OK, lets get the obvious out of the way, Zack Efron is in this movie. That said, there's really not much positive to say about this boy coming of age film. The acting is OK, the camera work is OK, the continuity leaves a lot to be desired as previously mentioned, the story is painfully predicable (spoiler alert, watch the opening menu long enough and you know he races)...

Probably the most disappointing thing about the film is it's lack of justice. A good sense of justice and good prevailing completely is essential in a family movie. That does not happen in this film. The two "bad guys" (Michael Nardelli and Colton James) really tear it up and should have been arrested following the race (lets add a little drama), but we don't even see Nardelli when he loses, so there isn't even a chance to rub it in a bit. It's unfortunate, but I can't recommend this movie....unless you absolutely must see Zac Efron.


I really enjoyed this film. The acting was great and Zac Efron did some really nice work.I was drawn to this film because I ride horses and like racing. I didn't know much about Steeplechase before this movie. It is cool...looks pretty hard and a little dangerous but fun.

I also enjoyed Houston Jones character and his relationship with Zac's character, "Patrick". It reminded me of my relationship with my granddad.The parents were good too, and the girl that plays Jill, is hot! My mother liked the film too, and said she would recommend it to her friends to buy for their kids because its a family movie that she enjoyed watching with me. There are some surprises in it that I won't tell you. Randy's character is a good bad guy. I think you will like it as much as I did!


Cute fifteen-year-old Zac Efron (as Patrick McCardle) doesn't have friends his own age. He skips baseball practice to spend time with boozing horse enthusiast mentor Bill Cobbs (as Houston Jones). In flashbacks, Mr. Cobbs recounts his love for a wealthy white woman, and a passion for horses; his doomed romance led Cobbs to alcoholism. Parents William R. Moses and Tonja Walker (as Jim and Linda) don't like Mr. Efron's close relationship with the older man; especially, Mr. Moses wants his son to play baseball like his dad. Efron doesn't know much, but "I know horses like me." He decides to join the horse races, with Cobbs as trainer.

Be advised, there is heartbreak ahead for Efron!

Efron is less affected (and made-up) than in "High School Musical" performances, which is a plus. He passes for a mature fifteen, but doesn't show much prowess as an actor. The prerequisite bully and pretty girl roles are adequately filled by coolly-coiffed Michael Nardelli (as Randy Adams) and lightly-tressed Crystal Hunt (as Jill Overton). Cobbs adroitly makes the most of his predictable character role. And, ailing musician Billy Preston has one of his last gigs. "The Derby Stallion" gallops with missteps and continuity problems, obviously enhanced by budget restrictions. Filmmakers found a great semi-circular tree for a background shot.

*** The Derby Stallion (7/4/05) Craig Clyde ~ Zac Efron, Bill Cobbs, Crystal Hunt, William R. Moses


WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

I had avoided The Derby Stallion ever since it came out, because I was so much more concerned with other movies(but of course), and one day it was about time to leave the movie rental place, so I just grabbed it and ran on, and now I'm glad I got it. This movie was a nice little film and I really liked it. Of course there was some things wrong with it, but I decided to overlook them and not pay attention to them that much because the movie entertained me so much. This movie is good and it's an enjoyable film to watch. Although I'm not much of a horse-movie lover, this movie sparked an interest in me. I thought this movie was decent and, but of course, I knew when I got it I wouldn't be saying after I had watched it, "Oh my god, this movie was perfect, it's the best movie ever!" I tell you one thing I did not say though, "This movie was horrible, it's the worst movie ever". This movie is worth the watch and aside from minor problems, like the way they filmed it, it looked like you took your own camera and filmed it yourself, and when the old man dies, you can see him breathing, and he moves his thumb, lol, this really was a fine movie. It's rating is unfair.


i love this film so much it has a great story line and the actors are amazing.it helped that the film had Zack Efron in because he is a talented actor who recently the lead in high school musical i gave this film 10/10 because it was amazing and i dint want 2 blink because i did not want 2 miss a second of it i also thought that the film was heart warming and it made me see a whole new side of Zack's acting skills i no that i cant wait to see him in his new film hairspray because if it is as good as this it will be at the top of the charts the only downside to this film is that Crystal Hunt who plays Jill Overton got 2 kiss Zack i was so Jealous if only i lived in America i would of auditioned for that part but i live in england for now


At the peak of Charlie Chaplin's success, his 'Tramp' comedies were such solid money-makers that several other film companies churned out counterfeit Chaplin films, featuring actors (including at least one woman) who copied Chaplin's costume, makeup, and acting technique as closely as possible. One counterfeit, a Mexican who billed himself as Charlie Aplin(!), was sued out of business by Chaplin: the others were mostly too obscure to be worth bothering with.

By far the most successful fake Chaplin (both artistically and financially) was Billy West, whose attempts to copy Chaplin exactly were so conscientious that he even slept with his hair in curlers to duplicate Chaplin's naturally tousled appearance. (Ironically, West's black hair was genuine: Chaplin's hair was prematurely grey, and he had to colour it to play the Tramp.) 'The Hobo' is probably West's best film -- funny in its own right, and extremely Chaplinesque -- because West places the Tramp in situations that emulate genuine Chaplin sequences. Leo White, who played a European fop in some of Chaplin's Essanay films, plays a similar role here.

Also on-hand in 'The Hobo' is Oliver Hardy -- pre-Laurel, sans moustache, and billed as 'Babe' -- playing the Tramp's hulking nemesis, clearly cast here as Billy West's counterpart to Mack Swain and Eric Campbell in (respectively) Chaplin's Keystone and Mutual comedies. But Swain and Campbell used their bulk to menace the Tramp; here, Hardy's character is depicted as a glutton -- Hardy does some business with a stack of flapjacks which I found genuinely disgusting -- and this makes him too weak an opponent for the Tramp's stratagems. Fans of Hardy will be disappointed at how little he gets to do here.

The plot is simple enough. West, as a Chaplinesque tramp, descends from a train on which he's been 'riding the rails'. (This is a very American premise, which the English-born Chaplin would not have used.) At a whistle-stop station, with amazing alacrity, the tramp persuades the stationmaster and his pretty daughter to let him take temporary charge of the lunch counter and the ticket office ... even having custody of the combination to the wall safe!

Whenever I watch a Billy West film, I find myself spotting the ways in which his tramp DIFFERS from Chaplin's. In 'The Hobo' we see one of these early on, when West alights from the train and runs afoul of a railway navvy. Straight away, the tramp becomes servile: dusting off the navvy and clearly trying to curry his favour. Chaplin's tramp would have handled the situation differently; PRETENDING to curry the man's favour, but then kicking him or otherwise defeating him. Also, in a genuine Chaplin film, the navvy would be played by someone who looked funny in his own right, such as Albert Austin or Bud Jamison: here, West merely plays against a very ordinary straight-man actor. When a carload of cops show up, they look like normal American constables ... not Keystone Cops. Most fatally, the film 'climaxes' with an argument, instead of a chase.

When West's tramp meets the love interest (Virginia Clark, very pretty) he demonstrates his passion by clutching his hands to his heart and pantomiming its heartbeat. I felt that Chaplin would have handled this scene more subtly. One thing that West gets right is Chaplin's comic trick which I call 'conversion': Chaplin's penchant for treating humans as objects, objects as humans, or one object for entirely another sort of object. Here, when West sells the railway tickets, he measures them out like yard goods: an echo of Chaplin's archetypal conversion sequence in 'The Pawnshop' in which he treated an alarm clock like nearly everything EXCEPT an alarm clock.

'The Hobo' briefly features an actor playing a Jewish stereotype. Even though I found this distressing, I had to give Billy West credit for accuracy ... since several genuine Chaplin shorts from this period also include Jewish stereotypes.

In one way, this faux Chaplin film is actually superior to the genuine article. Chaplin's skills as a director were minimal, and he famously boasted that he had 'no use for camera angles'. In 'The Hobo', director Arvid Gillstrom (who?) cleverly stages two sequences with the ticket window shot directly edge-on: this creates a 'split-screen' effect, with rival actions occurring simultaneously on both sides of the screen. In Chaplin's entire body of work, I can't recall one camera set-up which impressed me as much as this.

Reportedly, the real Chaplin -- in his civilian rig -- once happened to pass by a street where Billy West and his poverty-row crew were filming a 'tramp' picture. Chaplin stopped to watch the action, courteously waiting until a break in the filming. Then he went up to West and told him 'You're a damned good imitator, but that's all you are.' I'd put that as a good appraisal of West's career: a damned good imitation of Chaplin, but just an imitation. Still, 'The Hobo' is funny in its own right, and better made than some of Chaplin's early Keystones. I'll rate 'The Hobo' 7 out of 10 for viewers who are aware that it's not a genuine Chaplin.


Some have said that Billy West's films as a suspiciously Little Tramp-like character are more enjoyable if the viewer doesn't compare them to Chaplin's films. I find that very hard to do, and I think that the fact that West spends the entire short trying to look and act as much like Chaplin's character as he can invites a certain amount of comparison -- to say the least.

West has the look down, certainly, and he does a good job of aping Chaplin's mannerisms, but his performance just doesn't have the subtlety, and it's broad similarity to Chaplin's only makes its shortcomings more noticeable.

The film itself has some funny moments -- at the lunch counter, in the confusion of cars -- but is mainly a jumble of gags that seem to have no rhyme or reason behind them and, as a consequence, fall flat. Nobody really knows why the Hobo ends up chaotically running the train station breakfast counter. On a small level, nobody knows why he throws milk over his shoulder into a customer's face or why he takes so long preparing for his own meal after he wakes up. These sequences don't work because there's no logic or character behind the comedy. Likewise the broad slapstick that can work when it is motivated is just empty kicking and food-throwing here.

The young Oliver Hardy has a role here and does a good job, though his main task is to eat copious amounts. This is meant to be funny also but quickly grows old.

You're probably not a theatre owner in 1917 who wants to fool audiences into thinking they are really seeing Charlie Chaplin; it's probably more worthwhile to watch the real thing. This is mainly of interest as an early Hardy performance and to see how Chaplin's act was ripped off wholesale at this time.


Because Charlie Chaplin was such a huge star in the 1914-1920 time period, there were many shameless imitators that simply stole his "Little Tramp" character and tried to fool audiences. Some of them were obviously not the original--they looked only superficially like him and the films just weren't all that funny. However, Billy West was probably the best of the lot, as unless you know what you are watching, it's probable that you'd think this IS a Chaplin film. Plus, compared to Chaplin films of 1916-1917, this one compares rather favorably and is much funnier than most of the earliest Little Tramp films from Chaplin.

In this film, like in Chaplin's, Billy is out of work and prone to slapping around the bad guys (in this case, Oliver Hardy) but deep down is a nice guy. He also agrees to help out a guy who works the lunch counter and this provides a few laughs. Plus, in these scenes it's amazing to watch Oliver Hardy eat--he is a total pig and you just have to see it to believe it.


Laughably melodramatic would-be erotica, a far cry even from the only other 2 Luna titles I've watched (which were themselves lower-tier efforts)! To begin with, Anita Ekberg (who appears briefly as the title character's larger-than-life drunken termagant mother, named Greta Gustafsson!) delivers a scenery-chewing performance; likewise, Jorge Perrugoria as the loutish egomaniac who drools over the girl all through the film is surely one of the most obnoxious characters I've ever had to suffer! While Italian sex symbol Valeria Marini tries, she's hampered by her babyish voice - not to mention the exaggerated moans during the love-making and the fact that the couple's relationship never convinces for a second (if it's supposed to evoke "l'amour fou", it's a pathetic attempt)! The subplot involving Marini's gay brother's desperation over unrequited love for an imprisoned stud (which is all magically settled by the end) is merely boring. Really, the only attention-grabbing element - apart from Marini herself, that is - is the score; the pet goats are cute, too. Actually, the version I watched may have been cut as the "Stracult" book mentions an unforgettable sex scene involving eels - but, here, this is over before it has even begun as we're rushed to its messy aftermath!!


This movie could pretty well be described as the weakest, less inspired work of Bigas Luna in the last few years. All the freshness, irony, and visual appeal of "Jamon, Jamon" is missing, unfortunately replaced by a direction more focused on the "shock factor" than on creating a more solid structure.

As far a "values" go, the movie contains some disturbingly twisted messages that most people could find indeed offensive. I seriously doubt any victim could fall so deeply in love with her cruel torturer, as Bambola does. From that point on, the movie loses all credibility, and everything starts going downhill. Bigas Luna pretends to shock you with a display of disturbing imagery and disturbed characters, but in the process forgets how to make the movie consistent. A wasted opportunity.


This movie is so great, Bigas shows you how this common woman falls in love with this kind of masochism. Love it...don't want to spoil it for you guys, but is a movie of love and eroticism, if you like Bigas you would like this. The photography is beautiful, and the acting of the Bambolina more. For me the scenery was very real, anyone can find themselves falling for the masochism. I also love the brother, sister relationship, and when she finally meets her love. Bigas makes the unerotic, erotic, you find yourself deep into the movie wanting to experience what the Bambolina is experimenting with, this movie just seduce you


.........I chanced across a Bigas Luna riding the sexual utopia of anything goes  and probably went. Fixations have never been a good idea in any direction, and if erotism is the crowning thorn in the exaltation of the most sublime that can be put on celluloid, as far as this Catalonian director is concerned, one might understand why I would rather give up the ghost. Having already been blessed with such titles as `Volavérunt' (1999) (qv), `La Femme du Titanic' (La Camerera del Titanic) (1997) and `Las Edades de Lulú' (1990) (qv) among others, I did not expect anything constructive cinematographically from `Bambola'. And I was right.

More Italian than anything else, the story has nothing to offer any different from any other third-rate film based on sexual exploits coming out of Hollywood or anywhere else, such as those put on late at night on Saturday. It is obvious, watching any of Bigas Luna's films, that he has great talent, but if he is only able to focus on sexual adventures and fantasies, my suggestion is that he do something else. He seems to pick on dubious literature of a sexual fantasy nature, by rather poor writers  Almudena Grandes is the most notorious example  and seek to convert them into films: the result is mostly vulgar with very poor taste. I hope he never embarks on his version of Marguerite Duras´ novel `L'Amant', of which we already have a deplorable version (Jean-Jacques Annaud, 1991).<br /><br />`Bámbola' is nothing more than a modern attempt at some kind of story as lived by young Italians trying to grow up with their sexual awareness being aroused. So if you like actors breathing heavily as the camera creeps around at different angles of lovers' bodies, naked or only partially, you just might find something invigorating in this film. I did not: my intellectual level is a little above that of a pervert. Sorry, Señor Bigas Luna: I do not like your films, though I must admit you do have talent and ideas, concepts and visualizations for making films  it is just that, as far as I am concerned, you've gone up a dead-end street/cul-de-sac/calle sin salida.

You need not bother with `Bámbola', but if you insist on a Bigas Luna film, try `Volavérunt', which, I must say, did not greatly please me, but at least it clambered out of the foaming pool of idiocy, which `Bámbola' did not.

Two out of ten, because, as usual in Bigas Luna's films, the photography is very good.


I am blown away that this film has a following, that someone, anyone could actually think this was watchable. Finally at 45 minutes into the film I am doing something I never, ever do no matter how bad the film. I am turning it off, walking away, and returning it to my video rental store. I am all for low budget, I am all for campy horrors, and I love the horror genre, this doesn't match ANYTHING!! It's not low budget, it's beyond amateur, we're talking a C minus in a high school film class. This was done like a joke or something and the fact that it got released on DVD is mind blowing and for the IMDb reviewer that said this was better than the remake of The Fog and should have been released in theaters needs their head examined!! Writer director David Cross who is a first timer when it comes to credentials, isn't necessarily to blame. The concept and plot is okay, even the filming (although done low budget) has it's pluses which saves this from me giving it a big fat ZERO!! I would even go so far as to say that the film has it's creepy moments even with cheap special effects. It's the cast that just completely destroys this film. These people are not actors, case closed, they may think they are but they are people that CANNOT ACT!! Jennifer Servary who plays the lead character Elizabeth Dean. She's a young girl who had a traumatizing event in her past that caused her to have a severe case of Agoraphobia which keeps her locked inside her apartment for the past year. Suddenly she begins to have strange events in her apartment that lead her to believe she is being haunted. After searching around the internet she comes to a site which for some god knows reason is obviously a fetish sex site but yet she decided to hire the creator of the web site to try to exorcise her ghosts or some fool thing. Jillian Byrnes who plays the Ghost hunter Laura Kove has the most redeemable acting qualities in the film but that's saying little to nothing. These people simply have no business trying to make a film. They are amateurs in the worst sense of the word. They simply have no talent. The film, despite it's literal 3 seconds of redeemable creepiness is a worthless, unredeemable pile of crap!! The fact that a sequel exists scares me more than the film. At this point I can't imagine ever finishing the first film let alone attempting a sequel.

Everyone has a different opinion and that's what makes reviews and discussions about films so great. There are a lot of good reviews for this film but for me it was horrible trash and that's okay. To each their own. It's a little surprising to me, and then to have people say that this was watchable or even great and to talk down to previous entries in the horror genre is a little perplexing. Films like Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween, Friday the 13th, even The Fog...sure they'll never win any acting or film making awards but they stand the test of time and have followings of hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions. Ghost Watcher will never stand the test of any time. Skip this one COMPLETELY and see something much, much better like the stupendous SAW series. 1/10


Let me get one point across: I only gave it a 2 but I liked this movie. I liked it because it was so terrible it was funny; I felt bad for the people who made this movie. The acting was very, very bad but the chicks were pretty good looking. It looked like it was shot on a home video camera. The plot was completely unbelievable (the hero remembered turns and potholes while blindfolded in the back of a van, allowing the other hero to find the house she was taken to by the bad guy). I recommend it to other B-horror movie buffs but not to the casual movie-renter (hence the 2). Oh, one more thing: it had a few good creepy scenes but most of the time it wasn't scary at all.


This movie was pretty good for a college film project. But really sucks that I spent $5 to rent this. Seriously. I rented this at blockbuster because it had professional looking packaging and even though I figured it was a "B" grade horror movie, I at least thought it was done professionally. Nope. The cheap camera quality, the high school drama play acting, horrible directing, numerous plot problems and simple special effects showed that this movie was done by amateurs.

Now, the movie was not *totally* bad; it kept my interest enough to watch the whole thing. But it was hard to miss the bad plot, numerous blatant plot holes and sub-par acting.

Some of the nitpicks (spoilers abound):

1) The main character video tapes someone in her bedroom holding a knife to her throat while she is sleeping (the intruder is the one holding her camera). I understand that she is scared to go outside, but why doesn't she call the police??!!!!

2) The main character is seeking help with her "ghost" problem. So, she decides to enlist the help of someone who maintains a web site that is part paranormal equipment dealer and part peepshow. All I had to say was, "What the....?" Then, she is downright catty and confrontational when this person comes out to help.

3) The web/paranormal person is basically told that she is not wanted and to leave. So, she sticks around because she wants to help. Why? This is a total stranger that was under the impression she is there to sell equipment to a customer, then is greeted by a confrontational customer. Why does she stay and offer to help?

4) The friend said that she is the one that murdered the stalker. Afterward she is shown as being easily scared and intimidated. How did she ever get the motivation to commit first degree murder?

5) They come across the "ghost" of the dead stalker and have a pretty major encounter with the supernatural. Then afterward, la-la-la-la, they resume their normal life and go to a party, like seeing supernatural specters are an everyday occurrence.

6) As with a lot of supernatural movies, the "powers" of the paranormal entities seems to keep changing. Multiple times the ghost would do some ability, but would not repeat that ability at a later time. Or would not do something that was shown to be well within its ability to do so.

As with a lot of movies these days, this one just smacks of misandric (anti-male) messages. No need to flesh out a villain, just make a male character that harms women and voilà! instant villain. I am so sick of these movies. No need to create a background or personality for the "bad guy", just create a male character that harms women. If the villain happened to be female, we would be given all sorts of background information on how she came to be that way and what horrible events happened in her life and how the audience should feel sorry fer her.

I give this movie a 2 out of 10. The bad acting, poor quality filming, amateurish feel and misandric story makes a bad movie, but it was *just* interesting enough for me to watch the whole thing, therefore I didn't rate it a 1.


After a Halloween on a Friday, Laura Kove (Jillian Byrnes) becomes agoraphobic. One year later she finds that her apartment is haunted. She searches in Internet and finds Elizabeth Dean (Jennifer Servary), a con ghost hunter, actually a stripper with a peepshow on line, offering her services and Laura and her best friend Nikki Brandt (Marianne Hayden) hire her to get rid off the fiend. Elizabeth investigates the past of Laura and discloses the truth of the mystery.

"Ghost Watcher" is so amateurish and flawed that becomes funny. It is the typical movie that you join your friends to make fun and laugh so ridiculous it is. I do not know how producers invested in this film with such terrible screenplay and cast. The story is horrible, the three lead characters are awful and their actions make no sense. Elizabeth, for example, is a slut that risks her life to help Laura, inclusive dying in the end, solves the murders of a serial killer in a couple of hours, in a absolute lack of coherence. Nikki killed and buried Malculm Dixon, but she accepts to go to the abandoned house in the night to show the corpse to Elizabeth after seeing the weird events in Laura's kitchen. And Laura is pure contradiction, hiring a stripper to hunt ghosts. If any actress of this flick reads my review, do not be upset with me, but the acting are simply awful in this movie. I do not intend to see "Ghost Watcher 2", therefore I hope to have the chance to see any of you in the future with better performances in another movie. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Após a Morte" ("After the Death")


While this movie boasts quite a string of genuinely scary moments, it is essentially a collage of already successfully tested horror plots. Agoraphobic heroine, Serial killer, Ghost of serial killer, etc. It even has the obligatory paranormal investigator. Nothing stands out as truly original. Honestly, I've seen worse acting in supporting roles but not very often. The lead role was executed quite well. In fact, I would not be surprised to see this young lady do well in future movies. Again, it is quite scary at times and I suppose that's the point, eh? Also, the music was pretty good. Anyway, if you are a horror movie buff, then watch it just because.


I didn't know anything about this movie before I rented it, but being a seasoned horror/thriller movie lover I though I would try it. I only wish I hadn't. Why? Well lets just start with absolutely awful script and the dreadful acting, add to that the fact it feels like you are watching a pirate DVD (this isn't the Blair Witch) and that just about does it. I felt like switching it off about 20 minutes through, but I didn't and along it plodded until to my eternal shame it made me jump, just the once though. But that was it, and it was quite early on, later in the movie there were other things to disappoint, bad make up and effects, along with some more pretty awful acting. Some people may say this film was good for a low budget movie, I say I thought it was written, directed and performed by a class of first year performing arts students, and that is what I honestly thought. I thought I would watch the extras on the DVD and be amazed by this tale, of a group of performing arts students who had made their first movie which had become a cult hit and propelled all of the stars into Hollywood stardom, but sadly not. It was made by professionals. It was a film which just didn't deliver, well it did but the wrong things, bad acting, bad script, bad make up and bad effects, the worst movie I think I have ever seen!


Laura is an agoraphobic who works from her laptop and has her friend Nikki run all of her errands for her. Her psychological disease doesn't seem to affect her life much, except for the fact that she answers the door with a large kitchen knife. But soon she notices that things in her apartment are being arranged, and after one terrifying incident she is convinced her apartment is haunted. Desperate and unable to leave her home, she seeks the help of Elizabeth, a hokey online ghosthunter.

There's a lot to dislike about "GhostWatcher," but this is really one of the better no-budge horror movies distributed by Lion's Gate that I have had the pleasure of watching. Now that I think of it, I found this haunted house flick is more entertaining than any of the recent theatrically released ones (The Grudge, Darkness, Amityville). The plot is original (if you discount Copycat), and although it isn't exploited to its full potential, there are some damn fine twists that keep the story interesting. The story structure is not that different from The Ring. Unfortunately, there are also some stupid plot elements that should have been removed or tweaked. Some of the scares are effectively frightening (there is one scene that should get to anyone who allows themselves to be scared), while others are silly, mostly due to poor make-up effects. The lighting in this film is surprisingly impressive and often comes across as influenced by Argento. The acting is another hit-or-miss factor, but it is refreshing that the leads are all capable women, and women that look very normal. In fact, the movie looks like a big group of friends got together with limited resources to make a horror film. But make no mistake, this is a good ghost story, not a belligerent Troma flick. These folks are talented and know what they're doing. While the score is well done, my biggest complaint is the music used in the film, which consists of generic aggro-rock that disrupts the overall tone of the movie. I would recommend this to anyone who has an open mind about very low-budge horror. My Rating: 6.5/10.


First let me say good movie. Not great, but not bad. The lighting scene was great. I had a couple of questions about the film. First what camera did you guys use. I wacthed the commentary and it mentioned nothing about it. Just wondering. Also not to be a dick but how did loins gate hear of this movie? Was it festivals buzz or did you just send out 100 copies? I have done a low budget film ,and I know how hard it is. Again great job getting it on store shelves and if you are looking for crew for the new flick let me know I would love to work on it. The gag reel looked like you guys where having fun? Also did you have to put the A. in your name because of the other David cross from Mr Show, or have you always done that?

Thanks for your time. Good luck on Gostwachter 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6.


I liked this movie. OK, so the low budget was apparent and the acting was not great at times, but the story kept me gripped throughout and some scenes really freaked me out, particularly at the beginning of the movie. Sure, its not the scariest movie I've ever seen, but few films freak me out these days and so this movie gets a thumbs up from me.

You can really tell that everyone seemed to have a good time making the movie as well as I certainly detected a few tongue-in-cheek moments throughout.

Also, bonus points for having a webcam girl as a heroine - woohoo!


We watch a new horror movie every week so we have a VERY open mind when it comes to low-budget films. Let us tell you that this one was one of the worst we've ever seen! The acting was simply horrific, the ending was completely uneventful, and it was just not scary at all. We love watching "B horror movies," they are usually very entertaining but this was just boring, and an embarrassment to all involved. You sit there and wait for something to happen but nothing really does. The makeup was horrible (big surprise), the "ghosts" or "zombie- things" looked like they came straight from a grammar school haunted house-yeah, real frightening-we were waiting for the zombies to scream, "BOO!" Besides that, the filming was close to the worst we've ever seen, if not the worst. We usually let that go if the acting and the rest of the movie is decent since we know they can only do what their budget allows but this just compounded the horror of the movie. Ghost Watcher 2 is now out, we'll rent it since we want to see if the 2nd part to this "film" could possibly get any worse!


This is a fair to reasonable movie about a recluse experiencing strange sights and phenomenon in her apartment. How can she leave when she's more terrified of going out? Claustrophobic in its execution, it turns into a ghost story instead of delving into whether the things happening or just illusions are just in her mind, but therein is the motivation of the script. Where it falls apart for me is the introduction of the pseudo-intellectual ghost-hunter more interested in selling gear and a lot of paranormal mishmash, none of which makes sense or is close to the real thing, but then for the sake of story-telling, film-makers rarely care about keeping it real. Cute and attractive, Jillian Byrnes gives a very good performance, and the directing style keeps in atmosphere throughout, but like I said, it is only in the plot and how believable it is that I find fault. Does the movie have its scares? Yes, but they are from the talent of the director working with the material given him by the writer.


Bad editing, no style, no acting... just terrible.

Was this made by a high school student? A bad high school student? This isn't bad in a good or ironic way, just bad as in you really don't need to waste your time with this.

I find it odd that any IMDb users gave this a rating of more than one star.

I watched this with two friends of mine and we all agreed on how crappy this movie is. We watched a bit of the special features, the gag reel. Also very bad! Not funny or amusing in any way. They were just takes of scenes they didn't use.

The story seemed like a good one, actually I read about this movie and really looked forward to watching it but what a mistake that was.


I knew this movie was going to be crap when I saw that it had been filmed using the same handy-cam that I use for family events. The acting was really bad and at times made no sense. The only scene that I thought was remotely worth watching was when you briefly see the "Killer" in a flash of cheesy lightning. I would only recommend this film if your only other entertainment option was watching paint dry, and even then you would had to tick me off really bad. I personally can't figure out how there could be a sequel to this movie. There was nothing worth watching the first time what on earth could have inspired the second go-round?


Wednesday is movie night for my wife and I, and here lately we've been diving into lesser known ghost movies. This movie caught our attention this last week and we rented it. Oh my, this movie was absolutely horrible. It must have had a budget of about $45. Some parts of it made absolutely NO sense. The "investigator" takes a description of "we drove for 10 minutes, turned left, turned right, crossed some railroad tracks" and was able to drive to the exact spot where this lady was accosted? The acting was sub-par, to the point where I have a theory that the actors were personal friends of the director, so he basically rounded up whoever he could to star in the flick. I see there is a sequel to this using the same actress for the main character. I'll be sure to skip over that one at Blockbuster.


I gave this a three out of ten. The three is only posted due to the fact that I now have an unflagging faith that myself and four of my stupid half-wit drunk friends can make a movie and release it directly to video. And then follow up with a sequel. There is apparently no prerequisite exam to becoming a director. Okay, enough ripping. Down to business. First and foremost, the damn thing was filmed in Grainavision or something. It looked like they sanded the lens before they shot. In addition, it didn't appear that the production crew cared to waste any money on Steady-Cam. Also, periodic wacky camera angles, reminiscent of the old Batman series litter this cinematic train wreck. As to whether they are intentional or not is a point of conjecture. But wait....it DOES get worse. I can live with two dimensional characters. Good actors are expensive. I'm down with the sound. But they could have at least had the common decency to memorize their lines and not spit them at the camera. I've heard better deliveries from the recorded 411 information. Will I watch the sequel? Oh yea, I will. I carry the Ever Burning Torch of the Satellite of Love. There is of course some redeeming qualities. First of, the story line could have gone somewhere. It really could have. If it had been polished a bit, it could have carried the movie. I like the premise very much. Also, even if they ARE amateur actors, eye candy abounds.


i enjoyed the movie, i thought it was fun, entertaining and interesting. what bothers me about all these flamingly mean reviews is that these people seem to forget that this is a FIRST MOVIE FOR MOST OF THESE PEOPLE! David cross, his actors and crew did a great job and show a whole lot of potential even if they didn't get it ALL perfect first time around. I don't know ANYONE who ever got everything right on their first try. show me any of these vehement haters that did, and i will take their criticism. until then, enjoy this movie for what it is, a fun, low budget, horror movie! Keep an eye out for the sequel, and best of luck to all who worked on this film!


Its a pity you cant give this film a zero or -1 cause that si what it deserves, i think that this is definitely the worst film i have ever seen ever in history, the whole storyline is absolutely B*llocks and the attempt to make a horror film is completely forgotten as the film progresses. the acting is by far the worst amateur acting i have ever seen, every line is forced out and each member of the cast is really, really bad at showing emotion. half way through the film i sat there dertermined to watch the film to the end, not because i was struggling to stay awake or anything like that, but simply to see if the film would at all improve just slightly. the fact this film is meant to be a horror is a joke as the attempt to make it at all scary is thrown out the window with in the first five minutes. not only am i disappointed with the film, in fact I'm disgusted that any video store would even stock this film and be willing to rent it out to innocent film lovers, all stores that choose to rent this film out should have this film in a large case with a 20ft warning sign that says " Please understand that by watching this film you are not only wasting your hard earned money but even worse you are putting yourself through what will be years of torture and torment at the realisation that at the end of this film you would have lost about 2 hours of your life that you will never get back, please approach film with great caution, also we don't do refunds.p.s. WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK." HONESTLY though this is one hell of a boring film, i actually felt physically weak by the end of just watching it. please don't watch this film as it is extremely bad.thank you for taking my advice.


Why anyone would be at all willing to defend this piece of tripe is beyond me. Is that a rude statement, designed to evoke a defensive response in people with poor taste in films - or no taste at all? No. It is, quite simply, the statement of a fact: I do not understand why anyone would enjoy this film.

I've no idea what the film was shot on, but the video quality is equivalent to that of 1.5 hours worth of America's Funniest Home Videos. The music was god-awful, repetitive and annoying. Who would actually LISTEN to this stuff? And, the acting. Here is where this pile truly shines. Every line seems forced and awkward, read or poorly memorized instead of being acted. Any casting director who worked on this film would be forced into suicide after viewing it, so I can agree with another poster who took the opinion that these actors are the director's friends, or friends of friends.

What about the story? Well... what about it? There's really nothing to talk about here. Only the first 20 minutes or so of the film have anything at all to do with ghosts or "ghost watching." After that it's all exposition involving characters we know nothing about due to extremely poor characterization. Then again, I guess good characterization isn't really possible when the film is acted by people who would merely call that a "big word," and not attempt to understand its meaning.

Do not waste your time with this piece of dreck. The music, story, filming, acting, lighting, sound... it's all absolutely terrible. $4 for a rental was, quite simply, the worst $4 I have ever spent.

- J


Having seen pretty much ever horror movie ever made I can safely say I have seen it all. And I can also state quite confidently that the scariest movies were made in the between the 60's and 80's (Exorcist, Amityville Horror, Rosemary''s Baby, Carrie, Psycho, Texas Chainsaw, Evil Dead.... just to name a few), and the crap that came out after that was mostly crap (Friday the 13th, Halloween, Candy Man, The Others, and your average slasher thrill-kill flicks...). Recently, the only good horror movies I've seen were Stigmata, Ju-on, and the Ring. Ghostwatcher reminds me of a low budget film from the 80's called Witchboard. Same type of cinematography, music, acting and style. Witcboard scared me then, and Ghostwatcher scared me now. It's the possession thing. Hard to pull off, but when it's done right it's scary as hell. David Cross, the director, must have seen Witchboard and liked it too. Ghostwatcher made my girlfriend scream out loud and it made me want to shut my eyes a few times too. The LAST thing this movie needs is a big budget, because it's better off the way it is. It is genuinely eerie and believable in a way most other flicks are not. The haunting scenes are blood-curdling and it has some excellent originality which I have not seen used before. Although I would have thought this movie was made in the 80's, that is not a bad thing - because most good movies were, so cudos to Cross for capturing a mood that is so hard to find in modern day horror. And cudos to the nearly yall female cast as well for pulling off horror with a blend of amusement and coolness as well. I loved it. Anyone who puts this movie down obviously has no fear of hauntings, and should stick to the slasher flicks, which don't scare me at all. But if hauntings scare you, then see this movie. And keep the lights down low. Definitely a good ride.


I rented this movie from the corner variety store, I love anything to do with ghosts so i was happy to rent it. I liked this movie cause i didn't have to wait 1 hr into the movie for things to start happening; the best part was the kitchen scene where she's huddling in the corner on the floor and you see the 'ghost' sitting beside her as the lightning outside illuminates the kitchen in flashes. I also liked the knife scene where she's looking at her camera that she set up in her bedroom to see a startling image. I'm glad I have no closet in my room where the door opens easily, cause if mine did what hers did; i would be freaked out agoraphobic or not, i'd be out the door. This movie will end up on my personal movie shelf if i get the chance to buy it. It's not Amityville; but pretty close! Good job for a low budget flick.. 9/10


We rented this movie over the weekend and just loved it! It had it's share of good scares. I collect horror movies and definitely want to add this to my collection. If you don't really like horror this is not the movie for you. It has a low budget, sure, but so did Evil Dead and it has a following. The girl who played Laura actually made you feel her fear and added to the suspense. It had the typical "Don't go down there" theme that freaks my husband out. And the "ghost" was just spooky enough, bald men seem scarier than men with hair. I think anyone should give this movie a chance, I personally liked it better than "The Grudge"!


I watch a lot of horror movies and this is one of the few movies I've seen in the past year or two that actually scared me multiple times. And I was into it and entertained the whole way though. Yes is is VERY low budget but that does not equal bad. Considering it was shot in I believe ten days in the director's friend's and mother's house they did an amazing job! I would love to see what this writer/director as well as his co-editor and cinematographer could do with some millions of dollars. I hope someone gives it to them. Jillian Byrnes has a lot of potential as well. I await the next project and plan to check out the many plugs included in the commentary.


This probably looked really good on paper. An agoraphobic girl finds out that she's living in a haunted house. I guess that's one way of solving the age-old question for haunted house movies, "Why don't they just leave?" The problem is that the protagonist is completely unengaging. I don't know any agoraphobics. Well, I guess I wouldn't, would I? But it does make it pretty difficult to relate to your main character when she's kinda crazy to begin with. That, on top of the poor video quality and the fact that it quickly turns into a run of the mill haunted house story make it a misfire. It just goes to show you, and interesting tagline doesn't necessarily make an interesting movie.


Without any doubt, this was the absolute worst movie I have ever rented. I absolutely am shocked that Blockbuster would offer shelf space to such an amateurish, student-quality film. Forget the R rating; this film gets an F.

To be as fair as possible, the general plot idea about an agoraphobic trapped in her haunted apartment presents a novel dilemma, so interesting we decided to rent the movie. But that is where any promise of a good or even average movie ends. While there are a few (very few) moments that, if properly developed, would have been truly frightening, nothing ever develops. The story meanders with superfluous characters and disjointed scenes. Overall, I could not shake the feeling that the cast and crew believed this movie could be another Blair Witch Project. It isn't by any stretch.

Perhaps it was the rush to get the movie finished, or perhaps the script was not fully developed prior to shooting, or perhaps the producers should have spent more time finding a lead actor with some actual acting talent, whatever the reason, the end product is truly horrific--for all the wrong reasons.


I tried to rent this flick a bunch of times, but a copy was never available at the video store. So, I just broke down and bought it. Got tired of waiting. Anyhow, I thought it was pretty good. I mean, it was low budget and all, but so what? It was creepy, fun and different. I liked that not-so-Hollywood look. These days everyone's so spoiled with how they make big, expensive movies look. "Halloween" doesn't look as good as most movies out nowadays, and everyone loves that. So, what's the difference? I think I know. Everyone blasting this movie is bummed because they were taken in by the slick cover art and the "Lions Gate" name. And now, because the movie itself isn't as slick as Scream, or The Ring, everyone wants to blame the filmmakers. Well, for those who don't know, I'm pretty sure they don't oversee that stuff. If you wanna blame somebody for taking your money, blame the guy who made the art work. Seriously...I bet if someone handed you a blank disc in a brown paper bag and told you to watch it, you'd be pleasantly surprised with what you got. It's all about the presentation. I bet you're the same folks who bought all those Dracula, Wolfman and Mummy movies because the packaging was cool.

Anyway, it seems to me this is just a cool little flick by some unknown who's trying to make movies. That's it. I suggest everyone who initially hated it open their minds, accept it for what it is and watch it again. I bet you'll feel differently.


Synopsis : Here is a tale of a young woman, Laura Kove, who struggles after being subjected to some frightening occurances on Halloween night. A year later she she has been closed off from the outside world, having only her friend Nikki to help her out. When things start to get uneasy again, she seeks the help of Elizabeth Dean who happens to run a ghost watcher's website. Together they will uncover the truth, the truth that haunts Laura.

Overview : *Atmosphere A wonderful setup with the beginning of the film, to give us a feel of what it must be like for Laura to be so paranoid she can't leave her apartment. We are in her shoes yet the reason WHY she is this way isn't shoved down our throats.....it's a gradual discovery. *Story Smooth storytelling, writing, and execution. A genuine ghost story with some modern twists.

*Cast/Characters Some truly talented actors in this film. No overdramtic scenes or poor stage direction. Keep your eyes peeled on this cast to appear in more films down the lines. The characters had depth, they were individuals and showed all different aspects of people you may know.

*Pace The movie was over before you knew it and has you craving for more! Good transistions between acts to bring you to the finale where everything falls together nicely.

*F/X Amazing effects team on this film because the there were moments that were just so eerie and even one scene made me cringe so bad my tummy flipped!!

*Cinematography Filmed in and around the Maryland area, you felt like you were right there. Even job well done in the limited space of the apartment that Laura never leaves.

Jekyll's Rating : It was a true pleasure to be able to watch this film and also meet the guys in charge of it. Very talented individuals and I look forward to checking out what they have in store for us next.


GhostWatcher is a great horror film. It's very scary, with alot of good "jumps" and goosebump moments. It's an "edge of your seat" movie. The story is intelligent and well thought-out. All three actresses deliver terrific performances. This is the first film for aspiring writer/director David A. Cross, and he's done a fantastic job. The movie has only been in limited release (a few horror fests, some individual showings at area movie theatres)...I'd love to see it released on DVD & video, so more people can experience it. If you love scary movies, you'll love GhostWatcher.


I came across this little lions gate gem by accident. And yes I must say that i was a bit impressed by it, maybe cause my expectations fell so low. But i think not. Sure the film's acting isn't great, but it's very few films especially in the genre that measure up. The spfx are non existent, the camera effects are a bit annoying but the sound and the storyline are pretty damn cool. plus the guy who wrote and directed this has some talent and will probably be going places very soon. The film centers around a young woman named Laura who was brutally attacked by a stalker. Because of the incident shes sustained agoraphobia ( for anyones whose seen Copycat-it's fear of leaving the place you find safe.) Unable to leaver her apartment she finds herself being haunted by a violent ghost. She almost immediately enlists the help of an internet fake who ends up being interested in becoming the real dead. the film has some nice twists and turns, most of which are quite surprising. But the big question here is how and why this film hasn't been talked about more. sure it looks a little like one of my weekend film projects but like mine this film has some real potential. it's obvious that everyone associated with the film are genre fans and it really shows. Kudos to the cast and crew of Ghost Watcher let the buzz begin! 7/10


I am dumber after having watched this movie. The plot, actors, story, and music all sucked. I know this is a low budget movie, but couldn't they go to some local college and get some people who can actually act. The plot was stupid,slow and really didn't make a lot of sense. The entire time I watched the movie, I made fun of the acting, and was never once scared. The thing that made the most mad was that the cover of the movie jacket had nothing at all to do with the movie. Totally fooled me into spending $4 on this film. The longer I watched, the more convinced I became that this was someone's final project for film making 101. And, I would give them an F!At one point, I thought someone was playing a joke on me, and put the wrong movie in the case. Don't waste your time on this, unless you are a masochist.


I rented this movie based on the glowing review on this site. Was the review written by the director's himself? Or perhaps his mother. I can't imagine anyone else giving such a favourable review to this film.

This is not only one of the worst horror movies I've ever seen, it's also one of the worst movies of any kind that I've ever seen (and I've seen some pretty bad films).

Unfortunately it looks like the success of The Blair Witch Project has encouraged other amateur filmmakers to make low-budget horror movies, and they aren't letting an idiotic script and talentless actors prevent them from forging ahead.

Watching this movie was such a complete waste of time that the local video store allowed me to rent another film for free by way of an apology.


It's a shame that A&E's pitifully-edited version of Framed is the only one most American audiences have seen; for it showcases one of Timothy Dalton's most striking performances. As Eddie Myers, Dalton is charming, frightening, slimy, and charismatic. Down to the last scene, you're never sure what he will do. Hopefully, the full PAL version translated to NTSC will eventually be available in the US. In the meantime, watch the A&E version (they replay it occasionally). It's better than nothing.


I've only seen this in the 'edited' DVD form. If this is indeed cut to bits like I've read, the original must have been fantastic. I thought that the performances of David Morrissey and Timothy Dalton were riveting.


I found Framed to be a pretty entertaining film overall - unfortunately, the only version of the film available to me here in the United States is the Americanized version of the film. As a British television miniseries, Framed clocks in at around four hours; the American version on the other hand was somehow edited down to a crispy two hour TV-feature. Strangely (and luckily) enough, that editing process did not make the American version of Framed disjointed, odd, or confusing. Whether or not it is better or worse than the original miniseries form, the U.S. cut of Framed is actually a pretty good film with fine performances from lead actors Timothy Dalton and David Morrissey.

Vacationing in Spain, British police Sgt. Larry Jackson (David Morrissey) thinks he is seeing a ghost: a convict-turned-informant named Eddie Myers (Timothy Dalton) who was supposed to have died after escaping custody. Further investigation by Jackson reveals that the man he is seeing really is Myers and Jackson orchestrates Myers' arrest. Myers now spends his days with Jackson in a police-run compound giving up his powerful one-time criminal accomplices - and messing with Jackson's mind and life....

The production value is what one might expect from an early-1990s TV production - which is to say, bland - but other elements make the film worthwhile: the film's story is engrossing and the acting is very good. David Morrissey is a very good lead as Sgt. Jackson; Timothy West gives an entertaining turn as Jimmy McKinnes, the high-ranking police official hell-bent on using Myers to his fullest; and (a dubbed) Penélope Cruz makes a nice showing. Timothy Dalton is the film's brightest star - as Myers, Dalton is fantastic as this intelligent and high-classed but dangerous and unpredictable criminal mind.

Although half of its original material has been cut out, the American version of Framed is an entertaining film; but boy would I have liked to have seen what the other two hours included.


Unfortunately the full, four-hour version of FRAMED is not available in the U.S. The two-hour DVD presentation (which aired in America on A&E) is at times difficult to follow due to the convoluted plot line, but is well worth seeing for the compelling performances by Timothy Dalton, David Morrissey and the rest of the cast in a psychological crime thriller where you are never quite sure how it will end up until almost the very last moment. Dalton plays a criminal playboy mastermind who is slippery beyond belief and gives a hard-hitting, edgy performance in a demanding role... possibly his best ever. (Let's just say this character makes James Bond look like Mr. Bean by comparison!) Morrissey is great as the eager young cop who falls under his influence. If you enjoyed movies like INSIDE MAN or SILENCE OF THE LAMBS you'll probably find this worth viewing.

Fortunately, most of Dalton's performance is preserved in the two-hour version, which nevertheless cuts out a lot of scenes involving David Morrisey's character and his wife, and Dalton's interactions with "his girls," as well as the vast majority of the series' first episode that takes place in Spain.


People have lauded Seth Macfarlane's 'Family Guy 'as the only cartoon to make pop cultural references in its show but in actuality, it was Freakazoid that really started it all off. The sarcasm and humorous send-ups and spoofs of politicians, celebrities, TV and movie characters franchise's was used to great effect. Freakazoid also pokes fun at the other superheroes; thus he is the antithesis of the traditional superhero- if you have watched the show you can tell that he sure doesn't act like one. Originally a teenage computer nerd, he becomes Freakazoid overnight after he is zapped by the computer screen, whilst on his PC and thus he becomes a totally different character, wearing a black mask and what looks like either red leather spandex or tight skinned pyjamas.

Originally aimed at a much younger audience, the humour in Freakazoid can be enjoyed by many adults as well. In fact, almost all the pop and cultural references in Freakazoid can be best understood if you are above 16. The jokes, puns, are often laugh out loud funny, sharp and original and the comic delivery was spot on. The jokes and the spoofing of celebrities, politicians was done in a way that you'd be laughing your head off.

Indeed, Freakazoid is a very interesting concept, and very clever it is too. Why the hell this was cancelled, I have no idea but whatever that reason is, whether it had to do with the fact it didn't attract such a massive audience, or it was simply the fact that many people just didn't get it whatsoever, Freakazoid wasn't just one of Warner Bros. better cartoons that dared to be different- but rather it was different to the extent to which it didn't sacrifice the humour, creativity and originality.

My favourite moments were the celebrity intro of the first season when 2 women, who looked like Hilary Clinton and Princess Diana, had a punch up over Freakazoid. As this happens, Freakazoid goes: 'now, now there's plenty of me to go round. and if there isn't well, I'll just have them draw me bigger!' LMAO! and in quantum freak- a spin off of the 90s US show, Quantum leap-,there is even a short but famous scene taken from the film, The Graduate where Mrs Robinson shows off her legs, or indeed one of them in front of our superhero.

One of the last great cartoons of the 20th century, this under rated and under appreciated effort didn't get the recognition and mass audience appeal it so richly deserved. As one has written, whilst he lacks superpowers of any kind, Freakazoid's wit, humour and sarcasm all make up for it. Combine all this with great animation, and terrific humour and what you get with Freakazoid is a brilliant, riotous and downright funny show with a capital F. The people at Warner Bros made a terrible mistake in axing this cartoon, as this was truly a blast from start to finish


I rediscovered this show through the wonders of (how fitting!) the Internet. The show is funnier for me today than when it first aired, mainly because I now understand that the main target were not children but people of more age, something that is relatively unknown. The show is wonderfully silly and smart, referencing itself constantly, spoofing Hollywood, breaking character and being as "Brechtian" as possible. Live action sequences are constantly used and clichés are consciously overdone. It is a fantastic piece of work that makes fun of TV and movies in a wacky and enjoyable way. I wish it could be revived, I really do.


Freakazoid was one of the best, albeit underrated, cartoons of the 90s. If I could find it on tape/DVD somewhere, I would buy it--no second thoughts. It was original, random, and absolutely hilarious. It breaks my heart when I drop a Freakazoid reference and no one around me gets it. I want my children's children to be able to see this show. The plot rarely matched up with anything else that had previously happened in the show, and that's what made it great. The villains were bizarre and neurotic, most notably The Lobe. Anyone else remember the Norm Abrahm episode? Genius. Freakazoid was also chalk-full of random catch phrases. I still catch myself saying "Ah nut bunnies!" from time to time. If you're unfortunate enough to never have seen Freakazoid, find an episode or ten, drop what you're doing, and watch. You won't regret it.


I didn't even know that Freakazoid existed until I looked at YouTube. I watched a couple episodes of it and I thought it was one of the funniest shows ever made. I couldn't stop laughing at the completely random humor and satire scattered throughout. It was a bit closer in tone to shows like The Simpsons or Rocky and Bullwinkle. Freakazoid acted less like a real superhero and more like, well a cartoon character. There were also other funny segments like Lord Bravery, Fatman and Boy Blubber, The Huntsman, etc., It was basically one of those shows where story didn't really matter and it was just there to make you laugh. It is such a shame that this brilliantly hilarious show only lasted two seasons. This is my fourth favorite cartoon, right after The Simpsons, Futurama, and Pinky & The Brain.


It was funny, insightful, versatile, with tons of parodies, but unfortunately also one of those short lived shows in the 90s.

I relay liked it, even when I rewatched it. Yeah, there were none funny moments and jokes, but most of it worked out swell. Best thing was you never knew how it's going to end, because the show was chaotic, and some stupid endings were resolved with "Cut! Oh forget it, lets do something else." In a way the writers and studio represented themselves in this, and got away with it easy.

It was sad when they canceled it after the second season, but it could have been worse. If they were to drag it for too long (or worse, remake it now), they would have came up against the Internets public new growing image of adult entertainment. Now there is so much horror in the Internet that I don't even want to know what kind of Freakazoid it could make. Still, one more season would not have ruined the show.

All in all, a great short lived comedy show, worth watching anyway.


In terms of quality in execution and scripts, this was run of the mill stuff. Butr lets be honest, everyone loved this show as soon as they watched it. Basic, zany, Spielberg produced Freakazoid was just one of those shows you watched in hilarity, compete and utter rubbish and yet you loved it. And who can forget the theme tune? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEcxwMxfB3I, go on to see the theme tune in all its glory Super-teen extraordinaire Freakazoid! Freakazoid! Runs around in underwear Freakazoid! Freakazoid!

Rescues Washington D.C. Freakazoid! Freakazoid! Unless something better's on TV Freakazoid! Freakazoid!

His brain's overloading It has a chocolate coating Textbook case for Sigmund Freud Freakazoid! Freakazoid!

Check out Dexter Douglas Nerd computer ace Went surfing on the internet And was zapped to cyberspace

He turned into the Freakazoid He's strong and super-quick He drives the villains crazy 'Cause he's a lunatic

His home base is the Freakalair Freakazoid! Fricassee! Floyd the Barber cuts his hair Freakazoid! Chimpanzee!

Rides around in the Freakmobile Freakazoid! Freakazoo! Hopes to make a movie deal Freaka me! Freaka you!

He's here to save the nation So stay tuned to this station If not, we'll be unemployed Freakazoid! Freakazoid! Freakazoid!!!


Starring the remarkable Innokenti Smoktunovsky in the title role, this film is completely unlike the Ken Russell debacle 'The Music Lovers.' Talankin's film is absolutely breathtaking in its fidelity to the story of the composer's life as I know it from numerous sources. The resemblance of Smoktunovsky to Tchaikovsky is striking and it's very easy to suspend disbelief and imagine one is watching the composer himself -- and in color!

The film doesn't try to go far afield from simply telling the facts of the composer's life, but then it really doesn't have to: the true story is vastly interesting. Brought to life splendidly are Nadejda von Meck, the Rubinsteins, Hermann Laroche -- all those characters familiar from the musical life of Russia in the late 19th century. Executive Producer Dmitri Tiomkin returned to Russia to arrange and conduct the soundtrack before such cultural exchanges became commonplace. Tiomkin's work with Tchaikovsky's music is respectful and also highly creative at the same time. While 'Tchaikovsky' is certainly not as fanciful as Hollywood or Ken Russell it's all the more rewarding for it.


Tchaikovsky (1969): Innokenti Smoktunovsky, Antonina Shuranova, Vladislav Strzhelchik, Kirill Lavrov,Alla Demidova, Yevgeni Leonov, Bruno Frejnndilkh, Maya Plisetskaya, Yevgeni Yevstigneyev, Liliya Yudina...Director Igor Talankin....Screenplay Yuri Nagibin, Budimir Metalnikov.

"I merge with you in your music"...........

This Russian film, from director Igor Talankin, was an obscure, independent foreign film when it was in theaters in 1969 and played in art-houses in the 1970's. But its impact must have been great, fueling the idea for other similar films about classical music composers (to name a few, Ken Russell's Mahler 1975, Amadeus 1984 and Immortal Beloved 1995). It is a long, emotionally driven and romanticized account of the life of Peter Ilych Tchaikovsky. While not every aspect of his life is covered, and his homosexuality is implied in the most subtle of hints, it is a glossy, beautiful tale with the theme of an artist and his muse. In the case of the real Tchaikovsky, it was his patron the reclusive millionairess Madame Natalia Von Meck. Their relationship is the focus of the film. Filmed on location in Russia and France, the film follows the life of Tchaikovsky, highlighting the key moments of his career. True to the depiction of him as a child, he was a gifted musician but a frail, sickly child with mood swings and psychological problems, problems which would continue through his adulthood. His first big step is a relationship with the prominent pianist Nicholas Rubinstein. In the film, Tchaikovsky occupies his time composing and teaching music to his pupils while studying music at the Conservatory, where he makes most of his friends. All this is very true, but the film completely ignores the fact that Tchaikovsky was gay and quite troubled by it, as this was a restrictive and very Catholic Russia. Only through small hints do we perceive his turmoil. His sudden marriage to Antonina was simply his way of attempting to quiet whispers and live a seemingly normal straight life. But after an attempted suicide, he divorces her. Meanwhile, his only relationship with a female is with the wealthy and older Madame Von Meck. She adores his music and supports him financially. They never meet and correspond only through letters, something which goes on for 13 years. For Von Meck, it appears to be a kind of mental love affair, and when she arranges for an actual meeting in a country estate, Tchaikovsky runs away, breaking her heart. There are many gorgeous and moving scenes, but these are limited to the ones between Tchaikovsky and Von Meck, such as the scene in the train in which Tchaikovsky, reading her letter, imagines she is in the train with him, and the two contemplate the nature of their relationship, one solely based in music. After the death of Rubinstein, Tchaikovsky begins to ponder his own mortality. Death comes again, this time for Madame Von Meck, who suffers a mental illness after becoming bankrupt. Tchaikovsky's imagination and creativity is fueled by these various experiences, and although we do not see him create the ballets he is most famous for - Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty and Nutcracker, we see the completion of his Piano Concerto 1 (which was said to be unplayable), his Fourth Symphony which he dedicated to Von Meck and his great operas, the romantic tragedy Eugene Onegin, which reflected Tchaikovsky's own doomed relationship with his one-time wife and the melancholy final opera Queen of Spades, which seems to be making a sad statement about his relationship with Van Meck, the inspiration for the old Countess who has the secret to winning in the card game. It appears that Tchaikovsky felt he used Van Meck and she haunted him after her death. The music to the film is a hodgepodge of Tchaikovsky music including the symphonies and ballets but the score to this film uses variations and Tchaikovsky-like melodies composed by Dimitri Tiomkin, a noted Russian film composer who also made music for American movies, such as Fall of the Roman Empire in 1964. This is a long, poetic, philosophical, dreamy and romantic film, filmed on location in Russia and France, including Paris. The cinematography tends to be both romantic and bleak, which best describes the moods of Tchaikovsky. This is an excellent film for music students to watch, simply because the acting is top-notch (the actor playing Tchaikovsky is hauntingly like Tchaikovsky himself) and although this is not an accurate and detailed account of Tchaikovsky's life, it's an impressive film worth viewing by anyone who loves classical music and that of Tchaikovsky, the Romantic from Russia.


I always regarded this opus as a rare piece of trash. There is close to nothing from real Tchaikovsky in this movie, just a glossed Stalinist version of the composer, the kind they indoctrinated in every music classroom to every youngster - that he was a progressive genius whose works fit socialist realism and Lenin's ideas about socialist culture very well. By the way, a vast majority of ignorant Russians are still offended by the notion of him being a homosexual. The composer's letters and reputable biographies are published in minuscule circulation, this film is seen by millions. Here's the power of indoctrination even in post-communist era. On top of that, the society is generally extremely homophobic. They used to send people to prison for homosexuality up to 1994, and every year there is a discussion in their parliament on resurrecting this law as part of criminal code. So here is your cultural backdrop...

Now, the movie has its own little merits, but the underlying total lie and poor director's thinking and probably general grasp of the subject make the better parts totally worthless.

Soviet cinema had its glorious moments, especially in the great escape of great patriotic war movies, where things were black and white, at least where the real evil was. The biographies - there were few interesting ones (Tsiolkovsky's, Pavlov come to mind), but always castrated by the intricacies of either Stalinist or post-Stalinist era.

I'd love to ramble on, but I think I got the main message clear - the film is a great lie, and on film merits alone is not a good work either. So to those first few folks who put there rave 10 star reviews - what planet are you from? Start from reading books, including composer's own letters. Then compare what you learned with what you see. Otherwise, Lenin still wins his micro battle in your consciousness, and the bastard doesn't deserve this, and you neither.

It would be great to make a true biographical movie or better yet mini-series about composer's life. His life was full of tremendous drama, add real music scores that make sense - and it could be something worth watching. Hollywood can't do it, its mostly prostituting pure trash, the French or Germans might. Russians could have, when the country and its cinematography was free for a fairly brief time, not these days of self-censorship, return of government control and new rules. And to say the composer was gay is a faux pas. How would one film a biography without this basic fact.

PS Regarding subtitles - never expect a decent work from Russian video publishers, it's in best case scenario a sloppy translation (heck, the translation of Tarkovsky's Andrey Rublev is simply horrible at times, and that's criterion edition). Few exceptions are fairy tales.


I will remember this movie all my life.I watched it twice on the 80s in a movie club.One with my friends and the other with my dad,a real fan of Tchaikowski as myself.Two days in a row because it was so moving,so wonderfully made,I had to watch it again.I wonder why I didn't find it on cable in all these years!

All the biographical musical movies are better made out of Hollywood ,I must say.Hollywood is too much show and fantasy,but this version of Tchaikowski's life is so close to his actual history you can't help to believe you are actually watching Piotr Yllich living his life than an actor playing a part.

I will always keep in my mind the scene beside the water where he was writing the 4th Symphony in the times of Nadezhda Von Meck,his benefactor.So poetical,so deep and without words.Only music and a beautiful sight.Great photography!If you didn't watch this movie,do.If you like Tchaikowski,you won't regret it.


This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The acting is terrible, the musical score doesn't even fit the scenes - it's just random Tchaikovsky pieces inserted in random places. When some characters are speaking French (they were in France I think, I only got that from one line saying it was good to travel), it's just dubbed over. The actual actors/actresses don't even speak French. To top it off, there are no subtitles indicating what these actors are actually saying. In one scene there is about 2 minutes of yelling between a French transient and somebody walking with Tchaikovsky - very heated discourse - and there are no subtitles. The cinematography is horrific - tons of shaky shots/off center shots/ etc. Basically, this is a film where a bunch of extras were put in with a shoddy story (I'm not entirely sure there was a flowing story), terrible dialogue, and a musical score that never fits the scene. This is, without a doubt, the worst film I have ever seen in my life. This is a travesty of film.


That is correct. i deem this film to be the worst I've ever seen in my life. and im not a new comer on the scene. i am also an ardent tchaikovskyite. so i would have been more than glad to give this movie high praise if indeed it was worthy of it. what makes a good movie? it moves. it makes you want to see what happens next. it has a cohesive narrative that is logical and persuasive. i have never relegated a movie to be the worst ever till now. the cinematography is terrible. the story line is an unlikely jumble. there is little veracity here. its music making and performances are nil. i was barely able to watch this movie once a year ago. there is nothing in it that would want me to see it again. so it sits on the shelf. the portrayals were wooden and unlifelike. by golly, "the music lovers" was a cinematic masterpiece next to this, travesty of tchaikovsky's life as it was. it still was entertaining. i don't know where these Russian directors get their training but i can tell you that any American or English director would have done a much better job. in reading some of the other reviews i felt that i was living on another planet. give this movie high praise and extol it to the skies? beats me thats for sure. i relegate this one to the trash bin. a complete and total disappointment.


Perhaps there are people who would disdain the grainy look of this film, or hate the jumpy camera work. I, for one, think that Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is a genius. You really have to appreciate his film making. Amores Perros is a must see for those of you who haven't seen it yet, and Powder Keg is no exception either. This film focuses much more on emotions and injustices in Central and South America, and really lays the drama on in the end. Brilliant work. I'm glad that BMW did this series, perhaps they will see fit to release it on DVD, that would be excellent.


Tears could not be held back when viewing this BMW film. The first film was a groundbreaking car chase by the "master" John Frankenheimer. The second was probably the most beautiful car chase ever filmed by Crouching Tiger and Ice Storm filmmaker Ang Lee. The third didn't really effect me as much as the others but it still held it's place. The Guy Richie fourth film was just downright hilarious, I have never seen Madonna utilized in... that way.

Now I am brought to this film, done by Alejandro Gonzalez Inaritu, famous for his breakthrough film "Amores Perros" which I also had the pleasure of viewing. If you have not seen this movie I highly recommend it due to the fact that it leaves you feeling three different emotions for three different vignettes. A movie hasn't moved me in that way in a long time.

"Powder Keg" follows The Driver, played by Clive Owen who is always portrayed in the other films as a hard-boiled merc with a soft side somewhere. In this film, his soft side is his care for human life. He knows his passenger may be dying from a gun shot wound but he doesn't want him to because he believes his passenger is key to preserving human life. On the flipside, his dying passenger believes that his sole purpose in life, as a war photographer, has been to photograph death. He believes he has never saved anyone and his pictures do nothing more but "Sell a few more papers"

Without ruining any of the actions that take place in the second half of these 8 minutes, I assure you that in these 8 minutes you will feel more intensity, hatred, sadness, and fear than in any other 8 minutes of watching a film. At a point I felt the same intensity of watching a "certain" scene from "The Deer Hunter", at points, this film shares the same mood of the "The Deer Hunter" and "Amores Perros", but at the same time creates it's own mood. This film will start you with open eyes and leave you with eyes of tears. There is nothing bad I can say about this movie because it was never cheesy, never dragging, and never melo-dramatic. And if you are moved deeply by this film I highly recommend "Amores Perros" which is done in the same style.

I conclude by giving credit where credit is due. I am sure it is not news when I state that Clive Owen is an amazing actor. In this film he delivers his best performance. The reasoning behind this being his best performance is that his eyes contain so much emotion that you can feel exactly what he is. Also that is a great job on Inaritu's part being able to capture that emotion. An all around amazing 8 minutes. Required viewing. 10/10


Powder Keg is most unlike the other BMW films. It's as different in its way as Star was. Where Star was humorous and light, Powder Keg is dark and bloody. The first of the films that deserves and R Rating, it has profanity and violence unlike the others; sensitive viewers beware. That said, its story is well written. The photographer's sense of frustration over not having done enough to help those he photographs, the oppressive presence of armed militia everywhere, the desperate need to make the border against overwhelming forces, and most of all, the bloody back seat of the vehicle, all paint a picture of doom and gloom for the characters. The scene at the end with the mother explains the earlier comment by the photographer, "My mother taught me to see." The driver's feelings of loss and failure, assuaged not at all by delivering the dog tags, is well acted out.

I hope this isn't the end for this fine series.


This last film was probably the most powerful of the BMWfilms.com series. Tense, riveting look at the life and death of a news cameraman. You learn more about this character than in many action full length films. Clive Owen also gets a chance to use his acting skills, certainly more than in the previous BMWfilms.com series. A gem of a film.


The first movie, The Ambush, delivered good action and I thought was good enough to start off the film series. Ang Lee's second short film was less than good with mediocre action scenes and a story that did not make much sense. He said he was going for the comedic approach, my advise to Mr. Lee, don't do comedy again.

The third installment was the best so far, intriguing story and beautiful filming style. Then there was Guy Ritchie's film Star. It was, I thought, quite funny and the second best. Then we have the last one: Powder Keg by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, (remember that name), director of the critically acclaimed Amores Perros. His movie is inspired on the actual event of the massacre of Aguas Blancas which happened in Mexico's guerilla zone. The rest of the story is enitrely fictional and concerns a photographer who captures the event and becomes wounded when he is discovered by the militia. Clive Owen's driver character is sent to get him out of the war zone. Alejandro's script manages to create a story far more deep than all previous BMW films. The photographer's character starts to develop when he says he would like to have time to play with his kids, which he doesn't have because the life of a war photographer is very demanding and he hasn't had the chance to start a family which he regrets. He then laments what he has witnessed in the 15 wars he is covered by telling of the dying people that have that died at his feet begging for help. He is unable to help them and all he can do is take their picture as all he is after all is a witness. He then says he wishes on of his pictures would help change something so all the time he has dedicated to his career are worth something. Then we learn about his mother who influenced him to become a photographer by telling him 'to see'. We later learn the mother is blind. All this in about five minutes in the most natural way. The film is shot with energy and the style alone can evoke emotion even with the little dialogue it has. 'This is not a political movie but a movie about love between a man and his mother' says director Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu and it is true. Even if the characters never are in the same scene together. Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu is a genius, the other four directors have a chance here to learn a thing or two about movie-making.


I will start off by saying my ONLY beef was that we didn't get to see enough of this X5 - the absolute ONLY "suv" on the streets that you can take on the race track off the showroom floor and, in 4.4 V8 trim, have run with the M3's.

That said, this film was great. Powerful, to the point, BEAUTIFULLY acted, mysterious in it's ending, and just downright superb. I will say no more - watch it, it's free.

9/10, simply because they TOYED with my heart by giving us some great X5 action, just not enough of it. :)


Much more than a car commercial, Powder Keg explodes with energy, intelligence and heart. A powerful statement on war and our response to it, this film short packs more punch than most major studio releases. Clive Owen and Stellan Skarsgard prove once again that these two actors do not know how to give a bad performance. Well worth watching for film and car buffs, alike.


Powder Keg concludes the BMW short film series "The Hire" by adding a very human element to the enigmatic and elusive series title character played by Clive Owen. Director/co-writer Alejandro González Iñárritu departs from the pattern established by the previous 4 directors and makes the driver more of a background character, focusing instead on a war photographer who, after snapping a shocking series of photographs, is on the run and grievously injured. He takes the time to reflect on his life and what he's done-or not done-with it, and why he started taking pictures in the first place.

Stellan Skarsgård does a wonderful job as the photographer, and manages to communicate volumes just as much with what he doesn't say as with what he does. Clive Owen has the opportunity to portray a different side to the driver then in the previous films, allowing his normally unflappable character to have an emotional moment beyond what we've seen. The moment at the end of the film between himself and the woman played by Lois Smith is made more pronounced by his inability to effectively communicate his thoughts and feelings, and his abrupt exit punctuates that perfectly.

Iñárritu directs this short perfectly, using hand-held 16MM cameras to capture a grainy, almost documentary-like feel to the film, and over-exposure for certain shots adds the right amount of dramatic flair to the film.

All in all, my only regret with this film is that it's the last one in this excellent series. BMW should be highly commended for allowing what could have been little more than overblown and expensive commercials to be short films in which the centerpiece vehicles sometimes took a back-seat to the characters and their stories instead. I hope to see another series like this again soon.


As part of the BMWFilms series, Powder Keg is one of several great short films commissioned by the car company. Inarritu is a fantastic director, and his genius shows through this gripping, action-packed car chase. What sets Inarritu's film apart from some of the other BMWfilms is the gritty detail, the harsh realism of what is being portrayed. The violence is not glamorized, nor the main character's plight as a photojournalist romanticized.


Powder Keg is the fifth short made by BMW. The film is one of the better of the five shorts. Instead of the usually slick presentation of the other BMW shorts, Powder Keg takes a different approach going with a lot of handheld and grainy pictures. Clive Owen does a solid job as he has done in all of the BMW shorts. Clive Owen is responsible for bring a photographer back across the border, because he was injured. Of course there is a chase, but there is less action then most of the other shorts. The short is pretty effective and an enjoyable change of pace from some of the other disappointing shorts, like Star and Chosen. I would consider this short the second best of the five, with Follow being the best.


...but this film sux. Gonzalez Inarritu tries to use a conventional narrative structure that doesn't conform at all to the limitations of short film. Where it should focus on the imagery, it tries to establish dialogue and familiarize the viewer with the characters' history. There's no time for that! Show the BMW and los malos hombres and wrap it up!


The Plot: Clive Owen ( before he was in "The Bourne Identity," "King Arthur," "Elisabeth: The Golden Age," and "Sin CIty" ) plays a "hire" who drives people places they desperately need to go.

Often times, they are working for something "top secret" and can only give our protagonist limited information.

Also, this is meant to show off the BMW car and is executive-produced by Tony Scott, Ridley Scott and David Fincher ( Panic Room, Alien 3 ).

Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu ( BABEL, 21 Grams ), this intense tale follows our hero in a foreign country torn by terrorist attacks trying to get a photographer (played by the excellent Stellan Skarsgard ) out of there and keep his photos unharmed.


This film is atrocious, even by the abysmal standards of Tony Zarindast. Hardcase and Fist are two crimefighters with very different styles - Hardcase is a gun-toting, maverick-yet-somehow-by-the-book white cop, while Fist is an enigmatic, inscrutable Chinese martial arts expert who eschews the use of firearms in line with the best traditions of movie cliche. They learn to respect each other's strength and virtue after the usual initial mutual suspicion. The two team up to defeat some implausibly incompetent, classically Zarindastesque bad guys who have kidnapped somebody, or something like that.

Watch out for the brilliantly choreographed gunfight towards the end of the movie when our heroes attack the bad guys' "base" (a bunch of rundown shacks in the middle of some waste ground). It runs thus: Hardcase walks along blithely, gun in hand; single bad guy jumps out from behind a building and shoots twice; misses; Hardcase shoots once; kills bad guy; repeat about 15 times as Hardcase draws closer to whatever the hell it is he's looking for. Best moment: the climactic car chase, which begins with Hardcase in a small car pursuing the chief bad guy, who is driving a station wagon. In the middle of the action, with no explanation offered, the bad guy is suddenly in the small car, and Hardcase is in the station wagon. The chase ends with the bad guy crashing his car into a small river. He emerges from the car on fire, wades through the water to the shore, and promptly burns to death (in slow motion). The awfulness of this movie is so complete, so perfect in every respect, that Tony Zarindast may well be the greatest comedic genius of our time.


In 1976, while in a drama academy in Los Angeles, I had the misfortune to be chosen by Mr. Zarindast to act in the film (and I use the term loosely) Kill Alex, Kill. Mr. Zarindast is not one to be stopped by minor details, such as substituting me with someone who had no resemblance whatsoever with me or my character(?). I was never given a script o read, not even the page with the scene in which I was about to appear. My character kills "Alex" in the end of the story an drives away. All this substitution took place while I was in South America and was recalled to film additional scenes, after shooting had ended. I could not help Mr. Zarindast finance his own movie when I was never paid one dime, so I declined to come. I had never seen the film until, in 2003, browsing the internet I found a copy of it in a movie warehouse in Conroe, Texas. I am sure that I purchased the only copy of this disaster ever sold. While filming I thought that my acting was terrible ad unworthy of participating in any home production, let alone a real one. After seeing the tape in 2003, I realized that I was not the worst actor... Mr. Zarindast was. That being said, why would I be surprised at any negative comment towards any of his productions/directions/acting/screen-writings/etc.


A friend of mine has the movie and so we looked at it. I really liked the movie. I really liked the part were the house Blow up when he picked up that grenade to throw it back out. Also when the guy was shot between his legs while on the roof--Cool. We all enjoyed it and liked it. I am going to get my own copy. Also since that time I have seen other movies that Victor Von Wright, has played in and they also were very good. Some may say other wise about this movie, however I have found that some people try to pick apart anything and everything. Nevertheless, we all enjoyed the movie and there were about 15 of us watching it. Good Movie.


My cousin rented this movie when he was staying over one night. This movie is a howler. The acting, budget and fight scenes are bad. My father had a hoot making all of us laugh with his witty observations. Come to think of it, this makes a great party movie. Bad acting, sloppy direction and lame chop socky= Great party movie.

Recommended for party viewing. Those brave enough to view it alone will truly be dissapointed.

C

Another hit or miss, a case of hit or miss... -The Damned


Once again Director/ Producer/ Actor/ Writer/ Editor/ Cinematographer Tony Zarindast has shown us the depths of his movie making skills in this Action Movie Classic. Hardcase and Fist has everything a hardcore action movie fan craves for; Good Guys you cheer for (Bud McCall and Eddy Lee) and Bad Guys you despise (Vincent and his cronies), exotic beauties (Maureen LaVette, Christina Lunde, Debra Lamb), a captivating story written by Tony Zarindast which has so many twists and turns that you'll be at the edge of your seat for the full 90 minutes, non-stop heart pounding ACTION!! Action sequences that never seem to end, and of course a terrific acting performance by Tony Zarindast who co-stars as Bud McCall's Lovable Vietnam War Veteran buddy `Tony Marino' he brings us maybe one of the best acting performances of ALL TIME. I give this movie a 10/10. So if there is one movie you must see make it Hardcase and Fist. Thank you TONY ZARINDAST for making this action movie classic you truly are a movie making LEGEND.


I saw this movie as a child, and had a chance to see it recently after more years than I want to admit. I know why it has stuck with me for so many years. This is powerful stuff, even by today's standards. Crime, punishment, yellow journalism, it is all addressed in this finely acted, fast paced drama. Bridges(like you've never seen him before!)turns in an acting 'tour de force' as the ego-maniac, demented hoodlum that kills without reason. Lovejoy is the husband and father caught up in a bad period of economics, Carlson the reporter that must learn that the power of the word is often as swift and deadly as that of the sword. This is high drama, done in the classic 50s film-noir tradition, it is must viewing for anyone that enjoyed "In Cold Blood"(1967)and movies of that genre.


The subject headline - Try And Get Me! - is the title of the movie, as I know it.

Man, this is a different kind of film noir story, mainly because of the ending. It centers around two crooks, played by Lloyd Bridges and Frank Lovejoy. Of the two, Bridges is the more fun guy to watch. He and his girlfriend (played by Adele Jergens) have some very good dialog. Lovejoy and his potential girlfriend have some lines that are so bad they are laughable! It almost reminded me of poor Elisha Cook verbally duking it out with tough-gal Marie Windsor: in other film noirs corny but fun stuff.

This was an entertaining film almost from the start. The last 30 minutes are really intense after Lovejoy cracks, stupidly admits his crime and is unfairly accosted as the murderer (he was the accomplice, not the murderer.) Then, the townsfolk, fueled by sensationalist journalism by the local paper, form into a huge lynch mob and storm the jail after the two criminals. The scenes of that, and what happens, are horrific. I am not exaggerating. In fact, it was one of the most disturbing scenes I've ever seen on film, especially for a classic movie. The cheers from the crowd when they kill the two men (which is not shown) are downright chilling.

The film obviously is a powerful indictment on yellow journalism and of mob mentality. The last scene was so distasteful that I have never wanted to watch this movie again!


Thinking about what the movie implies, it's small wonder that director Cy Endfield was blacklisted during the McCarthy 1950's. This is a particularly hard-hitting and suspenseful depiction of an ordinary man (Frank Lovejoy) down on his luck as he tries to provide for his family and hold on to his self-respect at the same time. His desperation finally leads to a life of crime, under the influence of a preening small-time crook (LLoyd Bridges)-- (notice how cleverly Bridges bends Lovejoy to his will in the pivotal bowling alley scene and thereafter).

Really harrowing scenes, especially the last sequence, which I believe has no equal in angry mob realism. Expert acting, especially from Bridges who was an interesting performer in this part of his career. But most notable for Katherine Locke's truly exotic performance as Hazel, the manicurist. Never has a paste-on smile or cheap hair adornment conveyed as much lower-class longing as here, her car ride with Lovejoy furnishing enough material for a dozen feminist tracts.

Film is damaged by several preachy scenes and voice-overs, attempting to smooth-over the highly disturbing visuals. I'm sure these were not Endfield's choice, but were inserted as concessions to the production code of the time. Script is based on actual event in San Jose, CA, in 1933, while vivid depiction of college boys from local parochial college leading the charge is also based on fact. Loss of social conscience filmmakers like Endfield shows how much was lost during Hollywood purges, and why cold war audiences got 15 years thereafter of Rock and Doris fluff along with Tennessee Williams escapism.

Highly recommended to those with a strong stomach.


As others have said.....This movie stays with you....I was 10.. probably younger..when I saw it....and I can still recall the feeling in my stomach and aching in my heart. I don't remember much of the details of the movie......just the overall feeling I came away with....the pain...of something terribly wrong, injustice... I don't believe that it could have been "workmanlike" in any way since I remember the feelings so strongly.....A "Workmanlike" made film could not have made that happen to me...I would really like to see it again as an adult....I hope I can find it on DVD.

It's revealing to me that someone else.. as a child.. after so many years.. could have come away from the film with the same, exact feelings.

Thanks!


An awesomely powerful look at the divide between social classes in the US circa 1950 culminating in the transformation of law-abiding citizens into a violent, blood-thirsty mob bent on taking the law into their own hands. The mass psychology of mob violence couldn't be better portrayed. I have no idea how this truly moving film could have fallen into obscurity. It's message that violence never resolves conflict is as painfully current today as it was in 1950. Will we never learn from the past? One of the darkest Noir films I've seen. Generates a successive waterfall of emotions spanning the spectrum of human experiences, needs and drives. Well acted and well worth watching. Very highly recommended.