Why is it that a woman cannot be a strong character in a movie without sleeping with the leading man? The campaign manager in this movie dreams of leading Tom Sellick to the White House. It's all she can think about. So, why on earth must she have had an affair with him? It added nothing to the plot and served only to demean successful women. The only value of that tidbit was the cute "we've all slept with your husband" scene.

Also, couldn't the people who made this movie have watched the national conventions they were spoofing? Airing between the two major political conventions only served to highlight their total ignorance of the nomination and selection process.


Dreadful acting. A thinly veiled attempt to slam those on the left side of the aisle.

Women are subjugated and revolve around men. Tom Selleck shows his acting range from A to B.


Another trashy Grade Z quickie from the prolific Albert Pyun. Tim Thomerson´s 13 inch Clint Eastwood-like cop from outer space chases an ugly flying head(!) to Earth and gets involved in a gang war in South Bronx! Mercifully short, but deadeningly dull, with the cheesiest effects since Attack of the 50Ft Woman. They should have fired the continuity guy, too: Note how Thomerson´s sunglasses disappears and reappears in every second shot. Laughably bad, but that´s why we watch these movies, ain´t it? Sequel ´Dollman Vs. Demonic Toys´ is reportedly even worse, if that´s possible.

0 (of ****)


This film is really unbelievable. I've seen so much cheap trash-movies, especially a lot 'Full Moon'-Pictures, but 'Dollman' is really hard. So much comes together: the laughable story, the actors always at the edge of parody and the special effects! How long I could talk about them! It is a really bad movie, but also one of the funniest ones. If you're a fan of bad movies to laugh about, you have to see it. And don't miss 'Dollman vs. Demonic Toys'. It really funnier and worse.


Feh. This movie started out in an interesting manner, but quickly ran the gamut from confusing to dull. The confusing parts happened mostly at the beginning, where the cut scenes are so numerous that its hard to tell just what is going on for the first twenty minutes or so. The dull comes later, with a tepid romance between the two living people(pusses both). The vengeful spirit of the dead girl is actually the most lively person in the film, which is sad. If the rest of the cast had been up to her caliber, the movie might have been better.

Maybe. Because the storyline gets really interesting for awhile, as it appears that the insane priestess mother of the dead sixteen year old girl is trying to resurrect her daughter from the dead, with the decidedly unfortunate side effect that all of the other dead people would come back as well, take on solid human form, and most likely start killing off everybody. A sort of Japanese mystical Night of the Living Dead type thing. But this doesn't come to pass. Even though this hairy unwashed priest with a tiny basket strapped to his head tells the uninteresting young people that this will come to pass if the priestess finishes her ritual, she does just that and the only dead person who manifests is her daughter. No mass rising of the dead, no walking army of corpses, nothing. The priest merely makes the girl's spirit go back to the land of the dead, taking the washed out wuss of a boyfriend with her, as she'd crushed his spine like peanut brittle(at which point I was tempted to cheer loudly, as this idiot went over to kiss and fondle the DEAD girl,,ewwww!!!). The Robitussen sucking, spineless best friend has a long introspective shot at the end as she leaves the village for the last time, and that's it. No real horror, no real creepiness, which the Japanese tend to do far better than American film makers with their emphasis on over-the-top cheesy face make-up, no screaming mimis. I was very disappointed.


As a girl, Hinako moved away from her small village to Tokyo, leaving behind her two best friends, Fumiya and Sayori. She returns as a young woman, surprised to find that Sayori died when she was a teenager. She reunites with Fumiya and they are horrified to learn that Sayori is mysteriously being resurrected via the island of Shikoku. Oh boy. I rented this because I like Asian horror and I think Chiaki Kuriyama a nifty actress. Unfortunately, if I had to describe Shikoku in one word, it would be "fruity." This movie is silly, boring, poorly filmed, unimaginative, and most of all, unscary. Kuriyama has minimal screen time as the resurrected Sayori, and her character is given little to work with.


This quasi J-horror film followed a young woman as she returns to her childhood village on the island of Shikoku to sell the family house and meet up with old friends. She finds that one, the daughter of the village priestess, drowned several years earlier. She and Fumiko (another childhood friend) then learn that Sayori's mother is trying to bring her back to life with black magic. Already the bonds between the dead and living are getting weak and the friends and villagers are seeing ghosts. Nothing was exceptional or even very good about this movie. Unlike stellar J-horror films, the suspense doesn't really build, the result doesn't seem overly threatening and the ending borders on the absurd.

This movie is like plain white rice cooked a little too long so that it is bordering on mushy. Sometimes you get this at poor Asian restaurants or cook your own white rice a little too long. You end up eating it, because you need it with the meal, because what is Chinese or Japanese food without rice, but it almost ruins the meal because of the gluey, gooey tastelessness of it all. 3/10 http://blog.myspace.com/locoformovies


I must say that I am fairly disappointed by this "horror" movie. I did not get scared even once while watching it. It also is not very suspenseful either.... I was able to guess the ending half way through the movie... So.. what's left?

"The Ring" is a trully scary movie... I wish other movies would stop copying from it (e.g. the trade-mark: long hair). Please give me some originality.

Will not recommend this movie.


This was one film i wanted to watch always when it released The promos were eye catching and Govinda in a negative role was a surprise

But the film isn't that good

It has lot of flaws

The start is good and till the murder everything goes well but the film falls flat when the romance track starts between Govinda and Karisma and the songs that follow

Then the twist about Govinda and Tabu being in love leaves more doubts and flaws and then How come Govinda turns into a rich criminal from a poor villager?

The last flashback too is prolonged and also the entire clash between Govinda-Karisma and Tabu

N Chandra disappoints Music is okay, Bahot Khoobsurat stands out

Govinda tries a negative role and does very well in it though he overdoes it too much at times Karisma is good but irritates at times with her cries Tabu is okay Nirmal Pandey still doesn't know the difference between loud screaming and acting rest are okay


i am a big fan of karishma Kapoor and Govinda. I watched this film after i had seen Fiza, which was absolutley brilliant.

There are films that are bad, and there are films that are cr*p. but this film just takes the biscuit.

We were so annoyed that we were conned out of paying our money expecting a decent film.

avoid at all cost, dont even rent it.

1/10


"I went to the movies, to see 'Beat Street' / it wasn't bad, it was kinda' neat / 'Krush Groove' was a flick, that I didn't mind / but when it came to 'Rappin', I drew the line." Word to your mother.

Want me to stop?

That's just a small sample of the stupa-fly style of rhymin' on display in this waste of film and location permits. This movie is seriously wack (thats 80s-speak for just f*cking awful). As an emcee, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of an actor. And as an actor, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of a bodybuilder.

Any film calling itself "Rappin'" had better deliver at that genre's highest standard of the time. So why were 6 year olds rolling in the aisles, even back in the day when standards were so knee-high-to-"Webster"-low? Because this rap is weak. So weak that not even B.E.T. or Comedy Central will touch it with a 10-foot gold-rope chain.

Blondie's "Rapture" is def poetry next to this bit of Dr. Suess in the hood. So don't be a boobie, avoid this movie!


I have copy of this on VHS, I think they (The television networks) should play this every year for the next twenty years. So that we don't forget what was and that we remember not to do the same mistakes again. Like putting some people in the director's chair, where they don't belong. This movie Rappin' is like a vaudevillian musical, for those who can't sing, or act. This movie is as much fun as trying to teach the 'blind' to drive a city bus.

John Hood, (Peebles) has just got out of prison and he's headed back to the old neighborhood. In serving time for an all-to-nice crime of necessity, of course. John heads back onto the old street and is greeted by kids dogs old ladies and his peer homeys as they dance and sing all along the way.

I would recommend this if I was sentimental, or if in truth someone was smoking medicinal pot prescribed by a doctor for glaucoma. Either way this is a poorly directed, scripted, acted and even produced (I never thought I'd sat that) satire of ghetto life with the 'Hood'. Although, I think the redeeming part of the story, through the wannabe gang fight sequences and the dance numbers, his friends care about their neighbors and want to save the ghetto from being torn down and cleaned up.

Forget Sonny spoon, Mario could have won an Oscar for that in comparison to this Rap. Oh well if you find yourself wanting to laugh yourself silly and three-quarters embarrassed, be sure to drink first.

And please, watch responsibly. (No stars, better luck next time!)


Fairly interesting exploitation flick in black and white written by David F. Friedman. The lead actress Stacey Walker is well-cast and strangely attractive. She resembles a deranged Renee Zellweger with a bad hair-do. This chick only made two of these films and then moved back to Texas. The music is terrible. One of her boyfriends is played by Sam Melville (from the TV show THE ROOKIES) using a different name.

Best line in the film from Tony - "Are you putting me on, doll? None of my chicks put me on". Good B/W cinematography from Laslo Kovacs (EASY RIDER & TARGETS & many others). Good locales (cool swimming pool, also used in THE DEFILERS). Strange ending but fitting. A 4 out of 10. Best performance Stacey Walker.


"Paula, I may be a bitch, but I'll never be a butch!"

A hilarious line in an otherwise rather tiresome skin flick which features a pretty honey in Stacey Walker, but that's about all. This gal's a real tease who lures her boyfriends, co-workers and even her lesbian roommate Paula into her bedroom, but then turns into a whack job who cries "rape" and calls for the police!

The schizophrenic personality of this certified c**t is interesting for maybe a little while, but this story ultimately turns into a real repetitive one-note affair. At least the ending is worth the wait, for those who will still care by that time.


I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.

And yes... "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette" and the downright tacky "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it.


While this outing certainly doesn't live up to its predecessor, it does have more than its share of memorable moments. My personal favorite, just after laying waste to a city block with his "Videodisc Cannon," we see a close up of Nimoy's face. As a single tear sheds from his left eye, we know at that point that Nimoy is more than just a killing machine. The viewer can't help but be pulled into his emotional turmoil and we understand that his previously flat affect was only a facade. Absolute brilliance!!! The sex scenes display a nice balance, carnal, but not pornographic. Afterwards, I felt I had a pretty good understanding of how to work the Magnavision Videodisc Player. Too bad they haven't produced them in over 25 years.


Twin brothers separated at birth (Due to the deaths of their parents) reunite twenty five years later to avenge their parents and take back their million dollar tunnel. Double Impact runs at two hours long and basically adds no real approach to the Corsican Brothers plot and Jean-Claude Van Damme while adequate as the evil twin brother is just embarrassing as the good twin brother. Also the action sequences aren't as exciting this time and Jean-Claude relies more on gunfire then on his martial arts. Also the supporting cast is wasted and at two hours the movie is just plain dull.

* out of 4(Bad)


Plot Synopsis: Hong Kong, 1966. Paul Wagner, the man who built the Victoria Tunnel, is murdered along with his wife by his associates. His twin sons, Chad & Alex, are split apart. 25 years later, Chad, a karate instructor in Los Angeles, & Alex, a smuggler living in Hong Kong, join forces to avenge their parents' murder & rightfully claim the tunnel.

This is the second time that Jean-Claude Van Damme & Sheldon Lettich have worked together, having previously done "Lionheart". This is also the first of three films to feature Van Damme playing dual roles ("Maximum Risk" & "Replicant" are the others). The plot is a very simplistic take on the revenge story, the film's sole redeeming feature being Van Damme's performance as two very different people  the prissy rich kid & the rough-&-tumble, cigar chomping tough guy. As it goes, Van Damme doesn't do a very good job in either role, although his take on Alex is mildly amusing. It is puzzling as to have the brothers mistaken for each other, with them wearing different clothes & having different hairstyles. Bolo Yeung makes a very worthy henchman for the baddies.


Normally, I don't like revenge films....PERIOD. But Double Impact has a little more than your typical revenge plot premise. You see, DI has action, accuracy, exotic locales(i.e. Hong Kong), awesome gun battles, and enough martial arts to satisfy your cravings for impressive unarmed combat. Like all revenge flicks, it has villains you'd love to throw out of a plate-glass window on the top floor of a 40-story building! However, Double Impact has none of the sensationalist crap that suffocates the plot and the elitist, racist, and venomous social stereotypes that invaded "Eye for an Eye" and "Death Wish 2".

But in the plot department Double Impact is as transparent as saran wrap. Chad and Alex's parents were killed by a mob hit squad connected to a family friend with money problems or at least that's what I remembered. The explanation of why the boys were talking in French accents is a lousy one. It wasn't the watery plot that made this movie bad, but the use of clichéd lines and moves from other movies (from Lethal Weapon to The Princess Bride) really made it worse. But nonetheless Double Impact is still watchable. But why is that shitty movies like this have villains(for example,that greedy British guy that killed Chad and Alex's parents and that lethal lesbian redhead chick) you would love to hate with fiber of your being?


Please, even if you are in the worst of the moods, refrain from watching this flick.

I don't think whether anything was right with this movie at all. On a friend's recommendation I watched this and I literally flushed 1h and 48 min of my life down the closet. Poor acting, stupid direction, weak storyline and pathetic action sequences - and when you blend this together you get "Double Impact". Even least of the expectations were not met.

I guess I did learn one thing - Never watch Van Damme action flicks. They are pure wastage of time !


I don't see how anyone who even likes Van Damne could like this movie.

The movie actually starts out with some promise. I would say the action scenes at the beginning of the movie is excellent. The actions scenes with the family ward trying to save the twins is a great start and is good lead in to the main story. However, the film is all down hill from there.

It would have been nice if the director could have stayed with the original premise. That is the brothers are born in different parts of the world and thus learn different skills. One brother is supposed to be skilled in Martial Arts, but the other brother is supposed to be skilled in firearms. How convenient when the time arises that the brother who has never picked up a gun before all of the sudden is a great marksman, and the brother who has not been taught any martial arts is all of the sudden doing the splits and high kicks.

The plot, action, etc. are just plain ridiculous. My favorite scenes? How about when Van Damne is confronting an armed soldier with an AK-47. The soldier is about 100 yards away. Instead of aiming and shooting at Van Damne he is doing a war cry like he is wielding a battle axe and running at him. Van Damne proceeds to pick up a pistol from a fallen soldier and shoots him,...while he is still about 75 to 80 yards away.

This movie has one of the most disappointing endings. Bolo Yeung is a skilled martial artist. However, instead of choreographing a decent fight. Bolo is throwing barrels at Van Damne like Donkey Kong. Absolutely aggravating movie that had so much promise. If your a Van Damne fan, save your time and see Hard Target or one of his earlier films.


Gee, what a heck of a movie!... I said I wanted to become a specialist in bad movies from all decades, so I decided to start by this one. It was a pretty adequate choice. I entered this adventure to find some lost gems and uncomprehended masterpieces, but I didn't see anything of the sort in this pastel-coloured mess. I haven't really watched many bad films before, but I've got the feeling this is what's called "so bad that's good", probably because it is so unintentionally damn funny! First of all, there are the inaccuracies. There are plot-related inaccuracies, physical inaccuracies, and also psychological inaccuracies. The latter in particular are as insane as Van Damme's ass cheeks inside that blue spandex. Extremely tacky lines exist too and I won't even start to talk about some of the hilarious action moves. There isn't exactly bad acting from everyone involved in that hot mess of a movie, except in one particular case. Geoffrey Lewis looks completely pathetic as Frank, which is an utterly stupid character. And, to tell the truth, I was actually very surprised to see that Van Damme did a decent job playing the twins. He succeeded in achieving a different tone and mood in the two roles that was convincing to me. But the movie was mostly very bad and the sad part is that it was produced by a major motion picture studio... which is now bankrupt.


Jean-Claude Van Damme plays twin brothers Alex and Chad, both whom are martial arts expert who team up to take down the mobsters responsible for the murder of the parents in this empty headed martial arts actioner which doesn't have a plot that would make better use of the gimmick of having two Jean-Claude Van Dammes. Some okay actionscenes, but this is not one of Van Damme's best.


I would of enjoyed this film but Van Damme just does the same old same old rubbish time after time. Poo knickers fight scenes as per usually. The only thing this loser left out was the Russians normally end up being killed in the end. This film is utter doggy do do of the highest nature, please please please Van Damme get some acting lessons, you need them. Anyone who likes Van Damme has issues, It seems sad that the only way Van Damme ever gets any acting work is when he co writes the film, co produces the film and does the screen play for the film. AVOID VAN DAMME AND HIS SLICKED BACK NASTY WIG. I give this film a two out of ten, because the one with the the sandman was better. To add insult to injury I wasted a quid on this manure


I suppose if you like pure action... you'll find it here. I suppose if you find a gorgeous blonde designed to be screwed... find it here. I suppose if you want to find a couple of extra baddies, headed by 1-2 extra, EXTRA baddy bosses who meat a nasty end... you'll find it here.

Overall, routine stuff, and the good guys come out on top big time under extra-ordinary circumstances.

What I marvel most at... How the good guys armed only with pistols, can kill dozens of bad guys with machine guns who are shooting at them at point blank range... and missing. The goodies even get time to reload their pistols amid the hail of machine guns bullets.

Ho-hum!!!


Well, it was funny in spots. This film is a 4 or maybe a 3. Its a film that sits on the video shelf and gathers dust. Rent this one after you seen everything else. Beats boredom, but not by that much. My wife like like this film better then I do, maybe its not that bad.


I've written at least a half dozen scathing reviews of this abysmal little flick and none get published, so I must opine that someone at imdb.com really likes this awful movie. The idea that a bunch of oilmen can resurrect a military tank that has set in the desert for over a decade, and make a fighting machine of it again is ludicrous. So is the acting and direction. Pass on it.


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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


After having watched Koyaanisqatsi two or three dozen times and loving every second of it, I finally had a chance to see it's sequel Life In Transformation. I was truly dissappointed as it did not nearly stand up to the high standards of the first. 90 minutes of people with baskets on their head is not my idea of a good movie. The Philip Glass score for this one had neither the beauty nor the correlating strength of the first. Compared with Koyaanisqatsi this movie seemed slow and pointless. A watered down version of Baraka, which is the same idea but done better. I truly hope the third movie in this series will not follow the example of this waste.


I should have trusted my instincts better: No expectations - no disappointments. Instead, however, I expected to experience a similar masterpiece like Koyaanisqatsi (1983) and was brutally disappointed. Powaqqatsi is in my humble opinion nothing but a cheap attempt to cash in on the cult success of its predecessor, and - artistically - it fails miserably. It appears some producer gathered up leftover material from Koyaanisqatsi, hurriedly threw it together, placed everything in slow motion and got some pop entertainer under the pseudonym of Philip Glass to hurriedly throw together some banal background music, which is incessantly repeated. Where Koyaanisqatsi entertains the viewer with clever fast and slow motion changes, Powaqqatsi is one long sequence of mundane images in slow-motion (if you view them on your VCR in fast preview mode, you'll see what I mean). What disappointed me the most, however, was Philip Glass's soundtrack. I couldn't - and still can't - believe that these commercial-sounding New Age type drones, which could easily have been composed in one afternoon by any 14-year-old on a Casio calculator, were from the same composer who so brilliantly composed the emotional and perfectly-synchronized music for Koyaanisqatsi. All in all, a big waste of time! My advice: Forget commercialism! Watch Koyaanisqatsi again instead!


Drones, ethnic drumming, bad synthesizer piping, children singing. The most patronizing "world music" imaginable. This is a tourist film, and a lousy one. What really kills it is the incoherent sequences. India, Egypt, South America, Africa, etc, etc. No transitions, no visual explanation of why we're suddenly ten thousand miles away, no ideas expressed in images. Just a bunch of footage of third-worlders with "baskets on their heads" as another reviewer said. Walking along endlessly as if that had some deep meaning. If these guys wanted to make a 3rd World music video, all they had to do was head a few hundred miles south of where the best parts of Koya were shot, and film in Mexico. That would have been a much better setting for "life in transformation."

But no. What they decided on was a scrambled tourist itinerary covering half the globe and mind-deadeningly overcranked filter shots. The only thing to recommend this film is that it doesn't suck quite as much as Naqoyqatsi.

RstJ


It was a good story, but not very well told. I liked the themes and the main story line, which wasn't as clear as it could have been. Maybe there was too much going on and a lack of ability to reign it all in. The acting was okay to cheesy, some were stronger than others and even the stronger actors had their moments of lesser quality acting. It took me a couple of months to get through the entire movie because it didn't keep my attention and the flow was just bad. I only just finished watching it and I'm glad I did as the movie finally gets moving and has some continuity toward the end. Again, a good story, but the delivery was sub par. Would recommend it for the story line and maybe a little eye candy, and I do mean, a little.


This foolish, implausible tale is redeemed only by the opening scene in which a hard-boiled police detective delivers some nearly-audible lines confirming our greatest fears: He is dead. Perhaps the film would have been saved had the director forgone the dazzling star power of A. Martinez in favor of this sadly-anonymous actor who filled the screen for a brief moment. That a no-name hack-tor off the street could salvage such a dishwater film is no less likely than a villain committing murder by dropping stones into a quarry for an unsuspecting diver. His moment is brief; his promise is immense. Perhaps we will be treated to more screen time by this obscure thespian if there is ever a sequel to this ill-advised film.


in this movie, joe pesci slams dunks a basketball. joe pesci...

and being consistent, the rest of the script is equally not believable.

pesci is a funny guy, which saves this film from sinking int the absolute back of the cellar, but the other roles were pretty bad. the father was a greedy businessman who valued money more than people, which wasn't even well-played. instead of the man being an archetypal villain, he seemed more like an amoral android programmed to make money at all costs. then there's the token piece that is assigned to pesci as a girlfriend or something...i don't even remember...she was that forgettable.

anyone who rates this movie above a 5 or 6 is a paid member of some sort of film studio trying to up the reputation of this sunken film, or at least one of those millions of media minions who can't critique efficiently (you know, the people who feel bad if they give anything a mark below 6).

stay away...far away. and shame on comedy central, where i saw this film. they usually pick better.


Profanity, stupidity, self-indulgence, and bad acting all join forces for a true tour de force in terrible movie-making. Pesci's attempt to prove My Cousin Vinny was no fluke, shows the opposite instead. He is generally too lightweight and foulmouthed to handle the lead. A true must-miss!


I have to say that there is nothing wrong with low budget films, so that was not my problem with it. My problem with it is that I felt like I was watching my next door neighbor's home movie. IMO everything about it just seemed like a guy wrote out a quick story, grabbed a camera, and started shooting. I understand how hard this must be to do effectively, but when I pay to rent a film, I expect to feel like I am watching some type of professionally made movie.

John Schneider has a huge resume, is a great actor, and was fine in this film. The other people in it were not. I understand how it must be fun, and cheaper to use friends, and relatives as the cast, but it doesn't make for convincing acting. It seemed like the way it was shot, he was trying to give many of the scenes a more interesting look, but when the writing, plot, and acting are there to begin with, that type of style isn't necessary, and it is a distraction.

Also on a technical level, it had digital artifacts all over the place. In the first scene of all of those fine cars, when they did a slow scan of them, they appeared to jerk back and forth just a little bit. The problem isn't in my viewing equipment, (Benq PE-8700 84" diagonal) but somewhere in the production. I've never seen that kind of artifact in a professionally made film before. Then there was the sound. It sounded like they didn't do any voice-overs, which may be o.k. unless it sounded like the track in this film. It sounded like the built in microphone on the camera.


The eight Jean Rollin film I have watched is also possibly the weirdest; the intriguing plot (such as it is) seems initially to be too flimsy to sustain even its trim 84 minutes but it somehow contrives to get inordinately muddled as it goes along! A would-be female vampire (scantily-clad, as promised by the title) is held in captivity inside a remote château and emerges only to 'feast' on the blood of willing victims (who are apparently members of a suicide club) As if unsure where all of this would lead him, the writer-director ultimately has the human villain  actually the blank-faced hero's kinky father  ludicrously revealed as a mutant(?!) from the future! The languorous pace and dream-like atmosphere (the cultists wear hoods and animal masks to hide their features from the sheltered girl) are, of course, typical of both the film-maker (ditto the seashore setting at the {anti}climax) and the "Euro-Cult" style, as are the bevy of nubile beauties on display. Personally, the most enjoyable thing about the whole visually attractive but intellectually vacuous affair was watching familiar character actor Bernard Musson (who appeared in six latter-day Luis Bunuel films) crop up bemusedly through it from time to time!


French director Jean Rollin isn't exactly known for great films, and this confusing mess is one of the reasons why. One of the most confusing things about this production is the title. For a director who is well known for directing erotic films about lesbian vampires; you would expect a film with the word 'nude' in the title to be a particularly bare-breasted one; but in fact, there's not a lot of nudity here at all. Instead of erotic lesbian vampires with no clothes on; we've got a cumbersome plot about a man who wants to unlock the secret to immortality, a young woman whose affliction might hold the key and a suicide cult, who don't get to do much. The film starts off promisingly with a sequence that sees a young girl carried off by a mysterious bunch of people in masks under the watchful eye of a young French man, who also happens to be the son of a man of importance. Through his investigation, he soon discovers that this woman is not just a normal lady, and as he delves deeper into the cult; he discovers that cannot be killed by bullets, drinks blood and can't go out in daylight...sounds like a clear cut case of vampirism to me.

Jean Rollin keeps the fantasy atmosphere going throughout the film, but it fails to be interesting because the plot is so badly executed. It is possible to keep up with what's going on, but only because there's so many other films that follow similar plots to this one. The director seems to know that he's messed up the plotting too, as the climax is basically an excuse to explain the film to the audience. There is a twist thrown in at the end also; but the film would have been better without it. I guess this was Jean Rollin's attempt to be a little original, but it comes off as a ham-fisted attempt at such, rather than a logical continuation of the story. The cinematography is fairly neat, with lots of the plot taking place in suitably Gothic locations. The girls on board complete what is a pretty picture, and what Rollin's film lacks in logic and consistency, it somewhat makes up for in style. In the film's defence, it was made in 1969; which somewhat explains the lack of shocks but I can't recommend this movie as it doesn't have much about it that is worth taking note of.


Jean Rollin artistic nonsense about vampires, aliens and the quest for immortality.

The women are beautiful and the photography stunning. The dialog is inane. Its a laughable mess. Great to look at but as any semblance of a horror film or thriller purely awful. I'm trying to figure out if we're suppose to be scared or not. At the same time is it a put on or not? Its an odd mix of art film and horror that never quite meshes and while its nice to look at it never seems to "mean" anything, and its by no means scary even if the occasional shot or sequence creates a moment of frisson Its well made pretentious twaddle. Something to leave on in the background as a living wall paper for those who like naked women.


from the start of this movie you soon become aware that the name of the film has nothing to do with the movie itself from watching a naked woman being chased by people in very silly masks to servants running round in the worst clothing I've ever seen and all this in subtitles makes this the kind of movie you should think twice about seeing and as the film slowly moves along you soon realise that the vampire is not a vampire you got to wonder where the title came from some parts of the film made a bit of sense with Pierre and is father but as the film gets to its really silly ending you have got to think why end a film this way and surly they had a better ending if only in there heads this is not a film to watch basically


When I first saw this film in cinema 11 years ago, I loved it. I still think the directing and cinematography are excellent, as is the music. But it's really the script that has over the time started to bother me more and more. I find Emma Thompson's writing self-absorbed and unfaithful to the original book; she has reduced Marianne to a side-character, a second fiddle to her much too old, much too severe Elinor - she in the movie is given many sort of 'focus moments', and often they appear to be there just to show off Thompson herself.

I do understand her cutting off several characters from the book, but leaving out the one scene where Willoughby in the book is redeemed? For someone who red and cherished the book long before the movie, those are the things always difficult to digest.

As for the actors, I love Kate Winslet as Marianne. She is not given the best script in the world to work with but she still pulls it up gracefully, without too much sentimentality. Alan Rickman is great, a bit old perhaps, but he plays the role beautifully. And Elizabeth Spriggs, she is absolutely fantastic as always.


To be honest, I didn't like "Executive Decision" - which was obvious the template - very much, but compared to this piece of crap, it looks like a masterpiece of art.

Not only that the people moving in the film (the term actors would be an insult for all other actors) should attend more acting classes, the guy who build the setting hasn't even seen an aircraft from afar. It is so ridiculous, that on a 747 only 3 flight attendance are aboard, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The film is full of illogicalness (e.g.: use sleeping-gas, then don't use it, then use it anyway), which dropped my rating finally to the bottom.

You can have more fun in rearranging you sock drawer or in drilling a hole in your knee and fill it with milk.


One Stinko of a movie featuring a shopworn plot and, to be kind, acting of less than Oscar caliber. But to me the single worst flaw was the total misrepresentation of a jet aircraft, and especially a 747. Some of the major blunders:

1. No Flight Engineer (or even a flight engineer station. 2. Mis-identifying the F-16 interceptors as F-15's (no resmblance whatsoever). 3. Loading passengers into an "aft baggage compartment" supposedly accesible from the cabin - Even if such a compartment existed, placing that much weight that far aft would make the aircraft unflyable. 4. Hollow point bullets that "won't damage the aircraft". 5. The entire landing procedure was so bad I wanted to puke. 6. An SR-71 (of all planes) with a pressure seal hatch 7. Opening a cabin door outward - into the wind - in flight!!

Ah nuts, it was just a truly lousy movie. Gotta make the list of bottom 10 of the year.


What a complete piece of trash. Plot notwithstanding, when a movie's action revolves around airplanes, you'd think the writers/producers/director (or ANYONE!) would do a little bit of homework as to at least a FEW of the details. The mistakes were so glaring that I was fuming by the end of the movie. Here are just a few: I'm glad I missed the SR-71 sequence - certain to have been worse than the "Air Force One" F-117 spectacle. Commercial airlines usually have their logos painted on the aircraft rather than BOEING 747  likely the (cheap) use of some Boeing advertising/publicity footage by the director. Exposed wiring connected by wire nuts is mediocre at best for house wiring, much less multi-million dollar aircraft avionics wiring. Airplanes like the 747 rely on pressure alone rather than ship's supply oxygen to maintain breathable air, and if they did rely on an on-board supply, the canister would be far bigger than fist sized. Medical tape is not a suitable substitute for a threaded hose connection. Those were F-16s, NOT F-15s. Mach 1+ (speed of sound) would be difficult to attain on a static engine run up for takeoff (watch the airspeed indicator). "Standard formation" is simply keeping the formation inside one nautical mile, "route" formation is what they were flying - not the most useful formation for an intercept. "Acquiring missile lock" is not likely to get an airline pilot's attention - they have no radar detection or countermeasures. "Wait for my signal" is not inter-flight communication for preparing to fire anything. Depressurization from a door opening in flight is not grounds for an immediate steep left bank. Yelling into a headset does not make it transmit. Magnetic headings are given as "headings" not "bearings," and headings are between 001 and 360 degrees (compasses in the air are just like compasses on the ground!), so turning left (not "port"  that's a boat thing) from a "bearing" of 618 to 502 is just stupid. It is in most cases impossible to just "turn the yoke left until the correct heading is reached"  that sort of thing will result in 360 degree rolls until the yoke is centered again. The likelihood of a flight attendant immediately finding and successfully engaging the autopilot is only slightly greater than the likelihood of her actually landing the jet safely. Airplanes don't stall immediately upon pulling the throttle back, and 747s have more than one little lever to control the multi-engine thrust. Flaps are lowered in increments usually just prior to and immediately following landing gear extension, not seconds before landing (good way to crash). Wheel brakes are required to stop an airplane, simply pulling the throttle(s) (this time a different lever in the movie) to idle will just allow you to go off the end of the runway at a slower speed. Did I mention that those fighter aircraft were F-16s and NOT F-15s? Guess I did And that's just what I REMEMBER from recently watching this horrific movie.


Spoilers? Maybe a few details, but nothing too plot related. Not like it would matter with this movie.

Air Rage blatantly rips off the mid-air infiltration premise of Executive Decision. Ice-T leads a team of four "elite" commandos who wear baggy black shirts that we can only imagine must conceal invisible body armor as their idiotic tactics (similar to what 3rd graders use when playing Star Wars on the playground) lead them to absorb a hail of gunfire.

What entertained me the most about this flick was the use of look-alike has-been actors. You'll immediately recognize Cyril O'Reily as someone who once acted in a movie that you really liked, though it was so long ago that you probably won't be able to place it (it was Porky's). Here Cyril plays a decent knock-off of a Bill Paxton character. Most Hilarious is porker Gil Gerard, who's so fat that you will never recognize him as TV's Buck Rogers. Instead of evoking his mildly heroic character past, Gerard gives us a passable performance of the crusty fat tough guy persona, which was clearly imagineered for John Goodman. Finally, Alex Cord gives us a nice hybrid look-alike performance as a Chuck Connors/Kirk Douglas type. In the 10 years since New Jack City, Ice-T's acting has deteriorated remarkably. It's not acting so much as regurgitation of lines that he might have actually memorized.

One of the items that plays into this movie is a CD-ROM of classified information. It's being hand carried, and it's apparently and unbelievably not encrypted, despite the security-savvy aura of Gerard's NSA character. What a joke. I'm severely doubting that the information purported to be on the CD would ever even all be assembled into a portable format.

Despite being in a closed aircraft without silencers, the gunfire is about as loud as canned air, and causes nary a person to flinch, so apparently no foley budget. The assortment of weapons chosen is pretty funny. The flight attendant's use of a coffee pot is about the most realistic depiction of violence in the film. When she takes intuitively to the mini-Uzi pistol, which has got to be one of the worst pistol designs ever, that's just too stupid. A true elite team would carry MP-5s for this type thing or maybe SOCOMM .45s, or even customized Hi- Powers if they were really old school, or maybe something FN 5.7 if new school... The lame-o standard issue 92Fs are totally unbelievable, having lost most of their cool after Lethal Weapon I. The bad guys, supposedly experienced soldier of fortune types, have an assorted mixture of absurdity, like the aforementioned mini-Uzi pistol and a Tec-9 with the infamous non-functional barrel extender that isn't a silencer.

There was one touch of realism on which I would like to correct the other reviewers: The flight attendant and Ice-T did lower the craft to 10,000 feet for "breathable air" before they opened the door. And I also got the impression that the flight attendant was NOT able to get the door closed, that she basically just gave up on that point. As far as the landing, there was no mention of flaps until about 2 seconds before touchdown. Sigh.

Only the Dukes of Hazard eluding Roscoe P. Coltrane at the "pass" could shame this movie for use of stock footage. They obviously chose the incredible (and retired) SR-71 because they couldn't get stock of an F-117. Aside from the fact that they were mothballed already in 2001, let's also forget for a moment that the SR-71 is not a pure stealth aircraft in the sense of the B-2, and that at point blank range... Well, I'm no expert, but I'm having doubts as to whether it would be invisible on Radar.

As others have pointed out, the repeated references to "F-15s" when they were showing F -16s was laughable. Details of the 747 were pretty stupid. No airline would put that few passengers on a 747 to begin with, not to mention everything else that was idiotic about it. Pay attention to the use of exposed electrical wiring.

Wow. What a show. Catch it on Stars or something. Don't pay to rent it, but do watch it for laughs. In contention for worst movie ever, right up there with No Holds Barred, which at least had some originality.


Besides all of the technical mistakes ....

How about a female flight attendant who's able to kill, all by herself, 4 out of the 7 terrorists (including ex marines), 2 of whom without even using a gun. Then, she lands the plane perfectly. We're not talking about Sigourney Weaver or Linda Hamilton; we're talking about a regular, frightened, yet very well composed flight attendant. :D How about the leader in charge of the assault/rescue squad, having a full-proof (according to the logic of the script) plan of sleep-gassing everyone and having someone from his team fly the plane. Only he decides at the spur of the moment to change plans and instead lead an attack on the terrorists, guns blazing, not knowing where the terrorists are, or how many, and not securing a position of advantage, so that his whole team gets easily wiped out. Yeah, that's using the old noggin. Only later to decide to use the sleep gas anyway. And it turns out useless for all intensive purposes.

Bad as this movie was, though, I couldn't stop myself from watching and wondering, what next? :D I can't help but imagine all the excellent, unemployed script writers thinking to themselves, it's not fair. lol! :D


I ve finished seeing the movie 10 minutes ago..WoW i still cant believe what i've watched.

This is absolutely the worst movie EVER. If i would list all the flaws in the movie , this review would take me a lot of sentences.( very funny flaws, because of being that bad though)

You got to be Amazed with the skill of the commandos assigned to rescue the plane. they didn't even know how to move.

Ice-t is so bad actor... and the thing i don't understand, is how the production wanted him to be like a hero, but he's a zero..

of course the major flaws will be the landing of an 747, needing only 3 or 4 tips from a guy in transmission to land the plane...amazing.. as well as the dead bodys that had almost no blood at all..

But i strongly recommend of watching this movie, as its very interesting to see how bad can something get


This has to be one of the 5 worst movies ever made. The plot looked intriguing like that of Passenger 57. But with the latter movie it somehow worked a lot better. The plot has been worked out in the worst possible way. Just a few of the awful moments in the movie, A flight attendant is standing in the opened doorway of a flying 747 and trying to close the door without being sucked out by the 250 mile per hour winds?!? Thereafter the lands the aircraft from a few miles out starting at 8000 feet, thats impossible even for 747 pilots with thousands of hour experience. When on the runway (perfectly straight of course) she is instructed to pull on the flaps, HUH!! Come on flaps are there to ensure lift at low speeds, when on the runway you use thrust reverse on the engines and give maximum power! I can go on and on about little and mostly big mistakes in the movie, but then my reply would become the size of the English dictionary. This is a movie you want to miss, take my word for it!


When i come on IMDb boards,I'm always fed up when i see a "the worst movie ever" post.After watching this *movie*,i think that i am soon going to create my own post!!

The opening titles:great,some kind of lame zoom on a gas oven (yeah,focus on the fire=explosions=great action packed movie!!)

The actors:I think that Ice T is a cool rapper,even a nice actor (sometimes, i insist,"sometimes") but the Steven seagal like policeman he plays is...beyond the words. The rest of the cast is...well i don't know where those actors were hired but jeez!!I bet my dog would have been a much better actor than them!!

The plot:Hijacking.original isn't it??

The action sequences:The first shot of the movie is an explosion.I told myself,well, cool!!At least there will be some nice pyrotechnics...I was dead wrong.The rest of the movie is mostly filled with low rent stock shots taken from the Air Force...

The dialogs are hilarious,the music is pure crap,the end is happy( i mean i was happy at the end because the movie was over!!!)

My cousin who was watching the movie was delighted( I'm 22, she's 42...well).I was on the verge of taking the movie and burn it.Maybe next time I'm gonna watch it...(who said never???)


Words can't describe how bad this movie is. I can't explain it by writing only. You have too see it for yourself to get at grip of how horrible a movie really can be. Not that I recommend you to do that. There are so many clichés, mistakes (and all other negative things you can imagine) here that will just make you cry. To start with the technical first, there are a LOT of mistakes regarding the airplane. I won't list them here, but just mention the coloring of the plane. They didn't even manage to show an airliner in the colors of a fictional airline, but instead used a 747 painted in the original Boeing livery. Very bad. The plot is stupid and has been done many times before, only much, much better. There are so many ridiculous moments here that i lost count of it really early. Also, I was on the bad guys' side all the time in the movie, because the good guys were so stupid. "Executive Decision" should without a doubt be you're choice over this one, even the "Turbulence"-movies are better. In fact, every other movie in the world is better than this one.


Firstly, I won't tell you WHY I rented this movie, as I'm still confused myself...

Air Rage is much like any movie I've seen where a plane is hijacked. There is of course that one important person on the plane, and the hijacker looking for revenge. The sad thing is, some of the methods to stop the hijackers have already been used in other movies. Are we really becoming so unoriginal so quickly?

Although it's Ice-T (who for some incomprehensible reason makes painful attempts at ACTING while he's not busy putting the "c" back in front of rap) who is glorified on the cover, the movie actually stars the less than amazing Kim Oja as a stewardess who is 'surprisingly' OVERLOOKED by the five hijackers, which naturally comes back to haunt them. As for the rest of the cast, the only person I managed to recognize was Steve Hytner, more commonly known as Kenny Bania from "Seinfeld".

I can't forget to leave out my favorite part of the movie, when a hijacker used about a POUND of PLASTIQUE to blow a lock off a door... BRILLIANT.

The plot was unnaturally predictable.

The script - atrocious. It got to the point where I could say something, which I felt would make a stupid comment, and it would be the next line in the movie.

As for special effects... the only thing special about this movie is that I wasted the cost of electricity to run my TV and VCR for 100 minutes.

And the title - the movie DID take place in the Air. But due to the less than stellar performances, the only Rage in the movie was that of the viewer.

So, if you're in the mood to even pick apart a movie, just because it's bad. Please SAVE YOURSELF, don't choose this.


I signed in just to comment on how awfully stupid this movie is. Besides being a rip-off of Executive Decision or Air Force One or any other kind of terrorist story, this is the kind of movie that makes you appreciate seeing a movie that can take the same basic ideas and do it well. It's hard to blame the actors when they are given such a stupid, cliché-ridden script to work with. It's bad enough if you groan once in a movie when you encounter an insult to your intelligence, but when you find yourself groaning over and over again, you have to conclude that the director also isn't the brightest bulb in the movie business, nor are the producers for deciding to bring this story to the screen in the first place. The mostly low-rent actors you can excuse for taking on this assignment, because they most likely showed up to get the money and exposure, not that being a part of this joke-of-a-movie is going to earn them any awards or recognition. It may end up embarrassing them for having such poor judgment as to get involved in such a loser. I see no point in summarizing the plot or even in giving any examples to prove my case, for, to do so, would be cruel and unusual punishment that no one involved in this debacle could withstand. Just as studying well-made movies can inspire you how to make a good, skillfully put-together work of art and beauty, the only thing that you can learn from watching this monstrosity is what NOT to do and what does NOT work! Be warned.


don't expect much from this film. In many ways this film resembles a film that Doris Day starred in in 1956,title, Julie. In this film Doris,who was a flight attendant,stewardess,in those days,landed the air craft after her derange husband,played by Louis Jordan shot the captain. She did a far better job,more convincing,than Kim Ojah,who took control of a 747 and manage to land it without much help from the control tower. I know a little about 747 aircraft,i use to be a flight attendant myself. Like i said,do not expect much from this film,it was done on a cheap budget. The producers were to cheap to use a plane with the name of a airline on it. Oceanic is one name that several movies have used. The only writing on this plane was the name of the company that made the aircraft.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen. Everyone involved should be embarrassed. Everyone. Ice-T is pitiful, the dialogue is absolutely awful, and hokie does not begin to describe the performances by every single actor in this movie. The plot steals heavily from Executive Decision, but compared to Air Rage, Executive Decision is Academy Award material. I have never been so disappointed when watching a movie. Air Rage should be burned with its ashes locked in a vault never to see the light of day again. Anyone who has seen it should take a shower and wash the stink of horrible movie off of them. The best part of this movie probably comes from the ending, when the credits rolled. This was easily the worst movie I have ever seen.

Ice-T should stick to Law and Order, and the other people in this film should retire early or commit suicide. Either way, they should never attempt to be in a movie again.


What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.


Linda Lovelace was the victim of a sadistic woman hater, Chuck Traynor. I don't understand how having sex with a dog (which is animal abuse, as well) can be found to be entertaining or funny. Linda Lovelace was a virtual prisoner who was coerced into making these films. I know some people will criticize this comment but I feel strongly that these types of films fuel the fire of hatred and further misogynistic feelings towards women. This society continues to portray women as sexual objects as opposed to human beings. We call ourselves "civilized" however I feel we have a long way to go before we can ever scratch the surface of being civilized.


The Comeback starts off looking promising, with a brutal death scene by a mask wearing killer. The mask itself is pretty cool too, and looks almost identical to the one used in the 1990's slasher film "Granny". From then on the film is mostly boring. We get a few more deaths, which again are good, but there's not enough of them. The reason the deaths are so good is because they are frenzied and bloody. The story behind the film is actually rather interesting and would have worked very well had it not been so boring for the most part.

I would avoid this unless you're a die-hard collector - there's not enough here to even make it an average slasher flick.


Friday the 13th step over! There is officially a worse movie than your hateful series out there. I won this movie in a contest at college, and it was a waste of money even if it was free. Jack Jones stars as a truly awful singer whose trying to find some murderers or something. At least Friday the Thirteenth never bored me. I'd rather have my fingernails pulled than see this again.


Gritty, dusty western from director Richard Brooks, who seems thoroughly engrossed in the genre while keeping all the usual clichés intact. Early 1900s horse race attracts a low-keyed cowboy (Gene Hackman), a suave gambler (James Coburn), a cocky kid (Jan Michael Vincent), and even a FEMALE (a surprisingly game Candice Bergen). Once the preliminaries are out of the way (with the predictable arguments over whether or not a woman should take part), this becomes a fairly engrossing entry, though one which breaks no new ground (it instead resembles something from Gary Cooper's era). Good-looking, if overlong piece has macho verve and a fine cast, yet the mechanisms of the plot get tiresome rather quickly. ** from ****


Here's a movie with a good cast and nice looking location work but it just don't have it. Director Richard Brooks must have been a little bit tired at this stage of the game; How much better his THE PROFESSIONALS was! The horses and the rest of the action seemed to be in slow motion even during the non-slow motion scenes. This film needed to be sped-up, if anything. That horse lather sure looked awful phony to me and the obvious tire tracks in those desert tracking moments- just lazy. sloppy work. Too bad. The actors did OK, but I've certainly seen all of them do better. Ben Johnson's always a joy, though. I first saw this flick almost 30 years ago; was disappointed then and remained so upon second viewing 30 years later.


This is a movie about animal cruelty. Under the guise of a marathon race, we see depictions of extreme animal abuse, including literally running a horse to death IN SLOW MOTION. The guy who did this then has his conscience spiritually cleansed by the flames from the burial/burning of the horse, which of course is still dead, having been tortured to death. This is one of the sickest, slimiest movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. As Gene Hackman and James Coburn near the finish line on their DYING animals, we're supposed to admire their spirit for finishing the race. I'd like to put the producers and director in a marathon race; I'll decide when they're finished, probably about 20 minutes after they stop breathing.


Ohhh the brutality, ohhhhh the dying breed, ohhhh the sense of loss, ohhhh the prejudice! Jeez, when are all you whiney revisionists going to stop analyzing Westerns for crying out loud? S**t happens. If it offends your socially engineered sensibilities then go back to the comfort of your Meryl Steep collection.

Boring, tedious, and very tiresome waste of celluloid-particularly in light of Coburn/Hackman/Bergen's presence. Nothing interesting or intriguing here, unless you are obsessed with 19th century desert dentisty. May have been a little better without the constant diversion of the out-of-place mexican guy with the bad tooth. A monument to the stupid ultra-left creeping sensitivity of the 60/70's. Virtually impossible to sit through the entire film. I think I'd rather have my eyes stapled open for the entire Lucky Luke/Trinity series. 4 Horses/10-all deader'n hell.


The plot of this movie hangs on one important point: that this murderer was also a responsible, loving, caring father. Not that being a father and a murderer is impossible. But this man is shown murdering a teenage girl without provocation or reason and without emotion. This girl was someone's daughter. I don't think a father who cared so much about his own daughter could have been so cold-blooded to someone else's daughter. Or, alternately, could have been so cold blooded and yet worry about and care for his own daughter. And the idea that a convicted murderer would actually ask his victim's parents to take in and care for his daughter is beyond belief.

That said, the characters were acted with conviction by the actors. I thought changing Scott Bakula's eye color did make him seem more cold and menacing than he usually is. You couldn't see into his eyes at all.


The idea of In the Name of the People is good, a murderer doesn't want his only daughter to end up in an institution and asks the parents of the girl he killed to take care of his daughter. And you could expect of the actors, especially Scott Bakula to do some good acting, unfortunately they don't! In the Name of The People turns out to be the regular Friday night tearjerker. The flashbacks with the girl that was killed are pretty pathetic and at a certain stage you can just predict what the actors will say... If you want to watch a good film about this subject then watch Dean Man Walking!


I'm sorry to report that I have seen this film several times. When it bombed at the box office, it was repeated nightly for about a month on HBO. And I watched it over and over because television in general is so bad--or was at that time. I no longer watch, so it might be wonderful now--like Samuel L Jackson says about swine, "It might taste like sweet potato pie, but I'll never know because I wouldn't eat the filthy mfer." Let's see. Dudley plays Arthur wandering in the desert, always a few steps behind Moses. It came out right after Life of Bryan, so you can guess where the inspiration for this came from. The few mildly funny bits go on way too long until you just close your eyes and grit your teeth. There's one scene where Arthur and Dom Deluise meet in the desert, both of them dragged out and dessicated, dying of thirst. Then they meet like old acquaintances who didn't really know each other very well, promise to do lunch. It could have been funny.

But the scene that I remember most clearly is a meeting with pharaoh in which pharaoh is a black street kid done up in full King Tut regalia. He must have read the lines straight because at some point before the release, they overdubbed his scene with the Hollywood equivalent of black street lingo voiced by a Jimmy Walker wannabe (Kid Dyno-wannabe). Or it might have been Jimmy Walker--who knows? Who cares. They managed to turn an essentially boring scene into a very racist, very unfunny, very long piece of excrement, one of those legendary things that just won't flush, no matter how many times you try, so you leave it there for someone else to deal with.

Well that's my review. If you rent this movie (DON'T BUY IT, WHATEVER YOU DO!) prepare yourself with a bottle of tequila and a six pack of Corona.

Now that they've remade the Poseiden Adventure, this one is probably high on the list for remakes. Maybe they'll hire a comedy writer this time.


In the questionable comedy vein of Mel Brooks, "Wholly Moses!" tries to take the Bible story of Moses and make fun of it, resulting in the unfunniest Biblical spoof ever filmed.

There is no real plot here, just excuses to trot out stalwart comedy talent in underwritten roles. Dudley Moore and Laraine Newman are on a bus tour of the Holy Land, when they stumble across an ancient scroll in a cave. There they read the story of Herschel and Zerelda, also played by Moore and Newman. Herschel's life parallels Moses'. He was sent down the river to be found by the pharaoh's family at the same time Moses was. Herschel's birth father, the late James Coco, becomes Herschel's slave after Herschel is rescued by idol makers and works as a sculptor. Eventually Herschel comes to work for the pharaoh as an astronomer, is banished, and ends up tending Moses' flock of sheep. Herschel and Moses are brothers in law, marrying sisters, and Herschel thinks God has chosen him to free his people in Egypt. Of course, Moses was receiving the Divine Word, but Herschel misunderstood. I'll pause here to laugh hysterically...pause...anyway, the rest of the film is a series of badly written scenes involving Moore and actors who are making "special appearances." These scenes do not propel the plot forward, they bring what little story there is to a grinding halt.

Jack Gilford plays a tailor. Dom DeLuise has maybe three lines when he meets Herschel in the desert. John Houseman is an archangel, just giving the same line readings he gave in "The Paper Chase." David L. Lander is a fake blind man "healed" by Herschel. Andrea Martin is one of Zerelda's sisters. I was not sure who Madeline Kahn was supposed to be, she gives a ride to Herschel, and has about a minute and a half of screen time. John Ritter plays a very unfunny devil. Richard Pryor has one scene as the pharaoh, but it was obviously shot at a different time than Moore's scene because the two do not appear onscreen together! In the end, Zerelda turns into a pillar of salt after looking back on New Sodom's destruction, ha ha. Herschel writes the Ten Commandments, and gives them to Moses, who is basking in all the glory. In the final scenes, the screenwriter decide to try and salvage this shallow film by having Herschel bait God into an argument. God comes off as an all powerful bully who was leading Herschel around for his own amusement, speaking through him only to give him the Ten Commandments. We even have Zerelda quip "God works in mysterious ways," thereby excusing everyone's very unChristian behavior during the film.

This film is not funny. There is nary a laugh to be found anywhere. At least Monty Python made fun of many established religious mainstays in "Life of Brian" in addition to their questionable take on Jesus' life, but here the humor consists of poo poo jokes and characters constantly bumping their heads. This makes Mel Brooks look like Merchant/Ivory. Churchgoers will be offended, not by the film's attitude toward religion, but by the smugness the movie exhibits, impressed with their own hoitytoityness (I know, not a word) on a subject they obviously know nothing about. "Wholly Moses!" is wholly bad, and an embarassment to all involved. I suggest you read the Book instead.

This is rated (PG) for some physical violence, profanity, sexual references, and adult situations.


> you are warned this is a spoiler! > This movie is so bad that i doubt i can write enough lines. great direction the shots were well thought out. the actors were very good particularly Richard pryor tho i would have liked to have seen more of him. Madeline Kahn and john houseman were classic. Dudley More god bless him could have done better. John Ritter again i would have liked to see more of him. In my opinion this failure is due totally to writer failure. Maybe the producer could have pulled the plug once he saw what he was creating. Its just too bad that so much money went into this boiler,when with a little change here and there would in my opinion fixed it.They must have paid the writers standard rates. To produce one chuckle.


I attempted watching this movie twice and even then fast forwarding the irritating parts but still could not make it to the end.

I don't understand how this movie *genuinely* got any good reviews. I think these people giving such good reviews are just trying to hype the movie for marketing purposes. Their reviews seem very unrealistic and it looks like an inside job, which makes things more pitiful. Movies should get true positive comments on their own steam and not contrived ones!!

The acting was reminiscent of a cheesy porno movie, and not in a funny way. I don't mind low budget movies with bad acting if they know how to work with it.

I found the lead character to be irritating. His facial expressions and humor was unbearably childish. I thought this was intentional to make the womens conspiracy seem more enjoyable and founded, but they were even worse.

The script was also very awkward (his bosses overdone business speech) and the unfunny sarcastic remarks.

I did not find anything redeeming about this movie other than some of the attractive women.

Never have I felt that a rating was this misleading. I was interested by its premise but scared off by everything else. Of course see it if you want, but I just didn't want anyone else to get their hopes up/waste their time.

Maybe it is just me... Probably not.


this video is 100% retarded. besides the brain cell killing acting and plot, it's way too long. don't waste your money at the video store. i actually was mad that i sat through this garbage and spent money on it. just absolutely awful.


Ah yes the 1980s , a time of Reaganomics and Sly , Chuck and a host of other action stars hiding in a remote jungle blowing away commies . At the time I couldn`t believe how movies like RAMBO , MISSING IN ACTION and UNCOMMON VALOR ( And who can forget the ridiculous RED DAWN ? ) made money at the box office , they`re turgid action crap fests with a rather off putting right wing agenda and they have dated very badly . TROMA`S WAR is a tongue in cheek take on these type of movies but you`ve got to ask yourself did they need spoofing in the first place ? Of course not . TROMA`S WAR lacks any sort of sophistication - though it does make the point that there`s no real difference between right wing tyrants and left wing ones - and sometimes feels more like a grade z movie than a send up . Maybe it is ?


This is truly an awful movie and a waste of 2 hours of your life. It is simultaneously bland and offensive, with nudity and lots and lots of violence. However, the nudity is not that exciting, and the violence is repetitive and boring. Also, the plot is flimsy at best, the characters are unrealistic and undeveloped, and the acting is some of the worst I have ever seen.

I have heard that this movie is supposed to be funny, but it's not. I did not laugh once while watching it, nor did I even crack a smile. The makers of this film tried to combine a comedy movie with an action movie, and they failed on both counts.

Some poorly made movies are funny because they are so bad, but this is not one of them.


I'm not ruining anything when I inform you that you get to see a woman have sex with a goat in this movie. If that is your thing, then your movie has arrived.

A woman and her husband go to see her estranged sister in the family mansion in the woods. Her sister is a creepy lady to say the least, and she seems to have interests that go beyond family love. On the side a group of unsavory characters show up and begin enacting all kinds of pagan rituals.

The plotting is pretty weak and the characters are pretty dumb. The woman sticks around even after her husband starts turning into a jerk and hanging out with the pagans, even continues the have sex with him. On the exploitative side of things, there is much bared flesh and a couple of kinky couplings, but nothing that hasn't been better somewhere else. Oh, and the aforementioned goat-sex scene.

Most viewers won't make it to the end. Exploitation fans will ride it out, but will be left wanting more.

4/10


Extremely thin 'plot' of satanic rituals or some such mumbo-jumbo provides the hokey excuse to thread copious amounts of sex scenes together. Straight vanilla sex, masturbation, lesbianism, S&M, bestiality, incest, and a few other sexual proliferation's all get their time in the spotlight here. The problem is the storyline is so dull that the rampant sexuality gets pretty tedious after awhile. Who knew that a film with an intimate goat/ girl encounter could be so damn boring? Well now I do.

Eye Candy: Venessa Hidalgo shows all; Helga Line provides T&A (both on display quite frequently); women viewers get the occasional penis.

My Grade: D+

Region 1 DVD Extras: Trailers for "Pick Up", "Legend of Eight Samurai", "Don't Answer the Phone", "Prime Evil", & "Sister Street Fighter" (also the same DVD holds a second feature movie "Evil Eye")


I absolutely despise this movie. No wonder Jose Larraz "disowned" it at one point and refuses to discuss it. I admire Larraz's work, especially his more obscure slasher/sex maniac thrillers like SAVAGE LUST or SCREAM AND DIE. His work has a kind of inescapable artiness about it that he can't seem to switch off, owing in part to his secondary career as a painter & cartoonist. It's too bad he never made a Western, his vision would have been perfect.

BLACK CANDLES is easily his most notorious film and probably his best known after the masterpiece VAMPYRES. And it's notoriety revolves around one scene where a Satanic coven enacts a bizarre rite involving extracting the reproductive fluid of a goat -- symbolizing The Beast -- as some kind of nauseating balm to be used in preparing the waif like sister of a murdered man for her role as the bride of Satan. The scene in question is staged in a way that looks rather convincing even without the display of any plumbing apparatus the goat may have been endowed with, relying upon the histrionics of the actress recruited to play the supplicant in the ritual and lots of guttural chanting on the film's recycled musical score heard in a half-dozen films attributed to Jacinto Molina. The perverse nature of the scene is more implied than shown in graphic detail, heightened somewhat by the knowledge that said supplicant is actually the teen-aged daughter of the Satanic priest. My but they had fun concocting this movie.

The problem with it is that there isn't much to deconstruct or contemplate aside from the paper thin ROSEMARY'S BABY derived story of a woman being weaned into her role as Satan's bride by a sophisticated coven of Satanists living in the hedgrowed outlands of a very sinister Britain. Led by Eurohorror sensation Helga Line these Satanists are comprised of doctors, lawyers, land owning magnates and other upper crust dignitaries who actually owe their professional success to their worship of the devil. All you have to do is sell your soul and the world can be yours, only watch out whom you may sell out to pay back petty personal conflict or you may end up being felched with a sword.

The film attempts to combine this heady Satanic trip with oodles or borderline graphic sex, and should correctly be regarded as a kind of apex or culmination of the sex and horror Spanish thriller traditions popularized in part by Mr. Molina & Ms. Line, and which had amazingly flourished under the disapproving eye of one Generalissimo Franco, the dictator who controlled Spain up until 1976. While he lived his decree was that Spanish cinema was to be free of graphic depictions of on-screen sex. Spanish directors often made two versions of their films, one with the sex concealed for their own screens and one with the fornication on display for export. As difficult as it was for the filmmakers to express themselves the result was a sort of interesting tension that usually results when artists flirt with the forbidden: Spanish horror from the 1970s has a very special flavor to it that is somewhat of an acquired taste. It's not for everyone.

But in a bizarre turn of events, without Franco's influence on their culture Spanish horror sort of dried up in the late 1970s, when their Gothic castles and demonic orgies suddenly found themselves passé when compared to new sensations like JAWS and the STAR WARS phenomenon. And without Franco's constraints their were suddenly a flood of overtly graphic thrillers that came tumbling out of the pipes in the very late 70s/early 80s, of which BLACK CANDLES is perhaps the best known due to it's emphasis on sexual deviancy with a barnyard animal. Larraz' major horror films have always revolved around sexual taboos (the lesbianism of VAMPYRES, the incest of SCREAM AND DIE & DEVIATION) but here the effect of the depravity is to overshadow the rest of the production. Nobody cares about anything else but the traditionally censored trip to the Goat Barn, and watching a cut version without the scene in the barn is almost an exercise in pointlessness. The sex isn't graphic enough to rate as porn and the chills aren't chilling enough to rate as horror.

So, BLACK CANDLES is essentially a behavior study -- Here is how high society British Satanists might behave in their secluded mansions out in the West Midlands or whatever. Between sex scenes the actors/actresses sit around and have lots of discussions. The best thing the film has going for it is an undeniably oppressive atmosphere of claustrophobia, with most of it's action taking place in the tightly confined interiors of Ms. Line's character's mansion. Nearly every avenue of fornication is hinted at so fans of soft-core sex romps with a hinting of supernatural horror will be amused, and of course the vicarious sex criminals amongst us will enjoy choking their chickens to the goat barn scene. But the ultimate conclusion of the film is silly, pretentious, intelligence insulting, and probably perfect for such an otherwise forgettable exercise in applied sleaze.

2/10; Without the Goat Barn this movie just isn't the same, and with the scene it's probably a bit too much for most viewers. Larraz was correct to disown it.


Black Candles is rather a muddled mess from the same director that brought us "Vampyres" and much later, "Rest in Pieces", among others..I'm only noting the ones I've seen. At any rate, we have a couple making love and then somewhere near by a pin is poised over a voodoo doll and then pierces it, and the man keels over. Not sure if it was good for either of them, at that point. Fast forward to where the man's sister has come to the house to investigate and hear the reading of the will, or something to that effect, and of course everybody else except her is in on something, which happens to be devil worship. It's really hard to say who is who at moments during the movie and it does get a bit confusing at times. To spice things up though, there's a simulated bestiality scene (I HOPE it's simulated) with a black goat, sure to be a crowd pleaser. Ugh. At times this echoes "Rosemary's Baby", minus the baby, because the hostess is always giving one woman herbal tea and the place reeks of whatever nasty Satanic herbs these are too, because that keeps getting remarked upon. However, the herbs aren't the only thing that reeks about this film. The end seems to be back to the beginning again, and many viewers might find themselves wondering where they've been during the middle part. It's not unwatchable, it's just not very good, and I guess it all depends on what you like to see in films, and there wasn't much here that did anything much for me. 3 out of 10.


When Carol (Vanessa Hidalgo) starts looking into her brother's death, she begins to suspect something more sinister than "natural causes". The closer she gets to the truth, the more of a threat she becomes to her sister-in-law, Fiona (Helga Line), and the rest of the local Satanists. They'll do whatever is necessary to put a stop her nosy ways.

If you're into sleazy, Satanic-themed movies, Black Candles has a lot to offer. The movie is filled with plenty of nudity and ritualistic soft-core sex. One scene in particular involving a young woman and a goat must be seen to be believed. Unfortunately, all the sleaze in the world can't save Black Candles. Most of the movie is a total bore. Other than the one scene I've already mentioned, the numerous sex scenes aren't shocking and certainly aren't sexy. The acting is spotty at best. Even genre favorite Helga Line gives a disappointing performance. The plot really doesn't matter. Its main function seems to be to hold the string of dull sex scenes together. I'm only familiar with one other movie directed by Jose Ramon Larraz. Compared with his Daughters of Darkness that masterfully mixes eroticism and horror, Black Candles comes off as amateurish. 3/10 is about the best I can do.


What made me track this movie down was the viewing Vampyres, I thought I have to get the other movies this guy (Larroz) has made, I was sorry I tracked this down,it is a weak attempt at an occult/satanic type movie laden with sex and only sex(with ugly actors and actresses, this is an excuse for sleaze. The only redeeming factor was the setting and atmosphere, avoid this one, too much hype surrounds it, not worth the effort of finding it, this refers to the welcome to the grind house edition. I hope he has some other movies which lives up to Vampyres, Oh and the goat scene was very boring, I understand that this is what carries the hype.


One of the cornerstones of low-budget cinema is taking a well-known, classic storyline and making a complete bastardization out of it. Phantom of the Mall is no exception to this rule. The screenwriter takes the enduring Phantom of the Opera storyline and moves it into a late '80s shopping mall. However, the "Phantom's" goal now is simply to get revenge upon those responsible for disfiguring his face and murdering his family. The special effects do provide a good chuckle, especially when body parts begin appearing in dishes from the yogurt stand. Pauly Shore has a small role which does not allow him to be as fully obnoxious as one would expect, mostly due to the fact that his fifteen minutes of MTV fame had not yet arrived. If you're looking for a few good laughs at the expense of the actors and special effects crew, check this flick out. Otherwise, keep on looking for something else.


Phantom of the Mall is a film that fits best in the "easily forgotten" category. It's a pretty lousy variant on the famous story by Gaston Leroux, the Phantom of the Opera. Not a bad idea to itself, but the plot and production of this movie are way to weak to bring a decent homage to that story. On the bright side, Gaston Leroux doesn't has to turn over in his grave just yet. It could have been a lot worse.

Phantom of the Mall has too many useless flashbacks in it and way too many boring sequences to make it memorable. Also, the scriptwriters wanted to give too much draught to the story than necessary. And even though there's a lot of mystery getting build up about the character of Eric ... the basic plot is ordinary and déjà-vu. ***SPOILERS*** It's about a young couple that brutally gets torn apart because the boy gets killed in a fire. That fire was set to his house because he and his parents refused to sell their home in order to make room for a huge mall to be build. The boy survived the fire and he has hidden himself in the mall to avenge himself. Meanwhile he guards his girl who now works in the mall and tries to forget her loss ****END SPOILERS*** This pretty simple - but rather effective - plot gets thickened by lots of pointless elements and annoying conspiracy theories. While it should just be an entertaining horror movie, it desperately tries to be an intelligent thriller...and that's not what the fans look for. There are a few innovative killings but they're not satisfying enough for people who want to see a relaxing horror movie. And besides, Phantom of the Mall could have used at least a bit of humor!! This entire production - the cast included - takes itself way too serious.

I'll try to finish with a few positive aspects...Like for example, it stars Ken Foree !! Die-hard horror fans will certainly recognize him as Peter for Dawn of the Dead! That's like the horror milestone that yet has to find an equal. Even though his role in this movie is limited and even completely unnecessary...it was good to see him again. TV-movie fans will also recognize Morgan Fairchild as the mayor, she's a fine actress and an elegant lady. Pauly Shore is also in this but I can't stand him...so my opinion about him may be a bit biased. And finally, a bit of praise for the leading actress named Kari Whitman. She's an extremely beautiful girl and she does have a bit of talent...too bad she never made it to the top. Actually, this movie is her biggest achievement and that says enough about her career...


Somewhere between the Food Court and Zip's, the mall in this film

has an explosives store. This is the only place the title character

can purchase the bomb he plants in the mall in the dull finale.

A fictional town has a new mall, built on some land that was

condemned. Cute Girl (I didn't catch her name) gets a job as a

waitress there. She lost her boyfriend in a fire at the site where the

mall stands. The villainous mall owner hires the arsonist

responsible for the fire as a security guard after his first security

guard ends up dead. Rob Estes, eons before "Silk Stalkings," is a

photog/reporter trying to find a story. He hooks up with Cute Girl,

and their mutual "funny" friend Pauly Shore, and try to find out if Eric

is still alive. He is, living in the mall basement (?) and traveling

through the air ducts and offing different people who upset his

former girlfriend, including the arsonist. Eventually, he kidnaps her

and the finale involves the bomb and everyone running from the

scene before the big kablooey. Morgan Fairchild is along for the

ride as the mayor...yes, she's the mayor.

Of course, you probably did not need a plot sketch since the entire

story is in the title. Someone named Eric is taking revenge against

people as a phantom of a mall. This also means there is no

suspense. We know Eric is behind this, but we still have to see

Estes and Cute Girl go through the motions of a silly investigation.

Watch as Fairchild, who we know has been in cahoots with the

mall owner all along, pull a gun on our heroic duo in the middle of

a crowded party, yet no one says a word as she leads them to her

office, and her eventual death. The fictional town is huge, yet nary a

policeman is ever called, everyone relies on mall security for order.

Eric has been hiding since the mall was built, but I am not sure

where. He seems to live in a basement area, but you would think

some construction worker would have found him. He also has

furnished his love pad quite well, and found a few outlets, since he

has electricity. It might be nicer than your own apartment!

Pauly Shore fans, both of you, take note. He tricks a security guard

out of his booth by mooning the camera. Yes, stop scanning

Celebrity Skin and Playgirl, this is where you get to see a grainy

black and white shot of Pauly's south shore, although no weezil.

This is just junk, and proof positive that I am down to renting just

about anything at the video store to stay in the horror section. This

film is not Eric's revenge, it is the film maker's revenge for me

being dumb enough to watch it. Here is my revenge: I do not

recommend it. That'll show 'em!

This is rated (R) for physical violence, some gun violence, gore,

some profanity, some female nudity, brief male nudity, and some

sexual content.


On the face of it, Ruiz has set out to make a psychological thriller. Although it's not as satisfying as a classic piece in that genre, there are compensations. The tensions generated between Huppert and Balibar as women calmly but calculatingly at war over a boy they both claim are compelling; however, in a true European art-house style, Ruiz doesn't give us release of this tension as the women alternately also try to behave compassionately towards each other. The only raised voice is that of Huppert's waking from a nightmare (an uncontested irrational event in the film).

In fact, if we follow the title, the film is as little about its thriller skeleton as Jane Campion's In The Cut. Instead it is an intergender psychological study focusing on men. The boy, Camille (Nils Hugon), decides on a practical joke, playing his mother off against an emotionally vulnerable other woman. Both women seem to pander to him rather than scold and this compounds the problem. In the background is an intemperate psychologist (Charles Berling), swift to confront the women in his life - his sister Huppert, the nanny or his pa - and so acting as a symbolic adult counterbalance to the, calm and (we learn) manipulative Camille. It is particularly interesting that, like the father in Henry James' The Turn of The Screw, Denis Podalydes' law-enforcer Father is absent for the duration of the film. Ruiz fashions an Oedipal moment out of Huppert's reaction to his return at the film's close.

Read either as a thriller or as a psychiatric essay, this film is ultimately rather disappointing. I'm officially rather fed up with Mme Huppert's screen method, which is too buried and so I'll be looking to see her on stage before I come back to her (European - enjoyed Heaven's Gate) films again. The support is good. Ruiz does the cast no favours though. Quite apart from some poor lighting and some wilfully odd shots, its as if his direction has left characterisation quite out of reach - I'm thinking particularly of Edith Scob's Shamanic neighbour to Isabelle, who acts knowing but communicates bafflement. The set pieces do not link up to a forward driving plot - the tension I have already referred to is not only weakly dissipated but wasted in its directional potential.

Want to see a good contemporary French thriller? Go and see L'Appartement instead. 4/10


On his birthday a small boys tells his mother he is not her son, and that he wants to go home to his real mother.

In some ways Comedy De L'Innocence feels like it comes from a different time of movie-making, perhaps the 60's or 70's. Certainly it reminded me of Losey's Secret Ceremony (1968), and Richard Loncraine's Full Circle (1977), both of which deal with loss, grief and relationships between parents and 'lost' children (curiously both films star Mia Farrow).

All three films are populated with unsympathetic characters who behave in strange and unexplained ways. All three films have a chilly feel, both emotionally and literally. All three films focus on mother-child relationships, and ultimately all three films pose the question - 'what is real, what is imagined?'

Beautiful but flawed, it offers no easy answers and leaves much hanging, unexplained and strange.


I wish I could give this movie a zero, or even lower, because sadly that's what it deserves. I honestly never walk out of a movie, but this one was so dreadfully awful that I couldn't stand another minute of it. Please,please, please- for the sake of mankind- skip this movie. If you want a hot lesbian movie that you can really delve into, this isn't it.

It has unattractive, unappealing leads, choppy structure, ridiculous dialog, and it is absolutely unconvincing in every imaginable way. On an absolutely basic level, it fails to entertain. Everything about "Mango Kiss" is so stagey, it is WORSE than any student film I have seen.

As if that weren't enough, the entire movie relies on constant (and I mean CONSTANT) voice over narration. The script writer may as well have written a novel, because they insisted on TELLING everything, instead of SHOWING it. We are just supposed to assume that Lou and Sassafras are the best of friends and have a special connection, even though there is no character development to illustrate this. Also, this film continues to introduce to new characters after the first five minutes, and not in a natural way, but in a freeze-frame of the characters with their name written over the screen. There is no introduction, no development of any of the characters. We don't really get to know any of them.

This is the most amateur movie I have ever seen.

I am a gay woman, who watched this film with my roommate (another gay woman) and we both found this movie to be a depressing representation of queer cinema. I am beginning to think that lesbian and gay movies are a lot like Christian rock - it doesn't matter how atrocious it is, people will still flock to it, and champion it, no matter how poor the quality is. Please don't rent this!! Instead, let's encourage the production of QUALITY gay and lesbian movies by renting "But I'm a Cheerleader" or "Fire" or "Heavenly Creatures", instead of swallowing whatever mindless tripe they aim at the gay community (i.e. Queer as Folk).


I borrowed this movie because not only because its gay theme but the thought of role playing really intrigued me. I was pleasantly surprised that it was shot in San Francisco since I live near SF. And of course it was nice to see shots of the Castro district (although the castro to me really caters more to gay male than female). But other than that I can't really recommend this movie. The characters aren't really developed for me to care and when they finally started to get to the "role playing" I was already bored out of my mind. And the role playing scenes that I did see were a bit embarrassing to watch. The acting leaves something to be desired. Needless to say I didn't finish the movie. I'd skip this one.


OK, my girlfriend and I rented the DVD and about 30 minutes into the movie, we'd exchanged a lot of "ehhh, what IS this movie about and more importantly, do I care to find out what it ends with" glances and decided we either needed drugs to keep us interested in the "plot" or just end the pain right there and then and watch something else. We opted for the latter.

I liked "But I'm a Cheerleader" a lot, but Mango Kiss is too silly and surreal for my taste, sorry! I definitely prefer "D.E.B.S", "Better Than Chocolate", "Fucking Åmål", "Goldfish Memory" and "Fire".

-Sorcia


In over 70 years of watching movies,This has to be one of the very worst comedies ever made. Mel Brooks, Mike Meyers & a few other have made some very bad comedies, this however is the absolute bottom of the barrel.

It is unfunny from the very opening,to the tacked on scene during the credits.

Diane Keaton who I normally like must have needed her paycheck badly. She desperately needs to re-learn her craft.

Dax Shepard (I do not know who he is),needs a better director,to show him how to act.

Liv Tyler is also not up to her role.

Mike White needs to find another character,he has done this same type person a few times too many.

Ken Howard who started out years back as a first rate actor, also not as good as he used to be.

There is nothing decent I can say on this attempt at movie comedy.

Ratings: * (out of 4) points 25(out of 100) IMDb 1 (out of 10)