another silver lining in the dark cloud of this movie is the scene where Saif stands up for himself and rebels against his father. This is a positive departure from the original and deserves credit. On these counts this movie deserves 3 stars. The song and dance by Rekha smacks of artifice and it is a put on. The song is tuneful but I remember having heard it somewhere before and if Iam not mistaken the tune appears to have been plagiarized.

Well, agreed the times have changed from then to now. But then this movie is not even reflective of the modern times.

This is what happens when the modern Bollywood film makers get increasingly obsessed with impressing the NRIs and grabbing the lucrative NRI entertainment market. Such movies end up neither belonging to India nor to any other part of the world.


I stopped watching lost at this episode because I thought Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths were unnecessary and really depressing. Then I found out that they kept Libby around just to die in the next episode! Gah! I can't handle it.

I liked this show for the first season, but it definitely declined in the second season, I found Jack and Locke's little religious feud to be annoying. The deaths of Rodriguez & Watros' characters was the final straw!

I give this episode a 4/10, for being the end to my viewing of this formerly great series created by Alias legend J.J. Abrams. I hope his series in the future will improve on this one.


I was honestly surprised by Alone in the Dark. It was so bad, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There are no characters, just a few stereotypes wandering around and getting killed. The extent of the character development was giving each character a name and an occupation, and that's about it. There was no real plot, and none of the characters seemed to have any motivation. In fact, many action scenes just began on their own, coming from nowhere with a pounding techno track. While I was watching this movie I kept asking "Where is this happening? What's going on?" The acting was high school drama quality, with stiff wooden delivery, as though the actors were reading from cue cards without comprehending their lines. Their trouble delivering lines was made even more obvious by horrible sound design. ADR sounded like it was recorded in an open room. The actors were constantly taking obvious care to hit their marks, looking almost robotic in their movements. So, these listless automatons are whisked through a series of implausible and confusing scenarios, often without even the benefit of transition scenes. They were here, now they're there. This was happening, now that's happening. Random scenes with little rhyme or reason. I had a lot of fun watching it. Definitely not worth nine bucks though.


Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs.


True, there are many movies much worse then this movie. This movie was no Manos: The Hands of Fate, or Troll 2 (yes, I have seen them both.. twice) but at the same time this movie is No Alien, Predator or even Alien Vs. Predator (Yes, even that movie surpassed this). Movies like this make Battlefield Earth look like a Star Wars it is so bad. Razzie awards lookout, your biggest competition has just arrived in theaters. This film I'm talking about is of course Alone in the Dark. I'll try to take you though a step by step process on why this film was so bad.

Acting- I'll first start off with what perhaps was the best component of this film (next to the ending credits, which played 'Wish I had An Angel', the acting. Christian Slater must be proud of himself, he successfully proved that it is possible to act decent in a film worse then drinking antifreeze. Though all his awful dialog he had to speak, it made me wonder why he just didn't walk off the set halfway. Perhaps it was because of Stephen Dorff being in the film as well (somebody he wishes he could be but fails at it). Tara Reid is a bad actress but good looking and that's all that really matters in films like these. That is not to say the acting was perfect though, it was average, not good, and perhaps the only thing in the film not good.

The Soundtrack- Except for 'Wish I had An Angel', the soundtrack is pointless and bad heavy medal being pumped into the viewers ears, perhaps to disguise the awful story (something I will get to soon). A long and very expensive 2 CD soundtrack is now up for sale for those musically challenged.

The Directing- Directed by Hollywoods favorite director Uwe Ball who brought us the classic House of the Dead. Telling us "Yes, movies can get this utterly bad and that's just the beginning to my deadly saga of awful movies". At least it is said to be directed by Uwe Ball. Without being told I would have guessed a monkey was kidnapped from the Congo, brought here and forced to make opinions on how to make the movie under penalty of being shocked. The director of photography was probably a camcorder taped onto a skateboard and pushed forward until it hits a wall. On the scenes where the camera should stay still it is constantly moving, not allowing us to stop anywhere and when it should be moving in action, the camera stops for some reason.

The Producing- Who on earth is stupid enough to put money towards this bomb? I pity the fool... sometimes. Sometimes I'm glad he or she was taught such a lesson to never put money towards garbage worse then dog dung tied up in a bag.

The Writing / Storyboard- Trying to Analise the story is more painful then jamming an ice pick under a big toe and kicking a soccer ball as hard as I possibly could with it right after but I will still attempt it.

Edward Carnby escapes as a child from an orphanage where 20 children where to go under science experiments. He escapes and hides in an electrical outlet where he is electrocuted (this is the point where it got so bad i started to laugh out loud). Then it fast-forwards many years later where he's a paranoia detective. He get's attacked by some zombie that can't be shot to death, kills it and moves on with life. Later on he gets attacked by some crazy looking monster and he discovers secrets that nobody else knows.

Yeah, the plot is bad, really really bad. The film beings with expecting us to read approximately 10 minutes, which felt like 100, of random text about an untrue civilization called the Abskani. The film goes not to have one twist after another, more then the audience can handle, more then the audience wants to handle, more then the audience could ever care about. This storyline is rock bottom bad that even Double Dragon does better.

Overall, miss out on this movie. I gave it a 1 out of 10 but that is because there is no 0.


I don't know where to begin. Tara Reid needs to be stopped before she's put in another movie. Stephen Dorff looks like he got his character's motivation from Val Kilmer in "Top Gun". Slater sleepwalks through this dreck. The direction, editing, sound (do we really need a heavy-metal video in the middle of a gunfight?), costumes (bulletproof vests with muscles on them), and hey, there's no discernible plot either. It amazes me that no one attached to the project stopped and said, "hey guys, this just doesn't make any sense, let's start over". Hopefully Slater's career can rebound from this disaster.

Hands down the worst film I've ever seen.


Obviously a lot of talented behind the scenes crew members worked on this movie, so don't even look at the credits at the end, you'll only hold it against them. Nobody seemed interested in seeing this movie, only 3 were in the theater; two passed out after 10 minutes, and they were the lucky ones. The 'monsters' were the unemployed worm from Star Trek 2, The Wrath of Khan, and rejected designs for the space creatures in Alien. The creators of the movie obviously didn't want to overshadow the third rate movie monsters, so they hired forth rate actors who apparently didn't get to memorize their lines, or in some cases learn to pronounce the words before filming began. Some scenes are incredibly inept in conveying just what is supposed to be happening, if anything is. If you are unfortunate enough to be in a theater where this movie is showing, and you don't pass out, you'll laugh at what are supposed to be frightening or suspenseful moments of the film. The implausibility of several scenes will just stun you, and Stephen Dorff's regular spewing of the 'Queen Mary of curse words' conveys the feeling of anyone who pays to see this. If you must see this movie, do yourself a favor and wait until it's in the bargain bin at the video store. If there's any justice in the film industry, one of the main actors will be there to rent it to you.


The movie starts out with some scrolling text which takes nearly five minutes. It gives the basic summary of what is going on. This could have easily been done with acting but instead you get a scrolling text effect. Soon after you are bombarded with characters that you learn a little about, keep in mind this is ALL you will learn about them. The plot starts to get off the ground and then crashes through the entire movie. Not only does the plot change, but you might even ask yourself if your watching the same movie. I have never played the video game, but know people who have. From my understanding whether you've played the game or not this movie does not get any better. Save your money unless you like to sleep at the theaters.


Well where do I begin my story?? I went to this movie tonight with a few friends not knowing more than the Actors that were in it, and that it was supposed to be a horror movie.

Well I figured out within the first 20 minutes, what a poor decision I had made going out seeing this movie. The Plot was crap, and so was the script. The lines were horrible to the point that people in the audience were laughing hysterically.

The cast couldn't have been more plastic looking. Even some of the scenes seemed like they should have been made much quicker...like they dragged on for no particular reason. Very poor editing.

All in all this movie was a giant waste of time and money. Boo.


This movie succeeds at being one of the most unique movies you've seen. However this comes from the fact that you can't make heads or tails of this mess. It almost seems as a series of challenges set up to determine whether or not you are willing to walk out of the movie and give up the money you just paid. If you don't want to feel slighted you'll sit through this horrible film and develop a real sense of pity for the actors involved, they've all seen better days, but then you realize they actually got paid quite a bit of money to do this and you'll lose pity for them just like you've already done for the film. I can't go on enough about this horrible movie, its almost something that Ed Wood would have made and in that case it surely would have been his masterpiece.

To start you are forced to sit through an opening dialogue the likes of which you've never seen/heard, this thing has got to be five minutes long. On top of that it is narrated, as to suggest that you the viewer cannot read. Then we meet Mr. Slater and the barrage of terrible lines gets underway, it is as if he is operating solely to get lines on to the movie poster tag line. Soon we meet Stephen Dorff, who I typically enjoy) and he does his best not to drown in this but ultimately he does. Then comes the ultimate insult, Tara Reid playing an intelligent role, oh help us! Tara Reid is not a very talented actress and somehow she continually gets roles in movies, in my opinion though she should stick to movies of the American pie type.

All in all you just may want to see this for yourself when it comes out on video, I know that I got a kick out of it, I mean lets all be honest here, sometimes its comforting to revel in the shortcomings of others.


The minute the forward started, I knew we were in for trouble! The premise is laughable at best. The story line was even worse, if that is possible.

The acting was stiff and the actors gave off a sense of inexperience. You expect more from the likes of Slater, Reid and Dorff. Lines were delivered as if from a robot. And I'm sorry, I like Reid but she was VERY unbelievable as an archaeologist. Slater and Dorff picked a lousy film to try and stage their comebacks.

The continuity was off through out the entire film. The creatures weren't bad, but they really weren't good either.

Bottom line, I want that ninety minutes of my life back. They can keep the money, but give me the time! What a waste.


The definition of an abomination as defined by Webster's Dictioary is "a cause of abhorrence or disgust." If someone can think of a more appropriate word or definition than this for Alone in the Dark, please let me know because this is the best I can come up with. However, I do no feel that in anyway this word describes how truly awful this film is.

I went to see this film with two of my roommates. One has very similar tastes to me, the other is an action/adventure flick guru. This latter guy usually doesn't care about the size of the plot holes, as long as the movie contains lots of explosions he will walk away satisfied.

That being said we entered the theater for the Friday viewing of Alone in the Dark. Little to my surprise we were the only people in the theater. When it started I knew why immediately.

It begins with the worst opening scene of any movie, and unfortunately I have to admit it only gets worse from there. The opening scene is a 5 minute scroll text that is narrated. Yet, I understand why it was narrated. The director must have understood that only illiterate people would even ascertain the thought of PAYING to see this movie. Yet, not only is this first scene the longest scroll text in the history of cinema, but it also makes no sense. It seems as if in the same sequence we are hearing about to completely separate movies. One is about an ancient civilization and its tampering with a portal, the other is about a crazy scientist and his experiments on orphans. If you are reading this and are confused, you are not alone.

Then the awful storyline, acting, effects, and camera work begin. Tara Reid is horrendous as an actress. She does nothing to even for one second make you think that she is a museum curator. Slater is just bad, not convincing, and has no chemistry with Reid.

The plot is probably the worst thing ever created by man. The entire time myself and the roommate with similar tastes are asking questions like: What is this? And what is going on? Other than this scrolling garbage we have a few narrated sequences by Slater himself. Are they good? NO. Do they explain anything? NO. Do we at any point as an audience have the slightest inkling as to why we should care what happens? Once again, NO.

Then we have a random sex scene. We are told that Slater and Reid are together, yet at no time do they act as though they even care about on another. But then BAM...sex scene. Once again I don't know.

A good, oh i don't know, 30 seconds after that woeful scene ends we have a gunfight with 20 or so military and a similar number of alien things. This is set to a heavy-metal track and causes more brain hemorrhaging than one ever thought possible.

And if that wasn't enough...

There exists no main villain. There is the scientist and there are the "alien" things. At one point the scientist controls the alien things and stands on a hill commanding them to attack the military outpost. Why? How did he become the supreme commander of these things? Why do they listen to him? Once again I have no idea.

The movie ends with Slater and Reid walking in an evacuated city. Why was the city evacuated? Did the alien things break through? Did the military tell them? Who knows...and by this point who cares? I didn't and you won't.

But to top it off, Slater and Reid are attacked by an alien thing. Even though it was stated that alien things will be killed by exposure to sunlight. And thats right, you guessed it, it the middle of the *&%$ing day and it's bright as can be. Maybe the alien thing bought a pair of sunglasses, I don't know and I don't care.

Now after the movie ended I ran outside the theater, all 6 foot 6 inches of me, waving my arms and shaking my afro telling everyone not to go see this movie. Even my gung-ho action/adventure roommate (who would consider a movie that just cut and pasted 2 hours of explosion into 1 film to be the greatest thing ever created) admitted that plot holes were very evident in this film.

To sum up this CRAP-FEST i give it a 0.0/10 and would give it lower if I could.

Unequivocally, the worst movie ever made. I wouldn't wish this movie on my worst enemy.


I usually start by relaying the premise of the film, but before anyone makes any hasty judgments about my review, let me preface it by saying that I'm someone who likes most films (just check my other reviews). Alone in the Dark is a film by director Uwe Boll, whose film right before this one was House of the Dead (2003). Like Alone in the Dark, it was also a film adaptation of a video game. Almost everyone hated it. Well, I loved it. I even gave it a 10 out of 10! My point in stating this (which will surely turn some readers off immediately) is that if even I hated Alone in the Dark, there must be something wrong with it.

The Premise: Who am I kidding? Attempting to state a premise for this film is about as easy as trying to balance the United States' budget, but here it goes anyway. Some archaeologists discovered evidence of some lost American Indian tribe. The Indian tribe apparently had discovered some means of broaching the "second world", which was evil in nature. The bad stuff wiped them out, but not before they could lock the door to the evil world and throw away the key. Later, some scientist/government researcher who had been experimenting with the paranormal, and specifically this tribe, decided to experiment on some kids, to try to produce some kind of hybrid with the second world. (Believe it or not--everything up to this point and then some is told to us in a written prologue to the film--it's just white text scrolling across a black screen with a voice-over also reading it to us). Then, there was something about the kids being in an orphanage, but the government takes them back out, and then a bunch of people are searching for archaeological relics, and there are super humans roaming around, and a bunch of military people are called in and on and on.

In fact, the exposition never really stops. It's like a neverending backstory from hell. There are enough ideas here to fill at least 10 films, maybe 25. But not one of them is presented in a coherent way to create one good film. In addition to the mystical lost Indian tribe and the superhumans, we also get monsters that resemble a cross between Alien and a werewolf, worms that invade your body and turn into snake-like aliens, tunneling worms underground, zombies, Starship Trooper-like wars, evil scientists, underground lairs, gold mines, spooky warehouses, impalements, big mostly unused museums, government conspiracies, golden trunks pulled out of the sea, nuns, explosions, complex backstabbing plots, a very ambiguous romance, car chases, home invasions, kitchen sinks . . . wait, I can't remember if that last one was in the film. Even more amazingly (amusingly?), in Fangoria #240, producer Shawn Williamson was quoted as saying, "We're spending much more time on story, being very meticulous about that". Tara Reid called Alone in the Dark "a smarter film".

Let me not mislead anyone. A lot of that stuff above might sound yummy to the potential audience for this film, but the problem is that nothing has the slightest connection to anything else. I usually had no idea what any setting's relation was to any other setting, why we were there, or what anyone was doing (at least when each scene began). It's just a random mishmash of settings and clichés, as if director Uwe Boll had 250 unrelated ideas in a hat and pulled them out like lottery numbers. Then when he was done, he and editor Richard Schwadel decided to cut the film by using dice, then reassembled it by throwing the I Ching. Sometimes the film plays like an extended director's reel (which is a combination of short, varied, unrelated scenes that directors circulate to try to get work), but perhaps that's being too generous. I'm not sure Boll would get work if this were his reel.

Just as I tend to at least like most films, I tend to like most actors and most performances. It's very rare that I say that a performance was bad. Well, Tara Reid was bad here--and I'm someone who usually likes Reid. I don't know what happened. For a large percentage of the film, they just move her around the set like a prop. They might as well have just bought a blow-up doll. That would have saved them money that they could have used for some cgi ghosts and vampires in castle and graveyard settings. Maybe they chose to move her around like a pretty piece of driftwood after they saw the dailies of her mumbling nonsense dialogue in a monotone that's usually reserved for entertaining mother-in-laws.

And speaking of that dialogue, a lot of Alone in the Dark plays like a Godzilla film without Godzilla. By that, I mean that it's a lot of pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook. At least in Godzilla films, there's a campiness to it, because they know how ridiculous it is, and there's a big payoff in that we get to see Godzilla destroy downtown and battle a giant gnat with radioactive death beams shooting from its eyes or something.

Just what Stephen Dorff and Christian Slater are doing here, besides overacting and filing lawsuits against their agents, is difficult to say. I can't say that I thought anyone in the film had a decent performance, although maybe Slater at least saw the cigar. I think that's unprecedented for me.

Still, I didn't give this film a 1. There was some competent cinematography, even if Boll and Schwadel made mincemeat out of it, and the hard rock tunes over the end credits were good. Heck, even the novelette prologue wasn't so bad. I actually thought the film had promise at that point. But this may just be the worst film I've ever seen with a budget of 20 million or more.


Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.

and

3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.

Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair?


Spoilers ahead, but does it really matter? Have you ever read a movie review composed entirely of questions? Could this be it? Why did an ancient civilization bury artifacts all over the world? Why is this question never answered? Why was the opening text crawl incoherent? Why would a nun (she sure seemed nice!) hand over 20 orphans to a madman? Has there always been a gold mine in downtown Vancouver? Why does one of the gold mine's shafts exit in the front yard of an orphanage? Why does Tara Reid's character suddenly show up at Christian Slater's apartment for sex? (Or did I just answer my own question?) Why would even a non-archaeologist bang open an obviously valuable solid gold chest with a sledgehammer? Why would modern computers still display green pre-Tron-era grid outlines of objects, complete with little "bleeps"? And must all movie explosive timers have digital displays? Why doesn't ANYTHING in this movie make any sense?


Tara Reid as an intellectual, Christian Slater(usually great) as a dollar store Constantine and Stephen Dorff as...well it's STEPHEN DORFF FOR Christ SAKE!!!! I personally just want to thank those brilliant casting directors for the hard work and effort. You guys are on. Heres an idea, just my humble lowly opinion as the movie going public but it follows directly with your previous choices,a movie about the most brilliant neuro-physicist in history invent one pill to cure all diseases ever known to man and get this, heres the clincher they have to be played by Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton. I knew you guys would love that. Seriously though you owe me $7.50.


This should be my kind of movie. Even if it sucked, it still should have been right up my alley; hell, I like "Congo," and "Allan Quatermaine" movies. I have a soft spot in my heart for silly alien/demon/adventure movies. Let's go over why I decided to watch this in the first place.

1. Horror/Sci-fi almost always intrigues me 2. I'm a big fan of archaeology, and this movie does involve a rare treasure. 3. Super-natural enemies with quality FX. 4. Christian Slater and Dorf I generally enjoy. 5. Tara Reid is hot.

So this movie had potential, at least in the cheese-horror section of the video store, but boy did it suck ass. The only redeeming aspects are Slater and Dorf, and not everyone finds them as entertaining as I do...I mean, let's face it, both are melodramatic. But now on to some of the many faults.

Tara Reid. Even though the movie as a whole is worse, Reid's performance is truly awful. We're not just talking bad, I'm talking about nominating Tara Reid for worst performance of the year. I don't know if she is capable of acting, but playing the museum curator is simply out of her league...completely. Watching her try to carry the roll of educated scientist wasn't much different than what you get watching the setup in bad porn. I mean this isn't just bad, it is laughably bad. Oh, and for those of you curious, she doesn't get naked, only down to a bra in a silly, totally unnecessary love scene.

Even with Reid's performance, perhaps the movie could have worked, but the plot is what dominates, and the plot seems written by a 10 year old. I hadn't realized this was a video game adaptation until AFTER watching the DVD, otherwise I would have appreciated the stupidity in real-time.

The storyline jumps back and forth from Slater's childhood at an orphanage where he gets flashbacks of something terrible that happened, he has amnesia, of course. In his adult life Slater was recruited by some Unit 713, a paranormal military force that apparently hunts evil or something. Slater had to leave because he was too rebellious, I guess, you never really know unless it was in one of those voice-overs I zoned out during. The movie starts with Slater hunting artifacts, obtaining his latest piece after some dealings with a "Chilean mercenary force specializing in selling rare antiquities." I may have the exact quote wrong, but you get the idea.

There is an evil doctor that wants to unleash some hellions on earth (no reason given), experiments on children, super demon/alien-human hybrids, "photonic" bullets (the demon things can't stand sunlight) and, of course, Slater and Dorf to try to save everyone.

Jesus, I can't even being to wade through the clichéd elements. The script badly needed reworking to narrow the focus and provide SOME depth. I mean, why is this evil scientist so damn evil? Oh right, humans are doomed and he is just trying to save the human race. I guess he's infected? How did that happen? Oh right he has one of the evil demon things in a cage and draws its blood to shoot into himself. How the hell did that happen? Why and where did he get the super slugs (oh yes, they use the old sci-fi stand by of parasitic aliens/demons which "fuse" with the spine of their host)Of course, Slater is, like Blade, half super-slug powered, but his slug "didn't fully fuse due to an electrical shock," thank god. Oh, and the people with these "fused" spines, have no idea they're half-alien/demon and act as good members of the community until some secret signal is given whence they turn killer zombies. Yeah we get zombies.

So lots of crap that could be entertaining, but none of it is.

Also, the ending is completely stupid as everything turns out to be not that big of a deal to fix in the first place...at least nothing a little dynamite can't handle.

Not the very worst thing you'll see, but a truly bad movie.


The title of worse film of all time is one that gets handed out quickly and often. Most of the time it is exaggeration of the fact but I would like to welcome Alone in the Dark to the short list of real candidates: Plan 9 from Outer Space, Battlefield Earth, and the Adventures of Pluto Nash.

As I watched the 90 minute bore I found it difficult to even stay awake even while I was trying so hard to laugh at the film. But alas I felt alone in the dark (I was gonna try to avoid the pun but I couldn't resist) as I looked around hoping to see Mike Nelson and his two robot friends. Alas my friends and I had to provide comedy throughout the film.

So... about the film itself. Lets talk about the action and effects since that should be the only positive part of the film. The film contains evil creatures that are a cross between the Xenos in Aliens (they even call them Xenos), and the creatures in Pitch Black. The can turn invisible at random (and I assure you it is random) and get hurt by light. Also present are small centipede creatures used to control humans that transform them into something resembling a zombie. All of these are shown with outdated special effects that would have been mediocre in 1997. The action scenes are chaotic and are impossible to follow. People shooting randomly on a blue screen stage or an empty set at monsters who were inserted in post. Light quickly flashes on a dark screen making your pupils burn from overwork while bad rock music blares in the background.

And those were the high points. The story revolving around a paranormal investigator (Slater) whose idea of looking tough is wearing a black wife beater Tshirt with a trench-coat and not shaving for 2 days. An archaeologist (Reid) who is rather inept. And a government agent(Dorff) whose lines involve barking order. All three should be ashamed at their performances (not that they have really ever done a good a job before) and the casting director should be ashamed. Reid and Slater are supposed to be lovers in the film I guess. The film contains the single most awkward love scene I have ever seen on film between the two.

Then comes the plot. Quiet frankly the parts that make sense are not interesting at all. The rest is illogical at best. The plot holes could contain the collective egos of all three stars. The film begins with text and a voice explaining the back-story. This opening lasts for over a minute and already the viewer knows they are in for something terrible. This opening narration is later repeated adnausem in the awkward dialog in a very clumsy and heavy handed fashion through the rest of the film. And the ending did not make one ounce of sense. Not only did it not make sense in the world of the film, it simply did not make sense.

Finally the direction of one Uwe Boll. Disgrace, thats all that can be said. His use of shaking the camera to simulate suspense. His lack of direction with the actors. Just watch Reid in scenes in which she is not center focus of the shot. The complete waste of special effects money for bullet time effects. And finally choosing to use voice over to explain something that should be painfully obvious to the viewers.

I payed a $1.50 to see this show at a second run theater. And while the laughs me and my friends provided made it worth every quarter I would advise people to avoid paying any more for this film. Grab about 3 friends and split the rental cost and tear this movie a new one.

Shame on you Uwe Boll. Shame on you Tara Reid. Shame on you Christian Slater. Shame on you Stephen Dorff. Shame on anyone who was associated with this film.


0*'s Christian Slater, Tara Reid, Stephen Dorff, Frank C. Turner, Mathew Walker, Will Sanderson. Directed by Uwe Boll.

Based on the video game director Uwe Boll attempts to recreate the game into an action-packed nail biter sadly he doesn't succeed. Instead he makes one of the worst movies ever MADE! Even though he gets minor celebrity such as Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff his movie lacks the necessary fundamentals that a movie needs to be good such as a story line, and some basic relativity of what's going on in the dark and the light. The movie bounces all around and Uwe Boll has no creative control. And not to mention the bad CGI used on making the monsters. Even though they did look cool and the feedings were well, a little lame. Honestly this is one of the worst movies ever made. My final rating 0/10.


Alone In The Dark is one BAD movie and tied with Deuce Bigalow for worst movie of the year. I wish that was ALL I had to say but of course the IMDb stipulates a word count and all that.

I'm in two minds about what kind of bad movie is a worse kind of bad movie. A low budget dreck like Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go Go and Manos. Or a huge budget disgrace like Gigli, Superbabies or this guff. You see movies like Monster A Go Go and Manos happen because the director hasn't a clue. Movies like this happen because the director is a stupid, money grabbing idiot who simply doesn't care about his audience.

It's more shocking when you consider that Uwe Boll (The mastermind behind this shocking crap and already has some real garbage under his belt) has created something that only happens once in a blue moon. The really terribly bad horror film. Everything about it is a mess. Cheesy CGI, bad plot, insane random camera cuts and appalling soundtrack.

Alone In The Dark is a dreadful movie that should be watched by absolutely nobody. Woo hoo! Review over. Give me a bud, roll on 2006 and may I NEVER speak of this again.

Don't watch this film.


Alone in the Dark is Uwe Boll's kick in the nuts to Hollywood after House of the Dead's punch in the face.

If anything it proves just how much of a master manipulator Boll is. After forcing Artisan out of business over the flop that was House of the Dead, one can only assume the normally credible Lion's Gate Films only released AITD under contractual obligation after acquiring Artisan's assets. Because AITD is an even bigger example of complete lack of coherent film-making ability, plot exposition and just plain stealing poorly from other movies because it was supposed to look cool instead of because it fitted within the movie's framework.

But then that's the point, isn't it. Boll isn't trying to make a coherent film because he isn't trying to direct Alone in the Dark. He's just trying to manipulate Hollywood.

Alone in the Dark, like House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry, Bloodrayne and the other 3 or 4 projects that are "announced" or in "pre-production".

These aren't movies to be directed, but investment portfolios. Every single one of them rushed into production under the pretence that the tax law Boll and his investors are exploiting may be closed within the next 2 to 3 years. The more bomb projects he can release within that time-frame, the more money he and his investors can gain. Why bother making a good movie when a bad movie's making you a mint anyway? The result is movies like the awfulness of Alone in the Dark.

Alone in the Dark, like all his other movies are just a cynical exploitation of Hollywood's current trend for lazy film-making.

And to those who support Boll by calling him misunderstood or the next Ed Wood, congratulations, by making a cult figure out of the man, you're just making it easier for him to get investors but giving him notoriety.

For more information, read here: http://www.cinemablend.com/feature.php?id=209 http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699 As an aside, just don't ask me how he's getting his cast-lists together. Unless the actors are in on the investment-scam somehow, that mystery has still to be uncovered.


There should be a rule that states quite clearly that movies like Resident Evil are supposed to be made in the spirit of the game, not in the spirit of blowing up everything possible. RE was a survival horror game, and a damn effective one at that, yet Paul WS Anderson managed to make it like any other video game movie to come along. Alone in the Dark is essentially the same kind of a spirit as Resident Evil, so of course, there is the slight hope the director will manage to have some piece of a brain enough to make a horror movie and not an action movie. Instead, Alone in the Dark just proves that there is no longer hope for video games becoming movies.

The plot, despite the fact that it obviously isn't supposed to matter, is the largest of many problems with the movie. The movie starts with what can only be described as five minutes of scrolling text that may or may not be important, as after a minute passes, the audience stops caring and just sits through the rest hitting the object closest to them. Then there's something about an orphanage, some artefacts, an ancient tribe, some bureaucracy and some demons, all of which get so jumbled together that the viewers really can't follow with what is going on. Characters move in and out of the plot like candy, some having huge build-ups for meaningless deaths. Basically, what I can understand is that some demons got released, and Edward Carnby (Slater) has some link to them thanks to some operation given to children in his orphanage which has failed on him. He finds an artefact involving the demons and brings it to an ex-girlfriend anthropologist (Reid), who of course he manages to have sex with right away for no good reason. Then, out of nowhere, all hell breaks loose, and the pair end up with a military team led by some asshole commander (Dorff), who apparently has a mutual hatred for Carnby.

It's all ridiculous, and the reason I don't really understand it isn't just because it's complicated and jumbled, but it leaves no room for anyone to really care. Instead, I highly recommend that, if you must see this film, bring a tennis ball or something to occupy yourself when the plot manages to bore you into confusion.

The action scenes in a movie with a plot as terrible as this should at least bring it up a little, right? Too bad, this movie is like any other ruined crap ever made, with enough quick cuts to behead a coop of chickens. Considering that this is based on a horror game, not an action game, it is especially annoying.

The first action scene involving a man chasing Cranby from a taxi is among the worst I have ever had to witness, and the rest isn't all that great either. The demons look somewhat cool, though the fact that they turn into powder when killed takes away all that effect. Scenes involving lots of guns which should be cool to watch instead involve the muzzle fire as the only source of light and the camera zooming and panning faster than the head of a crack addict. It's all the kind of seizure inducing crap that keeps children in bed at night.

The acting is what I like to call taking actors and making them do nothing. Slater does nothing but sound important for the whole movie, though he does seem to have more talent than he is letting on. The same is true of Dorff, who gets a thankless role despite actually having some talent (something that has happened to him a lot). Reid is pretty much exactly what she should be, background sex appeal, as whenever she tries to act it is a disaster (as is the incredibly bad scientist look she has in the beginning).

In all, this is the type of movie that worries me about future video game movies. If they keep ruining the spirit like this, it's only a matter of time before Samus Aran is killing Middle-Easterns with an AK-47 and Tommy Vercetti is fighting a squadron of aliens. Unlike Resident Evil, however, this one doesn't deserve a second chance, as I don't think anything could possibly help me forget just how terrible this movie is. It's bland, uninteresting and unexciting. This is the movie equivalent of diarrhea; it's all thrown together, nothing really fits and, in the end, you're just glad it's over.

TOTAL: 4%


Alone in The Dark is one of my favorite role-playing-games of all time. I remember spending whole nights facing the PC screen, trying to escape that mansion and actually being startled at times when monsters came surprisingly charging in. Now, mind you - I am weary of "computer-game-generated" movies. I don't remember a single success story in this new Hollywood genre, although some are entertaining enough to be watchable. And yet, I am such a big fan of the game that I couldn't resist. My rationale was that if the movie had a plot that so much as resembled the game's, it would be OK.

Man, those were 90 minutes (which seemed like 300) of my life that I'll never get back. If I had that chance, I would have gladly spent them rearranging my sock drawer instead. This isn't even in the "so bad it's funny" category. You would think even Christian Slater had a bit more sense than joining this stink bomb. Now, Tara Reid... I'm not complaining about her presence. However, if the purpose of putting this chick in a starring role is to have a sex scene, - which I totally understand and support (hey, I'm a guy!) - I've seen more of her body on press conferences.

There is no plot to speak of. Won't waste your time pitching it to you. The credibility of the story sinks below 'I did not have sex with Ms. Lewinski'. The acting is but a few notches above 'Street Fighter', which, by the way, being one of the worst movies I've seen, I would recommend OVER this one.

Kids, I recommend the Video Game. It has far better story, acting and much more thrills. As for the movie, here's a spoiler - it STINKS! Wait for the porno version.


We should all congratulate Uwe Boll. He's done the unthinkable. He may be the only director to have two movies in the bottom 100 on IMDb! He's like some kind of cinematic cockroach. No matter how little talent he has, and no matter how bad these movies are, he manages to keep making them. I know, he finances them all himself through some kind of bizarre German fund, but even so, his ability to keep making movies despite absolute, complete failure is one of the great mysteries of the universe.

It wouldn't be so bad except that video game developers keep giving their best properties to this guy. I really enjoyed the Alone in the Dark series of games. Even the latest one, the New Nightmare, was good for a few hours of game play. There was a good movie to be made out of Edward Carnby's adventures, but this is not it. Now Uwe Boll has gotten his hands on Bloodrayne and Hunter: the Reckoning. What's next, Silent Hill? Doom? I can only imagine the swath that this guy is going to cut through game-to-movie adaptations if he's not stopped. Someone needs to take away his line of credit, or these video game publishers need to wise up and realize that when they make a bad movie out of a game that kills the franchise, no one is interested in that title any more.

Think about it, is House of the Dead or Alone in the Dark a viable game title anymore? No way. A new House of the Dead game comes out for X-Box and nobody's gonna care. The title is dead, and all because of Uwe Boll. So if any of you out there work for a game publisher, or know a game publisher, or have access to a game publisher... please warn them.

This movie itself is not even worth reviewing. I can't separate what I didn't like about this pile of dung from the rest of it. Literally, everything about it sucks. The writing, the acting, the music, the CG effects, the editing. I thought that if I waited until it came out on DVD and then rented it with low expectations, I wouldn't be disappointed. Boy, was I wrong. Never underestimate Uwe's ability to turn out a big, steaming pile of BOLL sh*t.


I remember reading all the horrible, horrible reviews for this film when it came out. I meant to go see how horrible it was but it was out of theaters in three weeks. The only other movie to manage that is Gigli.

When the movie came out on DVD, I bought it to see how awful it was. I couldn't think of the sheer horrible attention that this film was getting was possible. After seeing it, I can understand.

First off, let me say that this film is not without some cool shots. There's a nice shot at the beginning that shows a bullet being fired from inside the gun, which I thought was neat. And the way the monsters in this movie die is sort of cool to look at; but it gets old after the first time you see it.

Let me start with the worst thing in this movie: Tara Reid. If bad acting was a sin, then Hell would've chucked Tara Reid right out since she's so unbelievably awful in this movie it's unthinkable. And of all the roles, she plays a curator. Now if she played a dumb, empty- headed sex toy then maybe I might be able to forgive her for how she treats her character. Apparently, Uwe Boll didn't realize that, although he did seem to think that if she took off her shirt in the movie, people would see it. He just didn't realize that making her do that in the middle of the film at the absolute wrong moment just made the movie even more hilariously bad. And is that a Mexican song or something during the scene of dry humping? I couldn't tell.

Which brings me to my next complaint: Uwe Boll shows off some of the worst directing skills you'll ever see in a movie. I mean, I'd give House of the Dead an F (and I only do that for very few movies) but HotD would score at least a B compared to this screwed up piece of junk. The movie starts off with a very, very long narration that causes immediate confusion (and read by a horrible narrator) and from there, the cuts are really, really dumb. There's this one point where Slater and Reid are looking around a building that's been destroyed and the screen blackens out. When it comes back, Slater and Reid are shooting everywhere and suddenly, an entire army has joined them. Huh?

And someone did NOT bother checking the mistakes in this movie. At one point, a team breaks through glass, but the glass breaks before they touch it. Tara Reid's earrings switch colors in the middle of one scene and after Slater walks away from a dead comrade, you can see her begin to get up.

As for the story... I was really lost. Something about an old tribe releasing darkness and someone "opens the path" or something and all the evil monsters pop out. It's just an excuse to have a lot of gun scenes (the technology is so advanced here that no character ever needs to reload in this film) that get, quite simply, BORING.

I bought this movie hoping to laugh at how incredibly stupid it was. I didn't laugh, but I still think it's stupid. Very, very, very stupid.


First off I'd like to say that if I had to honestly rate this movie from a 1 to a 10, then I'd give it a -4. It's not that I'm a tough critic, it's just that this movie is THAT bad. Everything from the story, to the directing, to the editing is awful. The story is not even halfway decent to begin with (you can't expect much since it is based on a video game, something I was not aware of going into the movie) but the directing and editing made it even worse. The movie cuts at awkward points and goes to scenes that are completely unrelated to the previous ones; some, like a quick sex scene in the middle, don't even make sense being put into the story seeing as how the characters don't show any feelings toward each other. You could go into this movie expecting to see a pile of crap on the screen for an hour and a half and you'd still be disappointed. Honestly, if you pay to watch this movie then you are wasting your money, and if you don't pay anything then you are still wasting an hour and a half of your life. So do yourself a favor and don't watch it.


In 1967, mine workers find the remnants of an ancient vanished civilization named Abkani that believe there are the worlds of light and darkness. When they opened the gate between these worlds ten thousand years ago, something evil slipped through before the gate was closed. Twenty-two years ago, the Government Paranormal Research Agency Bureau 713 was directed by Professor Lionel Hudgens (Matthew Walker), who performed experiments with orphan children. On the present days, one of these children is the paranormal investigator Edward Carnby (Christian Slater), who has just gotten an Abkani artifact in South America, and is chased by a man with abilities. When an old friend of foster house disappears in the middle of the night, he discloses that demons are coming back to Earth. With the support of the anthropologist Aline Cedrac (Tara Reid) and the leader of the Bureau 713, Cmdr. Richard Burke (Stephen Dorff), and his squad, they battle against the evil creatures.

In spite of having a charismatic good cast, leaded by Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff, "Alone in the Dark" never works and is a complete mess, without development of characters or plot. The reason may be explained by the "brilliant" interview of director Uwe Boll in the Extras of the DVD, where he says that "videogames are the bestsellers of the younger generations that are not driven by books anymore". Further, his target audience would be people aged between twelve and twenty-five years old. Sorry, but I find both assertions disrespectful with the younger generations. I have a daughter and a son, and I know many of their friends and they are not that type of stupid stereotype the director says. Further, IMDb provides excellent statistics to show that Mr. Uwe Boll is absolutely wrong. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Alone in the Dark  O Despertar do Mal" ("Alone in the Dark  The Awakening of the Evil")


It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.

Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.

Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.

But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.

That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.

The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.

Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.

Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.

Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.

Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit.


I know I'm in the minority, but...

Uwe Boll is about as talented as a frog. Not even a toad; just a frog. He's reminiscent of about a hundred other no-talent hacks who churn out one useless crap-fest after another.

This movie? Is a crap-fest. Slater's talent is only minimally utilized leading one to believe he's got other things (like his failed relationship) on his mind. Reid performs as if she has either forgotten her acting lessons, been severely hit on the head and MADE to forget her acting lessons, or has one of the worst directors in the history of film. I'm voting on the third choice, myself, although the other two are always possible.

Uwe Boll has never done a single thing from which I've derived even the slightest pleasure. Frankly, I'm satisfied that he made this stinker. I was concerned with Bloodrayne competing with "Underworld: Evolution" for ticket sales. Now, I'm confident that Len Wiseman has nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to worry about.

This rates a 1.0/10 rating for this messy, convoluted crap-fest, from...

the Fiend :.


Joyce Reynolds seems a might grown-up for the role of Janie, a boy-crazy sixteen-year old in small town America who ditches her steady guy for a visiting soldier AND winds up on the cover of Life magazine (smooching at a blanket party) all in the same week! Non-stop barrage of wisecracks, put-downs, bull talk, and unfunny bits of business such as Janie's little sister bribing family members, Hattie McDaniel (as the maid) constantly scuttling after sassy kid sis, Janie's mother involved with the Red Cross, and Janie's father trying to write an editorial on the problems with today's teenagers (as the parents, stuffy, sexless Edward Arnold and pert, chatty Ann Harding make an unlikely couple, even for 1944; he looks incapable of helping to conceive a child much less raising two of them). Nominated for an Academy Award (!) for Owen Marks' editing, Warner Bros. followed this in 1946 with "Janie Gets Married". Reynolds must have outgrown her co-horts by then--she was replaced by Joan Leslie. *1/2 from ****


It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust.


Bridges of madison county is a better made version of this story. I felt the ending of this movie was not handled sensitively as they did in the original English movie. This movie is very indianised, if you are a very sensitive person who cries in a movie when hero dies in the end you'll love this movie, On the other hand if you are a fighter in life and think crying is for wimps you may not like the ending.But on the whole it's pretty good subject is well handled for indian conditions. Tabu was good as a caring wife and mother. Everybody acted well.


In a movie that follows a struggling actor, played, evidently, by a struggling actor, this does no favours for Chris Klein. He struggles to bring anything memorable to the role and meanders on through the shallow script managing to display, what could only be described as, a bland leading man. The story exists, but that is all, and fails to show any basic start, middle and end and the viewer is left shrugging his shoulders feeling as though nothing in the past hour and three quarters has really happened.

One bright light in the midst of this is Fred Durst, who manages to stand out above his seemingly averagely talented co-stars and does a semi-decent job of bringing the backward character of Legde to life. Whether Fred can re-create this when working with a higher calibre of cast remains to be seen but I'l be watching out for him in future.


Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of "The Three Amigos", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which "Play Dead" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which "Play Dead" is. What "Play Dead" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from "A Simple Plan", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK


It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger!

One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.

I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like.


Once big action star who fell off the face of the earth ends up in a small town with a problem with drug dealers and a dead body of a federal agent. Reuniting with some former co-stars to clean up the town.

Low key, often to the point of blandness, "action" comedy mostly just doesn't work. Part of the problem is the casting Chris Klien as a former action hero. he's not bad, but he's really not believable as some one who was taken to be a tough guy. As I said he's not bad, he's just just miscast for what his back story is. The real problem here is the combination of the script, which really isn't funny and seems artificial at times, and the direction which is pedestrian to the port of dullness. There is no life in the way things are set up. Its as if the director had a list of shots and went by that list. It makes for an un-engaging film. And yet the film occasionally springs to life, such as the in the final show down that ends the film. That sequence works, but because the earlier parts of the film floundered its drained of much of its power.

I can't really recommend the film. Its worth a shot if you're a fan of the actors or are a huge fan of independent cinema in all its forms, but otherwise this is just a disappointment.


Everybody just seems to be raving about the subject, and not really noticing how the movie was made. The deaf, mute guy is fine, the underdog wins - that's good, the cricket aspect is great, but the movie is average overall. I think it could be made much much better than it is.

The plot is too predictable for a movie that is not based on a real life event. I'm sure the movie could have been made more interesting. The songs are just stuffed in there, and I had to literally forward the scenes where the same thing would be shown from different angles.

Good acting, though. Watchable.


This is one of those movies that's trying to be moody and tense, and instead, ends up tripping all over itself. Having seen it at a queer film festival, I was intrigued by the "young college threesome gone wrong" write-up, however, over-all ended up quite disappointed.

It's hard to critique a "true story" since there's not much that can be done about the plot - but I found this disjointed, melodramatic and wholly depressing. It's dark and almost sinister, painting a darn creepy flash of the seventies with imposing music and jerky close-ups. It just doesn't work - some scenes where so cheesy that instead of hushed awe, my audience was supressing snickers and rolling eyes.

The story has an interesting premise, but this just spins downward into a dark, miserable spiral.


I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene."


I saw this film at the NY Gay & Lesbian Film Festival and thought it was pretty bad. First and most distracting was the way much of it was shot; that is, a lot of slow motion and overly arty close-ups that seemed to have no point--story wise or aesthetically--other than to show the skills of the cinematographer (who I believe was also the director). This film seemed what a pretentious film student would come up with. The lead actor (Sam Levine) was certainly very cute, but was a mediocre actor at best; and the rest of the cast ranged from so-so, to bad. The story itself was mostly annoyingly predictable. I do have to concede that most of the audience seemed to enjoy the film; laughing and sighing constantly, but I disliked it a great deal.


I could not even bring myself to watch this movie to the end. I cannot comment on the story as I did not watch the whole film and the reason I couldn't watch it was because of the 'actors'. Firstly, for the most part they just looked stiff and I'm sure their scripts were in their hands just out of frame - but that's a minor issue. The main issue I have with the actors isn't really their fault... it's whoever cast this film! Come on, this movie came out in 2003... I thought that casting people in their late twenties to play teenagers went out of fashion with new wave?! I cannot watch a movie where one of the first lines, from a grown man older than myself, is "I'm 17!" How can anyone take that seriously????? Don't fall victim to this movie, go out for a walk for 90 minutes and you'll get far more than this movie could ever give.


This could have been a very good film, if I had been able to watch it. The hand held camera was very bouncy. From the opening credits I was worried. Several of us watching it felt very nauseous by the end. But we did stay until the end because it was such a charming and interesting film, giving some insight to the young pop culture in South Africa. The black and white film did enhance the artful feeling of it. The acting seemed very authentic. Some of the dialog was a little hard to understand, but a theater full of non-South Africans seemed to find most of it funny. If you get motion sickness at all though, you may seriously consider skipping this film. It's quaint, but not worth the nausea.


I so wanted to believe in this movie after the only form of mainstream comedy this country recognises is slapstick and stereotypes.

Of course, it went completely the other way - let's be cool and edgy - and came out the other side with little to show for it. I bet One Small Seed went nuts for this. I know SL did.

None of the main characters have the comedic chops to pull it off. Even Danny K had better timing. I'm actually being serious. Every time they introduced a bit character I kept thinking, "Darn, this person should have been the lead!".

Independent doesn't mean that the camera work needs to be horrible. Black and white did nothing for this movie - actually with such flat dialogue it hurt this even more by bringing the boredom into sharp relief. The black and white also wasn't crisp. The composition was horrible. The use of music was horrible. Strangely enough I watched Little Miss Sunshine after this movie and the composition on that was superb - maybe that's why the deficiencies in this movie stick out in my mind.

I think Corne (who was funnier than the leads before he even said anything) was speaking to this movie and not David - see it and you'll understand. I bet the guys who organise Oppikoppi were dismayed. One would think nothing happens there at all. I got the feeling it could have been filmed in someone's back garden. I know regular guys who have much funnier, raunchier and wittier conversations than any of these "comics". The dude who they hooked up with end was OK though.

Guess SA comedy's gonna stay in the stone age a little longer. Nice work guys.


I totally agree with the review by a reviewer of Variety that the film is never quite as funny, lively or insightful about the creative process as its premise would seem to warrant. Narratively it is messy and the lighting is really problematic. If the film is supposed to be character-driven the poor lighting doesn't enhance the acting and it is sometimes difficult to observe the facial expressions of the actors. Many non-South Africans will have difficulty in following the spoken English in the film and some of the local humor will be lost in the process. I watched the film at the Cape Town World Cinema festival last year. Comments and reactions to the film ranged from unwatchable and sloppy to a welcome departure from the films about our painful past. Unfortunately Bunny Chow won't be remembered as one of the bright lights of the South African New Wave, but some of the remarkable films about our apartheid history will indeed be rated among our best in our 110 year old film history. Not surprisingly the film disappeared from cinemas in Cape Town only two weeks after its release and from most of the cinemas in Durban and Gauteng. It has clearly limited appeal among South African audiences.


This is the kind of movie which shows the paucity of French cinema when it comes to making thrillers.The director's desire to "sound American" is so glaring that you will not be fooled a minute,unless you have not seen a serial killer movie since "Peeping Tom".

Two male cops (or one and a half,more like,as you will see),horrible murders,a plot more complicated than complex.Charles Berling is not lucky with the genre(see the astoundlingly dumb "l'inconnu de Strasbourg" a couple of years ago).The scenes with his pregnant wife -which are supposed to be a counterpart for the otherwise noir atmosphere of the rest of the plot-are among the worst ever filmed.Add a steamy love scene between them and a gory autopsy to get a PG 12 and thus to attract the huge adolescent audience.A violent and absurd conclusion,followed by a silent epilogue who could make a nice commercial for the côte d'azur,it's really the silence of the lame.


It's sort of hard for me to say it, because I so greatly enjoyed both "Targets" and "Paper Moon", but I thought "The Last Picture show" was a somewhat fascinating but overly self-indulgent film. Its main positive, as far as I'm concerned, is the stunning photography. But for me the film had nothing to offer beyond surface beauty (and a kind of hidden beauty, at that). The characters were very hard to relate to or to care about. Basically you had this very slow pace and this naturalistic style of acting, but it was all there to prop up a very formulaic and predictable story, complete with all the trappings one would expect from any small town melodrama -- everything from the boy cheating with his teacher's wife to the handicapped kid who everyone picks on. It was like "American Graffiti" without the joy of life.

Some might say this film is more realistic -- nowadays a lot of people seem to think that realism is the only virtue a film can possess. But for me the film was simply oppressive, and I want to see it again about as badly as I'd like to spend a few hours in that miserable town the characters live in.

Maybe this film really just belongs to its time -- perhaps if I'd seen it in 1971 I would have been impressed by its novelty, just by seeing something different on the screen. But that would basically assume that I had never seen anything like, say, Godard's "Breathless". Maybe the overt references to classic films would have appealed to the movie geek in me and helped me to overlook some of the film's weaknesses. But in the post-Tarantino world that hardly seems unique or special either.

It is interesting though how he uses the films in the film to give his own film more depth. We see 3 films as I recall in the picture show. First we see Vincente Minnelli's "Father of the Bride" -- Liz Taylor's exquisite looks provide a contrast to Sonny's girlfriend and Minnelli's studied upper-middle class milieu contrasts to the character's "real life" surroundings in a similar way. Later, clips from Howard Hawks' "Red River" emphasize the theme of a broken friendship between a mentor and a protégé. It really just reminds me that Bogdanovich is kissing his own mentor's butt, much as he did if I remember correctly by selecting a Hawks film as part of his own on-screen reverie with Boris Karloff in "Targets". I guess in 1971 this kind of thing was new but looking at it today it just seems self-indulgent, like so much of the rest of this film.

Ultimately, I'd rather see another film by Hawks, Ford or Minnelli than to have Bogdanovich's film remind us of why they were so striking in such a less-than-subtle way. Maybe he intends to remind us of the giants whose time had passed -- all he really does is remind us how small he and most of his contemporaries are in relation.


Many people see this as a classic, but I obviously must have missed something. Life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's is pretty dull - which means that a movie about life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's will be pretty dull too! What is it that so many people see in this? Once the last picture show in Anarene closes there really won't be anything to do in town. Duane (Jeff Bridges) makes that point at the end of the movie. But even before it closes there isn't much to do, so basically everything revolves around sex. High school students make plans for how to lose their virginity - sometimes with each other and sometimes with some of the equally bored adults in town. You see, there's not much for them to do either - except to have sex (sometimes with each other and sometimes with the bored teenagers) or to whine about the local high school football team. Three times something happened that I thought was going to add some spark of drama to the movie. Sam (Ben Johnson) dies unexpectedly, but nothing really happens because of that, Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Jacy (Cybill Shepherd) elope, but nothing really happens because of that, Joe Bob (Barc Doyle) kidnaps a little girl, but nothing really happens because of that. The only thing that added anything of dramatic value to the movie came at the end with the death of Billy (Sam Bottoms) which really points out the emptiness of life in this pathetic little town, as the men stand around looking at the body debating where to go for breakfast.

Peter Bogdanovic filmed this in black and white, which is intended I suppose to point out how grey this town is, but the only thing I found interesting was the early look at actors like Bottoms, Shepherd, Bridges and Randy Quaid. (As an aside it was terrifying to see how much Quaid - in 1971 - actually looks like his character of Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon Vacation movies.) Classic? I don't think so! 3/10


I'm not going to comb over TLPS's obvious peterbogdanovichian flaws. Instead, I shall take a look at the positive aspects of this overrated celluloid pygmy of a film.

1. Peter Bogdanovich managed to make a movie that can be endured in its entirety. This fact alone places the movie high up above and all the way up to the top of his lame filmography.

2. Bogdanovich had shown how amazingly generous some lucky boyfriends can be, by sharing Cybill Shepherd's (his then-gal) fabulous body and breasts with his male audience - and not just on one but on two occasions. Brava! The unquestionable highlights of this cinematic festa del siesta.

3. TLPS has barely a scene without stereotypical country music doodling in the background. (Peter tried to make the obvious point that the movie is set in America's Deep South (as if it weren't bleedin' obvious) so he hammered that point on and on and on...) How is this an advantage, you might ask? Well, when the movie finally ends and the monotonous country music finally ceases massaging your tired ear-drums, you start experiencing a strange exhilaration: "The movie's finally over!" It's pure joy.

4. The movie gives all women who look like Cloris Leachman hope. Hope that they, too, may one day snatch a much younger and maybe even good-looking boyfriend.

5. Cloris Leachman's biography (which I realize isn't technically a part of TLPS) gives hope to all women that look like that, that they too may one day win a Miss Chicago beauty pageant. (Provided they have enough money to bribe the jury with.)

(You think I'm joking abut Cloris having won a beauty pageant, huh? Well, check out her bio and then we'll see who laughs last...)

6. The movie was shot in black and white which spared us the sight of Cloris Leachman's face in its original, natural non-glory.


A boring movie about a boring town in the 50's. How can anyone think this is a classic? The producer pretty much ended his career by pushing his girlfriend, Cybil Shepard, into several movies that were way above her acting ability. I think this movie gives an insight to how bad Peter Bogdonovitch's future movies were going to be. Cybil Shepard's career took a dive after being in several movies that Peter Bogdonovich produced. It wasn't until "Moonlighting" that her career started to come back. I thought the acting was poor rendition of the, "Graduate". I have noticed that this movie hasn't been shown in the US. The only place I have watched it was overseas in Europe late at night.


I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets "great performances" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.

I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess.


Black and White film. Good photography. Believable characters.

Just awful.

I have wasted another perfect evening watching a film that other rated as "worthy" and "very good." There is some good acting here and the back ground setting for the plot is good (more should have been done with this) but it is very slow to grow and never develops. It is totally bases on sex without much romance with much un needed nudity. More could have been done with the main characters. If you are looking for something to watch with you family this in not the movie and if not you will have trouble sitting through it. Though this film is long its only about 1 inch deep!


For getting so many positive reviews, this movie really disappointed me! It is slow moving and long. At times the story is not clear, particularly in the evolving relationships among characters. My advice? Read the book, it's a fabulous story which loses it's impact on screen.


After hearing raves about this movie for years, I finally decided to rent it and watch. Let me start by saying that I'm glad that the rental was free from the local library. This move was slow, boring, unrealistic and the plot made no sense. After 2 hours, I was ready to nuke that backwater Texas town and put the group of those characters out of their misery. I realize that taste is subjective, but believe me, I just do not understand all of the hype that I have heard about this movie. Dallas provided as good a detail of the life in Texas as this movie. Rent it only if you want to understand how movie studios can pay enough money to reviewers to convince the general public that a bad movie is good.


This is your only spoiler warning. What a sad state of our cinema when unprofessional junk like this is considered "Oscar worthy".

I divide material into three levels. The first is the stage theatre. Here the viewer is stagnant and the power rests in the presentation of the actor and, most importantly, in the power of the writer. A good playwright is better than a good screenwriter because he or she knows the ways of words better. The best playwrights know how to create imagery that the barren stage cannot show.

The second level is film. In this medium, a weaker writer can be used, but the viewer is not sitting in one spot the entire time. With film, the context can take the qualities of visual poetry and meaning in addition to strong writing. Furthermore, film can manipulate everday elements like sound and color in ways that are almost surreal.

The final level is literature. In this context, everything is imagined by the author, translated onto paper, and then re-imagined by the reader. Far more detail can go into a novel than is conceivable for a film studio.

This is why adaptations can go up, but never down. Novelizations are never better than the base film (see the dime-per-dozen ones at your local book store), whereas the film cannot convey the same power as the original book (Catch-22 and LotR). Movies can rarely be made into plays and plays can always be made into movies.

As for 'The Last Picture Show', it fails. It is a film that should stick to the stage because the director is too stupid to shoot anything right. The characters talk the same and act the same, it's pure futility. Add to that an obnoxious soundtrack and you have an entirely unwatchable film.

I saw this in my high school drama class with about 20 other wannabe thespians. The instructor raved about how sad the movie was. What is sad is how such stagnant work is considered depressing when the material itself is hilarious. Had this been in color the scenes of impotence, the pool party, and the old hooker would be considered great comedy. Look what Lucas did with 'American Graffiti' a few years later.

The American secondary education system needs to start teaching ABOUT film rather than trying to teach WITH film. Two visually powerful downbeat films: Apocalypse Now and Barry Lyndon. Rely on them, not this. It's the 'Last' I want to see of it. 1 out of 5.


Florence Chadwick was actually the far more accomplished swimmer, of course. She swam the English Channel both directions. She swam from Catalina Island to the California coast. Marilyn Bell's is a sweet story, but the usual glorification of us Canadians in the face of a superior world. Another sample of our inferiority complex. Our political system works pretty well and the health system allows people not to die in hospital lobbies. That's pretty good. Better than Lebanon. What should we do about hockey though...? And curling. The notion of calling this a sport, of its inclusion in the Olympics...! ah, but we digress...


This little show is obviously some stupid little prequel/spin off of the original series.

Compared to the live action series this show is utter crap. The live action show had intelligent jokes and story lines. While the animated series is basically a toned down bittersweet version for younger viewers to digest but i think maybe kids deteste this crap.

The storyline in every episode is basically just Sabrina has some stupid and pointless dillemma and she uses magic to fix it. Thats basiclly the idea every episode. The most bizarre episode was when Sabrina uses magic to become Gem and Gem to become Sabrina. So then Gem becomes a witch and hypnotizes harvery to become her slave. This then leads to a bizarre yet rather interesting scene were Gem says "just adore me for now" and harvey get down on his hands and knees and starts kissing her feet like shes a god. (which is quite right since he's her mind control slave) But this stupid spin-off is not worth the time or the effort.


One can only assume that Robert Osborne is contractually obligated to express delight at even the least appealing films in the TCM library as this would explain him extolling the 'virtues' of this "charming" film during his introduction when I saw this on cable TV. Seeing as any old film on IMDb receives 'classic' status from a number of fawning amateur reviewers, I thought there was a dire need for a more honest review of this film.

This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.

From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing "I Don't Care" while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.

This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.

Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth.


As has been noted, this formula has been filmed several times, most recently as "You've Got Mail", with Tom Hanks and Meg"Trout Pout" Ryan. Of the several versions, this is my least favorite. The problem i think is that the studio coasted on the Stars charisma, which doesn't quite cut it here.

The chemistry betwixt the two leads never comes to a boil in this movie. There are no real sparks. Van Johnson and Judy Garland remind me of day old donuts, pleasant but bland. And when the leads are boring the rest of the movie can only follow. Judy in particular is disappointing. She looks like she has no neck! I don't know if she was having trouble with pain or something but she looks like a turtle trying to pull it's head into it's shell, all hunched up and everything. I couldn't figure out what Van Johnson was getting so hot about. I would have made a bee line for that cute violin player. And Van wasn't great either. I've always thought of him as a rather generic Hollywood leading man and he doesn't do anything to dispel that image here.

If you're a fan of the stars or the early 1900's then you might like this movie. But there are a lot more entertaining romantic comedies out there, and they offer you much more than a mouthful of stale confection.


I rented this movie because it sounded pretty interesting but to my Horror this movie was the worst movie I had ever seen! I read the comment from Gumby-8 and he has to be a part of the cast or the crew. Unless Gumby-8 is a 4 year old child or some demented cult member no one in their right mind would think that this movie had any potential at all.

I couldn't believe Gumby-8's comments.

Quoting: "From the "Dune" inspired opening animation to the quick pace...this film keeps the eye moving and works so well that repeat viewing is not unexpected."

The Animation is the only aspect of the movie that was interesting and the fact of that the film keeps the eye moving, well that's because you keep looking for any type of suspense. I mean give me a break Halloween was shot with a budget of $100,000.00 and a painted mask and also by the way became a cult classic. As far as "repeat viewing is not unexpected" I think he made a typo.

Another quote from Gumby-8 the only Fan: "The acting is also a strong aspect of the film."

With all due respect for the actors, their performance is nothing more than the respective talent of Robert Napton.

The catchy Tagline: "Beware the hour between dusk and darkness"

That's because there is no dusk or darkness in this movie.

MPAA rating "Rated R for some violence/gore"

The only gore you see is some red paint on a sheet over a dead body you never see. As far as I know it might be a clump of grass.

In summation, I have seen horror flicks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. I have seen what I thought to be the absolutely worst and some that were very good. The director of this film either did not make any attempt, was asleep, or took a hit of acid. Whatever the case I think the actors deserve applause for trying to salvage a very poor job of direction. I would give this film a rating of .5 for a 'B' movie.


As a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I can withstand ANY motion picture that can be foisted upon me, but there is absolutely no reason for this.

Rated "Super Action" in the Blockbuster Video section and given the dreaded "Restricted Viewing Sticker" I'm assuming these are the only methods that film maker (HA!) Robert Napton could use to get at least 4.50 from one unsuspecting person.

Shame on you Robert Napton! Shame on you for exploiting these poor Mexican actors who you probably promised hopes for making it big in American cinema. You are a disgrace!

There isn't one moment in this movie that holds the slightest bit of action. Did you use snot on these people? Oh, look, they're having a rave in a field! Like all 6 of them. And isn't that an Asian guy in the background? Why is it always daytime? Why did it take 1/2 of the movie to show anything.. and more importantly why did we watch the other 1/2?

PS: You owe me 4.50.


This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.

I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.

It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.

The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.

2.6/10 on the "B" scale.

That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...

the Fiend :.


It is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, but Hostel is definitely much more worse. This movie is more funny and ridiculous, than scary. I laughed most of the time when watched it. Low quality effects (when you gonna watch it, you'll understand what i'm talking about and HOW LOW quality is that), bad actors (i hear of them for the first time), and it seems like it's shot by an amateur camcorder (so it looks more like a TV show, than a movie). But at least i've had the patience to watch it till the end. Like comedies? Watch it. Wanna horror? Go watch Ju-On: The Grudge or some other good horror movie.

If i'm talking about the Legend of Diablo, i don't even know if i can classify it to a Horror genre. Just some low-budget crap.

I rate it 3 out of 10