When thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.

I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.

This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another movie!


It's one of those dramas that's so bad that it almost hits the point of being very funny, the script is absolutely dire, direction appalling, lighting purely armature, the only thing letting it down from a true so bad it's good feel is that the sound design is only quite bad; it adds no suspense to the story although trying hard, but doesn't at least destroy any speeches. There's continuity problems of seasons of out door shots throughout. And finally last but not least the acting is appalling. For a professional production it very much has the feel of a university media project you have to feel sorry for the sorry for anyone who had to put their names to this.


Frankly I'm rather incensed that on the basis of the dazzling reviews attributed to Steven Smith I wasted nearly two hours on his debut offering. Have they all been written by his pals? The action clunks along, the music is irritating and over used, the script is simply dire and the actors (with the exception of the gardener) mediocre at best. I do think we should support the efforts of a young filmmaker but saying it's brilliant when it's not will surely only encourage him to make the same mistakes again i.e. continuing to write his own scripts and using the same actors for another venture. Yes, it's his first film, low budget etc. - I get it, but it's also out there for members of the public to purchase and it's just not up to scratch.


Happened upon a copy of this. Not mine and if I had spent my own money on this I'd be finding those responsible and demanding it back! All I can say is this would be a terrible student film. Any understanding of the medium of film is absent. Acting is god awful, the story would have been rejected from the original Twilight Zone series as unoriginal and lame, and the change in tone of the lead character's reaction to the 'ghost' is laughable.

I can only agree that the 'glowing' reviews of this film are from friends and family. I'm afraid it's not even entertainingly bad.

Amateur in the extreme!

Avoid! Avoid! Avoid!


I'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season!


To be honest i had heard this was pretty bad before i decided to watch it, but i'm never one to let others influence my viewings, in fact i'm more likely to watch something out of defiance!. Bullwhip had one thing going for me before the viewing anyway, the fact that Rhonda Fleming and those gorgeous eyes was in it had me interested right away. The picture isn't very good, and is in fact very morally dubious, all the characters are corrupt and shifty in one way shape or form, all motivated by greed or egocentric victories, this is all well and good if the surrounding film can do justice to a bunch of despicable people and create a taut climax shuddering picture. Sadly it doesn't, and as the finale fills your eyes with sugar you can't help shouting out that you have been cheated into watching a pretty bad film, nobody in the cast come out with any credit, with lead man Guy Madison painfully wooden in the extreme.

Not even the lovely Rhonda can make me recommend this to anyone, 3/10


This is a well-worn story about a man who marries to escape the hangman's noose, then sets about "taming" his reluctant bride. It manages to be sexist and racist at exactly the same time. We never find out, for example, why a woman who won the respect of an Indian warrior is completely unable to fight back against her erstwhile husband. Or why the members of her team are so eager to get a "real man" in the saddle when she seems to have been taking care of things just fine on her own. This only made sense in fifties Hollywood.

There's a really stupid scene where she horsewhips him and he actually catches the whip--the second time--then yanks her off her horse. Never mind that the first time probably would have lost him an eye, which would make it pretty hard to grab that whip! Then, he prevails in a fight against her Indian bodyguard where he spends the first two thirds of it getting beaten to a pulp. That's some second wind. Later, he successfully negotiates with some bloodthirsty Indians (as they all are in these flicks) after they reject her now she's his "squaw". Never mind that he has zero diplomatic skills and she's been negotiating with them for years. And the way he keeps rejecting her attempts to seduce him just to keep her keen and keep her from getting a hold on him--yeah, right. Like the women are just throwing themselves at him all the way down the trail.

Finally, neither of the leads is convincing in their roles. Madison is just a jerk who gets unrealistically lucky. Fleming flips her hair and scowls a lot, but is totally unconvincing as a fiery tomboy. The only reason you'd root for her is because you want to see Madison get tied to a runaway horse and dragged over a cliff before the film's end. The way that Madison tames Fleming is so predictable and has so few obstacles that it will irritate the heck out of you if you see women as anything but blow-up dolls. Even if you do see them as dolls, the total lack of suspense will bore you.

Total waste of time. Even the scenery's kinda dull. Give this one a big miss.


"Don't bother to watch this film" would be better advice, if you like Marilyn Monroe in her other roles. This was a huge disappointment considering the great cast, not just Marilyn.

The story was just nothing, certainly nothing like described on the VHS box, of course. There simply was no suspense, precious little excitement and too many dull spots, most of them trying to show why "Nellie" (Monroe) was so messed up. This was not a good role for Monroe, even though I didn't need to see this character to know she could act. "Some Like It Hot" alone was good enough evidence for me. But this role just didn't fit her and it's no surprise it wasn't one of her more popular films.

It's also too bad a film had the waste of the talents of actors like Richard Widmark, Anne Bancroft, Elisha Cook Jr., Jeanne Cagney, Donna Cocoran and others.

Summary: it's not entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.


Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.

That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.

 However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.

I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.

Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.

Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.

Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.

So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.

 2.5/10 Bleah


Spoilers

Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s "Le samurai" is the original and there are elements of "Leon". And they are better - much better!

In the "Samurai" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.

Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked "Leon" very much or even "Desperado" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in "Leon")?

So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?

I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.

A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor


I remembered the title so well. To me, it was a Flora Robson movie with Olivier and Vivien Leigh in supporting roles. And it had Vincent Massey's voice from behind whiskers. Well Flora Robson was great. Her next signature, for me, would be "55 Days at Peking". The same role but with different sumptuous gowns. And the same voice. As for the Armada, it was a subtext. I like black-and-white films. Was everything done in Elizbethan times at night? It was talky and difficult to fathom, at times. I couldn't tell which was the love interest. Was it the Spaniard or was it Vivien Leigh? And I do not believe that Elizabeth I would have been the brilliant strategist to recommend that fire ships be sent against the Armada. Apparently it worked for the Empire, but not for the script. This might have been more accurate, historically, but Bette Davis had more engaging scripts. And I missed daylight!


Other than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.

This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's "Rembrandt." It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.

Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.

Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.

Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!

It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in this film.


When Sam Peckinpah's superlative THE WILD BUNCH (1969) opened the door to outrageous displays of graphic cinematic ultra-violence, it did so with a talented (if whisky-marinated) hand guiding the camera and had a compelling story with characters who had actual depth, but in no time flat there were scores of imitators that fell far from the benchmark set by Peckinpah's epic, and SOLDIER BLUE definitely falls into that category.

SOLDIER BLEW, er, BLUE tells the story of foul-mouthed New Yorker Cresta Lee (Candice Bergen) a blonde proto-hippie chick who's been "rescued" from two years of "captivity" among the Cheyenne and is now being sent to a fort where she'll be reunited with the fiancée she only wants to marry for his money. Also on board the wagon she's traveling in is a shipment of government gold, cash the Cheyenne need to buy guns with, so in short order the soldiers are wiped out and Cresta flees to the hills, accompanied by Honus Gant (Peter Strauss), the lone surviving cavalryman. Calling Gant by the snarky nickname "Soldier Blue," Cresta demonstrates that her years among the "savages" was time well spent, outstripping Gant in survival skills, common sense, and sheer balls, and over their journey toward the fort they must persevere against the elements, a band of hostile Kiowa, an unscrupulous trader  played by Donald Pleasance, here giving one of his most ridiculous performances, and that's saying something  and, in the tradition of many previous western-set romantic comedies, each other.

During the course of their misadventures the two opposites are inevitably  and predictably  attracted to each other and eventually end up getting it on  while Gant has a freshly- treated bullet wound that went clean through his leg, no less  in what was surely the only conveniently located cave for at least a twelve mile radius that wasn't filled with rattlesnakes, mountain lions, or who knows what, to say nothing of the Cheyenne, who could have done something really spiffy with such a primo apartment (there I go, thinking in NYC real estate terms again).

Realizing that their love could never flourish outside of the cave, Cresta leaves Gant and makes it to the fort by herself only to discover that the moron in charge won't spare a couple of men so they can rescue Gant; the regiment needs all available personnel to launch an attack on the nearby Cheyenne village, and once Cresta gets wind of that she slips past her obnoxiously horny hubby-to-be and makes a beeline straight to the Cheyenne to warn them of what's coming.

What happens next is what gained the film its infamy; it turns out that all the wacky misadventures and squabbling were all just a lead-in to a hideous reenactment of the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre, an orgy of rape, torture and general sadistic evil perpetrated in the name of "keeping the country clean," and almost forty years after its release this sequence still disturbs and nauseates for its sheer cruelty. Children are trampled beneath the hooves of charging horses or impaled on bayonets, unarmed people are beheaded  a nice effect, I have to admit  women are stripped and pawed by gangs of slavering brutes, then raped and mutilated  in one truly sickening instance a naked native woman puts up too much of a fight, so her rapist instead decides to cut off her breasts, which we thankfully only see the start of before the camera moves on to chronicle some other hideous act  and scores of innocent people are shot and dismembered, their compone nt parts impaled on pikes and waved about in victorious celebration or kept as the most ghoulish of souvenirs. No joke, this scene would instantly garner an NC-17 rating if released today, to say nothing of possibly spurring Native American interest groups to riot in the streets over the incredibly exploitative manner in which the atrocities are depicted.

I'm all in favor of westerns that don't shy away from honest portrayals of how the west was won, or stolen if truth be told, but this film has no idea of what kind of movie it wants to be; one minute it's a heavy-handed pseudo-hippy lecture about how the treatment of the natives was totally effed up (well, DUH!), then it's a light-hearted battle of the sexes farce wherein Cresta proves herself five times the man Gant is and manages to look hot in her tasty red calico poncho (with no undies), but that all goes out the window when Donald Pleasance shows up with an unintentionally (?) hilarious pair of buck-toothed dentures and our heroes must figure out how to escape from his murderous clutches in a sub-plot that goes nowhere, all of which culminates in the aforementioned apocalyptic climax. Any one of those tacks would have been okay for a coherent film, but the end result is a slapdash mess that milked the horrors of its final ten minutes for all they were worth in the film's promotion and poster imagery.

But by trying to be all things to all audiences, SOLDIER BLUE ends up as an incoherent, preachy Mulligan stew of presumably well-intentioned political correctness, but if they were going to tell the story of the Sand Creek Massacre, wouldn't it have been a good idea to have some Indian characters who were more than just walk-ons with Murphy Brown acting as their mouthpiece? We get to know absolutely nothing of the people who get wiped out solely for what appears to be a crass ploy to lure gorehound moviegoers into seeing "the most savage film in history." If you, like me, were intrigued by the provocative ads and reviews that shower almost endless praise upon it for its "daring to tell it like it was," take my word for it and let SOLDIER BLUE slowly fade into cinematic obscurity.


First of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and "Soldier Blue" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK


Soldier Blue is a movie with pretensions: pretensions to be some sort of profound statement on man's inhumanity to man, on the white man's exploitation of and brutality towards indigenous peoples; a biting, unflinching and sardonic commentary on the horrors of Vietnam. Well, sorry, but it fails miserably to be any of those things. What Soldier Blue actually is is pernicious, trite, badly made, dishonest rubbish.

Another reviewer here hit the nail on the head in saying that it appears to be a hybrid of two entirely different movies. What it is basically is a lame, clichéd, poorly acted "odd couple" romance - Strauss and Bergen overcoming their prejudices about the other's lifestyle and falling in love (ah, bless) - bookended by two sickening massacres which wouldn't have been out of place in a Lucio Fulci splatter flick.

There is no excuse for the repulsive, prurient, gore-drenched climax, in which cute little native American children are variously shot, sliced, dismembered and impaled in loving and graphic close-up, and large-breasted native American women are molested, raped and strung up - no excuse, that is, except box office. (The massacre itself, whilst repulsive in its misplaced intention, is very badly staged and shot; a bunch of actors lying around with bright red paint smeared on them, intercut with a few special-effects sequences of beheading/dismemberment - dismemberments, incidentally, which utilised real amputees in their filming. Now that's what I call exploitation.)

Forget all the pap you've heard (including the ludicrous commentaries that begin and end the movie) about this being a "protest", an indictment of American brutality towards the native peoples. This film doesn't give a stuff about the plight of the Cheyenne; had it done so it would have featured some involving native American characters, would have led us to get to know and to care about the nameless, faceless innocents who get slaughtered at the climax. Instead what we get is the silly white bread romance of Bergen and Strauss (lousy actors both, in this at least), with plenty of blood, guts and severed heads thrown in to attract the curious.

Which is a terrible shame, because there is a movie to be made about the Sand Creek massacre, about all of the real life massacres the US (and Britain, and all so-called "civilised" nations) have participated in over the centuries (Iraq?). this just isn't that movie.


**Spoilers contained**

I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.


A badly-acted two-character comedy-drama abruptly transmogrifies into a weren't-we-awful-to-the-Indians polemic, with lousy special effects, exploitative use of nudity, and ugly violence. It's as sincere as a politician's handshake, as obvious as a car salesman's pitch, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe. Absolute and utter dreck.


STRANGER THAN FICTION angered me so much, I signed up on IMDb just to write this review. STRANGER THAN FICTION is a surprisingly complex, touching and thought-provoking movie until the very end. Once you suspend multiple lapses of logic (why didn't Will Ferrell hear Emma Thompson's voice 10 years ago when she fist started writing her book? "The phone rang. The phone rang again." How could she not know it's him calling? etc.), the movie challenges one's thoughts about mortality, fate, and sacrifice.

The brief history of literary themes provided by Dustin Hoffman should especially entertain former English majors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal is always a pleasure, even though Will Ferrell might just as easily be an ax murderer as a bumbling soul. Her quick trust of him is a mighty big leap of faith.

Ah, but the ending. Until the very end, I would have given 9 out of 10 stars to this movie. The movie as a metaphor for life's journey, as a tribute to the notion of 'writing true,' as a reminder that great literature is either comedy or tragedy, but not both, is outstanding. The entire movie leads the viewer to understand and accept the moment of Will Ferrell's fate. And no matter how endearing a character he may have become, we know full well why we will accept the ending. The last act occurs, the screen goes white, the credits roll. A profound and powerful end to an almost perfect film. An end that would have been debated for weeks.

NO!!!!!!!!!! No credits rolled. Say it isn't so. Say Hollywood didn't tack on another 10 minutes of crap that completely undermined the integrity and heart of the movie. Dustin Hoffman got it right when he said, "It's no longer a masterpiece; it's OK." An apt review of the movie. Except to me, it wasn't even OK. I was so offended about the betrayal of 'writing true,' about the decision to pander the film that I actually burst into angry tears explaining this on the ride home from the movie. I don't often cry. I could care less about most movies, but I am still angry about this one.

My questions for Zack Helm, the writer, are this: did the original movie end when the screen went white? And were you forced by the vapid movie powers-that-be to tack on an ending unfaithful to the core of the movie? Or did you tack that maudlin ending on yourself? I've read you're brilliant. I hope your original script ended the movie the first time.

I know Zack Helm will never see this review, and I've been unable to find a contact for him to ask myself. But, please, movie-goers, am I the only one who feels this way about STRANGER THAN FICTION? One good thing came from me seeing this movie: I doubly admire LOST IN TRANSLATION now.


A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way.

Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing.

Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.

Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.

I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.


Dick Foran and Peggy Moran, who were so good together in THE MUMMY'S HAND, return for this very minor Universal Horror offering. But this time, instead of having Wallace Ford as the comedic sidekick "Babe," we get Fuzzy Knight substituting as a silly buddy named "Stuff". But the results are nowhere near as charming, and the scare level is virtually nil.

Dick is a businessman who gets the idea of spearheading a treasure hunt on a remote island inside a spooky old castle. Peggy is one of the gang who comes along for the ride. But there is a tall and skinny John Carradine lookalike in a black cape and big hat known as "The Phantom" who crashes the party in pursuit of the buried fortune himself.

This "phantom" is not very mysterious, and no effort is made to even try and keep his rather average guy face in the shadows to create any tension or spookiness. It's always nice to see perky Moran, but otherwise you can chalk this up as one of Universal's instantly forgettable misfires.


A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...

Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.


They must issue this plot outline to all wannabe filmmakers arriving at the Hollywood bus station. They then fill in the blanks and set their story in whatever hick town or urban ghetto from which they just arrived. You know exactly what this movie is about from the opening shot, four young boys playing in grainy slow motion, accompanied by voice over narration. Next stop after the bus station must be to buy stock footage of four young boys playing in grainy slow motion. Once they're grown, it's easy to spot the writer/director among the four. He's the quiet, contemplative, long-haired one who is never seen without his composition book tucked in his pants. This means that his superb writing talent will be his ticket from Hickville to Hollywood. Only there's no writing, or directing talent on display here. And if you still can't figure out which one he is, here's a hint: The auteur and his character have the same middle name. It took over an hour to figure out that these twenty-something men were supposed to still be in high school. What looked like a prison was apparently a high school, the warden turned out to be the principal. Once more, the poor, misunderstood rebel can pound everyone in the movie into the pavement, murder and pillage, but is powerless to stand up to his alcoholic father. How about hitting back, kid, like you do everyone else? Numerous fist fight scenes for no apparent purpose. Howlingly bad dialogue. Many scenes badly out of focus. Cartoon characters keep popping up as bit players and extras, drawing unintentional laughs from the premiere audience. Overacting in the extreme. And if you don't quite get the self-important speeches, or the slow-motion scenes, just listen to the overbearing music. It will clue you in and what you're supposed to feel. Poor Marisa Ryan must be racking up lots of frequent flier mileage as she travels around the country working in these amateur regional films. The biggest sin is that the audience is supposed to feel sympathy for kids who gun down old ladies, run over puppies chained to a tree, rob and steal, all the while complaining about their sad, sorry lives. But if only we could get out of this hick town and go to college. Yeah, that's the ticket. Why is it that every twenty-something filmmaker believes that his life so far is so important, so interesting, that the world can't wait to see it onscreen? If this movie is as autobiographical as it seems, then the auteur better be looking over his shoulder for policemen bearing fugitive warrants.


Except for acknowledging some nice cinematography, I can hardly say anything positive about this movie. The single real issue is the protagonist's dilemma whether to remain with his childhood friends in the world of misery or to leave them and take up his own life. Abundant "emotionally powerful" scenes do not go with this plot and, because of bad acting, they also fail to create the intended atmosphere. The director only manages to introduce Anthony's dilemma and eventually brings an easy solution. The characters do not seem to evolve, although it is difficult to speak of any characters... perhaps except for Sonny. Beside him, actors do not get to play much and when some of them have to, they come off as self-indulging amateurs. I wonder what ruined the movie more: the superficial script, throwing away all the potential of the plot, or the bad acting, disturbing any appeal that might be left.


Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.

This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.

Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.

Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.


Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.

***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.


There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.


Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .

Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....


From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!


So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.

The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.

One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.


At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.


well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.


Murder By Numbers is one of those movies that you expect is made-for-TV but isn't. Considering the only actor of any note is Bullock (although Michael Pitt seems to be moving onto bigger and better things), it isn't a great surprise that this movie quickly fades away from memory to be replaced by more important things. Like... remembering to lock your front door when you go out. Or putting clothes back on when you come out of the shower.

Bullock plays Cassie Mayweather, a cop with personal issues (don't they all). Together with her new partner (a wet-looking Ben Chaplin), she is called to investigate the murder of a young woman. Nothing unusual there except that the perps are a couple of teenage students who think they've planned and executed the perfect murder. As the investigation continues, a battle of wills emerges between Cassie and the main suspect Richie Haywood (Ryan Gosling).

The crippling issue here is that the two leads are hopeless. Bullock, though she is very nice to look at, is about as believable in the role of a hardened cynical cop as Rodney Dangerfield (actually, he'd be better!). Chaplin, for his sins, is a complete non-entity and I feel sorry that he has to put this film on his CV in his attempt to break into Hollywood. At least Gosling and Pitt, as the conniving sneering suspects, acquit themselves adequately. As if dodgy leads weren't bad enough, a story that would send anybody to sleep and a highly predictable (but illogical) ending shoot this film in the head before it has a chance to run.

"Murder By Numbers" has absolutely nothing going for it, even a pointless nude scene by Bullock wouldn't redeem it. Well, just a little but still not enough to save it. Forgettable, predictable and redundant - this is one film that isn't going to move the cop genre forward. As Cassie probably says on her next case, there's nothing to see here people. Move along, keep moving...


This is a typical "perfect crime" thriller. A perfect crime is executed and the investigating police officer, ignoring all the clues, immediately knows who guilty is. The audience has to wait around the whole movie for the guilty to be caught. The result is like every single episode of "Columbo" or "murder she wrote". The director himself refers to the hackney story by showing the police officer watching an episode of Matlock! This story barely fills up 90 minutes but the director insists on using all 120 minutes filling with every cliche in the book. Skip this one, you are not missing anything.


An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do.

Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending.


People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.


When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.


Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.

*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.

There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.

In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders.


As a poker enthusiast I was looking forward to seeing this movie - Especially as it had Scotty Nyugen in it.

Basically, Scotty Nyugens short spots in this film are all it has going for it.

The characters are unlikeable and annoying, the soundtrack is awful and the plot, well, there isn't one.

I honestly got a headache and found myself reading the barcode number on the DVD box after twenty minutes I was THAT bored. Its actually ashame that Nyugen was in this movie as otherwise I wouldn't have wasted $16 buying it off Ebay.

Take it from me - AVOID like 7 2 offsuit!!! Dire. :(


The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun.

The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.


This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?


With this film, Bunuel manipulates the viewer with all of film's might while stating clearly in the film that his work is one of 'objectivity'. Obviously, it is not. For one reason, many scenes 'shot by pure chance' are obvious set-ups (when that poor goat 'accidently' falls off the cliff, you can actually see the gun smoke on the right of the screen!). For another, his concealing of one important information: the Hurdes people were the way they were for a specific reason which is just hinted at in the film. That is, goitre, a sickness caused by lack of iodine (salt). This goitre is the cause of their cretinism and had Bunuel only took the time to make his research (heck, if he checked 'cretinism' in a medical dictionary he'd have found 'goitre') he MIGHT have ended up telling the truth about these people (still, doubtfully). Instead, with his film, he judges them constantly, talking about them as 'cretins', again and again, dramatizing the action, setting-up scenes to create the spectacle, all of this very unacceptable for a documentarist which claims to work for an all-mighty objectivity. Bunuel talks all the time in this film, not letting one word to the people he is filming. He talks FOR them and, even then, JUDGES them. This piece is flawed to it's roots, to it's ideology and it's a real shame it's considered a great film.


One of the lamer wedding movies you'll see. Smacks too too much of its time period so it was out of date before it hit the theaters. The ethnic stereotypes are like a Henny Youngman joke, except they just aint in the least bit funny here. Molly Ringwald, well what else needs to be said. Give you a clue to the silliness, she destroys a $10,000 wedding dress, because "It just won't be me" makes it into this rag, with straps and puts on a top hat, and everyone smiles cutely at her moxy, rather than ringwalding her neck. Its a helluva a cast too, check out how heavy Ally Sheedy is. Wheeeew!


Dull, flatly-directed "comedy" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.

One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.


After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER.

I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country.


I saw this movie years ago, and I was impressed... but then again I was only 12 years old. I recently re-watched it and want that time back. This film is pretty bad. While I like Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace (watch My Bodyguard (1980)if you would like to see a GOOD movie that he was in... of Meatballs (also starring Bill Murray) for some laughs), and Burgess Meredith, this role does/did nothing for their careers.

Anyway, Lee Majors character, Franklyn Hart, is an ex- race car driver who plans on driving his race car (which he had in storage) across the country to California. One Problem: The government has outlawed all private transportation. I thought the concept was OK (not the worse I've heard of), but the execution failed horribly.


This juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.

The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).

Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.

This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.

The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.

Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.

The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.

Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank.


Stupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.


Where's Michael Caine when you need him? I've seen most of the many seasons of MST3K, but this rare pre-1st season flick (episdoe K-20) is easily one of the worst movies ever made. Three "stars", Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace and Burgess Meredith, struggle through the worst batch of cinematography ever, delivering lines which must have been written by a secret Dick Cheney-style workgroup composed of Exxon and GM lawyers trying to cut funding for mass transit and energy efficiency research. Looks like it was filmed in almost total darkness, possibly on Super 8. Makes Logan's Run look like the cinematic Sistine Chapel crossed with Shakespeare. I can't imagine watching it without the commentary of Crow and Servo since it's unwatchable even with it. Clearly what's needed in Hollywood is some sort of 401K which prevents the need for actors to take on bad movies like this in order to pay for their health care. With its "rights to pollute and drive" theme, by the end, I'm half expecting to see a Charlton Heston cameo where he delivers his "cold dead hands" speech. Lee, I could have forgiven you for this in 1989, but 1981?


Way back in 1967, a certain director had no idea about a galaxy, far away or near. He was trying to complete a movie with the title THX etc. this short is a remanufactured history of a certain George. i am sorry it has only cuteness to defend it. This is merely an advertising promo for the director, actors, et. al. It has little intrinsic artistic value. It is a brochure. The lead playing George, is very fine, as is the Leia character, and the ersatz Darth character. All else is plain commercial dross. What a waste. Still, it got the job done I guess. The rest of the movie is merely treading water to kill time I guess. a brochure only.


For months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, "It's Animal House meets Back to the Future"; "It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society"; or "Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.


This is one very dire production. The general consensus has always been that while Princess Margaret may have been spoilt and pampered and may have revelled in the excess of luxury at her disposal, she was a very beautiful young woman. Here was the production's weakest point, the actress failed to get that across. It also appeared that the production budget couldn't stretch to a hairdresser - from the outset, the hair on the Princess Margaret character had a permanent birds nest in disarray look and looked as if she had been dragged through a bush. The actor playing the Duke of Edinburgh appeared to have prepared for his role by watching Rory Bremner imitate Prince Charles and was farcical.

The production was a flaw ridden, cliché ridden, embarrassing load of rubbish. I think all Daily Mail readers deserve a free DVD copy for Christmas!


Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*

It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.

The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.


This movie is so bad it's funny. It stars Scott Backula as some coach, but that's not important, what is important is the large black fellow who plays 1st base. First off he has to be at least 75 years old, yet still plays minor league baseball, second he starts out the movie in the outfield despite not being able to walk, let alone run. Coach Backula brilliantly moves him to first citing the fact that when he attempts to run he stays in the same place for too long a period of time. Backula shows more brilliant coaching strategy in the end of the film, (SPOILER), he tells his star player "downtown" to hit a home run, clearly "downtown" viewed this as a good move. He hit the home run and won the game for his team, a minor league squad playing the Twins who were the class of the majors in the movie. Now if only Tony Muser, manager of the Royals, would be as smart a coach as Backula and tell his players to simply hit a home run in every at bat, the Royals would never end an inning let alone lose a game.


This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk.


How did I ever appreciate this dud of a sequel? All it does is throw balls! Worst of all, it doesn't compare to even the first installment of the series! The comedy suffers from not being funny. Where did all the unintentional laughter go? Enough slapstick on-the-field action goes on too long. Bob Uecker literally saved this one from a complete nine-inning shutout. What's next, MAJOR LEAGUE 4: RETURN TO THE LITTLE LEAGUE? Ehh, could be! Leave this one on the shelf and plan a trip to the All-Star Game. This one's had three strikes too many.


This is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen, the poor special effects along with the poor acting are just a few of the things wrong with this film. I am fan of the first two major leagues but this one is lame!


MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) ½*

Starring: Scott Bakula, Eric Bruskotter, Corbin Bernsen, Dennis Haysbert, Jensen Daggett, Written and directed by John Warren 100 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some violence)

By Blake French:

	Believe it or not, in the new John Warren comedy "MAJOR LEAGUE: BACK TO THE MINORS" there is one funny scene. It consists of a sequence where an infuriated coach throws a baseball hard into the wall behind him only to have it hit the cement and bounce back and smash him in the face. It's not much, but with the exception of a few one-liners, it's all this film has to offer...enough said.

This movie is not only structurally impaired, characteristically undeveloped, predictable and badly written, but also just plain bad. Even non-critical audience members will hate this movie with all that they got. It is so familiar it just isn't funny.

How many times does the same movie about sports have to be made? Last years we saw this same material in "Air Bud: Golden Receiver," and as bad as that film was, this is even worse. At least "Air Bud" was family oriented. "Major League Back to the Minors" is too vulgar for a wholesome family to view together on a Sunday afternoon. It is too childish for adults. So who is this film for? Teenagers? Elderly? People who are so desperate for entertainment they would rent something like this?

	The film, like many others like this, has one basic point it tries to make: teamwork conquers all. Yes it does, and what a great moral to try to prove. Too bad we have already seen and excepted it so many times over and over have such little talent and intelligence that their cheerleaders are men in a ballerina costumes. Where the silly announcers form their own "buddy comedy routine" muttering one liners to themselves like "They suck," "This kids fast ball is timed with an hour glass," "This guy dropped out of ball for a while to find something he lost--maybe it was his mind," "Somebody needs a nap," and "ever see a sunset as beautiful as that play." Where the characters have such little significance to each other that we never know them by name. And where the only heartfelt lecture scene about teamwork is so unknowledgeable that it is almost funny.

	"Major League Back to the minors" is so bad; it stalls its trite ending right in the middle of a good closing sequence. The good baseball team is on a comeback, they are about to win and--the power goes out. I was thinking for a minute that this piece of trash had come to a conclusion, but in reality, its false final scene exists only to add minutes to the running time. The movie basically consists of a series of unrelated sketches that throw in so many putrid jokes it is are not funny. There is another kind-of-funny line of dialogue that has a coach and a player talking to each other about why a long time outfielder is not wanted in that position any longer. The coach's answer: "You're too old, too slow, and too fat." The player's reaction is to die for. But that scene certainly does not make this movie noteworthy of you time, and certainly is not worth a cent of your money.

So here is another dreadful entrée into this genre of film, another that is doomed with its own script, which is failed before seen, and another which is so familiar it seems like deja vu all over again.


Couldn't go to sleep the other night. So I got up, flipped on the tube & this movie was on.

Film makers bit off more than they could chew. Just as ambitious in scope as "Forrest Gump" was. But Gump read like an fairy-tale where an extraordinarily lucky man guides us through the era. TGMB just relies on tired clichés to tell the story. Almost like a Broadway musical where actors have to ham it up. Every character's purpose was to fill a silly 60's archetype.

Take how we're introduced to Finnegan: Hugging his black maid & receiving a framed picture of MLK. Criminey, talk about heavy-handed. Why not just give him a t-shirt saying "I Heart Black People"?

Sunshine: "Isn't free love groovay, man? Oh no, I didn't have my period."

Mary Beth: "I want to go to Berkeley, not square UCLA." Uh, excuse me? There was nothing square about LA in the 60s. Rather than take the time to demonstrate what made Berkeley unique, we just hear this brat whine about not going there.

Can't even remember the black kid's name. He was just a prop used to show how racially tolerant the other kids are.

Thing is, period pieces don't have to be this cheesy. Take "Dazed & Confused." Look how we're introduced to the football hero, Randall Floyd. We don't first see him on the football field. In fact, we never see him play football. We're introduced to him in class, inviting his nerdish poker buddies to a party.

In "Dazed" feminism isn't a casual by-product of some chick getting knocked up. It's much more organic, more serious than that. It's refined in the ladies' room over a flip discussion about Gilligan's Island. Serious ideas can grow in the most mundane settings. But real life is like that.

Some of the warm comments here note that the themes in this movie are still relevant. I agree! Which is why I feel so disappointed by this piece of Baby-Boomer pornostalgia.


I saw this back in '94 when it was finally released. Apparently because Orion pictures was in bankruptcy, I think, the movie had not been released a couple of years earlier.

I have problem remembering details partly because I haven't seen it in a long time, but I do remember it as a very dull movie. I kept debating whether to walk out of it. The store was not at all interesting or engaging. Was a 3rd rate America Graffiti imitation.

None of the performances make it worth watching either. One of the biggest disappointments since a local newspaper reviewer gave it a high rating.


No wonder most of the cast wished they never made this movie. It's just plain ridiculous and embarrassing to watch. Bad actors reading cheesy lines while shiny classic showroom cars continuously circle a diner that looks more like a Disneyland attraction. Students fist-fight with the deranged principal as he tries to stop them from setting fire to a bronze civil war statue. The Watts riots with a cast of...ugh...10?? Dermot Mulroney tries not to gag while he makes out with a Mary Hartman look-alike with the most annoying smile since 'Mr. Sardonicus'. Noah Wyle reads Bob Dylan lyrics to the wicked teacher with a swinging pointer and very bad face lift. Drunken virgin Rick Schroder sits in a kiddie rocket on his last night before entering the service. Silly, giggling school girls dress up in leopard stretch pants and walk on the set of 'Shindig', sing horribly off key, and actually make it big in the music business. And who wrote this compelling dialog?: "I'm going to Burkley and wear flowers in my hair"...."I think I found someone to buy Stick's woody!"...."These people are 'animals'!" "These people are my 'family'! as the Shirelles sing "Mama Said". Oh brother, What a mess. This is like a 'Reefer Madness' of the 60's except it's not even funny.


When I spotted that Noah Wyle and Ricky Schroder were in the same movie, I was like, score! I admit, I was eager to see the movie. And I have to say, the first fifteen minutes or so were nostalgic in a way. Then it went all down hill. I didn't expect it to be a dump of politically correct civil rights mumbo jumbo. They took every possible controversial topic and threw it into one stupid story. I was appalled that Noah was involved in anything of the sort, especially his role. Nobody with a fully functional brain would actually accept all that crap about the Vietnam War. If anyone really wants to know how Communism was like, sit down and read a book on it. And not one that praises it or is against it, just the cold hard facts.

I only watched a few scenes here and there only because I wanted to see Ricky's body, but that was all that interested me. Everything else about this movie irritated me.


Comparison with American Graffiti is inevitable so save your money and time by renting that timeless classic. Speaking of timeliness, there was an episode of Cheers where Norm and Cliff competed on who can find the most anachronism in a movie. They would have loved this movie everything from some of the songs and some of the clothing were wrong. There were sly reference such as 'they paved paradise to put up a parking lot'. The filmmakers hoped to elicit some smiles from us but basically made me groan.

The characters in this movie are incredibly politically and socially astute for teenagers. Almost as smart as the people who were in their thirties and forties when they wrote the darn movie. Very little of what the characters said were believable. Combine the bad writing and bad acting this movie just totally fail. Although, there were two exceptions Kelli Williams liven things up as the future flower child and, despite what another reviewer said, Rick Shroeder was quite good. Showing that brooding characteristic that would come to full boil in his eventual appearance in "N.Y.P.D. Blues".


The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined?

Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.

Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


It's 1978, and yes obviously there are too many black players on the teams as well! Fans will be upset and certainly the 75,000 seats will be full, only less happy there are so many black players on the field! This made for TV Super Bowl movie is watchable. It's not much more, but it's really surprising the cast of talented actors that make an appearance (for the time), probably most notably Tom Selleck. Unfortunately any goodness Selleck brings to the screen, is quickly trumped by "actors" like Dick Butkus.

It's a silly story about super bowl betting. PJ Jackson is charged by "New York" (read mafia) for ensuring the game ends for their favor, in this case a $10,000,000 bet. PJ is innocent enough, and seems to have a loose grasp by buying off a few people here and there. But things seem to fall apart for him. Another person, the unsuspected Lainie, takes charge. For a while, the mystery of murders isn't known for certain, but is revealed rather plainly at the final murder that Lainie is the new antagonist.

It's a bad movie, but is watchable. The acting is decent, and the filming is OK. At least there weren't any silly typical 70s car chases (they have their place just not here). Just keep an open mind about past stereotyping and the cocaine era and you'll survive.

2/10 (maybe a 2.5)


Superdome is one of those movies that makes you wonder why it was made. The whole plot concerns someone trying to sabotage the superbowl, and all the attempts made to stop them. How Tom Selleck and Donna Mills' careers managed to survive this is beyond me. However, the most frustrating thing about it was THERE WAS NO FOOTBALL IN IT AT ALL! Avoid this one if possible.


This TV movie goes to show that bad films do exist. The only reason I saw this was it was covered on a KTMA MST3K. It's Super Bowl at the Superdome in New Orleans. However, no football is played whatsoever and we see the behind the scenes look at basically nothing. With the many stars in this film, it made no difference. I really don't know why I watched this.


If he wanted to be accurate, he should have chosen some Frisco natives and not a bunch of NY actors who know nothing about the Sucka Free (not Sucker Free). I've lived in SF my entire life, and folks here do not talk or act the way these actors did. Everything was over-dramatized, and the only cat I saw from the Bay was JT the Bigga Figga with his little cameo as a rapper. No shock that he was the only one in the film who really dressed like cats out here (ie his Warriors jersey). Not once did I notice anyone wearing any Giants or 9ers gear; instead he fitted them in some cheesy made-up SF or Oakland jerseys that aren't even sold around here. HP has no bowling alleys, black and Asian gangbangers do NOT wear head or wristbands with the colors of Africa or China's Olympic team, nor does every Chinese gangster wear a Yao Ming jersey and try and sound black while shooting hoops. Further, while there now is a significant yuppie community that has invaded the Mission, all that was shown was some white dude and a self-proclaimed "100% West Coast Boriqua." This is NOT New York! Puerto Ricans here are few and far between, and the Latinos in the Mission are very, very different from the ONE that was shown here, who was without a doubt from NY. Also, HP is not the only black neighborhood in the City. An accurate depiction would have shown the drama between HP sets in their own hood as well as vs. Fillmore, Sunnydale, Lakeview, etc.

This film could've been much better if Lee had done some more homework and had a better storyline to work with.


San Francisco is a big city with great acting credits. In this one, the filmmakers made no attempt to use the city. They didn't even manage the most basic of realistic details. So I would not recommend it to anyone on the basis of being a San Francisco movie. You will not be thinking "oh, I've been there," you will be thinking "how did a two story firetrap/stinky armpit turn into a quiet hotel lobby?" Some of the leads used East Coast speech styles and affectations. It detracts, but the acting was always competent.

The stories seemed to be shot in three distinct styles, at least in the beginning. The Chinatown story was the most effective and interesting. The plot is weak, ripped scene for scene from classy Hong Kong action movies. The originals had a lot more tension and emotional resonance, they were framed and paced better. But the acting is fun and we get to see James Hong and other luminaries.

The white boy intro was pointless. I think the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it, so they left it loosely structured and cut it down. The father is an odd attempt at a Berkeley liberal - really, folks, everyone knows it's not "groovy" to live in the ghetto - but his segments are the most humorous. They threw away some good opportunities. Educated and embittered on the West Coast, a yuppie jerk here is a different kind of yuppie jerk than they make in New York. They are equally intolerable but always distinguishable. That would have been interesting; this was not.

The Hunter's Point intro was the most disappointing. It was the most derivative of the three, and stylistically the most distant from San Francisco. You've seen it done before and you've seen it done better. Even the video game was better!

Despite the generic non-locality and aimless script, these characters have potential, the actors have talent, and something interesting starts to force its way around the clumsy direction... about ten minutes before the ending. Good concept placed in the wrong hands.

PS, there is a missing minority here, see if you can guess which one.


I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.


When thinking of the revelation that the main character in "Bubble" comes to at films end, I am reminded of last years "Machinist" with Christian Bale. The only difference between the two films is the literal physical weight of the characters.

An understated, yet entirely realistic portrayal of small town life. The title is cause for contemplation. Perhaps, we, the audience are the ones in the "Bubble" as we are given no payoffs in the films slim 90 minute running time. Audience reactions were often smug and judgmental, clearly indicating how detached people can be from seeing any thread of humanity in characters so foreign to themselves. These characters are the ones people refer to as those that put George W. back in office for a second term.

It's sobering to consider how reality television has spoiled our sense of reality when watching an audience jump to their feet for the exit as soon as the credits role. This film has it's merits, and is deserving of consideration for the things it doesn't say outright.


This film was recommended to me by a friend who lives in California. She thought it was wonderful because it was so real, "Just the way people in the Ohio Valley are!" I'm from the area and I experienced the film as "Just the way people in California think we are!" I've lived in Marietta and Parkersburg and worked minimum wage jobs there. We laughed a lot, we bonded with and took breaks with people our own age; the young people went out together at night. The older people had little free time after work because they were taking care of their families. The area is beautiful in the summer and no gloomier in the winter rain than anywhere else.

Aside from the "if you live in a manufactured home you must be depressed" condescension, the story lacked any elements of charm, mystery or even a sense of dread.

Martha's character was the worst drawn. It's doubtful that anyone so repressed would have belonged to a church, but if she had, she probably would have made friends there. I've read reviews that seem to assume Martha was jealous of Rose because Rose was "younger, prettier and thinner" but if this is the case it isn't shown. All we actually see is Martha learning to dislike Rose for reasons that would apply just as much if the three friends had been the same age and gender. We see Martha feeling left out during smoking sessions, left out of the loop when social plans are made, used but not appreciated, and finally disrespected and hurt.

Just one more thing: Are we supposed to suspect Kyle of murder because he had once had a few panic attacks? Please. This takes stigma against mental illness to a new level.


I really didn't expect much from this film seeing as it has people from Parkersburg WV, which is were I live, acting in it. This town is dull and so is this film. There were a few decent scened in the movie but I was distracted by all the crappy landmarks they made a point to show. This movie may have been good if there was actual acting in it but there wasn't any. Unless you are from Parkersburg and are interested in seeing what you see everyday, then stay away from this movie. The dialog will put you to sleep, the acting will bore you to tears and Steven Soderberg should lose some credibility after shooting crap like this. Its a predictable movie with no surprises. What you see is what you get and that is a 73 minute tour of Parkersburg West Virginia and Belpre Ohio without a narrator.


A typical Lanza flick that had limited audience appeal with a weak story line that was put together simply to justify Lanza's MGM contract at the time.

As reported by member Lastliberal (above) Grayson could not stand Lanza because of his obscene advances towards her off (and sometimes on) camera. In addition, his gutter mannerism and the continual smell of alcohol in her face during scenes they did together were intolerable. After doing their second (and last) film together, "Toast of New Orleans", the normally quiet Grayson stormed into Louie B. Mayer's office and told him in no uncertain words that she would never work with Lanza again  period. Mayer felt that Grayson was much more valuable to MGM then Lanza, so Grayson's statement stuck. Grayson went on to star in a number of widely received (and far more profitable) musicals with Howard Keel and others. Later in life when asked to compare Lanza and Keel her reply was that there was no comparison between them, and that Keel was great to work with and had much more appeal to the "real people" in the audiences.


More wide-eyed, hysterical 50s hyper-cheerfulness that gives new meaning to anti-social, pathological behaviour. Danza and Grayson will leave you begging for mercy.

It's a shame that all the people involved in the making of this movie are now dead (or in nursing homes). I kinda thought about suing them for torture. As this movie started unleashing its shamelessly aggressive operatic assault onto my poor, defenseless ear-drums, I felt instant, strong pain envelop my entire being. That damn muscular vibrato can shatter Soviet tanks into tiny bits, nevermind glass.

"Why didn't you switch the channel if you didn't like it?", you might ask angrily. Fair point, fair point... The answer is that I wanted to, but the pain was so sudden and excruciating that I fell to the floor, writhing in agony. With my last ounces of energy, I tried to reach the remote but couldn't.

A silly little fisherman with the questionable talent of singing with an annoying opera voice is discovered by Niven, who then proceeds to "pigmalionize" him. Lanza is in love with asymmetrical Grayson, but she predictably treats him with contempt until they finally hook up. This may seem like a rather thin plot, but this noisy movie is so chock-full of singing and music that there is barely any dialogue at all. This movie is RELENTLESS. Forget about torturing hippies and war prisoners with Slayer's "Reign In Blood" (as in a South Park episode). Whatever little conversation there is amongst the silly adults that infest this strange 50s musical world, it's all infantile - as if they were all 6 year-olds impersonating grown-ups. I can only envy people who find movies like this funny. It must be great being easy-to-please: what a world of wonder would open up to me if only I could enjoy any silly old gag as hilarious, gut-busting comedy.

But let's examine this phenomenon, the 50s musical. My best guess is that 50s musicals offered the more day-dreaming idealists among us a glimpse into Utopia or Heaven (depending on whether you're church-going or Lenin's-tomb-going), or at least very cheesy version of these fantasy-inspired places. TTONO is more akin to a representation of Hell, but that's just me. I don't seem to "get" musicals. People talk, there is a story - but then all-of-a-sudden everyone starts singing for about 4 minutes after which they abruptly calm down and then pretend as if nothing unusual happened! When you think about it, musicals are stranger than any science-fiction film.

Worse yet, TTONO (my favourite type of pizza, btw) is not just a 50s musical, but one with opera squealing. Opera is proof that there is such a thing as over-training a voice - to the point where it becomes an ear-piercing weapon rather than a means of bringing the listener pleasure. The clearest example of this travesty is when Lanza and Grayson unite their Dark Side vocal powers for a truly unbearable duet. I tried lowering the volume. I lowered it from 18 to 14. Then from 14 to 10. Then 8. I ended up lowering it to a 1, which is usually so low that it's only heard by specially-trained dogs and certain types of marsupials, and yet I STILL could hear those two braying like donkeys!

Take the scene in the small boat in the river. Danza starts off with one of his deafening, brain-killing tunes, and then... nothing. No animals anywhere to be seen. Even the crocodiles, who are mostly deaf, have all but left. If you look carefully, you might even see the trees change colour, from green to yellow, in a matter of minutes. No, this was not a continuity error, it was plain old torture of the flora. And those trees were just matte paintings! Imagine how real trees would have reacted.

The reason glass breaks when a high C is belched out of the overweight belly of an operatic screamer is not due to any laws of physics relating to waves and frequency, but because glass is only human - hence can take only so much pain before committing suicide through spontaneous self-explosion. I can listen to the loudest, least friendly death metal band for hours, but give me just a minute of a soprano and I get a splitting headache.


i couldn't help but think of behind the mask: the rise of leslie vernon (a massively more amazing film) when watching this because of the realistic feel to it as well as the great innovative idea. this could have been a GREAT film. the acting is...from some of the actors alright. from others...it's downright horrible.

that aside the idea is great and the format is great. the story is pretty good as well, though suffering often from big blows to the logical mind.

nevermind that though right? it IS a horror movie after all.

i really want to see this remade...i really want it to be the fantastic film that it wants to be.

however (and you can't really fault the minds behind the movie for this) this is obviously built upon a shoe string budget. and the fx really hurt the film overall.

great movie. ...if you were to swap out for some better acting and slightly better fx.

whoever wrote it should keep going though, great idea here.


Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.


Its spelled S-L-A-S-H-E-R-S. I was happy when the main character flashed her boobs. That was pretty tight. Before and after that the movie pretty much blows. The acting is like E-list and it's shown well in the movie. Not to mention it is so low budget that Preacherman and Chainsaw Charlie are played by the same person. The whole movie looks like it was shot with a camcorder instead of half way decent film. The only other reason I liked the movie was because Chainsaw Charlie and Doctor Ripper were funny. They said many stupid things that made me laugh. Other than that if you see this movie at Blockbuster do everyone a favor hide it behind Lawnmowerman 2. Anybody that thinks this movie is good should be mentally evaluated.


I have read several good reviews that have defended and critised the various aspects of this film. One thing I see, over and over, is annoyance with Megan, the idealistic political scientist, trying to change the world. I loved her character. Maybe, because I am a 23 year old political science student and I think I'm going to change the world too, so I relate to Megan. Besides, she's cute. She's no super model, but more of a cute girl next door.

OK, so she cried and screamed a lot. It's very dramatic, and seems overdone, but doesn't it fit her character? She goes on that show with the intention of sacrificing her life to prove a point. She thinks people who enjoy such a show are sick. I think she made her argument very well. Of course, being a young naive girl, she is terrified of what she is about to face. I think her acting accurately portrays a young girl showing moral courage despite her overwhelming fear. Furthermore, I think she maintained a certain dignity throughout the film despite the desperate situation she was in.

As for the movie in general, other than Megan, it was pretty much what I expected. It had excellent gore scenes, by micro-budget standards. The plot maybe took a quick thought, hardly any contemplation. It's basically just a dark humorist senseless slasher film, which the name implies. I love the sadism of the doctor. He kept ripping Megan's shirt off, not just for the cause of sleaze (though largely so), but also to torment her, before he kills her. The Chainsaw hick was hilarious. For slasher film lovers, he was probably the best character.

I give this film 4 out of 10. It had a good setting, almost no plot, and a mix of good and terrible acting. I would recommend it for a cheap thrill, but hardly a diamond in the rough that is micro-budget horror.


how can this movie have a 5.5 this movie was a piece of skunk s**t. first the actors were really bad i mean chainsaw Charlie was so retarded. because in the very beginning when he pokes his head into the wooden hut (that happened to be about oh 1 quarter of an inch thick (that really cheap as* flimsy piece of wood) and he did not even think he could cut threw it)second the person who did the set sucks as* at supplying things for them to build with. the only good thing about this movie is the idea of this t.v. show. bottom line DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on this hunk of s**t they call a movie.

rating:0.3


SLASHERS (2 outta 5 stars)

Not really a very good movie... but I did like the idea behind it... and the the filmmakers did make it look pretty good considering the tiny budget they had to work with. The movie is ostensibly an "episode" of a live Japanese reality show that sends several contestants into a sealed off "danger zone" and has three costumed creeps sent after to them to kill them. The survivor, if there is one, wins fame and fortune... everyone else just winds up dead. The main drawback to this movie is that the acting is pretty bad. None of the "real" people seem real at all. The actors playing the killers are kind of fun... because they are portraying cheesy and over-the-top caricatures of popular modern horror movie types... and that's exactly how they would be done if this was an actual show. The movie pretends to be done all in one take... there is one cameraman who follows the contestants around the "danger zone" and everything is seen from the point of view of his camera... but the lights keep flickering on and off constantly (to hide the "cuts" from one take to another, I would imagine).


Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.


It has been said, "a city on hill cannot hide itself" and Virginia City, Nevada, perched on the side of Mt. Davidson at 6200 ft. west of Tahoe, is a prime example, or in the context of the movie, should be. Virginia City exploded in the American dream as a shower of gold and silver, suspiciously the same year the Civil War began. It was the birthplace of the dean of American letters; it was where a young reporter named Samuel Clemens began using the name "Mark Twain" and went on to become America's most famous writer. It was also the birthplace of the great Hearst fortune, and the launching pad of John Mackay, who became the wealthiest man in America, the third wealthiest man in the world. Hey, they should have made the movie about him! In the 1860's Virginia CIty was THE boomtown of all boomtowns, the home of the big bonanza, at one time the largest "metropolitan" area west of St. Louis and East of San Francisco. But Virginia City (the movie) misses all that and is more about a hogwash North/South duello between the characters played by Errol Flynn and Randolph Scott. Flynn is Capt. Kerry Bradford, a Union officer who is a POW in a concentration camp run by a mean Confederate commander named Capt. Vance Irby, played by Scott. These two are always getting in each other's way. Bradford escapes and then tries to stop a shipment of gold bullion being "snuck" out of VC by who else other than . . . Irby! "Hey, what's he doing here!?" Horrible. Bogart plays a laughable Mexican bandit who can't decide who's side he's on. Miriam Hopkins plays a murky character named "Julia Hayne", obviously a historical lunge at the town's first lady, Julia Bulette, who in real life a celebrated prostitute. She goes to Washington and talks Honest Abe about saving BRADFORD (not Irby) from hanging and blah blah blah. Go figure. They shoulda hung the writer. In "real life" Twain reports that on the last day of the War, the setting sun caused the American flag atop Mt. Davidson to appear to the puzzled residents to be weirdly on fire, kind of like the movie. Three days later they discovered that on that day the South capitulated. One interesting quirk in the film is how sidekicks Alan Hale and Guin Williams flick their pistols forward when they shoot, like they're fishing, or trying to make the bullets go faster. Not a bad idea for the movie. The same kind of goofiness is lathered over sap and corn throughout the movie. Gosh, how could they miss the gold madness, profligate wealth, gun battles in the silver mines, Mark Twain getting run out of town and beat up after a showdown, the crooked railroad, the Opera House fire, Artemis Ward, Bulette's huge funeral, the Chinese tongs, the black saloons, the Auction . . ? All this high on a mountain surrounded by desert? The truth was unreal. Did its fabulous wealth actually spark the great American holocaust? Well, if you count this movie, it wouldn't be the first debacle to come out of Virginia City. It's a disappointment for Virginia City fans because it misses what made the town a "city of illusions," where it is said evil seeps out of the ground . . . Okay, other than that it's a fun movie. Flynn and the gang are always great no matter what history they're destroying. If Flynn would just play his rotten self I'd double my rating.