Yes, this remake is funnier than the original, but hasn't anybody noticed how the producer's decision to change the personality of certain characters actually changes the whole story??? In the original version, Betty is an incredibly smart girl, and gets really nervous around people, obviously because her father kept her from socializing..ever. But over all those nerves, you could see her intelligence, there was no doubt about that. But this version just changed the whole thing. Angelica Vale makes the character sound childish, instead of nervous. That goofy laugh doesn't help. Betty's laugh made her seem geeky, which was the whole point, but Letty's laugh makes her seem stupid. Honestly, seeing Lety act so ignorant makes it impossible to see her as a smart girl. I love Angelica Vale, by the way, and I blame the producers and directors for this one. Same thing with Lety's mom...the original version made it clear that Betty acted like her father and got her features from his side of the family including her laugh, and Julia, her mom was the normal one, which, believe it or not, helped the story a lot, but making Julieta, Lety's mom, the goofy one in this version just doesn't make it. The story is funny, but I just don't buy it. By the way, adding kids to the story-bad idea.


I am not against remakes, but if you are going to do one, at least make it better than the original. Really bad acting (caused by bad directing, of course) and really cheap production, bad lighting, and this coming from the allegedly biggest soap opera producer in the world, really bad quality show. The worst part, not only they have made ''infomercials'' in the show (adverting products in the show) but yesterday a character openly invited the public to vote for a certain candidate in the next Mexican presidential elections. Televisa, a network has its compromise with society, not with political visions. Shame on you, Televisa, Azcárraga and the rest!


Over-the-top violence with an incredulous plot line. Why the police never catch up to this guy just further eludes to the fairy-tale concept. Reminds me of a film noir minus the black and white. A lot of 1940's themes, cheesy lines and concepts set in the modern age. The movie is filled with violent bloodbaths mirroring that of a Steven Seagal fight scene. How this guy comes out on top is clearly some well executed choreography. It leaves the viewer in utter disbelief. It basically takes a turn for the worse and loses momentum like a lead balloon like the director gained a terrible drug addiction and just didn't care anymore. I almost feel like I've been violated. This one is probably a good film if you're on a psychedelic drug because it is all hype and little else.


There are some good parts to this movie but overall it is very boring and slow. It's a somewhat interesting story about life in a very small west Texas town. 4 graduating Seniors, over half the senior class, are coming to terms of whether or not they want to keep their boyhood pledge of leaving once they graduate. It's main quality is the "Human Element". Some of the writing acting and directing is done quite well but overall the movie just lacks something. If you like movies about people you will like it but it's a bit slow for the Rambo and/or Chris Tucker crowd.

The scenery is quite nice, horses, mountains, desert vistas and Oak Trees. The background characters and props are done well and not overdrawn. The cinematography is excellent and the direction is quite good if you like a minimalist approach.


I went to the video store expecting great things from what I've heard. I don't have to have a totally action packed movie in order to enjoy it, but wow... this movie is a pretty honest account of something like what many people go through, but still... geez. I get enough of the same old stuff in real life. I gave Dancer Texas a 4 out of 10.


OK, I live in Texas, grew up here. I have been to every part of it. No place in Texas will you find the kind of lame events that transpired in this stupid film. They do not dress like GQ models in West Texas. They do not talk the way those people did. They do not have towns that neat and cardboard. I literally became sick watching this film. It is like watching one of those old time films about Texas where the actors used these outrageous Southern accents and showed every

where in big ten gallon hats. Just too stupid. By the end, I did not care who left Dancer, as long as I was one of them. This just tries to pull at the heart strings in every scene. It just gets so old, it is like Jerry MacGuire out West. The director wanting you so badly to get emotional. But you are just illl. Yuck, hated this film! Hated it!


The movie is more like an after-school special, or a movie for a Tuesday-night church social, than the type of thing you expect to see in a cinema. The movie-maker wants to illustrate the idea that, for some people, there's no place like home, and for others, you've got to take your chances and leave town. The boys grow up together, don't know anyone outside of the town, and never get tired of sitting talking about themselves, and watching the sun set. The guys are all hunks, but their relations with women are quite chaste. Even the retarded guy (named Squirrel) would be cute if he stopped acting retarded. The idea that these guys would just hang out and talk, and not be totally bored (like the audience is) is totally unbelievable. At least these guys would be out shooting small animals, or hitting pool balls. The one adventure that they have in this move is aborted because they forgot to fill up. Now these are supposedly smart guys, and, until the very day that they graduate from high school, they have no idea what they want to do, other than to go to L.A. They don't even know what kind of jobs are available in L.A. They don't know nothing: one guy's father family owns an oil company, but the kid doesn't know that the company is broke. The guy who runs the general store sells beer, even though it's in a dry county--but the kids don't know. So the whole movie is verbal masturbation, and these handsome, extremely dumb boys learning the secrets of a town with a population of 81! How can there be any secrets at all? There's no enjoyment to be had from this movie. It took me three days to watch: I just kept falling asleep again and again.


Potentially interesting story of go-ahead newspaperman Robinson and gangster Arnold as co-owners of groundbreaking tabloid newspaper, wrecked by reducing almost everything to melodrama. Despite the shadowy George Barnes cinematography and great performances by leads and supporting cast, the glossy MGM house style takes the sort of ripped-from-headlines story that director Leroy used to do at Warner Brothers -- often starring Robinson -- and reduces it to mush.


I liked this show in the very beginning for Tony Shalhoub's masterful portrayal of extreme social awkwardness (not so much the writers' cartoon version of OCD), nicely contrasted against Ted Levine's dry-witted police lieutenant, and the clever mysteries that called to mind the glory days of "Columbo." But things went downhill, or over a cliff, when the writers made the decision to sacrifice all realism in favor of putting their lead character in an OCD sufferer's worst nightmare every week, always thanks to some "Final Destination"-style inescapable twist of fate. It was kinda funny the first, third, and tenth times, but eight seasons of it is appalling. To take but one of countless examples, Mr. Monk is investigating the death of a lead actress in a play and repeats some of the play's lines, and he's overheard by the director, who, *gasp*, casts Monk in the role! And he's afraid of public speaking! You might wonder why a detective would agree to learn a bunch of lines at the same time he's investigating a murder--or why he'd be asked to do this--or why he'd be allowed to do it--but then you'd be using your brain, which is not recommended if you're planning to enjoy the show.

I put up with this insanity for about half of the show's duration, still enjoying the interplay of the actors, but the final straw came in season four, when Mr. Monk went to a rock concert (ho ho, he thinks it involves rocks) and mistook a port-a-john for a phone booth. And spoke into the urinal. Because he thought it was a phone. The genius detective with a germ phobia. He talked. Into. The urinal. At that point, it was obvious the writers were just using their potentially interesting character as a prop and nothing else. The few episodes I've caught since then don't seem to have made significant changes. The only thing the show can be praised for anymore is consistency. 3/10.

(Postscript: the finale, at least, was good.)


Appropriately, "Monk" is USA's lead-in for the highly superior dramedy "Psych." The two shows are both billed as mystery comedies, but that's about all the similarities between them. While "Psych" is a clever and original show that does fresh and funny things every week, "Monk" is an unintelligent show that ran out of fresh and funny things after the first few episodes. You have Tony Shalhoub as Adrian Monk, the "defective detective," who is far too OCD for his own good. You have Bitty Schram (older episodes) and Traylor Howard (newer episodes) as his assistants, who put up with the worst out of him just because of his intelligence (as far as IQ goes; not emotional intelligence). Then you have the cases every week, which I think are always murder investigations. The point is, there's only so many things you can do with that when you refuse originality. The same holds true for the obsessive-compulsive jokes that come pouring out of this show like moviegoers from a Rob Zombie flick. Moments are funny (some in scattered episodes even verge on hilarious), but if you want a terrific show, stick with "Psych."


MONK is just about the WORST DETECTIVE SERIES THAT HAS BEEN AIRED ON UK TV. I don't know why the viewers in the USA rave about this rubbish. It is about as riveting and exciting as finding that someone has emptied a trash can on your doorstep the first thing in the morning. Thank goodness that it is only aired on the Hallmark channel in the UK. To watch this and get into raptures about it is beyond me. When you think of all the great series that have reached these shores from the USA, it is an insult to the American people to think that they can actually enjoy this rubbish, and can't actually wait until the next episode is aired. I just cannot see how Tony Shaloub can keep you riveted to your screens. I cant think of one movie where I have thought, oh great, Tony Shaloub is in this movie. I cant wait for the day when Monk is no longer aired on UK TV. His charismatic presence is zero. The only way that this series is in the least watchable, is if he was not in it.


I find it difficult to fathom that in all the years this show has been on the air, the hasn't been the slightest hint of public outcry at its portrayal of OCD sufferers. Sure, it's a funny little detective show that can occasionally be downright clever in its plots and dialogue. But despite what the producers or "OCD experts" have apparently said, the character of Monk is insulting beyond words. From the very first episode, the show has treated OCD as a joke, a comical disorder, easily dismissed and therefore easily mocked. I daresay if a new, lighthearted detective show attempted to portray a character with, say, no legs, the subject would be taken a bit more seriously. Like Ironside, for instance... did you ever see that episode where he tried to get up the stairs without his wheelchair, and he just kept thumping along and then falling back down while the goofy music played, and then his assistant came in and said "Oh, Ironside, won't you ever learn? You're only half a man!" and then everybody had a good laugh? No? How about the SIX SEASONS worth of episodes where that happened?

That's one of my very favorite things about the show... the way everyone is so desperately patronizing, and Monk naturally puts up with it. Because, y'know, he deserves it. Honestly, that the character of Sharona, that streetwise single mom who really needed the job, could get away with constantly and publicly criticizing, second-guessing, and mocking her employer is the ultimate testament to how the show's creators really view the condition. In anything approaching a plausible situation, she would have been instantly fired, and if there were any justice, slapped very hard before being ejected from his home. But no... she's meant to be the realistic character we all relate to, isn't she?

I know that some OCD sufferers have taken some solace from the show, and from the fact that OCD has been recognized by the mainstream at all, and that's a wonderful thing. In the main, though, this show's depiction of a man with something the writers inexplicably think is OCD simply makes people who have the real condition feel more ostracized than ever. And packing the first season DVD set with a moist towelette... what a stroke of sensitivity from the marketing guys at USA. But no, it's a caring show, the producers said so.

I've been looking through some of the comments posted here... OCD's become something of a popular buzzword the last few years. Everyone who likes to keep a tidy house or have both shoes pointing the same way giggles and says they have it. You know how you can tell when someone doesn't know what they're talking about? When they say "Oh, I'm a little bit OCD..." Here's an important detail, folks: OCD is not an adjective. If someone uses it that way, you can feel completely justified in ignoring everything else they ever say, ever.

Personally, I'd like to see an episode called "Mr. Monk Can't Leave the Room." It could be a full hour of Tony Shalhoub trying to move his hand from the doorframe. In act two, after the break, he can start to cry. The denouement can be when he can't make it to the bathroom in act five, and urinates on himself. And we'll all have a good laugh.


I have to admit, that first season of Monk was really amazing - original, interesting, entertaining and I was always looking forward to the next episode. Second season was very good, not as good as first one, but still kept the high level.

Unfortunately since third season everything started to go bad - the cases are less and less interesting, the Monk's dead wife became the most important character, the plot really weak... I was hoping that Traylor Howard will bring something new to this show, but after few episodes she became just a simple replacement.

When I see Monk now I really feel sorry for the creators - they are literally killing their own brilliant idea for the show - everything about Monk became pretty predictable and since usually there are 1-2 people outside the regular cast in each episode it isn't much challenge for the viewers to point the murderer without Monk's help, and constant repeating of "I solved the case" started to remind me of Scooby-doo mysteries...

So, all I can say to the creators is - Monk was brilliant idea for the show, but move back to that idea or let him end with dignity, don't wait until it is too late (like "Scooby-doo meets Vincent Price" level).


Absolutely miserable film despite the wonderful Bill Holden, Sophia Loren and Trevor Howard starring in it.

This picture never takes off. Holden, in the Canadian army, goes over to England to work on a tug only to meet old-time pal Howard. The latter is sharing an apartment with Sophia Loren, who appears to tragically jinx everyone she is involved with.

We have some bombings, mass destruction but what is the basic story line here?

How fortunate Howard was to be a victim of a blast here. In that way, he could get away from this nonsense.

Sir Carol Reed many some many fine pictures during his long, distinguished career including 1968's Oscar winning "Oliver!" This film, "The Key," is a dud in every respect.


It hurts to give any film with Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre less than "5" on a scale of "1" to "10", but BACKGROUND TO DANGER (despite their presence) is not a good World War II espionage piece. It may be the weakest movie ever made from an Eric Ambler novel.

Between 1938 and 1945 Ambler wrote five spy or international crime novels that (with his contemporary, and master, Graham Greene) reshaped the whole genre. Ambler's books were CAUSE FOR ALARM, BACKGROUND TO DANGER, JOUNRNEY INTO FEAR, THE MASK OF DEMETRIOS, and EPITAPH FOR A SPY. The greatest of these was the last that he wrote - THE MASK OF DEMETRIOS (also called A COFFIN FOR DEMETRIOS) which Greenstreet, Lorre, and Zachary Scott turned into one of the best portraits of a totally amoral criminal in cinema. Orson Welles helped direct (and supported Joseph Cotton in) JOURNEY INTO FEAR. I'm not sure by I believe that EPITAPH FOR A SPY (set in France in 1938) and CAUSE FOR ALARM (dealing with economic rivalries between somewhat allied axis countries) were not made into films. Someone may correct me on that.

CAUSE FOR ALARM introduced a Communist Russian agent and his sister to Ambler's readers. Tamara and Nicolai Zarashoff are (when not pursuing espionage for their government in Moscow) bickering all the time. Ambler liked to humanize his characters (such as his masterpiece, Arthur Abdul Simpson, in THE LIGHT OF DAY / "TOPKAPI"), so his villain Demetrios Talat turns out to be a determined social climber, using his talents for evil in THE MASK OF DEMETRIOS to assist a bank, the Eurasian Credit Trust, on which he ends up a director. The Zarashoffs and their unwitting ally in CAUSE FOR ALARM manage to cause a brief split in the interests of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in early 1939. One would have known this when reading BACKGROUND TO DANGER a few years later, when they reappeared.

When talking about the film FIVE FINGERS I gave the background of Turkish neutrality in World War II. Ambler tackled this in the novels BACKGROUND TO DANGER and JOUNRNEY INTO FEAR, pointing out that Turkey's police and army were scrupulously looking out to protect that neutrality (Col. Haki, who helps tell the introductory part of the story of Demetrios in THE MASK OF DEMETRIOS - played by Kurt Katch there - reappears as Orson Welles, protecting American engineer Joseph Cotton in JOURNEY INTO FEAR: to make sure Cotton finishes his job in arming Turkish naval craft). In BACKGROUND TO DANGER, Ambler (correctly) shows that German agents were more likely to try to push Turkey into the Axis camp by underhanded means. The villain is the ambiguously named Col. Robinson (Greenstreet, of course) sent to contact those anti-British Turkish nationalists who would join the Germans. The problem is that the novel demonstrated Ambler's tricks with Robinson in a way the film didn't. Robinson is German, and speaks with a German accent (in fact one of the characters says that he could not possibly be English!). Greenstreet had one of the finest English speaking voices in film.

The Zolashoffs are here again (in the novel bickering again) but here working with the American played by George Raft. But in the novel, Raft's American is very naive - and they are educating this new ally in the "background to danger" to Turkish neutrality very quickly. This is not the story as W. R. Burnett made it in his screenplay, making Raft's character an American agent (which he wasn't). I can only guess that he did this to make the no nonsense Raft more believable - who could imagine Raft as a chump?

It doesn't work - the novel is constructed for the Raft character to gradually realize the dangers of the Nazis and their allies, and the fact that (dubious as it is to us) the Communist agents were a better bet for allies. Instead the story makes Raft's character become a typical World War II propaganda hero - he can handle these Nazis with a blindfold on!

There are some nice moments (due to Sidney and Peter). Greenstreet in particular has two nice ones that come to mind: when he notes his favorite set up (a Strauss waltz on a gramophone and a dead body on the floor), and later when his plans have all collapsed, and he is informed he must return to Berlin (his quick look of horror at hearing what will be his death sentence is done very well). But such moments are few and far between. The rest of this film sinks those few moments one recalls with fondness.


Yet another attempt a la "Casablanca" to whip up excitement by placing a homely middle-aged American among exotic foreigners, this might have been tolerable had they just lost the dull, abrasive George Raft altogether and made the ultrafoxy Turhan Bey the leading man from the beginning. As it is, the film lights up the moment this dazzling hunk makes his first appearance as a clerk behind a tobacconist's counter, and the entire first half of the film that's gone before seems like a hopeless waste. And that's WITH Peter Lorre. After Lorre's gone, forget it, you can stop the tape.


This film seems to be an inept attempt to recapture the magic of Casablanca (it even features the ending scene of the plane taking off) and fails despite having Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre. The story deals with a Nazi plot to stir up trouble in neutral Turkey and it doesn't work. George Raft is miscast and just doesn't pull it off. It is ironic that he turned down the lead role in Casablanca and movie fans should be grateful.Recommended only for movie buffs and Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet fans.


On the surface, the giggly blonde three-some do their best to show how much fun they are having at the mansion. Throwing parties, attending charity events, an occasional nude/semi-nude photo shoot. Hef wanders in and out of these scenes to give his opinion or laugh at something the girls are up to. A reality sitcom with lots of playboy logos and pink bedrooms.

To those of us with higher standards, it's nothing but a dirty old man with tons of money and Viagra sleeping with his very well-paid call girls. You can take a pig, dress it up, put lipstick on it and call it Monica, but in the end it's still a pig. That about sums up the bottom line of this show. I suppose some might argue when the old man kicks off these 3 hookers will have nice bank accounts and can move on to a real job. But money can't buy you self-respect, and I would hate to wonder what these girls see when the mirror stares back at them...


People like this show? Why not just watch "Girls Gone Wild"-- it's just as trashy, the girls are cuter, and it's not full of high-maintenance idiots. College degree?!? What a joke. One girl got a degree in communications (yeah, the same major as all the football players) from some school that nobody has heard of, and the other girl is "taking online classes." I'm rolling on the floor laughing. What else are you going to do with your time in the brothel? And what idiot counted a massage therapist or real estate agent as a college degree? Look, if their CV's were good enough for a real job they wouldn't be prostitutes, and if they were remotely pleasant, tolerable, or intelligent people they could have a hot rich guy who is less than 50 years older than them.


I have seen this program advertised, but had never watched even a second of it until today. I hit the "E" channel's number by mistake, intending to tune into the Navy-Army pre-game program.

They had just begun a program celebrating Hefner's 80th birthday, apparently ready to participate in the traditional, annual, "Hef's birthday," viewing of "Casablanca." He was reading some notes about the movie - the man is an unexpectedly dull, and rather inarticulate speaker. Everyone was grinning like apes, and his young girlfriends were in dresses so damn tight they looked like Jiminy Glick trying to seat themselves.

I watched a few minutes, fascinated as his charges in the other room scurried to convert a large area into a precise replica of "Rick's," the Bogart bistro in the flick - for champagne and caviar afterward.

The show is amusing, but I suspect (at least for me) in some ways other than intended. Hefner reminds me of Phil Donahue and the late Howard Cossell. He has morphed into a persona which looks like an exaggeration of the satirical imitations of him done by impersonators, stand-up comics, and talk-show hosts. Hugh, like Phil and Howard, is a classic self-parody. And there's something fascinatingly grotesque in viewing this octogenarian old fart creep around in pajamas and smoking jacket, amidst these vacuous nymphets, who seem incapable of wearing any apparel which in't overly-tight, overly-skimpy, or both. Nothing actually wrong with this per se, except these bimbos are as void of taste as they are intelligence.

I've seen his old films/tapes of the long-ago Playboy t.v. program. There he was a 30- or 40-something man, pretentious, and a rather smarmy/unctuous presence. The guy today is a pretentious, smarmy, unctuous 80-year-old.

I'd love to see a show devoted to a tour of Hef's private bathroom, and have him display his undoubtedly major supply of herbs, vitamins, and ED pills, creams. etc.

When the girlfriends eventually "deliver," Hef can be an honorary Great Great Grandfather to the kids. He's just the right age.


The Girls Next Door is inappropriate by Playboy like they should of made it rated TV-18 or R for nude blurring, sex, Kendra's inappropriate laugh and beep words on this show. I have seen a couple episodes that are funny. Kendra is the worst star on this show to be in this calendar shoot. Hugh Hefner is excellent on The Girls Next Door. I saw a clip from The Soup about Potty Humor on E!.com and that part was inappropriate about what Holly says about something comes out of a toilet and wipe something off her crouch thats bad. Also on this clip is when Bridget dresses up a black little dog for a costume just then the black dog lays down and does not like that costume. Then last there was a inappropriate laugh of Kendras laugh. This is inappropriate for everybody this show will make you stupid and so does Playboy shoots.


This show is literally depressing to watch. I've seen two or three episodes now, and wish I hadn't. After they were over, I was disgusted.

Essentially this is just a TV show where a camera crew follow around the "Playboy Bunnies" in the Playboy Mansion.

If you don't know what Playboy is, who Hugh Hefner is, what Playboy Bunnies are, or anything about porn, chances are you will have no interest in this whatsoever. I know all of the above and it still made me feel sick.

Obviously a certain portion of this is scripted for dramatic effect and viewer appeal but, I think, probably very little. These bleach-blonde bimbos are incredibly stupid, selfish and appalling. Yeah, they're hot. But when they open their mouths, you feel like vomiting.

It's kind of sad to see Heff (at age 79) courting these girls. The Head Bunny, a.k.a. "Heff's Girlfriend," is probably no older than 30. All the girls kiss him and he fondles them... twenty years ago Heff was a god. Now, he looks like one of those disgusting old pervs in shopping centers who stare at young girls all day. He's the type of guy you want to call the cops on. And he's loose in his own mansion surrounded by dozens of beautiful women.

Likewise, they are taking advantage of him - they know he'll die soon and they're really milking his old-age for all its worth. They get free rooms as well as free food and the best thing of all: they get paid for being sexy and rich! The richer and more beautiful they are, the more they get paid. The more they show, the more they get paid. Apparently, all they have going for them is their looks - they are dumber than I don't know what.

They are so stupid some of the episodes are painful to watch. They made me feel sick in my stomach - the Bunnies are gorgeous? Sure. But good god, they're ridiculously dense.

In my opinion, the only "plus" about this show is that we get a rare glimpse inside the Playboy Mansion... but ol' Heff will be dead in a few years, and supposedly according to his own wishes the mansion will soon thereafter become open to the public. Now THAT will be fun.


I'm glad I didn't watch this series until first catching "Studio 60 On the Sunset Strip", which is basically just a re-tread and re-imagining of "SN". The comparisons don't end with script structure and "witty" dialogue - they both have similar actors, characters, and well... everything. Since "SN" was canceled, I suppose "Studio 60" is now as close as you can get. For some, that's a good thing. Not for me.

It is undeniable that this is an entertaining series. The characters are all fun (if way too nice to be believed), each beautifully performed by a very talented cast. The stories are engagingly manipulative. And it's just a cool idea - a series about a Sports show that isn't about Sports.

Unfortunately, Sorkin is absolutely enamored with his own voice, and as such all of his characters adopt this voice. It is not them. It is not what Danny or Dana or Casey would do or say - it's what Sorkin would say if he *were* any of these characters, complete with very self-conscious, clipped, repetitious quips. He writes like a playwright writing as a playwright is supposed to write. Not only does his style not work, it's grating, obnoxious, fairly unoriginal, and - worst of all - totally takes us out of the moments he struggles so hard to create.

Would that were my only complaint.

In addition to some seriously poor production values and editing (probably the result of being forced in front of a studio audience - not Sorkin's choice), not to mention a dopey theme song that continues to rear it's ugly notes, this series (and "Studio 60" to an even greater degree) suffers further from being produced by someone way too close to the subject material. Both shows practically scream "I'm a TV producer! I should make a TV show about making a TV show! That way I can show off all my knowledge of the subject, as well as inject the show with as much obscure information as possible to make me seem even smarter than I already am! Did I mention I'm a hard-working TV writer who won a Writer's Guild award? I'll have my main character be a hard-working TV writer who won a Writer's Guild award! Did I mention that my favorite writers are Paddy Chayefsky and Gilbert & Sullivan? I'll have my Pilot teaser be a rip-off of "Network", and then have my characters espouse their love for Paddy Chayefsky and do a send-up of "Pirates of Penzance"! Did I mention that I have a coke problem? I'll have my main character..." and on and on.

The show's plots also leave a lot to be desired. They are rife with obvious set-ups for lame jokes, and practically shameless "After School Special" or "Christmas at Sports Night" moralizing (the "This is sexual harassment, and I don't have to take it!" episode really stands out, particularly since Natalie is a cloyingly quirky character that no real person would stand working with). While entertaining and inherently watchable, the stories are neither quite as smart as Mr. Sorkin believes they are, nor as intelligent as he himself is. He should - nay, does - know better.

It amazes me how much Sorkin has in common with M. Night Shyamalan - they both have enviable raw talent, are in love with their own works, and yet try so hard you just know that they're incredibly insecure about their own abilities. If they would stop with such egotistical nonsense as forcing their own personal stamp on their projects, and instead just worked to make a great movie or TV show, the entertainment world would be a much better place.

It's true, "SN" is weak. But I suppose bland coffee is better than none at all.


I hesitate to criticize foreign films too harshly because what we see is a dubbed version that has undergone who knows what changes in coming to an American audience. But compared to the way that films by Fulci and Argento have such power despite the translation process, PANIC is simply a mess.

This is the kind of movie that a first year film student should have been able to make. This isn't complicated and doesn't require a lot of sophistication from writers or the director.

There's a lab in England doing medical research. Something goes terribly wrong and there's an awful accident. One of the scientists disappears. We find that he's mutated into a horrible monster that avoids the light...not so much because he's photosensitive as that the makeup isn't really all that convincing when seen in full light.

The hero investigates with the help of a beautiful blonde scientist who has a really bad perm. We have the setpieces of the monster attacking various people. First, predictably, a couple smooching in their car. A woman in the shower. The audience at a cinema (the monster comes bursting through the screen, a rather nice touch). A priest and a group of children in a church. A drunk stumbling down the street. A family in their home.

We know these people are going to be attacked by the monster because, with the exception of the family in the last attack- the father is involved with the research project- they have no connection with the story other than being potential monster chow. We at least see the children and the priest in one scene prior to their being chased by the monster. The others are simply dropped into the narative for no purpose other than being chased and possibly caught by the monster.

Since there seems to be no way to stop the monster (which is carrying an awful disease) the military decrees that if the situation isn't contained by a certain time, the town will be destroyed.

OK. I could write this. So could most people reading this review.

What kills PANIC is that it's dull and unexciting. When a director can't wring any suspense from the plight of a group of small children locked in a church while a priest tries to find a way to save them, it's time to go into a new line of work.

There's no sense of urgency. The military rolls into town and cuts off communication with the outside world for days but this happens in a vacuum. The hero returns to the cinema and is attacked by the monster. The local police come in with guns blazing. The monster vanishes around a corner and nobody seems in a hurry to catch him.

People in the town make halfhearted attempts at getting out but they must not have any relatives or friends in other places. There's unconvincing talk of a "military exercise" but this goes on for days and we don't see anyone wondering why they can't contact anyone in this town. Today a town of any size being cut off would attract an army of reporters at the barricades within hours.

Continuity is, at best, peculiar. We meet the priest at rehearsal for the children's choir. He gives them candy and tells them to be careful on the way home. We expect the next scene to show us one or more children in danger, but we don't see them again for days. There's a guinea pig that's escaped from the lab, too. It's found in a sewer. People are like "how remarkable" and "dang, look at that" but it's never mentioned again.

There's a subplot about a series of tunnels supposedly built by the Romans that connect the cinema, the church, the house where the family is attacked and other sites but that's introduced and dropped. The American horror film THE BOOGENS made effective use of monsters that terrorized a town where mining had been the main industry. The subplot is mentioned then dropped, as if the writers just didn't know what to do with it. Pity.

The most fun in this is watching the Spanish and Italian actors pretending to be British (all dubbed, of course) and the director trying to convince us that the stock footage of England is a match for the city streets we see. Too many of the actors just don't look British, especially the soldiers.

The leading man is from New Zealand. The blonde lady scientist is from Sweden. Were there two people on the set who spoke the same language? I hope so.

This was in the CHILLING CLASSICS collection from Mill Creek. The picture quality was adequate, the sound less so. The IMDb didn't tell me the original picture ratio. This is full screen, and often action at the edges of the screen is lost. If this was originally in Panavision ration (1:2.35) it should have been letter-boxed. The closing titles would indicate that this was the intended screen ratio. Of course distributors of DVD's are limited to what they can get their hands on.

It's not in me to call people "bad" actors (something other reviewers in this page have made a point of because of a comment made by the leading man that leaves this avenue wide open. I've done enough acting and directing on stage to know that you've got to consider the material and how strongly directed the actor is. These folks seem to have been largely left to their own devices. At the end of every scene you can imagine the actors saying, "Well, that's over. Let's go get some coffee." Francis Ford Coppola said that if there is no passion, there is no art. The director of PANIC has no visible passion for the project, so I didn't see any art.


Tonino Ricci is certainly one of the worst Italian film-makers, also responsible of the terrible post-atomic romp "Rush". This one is a drwaback to "monster on campus" time : an infected scientist turns into a pizza-faced monster and terrorises (?) some bare-breasted starlets. A dubious hero tries to stop the contamination before the army nukes the whole town. In fact, the "bomber" is actually a (very) obvious model kit in front of some lava lamp impressions ! Ricci's no Argento or even Lenzi, but nobody could have done a masterpiece on such a no-budget. He did. Now, you take the same premise and turns it into a mega-bucks turkey like "Virus", and nobody is the merrier.


This has to rank as one of the poorest Italian genre pictures that I have sat through. It's about a virus that turns a scientist into a rotting homicidal maniac, leading to government plans to bomb the town where he is at large. Really, this is a disappointment, seeing as even Z-Grade Italian products usually succeed in at least being entertaining. Sadly Panic is not one of those films. It's pacing is awful, as it drags on and on with little development or plot structure. And to add insult to injury, there's really no tension or scares either. Another bugbear for me is the fact that this one is set in the UK, despite being an Italian production. Many Italian genre films do this but it's rarely convincing and was clearly done in an attempt to appeal to the Anglo-American market. But, frankly, sun-kissed Italian locations are just more preferable to me, so this factor just makes things even more dreary.

Logic isn't a defining feature of Italian movies in general and this one is no exception. Quite why the government come to the decision to obliterate the town off the face of the planet because of the presence of a lone toxic madman is really never fully explained. Neither are the events at the beginning of the movie where the virus breaks out detailed clearly at all. A swat team is called in and we briefly see a scientist with his hands over his face covered in green goo. And that's it. It's rubbish and incomprehensible. Admittedly it seemed obvious that the version I saw was cut of violence and nudity, which hardly helped, but really that would only account for a small amount of missing material. Ultimately, the film is wrapped up in a seriously underwhelming manner too.

Panic does not come recommended. It's just so shoddily put together and it's unlikely to impress too many people. The only point of interest in it is that the lead character is called Captain Kirk without even a hint of irony.


Because of an accident in the laboratory of a British chemical company simply named Chemical which joins the government's so-called Prurima Plan, one of the leading researchers, professor Adams, becomes a fresh-eating monster, and attacks a local teenager couple of Betty and her boy friend, Lucas. And then, the government decides to order the RAF to use the mass-destructive weapon... Although I believe I am one of the Italian-horror-film-lovers, I have to say this Italian film is as sadly bad as the notorious MIAMI GOLEM. The story of the film seems to be trying to express the biological and/or chemical crisis of the city of Newton where the ex-professor monster is, but the film itself has no tense atmosphere from beginning to end. And the pizza-faced monster effects which created by Rino Carboni are not only simply cheap but also problematically unrealistic; at least his face seems to be too swollen to eat raw human fresh. And to make matters worse, this film has, as other reviewer already pointed out, not a few badly independent and almost meaningless scenes. For instance, in the first one third part of the film, Captain Kirk and Sergeant O'Brien find a giant pizza-faced mouse in a manhole of the old factory, and the Sergeant says OH, MY GOD! And that's all there is to it. Since then the composite-photograph-like mouse never shows up, and no one mentions it. In addition, this film has NIGHTMARE-CITY-like crazy credits; at the very ending part of the film, with the cheap TV-like music by Marcello Giombini, one can see WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN MIGHT REALLY HAPPEN...PERHAPS IT ALREADY HAS!


I'm just going to get this out of the way first. Yes, the main hero in this movie's name is Kirk, and he's a captain in the army. So yes. they refer to him throughout the picture as "Captain Kirk". Now, to me, that's HILARIOUS. i had to rewind the movie just to make sure i wasn't hearing things. And there was even an officer named "O'Brien" later on in the movie. I'm shocked that the monster's name wasn't "Riker". But enough of the good stuff, let's dive into "Panic".

This movie is another on our awesome 50 chilling classics collection at number 26. Now i took a two week break at the halfway mark, and coming back, i'm not so sure WHY i came back. OK, if you looked at the top, i gave this movie a 2. So what's the big problem with this movie you may ask? One word. PACING. This movie's pacing is TERRIBLE. this 90 minute movie has a plot that could either have been resolved in 15 minutes but it also had the plot to stage an entire 90 minute movie if they did it correctly. Sadly, here, they did not. It's really sad when i understand more of the movie from reading the one paragraph DVD sleeve in my Box set, but that seems to be happening more and more with these movies. And this movie is no exception. on the DVD sleeve it says "A British research scientist is working with various forms of bacteria when he is accidentally exposed to a deadly variety due to a lab accident." OK. there are 3 problems with that sentence. 1. This movie is Italian, not British. But all the actors are dubbed British so they put in stock pictures of England. Why? I'm not sure. 2. No, i did not accidentally type "Variety" instead of "Virus" That is what actually was printed on my DVD sleeve. and 3. IT NEVER SHOWS YOU THAT IN THE MOVIE. in the film it starts out with some rats fighting in a lab, a guy grabs his face and that's it. i had NO idea what happened. and honestly, i STILL have no idea what happened.

Like i said though. This movie is S-L-O-W. it takes forever to make any point and while the movie has a relatively high body count, all kills are offscreen and in the dark. and they quickly cut away from any sort of interesting nudity. pff. this considers itself a monster mash film? There's at least 3 times in the movie where they could have stopped this monster dude but then...they didn't for some reason? and that just gives them an excuse to have lengthy scenes of them talking. um. yay? I really had to pull out the DS during this movie. it was more than i could do to pay HALF attention to it let alone ALL my attention. But i gave it a good go. i gave it 45 minutes of my undivided attention and there was so little going on i realized that i could do at least 2 more things at once and still know exactly what was going on. and you know what? i was right.

The ending is extremely abrupt with no time for an epilogue and the final scene just makes NO sense. i'm not going to give the ending away but i will say 5 words. "Fire extinguisher? What the crap?" With pacing that could bore Ben Stein, characters that are less enjoyable then a Disney channel sitcom line-up, and an ending more predictable than the ending to "The Village", Panic gets 2 melty faces, out of 10


This is only the second film from Tonino Ricci I've watched, but I can already safely say he's one of Italy's worst horror/exploitation directors! With the other turkey being "Thor The Conqueror", this sad excuse for a movie called "Panic" is probably all I'll ever watch from him. For the gorehounds among us, this movie features a handful of gross murder sequences and utterly cheesy make-up effects, but it lacks literally everything else like structure, tension or understandable dialogues. Here we have yet another over-ambitious scientist that falls victim to his own stupid research and mutates into a hideous and bloodthirsty monster. It's his own damn fault! Who the hell, in his right state of mind, experiments with bacteria and lethal viruses anyway? The smooth & womanizing security officer Captain Kirk (Captain Kirk???) starts a search for the monster on the loose, while the army forces consider it to be better to exterminate the whole city and its entire population at once. It's a really lame and boring horror effort with an occasional gory killing. However, DO find the courage to remain watching until the very last minutes, as we only get to see the monster's face at that point. It'll be worth it, since the bloke looks like rotting pepperoni-pizza.


Someone hired a few names from the Italian horror field and thought that was enough for a passable thriller.

Boy, were THEY wrong.

Ricci screwed this up in every way imaginable.

The effects looked like the were made by kindergarten kids using finger paints. And the tension was non-existent. The camera work was laughable. Hiding behind furniture does not make a scene suddenly scary.

The idea itself was the only redeeming quality. And I usually like to see David Warbeck or Janet Agren. But the must have needed the money badly to include themselves in this piece of tripe.

Blow this one off.


A professor has been exposed to some nasty virus, and the result is a slimy, toxic, rambling cannibal monster who lives in the sewers.David Warbeck is luring around as he usually does in low-budget Italian shockers. Oh, the military has put a quarantine on the small English town where the whole thing is happening, with plans about total destruction in fear of contamination. In one scene David Warbeck ask some character "have you seen any worse actors?". -And I can only give him a honest "No!" A very slow going film with few values.


Remember back in school when you would get a tedious math assignment like long division or multiplication and instead of actually doing the work you turned to the trusty calculator and just wrote the answer in prompting the teacher to scribble across the top of the paper in red ink "show your work please". Well, Panic/Bakterion is the personification of that scenario in movie form and much like that math assignment I turned in it too will receive a big fat F.

Let's get this out of the way quickly. Yes, David Warbeck plays Captain Kirk with phasers on stunningly boring. The movie opens with two rats locked in mortal combat, an alarm sounding, and then some nameless individual screaming with green makeup on his face. This is supposedly how Professor Adams becomes Pizza the Hut or some monster that really resembles him. Another side effect of the contamination besides the resemblance of Italian cuisine is a thirst for human blood. At least this is what we are told as Kirk and the Professor's assistant Jane always manage to find the bodies after the fact. This entire film never once shows any visual "red meat" as all the kills are done either off screen or cut to another scene entirely. The monster even attacks a crowd of people in a theater watching the most mundane movie on earth (even worst than this one trust me!) before having the screen go black for some inexplicable reason. This gets old real fast.

Once the attacks start to increase in regularity the town starts to "panic" or to be more accurate become slightly agitated because a cabal of secret government agent don't want the virus to spread so they quarantine the entire village. Not once does anyone show any signs of infection from contact with Professor Adams as the government is planing to go ahead with Operation Q which is the eradication of the town populace. You think this would be important yet Kirk, who is in contact with the government agents, never relays this information to them. Stoopid! Instead he hunts down the beast with a fire extinguisher. You'll get what I mean if you watch. How this movie ends is so abrupt it's downright insulting. If you must watch this awful movie at the very least skip to the last two minutes. Otherwise quarantine Panic to the island of bad cinema.


A laboratory experiment goes terribly wrong leaving a scientist, Professor Adams, radioactively infected with a horrible mutation effecting his whole body. Now a grotesque cannibal lurking the underground sewer tunnels of the town of Newton, the powers-that-be are planning to drop nerve bombs if the monster isn't found and killed in time, so that the viral contagion Adams is currently carrying will be contained. If this drastic decision is to be halted, Captain Kirk(David Warbeck), Adams' lab assistant Jane Blake(Janet Agren), and Newton's Police Sergeant O'Brien(José Lifante)will have to race against time to find the mutated fiend and save thousands of innocent lives. During this chase to find it, the monster is scouring streets targeting citizens, feasting on flesh, retreating to the sewers periodically to escape from harm. Rampaging through a theater, it finds a female as others flee, tearing away at her face right before Kirk is able to catch him. The monster breaks into the locked door of a Catholic church, invading a sacristy as a priest helps his choir boys find escape, murdering him as the padre defends his kids. Kirk's boss, Milton(Franco Ressel)unloads two shot gun blasts into the beast before it rips away at his leg. Even Kirk is able to unload an entire gun of bullets into the thing without downing the monster. This monster has quite a threshold, as Kirk and O'Brien flood the sewers with gas hoping to corner it after sealing off escape routes. That monster is damned elusive, that's for sure, quite motivated to keep on going, no matter the resistance it faces along the way.

The version I watched, on a 50 pack of Mill Creek films, is incredibly murky and seems to be cut. The movie's absent of gore and the monster itself is wisely hidden in darkness, with only mutated(..latex)flesh made visible as light briefly flashes on it while in pursuit of new victims to eat. I didn't think the monster is very convincing when the film finally unveils it at the end. I won't lie, this was a pain to sit through;positively boring, with an absence of thrills. If the plot were even remotely original or effective, I might've enjoyed it more. On paper, this hybrid of suspense elements(monster on the loose eating folks;threat of spread virus;possible nuking of town)should be a winner, but under the direction of Tonino Ricci, it plods along at a languid pace covering familiar ground formerly trampled on by more capable filmmakers. In the version I watched, the scenes of violence disappear from the screen as the monster often engulfs the entire frame. Even as Kirk and O'Brien survey the crime scene carnage left in the monster's wake, Ricci fails to give the viewer the gory goods. Just a sheer disappointment that, if handled by someone else, might've been better. An Italian production with the story set in England(why not Rome?).


"A British research scientist is working with various forms of bacteria when he is accidentally exposed to a deadly variety due to a lab accident. The exposure transforms the scientist into a hideous, flesh-eating monster and he begins a rampage in the local community that has the government considering whether or not to destroy the entire town to contain the problem," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

David Warbeck (as Captain Kirk) and Janet Agren (as Jane Blake) are dumbed and dubbed as they try to stop a bacteria (or virus) from taking a bite out of everyone in the city. The monster, "Professor Adams", worked with Ms. Agren; so, beauty has some intuition regarding the beast. At first, people think "Professor Adams" has gone fishing; and, in a sense, he has. Some of the sewer shots, later in the film, look okay -- but, it's not enough of a redeeming quality. "Bakterion" (or "Panic") is simply not a competent film


Given some sort of bacteriological event, would things happen this way. It seems like they threw the baby out with the bathwater, deciding to exterminate a whole segment of a city in order to get rid of one random creature. He shouldn't be that hard to catch. This is bad enough, but it is filled with bad acting, unbelievable scenes, and a monster that doesn't really show himself until the very end. The young woman lead figures she can reason with this tub of goo. It does have Captain Kirk (no, not that one). Maybe that's it's main feature. The pacing is horrible and it drags one forever. Like so many of these films, it has either deteriorated or it never was filmed very well. Don't bother.


Wow, "Panic" is yet another turd from the so-called "Chilling Classics" box set, a London-filmed epidemic tale sporting an Italian cast and crew, with international celebrities David Warbeck ("The Beyond") and Janet Agren ("Eaten Alive") lending some brand-name recognition the lousy ride. There's not really much to be said for this grade-Z stinker--the plot is the typical pulp of a scientist whose experiment backfires, transforming him into a hideous mutant who spends the film shuffling through the London sewer system in between random lackluster attacks on various characters. There are endless dialog scenes involving scientists, policemen, and government figures talking the issue to death instead of actually DOING something. The performances and dubbing are uniformly atrocious, with Agren seemingly inserted at random to pad the film out. And while Warbeck does his usual tough-guy shtick, the real amusement of "Panic" is the pair of tight-binding white jeans he wears during the last act...never has a bulge been so shamelessly exploited since David Bowie donned tights in "Labyrinth"...but aside from that dubious curiosity, there's really nothing here worth seeing.


This is surely one of the worst movies ever made. A comedy without a single laugh. The stupidity of the script, blame Charles Grodin for the entire film, is amazing. Steve Martin's performance was low, even for him. In short, awful and without redeeming features.


This movie has everything: Inane writing; heavy-handed direction; call-in acting; a voice-over that attempts to tie a series of pointless scenes into a plot line. Someone lacked the courage to say no, no, no. Anything that might have been edited out would have doubtless been better than what was edited in. Student films are better. What's Up Tiger Lily was better. A Woody Woodpecker cartoon is better. A George Burns/Bea Arthur porno would be better.


This aired on TCM last night, selected by guest programmer/star/screenwriter Charles Grodin. Classic? Hardly! He seems fairly proud of this pic, though, which allows an extremely talented cast to either overplay or underplay to agonizing effect. Director Asher (an Emmy winner for Bewitched) was better in the half hour television format. A complete waste of time. I think it's supposed to satirize the dying Hollywood studio system. It was movies like this that killed it. Pairing Bill Macy and Gilda Radner as a couple? Penny Marshall is credited and we hear her voice, but to my recollection only ever actually see her feet. Tyne Daly stands around with nothing substantive to do but be ticked off.


Most films start with good intentions by all the people involved in its creative process. It's a nightmare for the studio that produces a film like "Movers and Shakers" to watch the project turned into a lemon that no one will ever see. In fact, it was a surprise this showed recently on cable. Based on some of the names involved in it, we decided to take a look. Well, let's assume all the people that participated in it, won't include this experience in their resumes for future jobs within the movie industry.

It's also a puzzle as to why did a talented man of the stature of Walter Matthau ever saw in the possibility of this turkey having any future. For that matter, Charles Grodin, who wrote the screen play, is seen as a writer who hasn't figured out how to do an adaptation of the book the dying studio head wants to be made into a film. It appears that Mr. Grodin was writing about what would be his own role in this ill conceived movie.

Better keep surfing channels until something better is found.


With an uncompromising dedication to character, and a flair for graceful, richly-textured storytelling, Merchant-Ivory seemed incapable of mediocrity. And with the recent passing of Ismail Merchant, I've been thumbing through the company's stellar filmography with renewed appreciation. Adoring the costume drama, I donned my comfy slippers and International Coffee and settled into 120 minutes of Merchant-Ivory bliss.

What I got instead was The Bostonians, the MI treatment of Henry James' witty and satirical novel about the earliest days of the feminist movement. This production took a fun and biting social commentary and turned it into gooey melodrama. It failed to show the irony of a headstrong young feminist (daughter of a "mesmeric healer" and a chronic hypochondriac) allowing herself to be manipulated on all sides while falling for a dull, misogynistic Southern lawyer. It turned the classic Plutonic relationship with her feminist mentor into the clawing desperation of an aging lesbian. Script appeal seesawed between eating a mouthful of alum, and blowing butterscotch pudding out one's nose. Editing was at once jagged and lumpy, spending copious amounts of film on innocuous bits of business, only to slam the guillotine so close to some dialog that it made me wonder about my DVD player. And that's only the half of it.

Stiff and lumbering is all I ever expect of the now canonized Christopher Reeve, so this performance shouldn't have surprised me. But it did. Reeve was channeling some kind of Confederate Heathcliff with a little Mary Shelley thrown in for good measure. Reading his lines from crib notes apparently taped to the bottom of the camera lens, he never blinked nor gave the slightest indication of understanding his dialog. He seemed to be forever walking downhill, and was patently incapable of moving his head. On seeing this performance, one could almost believe that the future riding accident might actually improve his flexibility. The heroin, as played by a mush-mouthed Madeleine Potter, showed all the plucky conviction of a plate of cold baked beans (yes, with the little puddles of congealed pork fat floating on top). As for the usually magnificent Vanessa Redgrave (in the desperate aging lesbian role), I say 'let's just forget this ever happened.' The only redeeming performances were two tiny bits sent in by Linda Hunt and Jessica Tandy. I'd be surprised if their scripts totaled more than 150 words. It would seem the director didn't bother to load their bloomers with the 100 lbs of wet oatmeal like he did with everyone else.

In a way, it's a shame I only rented The Bostonians. I'll miss out on the gratification I'd have felt in putting it in the microwave. What a tragic waste of good couch time.


I have never thought much of James Ivory's direction and The Bostonians does little to change my mind. It was years ago I read the Henry James novel and I'm not one to criticise a film for not replicating the book,but I do recall the stupendous climax James achieved when Ransomemarched backstage at the Music Hall to literally carry Verena off. This has to be the climax of the film, but here it goes for nothing and makes less impact than the jeering audience. In too many other scenes points are similarly missed, the tone is misjudged and the pace is plodding. Nor is the acting distinguished except for Vanessa Redgrave who aims at an intensity that seems to belong to another (and better)film. One compensation is the camera work of Walter Lassally; but even here the carefully framed compositions don't flow.


I just finished reading Henry James' "The Bostonians," and though I found the book to be a fine read and rather effective in capturing the many waves of emotion that flow through its often unappealing characters, I can't say I was taken much with its mean-spirited and narrow satire. This three-sided love story involving a feminist spinster, her rather dim protégée and a Southern knucklehead (I'm simplifying wildly here) involved me more than it should have, yet it left a bad the taste in my mouth. What is one to make of a tale in which two of the most vulnerable characters are left wounded by the "hero" (Olive Chancellor in the present, Verena Tarrant in the future) and noble ideals are trounced by bigotry, brutism and misogyny? The author's phobic attitude toward the "Boston Marriage" of the two heroines seems to mirror that of the southern chauvinist Basil Ransom (which is offputting) and the book never quite recovers from thoroughly humanizing the doomed females while setting them up to be trounced by the Great White Male.

Given that I found the book to have such objectionable themes, I probably should have stayed away from the film, but since movies have a long history of "free adaptations" of novels, I though that perhaps the film version of "The Bostonians" might give some form and direction to James' sometimes overwritten, anti-feminist jeremiad.

Well, I should have left well enough alone. The film is slavishly faithful to the book in all the wrong ways  LOTS of talking, VERY leisurely and never manages to improve upon its flaws. Vanessa Redgrave is rather remarkable, as is Linda Hunt, but everybody else comes off sorely lacking, especially poor Christopher Reeve who tries to be dashing but makes Ransom even more odious than in the book (which I didn't think possible).

Scenes start and end with so little dramatic flow -or sense- that I really wonder what I would have made of the film had I not read the book (I don't think any of the behaviors of the characters would have made the least bit of sense). Though a weak attempt is made to make the ending less sexist than in the book, it's a case of too little, too late. "The Bostonians" still remains a politically offensive minor effort easily overlooked because it also commits the crime of being dull.


It wasn't quite as bad as "2001 a Space Travesty", but almost. If it was supposed to be a black comedy, it failed. If it was supposed to be a serious drama, it failed. I didn't even know that they meant it to be a comedy until I watched the theatrical trailer on the DVD after the film. It wasn't funny, it wasn't touching, it wasn't much. It was a waste of 2 hours.


Wow, I like to think myself an open minded individual, capable of finding humor in things others might find tasteless or even downright repugnant. But I guess I was a little surprised by this flick.

I'll do my best not to give anything away here: the first 40 minutes I found entertaining and downright creative. After that though...it took something of a downward spiral.

I got the feeling several times in this film, that when the writers reached a crossroads as to where the plot should turn next, they just said, "F*ck it. What's the most outlandish thing we could do?" Well, what this resulted in was a crappy, discontinuous film with a horrible, horrible ending.

This film had some potential to begin with, but ultimately I wouldn't waste your time with this one. A movie with a bad ending like this one is kind of like trying Pepsi One: The concept is intriguing, and at first it doesn't seem half-bad. But the horrible aftertaste left in its wake ultimately doesn't make it worth trying in the first place. Wow! How's that for a simile? 4/10

Go Sun Devils!


I can't believe that people can call this film "brilliant" with a straight face. "Daring" someone said? It boggles the mind.

I cannot think of a single redeeming feature for this film. The characters were unbelievable, the story insipid, the resolution trite and predicatable...amazing. It actually was so bad, I finally registered on imdb to leave comments. I couldn't keep quiet.

I've seen a lot of other comments from people that this movie was trying to make a statement. I've read comments that the movie was a brilliant dark comedy. I've heard people say it was a satire of the teen comedy genre...do you see a pattern? Neither do I. That's because this movie doesn't know WHAT it is trying to be! There are a few half hearted attempts at humor (which were far from funny) There were a few "touching moments" (which never worked in the slightest, since the characters were so one dimentional)

A perfect example is the love story between Carolyn and Pumpkin. First, she is digusted by him, then he SAYS HER NAME. The next scene, she is in love with him. Boom. Like that. Yeah, I can see that.

I'm so frustrated with this movie. Maybe that's what the director wanted. Maybe he wanted a reaction. I suppose, if that's the case, he's gotten what he wanted out of me. I just wish my disgust wasn't what he had been aiming for...


Friends warned me that this one wasn't worth seeing. But I thought I'd show 'em. Especially after watching the first 20 minutes or so, I was preparing my "you don't know what you're talking about" speech. I so much wanted to find the value in this film that was right there below the surface, where only the smart people care to look. But there just isn't anything there.

This film tries to be thought-provoking and enlightening, but in my final analysis it is just as bad as any brain-dead teenage moron-o-fest. Retarded people are people just like you and me? Yeah, yeah, yeah ... I know that and I don't need a ridiculously earnest film to tell me so. And if you're going to make a ridiculously earnest film about the "Noble" Retarded Man (who I am sure is JUST as noble as the Noble American Indian and the Noble Black Guy) then at least hire real handicapped people to show up on screen. All I saw were a bunch of actors trying lamely to walk and move about like they imagined retarded people should be. That alone is offensive enough.

My final thought: I just watched "Death To Smoochy" and "Pumpkin" back-to-back and after doing so I can't decide which was the bigger waste of time. Does that tell you how bad of a movie this was?

I'm not your friend, but I'm warning you: "This one isn't worth seeing."


But seriously Folks...There were a couple of brief comedic moments, but in general, this was a waste of talent and cellulose. Oscar, someone said? Maybe for the cinematography, but this movie is right up there with Ishtar on my bottom feeder list. Go paint the kitchen, or wash the garage for more stimulation than you will get watching this overwrought piece of cow-pie. That's the extent of emotion that I experienced watching this accident leaving the scene. I kept wishing I had learned how to darn socks for fun and profit when I was younger, so I might have accomplished something constructive while viewing this moo-vie. I did give the movie a good solid 3, but more out of sympathy than anything else.


This latest entry into straight-to-TV videos sees Tom Skerrit running for his life when disaster hits New York City.

Another predictable, pretentious natural disaster "thriller" made for TV, "Earthquake in New York" does nothing we have not seen before, and accomplishes zip.

Boring from start to finish.

1.5/5 stars -

John Ulmer


This disaster drama created for TV is based on a novel by a popular New York TV anchorman-turned-author Chuck Scarborough. A massive earthquake shakes 'The Big Apple' and the city is all but held hostage by the devastation. New York City Mayor Bruce Lincoln(Charles S. Dutton)and his political foe Fire Chief Thomas Ahearn(Tom Skerritt)come to grips putting their differences aside to work together digging the city out of the ruble. There seems to be more than enough sub plots stretching this Hallmark presentation to near three hours. There are some good special effects, but nothing we haven't seen before. This earthquake flick is really no great shakes. And not unlike other disaster movies there is vast and varied talent featured in the cast: Sharon Lawrence, Jennifer Garner, Fred Weller, Lisa Nicole Carson, Rachel Ticotin and Cicely Tyson.


I was VERY disappointed in this film. No, that's not quite true. I didn't have great expectations for this TV movie, but it did not even live up to those meager hopes for a decent disaster flick. The characters, for the most part, were uninteresting and whiny and unsympathetic. The special-effects are not exceptionally good-- no better than most films today. And the story was lacking in excitement and depth.

In addition, the lack of destruction was 1) rather unbelievable, and 2) annoyingly sparse. After an earthquake in a city that is mostly unprepared for such an event, one would think there would be a great deal more devastation. Like ASTEROID, GODZILLA, VOLCANO, and to a lesser extent, DANTE'S PEAK and ARMAGEDDON, AFTERSHOCK has relatively little in the way of physical damage. Now, far be it for me to want total devastation and loss of life, but really, can't we get a little more than a few toppled and cracked old buildings? I realize that special effects are expensive, but to me, the directors and script-writers of these films don't seem to want to make any effort to make a truly "disastrous" film.

(One last point, NY City seems to get picked on a great deal in disaster films: AFTERSHOCK, DEEP IMPACT, ARMAGEDDON, GODZILLA, FAIL SAFE, INDEPENDENCE DAY, and others such as DIE HARD 3, and THE SIEGE.)


I just saw this movie on the Sci Fi channel. I am sure everyone who has seen more then 2 disaster flicks could of wrote this movie. All disaster movies follow the same formula and they never divert to a different path. First part of the movie we meet the characters who lives are going to be in peril. They usually consist of

A a family who is in crisis.

B a kid or kids, who sometimes is part of the family in crisis, or the child of the hero or big wig.

C a younger character man or women or both who is either just newly married or a romance will develop.

D a potential bad guy or guys that will come around in the end.

E Two big wigs, either a politician, or a General, if it involves the military. THe politician or General are sometimes the bad guy.

F a disgruntle or disgraced male who will eventually save the day.

The middle part of the movie, is the disaster itself. And it usually is the shortest part. This is where we see what happened to the characters we met in the first part. How the potential couple will meet up. And where the kid is or kids are at that will put them in peril.

Sometimes the child already has a illness that will add to the suspense. So if the disease doesn't kill them the disaster will.

According the budget we will see if the movie has great affects or just a camera shaking some people up and cars overturning and scene of one or two insignificant buildings crumbling. Sometimes the budget is so cheap they use scenes from other disaster movies. One person, usually the kid or a women are trapped somewhere,

And the last part of the movie is watching who lives or dies. Which is predictable. 1 The family man who we know loves his wife and kids, because he either talked about how much he loves them or we see a happy family picture on a desk. This character is usually the young fireman, or some other minor character who is helping out, we don't much about him other then him having a family and he is young.

2 The black man, I find if there is a black character in these movies, they are either the potential bad person or another of the soon to be hero's sidekick. Who will die saving others. In the newer disaster flicks the black person has jumped from being one of first victims or gang member to now being one of the bigwigs.

3 A elderly person, we know nothing about them other then they are elderly and they are married or a dearly love relative of a major character.

Amongst the living are 1 The new lovers

2 The star of the movie. There are two exceptions. Joaquin Pheonix in Ladder 64, but he also qualifies in the subgroup of the young family man who gets killed. And Stephen Segal in Executive Decision whose screen time lasted maybe 20 minutes and is killed.

3) A pet that was otherwise thought dead.

4) The child or relative of one of the bigwigs

This movie manages to have most of these important elements. I saw it early on a Saturday morning. I am happy that I saw it in one sitting because I believe this had to be a 2 night movie when it first aired. I find I never come back to see the conclusions of these moves. But they showed the whole movie at one, which I am sure helped.

It was a TV movie and that is what to expect of it. TV A-list stars like Charles Dutton and Jennifer Garner and Sharon Lawrence and Tom Skeritt and Cecily Tyson are in the movie they do a good enough job to keep it interesting. Do not expect anything more and you will enjoy it.

One last remark that cannot go unmentioned. The speech Charles Dutton makes at the end was very stirring. I actually had a tear in my eye. In the wake of the 911 that was in the future and being a New Yorker it was very appropriate.


This movie defines 'Corny'. Continuity doesn't seem to be a strong point in the making of this film. Little quirks here and there such as: a woman walks in and catches 2 guys stealing a TV, she yells, they drop the TV, she runs, they disappear.... later, the broken TV vanishes too. Some of the 'emotional' reactions, as well as actions, by these actors is also over the top. You watch them do something, or react to something and you just have to sit in awe: There's just no way any sane person would do that, or waste THAT much time telling a story, or plain old goofing off, in an emergency. The musical score in coordination with some of the scenes is almost comical. And, finally, if you like 'in-the-nick-of-time' scenes, you'll be in heaven.


Thomas (Tom Skerritt) is the fire chief for NYC but, he is about to submit his resignation. He has bones to pick with the city's mayor (Charles S. Dutton) and rather than work things out, Thomas is set to quit. The mayor has a beautiful, intelligent daughter who serves as a topnotch public defender but who is also being courted by a top law firm. Her latest case involves a man accused of murdering his wife, but the would-be killer proclaims his innocence. Can she get him acquitted and then land the more lucrative job? Also in the city is a lady named Dori (Sharon Lawrence) who suffers with acute guilt over an automobile accident that left her young son with a limp. Her husband (Mitchell Ryan) is dismayed that she still has not gone back to work or that she will not renew their mutual hobby, mountain climbing. Meanwhile, aspiring ballet dancer, Diane (Jennifer Garner) still has to ask her parents for money to make ends meet, something no family member likes, including Diane. Crossing paths with these folks are a Russian immigrant cab driver, the mayor's caring but aging mother, a poor teenager, and a businesswoman with eyes for Dori's husband. Suddenly, a deadly earthquake strikes, in NYC for goodness sake. Some folks are trapped in the subway, some on the street, and some in the upper levels of buildings. Who will survive? Does anyone care? This film is a very poor affair, suffering from implausability and stupidity, too. It's as though someone said, let's have an earthquake strike Manhattan because having people trapped in a subway system would be cool. No matter if the chance of an earthquake hitting NYC is slim to none, let's do it. Add on a fire chief who orders men into dangerous and avoidable situations, a mayor who can take time for a chat during a disaster, and a rock climbing mama who is the only one able to rescue her son and you have a film that goes way beyond credulity. The lame acting by nearly all thespians (Sharon Lawrence starts off well but loses her believability, too) does not help matters, either. The special effects are uneven, sometimes being quite good, and at other times, totally laughable. Costumes and production values are average at best, too. If you have a yen for disaster flicks, then you might take an interest in watching this one. For, in truth, it is a double dose of dire, once as an earthquake flick, and once as an extremely poor-quality film.


A boring and disappointing TV film. True, after 9/11 it is hard to watch a disaster movie happening in New York as reality unfortunately exceeded everything fiction script writers ever imagined. However, this is still a bad TV movie. Cheap melodrama, flat and bombastic characters, ridicule script lines a real person would never say, and everything is so predictible - you can always guess what happens or what will be said next. 4/10 on my personal scale.


Whale of a Tale is basically a story about a kid who visits a marine park and forms an attachment to a killer whale there. Not much else happens. It's very cheap looking and totally inoffensive, even by 1970's standards. It plays like an average episode of The Wonderful World of Walt Disney. In fact the star, Scott Kolden, appeared in many Disney productions, which seems odd as he's an actor of little talent. What really makes the film interesting is the appearance of William Shatner who plays a marine biologist at the park! The clothes he wears is enough to make watching the movie worthwhile. The box says that the film came out in 1976 but judging from the fashions worn by the characters, I'd say it was more like 1972. Oh yes, Shatner also has a totally forced romance with the boy's mom (naturally, Kolden plays a fatherless child) Whale of a Tale is actually pretty funny if you can accept it as tongue in cheek. It may well have inspired Free Willy twenty years later! One wonders how Shatner feels about it.


This movie was a tax scheme. Investors were told they could write off more than 100% of what they invested in the movie. This is, of course, impossible. The investors had to reimburse the government. I think "Lucky" went to the federal pen. Not surprisingly this movie is terrible. It bored me out of my skull when I saw it as a kid. Anyone who claims it is a good movie is out of their mind. William Shatner is at his best in this movie, which is to say he is hilariously hammy. I also recall having a nightmare about the wailing (no pun intended) theme song: "Looking for a frieeeeeend. Looking for a frieeeeeeeeend." The good thing about the movie is that the people responsible actually got what they deserved--hard time.


I watched it on DVD. I can't imagine this raw turkey ever being in a theater. The entire film should be in "deleted scenes" or the gag reel. I thought in the early scenes that I was being set up for a gag. Unfortunately the only gag was the reflex I experienced while watching. Poor George Kennedy. To have been in some great movies with some legendary characters, to end up in this film school exercise. I hope he was paid much more than the role demanded. Unfortunately, he should have paid the producer to leave his scenes on the cutting room floor. This may be a cult classic some day. Wait until it becomes funny to watch it. On second thought, find it, watch it, and be on the cutting edge when it becomes popular. Just don't pay for it.


The pace was excruciatingly slow. Acting was amateurish. The plot was disjointed and there were feeble attempts to make it feel like an old fashioned western film. My wife and I watched it to conclusion only because we thought there would be a punch line that rewarded us for enduring the film. It's no wonder we have not heard any more of these actors. Kennedy should be embarrassed to be associated with it. Obviously he took part in it as a favor for a friend or because he desperately needs the money. He was given top billing in the credits and appeared on screen for only two scenes. He was at a low point in his acting as well.


It seemed like bad cut scenes from a video game. A couple of the cast are known actors, but they don't want to be known by this film. The camera work may have been done by a Jr. high Student. Please forgive any insult I have made to Jr. High cameramen who are competent. The location and costumes were not bad except for the bandanna's that were worn like capes. The plot had a chance but the script and score made it imposable to care about. There is no reason to rent this movie. If it's in the $.99 bin do not buy it. Don't let friends watch, rent or buy this movie.

This movie is very slow and plodding. there are no surprises or plot twist to make watching this mundane movie payoff in any way.


I rarely comment on movies. However, this one drew the lucky card. I am not sure if the director has ever seen a western created in the last half century. The story line was going to be "iffy" at best. However, the movies starts with a chase scene that has the "posse" hot on the trail of the "bandits". The posse is shooting and riding. Of course, they are riding in a fairly straight line. Tough to be the first guy in the posse if your third guy in line is shooting at a moving target in front of you. Then, magically, the posse stops. Did they run out of bullets? Who knows? The good thing is that the hard-riding bandits clothes were not dirty at all. Whew! I thought for sure that hard riding would have caused a little sweat and dust to collect.

The movie continued but really did not develop into a story that could be followed or believed. For a High School Project, it would not be a bad attempt. For a project distributed by ThinkFilm, it left a lot to be desired. I will keep an eye out for more projects from Jeff Hathcock and be sure to avoid them.


As I kid back in the glory days of movies before TV invaded everyone's home, a double feature almost always included a "B" oater along with the main attraction, not to mentions shorts, a newsreel and a cartoon. As a kid, I loved those old Westerns where you could get 42 shots out of a six-shooter, the horses running through the same settings and a confrontation at the little cabin in Corriganville between the bad guys and the good guy. Alas, this oater does not rise to the standard of late Gene Autry, Tim Holt or Lash LaRue. It's frankly boring. Alas, the story of three bank robbers who daringly rob a bank of $30,000, slip the posse only to come upon a dying man who was shot for a scant amount of money who begs them to "bring his wife back to him." These 3 bank robbers forsake an easy escape to chase after the most nefarious outlaw since Black Pete of Micky Mouse fame whose spurned girlfriend, who's part of the gang, vows to kill the poor young captive widow. The chase take place in "wild country" down a well groomed road with ambushes and attrition on all sides. Toss in a dysfunctional posse, a prat-falling cameo by George Kennedy, who's in it for the paycheck, add some corny music, amateur night at the local opera acting, not much of a story-line-- except for a maudlin flashback of the hero's psychological wound-- and Voila! Sadly, I note that my wife and I laughed our way through most of it. If you're up for a good "B" oater, check out a Tim Holt,Cisco Kid or one of those other guys' movies. You'll likely be glad you did.


awful awful awful awful. If they'd cut out all the pointless horse riding and crummy gunfighting it would have been 10 minutes long of very bad dialogue. George Kennedy gets top billing for a gut-wrenchingly bad scene. This is the fun part: count how many things are wrong with Kennedy's scene. There are lots, mostly in the set where they chose to shoot the scene. Although I always thought a cameo was a surprise appearance that makes the movie more enjoyable for those in the know, it was really just the most crap scene ever. There are a few gems ("You bastard!" "My mother's choice, not mine.") but they are delivered so badly you hardly notice them. It seems obvious to me that some guys were sitting around (maybe drunk) when they thought of a handful of witty lines and wrote a script around getting them on screen. Seriously. And they weren't that great. I'd say it's so bad you have to love it, but really, it's so bad that if you love it then you're just... well, you have weird tastes, my friend. very weird. And we're never letting you choose the movie. EVER.


I don't know why I kept watching to the end, but I did anyway and it really wasn't worth my (or anyone else's for that matter) time.

you don't need a big budget to make a good film, but it's impossible to hide a bad one with a small budget and this one must have had a REALLY small budget.

I was surprised to see Jolene Blalock's name attached to this being a star trek fan I thought she might bring something to the movie, but I'm starting to understand why she was cast as an emotionally void Vulcan in Enterprise. I'd also read comments about the state of her lips and thought it was just internet geeks going overboard, but they are really big now, significantly moreso than in her trek role, I think she needs to ease off on the collagen before they take over her face, they're starting to look like she was beaten up.

the SFX would have embarrassed the Red Dwarf crew at times they were so bad. For an example of how bad it gets check out the scene on the ship at warp where the view out the window isn't even CGI but some space scene on a long roller rolled past the window really quickly with the same repeating pattern over and over. I honestly don't think I've seen that done since the 70's! even the bug CGI is barely up to video game standards and not a patch on the original (which is 11 years old (1997) now and still looking much better than anything in ST3).

seriously guys, if you don't have the budget to make it properly, just don't make it at all, for your own sakes as professionals as well as for the sake of your fans. didn't you learn anything from ST2?


Usually 'hinsight' created sequels aren't as good as the original and this (part III) is no exception. In fact i sat it out, but was increasingly annoyed by the lack of creativity and intellect. The last half hour is more like a crusade for religion (happens more and more in Hollywood it seems) than a serious attempt to make a good sci fi shoot'em up style movie. So the story is lame, the acting is doable, effects are OK, but nothing new or exciting.

In the beginning old friends meet again, but these are all new actors (apart from Rico) and this is quite confusing. Obviously the makers found that a problem too, since the emphasis is overdone. The war turns into showbiz and commerce, which is too realistic maybe (?!) and a battle is lost at some secret planet somewhere (its top secret so we aren't supposed to know either) The brass flees from the planet and ends on some other secret planet due to a flat tire, after which Rico has to go get them. And thats good for Rico, since he joined up in a hanging party, which have become in vogue. To 'spice' it up a bit, we get some boob shots and then Rico saves the day. Alls well that ends well, so they overkill a new bug-brain by destroying the whole planet its on. Or at least i hope so, or there will be another sequel. (To stay in sync with the movie) God forbid!

You can miss it.


Ummmmm what was this? The movie started out pretty decent and then it just kind of fell flat towards the end. Made me appreciate the original that much better. However, I will say, that it is 50% better than Starship 2.

I don't get it, I really don't. I understand that the budget was smaller, I understand why people really like this series, myself included. I just don't understand how it could be screwed up so bad. This series kind of reminds me of the Highlander Series: It started out really good, with a good story, then the producers got a hold of it and put it in the toilet(see recent Highlander:The Source, for confirmation) The point is, there is a fan base for this series. People really want to see more of the Starship troopers. Why do the writers mess it up so bad. And apparently just because they can write, it all of the sudden means that they can direct too? Which is not always the case. Given this movie.

If you are a hardcore fan, this movie is worth watching. While some people are into the hardcore gore(boring), I really like the propaganda machine that these movies put on. However, during the movie when the religion stuff goes over the top(a.k.a. when pilot and soldier are praying and there is a cheesy fading/overlay effect of explosions and things getting blown up, it just was really tacky). And the Marauder part was very brief. The nude scene(while yes, there were nice looking bodies) just seemed totally tacked on and had no plot barring whatsoever. Watching this it was hard to believe that the writer/Director was the same screenplay writer for the first Starship troopers movie. He should stick to better writing and stay away from directing. It's better then the 2nd(not saying much), but very disappointing for those of us who really enjoy the first one and the spirit of the series. Do it right or let it die.

;


The film is boring with Jonny Rico being the only character returning from the first film. It's too much military based and unlike the title;Marauder, it barely contains any marauders. No beetle-like bugs, no grasshopper-like bugs, only arachnids and other new bugs that was never in the first film.

Last scene is too childish and unlike the first film, no detailed shot of a arachnid being gunned down is shown. But other than that, it wasn't a horrible film, at least it's much better than 2. The script writer should have taken the story more seriously with more characters and creatures returning.


Startship Troopers 3 is a very baaaaad movie. In fact, one of the worst I have ever seen. I enjoyed the first one but this sequel is just terrible.

The actors are just ridiculous, the dialogs awful and the special effects very poor. Having the actor from the first one (Rico) helped a little to watch this movie (not that he is a good actor).

A singing chief of the armies, kamikaze bugs, hanging of peace protestants and many more. Just a few examples of the absurdities of this movie.

The worst thing in that movie is the constant and absurd religious comments and references. The mix of those references with the obscenities, violence and naked scene is a very questionable choice in my opinion (not that I didn't enjoyed the naked scenes).

At best that movies is entertaining but it can easily become really boring.


It was better then Starship Troopers 2. But the only thing that would have been worse would be a 90 minute film of someone taking a crap. The main problem with this film is it actually tries to be faithful to the first one and that's not good. The first Starship Troopers was made by Paul Verhoveven, a guy not as clever or smart as he thinks he is. It was clear that Verhoveven despised the book which the film was based which showed military service as a positive thing. The film he made was a deliberate spit in the face to the book, turning the concept of courage and service into being a duped fascist puppet. This sequel tries to do the same. It attempts to satire war and the role of religion during war. However the films level of satire are as complex and subtle as someone dropping their pants and mooning you. One of its selling points was the return of Casper Van Diem, the star of the first movie. This a bait and switch move. Van Diem shows up for the first few minutes and is seen for two minutes in the middle and then 5 minutes at the end. Really he looks like he's just waiting to get his money and leave. Most of the film involves new characters stomping through a desert on a remote planet which goes on far too long. The first movie at least knew to throw us a battle scene every 10 minutes to keep us from losing interest. This one not having anywhere near the budget of the first can't and we're stuck with people trying to act with a poor script. I will give the film points on not being completely predictable. I was sure the admiral played by Amanda Donohue was being set up to be the main villain of the piece. Turns out she isn't and her twisted logic makes sense considering the situation. Other then that the film is an attempt to be a sequel to an overrated first film done by people with even less talent and money.


Now I wasn't going into this film expecting something great (like the original starship troopers) and I wasn't expecting something completely garbage (like starship troopers 2); so my feelings were neutral (best when watching a movie for the first time). After the movie It's safe to say that my feelings on it remained neutral, nothing was over the top good, or over the top bad.

Now to discuss the movie.

The storyline was nothing great, basic, unoriginal, and at times boring. To have a universe such as the one of starship troopers, and not to be able to come up with a better story is disappointing.

Acting was regular (I've seen worse, I've seen better), another let-down was that they didn't include some of the other characters from the original starship troopers.

If you enjoyed the original starship troopers only for its fast-paced action scenes (which is a good amount of the movie), then you might not like this one. That is to say that not much action occurs through this movie, more talking if anything. The fight/action scenes that do occur throughout the film (2 in total, I believe) are very basic, not very fast-paced, and altogether very mediocre.

It's obvious that there was a lower budget on this movie, what I like is that they worked on it and still made it watchable (only if it is average) even on such a budget.

As for CGI in the movie, all I had to say was "WHAT?!?!? HUH?!?!". How could CGI be worse than that of a movie created in 1997? I mean, its been 10 years, how could CGI have gotten WORSE in that time?? Well, I have no answers (apart from lack of budget) but it did, the bugs in this movie looked nothing compared to the bugs in the original starship troopers (which was created in 1997). Very bad outcome, especially because a lot of people were to watch this to see the conflict between the bugs and the humans when bugs were only present for around 5 to 10 minutes of the film.

In closing, if you'd like to see an EPIC war Sci-fi movie, watch the original starship troopers. Then if you have NOTHING better to do, and you MUST see this film, watch it (dont buy it, best to rent). If you don't watch it, it wont be a loss as this story has nothing to do with starship troopers 1 (apart from the war, however there are no other consistencies).

Notice I haven't even mention starship troopers 2 a lot throughout this review, its because it isn't anything in comparison to the original starship troopers (even to this one), and should be AVOIDED.

Overall, Good name and franchise, average movie. (Below average if comparing to the original)

4/10


the plot is thin, very thin, the actors leave much to be desired, but then it gets worst at the end it starts a huge mumbo jumbo about religion that sounds like an "eat this lollypop and be cool" propaganda except its not propaganda its religion .

i say watch this movie and see how bad it gets and how pathetic religion is even spoils a movie that should be about fighting bugs -_-x

anywya its a horrible movie i expected more but even casper van dien coming back to his former role didn't do it for me, i mean he says the well known phrase " you wana live forever" in the most terrible time and in a way that he seems to be making fun of the movie...

but don't think its that bad its actually worst.. just watch it so you know how the director completely failed to criticise religion + dictatorship control instead it looks like propaganda.


Recap: The fight against the Arachnids are not going too well, despite the efforts of popular Sky Marshal Anoke. The war effort must be better, more recruits must apply. So an aggressive commercial campaign is launched, spearheaded by a singing Anoke, at the same time as dissidents are executed as a statement to the public. On the frontlines where Colonel John Rico is commanding that doesn't matter much. The Arachnids are still far more numerous than the humans, and is ever testing their defenses. But when the Sky Marshal crashes on a apparently deserted planet in the middle of the Arachnid zone matters look grim indeed. And they get worse when Rico get tried for insubordination and no one seems interested in rescuing the Sky Marshal. Rico's friends must now first save Rico, and then mount a covert rescue operation deep into enemy territory.

Comments: This is definitely a sequel too far. Haven't seen the second installment in the series, but the first one, the original based on Heinlein's novel, is really good. Even then I didn't expect too much at all out of this. And I still managed to get disappointed.

Even if Casper van Dien (how desperate must he have been?) returns from the original cast, and manages to bring about the same that he did in the original, his support is too weak. I think only Jolene Blalock, a veteran from a Star Trek series, manages to escape with her dignity. But it isn't by much, and certainly not thanks to her character or the story. Supposed to contain a big twist it is predictable as rain and the characters are mostly thin. The dialog is almost stupid and delivered in a completely unbelievable manner. Sometimes the acting is disturbingly poor.

What really kills a movie like this, if it hasn't got a strong story to lean on, is the bad effects. They don't come close to the effects in the original, and it further weakens the plot. When an entire platoon, armed with automatic rifles and grenades don't hit a even one of hundreds of monsters that charge at them, due to that the effects doesn't cut it, it is time to stop. It is time to pull the plug. Why do a movie at all if you don't try to do it good.

The sole chance it got is to be so bad it turns comic. It fails even at that, cause it actually tries to pass as a serious movie. The only redeeming parts are the somewhat funny news reels that intersect the story.

Even though I do like the genre, and did like the original, I really disliked this. Can't recommend it at all.

3/10