Non existent plot, tons of poorly directed / super-cheesy scenes (Snipers / world famous sharpshooters who can't even hit their targets a few feet away? plus what's up with the ending?---> a bunch of law enforcers vandalizing a carnival's shooting gallery? WTH?), technical mistakes (how many bullets can you fit into a magazine of a glock? 100+? These people fire their guns without the need of reloading). The movie is so bad that even senior Hollywood actor like Michael Biehn (Aliens, terminator) can't save this junk.

DO not watch this movie (I realized that I wasted some good 100 minutes of my precious life on this one). Hopefully the director would either stop making movies, or learn more for his next movie.


This esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.

This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie "production" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.

I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering "Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!"

In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)

One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.

One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour movie.


This movie is horrible. Everything in it has been done before. There is nothing original. I cannot stand when writers don't come up with their own plots.

A girl makes a wish on her 13th birthday and wakes up as an adult. Hmm, sounds a lot like a movie in the 80s called Big. What is even more annoying is Jennifer Garner's acting. She doesn't act like she is 13 she just acts like she is stupid.

From then on, you can guess the whole plot. She gets a good job and it just so happens that a friend she had at 13 works with her. Wow, how awesome! But, no....her friend is bad and turns on her, trying to get her job. But, of course, she wins in the end when she comes up with a "great" idea.

There's also a dancing scene in the movie that I've seen a thousand times before.

I hate this movie.


I'm beginning to see a pattern in the movies I give a 1 to. They are almost all movies that my wife made me watch. Maybe I should stop having faith in her taste in movies. Anyway, this is typical drivel aimed at pre-teen girls but done even more poorly than usual. Once again, the writer broke the cardinal rule of any movie. He/she made the main character unlikable. She starts off by being a complete b*tch to her friend at the beginning, and then finds out when she becomes 30, that she's basically a sh*tty person (having affairs, etc.). Why the F would we feel for this person? OK, let's say we can get past that. Jennifer Garner is about as far from attractive as you can get without having some sort of deformity. I don't know if it's her or the writer's fault, but her character goes well beyond my threshold for annoyance. Here's a tip for future filmmakers: 13 year olds are NOT entertaining, they're annoying. Far and away the most embarrassing moment in the movie came when they danced to "Thriller". Holy crap that was painful. It showed her practicing that dance at the beginning. That explains why she knows it, but an entire club full of people?!? Argh!!! The Macarena would be more believable! All of a sudden she's completely incompetent and has no clue how to do her job and no one notices? At least Tom Hanks' character on "Big" had a job that made sense to a child. These body-switching/child becoming adult overnight movies are really getting out of hand, and this is by far the worst one yet.


What the *bliep* is it with this movie? Couldn't they fiend a better script? All in all a 'nice' movie, but... it has been done more than once... Up till the end I thought it was okay, but... the going back to the past part... *barf* SO corny... Was waiting for the fairy god mother to appear... but wow, that didn't happen... which is good.

I loved Big with Tom Hanks, but to see such a movie in a new form with another kid who wished that he/she is older/bigger; that just is so pasé

Just watch till it comes out on TV. Don't get me wrong, but it ain't all that


She has been catapulted from 13 to 30, with magic dust involved, courtesy the 13-year-old Matt, but nothing is made of that except as an unexplained device. New York City, especially Central Park, but also every other slice of the place incorporated into the movie, seems hope-filled and easily livable, and save for Lucy there's no villain in Jenna's adult life, and even Lucy is not cast as monstrous, only as a nasty 13-year-old grown 17 years more devious. Chris, the one-time boy object of Jenna's yearning, is now a porky cab driver, and you have seen enough films to know that Matt will play a major role in Jenna's future. You don't know quite what might impede this before it is finally achieved, though I'm here to whisper in your ear, so to speak, that the device is not unique. In fact, not only is this a variation on the theme of Tom Hanks' "Big," though nowhere near as fine, it is also a strictly by-the-book version of this subset of the Cinderella story.


This is a film where the actors are all fine, especially Brigitte Bako and Erik Palladino, in a film where every one of the three couples meet in a situation that feels verrrrry forced to be either cute or to set the story in motion. In other words, it feels like they are contrived movie scenes, not like real life. Even if women who work at peep parlors ever go out with one of their customers, it just doesn't seem realistic at all the way it is written in this film. Also, when one of the characters meets the overweight woman in the film, it feels artificial, the way they look at each other seconds after arguing. Again, the actors are all good, and moments of this film are nice, but overall yet another indie that could have used some rewriting before production got rolling.


'Mojo' is a story of fifties London, a world of budding rock stars, violence and forced homosexuality. 'Mojo' uses a technique for shooting the 1950s often seen in films that stresses the physical differences to our own time but also represents dialogue in a highly exaggerated fashion (owing much to the way that speech was represented in films made in that period); I have no idea if people actually spoke like this outside of the movies, but no films made today and set in contemporary times use such stylised language. It's as if the stilted discourse of 1950s screenwriters serves a common shorthand for a past that seems, in consequence, a very distant country indeed; and therefore stresses the particular, rather than the universal, in the story. 'Mojo' features a strong performance from Ian Hart and annoying ones from Aiden Gillan and Ewan Bremner, the latter still struggling to build a post-'Trainspotting' career; but feels like a period piece, a modern film incomprehensibly structured in an outdated idiom. Rather dull, actually.


This is truly terrible: painfully irritating stylised performers screech and mug gratingly incoherent dialogues which take place in scenes which seem to have no purpose, no beginning, middle or end, cut together without any apparent narrative or even cognitive intention, all in the service of some entirely uninteresting and almost undetectable "story". What makes it worse is the film's pretentions to "style": suddenly a remote-head crane shot spirals downwards, and, without any apparent reason there are sudden whip-pans or wobblyhand-held sections: all this "style" merely serves to magnify the almost unbelievably huge misconception of the project and the almost offensive vacuity of the material. Definitely a candidate for the worst film ever made.


I looked forward to watching this film and then realised that any hope of a coherent dialogue between the actors was swamped by the unnecessary swearing. Now I am not a prude in any way, but to shout obscenities at each other does not a good film make. Ewan Bremner is arguably one of the worst actors in the world at this time (witness his performance in the god awful Life of Stuff) & his "Cockney" accent is almost as bad as his Edinburgh accent. Avoid. How many more of these films "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "Beautiful Creatures" do we have to suffer before the film makers realise that the f-word, the c- word etc does not replace proper dialogue.


First off, I would like to point out that while I am not an expert, the way the trial was handled will insult your intelligence. Firstly, the prosecution never proved that 'facilitated learning' actually works. Irresponsible for both the prosecution(because they can get an appeal) and the defense for not acting on this. As another commenter said, facilitated learning was proved untrue. Secondly, they used Terry as the translator who has personal interest, and even will testify, in the trial which is just stupid. If the court had allowed him to testify that way, they would have brought in someone neutral otherwise they would be just asking for an appeal. Thirdly, this child was never asked specific questions about the defendant by the prosecution(birthmarks, details of the event, etc.) and even when asked by the defense specific questions like when it started, he could not answer. If that isn't reasonable doubt I don't know what is and a competent lawyer would have gotten an acquittal.

Bottom line, it starts off well with the pressures of being the parent of a child with autism, but the trial makes this movie wholly unbelievable.


I saw this movie way back when it premiered.

It was based on the notion that autistic children could communicate with typed-out messages with someone else merely aiding them and guiding their hands.

Then suddenly these children, many of whom weren't even observing the keyboard or the screen when the messages were being typed out (they could be looking up at the ceiling in some instances), but their moderators were eyes glued on the keyboard, began typing messages of abuse from their parents and other persons, sending parents and child welfare agencies in a proberbial tizzy, left and right.

This whole thing was proved a fallacy when a third person presented a folder, opened it to the child and said 'type the picture you see', then as the presenter turned the folder to the moderator, a fold would fall down, revealing another different picture.

So while the child may have seen a dog, the moderator saw something like a boat.

Every time, every bloomin' time, the name of the picture typed was what the moderator had observed, never what the child was shown.

So who was doing the typing? Never the child.

This movie further took a disastrous turn with, as the Australia poster stated, the person who molested the child in the movie was IN the situation trying to help the child.

Had Melissa Gilbert never put her son IN that place, he wouldn't have been molested, is what the movie says. He was better off under her supervision.

If I turn my kid over to your organization for aid and he gets molested instead, do you think I'm going to be keen to listen to anything you have to say after that? Not likely! I think it is a safe bet that all of these accusatory messages that these kids were typing out, that this movie was based on, they never accused someone within their operation as took place here.

Unfortunately, I do recall that the movie gave a very good performance from Gilbert as the mother of an autistic, but other than that, the movie really didn't do much.

The worst by far was the child typing at the end to Patty Duke, and we hear the mechanical voice read back what he typed, . . . . . "we won!" This child was molested. If you cut my leg off and I take you to court and you are found guilty of damaging me, assault, whatever, then that is legal justice, but it doesn't bring my leg back.

At best, in my condition, I will view it as a hollow victory.

Whatever chance this child had at what is perceived as normalcy with the autism alone is further damaged by the molestation.

A 'normal' child has enough to contend with from such an experience.

It's utterly superficial to think that you must look upon any situation and go 'we won' if that person is found guilty in court.

Just a bad handling of a situation and circumstances all the way around here.


I had the good fortune of reading the book before seeing the movie. It was an epic of adolescence, a dream of summers gone, a great potential indie film or big budget drama. It somehow got into the hands of a hack, who clearly took notes watching Boogie Nights and Rushmore without actually learning anything at all. The script loses the meat of the book in favor of forced emotional notes and low brow gags. I feel sorry for the actors, since the characters in the book were rich and textured, but cut down to embarrassing charactures in the film. Mason Gamble is great when given the opportunity, as is Dylan Baker, but the skeleton that remains of the story plays out like a bad after school special. Poor people = GOOD, Rich people = BAD.

Though it's almost worth watching to see the Southern California beach where Gary Sinise parks his trailer which is meant to pass for a bay in Delaware.

It's a good book, but an embarrassing turn for first time director Mills Goodloe.

K.


"A Gentleman's Game" uses the game of golf in a country club setting to illustrate an adolescent's discovery about honesty, prejudice, and other life lessons. Several times I thought I knew where this film was heading, only to be proved wrong. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that the filmmakers ever knew where it was heading, either. The defining moment in this movie is probably the scene in which Gary Sinise mocks "The Karate Kid" and debunks any notions that he's going to become a mentor to the adolescent golfer. It's refreshing, in a way, that this movie refuses to follow most of the simplistic and over-worked movie formulas. However, too much of it still comes off as contrived. At the drop of a hat people drop all pretenses of civility, or fail to stick up for the things in which they believe, or are exposed for something far less respectable than their place in society assumes. Unfortunately, there is often no resolution to these moments. And except for the fact that the club serves as backdrop for them, there is no real continuity or linking of them. It's a shame that the writers and director could not salvage a better film, especially given some of the talented actors and potential in the setup.


the only word i can think of to describe this movie is: Ordinary.

The plot line about Gary sinise's character attempting suicide is a ridiculous premise and c'mon..living as some sort Salingeristic hermit or recluse in a shack driving golf balls into the ocean because he couldn't handle life in the lucrative pro/am golf community? cry me a river. I wish these were my problems. I do enjoy Dylan Baker and Sinise but this movie was clearly a bad choice or a pay check for Sinise. The scene in which little Timmy Price gets verbally abused by the other club member in front of his father during the tournament is so over the top that i am embarrassed to watch it


At least it's not full of sensless violence or fluff. It's also not very full of thought or a smooth storyline. This story had some potential but the director appears to have lost site of the green. The story is disjointed and goes off in strange

directions, to no conclusion. I also don't believe the director spent much time around a golf country club, either. Some of the depictions are absurd. Not very engaging.


I've seen better production quality on YouTube! I pity the actors, as the writing was terrible and the direction shocking, not sure how they could get the lines out - I really doubt any actor would have been able to salvage this movie no matter how good they were. The characters were not developed at all, and there was no real cohesion in the plot which just seemed to go nowhere much. It's a shame really, as the premise for the movie was good and with better production quality, direction and script it could have been a decent movie. It certainly was not a comedy, unless you laugh out loud at the dubbing - which was amateurish, even the English actors sounded weird.


The movie had a cute opening, I truly believed I was in for one of the best romantic comedies i've seen in a while... there was something particular "foreign" about the way the movie was set up, realistic yet somewhat abstract and mystical. But then the story line started becoming more and more unrealistic. To say that the ending was CORNY and PREDICTABLE would almost be an understatement... The most typical romantic ending where everything goes great for every 'likable' character. A scene where the main character realises that he has made a mistake and chases the "woman of his dreams" only to confess his love for her in front of a sympathetic crowd of on- lookers. Come on. In the end, the 'good guys' win, 'bad guys' loose... You get the picture. A WASTE of a potentially interesting movie.


Whattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.

Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.

Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again?

Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.

And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?

OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men?


Watching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.

The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.

British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp


I ordered the movie from Korea because I was an extra in it and was interested to see how it turned out.

Having watched it I can say that I am ashamed to have had any part of it. I feel embarrassed not only for myself but for everyone else who had any part in the making of this mockery of British "comedy".

From beginning to end the film is predictable, tedious, dull, monotonous and cringe-worthy to the point that on several occasions I actually looked away from the screen in dis-belief. Until you actually see the movie it is difficult to conceive how un-romantic and un-comedic a romantic comedy can be.

It's not only a bad story, but a badly-made film. In one scene, you can actually see a runner or assistant director showing the S.A.'s when to wipe across. I will post details of this in the 'Goofs' section.

On the up-side, it did fill me with emotions (disappointment, rage, embarrassment)


Hiya folks,

Well, this movie sucks really. Think "Love Actually" in reverse. Nothing fits quite right, nothing is coherent, and certainly nothing makes you laugh. Love is rare in this film.

It IS a total flop. As indicated however, there are three redeeming points about this mangled potential of a film.

A) With a star billing of Jennifer Love Hewitt, there will be hordes of guys who will submit with grace to viewing this just to catch a glimpse of the petite Hewitt with form fitting clothing. To tell you now guys....there are some promising scenes....but it's really weak eye candy. The "possibilities" here are watered down. Nevertheless, I watched the whole thing tempted by the next scene of you know what.....titillating!

B) The ending is romantic and positive. That it's contrary and "over the top" is relevant.....yet for me was still a positive point.

C) Dougray Scott plays an amourous friendly guy........REFRESHING! THANK YOU!

2/5, not worthy of your 10 or so dollars.

2/3's of the way through, I was convinced Jennifer Love Hewitt was becoming the next softcore legend. Although I'll take that back for now.....it hinges greatly on her next film.

Oh, and her sister is way stupid. Her husband is way stupid...and what the heck, she's way stupid.

Next time. can't wait for the next Love Actually with JLH!


There have been more interesting polish documentaries on worm farming, in brail_!! The competition (worm farming) had a better plot and more interesting characters. I was physically ill after watching this movie. The cheating husband (i think dougray_scott_) was a joke in every meaning of the word. Poor Jennifer must really need the work, and what was with the accent!!. The locations and random meetings reminded me of a high school prank, and showed the humility of a 10 year old in cooking class. It was that bad that I think I will write the sequel named "this is not a laxitive". Thank you for listening it was a great weight of my conscious.


Yet another British romantic comedy which audiences all over the world seem to have a ravenous appetite for. This feeble effort is an unintentional parody of the genre - all the classic clichéd scenes are here from ridiculously elaborate misunderstandings to running after departing trains to declare one's love. The characters are one-dimensional caricatures save for Love-Hewitt who manages to bring some cohesion to the film. Things threaten to spiral out of control in the plausibility department as the film progresses; our good-natured suspension of belief finally comes crashing down during the preposterous ending. If you're looking for a Bridget Jones, Notting Hill kind of experience you won't find it here.


Daddy's girls Florence Lawrence and Dorothy West receive some terrific news at the local post office, unaware they are being stalked by burglar Charles Inslee. Meanwhile, father David Miles receives a message (from young Robert Harron) which necessitates daddy leaving home; so, when the young women return, they can be home alone. As the vulnerable pair bed down for the evening, the local "Grand Ball of the Black and Tans" gets underway; and, a dark-skinned drinker portends additional danger for D.W. Griffith's dynamic duo

Mr. Inslee has one of his better Biograph roles, stealing the film from "The Girls and Daddy". Ironically, Director Griffith appears as one of the black-faced extras at the "Black and Tans" ball. "Biograph Girls" Lawrence and West are suggestive of later "Griffith Girls" Lillian and Dorothy Gish, especially in "Orphans of the Storm" (1921); and, they are excessively affectionate in bed! The racist tone is unfortunate, since the story of a burglar redeemed by saving his potential victims from a greater danger, is intriguing.

*** The Girls and Daddy (2/1/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Florence Lawrence, Dorothy West, Charles Inslee


I can't believe anyone liked this movie. I've seen a lot of low-budget indie films, but this one absolutely sucked. Low budget doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. Horror doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. There was nothing scary about this movie at all. It was just a gore-fest, and a particularly disturbing one at that. The acting was average, considering they were all unheard of actors, but the story was pathetic, the dialog was pathetic. The movie tries to come off as "artistic", or something. This is not one of those really great indie films that cost only thousands of dollars to make, but are incredibly well done. This was nothing more than an excuse for some extremely sick people to put their perverse obsessions on film. Other reviews here also said that the soundtrack sucked...that's because most of it was written by the same person, and some of the songs were written by one of the writers of the movie. There were no redeeming qualities to this movie at all. A complete waste of my time and money.


I think this movie was supposed to be shocking. But the only way in which it is indeed shocking is how shocking badly it's been made ...and simply is. It's one-and-a-half hour of torment. Even more so for the viewer than for the characters in the movie (the five girls).

Sure the main characters get their bloody piece in a bad way, which is basically fine, since it's a horror-movie. And I (usually) like horror-movies. I've no problem with violence in these type of movies per se. However all the violence in this film serves no end whatsoever. It's no spectacle other than that it's simply grotesque. It's so lame it even gets boring, and really quick too.

The worst thing (if the above wasn't bad enough for ya) about this movie is that they've tried to copy the Blair Whitch Project, by filming with cheap hand-held-cameras. But (again, this too) serves no end whatsoever. In the "Blair Which", sure enough, there's an explanation, namely they are their with a camera looking for the blair witch. In this film, there's no other explanation than: "Hey ya'll we wanted this to LOOK LIKE the Blair Whitch!!" The sound in the movie is also something to get depressed about. The girls are screaming so hysterically that many a time you can't make out what they're saying. Also, no effort has been made to make anything any better, sound-wise or other wise.

Than finally, there's the soundtrack, which is just as bad as the rest, and varies from cheap euro-house to the worst grungy hard-rock...

My advise: Don't watch this under ANY circumstances.


The word in the summary sums it up d'oh ;) Five girls get lost trying to find their way home, when they stop at a store to get directions they hit a parked car breaking one headlight on it, they flea the scene in fair of getting in trouble but suddenly they see one headlight coming up behind them (ooooh).

From there out everything is screaming, crying and violence when they try to get away from this crazy person who lost it because of a headlight ;), well the screaming and crying pretty much stays through the entire movie (very annoying) The movie is shot, with a cheap camera trying to make it seem "real" or "shocking" I guess, it's just embarrassing and useless though. In lack of anything better to compare it with, "Blair witch style".

The screaming and crying for pretty much the entire movie with crappy sound was over the top annoying, you literally get a headache :)

I'm sorry but this was not scary, only an annoying painful piece of crap movie.


After just watching FIVE ACROSS THE EYES, I gotta be honest...I just didn't like it. I had read so many good reviews on this movie, but I just did'nt get where these reviews have came from,

I have got a lot of time for newcomers into film-making, and I'm sure the directors will do well for themselves, but the budget they had was the main problem, there was two cameras used in the entire film (which was OK) but they seemed like really cheap cameras. Another problem was the sound, you get all these girls screaming and shouting all at the same time, all talking on top of each other - it's just impossible to hear what they're saying.

It had a good idea going for it, in a nutshell, they hit a parked car then drive off, a short while later they are getting chased by the car they hit, driven by a mad woman, who wants to kill them, and has plenty of chances to do so!...and on the other hand the girls have plenty of chances to escape, but don't!

Very frustrating...I only just scraped through this one!


This movie has many problem associated with it that makes it come off like a low budget class project from someone in film school. I have to give it credit on its campiness though. Many times throughout the movie I found myself laughing hysterically. It was so bad at times that it was comical, which made it a fun watch.

If you're looking for a low-grade slasher movie with a twist of psychological horror and a dash of campy ridiculousness, then pop a bowl of popcorn, invite some friends over, and have some fun.

I agree with other comments that the sound is very bad. Dialog is next to impossible to follow much of the time and the soundtrack is kind of just there.


Do not waste your time watching this! Unless you want to study it for all the wrong things you shouldn't do to make a good film. I am not one to usually review a movie, but this one is personal. I wasted precious time which they cannot give back. I feel compelled to write this report to warn others not to waste their time watching this crap. If this was a student project, i would have to say not bad, but only for the first 15 min... after that it gets annoying. the screaming, the bad audio, the bad video (a good camera man could have made it much better). and yes, whats with the Blair-Witch effect? no budget? I was hoping it was going to get better, but it doesn't. Now how the hell did it deserves a 4? 2 is more fair but 1 for wasting my time! I have said my peace.


This really is the most dreadful film I have ever seen. I simply have no idea how anyone has the audacity to put this on release.

The production standards are atrocious. There is no pretence here at cinematography. The camera work, scripting, acting and sound are unbelievably crass. I think there is a plot, but it could have been done in 10 minutes sparing us the time to watch it. The hysterical neurotic girls at the centre of this piece have no credibility whatsoever.

I would urge anyone to avoid spending any time or money on this Title. It is truly atrocious.

JDD - 14 December 2008


This film was positively the worst film I have ever watched. I couldn't sit through the whole thing. I also think writer must have some weird fetish for women peeing puking and crapping... I mean what was that all about! I cant believe this was even made and am disgusted at have #ingwasted a £4 rental fee. The quality both picture and sound are terrible, the acting... well doesn't exist . It was a poor excuse for a film and the scenes of pee, crap and puke were reminiscent of 2 girls 1 cup. Urghh....... AVOID AT ALL COST! The girls looked like they had been picked off the street and only got the part cos they'd be willing to take their tops off... While these girls have nice bodies it certainly didn't make up for the fact their shrieking was awful unconvincing and a pain to my ears.

This was like (possibly worse) than an ammateur school production without any proper direction and hey there is no need for a set as it all seems to revolve around a car?!

Definatey not one to buy folks. Sorry if my first comment is terribly negative but I could not find anything positive to say and I would like to think I may save someone else wasting their money like I have.


How, in the name of all that's holy, did this film ever get distribution? It looks as if it has been shot on someone's mobile phone and takes the screaming girl victim scenario to whole new depths. They literally scream for the full 90 minutes of the movie. And that's all they do. There is no plot, no tension, no characters, and not a lot of acting. Just screaming and more screaming.

I gave up after fifteen minutes and fast-wound through it to see if anything happened. It doesn't - except for screaming, of course. Odlly enough, the act of going through it on fast forward highlights another problem - there is no camera-work to speak of. Every shot looks like every other shot - middle distance, one angle, dull, dull, DULL.

It's not so bad it's good. It's just plain bad.


I can't believe this is on DVD. Even less it was available at my local video store.

Some argue this is a good movie if you take in consideration it had only a 4000$ budget. I find this funny. I would find it very bad whichever the budget.

Still more funny, I read the following in another review: "Dramatics aside, if you love horror and you love something along the lines of Duel (1971) updated with a little more story and some pretty girls thrown in, you'll love this movie."

What?!? This is a shame comparing those two movies.

I give a "1", since I can't give a "0". I just don't see any way this movie could be entertaining.


As horror fans we all know that blind rentals are a crap-shoot. Sometimes we find a real gem, but many times we find that the film we've just spent our hard earned money on is nothing more than a putrid steamer made worse by the completely undeserved rave reviews and film fest awards listed on the box. Such is the case with Five Across the Eyes ( a title I'm sure is a double entendre referring to both the films budget and the compulsion anyone watching it might have to using all five fingers to stab their eyes out ).

The story, or, at least what the *ahem* writers think passes for one, centers on a group of teen girls who unwisely decide to go on a backwoods joyride late at night after leaving a football game and run afoul of a crazy woman who plays cat and mouse with them as punishment for what she thinks the girls found in her car after a fender-bender in a gas station parking lot.

In fairness, it's an interesting idea. Some of the best horrors have very simple story lines. It's in the execution of Five Across the Eyes that this idea falls flat. The film tries to be a cross between The Blair Witch Project with its shaky camera work and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in its bare-bones approach to the material but succeeds at being neither. What we get instead are redundant scenes of chase, torture, release; chase torture, release, in that order for 94 minutes with long interludes of bitching, moaning, and incoherent rambling acting as plenty of padding in-between chase sequences.

The look of the film is incredibly grainy and dark, which, in a better made film might have enhanced the tension and the realism. Here it's merely annoying. The characters are undeveloped and the viewer is hard-pressed to find anything to sympathize with them. One character stops to get a first-aid kit and tend to some scrapes on her face while gunshots heard in the background indicate her friends may be getting killed. Another girl mutters hilariously dumb lines like "Don't go out there, she'll get you, if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kill's you you're dead".

It was an accolade from Fangoria magazine and Dreadcentral.com listed on the box that compelled me to check this one out. Talk about a fake orgasm! Perhaps my expectations would have been met had this been in the comedy section. I'm all for low-budget Indie horror but this one takes the crap-cake. Give Five Across the Eyes (or FATE; get it?) a pass.

RazorFriendly gives FATE 1 slash out of five /


The writers and producers of this little outing have plummeted new depths of depravity. Did writer's block set in so badly, OR had ideas dried up so much, that they were forced to include a disgusting scene where a young woman defecates in the back seat of a van, and then promptly throws the excrement at the car behind (mind you at least this summarises what this film is worth). We had already been treated to one of the other women urinating over one of her friends at gunpoint, as well as numerous episodes of graphic vomiting; once would have sufficed... we got the message! This really is taking toilet humour to another level! Had the script and acting been better then I could have easily forgotten that I was watching a film shot entirely on low budget video. This was a fairly original storyline, with a clever (the only) piece of direction in that we only ever got to take the viewpoint from inside of the van; thus making it feel much more real. We never got to see inside any other locations, such as the store or the field where several of the women disappeared, and this could have added much needed tension.

The script was dire. Lines like: 'I don't feel too good... I want to go home' after one of the girls has been pursued by a psychopath; subjected to rape by a screwdriver and shot at, seem a little undercooked.

The acting was diabolical (apart from the maniac). Did all the main 5 actresses in this learn acting by taking a correspondence course during a long postal strike! The sound was so bad that I had to watch the entire film with the subtitles on.

The director seemed to have an easy job in this. It seems that the only direction he must have given was: 'Scream girls'.

AND AS FOR THE SCREAMING...... If you watch this please be sure to have some paracetamol at the ready!


This was probably the worst movie ever, seriously. I could actually do better myself, it wasn't even set up properly. It's like this movie had a $5 budget and left with change. Don't watch it. I didn't even get all the way through this movie, had to turn it off. I've give this a 1/10 because it was hilarious how the producer of this movie wanted it to be a horror movie, but actually turned into a really bad comedy. Basically, a bunch of girls crashed into a car, broke a headlight, and the owner of that car went after them. The bit that i saw was a women with a gun telling a load of girls to take all their clothes off, what the hell? it must be some kind of cheesy porn movie as well.


Five across the eyes ain't worth one off the wrist, I must admit at one point i was really worried, for about 30 seconds nobody made a noise and i thought my speakers had blown or that i had gone deaf with the constant screaming and high pitch yelling, me and the speakers are OK now thanks for asking, funnily enough that was the best bit of the film.

I won't waste your time telling you the plot, read the other comments for that.

If you have bought this DVD but not yet unwrapped it Don't, take it back and demand your money back, i've wasted mine don't do the same.

I was actually shouting at the telly " they're over here in the car, look for the camera lights, and get the camera man first ", i have left the swear words out but you can guess where they go.

If anybody would like to buy this film (it's really good) it's yours for a ten quid.


MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS...BUT DOUBT IT CAN ACTUALLY BE SPOILT!!.

Five Across The Eyes can be summed up in one word....Amateurish. This film tries it's best to be different from most films by the 'Blair Witch' type of filming....it doesn't work....it just ends up looking and feeling like somebody had a cheap video camera, a van and decided to make a movie. The story has no explanation, the protagonist is given no real motivation (and looks like a lesbian wearing a power-suit compared to the five girls) and there is no violence to speak of...just the sounds of screaming and crunching. The whole film takes place inside a van which means decent scenery is out of the question. The five girls really do their best with what they've been given but on the whole come across as pretty terrible actresses...although with the material given it's hard to judge if they can actually aCt....they spend THE WHOLE movie screaming, squealing and whimpering....so much that half the time it's hard to make out what was said and the cameras are so bad it's actually hard to tell who said it. This video paints itself as a violent torture film but is in fact just five girls in a van screaming in terror...that literally sums up the whole movie.....we then get to the end after what seems like 5 hours of constant screaming and all five girls are still alive... with one minus a finger. The only thumbs up(get it...finger....LOL) is for the poor actresses who tried hard and probably lost their voices(and their pride) after making this terrible movie. Do not judge this by the poster....you'll be very let down.


I'm dumbfounded. Yes that's right. I'm really caught here. No way did I find it awful, but on the other hand it was a frustrating experience in macabre hysterical and murky incoherency. The idea behind such a trim, minimal low-budget Indie production isn't bad, but it's a confused muddle and in the end didn't do anything for me. It's amateurish and simple; it wants to exploit beyond reasoning and do so in that of-late fashionably rapid filming style. We have the documentary laced (hand-held) camera moving everywhere (despite never leaving the van), and sometimes feeling unfocused and blurry making certain details hard to figure out. Lately you kind of get use to it, but there are times when it does become too distracting and even nauseating. Keeping it still will help. The context has little groundwork (which has five teenage girls on their way home from a football game late at night and becoming lost on the back roads. At a road-side store they become involved in a minor accident which smashes an unoccupied SUV headlight. Scared, they flee and not too long that one-light SUV appears behind them. Soon to make their night an unforgettable ordeal in terror) spending most of the time playing out a drawn out, noisy and relentless cat and mouse game.

As for being disturbing I guess that depends. Some moments can make you squirm with its attention to pain, desperation and demented brutality (with good use of piercing sound FX that seem to be more favoured over the imagery and not forgetting the alienating background sound effects), but also I found myself snickering too. In passages it can be repellent and intense with a real gradual rush, but hardly believable. The injuries of random characters never seem as serious like you were to believe, despite obviously they should be. Watch how blood runs freely, but it's not entirely convincing and can get dull. The constant nocturnal car chase could only do so much before getting repetitive. We get screaming, spewing, bleeding, running, cursing, body fluids and so on. Quite unpleasant details followed too. With little really to do, it needed a much stronger script than the measly forced one that was penned up. Too many cringe-moments arose from it, and there was not much in the way of depth for the characters and situation they were in. It was about set-pieces, waiting for next torturous encounter and it drew it out long enough. Helping out is it had an unpredictable pattern.

The performances; Jennifer Barnett, Angela Brunda, Danielle Lilley, Sandra Paduch and Mia Yi are workman-like with their distraught characters and draw an authentic chemistry to make up for the script's weaknesses in its character-foundation . Veronica Garcia's flipped-out, bug-eyed intensity as the loony driver of the SUV was something yeah something. Her character's real motivation for terrorising the girls and her unstable state of mind is virtually non-existent. I guess being psychotic was good enough. Now probably the most unnerving thing I came across in the feature was that hideous soundtrack. Terrible techno music, to cheesy hard-rock and an overwrought closing score. It never felt overdone or got in the way, but it did stick out like a sore thumb. Co-directors Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen try to get the most out of their slight resources, but even with it edgy spirit it ends up being something quite ramshackle. Maybe it was enjoyable to make, but watching it just wasn't the case.


- Contains miner spoilers -

I have seen a number of decent Indie horror films such as The Hamiltons, The Boys Love Mandy Lane and Cabin Fever; unfortunately I felt Five Across the Eyes does not fall into this category. From start to finish the film is plagued with amateurish acting resonating from a very poor script, god only knows why the writer(s) thought dialogue such as "No don't go out there; don't go out there she'll get you: if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kills you you're dead" is of movie quality.

This film displays very little character development and to be honest I couldn't care less about what pain and torture was inflicted upon them as they are just a group of ditsy college girls who show almost no redeeming qualities'. All they do is cry and whinge throughout the entire movie and if the girls aren't crying their arguing; when they do converse the topics are completely random: about dating boys or how one of the girls father was recently cremated (appropriate subjects when you're being chased by a psychotic killer).

The soundtrack is also abysmal exhibiting corny techno music during both the start and end credits (although hearing the credit music knowing the end was nearing seemed like heaven).

The camera-work is appalling and at times makes the film unwatchable. I'm guessing due to having little or no budget the director was limited to just one digital camera which resides in the girls' car almost the entire movie. I think this was an effort to stick the audience as close to the action as possible: to feel and experience what the girls are going through. But due to a very shaky camera, grainy picture and being too close to the action it can be hard to tell what is going on during action scenes and is simply chaotic. It's one thing to make a film subjective but it's another to have action on the screen that an audience can't decipher because of the poor cinematography.

I understand that Five Across the Eyes is a low budget indie film but that does not excuse the extremely poor quality. There are no redeeming factors to this film: bad acting, poor scripting, shoddy camera-work and no story. In light off all this I decided to give the film 1 out of 10 as it left me very disappointed; wanting a meteor to hit the earth bringing me sweet relief. Its 94 minutes off stupid college girls crying, arguing, aimlessly running and having random inappropriate conversations. However, how many times do you get to see girls defecating into their hands and throwing the crap onto the windscreen of a chasing car.


The problem with this movie is that it is shot on the worst possible camera and the film is blurry and grainy. Maybe it's just the fact that whoever was holding the camera couldn't hold still because they were having a seizure or something. There is also way too much poop and vomit in this movie. There is someone vomiting every twenty minutes and it makes me think that this was made by some bulimic or something. It was disgusting. Then there is the annoying high pitched screaming that goes on and on and on and doesn't stop until the credits roll. I also didn't like when all her friends were being shot (or not I don't know)and she goes in the van and puts band aids on. That was just really really stupid to even have that in a movie. How much gas can a person siphon to get a van going? It must be a whole lot because they don't run out of gas for the rest of the movie. It was a terrible movie and I would highly suggest not ever seeing it in your whole entire life.


I'll keep this fast and sweet. Five girls on their way home from a football game decide to take a 'short cut' that leads them down a deserted forest-ridden road. Of course nothing but good things happen to them, and they safely arrive at their destination.

Alright, they don't. Soon they're hunted down by a deranged chick who has some severe mental issues, and what ensues is 90 minutes of sheer boredom.

I hope to never see any of these actors in any movie ever again. Their screaming, screeching voices gave me a headache, and the script was so poorly written that it included a lot of repeat phrases and nonsensical hysterical screaming. All in all, one of the worst cheap horror flicks I've ever seen...and I've seen a lot.


Given that a lot of horror films are based on the premise that one or more of the central characters does something stupid at some stage during the proceedings, the girls in this film would be collecting Gold, Silver and Bronze at a Darwin Awards Olympic ceremony. A mentally disabled baboon would have made better choices than they did, and would have screamed a lot less while doing so.

If you like films with a grainy picture, deliberately amateur camera-work (my 92 year-old grandmother wields a camcorder with better results), extremely poor sound and no discernible plot/narrative, then this is your ideal film. Also note that you should enjoy the following: women screaming for no reason, women whining for no reason. In fact reason and logic don't appear much in this film. For example: "we have to find Stephanie" "yeah I can't believe I was speaking to her, like, last night" "she called you last night?" "yeah, she wanted to talk about some date she got asked one" "WHAT? How come she didn't tell me"? As in, our friend is being chased by a serial killer with a shotgun and an array of grisly weapons but I have a problem with the fact that she didn't tell me she was going on a date.

Okay, so the budget is low. That doesn't mean you have to make it look like it cost half the budget. The 'score' is interesting since all - with the exception of one - tracks have been written and performed by the writers/directors of the film itself. In fact it would appear that the entire budget has been blown on sampling a track by The Duskfall, a death metal band from Sweden.

The most worrying thing of all in the entire film is the ending which leaves us with the possibility for a sequel.


DO NOT WATCH THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A FILM. I have wasted time and money on this and am pretty p**sed off about it.

The acting is comparable with high school plays. The script is shocking. There is no plot. Twenty minutes from the end (which I believe I should be rewarded for reaching) I had a headache from all the screaming, crying and wailing the five girls make.

The majority of the violence is (rare for a film nowadays) suggested rather than graphically depicted but I found the characters so damn irritating that I wanted to see them, and indeed every single person involved in the making of this piece of s**t, die in the most horrible ways possible.

I spend ten more minutes of my life saving you from a very poor 100 minutes of yours. Don't do it.


Watching this Movie? l thought to myself, what a lot of garbage. These girls must have rocks for brains for even agreeing to be part of it. Waste of time watching it, faint heavens l only hired it. The acting was below standard and story was unbearable. Anyone contemplating watching this film, please save your money. The film has no credit at all. l am a real film buff and this is worse than "Attack of the Green Tomatoes".

l only hope that this piece of trash didn't cost too much to make. Money would have been better spent on the homeless people of the world. l only hope there isn't a sequel in the pipeline.


Definitely, definitely the worst film I've ever seen, no questions asked! Contradictors of this opinion might argue that this title should not be judged by the same criteria as others, since it's an independent, low-budget film, but c'mon already  the amateurism and meager innovation is horrifying.

Agreeing with everything that has been said about this film, for example the mind numbingly weak acting (when it's this bad you take another go at shooting the scene, god damn it), the thing I found the most annoying was the total lack of common sense in the script, assuming such a thing existed during the production. There was an obvious absence of a dialogue with respect for the viewers, the girls switched personalities several times and they seemed to show absolutely no sing of any rationality or even brains - five relatively fit girls against one slight female psychopath  gang up on her, why don't you?

The only thing that can be regarded as somewhat of a conquest for this title is the camera not leaving the van at any time thus the viewer seeing everything from inside it - which is, as the rest of the film, a good idea executed exponentially dreadfully.

oh and by the way, this movie is NOTHING like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield or any other title filmed with a hand-held camera  this is an effect and not a trait! Used cleverly it can be breathtaking, but in this case it's an excuse for inadequate cinematography.


Um... Okay, I guess I get the whole shaky-cam, gorilla-style filming technique but unfortunately I think a gorilla could have made a better movie... This thing was just a complete mess from the get go. Bad acting, bad directing, bad story and horrific cinematography. How this piece of garbage was released I will never know, but it has and unfortunately I watched it. Filmed on location in Tennessee by the directing team of Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen (Harry and Lloyd), "Five Across The Eyes" I'm assuming is supposed to resemble a "Blair Witch" type film but falls short... Okay it nose dives off a cliff. I was actually embarrassed for these young women, whom I'm sure were promised Hollywood stardom, but ended up in this dung heap. The dialog is ridiculous, and actually aggravates you as you listen to it. How this is supposed to be a horror flick is another mystery, as there is nothing even remotely scary about it, except for the fact that I watched it... Try this one on for size: There is 5 of you and 1 of her, do the math and beat her ass... "The End". Saddly it went on (and on) for 95 more minutes of mind-numbing stupidity...

I saw it for free, and wanted my money back.


This "film" attempts to follow the genre of low budget, hand-held camera flicks that have proved to be very effective and successful.

This one, fails, and HOW.

It's amazing how many so called "awards" this piece of garbage has got plastered on the cover..... it makes you wonder what these critics were on when they actually submitted this....

Words fail to describe just how absolutely appalling this movie really is. Seriously, it's THAT BAD.

I watched it in 20 minutes flat, on almost continual fast forward.

From rubbish lighting to dreadful directing, grainy visuals to muffled sound, and of course not forgetting the ABYSMAL acting, this was one completely and utterly pathetic piece of so-called film making.

It seriously, has NO redeeming qualities - whatsoever. Save your cash and watch a decent low budget horror flick, there are plenty out there - Dead End, The Blair Witch, REC, to name but a few.

AVOID this rubbish at all costs. DO NOT waste your money or time on this piece of trash pretending to be an actual film.

Take heed of all the other comments! You've been warned!


Less than 10 minutes into this film I wanted it to end as it was painful. All this "horror" movie was about was a group of whiny bitches doing stupid things for 90 minutes, arguing, crying and screaming. Do not let the positive reviews fool you as this really is a terrible movie and you really shouldn't watch it.

The movies plot had potential to be something great, but it just doesn't happen. A group of five "teenage" girls are driving home one night when they find themselves being pursued by a crazed female driver who wants to kill them. Two minutes into the movie, and the characters are already arguing and this doesn't stop. All we have for 90 minutes is a bunch of girls whining, crying, screaming, "acting" and arguing. None of the dialogue is even remotely interesting too, so you don't get to really know these characters or enjoy them.

The acting was terrible and I was shocked to find out that these characters were meant to be teenagers. None of these women looked a day under 20, and one of them easily looked like she was nearly 30 years old. At least get people who look the age. None of them gave even remotely decent performances, and just seemed like they were picked off the street or were friends of the director with no acting abilities. The "actress" who played the killer overdone it, but she at least showed something that the other girls didn't - a little bit of talent.

The characters don't help things because these girls are a bunch of whiny, stupid bitches. That is all I can really say about them, and it did not help that they ALL survived. If I have to go into detail, in one scene the girls are being chased by the killer and having their car knocked a lot. One girl injures herself and is whining about it...four of them aren't wearing seat-belts...what do you expect? One of your friends is being brutally attacked by the killer...and you all just happen to be conveniently "too hurt" to help? Whatever.

The filming of the movie is absolutely terrible. I don't care if this movie had a budget the size of a peanut, the filming was terrible and it was like watching a pirated version of a movie. The cameraman was clearly in the car with the girls, pushed up against a window somewhere and the amount of times the camera blurred out, shook and brushed up against an "actress" was horrendous. It was also grainy, and at times you couldn't hear what characters were saying (not that it was anything worth listening to).

Supposedly the killers car in the movie (that supposedly got hit, even though we only heard the accident) is actually the directors car in real life. No wonder they didn't show the car getting hit! This movie is so cheap, they can't even show a car getting a little scratched up. Oh, gotta mention the soundtrack also...if that's what it was. It was horrid...sad one second, then hard rock the next.

At the end of the day, Five Across The Eyes just feels like a terrible home-movie filmed in the middle of the road at night with a bunch of stupid girls screaming and arguing for 90 minutes. It doesn't help when the script is terrible, the scares/tension/suspense and (hardly even any gore to make up for it) are absent, the acting is terrible and the picture quality and filming are horrendous.

This was a horrible low-budget movie. Avoid it at all costs.

1/10


Im the type of person who always goes 2 to horror section when I'm picking a film, so i picked five across the eyes, i was disgusted with this film and thought there was no story line and no point that you could enjoy it,it made my skin crawl to think that people like to watch films that just encourage violence for the hell of it it was low budget and very rubbish! i think i could of done better myself. i think that it was the worst film i have ever seen in my life and you should not bother to watch it the actors were rubbish the camera was awful the picture was bad and the sound was not up to scratch, i think it was a little bit like a cheep rip of off the baler which project and it has not worked at all it was foul.


I never finished this movie for a reason, it was dreadful and thats just the acting. I wasn't even sure what the film was about tbh it didn't make a lot of sense and the violence was awful. I mean ususally i like some nude in a film (lol) but it was just sick because of what was happening. ALL the characters annoyed me and it was just full of loud screams and the camera was shaking at parts and it looked like a sequel to the blair with project but without any good qualities. This is one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time and would like my time back please. i wouldn't recommend this film to anyone or even consider it. (N)


Five Across the Eyes starts as five young teenage girls are driving home in time for their curfew, they stop off at a store & accidentally hit another car & decide to just drive off & leave it. Soon after the other car forces them to stop & a crazy woman with a shotgun gets out & shouts at them, makes them take their clothes off & makes them pee on them & then randomly drives off. Shaken & shocked the girls think their ordeal is over but the crazy woman comes back for seconds as she seems intent on killing the terrified girls who are lost & are low on gas...

Produced & directed by Greg Swinson & Ryan Theissen with Swinson writing the thing & Theissen responsible for the cinematography & editing I have to say that Five Across the Eyes is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen if not the worst, I mean I'm struggling to think of a film I have seen that's worse. Now let me start off by saying that I am sure a lot of the film-making decision taken here were deliberate to try & provoke atmosphere, tension, realism & suspense but there is not one aspect of Five Across the Eyes that I didn't hate it to be honest it looks like a bad home video that has been put up on YouTube & even then it's still slightly embarrassing & a frankly worthless waste of 90 odd minutes of my time that I could have been doing something more entertaining & fun like pulling my fingernails out with pliers. The reviews on the web seem quite positive but on the IMDb (the amount of 1 Star comments is revealing & they can't all be wrong, right?) & it's message board which I think is much more of an indicator of what the average person thinks it's absolutely trashed by just about everyone & the phrase 'the worst film I have ever seen' is used a few times & to be fair most of these negative comments mention th same things & I have to agree with them. The story is terrible, alright I suspect it's meant to be minimalistic but this minimal? There's never any reason or explanation for the events that happen & it just feels totally random. It goes on for ages, the amount of plot here would struggle to fill a thirty minute made for telly program let along a full length feature. The dialogue is awful with these annoying girls who don't seem to have a brain cell between them taking about random stuff & screaming a lot. Oh god the screaming, there are seemingly endless scenes of these girls screaming or crying or whining which not only irritates & annoys & prevents any sane viewer feeling any sort of sympathy for them it also makes what they are trying to say almost impossible to hear properly. Then there's the real killer, the entire film is set & shot within the confines of a mini van, seriously the camera never leaves this car & as you can imagine it gets really boring, add that the low body count of just one person killed on screen & Five Across the Eyes is a film that I hated with a passion.

On a technical level again I can see that the film-making style here was a deliberate choice but I have to be honest again & say Five Across the Eyes is the worst looking film I have ever seen. As a fan of film I like my films to look like proper films as it's a visual medium & I definitely don't want them to look worse than the average YouTube video or my home films shot on a camcorder while I was drunk. It really does look that amateurish & that bad, it's a complete eyesore & I hated every moment of every second of it. Just think The Blair Witch Project (1999) only ten times worse looking & sounding & you will be almost there. There are times during Five Across the Eyes when you literally can't tell what's going on or happening because of the camera-work & the almost pitch black & grainy contrast levels. The violence is tame too with a few splashes of blood & a stabbing at the end.

Low budget doesn't even begin to describe Five Across the Eyes, with a supposed budget of about $4,000 this is easily one of the lowest budgeted films ever given a wide release. The two vans in the film were owned by members of the production & that's basically pretty much the entire budget right there, the locations. The acting is pretty bad by the main cast, I just hated all the fake put on crying & screaming that didn't convince at all but did irritate immensely.

Five Across the Eyes will go down as one of the worst films I have ever seen & I have seen a few films, whenever anyone now ask's me what's the worst film I have ever seen Five Across the Eyes will definitely get a mention. I hated it, every single aspect & wretched moment of it.


And maybe, as Fred Sandford used to say, "one across the lips". That to those who released this film on an unsuspecting public. And perhaps to the person in "Rue Morgue" who called this a "Fender Hellbender" and said it was good.

Five young girls, apparently taking a short-cut home from a high school football game, become lost and stop to ask directions at some small store in the middle of nowhere. While there the driver accidentally hits a parked SUV & knocks out a headlight, but the girls all decide to just leave & not go find the driver. But the driver does come to find them, and it's not just that the headlight on her vehicle got dinged, it's for another reason that the girls do not yet understand. When the driver does first catch them she (yes, it's a she) brandishes a shot gun & makes them strip down, and keeps screaming at them, "how much did you see?". Of course the girls are scared to death & don't know what she's talking about.

As the night rolls on the girls end up in a cat and mouse game with the driver of the SUV, who manages to inflict all manner of injuries on the girls, who are remarkably resilient to shot gun blasts and screwdrivers where they didn't want them. Eventually they come to find that something happened back at that store after they left that is the reason for this woman's psychotic rage. And eventually they have a chance at revenge and take it about as far as they can go.

There are elements of this film that are rather disturbing and scary, but unfortunately, those moments are undermined by bad acting, bad dialog, and huge lapses of credibility. One girl is hit by a shot gun blast and appears to be mortally wounded, and she's feeling cold, her life is passing before her eyes, but she got better? And how far can a mini-van run on an almost empty gas tank at speeds of 80 miles per hour? I need one of those things, it apparently gets GREAT mileage.

There should have been an ending when the girls got their revenge, but the film goes on for a bit after that, which is an anti-climax, but they at least learn some of what set the woman off, and the driver is still worried about "messing up her mom's van", which is obviously the least of anyone's worries.

So this isn't the worst film I've seen, but it's too amateur to be good and yet a bit too scary and gruesome at times to be completely terrible. But it does take the cake for plenty of shrill hysterics and you'll want to put two across your ears if you watch this. Which, by the way, I don't necessarily recommend. 4 out of 10.


I actually felt bad for the actors in this thing. No doubt a high school drama class could do a better job or at the very least as well a job. The actors must have thought this would be their big chance working in a film, it certainly was not. Besides the terrible acting the stories were boring and for the most part predictable. The one about the remote control didn't even make any sense. To bad cause it had the best premise in the bunch.

I'm all for supporting low budget films and giving new film makers a fair chance, but this turkey is a waste of time and an insult to the viewer. I only watched it because of some good comments posted here. They must have been planted by people with ties to the film. You may fool people into watching this, but you can't fool them into liking what they saw.

I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because at least the boxer story tried to be heart warming. Sure it failed miserably, but it tried. I reserve 1 s for the worst of the worst.

Do yourself a favor and skip this dribble. I wish I had.


This doesn't quite plumb the depths of Creepshow 3, but it comes close. It also uses the same technique of using some of the same actors in multiple roles throughout the anthology, which is distracting to say the least.

It also rather irritating rips off The Twilight Zone (with the bookshop being comparable to Serling's later Night Gallery). Unfortunately, the producers & writers forgot that Serling would build up sympathy for his characters before messing them over. None of the characters are particularly sympathetic or interesting until the last segment.

Framing story: Adam West is... well, himself. He doesn't go the Bruce Wayne/Batman campy 60s route, but he rarely does. He simply plays the not-particularly-enigmatic "Jay" (there's an ominous spine-chilling name to compare to the likes of Dr. Terror, Eramus, and The Cryptkeeper), and makes some mildly awkward/creepy statements.

Abernathy: Seen Rod Serling's "A Stop in Willoughby"? Then you've seen this. The red herring of the nutso wife is introduced to no purpose, but even the main character's friend identifies him as a wimp. As well directed as can be expected, but basically incoherent.

Nex's Diner: Reminiscent of various Serling time travel stories, mixed with Steve Allen's "A Meeting of Minds." Most of the actors aren't too bad (except for Josh Astin as Cassius, who manages to walk, talk and even breathe awkwardly), and the idea is mildly interesting. But like Abernathy, it doesn't go anywhere. The main character raises some relatively reasonable questions, bugs out a bit (who wouldn't?), and for some reason he ends up banished to a nuclear wasteland.

Life Replay: Not a bad little piece, and manages to predate both Click and Creepshow 3. I suppose it says something that people are fascinated by the magical properties of remote controls. The main character is mildly sympathetic. Nothing substantially innovative here, but it's okay.

Fighting Spirit: You see the twist coming a mile away but like the main character, it has some heart and it's a decent story of defeat and redemption.

Finale: So... why do people end up in cold storage in silver lame suits? Don't know. And doesn't make sense. So... all the protagonists wandered into the bookstore and became trapped? Kinda undermines the happy ending with the boxer (thanks, guys!), and the guy in the first segment died. So how did he get trapped? Did he visit the bookstore before he died, got trapped and... didn't die? What? Huh? I supposer this isn't expected to make sense because it's supernatural. But still...

Overall: basically not dissimilar from the two newer Twilight Zone series, or some episodes of Tales From the Darkside or Monsters. The last two stories and part of the second are probably worth your time. But there's nothing really spectacular here.


I can't believe it, IMDb really does have every TV show known to man! I have not seen this show in over 20 years. I only remember two episodes, and I barely remember those. I remember that Tony may not been on from the start, because one of the episodes I remember is the one in which everybody trying to get Tony to join, but he rejects them, but typically at the end of the show he becomes a member of Power House, with everybody cheering.

The other one I remember is the one where Lolo for some reason pretends to be dead,(complete with funeral and mourners). I don't remember why he plays dead, or how the show ends.

This is one of those shows that I convinced myself that I must have dreamed up since no one else had ever heard of it.


I've read all the comments on this film. I am a great admirer

of the Dalai Lama. As such, I read the book upon which this

film was based. The movie is an ugly and demeaning fictionalization of the truth. I do not criticize it for

altering small details or events for dramatic purposes; it is

not a documentary. But the script CHANGES the impact, reaction,

realities, and changes in EVERY main character. It vastly alters

the real relationship between Harrar and the young Dalai Lama.

From the ridiculous rivalry for a Tibetan woman (which demeans

the culture of Tibet) to Harra's music box gift, to Harrar's

change of heart, everything about this movie is false - except

for the amazing photography. I understand that the shots of the

Potala (the palace) were smuggled out of Tibet. However,

changing a real story about the relationship between two people,

one of them very important to this world, in order to build up a

movie star is sad


i read the book "7 years in Tibet" from Heinrich Harrer and was fascinated of it. then i immediately grabbed the DVD and started to watch the movie. i remember the first time i saw it back in 98, i kinda liked it. well, now i watched it again in full knowledge of the book it is based on. and soon i realized how WRONG it all was told:

when they enter Lhasa the people start to stick their tongues out of their mouths and Thewlis and Pitt have the impression that its the way to say hello in Tibet, so they greet back... in the book Harrer explains, that sticking the tongue out is a sign of absolute humbleness and loyalty in Tibet and they may do it in front of the Dalai Lama but certainly not for these two europeans! not only the mother but even the Dalai Lama himself was wearing glasses in the public. in the book Harrer mentions, that no one in Tibet wore glasses to that time(sorry forgot the reason, but its explained in the book too).the young Dalai Lama did, but only when he was alone and nobody could see him! and what about that Mao tse tung lookalike, destroying the mandala in front of the young "living buddha"?? childish... and the tailor made Harrer and Aufschnaiter tibetan clothes not European designer suits! why are so many events that really happened eliminated from the story, just to fill the time with a fictional love interest (the female tailor...)that is completely unimportant? just like the whole story about harrers son, rolf. not one word is mentioned about him or even any family member of harrer in the book. but that was OK for me because "7 years in Tibet" is not a book about harrers person. its about tibet. I'm very disappointed by this "adaption" of the famous book. and i bet heinrich harrer was, too... 3 stars, just for the cinematography.


OK, here it is: "Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama." What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a "political" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie?


The acting, other reviews notwithstanding, was remarkably well-done. Brad Pitt handles the role of an annoying, obnoxious Austrian climber quite well. Other acting is fine. The story could have been riveting, but somehow, it misses - one never really understands or cares for the characters shown, and so the story, which could have been quite dramatic, fails to draw in this audience.

Beautiful scenery and cinematography, a remarkably dramatic true story, important events that shaped the world that we live in - but I could not, try as I might, involve myself in this story. As an unabashed Brad Pitt fan (I consider him one of the top 5 actors of his generation), I expected to *love* this flick - and yet, it left me cold.

It could be a failing within myself, but I tend to point toward the creative end of this movie - direction, scriptwriting, production, editing - somehow, they lost me. It's a shame, because it could have been wonderful.

Good acting, dramatic story, beautifully shot - it should have been magnificent. It wasn't. Probably worth watching, just to make your own mind up on it - but don't expect too much, and perhaps you won't be as disappointed as I was. Mostly, it bored me.


"Hey everybody! I've got an idea, we found this egg-shaped thingie from outer space so why don't we thaw it out and open it up?" "Yes, I know that would be the dumbest thing a scientist could do, and it could be filled with contaminating bacteria or viruses unknown to earth and could potentially wipe out the human race, but hey, I want to know what's in it". "And nobody tell NASA, they might take it away from us". "Wow this thingie gives off vibes!" "Yes,really strong ones on contact so don't touch it but it's okay to cut it open". "Hi there handsome, check out my nips". (Later that day); "DO NOT OPEN"!!!!! Uh oh, we have to run all the way to the lab and tell them not to open it because we don't have phones or radios or intercoms even though we have a gazillion dollars worth of other equipment here. "I've never seen such organic technology!" "Yeah, lemme take this stick and stab it.". "I'm getting out of here, I don't care if I do kill the other 6 billion people on Earth, nobody's nukkin' me!" "Look! it's the friendly aliens from "The Abyss"! They want us to come with them". THE END


Recap: Something mysteriously dense that transmits radio signals is discovered in the ice of Antarctica. The mysterious block is dug out and brought to a research station on Antarctica. Julian Rome, a former SETI-worker, is brought in to decipher the message. Problem is that one of the researchers is a old girlfriend of his, and the situation quickly turns awkward, especially since the other female researchers practically throw themselves at him. And the block of ice with the thing inside is melting unnaturally quickly. Soon the object is in the open. The mystery continues though as the object generates a huge amount of electricity. It is decided to open the object, but just before that is done, Julian decodes the signal. "Do not open". But too late, and the object explodes as it is finally breached, and two things unleashed on earth. The first is an alien, that had been dormant in the object, and the other is a virus that instantly kills the research staff. And Washington, that is suspiciously updated on this historic event, decides that those things can not be unleashed upon the earth. So a Russian nuclear submarine, carrying nuclear weapons is sent to Antarctica.

Comments: The movie holds a few surprises. One is Carl Lewis who surprisingly puts in a good acting performance, and the other is that the special effects that are beautiful, well worked through and a lot better than expected. Unfortunately the story holds a lot of surprises of its own, and this time not in a good way. Actually it is so full of plot holes that sometimes the movies seem to consist of almost randomly connected scenes. It is never really explained why Washington know so much, why Washington is able to command Russian submarines, why the object is in the Antarctic and has woken up now. It is really puzzling that the alien pod is transmitting in understandable English. Some might want to explain this with that the alien had been to Earth before and knew the language (and obviously chose English, why?). But then it is very confusing why the nice aliens that apparently want to save the Earth from the virus, send their "Do not open" message encoded! And finally the end is as open as an end can be.

The movie is a little entertaining but too much energy (from me) must be diverted to fill in the voids in the plot. Therefore the total impression of the movie is not too good.

3/10


With one of my very favorite actors, James Spader, I expected this film to be at least tolerable. It wasn't. After the first half hour I watched the rest of it with the remote control in my hand so the fast forward was at the ready. So trite, so standard, one knows what's going to happen in each scene. One can even predict the dialogue word for word. This is one of those movies that makes one scratch ones head and say, "How did this movie ever get made?" In an effort to say something positive, I'll add that there are some mildly entertaining special effects. But, on the whole, if you've seen 5 Sci/fi movies, or you are over 9 years old, do yourself a favor and skip this one.


Very bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie

Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.

This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.

Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget

I give it 3/10


An unoriginal, overly predictable and only mildly entertaining low budget rehash of a sci-fi formula that we've all seen a hundred times before - a group of scientists in isolation confronting some unknown alien something, and in of all places (surprise, surprise) Antarctica!

The film features James Spader and an almost nameless supporting cast (with the exception of Carl Lewis, who's actually not that bad for a non-actor) - who deliver ho-hum performances that do little to invigorate the script's unimaginative dialogue. To make things worse the film's pace is slow, there's almost no subplot, and the few action sequences are stereotypical and not that exciting. Its little wonder that this thing went straight to DVD. What is a wonder is why Spader - an excellent actor at times, who won the Cannes Best Actor award for `Sex, Lies and Videotape', and did a splendid job in the innovative sci-fi flick `Stargate' - chose to sign onto this lackluster project. Or maybe not, if you look at his career, for it seems he has invested his talents in more misses than hits.

The most remarkable thing about `Alien Hunter' is how they managed to cram in so many elements from so many great sci-fi films, and still have the thing turn out so listless and contrived. There are huge borrowed bits from `The Thing' (both Howard Hawks' original and John Carpenter's excellent 1982 remake), `Contact' and `Outbreak'; a few hints of `Alien', CE3K', `The Andromeda Strain', `Kubrick's `2001' (i.e. the `alien black box') and `Mission To Mars' (i.e. the mystery message); and even a little dash of `Sneakers' and `A Remarkable Mind' (although not sci-fi films, they share a `cryptology' connection). Hell, there's even cornfields and Antarctica, just like the recent `X Files Movie'. And the luminous translucent spaceship at the end looks exactly like something that was plucked from an outtake from `The Abyss'.

Its all been done before and done a whole lot better, although I will admit there were a few mild surprises towards the end. I could say a little bit more about the plot, but there's absolutely no need. You already know over half this movie without ever seeing it. (5 out of 10)


Begins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...

--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.


Is it a remake og the Thing (1982/1951), i think it is, there are so many factors from det previous movies do deny it.

So the acting is bad, James Spader does a superlow stargate re-enactment of himself, with his coffy mug and his somwhat strange thinking/movements but that's about it, the other actors i did't even notise. You don't get the feeling of getting to know anyone of the main characters. And the plot evolvement is slow, boring and, yah i know what is about to happend in 30mins. Score/music is ultraboring, imean there are alot of ubertallented people out there that would make scores for a coke and a credit, but this is major crap. Some of the special effects are nice, if it was made in early 90's. If you like Slimy Aliens, chills and thrills, don't whatch this movie. its a dull combination of the Thing, Alien 3, Outbreak and some Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay production gone really really bad. Now this combination would be cool if somone knew what they where doing, and the only ones on this production that knew that was, no one.

Though i have seen far worse, i would not recomend this movie to anyone, but if you are up one cold night, and just wanna glanse at something, it will pass the time, slowly.


Snuggle down in your favourite chair and switch on the play-station, as you toss this into the waste disposal unit. Spend a useful 90 min. living your favourite game. Disjointed - poorly filmed - non directed junk. It takes a bits from several other "science fiction" movies and badly attempts to join the parts into a pathetically weak story. There's nothing new here, the filmmakers do not seem to realise that providing simple entertainment would achieve a monetary game, but a touch of skill ingenuity and flair is required to turn it into a good film. Any money spent watching this is a waste, and personally i would like my 90 min of life back.


This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).

I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY.

The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.

Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.


I am oh soooo glad I have not spent money to go to the cinema on it :-). It is nothing more than compilation of elements of few other classic titles like The Thing, Final Fantasy, The Abyss etc. framed in rather dull and meaningless scenario. I really can not figure out what was the purpose of creating this movie - it has absolutely nothing new to offer in its storyline which additionally is also senseless. Moreover there is nothing to watch - the FX'es look like there were taken from a second hand store, you generally saw all of them in other movies. But it is definitely a good lullaby.


Alien Hunter: 5 out of 10: Is it me or does every movie that starts in Roswell, New Mexico suck. Take Alien mixed with The Thing, mixed with Contact, mixed with of all things On the Beach, The Andromeda Strain, the classroom scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark and a throw in a little Stargate to boot.

Derivative doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Of course with nothing original plot wise they amp up the gore and sex right? Nope gore is a blink and you miss it affair and sex is all tease. (James Spader causally mentions he needs a shower and the delectable Leslie Stefanson asks to join him. he turns her down. AGGH!)

In fact if a movie ever needed a shower scene to liven things up this is it. I mean if your going to have impossibly good-looking women in white bathing suits wandering around an Antarctica research base why not go for broke.

With about 30 seconds of actual thrill in the entire movie Alien Hunter is remarkable serious and slow going for a sci-fi adventure. Needed a much better plot twist to liven it up and by the way the Alien itself is a horribly clichéd artifice and has virtually no screen time for someone who shares half the title.

I also inquired during viewing what is with the Children of the Corn in space motif. (Note that since Jason of Friday the 13th fame, Pinhead from Hellraiser and that Leprechaun have all traveled to space to slay nubile teenagers why not the cornfield?) The characters in the cornfield dress like Logan's Run extras and I was just waiting for the stalks to come alive and attack them.

That however would have been exciting and apparently against this movies covenant. The acting is mostly fine as Spader reprises his Stargate role while Stefanson and Janine Eser model the latest in Antarctic beachwear. John Lynch however read the whole script and acts the like the insane bad guy well before the story would indicate it.

Alien Hunter is a disappointing derivative slog that makes me pine for a proper Children of The Corn in Space movie.


I just saw this film tonight and I have to say that it's a mess. I love Vince Vaughn but he ends up more annoying that funny here and the film is more than less a remake of the crappy 80's classic " Santa Claus the movie" but with out the camp or the bad Sheena Easton song at the end. .The story is your run of the mill black sheep in the family who comes back to face his family for the holidays kind of thing but with North Pole as its setting. Of course Fred (Vince Vaughn) is the family screw up who comes home after a series of set backs that include his girlfriend (Rachel Weisz in a cameo role) dumping him, so he comes home to face his parents and his more successful brother Santa Claus (Paul Giamatti) and wacky high jinks follow with a bit of sibling rivalry and a bit of anarky as well that threatens all of Christmas. Now if you think you know the ending of this film, I think you would be right because it's predicable to the hill. As for the acting, Vince Vaughn plays the same lovable loser he always plays but this time he ends up more annoying than likable, Miranda Richardson plays Mrs. Claus but the role is more than less one note, Elizabeth Banks plays Santa's assistant but she's not much of a character at all other than a neurotic joke and poor Kevin Spacey ends up basically playing the same person he plays in the film "Glengarry Glen Ross" but a little more anal. The only two actors who come out of this film with their dignity intact is Paul Giamatti, who brings a real sincerity and warmed to his role as Santa Claus but he looks somewhat embarrass to be in the movie and you can't blame him and Rachel Weisz, who manages to do a lot more with a very small role than most of the main actors do with theirs, which is a shame because both Rachel Weisz and Paul Giamatti deserved a lot better than what this script gave them.

To put it in a nutshell, a major disappointment.


Painfully bad Christmas film that has an equally painfully bad performance by Vince Vaughn, who is paying his usual frat boy self but this time for a children's movie but with out the wit or charm that is in his R rated films. Vaughn seems like he's on autopilot though most of the film and he keeps running into walls with his lackluster performance. After 30 minutes into the film, you would be in touch your inner scourge and say "Bahumbag" at how unfunny this film is and after another 30 minutes, you will want to walk out over how unbearable the film has gotten during that point. Out of all the actors involved in this mess, only Paul Giamatti and Rachel Weisz brings some life to there perspective paper thin roles and that's manly because they are both way too good of actors to be in this film. Paul Giamatti brings some depth and warmth to the character of Saint Nick himself but he's forced to Vaughn's level of juvenile behavior when they are doing their sad sibling infighting. You can see in Giamatti face that he's not having fun with his role and it painfully shows in certain parts of the film. Rachel Weisz brings a sense of fun and spirit to her role but she really does not have much of a character to work with and you can see in her face that she's well aware of that, so much so that she seems irritated in certain parts of the film. Fortunately for her, she's not in the film much at all and is able to save some face, unlike Giamatti, who looks like he's about to fire his agent by the end of the movie. The direction also feels uninspiring, like there is no feeling or flow to be had and this is a supposed to be a holiday movie but it ends up feeling like you are just staring at a fancy widow display that is being torn down.

I don't know what went wrong here but with only two actors involved (Giamatti and Weisz) trying their best to at least bring something to the table with a unfunny script they had to work with, spotty direction with no feeling for the subject at hand ( and this is a Christmas movie of all things) and a actor who just does not care about his performance (Vaughn), you have a very unevenly bad film that is very painful to watch.


Every Christmas eve I make my kids endure yet another showing of It's A Wonderful Life. I also thoroughly enjoyed Bad Santa. So sue me. I admit it. I like cheesy, schmaltzy movies. I like excellent, intelligent ones too, but as with so many things, variety is a good thing. What would the Christmas season be without the annual cinematic ka-ching ka-ching of Santa in all his guises, from Edmund Gwenn to Billy Bob Thornton? Fred Claus will make no one forget Bedford Falls, but I do not believe a Christmas film should have to reach iconic stature to succeed. "Fred" is a perfectly OK holiday movie, with enough humor for the adults and sufficient charm for the kids. My wife and I laughed a lot, even if most of the humor was obvious and Vince was just being Vince. Paul Giamatti was a top-notch Santa, which helped a lot. Not a great flick, and unlikely to become must-viewing for anyone's annual Christmas traditions. But my wife and daughter and I enjoyed it for what it was, holiday schmaltz with a small dash of spice. There's nothing wrong with that.


How hard is it to write a watchable film with Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Spacey? Apparently VERY difficult for the writers here.

I still have no idea how Santa is younger and looks 20 years older than Vince (who plays the BIG brother). I must have missed that part of the story but in reality, it really didn't matter. Many scenes seemed out of place and contrived; the kind of "funny notion" scenes that are drug out WAY too far to where any sense of comedy is lost.

The director/producer tried to go "tear jerker" at the end, which would have been suitable if ANYTHING leading up that point had been worth following.

Ugh, major disappointment. I can see how some people might enjoy this OK, since many people will take any garbage they're fed, but I would strongly encourage waiting for DVD on this one. NOT worth the $23,978 it takes to get your family to the movies these days.


Okay, during this past thanksgiving break, whilst having the whole family together everybody decided to go see a movie, and since Fred clause was voted majority, thats what we went and say.

To start off the movie had so many plot holes it was pathetic. Simple explanations of why a certain event was happening was void. example; who the heck is trying to 'shut down' Santa clause? Is it some sort of corporation? A little explanation would of been lovely.

Second: The movie tossed you flimsy characters that evoked no sympathy from you about their feelings or actions. example: the little elf named Willie and the only tall girl in the elf village. they see each other twice and then they are a couple and i could of cared less because this movie didn't make me care.

Third: I suppose this was suppose to be a family film? Its rating was low at just PG. For a family film there were several articles of suggestive conversation. It didn't bother me, but if i were a parent i could see a problem.

Through the whole movie Paul Giamatti looked extremely bored with his role, but honestly he was the only one worth watching in the movie. Vaughn had a few funny moments but played the same character he has for the last two movies. mouthy frat boy. (nothing against Vaughn, he's been good in other movies)

so this movie gets a 3 out of 10 stars from me, just because somebody had to put in the effort to produce, film and release this flick.

In my opinion i would definitely pass on this flick, or if you HAVE to see it save it for a rainy day rental.