This film limps from self indulgent moment to self indulgent moment, promising to develop into something worth hanging on for. But it doesn't. It's flat, self conscious, unimaginative and tedious.

A series of set images and backdrops don't make a film, they make a calendar. This kind of pitiful socialist pseudo drama documentary ("It's TRUE it REALLY happened") not only fails to entertain, it fails to convince, so it doesn't even function as social history. Clichés co-mingled with bad acting make this a film very difficult to finish, the amusement factor wearing off fairly quickly. The characters are one dimensional, never developing to the extent that one feels for them. The director's ego is the largest character in this film.


This film was a yawn from titles to credits, it's boring to the point of tedium and the acting is wooden and stilted! Admittedly this was director Richard Jobson directing debut, but who on earth green-lit a script as poorly developed as this one? Looks like another money down the drain government project (Scottish Screen are credited surprise, surprise). I nearly fell asleep three times and my review will unfortunately have to be more restrained than this one. Please, please mister Jobson what ever you've been doing prior to directing this sedative of a film, go back to it!


I feel like I've been had, the con is on, don't fall for it. After reading glowing reviews (the Director was a film reviewer with Sky for years so must have a lot of mates in the press ready to do him a favour by writing favorable reviews) I expected solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, an intriguing plot development and poetic moments. Sadly, 'Sixteen years of Alcohol', doesn't deliver on the critics promises, for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects (what was that clichéd cobweb scene in there for?), unrealistic fight choreography and mindless mind numbing narration, cliché edits and camera angles.

'Sixteen years of Alcohol' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Scotland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin driving you crazy with self indulgent heavy handed twaddle voice-over's. The lead characters are so unsympathetic and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them, desperate Actors do desperate things...like this movie!. To make matters worse, the 'homage's' (typical of a director trying to pay his dues to past masters) are either utterly cliché or unconvincing. The soundtrack is the only thing that lifted me and kept me in the cinema but even that failed to support the dramatic narrative other connecting a period of time to the action.

For some reason the movie got increasingly flawed and to be quite honest annoying. I still watched the whole damn thing!

I guess I liked the attempt at gritty realism in the film but even that was destroyed when they were often inter-cut with weird and abstract, sometimes pointless scenes. You don't need a huge budget to make truly moving film, so much has been said about how little money they had to make this film, half a million is not a little bit of money...SO NO EXCUSES! Sometimes I wonder what the actors...Or their agents were thinking!

Pass on this turkey unless you're masochistic or mindless anyway....NOT MY THING

1.5/10


As others have pointed out this movie is a load of pretentious drivel for the mindless or masochists.

We all know after seeing trainspotting and acid house that Scotland is one of the most depressing places in the first world. But unlike trainspotting and acid house without a good dose of humour or gritty realism movies like this do not work. And even more importantly without a decent script a movie will not work and there is nothing new, inspiring or thought provoking about the script for this movie.

The fact that this movie won a couple of Bafta's shows how bad the British film industry is at the moment. I thought the Aussie movie industry was pretty bad at the moment but unfortunately the British industry is even worse.

This movie is so bad I wouldn't even bother renting it from the weeklies section.

Do yourself a favour and give this movie a wide berth.


Boring, badly written Italian exploitation flick.Lots of nudity, gore and awful acting.The werewolf makeup was the only thing that would raise a laugh.Complete rubbish-even for fans of cheesy Italian horror.Please avoid.


Robert Colomb has two full-time jobs. He's known throughout the world as a globetrotting TV reporter. Less well-known but equally effortful are his exploits as a full-time philanderer.

I saw `Vivre pour Vivre' dubbed in English with the title 'Live for Life.' Some life! Robert seems to always have at least three women in his life: one mistress on her way out, one on her way in, and the cheated wife at home. It helps that Robert is a glib liar. Among his most useful lies are `I'll call you tomorrow' and `My work took longer than planned.' He spends a lot of time and money on planes, trains and hotel rooms for his succession of liaisons. You wonder when this guy will get caught with his pants down.

Some may find his life exciting, but I thought it to be tedious. His companions, including his wife, Catherine, are all attractive and desirable women. But his lifestyle is so hectic and he is so deceitful, you wonder if he's enjoying all this.

Adding to the tedium is considerable footage that doesn't further the plot. There are extended sections with no dialogue or French-only dialogue. We see documentaries of wars, torture, and troop training interspersed with the live action. When Robert's flight returns from Africa, we wait and wait for the plane to land and taxi to the airport terminal.

Annie Girardot is the standout performer in this film. Hers was the most interesting character and she played it to perfection. It was also nice to see Candice Bergen at the beginning of her career. I can't find fault with Yves Montand's performance of what was basically an amoral bum.

I enjoyed some of Claude Lelouch's novel techniques. In a hotel room scene, the camera pans around the room as Robert and his mistress argue. We catch sight of them briefly during each pass around the room. In another scene set on a sleeping car of a train, Robert is lying on the upper bunk while his wife is on the lower. Robert is giving his wife some important but distressing news, but we hear only parts of it because of the clatter of the train. I sensed that his wife was also unable to absorb every word due to the shocking nature of the news. I also liked the exciting safari scenes in Africa. The cinematography of those scenes and of those in Amsterdam was superb.

I reviewed this movie as part of a project at the Library of Congress. I've named the project FIFTY: 50 Notable Films Forgotten Within 50 Years. As best I can determine, this film, like the other forty-nine I've identified, has not been on video, telecast, or distributed in the U.S. since its original release. In my opinion, it is worthy of being made available again.


As much as I like Japanese movies this one didn't just cut it... A movie that is supposed to be about rebels and the survival of a royal blood line turned out to be a very slow paced movie with a doubtful plot.

The photography is OK, though I've seen much better sword fight scenes in other Japanese movies, the fast cameras and the way they followed the characters didn't convince me at all. The soundtrack is so weak you don't even notice its presence.But worst of all was the way the plot evolved.I have to admit that, at some times, I had a hard time understanding who was who and what was going on...Anyway the platonic love between the main character and another one was completely unnecessary and seemed to come from a Hollywood influence.

All in all, if your looking for an action Japanese movie this isn't it. Its very slow, with very few sword fight scenes and very sentimental... in a bad way...


There is simply no use in trying to glorify any part of this film.

It was straight up trash. At the very beginning you might think that you are in for a visually stunning piece of cinematography... and then shortly thereafter you are hit with a large sack (burlap) of FAIL! The fighting is barely martial, the acting is teetering on the edge of par, and the music is not worth describing. There is only enough of a story to have created an excuse for this film to have been made. The decisions that the characters make and the way that they deal with the situations is weak, and did nothing but frustrate me. I think that the only reason this film came about was to act as a bit of fan service by using Yumiko Shaku.


In the recent movement to bring Asian films over to America, this is THE LAST movie that should be released here. Being a big fan of asian movies from all genres, I was browsing the net and came across this soong to be re-released into the US market so I decided to check it out ahead of time and rent this at a local video store.

Trust me...the action scenes are incredibly disappointing, Crouching Tiger and Iron Monkey completely blew this movie out of the water. Jet Li would fall asleep watching the fighting sequences. If you're looking for martial arts entertainment, your time would be better off with a Jackie Chan flick!!!

Moreover...you think you're going to watch a martial arts with about a girl engulfed in vengence for her parents death BUT SURPRISE!!! A good hour of this movie in the middle has is filled with dialogue, an absense of action, the lack of devloping a tangent plot, pretty much NOTHING to do with the premise we are exposed to. It has more to do with the relationship between her and the boy, and the boy with his conspiracy group in which the producer/director dedicated no time in elbaorating, and yet dedicated a portion of the film dragging the issue. Would of been much better off if they had just cut that whole hour and developed the story in itself through another film and focus on the martial arts aspect.

Speaking of which, I really don't believe the choreographer of Iron Monkey, did the action sequence in Princess Blade. I was completely insulted in the frequent usage of slow motion and quick camera changes to portray the assassins physical swiftness. I just didn't buy it.

Please...I'm warning you to PLEASE do not waste your time/money with this movie. The premise is intrigueing, and the trailer might even tempt you but I am positive that this movie is NOT suited for the public (maybe in Japan but not in the states) and will be the worst film brought over to the states from the Asian film industry.


I registered for IMDb just to comment on this movie.

I just got done sitting through this movie, and the only thing that impressed me, was that I somehow had the will power to not stop it.

I've seen a pretty decent number of action movies and what not, but Princess Blade has some of the worst fights I've ever seen in a movie. Most of the sword fighting involves mindlessly swinging the swords back and fourth and hoping the opponent isn't doing the same. I've seen a good many student films with better action and stronger plots.

So now we have a "futuristic" action movie with poor action, and virtually no sign of the future.

Most of the movie doesn't even have any action and shows the developing relationship with the Princess and the farmboy/terrorist and his disturbed sister. The movie has multiple plot lines, and none of them really pan out to be worth anything.

Part of the problem may have been that I watched the dub, which was quite bad. The entire cast mumbled all their lines so it was hard to follow what was going on. But I got the general idea. (Knowing exactly what was said would not have saved the movie in my eyes)

If you've heard about this being a futuristic action/ninja flick, then you've heard wrong. Thats what I thought it was when I heard about it, and now I've lost 90 minutes of my life. Don't let this happen to you. Steer well clear of it.


Judging by some of the comments in IMDB, I was expecting an action movie - perhaps a dramatic one or a stupid one or a simple one or a comicy one, but essentially an action movie.

Whatever it is that I watched, it certainly didn't feel like a movie. The story is simple and straightforward (even though the prologue tries to make it seem complicated). Take three interest groups: 1) the government 2) the rebels 3) a group of assassins.

Now subtract the first (they never appear in the movie). Then simply let one of the assassins, the princess, become a rogue on a revenge trip. Add in a rebel love-interest with a guilty conscience. And you've got the ingredients.

But they still did not manage to turn it into a story or a movie. Between some random action sequences and some odd visuals trying to be Sci-Fi on a low budget, what you're left with is a feeling of emptiness. The movie just does not feel like a movie, but a weird, incoherent, boring dream.

Avoid.

2/10


I've seen the movie only recently, although it appeared in 2001. I hoped to see an entertaining movie, but let me tell you, Princess Blade is nothing compared to Azumi. The "princess" is not very talkative, as you may have noticed... She reminded me of Jean Claude Van Damme, who only stared to make his point, then beat the crap out of the opponents. During the entire movie, I waited to hear at least a confession about what she liked, why was she fighting, who did she love and trust. I waited in vain. Crappy movie. Crappy dialog. Don't watch it unless you want to be bored out of your minds! It's so bad, that in the end I was wondering how I managed not to scream in frustration 1 and a half hour. Approximately. I give a 4/10.


If you've read the original novel, as I did, you will probably hate this thing.

The film version of _Absolute Beginners_ is a nightmarish conglomerate of 1980s anachronisms attempting to create a "period piece" set in the late 1950s and failing to re-create or even pay homage to that period -- the US monstrosity of _Dirty Dancing_ does similar to 1963, except that film proved financially successful despite having equally amateurish screen writing. In addition to suffering from "looking too 1980s", the characters have been changed, re-arranged, and downplayed to the point that the only characteristics they have in common with those of the novel are the slightest superficial looks and, of course, their names: Suze is transformed from the narrator's flighty ex-girlfriend and promiscuous negrophile who willingly plans to marry a closeted old queen for money (at her own admittance in the first few pages) into a hapless and naive "Eve"-archetype seduced by fame and glamour, exploited and somehow scammed into a sham marriage by her boss, who surprisingly wasn't given a Van Dyke and pointy hairstyle. She and the narrator, re-named "Colin" (after the book's author, Colin MacInnes) for the film, are also in a relationship.

Big Jill's character, a lesbian seemingly butch yet "fop like" in her mid-20s who acts as pimp to a cadre of young and bubble-headed lesbians, and one of the narrator's closest friends, dispensing frank wisdom to the narrator, is reduced to a sort of "named extra" with only a few throw-away lines, and tonnes of comical outfits.

The Fabulous Hoplite, a gay young man and another close friend of the narrator in the novel, is also reduced to the point of being pointless in the film, camped-up and all but ignored.

The narrator's father in the novel is a sort of sad minor character but in the film, he's played to come off as optimistic and oddly spirited despite the squalid neighbourhood, and the disarray of his marriage to the narrator's mum seems, for all practical purposes, ignored.

In its favour, the music (for what it is) is well-composed, and you have to give the production and writing crews credit for actually taking a line from the book ("...some days, they'll write musicals about the 1950s...") as their inspiration to write a musical, but in the world of bad camped-up musicals, this is among the most poorly executed in the bunch. Unlike _Shock Treatment_ or _Starstruck_ crucial plot elements are treated as afterthoughts. Unlike _The Apple_, there is a choppy and uneven flow between musical numbers and spoken dialogue.

You really can't blame it's "too 1980s" feel on the fact that it was created in the 1980s. The film version of _Annie_ released in 1981, pays a wonderfully well-executed tribute to the look and feel of New York City in the 1930s, and _Napolean Dynamite_ manages to capture a gritty sort of look and feel of the 1980s despite being made on a low budget in 2003 (though it's not explicitly set in the 1980s, those who lived through the decade cannot deny that the film "feels very 1980s"). Obviously, it was _possible_ to make something good out of this, especially considering the iconic status that the source novel has in the UK, but it fails most apparently in the look and feel, and also in its treatment of the source material, which is downright disrespectful.

Perhaps if you haven't read and have no intentions of reading the novel, you could enjoy this campy 1980s anachronism giving a shameful parody of late-1950s Soho London's modernist jazz set. I can definitely see what the writing team were attempting, but they definitely could have done better. With Boy George as a household name and mixed-race musicians and bands on the charts in 1986 UK, they definitely did _not_ need to bowdlerise the characters in the ways that they ended up doing. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that the writers wound up doing what both the book and film criticised harshly -- it ended up having a bunch of adults cranking out crap and treating its targeted teen-aged audience like two-bit idiots to make a quick buck off of.


The film is based on a genuine 1950s novel.

Journalist Colin McInnes wrote a set of three "London novels": "Absolute Beginners", "City of Spades" and "Mr Love and Justice". I have read all three. The first two are excellent. The last, perhaps an experiment that did not come off. But McInnes's work is highly acclaimed; and rightly so. This musical is the novelist's ultimate nightmare - to see the fruits of one's mind being turned into a glitzy, badly-acted, soporific one-dimensional apology of a film that says it captures the spirit of 1950s London, and does nothing of the sort.

Thank goodness Colin McInnes wasn't alive to witness it.


This movie is horrible if you pay attention to it. It's a perfect movie if you just watch the colorful images dance across the screen - each one with no apparent connection to the next. I rented this movie because I'm a David Bowie fan, and I really appreciate musicals. In finality, Bowie was in the film for a total of ten minutes and the songs and dance sequences were sparse and left something to be desired. The moral of the story was really befuddling. I couldn't tell if it was about racial issues in London in the 1950s or about not selling out. For the first half of the movie I was chuckling at how cheesy it was but I liked the campiness of the "no selling out" message. When blacks started being murdered I thought my tape had gotten messed up. Maybe I rented half of two different movies? Nope, there was a "Keep Britain White" song and dance sequence. I'm sorry, but WWII is not something you can write a musical about. At least not a musical that could conceivably be described as "campy" as I have several times in this review. Overall I'd say this movie could do a whole lot better if it made up its mind and cast better actors. (And put David Bowie in it for longer goddammit!) My grade: C-


"Absolute Beginners" was a film for the younger generation, a multi-time film that discussed the issues that teens were facing in Britain and how these troubled, constantly hitting each note, teen's problems can relate to the youth of tomorrow. It could have been dubbed the "Moulin Rouge" of the 80s, but it disappeared. It made its very shallow mark on the world, snuck under the radar, and can now be found collecting dust at either the musical section, the comedy section, or the politically obscure section of that seedy video store that doesn't need chain money to survive. Alas, that wasn't where I found it  but I found it, watched it, tried my hardest to sing along with it, stared into Bowie's eyes, but found myself faded by the end. Did it not survive the test of time? Is 1950s London too far removed from our current society? Is Bowie too creepy? I think "Absolute Beginners" falls somewhere into each of these questions as the perfect example of cinema that starts out with a bang, but withers to a mere sparkle by the end.

"Absolute Beginners" opens with a huge number that takes us through the non-gritty streets of London which involve theft nightly, prostitutes on every corner, dance throughout, booze like rivers, and the swankiest ties on nearly every individual. Sounds like a place we would all hate to be  right? Director Julien Temple keeps the mood light and flashy throughout most of the songs as we attempt to learn something about a plethora of our main characters. The one we follow most is Colin played by Eddie O'Connell who follows his dreams of being a photographer while shooting his favorite girl, Suzette (played by Patsy Kensit). These two have chemistry, and while Suzette looks like a pre-rehab Lohan, to me they worked. There was a huge spark between them, the chemistry was like lava, and I believed that these two could take me down a road I had never traveled. I was ready  but then, something happened. Temple takes us out of the nightlife, takes us out of the city we grew up with at the beginning, and completely reverses the roles without any dedication to the first. Suzette runs away, Colin becomes a pervert, and Bowie  well  I am not quite sure what his role is but he sings amazingly well while climbing a mountain  I can tell you that much. Temple gives us this flashy city, this opportunity to see those that inhabit it, but leaves us hanging high and dry when it is time to pull the trigger. We learn about Colin, mainly, but nobody else. I could probably watch this film again and still be equally confused as to whom is angry at whom, and what importance fashion had to that era. Also, were they teens really  they all seemed like they were pushing their late 20s, but maybe it was my TV.

Character development thrown right out the door, Temple tries to overcompensate by giving us bigger, more lavish songs using even more characters that we know nothing about. One of my favorite songs in the film uses this thought as a prime example. Temple uses a split house to show us the lives of Colin's parents (of which I didn't know it was them until after the film) and a song which screams apathy. Great song, too many characters, not enough time, suddenly dragged into another scene of missing coherency, and it just falls apart in your hands. Then, if that wasn't enough, we are rocking our heads to the beat of some great songs, rubbing our noggin' trying to understand where our characters are or are going, and Temple throws in hatred, anger, and politics into the final act. While I was hoping that this film would have a dedicated theme, I didn't think racism would be on the top of the bill. Suddenly, friends are missing, people are angry, and there is some random guy running around fighting Colin because he lives in poverty and has a friend of a different race? Somebody help me out here. It seemed completely rushed and overwhelming  nearly to the point of wanting to turn the film off. To me, the ending of "Absolute Beginners" was nowhere near the excitement from the opening number. That first part set the pace, and Temple could not keep up.

Overall, I must say that Temple can direct a music video, but I don't think he was quite prepared for the feature film. I don't think this film will ever make it into full "cult" status, and will probably remain unremembered or in the dollar bin for years to come. It is a fun film to watch initially, but when we get to that final part, it just explodes from the inside. I wanted some cutting edge work, but instead what I found was a freaky Bowie coupled with characters I cared nothing for. I could see how this film could relate to the youth of the 80s, but by the end it just felt forced. I think everyone in this production should have taken a moment and listened to "Motivation" by the ever-freaky Bowie in this film, it may have helped solidify this feature into better cult status. I am glad that I watched this film once, but that is all that my small brain can take. I loved the way that Temple caught me from the beginning, but he couldn't control his characters (way too many), and the songs didn't seem to match the final moments of the film. It came out of nowhere, and it was unwelcomed. If this was a film about racism, it needed to be from the beginning. "Absolute Beginners" was a welcomed adventure, but I don't think I will be dusting this film off in the future.

Grade: ** out of *****


Recreation of 1950's (London) Soho and the up-and-coming people. Based on a cult novel.

Julian Temple is a video director. No more, no less. Give him 15 million dollars and he will make you a 15 million dollar pop video. Here he forgets that two minutes with people that can't really act is one thing - but two hours? What was he thinking of. Besides who are the audience? Who cares about a book that was well remembered way-back-when. The usual London story of the chancer taking his chance.

What could really drag this film even further down? Oh I know, third rate songs that sound like they were made up on the spot. David Bowie crones the film title over and over a few times and that is the highlight. The soundtrack album is clay pigeon material.

There is one good thing though. Good recreation of period Soho. Shame they couldn't think of anything to put in front of it.


Following the disasterous Revolution, this film was pretty much the final nail in the coffin of Goldcrest and thus the British Film Industry. The film is absolute pants, it's full of music from the attempted mid-80's jazz revival and based on a book & author that was briefly popular at that time and has deservedly sank back into obscurity. Temple searched for ages trying to find Suzette and came up with 8th Wonders Patsy Kensett another person who was briefly popular at the time. By the time the film came out of post production the Jazz revival was over, as was Kensett's career and the film met a totally uncaring film public.

Mediocre would be an overstatement for some of the worst/campest/cheesiest acting to ever grace the British silver screen watching it almost 20 years on and the film is truely cringeworthy.


I remember watching this film back in 86' when it first came out & what an awful film. The acting was atrocious the plot was so flimsy it would or is that should have blew away in a breath of wind. I think it put me to sleep on more than one occasion & i was not tired that i remember. Please avoid at all costs better still have all your teeth taken out with no anaesthetic cos that would be more entertaining. It's just a pity i couldn't give it a zero or a negative score. I wish i had not wasted my money getting this one from the video shop all i can say was that the tape it was on was still brand new practically hardly surprising as the film was so poor. If i remember right i sat & watched it with a girl i really wanted to go out with & the fact she was sat next to me was still not enough to keep me awake thats how bad this film was.


An uptight voyeur who wants to commit suicide encounters a free spirited bad-seed who has 5 weeks to live and then they're off to discover America. Get the idea? There's not an original moment in this whole movie.


"Proximity" tells of a convict (Lowe) who thinks the prison staff is out to kill him. This very ordinary film is an action/drama with a weak plot; stereotypical, poorly developed characters; and a one dimensional performance by Lowe. A forgettable film not worthy of further commentary.


This thrown together piece of fecal matter adds together so many ludicrous scenarios that in the end it's a laugh riot of absolute hilarity. Too bad as the premise is promising (as it so often is in Duhllywood), but in the hands of this scriptwriter it segues off into la la land.

Lowe is in Prison serving time for a DUI that killed off his mistress. We get to see him having nightmares just so that we know he feels real BAD about this. Then his cell mate neighbor hangs himself. Or does he? Lowe has some suspicions but drops them quickly. His suspicions are so weak that the bad guys have nothing to worry about. So why do they then set him up to be killed? Ah, that's where this story could get interesting. That's where it falls off the rails, and once off the rails it decides it can get away with insulting the viewers attention for the next numbing hour.

****************SPOILERS****************************

I won't bore with an endless recounting of the irrationality of what follows, but contemplate this ending. Lowe has been trapped by the bad guys on a train. They want a tape he has, because that tape will screw their boss, and them. So on to the train come 3 cops, guns drawn, ready to rescue Lowe. The bad guys kill the cops, in front of half the passengers and then....continue chasing Lowe to get the tape. HELLO!!!! killing 3 cops in public will get you into deep doodo, to hell with the tape. Yet off they go through a mall shooting up the place, as if the public did not exist as witnesses, and in the end Lowe is grabbed and the bad guy still wants the tape!!!


That is the only thing I can positive to say about this movie. Cleveland is the star, I've been there and never saw the city look this good. Beautiful river and cityscapes.

This movie moves ahead at such a pace they hope you won't notice the lack of real world relevance. People running around and shooting guns without any consequence. For example, there is a shoot out at Rob Lowe's character's house- two cars are stolen, and yet the cops don't show up there till much later in the movie. Murder for hire never looked so implausible.

Whoever wrote this movie should be on the receiving end of one the movies countless stray bullets. Many of the actors in this movie are so much better than this. I check the date of the movie just to make sure it wasn't written during the writers strike but alas this was not the case. This movie is currently in rotation on Universal's HD channel- unless you want to drool of over Lowe there is no reason to watch it.


Former brat pack actor and all round pretty boy Rob Lowe stars in a film set in a high security American prison . I had a gut feeling his character was going to be popular for all the wrong reasons like Tobias in the first series of OZ , but PROXIMITY isn`t that kind of film , it`s more like a " Man on the run " film like THE FUGITIVE . It also makes a nod to the themes of punishment and justice with James Coburn putting in a cameo as the spokesman for a justice for victims pressure group but any intelligent discussion on how society should treat criminals is completely ignored as the film degenerates into tired old cliches of shoot outs and car chases


Here's a horror version of PRISCILLA: QUEEN OF THE DESERT (they wish!) starring Melinda/Mindy (RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3) Clarke as Candy, a desert dweller who pulls off a bank heist with boyfriend Johnny (Jason Durr). He ends up in a South-of-the-border prison run by the sadistic Chief Screw (an overacting Robert Englund in a toupee). She and her beloved pet poodles end up in hiding at a gas station convent until they're transformed by a newly fallen meteor. The dogs turn into obnoxious drag queen "bitches" and Candy develops a VERY long, talking, killing forked tongue she can't control. Thugs looking for the stolen loot and other assorted numbskulls add extra complications.

First off, Clarke is fantastic and makes what there is to make of this movie. You watch her and see someone very funny during the slapstick scenes, very convincing during the horror scenes and VERY sexy in various wigs and disguises, including an eye-popping, skin tight latex bodysuit...and wonder how come this actress isn't a huge star. It's too bad the rest of this cult attempt doesn't live up to her promise.

Blame director/scripter Sciamma, who thinks the outlandish premise alone is enough to sustain laughs...but his vulgar gags, annoying supporting characters and stupid dialogue are no substitute for a real sense of humor. Another nail in the coffin; the film looks cheap, lots of garish colors and sets are strangely muted by muddy photography and the dusty desert locales. Luckily for Sciamma that Clarke is in his film, because she alone keeps you watching.


Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason.


Impenetrable rubbish. This has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The dialogue is ghastly, the horror effects are laughable. The only thing that kept me watching was the ever-splendid and totally underrated Michael Cule.


Really bad movie. Maybe the worst I've ever seen. Alien invasion, a la The Blob, without the acting. Meteorite turns beautiful woman into a host body for nasty tongue. Bad plot, bad fake tongue. Absurd comedy worth missing. Wash your hair or take out the trash.


first of all let's start out by saying that Robert Englund Doug Bradley and Melinda Clark should be commended for having to be associated with this piece of drivel. i had to give this a 1 it wouldn't let me give it a zero. wanna know how bad this movie is? my mom calls me from across town and tells me "son, i just watched the stupidest movie ever. i responded as saying "the killer tongue huh?" she was like how did you know that? that's how bad this movie is. i mean it looked like a good movie at first Freddy pinhead Melinda. okay i'll give it a chance. i sat through the rest of this movie only because i wrote a column for reviews of horror movies. i implore you, don't waste your time money or even brain cells on this ludicrous piece of crap. run away. far away. if you see it on the shelf at Hollywood video blockbuster or even your local video store, turn it around and walk away....and i still want my two hours back dang it


This has to be one of the most outrageously stupid movies I have ever seen in my entire life. Just when I think I have seen the stupidest scene in history, along comes an even dumber and more bizarre scene. I think the transvestite poodles did it for me, or better yet, her talking tongue...or perhaps the guy getting the virgin mother statue mounted to a jeep windshield caught in his throat. Decisions, decisions...


Not totally off the wall in a good way, but just totally stupid. "Killer Tongue" is an uneasy mixture of sci-fi, horror, and supposed comedy. What this equates to is a mindless and totally incoherent film. There is very little dialog, mainly due to the fact that the script, if there was one, is complete "pond scum". I wouldn't even call it strange, more like just "total nonsense". This movie is certain to disappoint, and you have been warned. There is absolutely no reason to waste time on this, and if you do, the pungent smell will linger like rotten fish............................................................... MERK


One of the worst films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through, Killer Tongue is a horrible melange of the worst elements of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Brain Damage, and Pulp Fiction. Designed primarily to offend, apparently, but so inane that only the most hidebound conservatives would be taken in by it.


Someone, some day, should do a study of architecture as it figures in horror films; of all those explorations of weirdly laid out mansions, searches for secret passageways and crypts, trackings of monsters through air ducts, and so forth. Offhand I can recall only a few films in which architecture played a major role throughout--"Demon Seed," "Cube," the remake of "Thirteen Ghosts"--but it's at the heart of every story about a spooky house or church or crypt; it's all about the character and the affect of spaces, passages, and walls. So I was looking forward to this thriller where it promised to be central. The idea is this: An architect has built--actually, rebuilt--for himself a huge and rambling house; his wife has just left him, mainly because of his own self-centeredness, but also, it is intimated, because she can't get used to the place since he remodeled it. Living in unaccustomed solitude (real this time, rather than virtual), he comes to suspect that somebody else--a stranger who had come to the door one evening asking to use the phone and then suddenly disappeared--is living into the house with him; only the place is big enough so that he never sees him.

This is a good start for a melodrama, whose development one would expect to follow some such lines as these: After searching the house for the intruder a few times without success, the architect resorts to his blueprints to undertake more systematic searches, trying in various ways to surprise, intercept, or ambush the intruder, maybe by means of some special features he built into the structure. Meanwhile the intruder has discovered hiding places and back ways between places that the architect didn't foresee or doesn't remember. The movie would turn into a cat-and-mouse game, a hunt, a battle; and finally, in trying to trap the intruder, the architect himself would end up trapped in his own creation, in some way he didn't expect. Then he would be forced to think himself out of it--and maybe at the same time out of his own self-imposed isolation--and in a final twist would nail, and maybe even kill, the ****er.

Nothing like this happens in this movie; the house is just a house, the architect is just a guy, and his nemesis is of an unknown character, if he exists at all. Here is what does happen in the movie: Once the intruder is installed in the house--if he is--the architect begins hearing noises, but when he goes to investigate finds nothing. He calls the police, they think he's slightly nuts; he persuades his estranged wife to spend the night, she thinks he's more nuts. At last, more or less accidentally, he runs into the intruder (doesn't get a good look, but figures, who else could it be?--not a hard question, in a story with, to that point, fewer than three principal characters), whereupon he locks the doors, lowers the grills on the windows, throws away the key (I don't know why he thought this necessary), and leaves his victim to starve. I missed why this was a given: the doors and walls are made of steel? In any event, the architect takes to sleeping in his car. And since the idea of the movie has languished undeveloped and cannot now be developed further, something else must be devised to take its place. And this is it: The architect--are you ready?--moves into the house of the man who (presumably) moved into his, and lives there in the same way. How is this possible? It is not, but the movie takes this route to try and make it seem so: The architect has drawn a picture of the man who came to his door; and when he leaves the house he takes the picture with him; and while sitting in his car, he throws the picture into the street; and two kids pick it up and observe that it looks like Martin, their neighbor; whereupon the architect asks where his house is and the kids point the way.

If this sequence seems to verge on the implausible, what ensues plunges right in. The architect takes up residence with Martin's wheelchair-ridden wife, unbeknownst to her; so stealthy in his moves and so cunning in his reading of his hostess that he's able always to leave a room just as she enters or to duck out of sight just as she turns around. Throughout this section the movie is clever in one way, making (or leaving it to the viewer to make) the point that his life with this stranger, who doesn't know he's there, is in essence the same life he lived with his wife, as a virtual recluse with her as a convenient buffer. But at the same time, his inability to live in the world makes his transformation into Raffles the cat-burglar entirely incredible. Not to go into the series of twists at the end--including another murder achieved by locking someone in behind another invincible door--this one in front of a landing so flimsy that it collapses under the weight of a wheelchair; two nice people who take murder in stride; and (before the story started) the unnoticed construction of a tunnel under several houses.... To the final, long-anticipated twist, the movie adds another, to make it even more offensive, and then...ends.

Here is a story that depends on the development of two things--the idea of the stranger in the house, and the character of the man whose house it is--and fumbles both. The first fumble makes it boring; the second made me angry, as it pushed its main character farther and farther along a more and more zigzaggy path, and never offered any explanation for the character who most required one: Martin the tunnel-builder and sneak-tenant. The story should be redone by someone, some day.


For the first time in years, I've felt the need to log into IMDb today to cleanse myself of this movie by writing a review, because it was just such a let-down to watch. The plot sounded awesome when I read it, I expected a minimal mystery thriller, a claustrophobic phantom hunt. Unfortunately, it all gets watered down so bad by a mundane, tiring love story and too many contrived and teeth-gnashingly stupid "no-one-says-things-like-this-except-in-bad-movies"-dialogs that it's just agonizing.

Here's a quick run down of the worst offenses of this piece of film:

- The script relies so heavily on coincidences and the inexplicable and inexcusable stupidity of the main characters that it's just laughable. No, actually, it's angering. And lazy.

- Related to that: Cheap thrills. A long parade "just in time" moments.

- The main characters. Alright, it seems that the screenwriter has never experienced actual human beings in real life, but instead has gained all his knowledge from bad movies. Thus, his characters are boring, lifeless second generation clichés. They are mere plot-devices, place-holders without the slightest bit of personality. They are "man and woman in break-up who still love each other". Never seen that one before except in 100,000 movies and it's not getting any more realistic or enjoyable. Think of the blandest two-dimensional Hollywood fare and you've got it. There is not one character in this movie that is even remotely fresh, charming, or interesting.

- The far-fetched, vague resolution that's swaying very bad and needs just one nudge to topple, though the word "resolution" might be ill-fitting here, because the movie is a swampy mess that isn't going anywhere anyway. By the time you're through, though, you don't care anymore. The last third of the movie I just fast-forwarded, because it was just so unbearable to watch.

Okay, that's it. Whatever redeeming features this movie has, it all gets buried under incompetence. Don't watch this turd.


Certainly not horrible, but definitely not good.

Cry, The Beloved Country (1995) was directed by Darrell Roodt and written for the screen by Ronald Harwood (Adapted from the 1946 novel by Alan Paton). Starring James Earl Jones and Richard Harris.

The film is about pre-Apartheid South Africa, and the stories of a black man and a white man intertwining. The pious but naive preacher Stephen Kumalo (James Earl Jones) receives a letter from Johannesburg saying that he must come immediately; he later finds that his son has killed a man. The rich farmer/landowner James Jarvis (Richard Harris) finds that his son, a fighter for black rights, was the one killed by Kumalo's son. In this they connect.

I cannot compare it to the 1951 film of the same name, for I have not seen it. Or the 1974 musical titled Lost in the Stars for I have also not seen it; both look better than this one. But Cry Freedom, on the other hand, I have seen; it has a much more urgent air to it, like it actually is trying to say something where the film Cry, The Beloved Country seems to have no idea where it is going. Very "Wishy-washy". I refuse to compare the film to the novel (except that I did enjoy the novel more than I enjoyed the film) because novels and films are two extremely different media and there is no point in trying to transfer directly one to the other or compare them via the same means.

Frankly, this movie blew. Well, I guess it wasn't that bad, --Five-out-of-ten, -- but it wasn't that good either. Both of the leads, both very capable actors pull some of the most wooden performances I have seen with some of the most awkward dialogue in film history (but that can be blamed on he screenwriter, Ronald Harwood, who is also oddly off is game with this film, having also written the sublime The Pianist, and Being Julia). Among other things the point and themes of the novel are lost almost entirely in its transition to film for the third time; there is little, if any, tension with any moment of the film, racially or suspensefully. The music doesn't help. The painfully misplaced and boringly pastoral orchestra tracks really help with this dulling down of the film. One upside is the cinematography, with many rather good or great shots, but unfortunately, this does not help the film too much.

The last, striking words of Alan Paton's novel are displayed in the last moments of the film. It is too bad that they seem to be so disconnected from the film that was just shown. I don't know what Nelson Mandela might have seen in this film.

Thanks for your time.


wow...this has got to be the DUMBEST movie I've ever seen. We watched it in english class...and this movie made ABSOLUTELY no sense. I would never, EVER watch this movie again...and my sympathy to those who have ever PAID to see it.


It happened with Assault on Prescient 13 in 2005, it happened with The Lost Boys in 2008 and now it's happened with another classic from the 80's Wargames... :( Why, oh why, oh why won't Hollywood ever learn? Leave them alone...! They can't be remade...! They suck....! We all hate them....!.

Those of you who haven't seen the original 1983 version with Matthew Broderick & Ally Sheedy, go rent/buy it now....!! The hardware may look dated, the special effects are not new millennium but it still beats this rubbish hands down....

For those of us who lived through the 80's when hacking was sexy, the Internet was something mysterious and your disks came as a 8" floppy variety, well we now possess the wisdom to avoid this film like a Thermonuclear War!

Never before has "a nice game of chess" seemed the better option....


I see a lot of movies. Saw the original wargames years ago and loved it. Computers where still "a big mystery" for the most of us and the movie was convincing, in it's own way.

This one, however, looks like a low budget Wednesday night special. Total crap, from start to finish.

The plot is so weak, you won't believe it until you see the movie (which I would not recommend in the first place). I can not point out one actor that actually did a good job in this movie. But hey, with that script I would've been surprised if ANYONE could do a good job acting. Lots of cliché scenes. CGI looks like it's taken out of the '86 version.

Bah, no, I'm getting in a bad mood just writing about this. Do NOT watch this movie.

Life's to short to waste it on watching crappy movies.


I can't say that Wargames: The Dead Code is the worst movie I've ever seen, as it had one or two decent moments, but I can easily say it's the most transparent movie I've ever seen. Not once did a plot device present itself without me guessing it 10+ minutes in advance. There was no subtlety to anything the movie did, no intelligence evident at all behind the scenes. Every spoken or typed line's intent was so glaringly obvious it was impossible to "get into" the movie.

I found myself laughing at the horribly thought out plot line, and the bumbled attempts to reclaim the audience, far more often than I found myself enjoying the movie.


Some people seem to think this was the worst movie they have ever seen, and I understand where they're coming from, but I really have seen worse.

That being said, the movies that I can recall (ie the ones I haven't blocked out) that were worse than this, were so bad that they physically pained every sense that was involved with watching the movie. The movies that are worse than War Games 2 are the ones that make you want to gouge out your eyes, or stab sharp objects in your ears to keep yourself from having another piece of your soul ripped away from you by the awfulness.

War Games: The Dead Code isn't that bad, but it comes pretty close. Yes I was a fan of the original, but no I wasn't expecting miracles from this one. Let's face it the original wasn't really that great of a movie in the first place, it was basically just a campy 80s teen romance flick with some geek-appeal to it.

That's all I was hoping for, something bad, but that might have tugged at my geek-strings. Was that too much to ask for? Is it really not possible to do better than the original War Games, even for a straight to video release? Well apparently that was too much to ask for. Stay away from this movie. At first it's just bad, like "Oh yeah, this is bad, but I'm kind of enjoying it, maybe the end will be good like in the original." And then it just gets worse and worse, and by the end, trust me, you will wish you had not seen this movie.


This is loosely based on the ideas of the original 80's hit . It's set in the modern day as we see a base in Afghanistan get destroyed by a UAV right at the start.

And that's exactly where the movie jumps the shark. UAV's aren't armed. They could be but I don't think it's ever been tried for real. We get to see the computer that has masterminded this operation, called R.I.P.L.E.Y. We are introduced to "hacker" Will Farmer (he's good at chemistry & electronics which doesn't make him a computer hacker) & his love interest, Annie) & Will's 1st attempt at hacking is not only a complete failure his IP address is also logged and Annie guessed who it was. We also meet Wills mom who works for a chemical company.

Wills taking money from his neighbours bank account (Mr Massude) isn't a hack (he helped him set up the account), we then get a nod back to the original movie where they decide against playing Global Thermonuclear War & they play The Dead Code. The trace the RIPLEY office are running is NOT on Will but on Massude's pc so all the evidence they were gathering was useless against Will.

Exactly why RIPLEY shut Will's machine down isn't explained (he's only playing an online game?) & also why it felt the need to have to shut down all the electricity in the entire block he lived in as well. Why a counter terrorism agency would see this as a viable target is extremely questionable. As for RIPLEY activating his mobile phone? I think not, it wasn't connected to the pc and the message wouldn't play unless he actually answered the phone so there's more bad "hacking" science there too.

RIPLEY agents arrive at Massude's home, take him away & Will is given a envelope which turns out to contain a lot of money. Will searching for the licence plate of the car that took Massude isn't a "hack" as you never see him break into the DMV computer. The RIPLEY agents who grab Dennis in the airport as he's looking for Will have no authority to arrest or detain him. Will's mother hadn't "been stealing chemicals & Bio agents" either. And even if she did they had no right to arrest or detain Dennis. Patriot Act or not.

I don't know why Will was worried about being arrested for any crime in Canada as its a totally different country with different laws to the US.

The computer has gone rogue and all the action its taken against Will, his mother & Dennis wasn't sanctioned by a Government agency. The phone phreak we see Will do is the 1st show of any hacking skill in the movie, we also get a hack into RIPLEY which seemed too easy for such a powerful system.

The "guy" who ran into Annie at the airport & was also watching them in the street was nothing to do with RIPLEY & the laughable notion that RIPLEY could track a cellphone whilst underground was as stupid as the idea that a computer reads lips.

Another reference to the original movie when they mention Stephen Falken as the designer of the system RIPLEY replaced, the Joshua Project. We discover that the "guy" who ran into Annie is Falken (not played by the original actor sadly) who faked his own death.

We also get to see WOPR as "what's going to help" them beat RIPLEY and they kept the same voice used back then. Falken & WOPR are destroyed too quickly after being hardly used at all (the same explosion should kill Will, Annie & the Russian. It's also unlikely they'd create a self-contained computer system that has the ability to nuke or drop chemical weapons on the country it operates out of.

The whole "Decontamination" plot & idea are totally unbelievable. Those kinds of orders would have to go through the President or Joint Chiefs Of Staff. So yet another laughable & unbelievable idea.

The IP hacks against RIPLEY aren't done by Will, he just contacts one of his friends who suggests & implements the idea. It's excessively laughable that Will would get a login just from increasing RIPLEY's operating temperature. Having Joshua as a backdoor into RIPLEY (especially after it had been blown to bits) is an incredible cop-out and screams of a very desperate writer who had no ideas left and wanted to get this movie over and done with.

There is an awful good where RIPLEY is playing Dead Code and we see a countdown (saying 17 minutes) then RIPLEY says "Decontamination in 30 minutes", how crap is that when they can't even keep up with their own timer? RIPLEY's attack mission against Philadelphia is halted (far too easily in my opinion) and it decides to attack Joshua in its internal circuits and reroutes the missile aimed a Philly to Washington where RIPLEY is stationed. The idea of the Nuclear exchange to make RIPLEY realise what she's doing won't work (surely she'd already know if she had Joshua insider her as he'd already learnt this lesson in the original movie?) is yet another nod back to the original movie.

Their cop-out at having RIPLEY repeat Joshua's exact same words form the end of the original movie just goes to show how many original ideas they were unable to come up with.

If you want to point fingers for bad & stolen ideas the men to blame are Randall Badat & Rob Kerchner. This is an awful movie and is best avoided.


I think this could've been a decent movie, and some of its parts are OK... but in whole it's a B movie. Same about the plot, parts are OK but it has several holes and oddities that doesn't quite add up. Acting is mostly OK, I've seen worse of this too. :)

The beginning sets the level, with cars driving in the desert, making "cool" but totally unnecessary jumps through some small dunes (In slow motion! Cool!), like the drivers had never seen sand before... It gets slightly better from there, but not much.

If you're gonna rent this, get another one too and use this one as a warm-up. Keep expectations low and it might work for you.


Like many others have commented before me here, I have to say that this movie is bad, but not the worst I've seen. There will be no direct references to movie plots or sequences in this comment, because I hate spoilers.

I got a feeling I was watching an episode of a TV show or something, where they had gotten a hold of some extra $$$ to spend on CGI (I've seen worse of those)... All in all, it is quite an insult to the viewer, at least if you have ANY knowledge about computers and/or technology at all. There are just too many of these moments of insults to make me feel comfortable, and I found myself just begging for it all to end - fast - halfway through. In addition, there are countless "easy way out" scenarios, which also is an insult to your intelligence as a thinking human being...

This movie absolutely fades in comparison to the old "Wargames", and I think it's a damn shame they even got to call it a sequel.

Two stars from me, because of one thing and one thing only: the actors' performances aren't half-bad, considering the regurgitated crap of a script they had to work with. Still, they should never have signed on to this movie. Not really a career-move, but I guess we all have bills to pay.

To those of you who gave this movie top score...you have to be on the studio's payroll or something, that's my only explanation.

To all who haven't seen this one: by all means, watch it and make up your own mind. But lower your expectations to the floor (and then some).


Thank God I watched this at a friend's place and did not pay for it. The plot is horribly transparent and the whole movie felt like an episode of a TV show. If you have any knowledge of computers or electronics, watch out. You will feel feel like the movie is an insult to your intelligence.

Also, actress turned Much Music VJ Amanda Walsh displays the worst acting I have ever seen, excluding porn. She's lucky that Matt Lanter is actually decent. He's the one that carries the movie.

I hate that I wasted nearly two hours of my life watching this movie! It's a shame that they got to call it a sequel, because I was a fan of the original, which was actually pretty good.


I'll try to use words to describe this on....

I saw the original, which was good in its own way, but back then I should have feared a sequel.

And I was 'afraid' when I picked this one up, but now that I've seen it, I have to say, it's even worse then I thought. Why these movies still get money still makes my mind spin.

Let's start with the actors;they aren't all that good, but it has to be said, some make heads turn by being just plain awful. But what can an actor do with a script like this one. It's trying to be a copy of the original only this time the places have changed, any form of story is gone and any attempt of actually coming up with something that hasn't been done before, fails miserably. In a futile attempt to get it up-to-date, they try to make it exciting by making use of the whole 'big-brother' theme , but that has been worn out ages ago and offers nothing but a filler for between the beginning and the end. An attempt was made to try to save the movie by making a ton of references to the '83 original, but it just ended up being plain funny and sometimes a bit sad. In conclusion, if you have nothing , and I mean nothing , to do... go watch it, or play Frisbee... with the DVD.... by yourself. It'll offer you the same amount of fun.. I promise


I thought this was a sequel of some sorts, and it is meant to be to the original from 1983. But a sequel is not taking the original plot and destroying it.

I actually had very little expectations to this movie, but I just wasted 95 minutes of life. No suspense - I actually feel clairvoyant, poor acting, and so filled with technical errors, so I as a computer geek just couldn't believe it. They have tried to make it a mix between a generic war movie and 24 hours. But this is not even worthy of a low budget TV movie.

Do not see this movie, this is a complete waste of time. Instead get the original. The theme is still valid. Don't let to much power into a machine. And the acting and plot is far more exiting and compelling.


I really didn't have high expectations and I must admit that I wasn't disappointed. This movie is so terrible that I felt obligated to register an account here at IMDb just to warn others not to waste their time. The storyline is terrible and you keep asking yourself throughout the movie "can it get any worse?" YES, it can! somehow they manage to make it worst by every minute and you end up thinking "I want my 1 hour 35 minutes back!". Somebody got to pay for this!

I dare you to find a movie which is worst that this...

I really didn't have high expectations and I must admit that I wasn't disappointed. This movie is so terrible that I felt obligated to register an account here at IMDb just to warn others not to waste their time. The storyline is terrible and you keep asking yourself throughout the movie "can it get any worse?" YES, it can! somehow they manage to make it worst by every minute and you end up thinking "I want my 1 hour 35 minutes back!". Somebody got to pay for this!

I dare you to find a movie which is worst that this...


This movie is mostly chase scenes and special effects. It is very weak on plot. Most of the computer talk was just mumbo-jumbo. I watched this because I was a big fan of the original War Games movie which was based mostly on computer fact and real computer terminology. This movie had none of that. Most of the computer scenes were not only impossible and highly unrealistic of real computers and networks, but just lame. It is like it was written by somebody who has no comprehension of real computers.

The ripley game was lame and was essentially just an arcade game. No real hacking, so what was the point? Movie was boring. Lame sequel.


You have to understand, when Wargames was released in 1983, it created a generation of wannabe computer hackers. The idea that a teenager could do anything of far reaching proportions, let alone deter a world war was novel and thrilling. Real computers were beginning to show up in people's homes, and for the first time, society was becoming interconnected in a way that made the movie's premise excitingly prescient. Granted, a talking computer that balanced it's free time between chess and global thermonuclear war was a bit far fetched, but the brilliant commentary on nuclear proliferation and the cold war made up for it. I've probably even heard of the hackers that this movie was actually based on.

Fast forward 25 years, and we have a horrible mutant of a thing that I loathe to call a "sequel", called Wargames: The Dead Code. I'll just dig right in. First of all, the plot hinges on a government operated gambling site where folks who win the games automatically become terror suspects. You're probably very confused right now. The idea is that eventually the terrorist will click on the sub-game within the web site called "The Dead Code" where they pilot a plane over a city, spraying it with bioweapons. At some point in the game, you have to choose between "sarin gas" and "anthrax", and if you choose "sarin", then you're automatically confirmed as a bioterrorism weapons expert and your family is taken into custody and interrogated. In the movie, this actually happens. However, since the payment for the game was made from a bank account that was suspicious, it obviously all makes sense.

Second, the avatar of the AI in this straight-to-DVD bomb is an annoying flash animation that keeps repeating the pop-up-ad-esquire sound bite "play with me baby". Because apparently in the future, advanced AI loses interest in intellectual pursuits like chess, and gets into porn.

Third, the motivation for these "hackers" is profit and women, as opposed to pure curiosity as in the original movie. For some reason, recent hacker movies feel the need to portray all young adults as average surfer dude kind of people who are just like everyone else. That may work for your average sitcom, but c'mon, you don't learn how to take over government computers by doing your hair, playing sports, and shopping at the mall, folks. The one novel thing I noticed was that at some point in the dialogue there is a reference to a Matt Damon movie, and then later there is the phrase, "Good Hunting, Will". I swear, they named the main character Will just for that phrase so they could send a high five to Mr. Damon. This Will kid isn't bad, but he was certainly wasn't like any obsessive hacker I've ever met. I can't fully state how annoyed I am that this movie shares the same name as the original, because it has absolutely nothing in common with it except Professor Falken and Joshua (WOPR) make a reappearance in this movie, as a limp old man who apparently is dying of boredom, and a dilapidated old tic-tac-toe machine with a higher pitched voice. After some prodding, Joshua (the AI) has what appears to be sex with the new AI with the porn voice, a bunch of board games flash on the big screens, and the whole "The only way to win, is not to play" revelation is supposed to be the crowning moment. Except that those of us who saw the original, you know, those who would want to see this in the first place have already been there and done that. A recycled ending for a movie made from last month's compost.

The new movie was directed by a guy who's done 90210, and written by guys who do B movies. The original was directed by a guy who's been keeping himself busy with "Heroes", so you see the quality difference there. There was talk of a real remake, but I hope they don't destroy this classic all over again. I swear, if I have to, I'll visit every gambling web site until I find the one that's run by a psychotic government computer. The saving grace is that I was able to stream this on Netflix, so at least the only energy I expended watching this disaster was for breathing, clicking, and indigestion.


This is the worst, and I mean THE worst computers based movie I have ever seen. The whole plot is totally unconvincing and full of stupidity.

I mean...

The guy in this movie can actually speak with computer as a real person. Now you probably think this must be some super cool high-tech computer, well , it is, but he does it also with other very poor and weak computer which does not even have graphic interface.

and the main idea how to overload the "super" computer by connecting to it via computer game on the net is really stupid. My mobile phone will shut the lighting down to preserve the energy but apparently this genius computer cant decide whether to use its resources to deal with national security threats or to load computer games.

there are also some other bad things about it but I just don't have time for this.

I just cant believe someone could actually record movie stupid as this


No wonder this was released straight to DVD here in Australia, no redeeming features what so ever. The dialog was hokey, the acting, awful and the script sucked!! Whoever thought it would be a good idea to do a sequel or follow up to the far superior John Badham film, Wargames from the 80s, well they must of been on something cause it was a bad idea!! Amanda Walsh was good in it as the eye candy/love interest, while Matt Lanter was good as the other main lead- that is about it. I would not recommend Wargames: The Dead Code to anyone, check out Hackers or the original Wargames film- both are better than this piece of crap!!


Just plain good old stupid.

I mean really stupid, not the good stupid like Killer Tomatoes, or Ed Wood movies, this is probably the most stupid movie I ever have seen. To give this movie an golden Turkey is an insult to turkeys. To call this movie dumb is offensive even to dumb people.

If this is the future of American cinema and art we are better off to really start world war 3 and 4 at the same time and let the cockroaches run the show after.

Now I have to get drunk to wash this insult to my single braincell off....

This is a really good movie if you are suicidal.


This is one of the worse movies that I have ever seen in my entire life. I wish I could travel back in time and do the following:

1) Find out where the "movie" "War Games- The Dead Code" was filmed 2) Watch the original WAR GAMES with my current computer knowledge AND the eyes of a 1983 preteen. 3) Break into the pentagon computer in the 80's with the knowledge and perspective learned and remembered. 4) Reprogram the WHOPPER to NUKE the location of THE DEAD CODE minutes prior to its first day of filming 5) Come back to the present, have a beer and get Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones to "flash" my memory blank of the whole event, especially my original viewing of "The Dead Code" 6) Have another beer and watch WARS GAMES 7) Be happy until the next bad remake of a GOOD 80's movie.

8) Did I forget the have Jar Jar killed. I am not sure if I would have to travel into the future for that. Maybe I need access to a wormhole.


After Highlander 2 (which I am still in denial about), I thought is was impossible to make a sequel that could make me cry because it was so bad. I was wrong. I loved the original Wargames, however, this movie is inaccurate with computer details and details about the original movie. The original Wargames at least had some hacks that worked. Whoever wrote this movie knew NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS except how to use a word processor. I doubt he or she even watched the original movie. The acting isn't even convincing. Please save yourselves, under no circumstances watch this movie. I don't care if the channel is stuck on the TV and you can't turn the TV off. THIS MOVIE WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE.


I wondered why John Wood was not playing Dr. Falken until I watched the film. BAD plot, bad science, bad acting and overall a bad film. Please don't watch this film. Rent the original "War Games" if you are feeling nostalgic.

I didn't like the bending of the plot to beat-the-terrorist-threat idea either. In the first film W.O.P.R was built because Russia had 1000s of warheads pointed at the U.S.A. In this film the idea behind the computer was to kill terrorist in training before they are a threat. Politics aside, one of the good thing about the first film was the highlighting that even a stupid computer could grasp the idea of the pointlessness of war in the end. No such insight is offered in this film.


I can't believe I watched this expecting more. It starts out OK. This movie pushes the limits of reality way to far!! At least the first one was somewhat realistic. It rips off the first movie and even mentions the Joshua Project. Anyone who knows anything about computers will hate this movie. It does have one good message in it though, WATCH OUT FOR BIG BROTHER!!! The movie just makes it seem like Big Brother is way bigger than he actually is in reality. That was very aggravating. Even the make-up on the actors was completely bad. Some of the acting is pretty good. Some of the acting is really bad though. The script was OK at some points and completely messed up at other parts. This movie plays on convenience about every five minutes. Like I said, I can't believe I watched it expecting more. I think I am gonna pop in the original to get back to earth...Q


A below average looking video game is turned into some sort of conspiracy to have the next terrorist discovered in the USA backyard. Welcome to the lunacy of cheaply made direct to video movies. Its full of no-name actors and actresses with little valuable plot.

Anyway, this strange game goes on and our "hero" bets real money and does good at it. It is sort of like gambling, except the gambling part is gone and it sucks. Instead its an online game with little real value and you get authorities on your tail if you do good.

What makes it even stranger is that two strange computer programs battle it out somehow and all is saved in the end. I will leave the viewer to see how it all comes to fruition.

Overall, not even worth a $1 rental. Borrow it, please. "D-"


If you thought that the original from 83 was bad then try out this modern day masterpiece. How could it be worse more you ask? Well...at least in the first one you had Ally Sheedy jogging in a sports bra. Other than updated graphics, modern day themes (such as terrorists), modern weapons and a sexy new voice for Ripley unfortunately this is the same sad tired story. Anyone that saw the first one could see exactly where the next scene / line in the story was going. And for anyone that didn't see the first one...well consider yourself lucky that you only watched it once. Maybe in another 23 years Hollywood will try again.


Will Farmer (Lanter) plays a computer game that simulates a terrorist attack, and Ripley, the super government computer, designed to profile potential terrorists, tracks him because Will borrowed (by hacking) some money from his next door neighbor's bank account to pay for a class trip to play chess in Philadelphia. The next door neighbor whose computer Will was fixing, has relatives in the mid-east who thru their bank send money to the neighbor's bank , and Ripley sees a terrorist connection. Ripley has the power to call up missile strikes. Oh, oh!

This version of War Games has a much faster pace and more aggressiveness than the War Games movie in the early 1980s. Well, the electronic industry has so much more to work with these days. Makes sense. So the movie dazzles us with fantastic CGI on computer screens, and once Joshua, the forerunner to Ripley, is found operational, we are left with watching computer against computer and the humans are cringing, hoping, praying.sort of, oh-oh-ing, OMG-ing, and more cringing hoping things will go their way. In other words we are now experiencing a made-for-TV type movie, and it's Oh Hum Time. Go back to the 1980s and watch the original War Games movie. It's much better.

But, we really have to ask ourselves: are we making computers too intelligent where one day, in time, they will rule us? Hmmm..

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.


I didn't enjoy this film. I thought the acting wasn't very good and the story was boring. A 20year old computer saving the day? I thought that this was just slightly far fetched, even for a film. I couldn't figure out why they couldn't just turn it off, why not take a sledgehammer to it.

Its a shame, but after the original film from the 80s you expected so much more than what was actually delivered. This film could have been a 21st century version of the old film, it wasn't. If that is what you want to watch, do not watch this film!

Even if the old computer hadn't have turned up to save day, this would still, in my opinion, be a very very cheesy flick..


Let's face it-- if you rented a STDVD sequel of a forgotten 80's gem, and expected it to be better than the aforementioned, then you are an idiot. Wargames: The Dead Code joins the long running list of unnecessary sequels that the DVD market has filled so easily. Movies like this don't need spoilers, because YOU already know them.

The "plot" for this "film", is as follows: Nerd meets girl; girl likes nerd; nerd likes girl; nerd gets accidentally involved with Top Secret Government computer; nerd and girl go to another country; nerd and girl end up being persecuted by Government suits in the other country; nerd and girl meet some important old guy that dies at key point in the "film"; nerd and girl are captured; the Top Secret Government computer gets crazy; nerd is hired to beat Top Secret Government Computer; nerd beats Top Secret Computer by using the same old Top Secret Computer from the first Wargames "film"; nerd saves the day; nerd gets laid.

The end.

The acting, script, effects, score, and cinematography are what you would expect-- B-grade. Some familiar faces are in here, and unless you are a mega fan of Colm Feore, then you should avoid this one. Granted, the movie won't make you insane enough to eat your own toes by seeing it, so if you like cheap looking STDVD sequels, then you are right at home.

Sadly, Mathew Broderick was too involved with some "masterpiece", that he couldn't even do a five second cameo in this one. But can you blame him?


I don't know what else to say about this horrible movie that hasn't already been said. Honestly I have only myself to be angry with. I should have know better when I saw the title of this movie that it would be a horrible piece of crap, but I loved War Games so I indulged my whim. I will live to regret that decision the rest of my life. From the very start when the government people explained that their super computer could determine who a terrorist was just by how well they played a video game I knew I was in for a ride though the land-that-good-writing-forgot. The list of very, very, very bad plot lines, dialog, and acting is so long I would crash IMDb if I tried to post it. To those people who said that they have seen worst movies than this one please tell me. I am actually curious to see something that could top this steaming pile of horse dung.


I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.

I was excited for the sequel to "Wargames" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and "Wargames: The Dead Code" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.

The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. "The Dead Code" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he "wins" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.

Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like "He has expert knowledge of bio-terror" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.

Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours.


The only reason to see this movie is for a brilliant performance by Thom-Adcox Hernandez who is underused in the movie within the movie. As usual Tom Villard is good, too. Otherwise it's c**p. The possesor doesn't even exist how does he magically change the letters on the theatre marquee to spell out "The Possessor"? Lame.


A bunch of kids set up a theatre to have an all-night horror movie marathon. However, as the night goes on, there's somebody among them killing them off one by one. Who is it...and why? I saw this in a theatre way back in 1991. I was looking forward to it--but boy! It did not work at all. The premise is a good one, they have a very appealing young cast and some pros like Dee Wallace Stone on board...but it doesn't work. The story stops making sense halfway through (that could be because of some huge editing before the film was released), the killings are relatively bloodless (how this got an R rating is beyond me) and the unmasking of the killer at the end was boring and stupid.

It's really too bad--this movie had potential. With a better script this could have become a great horror film. As it stands though it's mostly forgotten and the cast itself seems embarrassed by it (I heard Stone won't talk about this one). I give it a 3 and that's just for the cast.


When I saw the commercial for this, I was all about seeing it. Now, forgive me, but it's been so long since I've seen it that I don't recall how it went. Suffice it to say, the movie I saw bore no resemblance to the "movie" they sold me on.

I was bored, annoyed, and incredibly disappointed by this movie. And if it wasn't bad enough, they had to sink it even further with that awful reggae music. Not exactly mood-setting music for a horror movie, eh mon? I guess if you never saw the commercial (or trailer, I suppose) you may think this is some hot stuff. For my money, the commercial was way better.


**SPOILERS** I rented "Tesis" (or "Thesis" in English) on the strength of director Alejandro Amenabar's later effort "The Others". Based on what a brilliantly measured and horrifyingly effective creepfest that film was, I assumed his earlier efforts would be of a similar quality and I was in the mood for some good horror. Instead I wound up with the most tedious, preposterous excuse for a lame-brained slasher movie I've seen since the German film "Anatomie" (which this one kinda reminded me of).

The plot has potential but it's thrown away within the first 20 minutes. It revolves around innocent-n-pretty psychology student Angela's (Ana Torrent - a Jessica Harper deadringer) thesis on the subject of violence in films. Through some far-fetched circumstances too dumb to go into here, she winds up in possession of a 'snuff' tape on which two men torture, mutilate and kill a young girl for the camera. Angela, and her horror-buff friend Chema (Fele Martinez) are both shocked yet intrigued by the tape and decide to get to the bottom of who's responsible for it.

This leads to... well, nothing.

They never really give a reason for why they want to find the girl's killers (since they resolutely refuse to contact the police throughout any of the unfolding events, even when their own lives at risk) and the mystery itself is as limp as Graham Norton in a room full of bunny girls. There is only one proper 'clue' (the type of camera the killers used is discovered) and that's a) a really weak one and b) wheeled out in the first 20 minutes. The rest of the so-called 'unravelling' just occurs through blind luck, increasingly ridiculous plot twists and a SLEW of awful, transparent and thoroughly pointless red herrings that are chucked in merely to pad out the running time.

Seriously - Amenabar might know his stuff about ghost stories but he's clearly never read a detective book in his life. The key to a good whodunnit is to have a large cluster of potential suspects and to eliminate them one by one with clever deduction and the gradual discovery of more and more evidence, before moving in for the final twist. In "Tesis", *POTENTIAL SPOILER AHEAD* the killer's identity is guessed correctly by the amateur 'detectives' almost instantly and then we get 100 minutes of the writer trying feebly to throw us off the scent until he runs out of ideas, throws his hands up and says "OK, ya got me, it was him after all"! As for any kind of logic or motive behind the crimes - no such luck. You're watching the wrong movie if that's what you're after.

The only thing that drags "Tesis" down further from just being a dumb, badly written thriller is the way it actually tries to make some ludicrous, muddled-up 'point' about violence in films. I have no idea what stance it's attempting to take on the subject but it seems determined to cram in a ton of misguided, confused psychobabble, in between the rest of the gibberish, and say "look at me! I'm political!". The final scenes, in which the "point" of the movie is supposedly hammered home, are so utterly absurd and puerile, one can't help but wonder if Amenabar feels embarrassed now when he watches this. If he doesn't, he certainly should. This is total 'amateur night at the slasher house' stuff.

Overall I can't believe I wasted two whole hours (it felt like at least six) on this, just hoping something might happen. The urban legend of 'snuff films' (and that is basically all they are, despite the way this film tries to suggest they're some kind of criminal phenomenon sweeping the world!) is an area that can be so tantalisingly exploited in good horror films ("Videodrome" anyone?) but it's so easy to step over the line into childlike 'wouldn't it be cool if!' territory with it (ie: "My Little Eye")... "Tesis" hits an all-time low for the 'snuff movie' genre. On every level, this one is better left dead and buried. I'll award it a 1 out of 10, for some nice lighting, but that's all it's getting.


Best of the Best 4, is better than 3, but just barely. Basically, I say this because part 4 doesn't contradict parts 1/2 (like 3 does), (ie. their is no reference to Tommy Lee having siblings).

Anyway, I liked the Russian plot line of the story, and especially Sven Ole-Thorsen's bit part as Boris. Aside from that though and a few fighting scenes, the movie is nothing special. The limited budget is also very noticeable (especially in the airplane blow-up scene).

Also, part 4 does not really have a moral or say anything like part 3 did, there are a couple of more better known actors (Hudson, Thorsen) in part 4, but alas nothing like the beginning of the series (and even these characters have very small roles).

Alas, it seems Best of the Best is the Rhee show, and to be truthful, he cannot carry a movie.

Saw on tape, Rating:4


believe it or not,this movie is worse than number three.it's slower,the acting is worse,and the story is very weak.there isn't a lot of good to say about this movie.even the fight scenes are more dull than number three,and i would have thought that impossible.this is a very slow 90 minutes.painful,in fact.i stuck it through,hoping it would get better.if you really want to see this movie,you should try to find a cheap rental of it.it is hard to find(for purchase,that is)and probably for good reason.like number three,this movie has nothing to do with the first two.it is the same in name only.anyway,the most i can give Best of the Best:Without Warning is 2/10


I am a fan of the previous Best of the Best films. But this one was awful. No wonder I had such a hard time finding it. I tried 4 video rental stores, until I found one with a copy of this movie. The acting was terrible, the plot was a joke, and the action was bad as well.

I really miss Alex Grady, Travis Brigley, and the original kickboxing characters and theme that this film had with the first 2 movies.

John


A text prologue warns us that we should not allow evil to enter our house, but I think the more apt word is "entropy." Good grief, what slobs these two babes are!

George (Seymour Cassell) is alone in his San Francisco office and his monstrously expensive home in Tiburon while his wife and child are away in San Diego. Two girls (Sondra Locke as Jackson and Colleen Camp as Donna) knock on his door, asking directions. Well, it's raining, and they're shivering like two drenched pitiful kittens, and they're not sure of the address they're looking for, and, what with one thing and another, George invites them to come in and partake of his pizza by the fire. All three of them wind up in George's bath tub and there follows about five minutes of mostly undifferentiated nudity in double exposure, triple exposure, quadruple exposure, and dodekakuple exposure. They spend the night in a threesome and the next morning the girls fix him breakfast. But something has gotten slightly cockeyed because Georgie's guests gobble everything down with their fingers and pour ketchup and syrup all over the linen and -- "You eat like ANIMALS!", George exclaims and tells them to get out. In his dreams.

Now, don't get me wrong. Sondra Locke is an extraordinary looking young blond with cobalt-blue eyes and Colleen Camp bounces around like a superball. You gotta say, they breed 'em mighty cute down there in Shelbyville, Tennessee, where Locke comes from, and they breed 'em with bodacious tushes too, as we can't help but note after the first five or ten minutes.

But when the girls go berserk, so does the movie. The film is thereafter bathed in a garish green light. The pair put on ghoulish makeup and make gargoyle faces at themselves in the mirrors. They brain a delivery boy and then drown him to make sure. They cuss up a storm and smash windows and furniture. They have one of those scenes in which two people sit across the table from one another, licking food and then jumping each other's bones.

And Georgie? They first render Georgie unconscious with mace (which contains nothing that you can't find in that little red bottle of McIlheny's Tabasco sauce in your kitchen cabinet), tie him up, pour flour and milk all over him, subject him to a psychotic trial, put him through one of those Tolstoy-type semi-executions, slap him around, dress up in outlandish costumes, then prance out on him and his virtually destroyed upper-middle-class home, and are dispatched by a delivery van ex machina.

As for the acting, it's as if someone had told Georgie, "First act polite to these girls, then act panicked after you're tied up." And to the girls: "First act shy, unwilling to impose on anyone, then act crazy." And that's it.

The photography and location work are straight out of a 1970s porn movie. I'm not sure that suggests a total lack of skill. It takes effort and talent to turn San Francisco ugly. The score gives us two Leitmotivs. Georgie's is some pop tune with lyrics about "being free" and "giving in." Jackson and Donna's is a catchy rinky-tink thing called "My Good Old Dad."

I approve of the moral lesson behind the story, though. There are some things you should simply not give in to, even though they might look like a lot of fun at first. All very educational.


So this guy named George is sitting home alone on his birthday when two women show up. George's wife is at a hospital taking care of their son so when the wife is away George gets in the bubble bath and makes love to both of the girls. It isn't that great of a scene because it really doesn't show anything. After that the birthday boy wakes up the next morning and the girls are still at his house. They make him a nice breakfast but George isn't hungry. George isn't very happy and he tries to ditch them but when he gets home the girls are still at his house. The girls have had enough with old George and no longer want to cook for them. They both turn out to be major psychopaths and use George in their little crazy game. I liked that the girls just did what they wanted and messed up George's house. George wasn't really that great to his two guests. When George said he was a married man, he really didn't seem to mean it. George looked like Tom Tucker on Family Guy. I was for the two girls the whole time.


This is an atrocious movie. Two demented young women seduce and torture a middle aged man. There's not much to give away in regards to a plot or a "spoiler". I would only comment that the ending is nearly the most preposterous part of the flick. Much of the film involves Locke and Camp cackling obnoxiously, all the while grinning psychotically at the camera. Add to this a soundtrack that repeats again and again, including a vaudevillian song about "dear old dad" that suggests an incestuous quality the viewer never really sees. The music is annoying at first, then ends up subjecting the viewer to a torture worse than that depicted on the screen. The theme here is of youth run amok, understandable as a reaction to the '60s, but done with little imagination or style. Avoid it!


I guess that this movie is based on some kind of a true story.... It's about two young girls who molest a grown man for 48hrs.; I don't see where the terror comes into play here.... There are some "weird' and "surreal" sequences in the movie. And the two girls (Sandra Locke and...ah...oh well) play the roll of two psycho-man haters to the hilt...they do a pretty good job (although some of it is just a tad over the top). The movie's not good, and it's not horrible; it's just really really dated! I mean this thing is dripping with the 70's.... It's not really bad if you like that sort of thing...you know...that thang?


This 1977 cult movie has two crazed lesbians (Sandra Locke & Colleen Camp) appearing at the home of wealthy socialite Doctor George Manning (Seymour Cassel), in hope of help in locating a residence they can't seem to find. But these two have other plans in mind, when they find out George's wife is out of town, they end up taking control of the residence, tying up the George, killing a delivery boy while destroying the place all in one evening. Bizarre and disturbing movie, but the two get there just reward in the same bizarre way as the movie ends. Most will either dislike it right off or get caught up in this ludicrous movie after about 30 minutes into it. Either way some even consider this a cult classic.

Larry Dodson


There is a lot of talk of torture these days. That's all this movie is. It's about a good person who makes a bad decision. Because of his kindness, he becomes vulnerable to two psychotic women. From then on its a just-for-kicks assault on him. I don't know at what point you do something about it. There is a wife and child out there somewhere; he has great feelings of guilt and fear. But there should have been some times when he could have acted. The movie seems to be somebody's joke. I suppose in the wake of the Manson murders, we had a bit of a fixation on the likes of these two. Nevertheless, why would someone make a film like this? What appeals does it have except for sadism. The conclusion is totally unsatisfying, but that could have been remedied with an obvious plot twist. Oh, well. Another hour and a half of my life.


I've been trying to track down this film just by googling bad phrases about "teenagers seduce and kill man in his house" and such. I think I first saw parts of this film when I was about 10 years old when it was running on cable. It made quite an impression! It's the kind of film that kids know they shouldn't be watching, and switch the channel when their parents come in. When I saw who the cast was, I couldn't believe that some of these good actors were in such a horrible movie. Then again, if you like to see men who cheat on their wives get murdered, then this is an interesting film. Also, if I recall, there's some pretty interesting pseudo-lesbian moments. Probably the dumbest ending of all time, but still...memorable.


Way back when I was renting videos for free I picked this one up. OOPS The things I wanted to mention outside the summary already given were these. 1: Someone who had a lot to do with making this movie had a strange and sick fascination for food, it was gross and unecessary. 2: There is some kind of a soundtrack in the background of the film that seems to be there the entire time and by the way I felt for days after viewing this trash I figure they had something subliminal going on in the track. Either that or it was just traumatisingly bad or both. Many times throughout the movie you can tell the writer and director did not have much experience or talent. And don't even ask about the acting.


This utterly dull, senseless, pointless, spiritless, and dumb movie isn't the final proof that the world can forget about Danny Boyle and his post-"Trainspotting" movies: "The Beach" already took care of that. What this low-budget oddity does is merely to secure his place among those who started very well but got completely lost in drugs, booze, ego, self-delusion, bad management or whatever it was that lead to this once-promising director's quick demise.

The premise is absurd: two losers (Ecclestone and some bimbo Jenna G - a rapper, likely) meet by chance and spontaneously start singing with fervour more akin to lunatic asylum inhabitants than a potential hit-making duo - which they become. A friend of theirs - an even bigger illiterate loser - becomes their manager by smashing a store window and stealing a video-camera by which he films them in "action", and then shows the tape to some music people who actually show interest in this garbage. Now, I know that the UK in recent years has put out incredible junk, but this is ridiculous; the music makes Oasis seem like The Beatles. During the studio recordings, the duo - Strumpet - change lyrics in every take and Ecclestone quite arrogantly tells the music biz guys to take it or leave it, and quite absurdly they do take it. Not only is the music total and utter trash, but its "performers" are anti-social; these NEWCOMERS are supposed to be calling the shots. It's just too dumb. It's plain awful.

The dialog is unfunny and goes nowhere, and this rags-to-bitches story has no point and makes no sense. It often feels improvised - under the influence of drugs. Danny Boyle is a complete idiot. This little piece of trash is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Ecclestone's I.Q. also has to be questioned for agreeing to be part of this nonsense. Whoever financed this £1000 joke should leave the movie business before they end up selling their own underwear on street corners.


Story of a good-for-nothing poet and a sidekick singer who puts his words to music. Director Danny Boyle has lost none of his predilection for raking in the gutter of humanity for characters but he has lost, in this film, the edge for creating inspiring and funny films. Strumpet is painful to watch and barely justified by the fact that it was made for TV.


The plot of this film is not strong at all, lots of holes. If you approach it as a car movie its not bad, lots of great cars in this one. The reason I like it is because I am from the area where this was filmed. I get the most enjoyment looking at the recognizable places in St. Cloud MN and seeing how the town has changed since 89. Its an interesting historical piece for us locals. Seems like whenever a film is made here everyone wants some relationship to it. It is impossible to find a copy in any of the local video stores as they were all stolen once it came out on VHS. Had to get a copy from Japan on Ebay I find it interesting how the path of the drag race is all over town. I didn't know the director was from St.Cloud.