First and foremost, it's a VERY bad idea to schedule a mainly story-driven and atmospheric horror movie like "The Garden" at 3am during a Film Festival and after exhilarating movies like "The Hills Have Eyes"-remake or "Neighborhood Watch"! The subject matter "The Garden" brings forward is interesting, but too abstract and definitely not compelling (let alone exciting) enough to keep you on the edge of your seat. A divorced father and his psychologically troubled son are involved in a car accident and recover at the house of a mysterious old man (Lance Henriksen in his umpteenth inferior horror role). The old guy's garden turns out to be the genuine Paradise of Eden; the place where our whole existence began according to the Holy Bible. Through the re-occurring nightmares of young Sam, the apocalypse can be inflicted in this exact same garden (don't ask me how as I somehow must have missed that part) and maybe that even is what the old man desires to achieve! Don Michael Paul's second film as a director starts out surprisingly stylish with elegant camera-work and a patient drawing of characters and settings. The first murder-sequence also comes at the exact right timing and it's quite bloody, especially considering the tone of the film so far. For reasons I fail to comprehend, "The Garden" then turns into a confusing and painfully dull mess that eventually reverts to annoying clichés and predictable plot twists. The only elements left to enjoy near the end are the creepy music and young Adam Taylor Gordon's impressive acting performance which easily surpasses the quality of his lines.


I saw this movie at the BIFFF (Brussels international festival of fantasy film) and found it struggling with it's plot material.

A young boy suffers from nightmarish visions and as a result has a tendency to put his body full of razor cuts. The boy resides with his father who is recovering from alcoholism and fails to be of support for his troubled son.

When father and son end up having a car accident caused by a vision the boy has, they get rescued by an elder man named Ben (Lance Henriksen).

Ben has a spooky air around him; vanishing and appearing at random pace throughout his ranch, always the sharp answer or life lesson on his tongue.

Ben has a weird agenda as he manipulates the father into alcoholism again and the boy into experiencing weird visions.

The movie tries so hard to build up the Christian undertone (think tree of life, adam & eve, apocalypse themes) but fails at each occasion.

The visions of the boy are the only up tempo sequences as the rest of the movie focuses on Lance Henriksen talking in Chinese fortune cookie lingo.

A shame, because the production values are there, the star (Henriksen) is wasted with this kind of script and the editing tries to contrast every moment of suspense with random actions (like heating up a stove, cleaning a fish, ...) This is B-movie material, a rental for the Henriksen fans, others should wisely avoid.


I haven't read the book therefore when I was about to watch this film, I really didn't know what to expect, and quite frankly I found it very boring and quite tedious. The story is centred on a very cringe-worthy young teenager and her love life and I found it quite an uninteresting one. The film, to me, seemed to be a very poor attempt at a 'romantic comedy', where everything for the main character goes horribly wrong, and then a very unrealistic see's all her dreams come true. However, the opinion I have given is one that I would expect from a teenage boy, and I believe that the film would be a one enjoyed by most girls; most of the girls I know have enjoyed it and therefore I would recommend this film to girls, but if it's with a boyfriend, then i'm afraid I feel quite sorry for him.


Okay, so I never read the books, so I wasn't even willing to see Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging  I had to be put through it at school instead. And I guess I didn't really have any idea what to expect from it, other that it was probably going to be some kind of sugar-coated, superficial teen flick. And that's exactly what I got.

I'm a British teenage girl. I should have enjoyed this film, right? Wrong, I certainly didn't. Of course, this is coming from the girl whose favourite films include The Dark Knight and Indiana Jones  I've never really liked teen movies all that much, but especially the totally brain-dead ones like this.

I'll try and give a small plot summary. From what I gathered, a group of fourteen-year-old girls (who, of course, think that their parents are mortifying and that they are all ugly; I told you this film was clichéd) fall head over heels in love with two boys from their school. They then hatch a ridiculous plan to try and win them over, featuring cats and all sorts. And, of course, things don't go according to plan.

However (and luckily for me), that's how far we got  and believe me, I'm in no hurry to ever find out what happens. I'm going to stay as far away from this film as possible in the future, and I highly recommend that everyone else do the same.


I begun reading the Georgia Nicholson series when I was around 15. When I heard there was a movie out I decided to check it out online since Singapore doesn't show it. As the movie wore on I began to accept the idea that the story was rather different from the original. It doesn't capture the sense of early teen immaturity that made the book so hilarious and lighthearted. It portrayed Georgia as a normal girl in terms on personality. Jas was NOTHING like I imagined to be; a rather blank girl with an obsession with her fringe and the environment. The characters disappointed me greatly. From the main characters all the way to Dave the laugh. The result of the show was mortifying. Georgia's parents would have never thrown such a big party plus she would have died in their presence. Wet Lindsay was suppose to be an anorexia twit with a large forehead. Immense disappointment for me. I'd rather read the book.


Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging, an attempt to cash in on the quirky British teen book of the same name...no wait...that was called 'Angus, Thongs and Full-frontal Snogging', my mistake. I know, that name is just so darn raunchy.

Anyhow, I saw nothing in the film which warrants a theatrical release. You'll find nothing here that you wouldn't find on any other teen girl series on CBBC. You have the awkward 14 year-old girl Georgia and her quest to find the hottest guy evarrr in time for her birthday party, helped by her bratty friends. Dramatic stuff right?

I wouldn't say there's anything necessarily wrong with this, I just don't see why it needed to be released in theatres. By the end, I'm like "so what?"

Even on it's own level, everyone but pre-teen girls are going to be annoyed by the film and it's stereotypical view of British adolescent life. Basically, the characters have their priorities all wrong and don't learn a satisfactory lesson. This could be potentially harmful to it's audience, much worse than any violence or bad language, in my opinion. That leads me to my other main problem with the film: it doesn't know which tone it's going for. Georgia describes the love interest as a "sex God", a tad inappropriate considering that the furthest anyone gets is a good snog. If you had a film tackling issues of teen sexuality, that would be a film I would like to see. This is your average teeny girl nonsense which will be forgotten soon enough.

I don't recommend this to anyone but the target audience. If you are part of it, don't make your parents watch it.


I am a fifteen year old girl and I loathed this film.

The film begins with the main character, a teenage girl named Georgia (with the most annoying accent I have ever heard), happily walking down the street dressed as an olive. She arrives at a fancy-dress party and has to face the terrible humiliation of being the only one dressed as a food. How will Georgia cope? Will she do the most natural thing and take off the costume if she's that embarrassed about it and have a fun evening with her friends? No, of course not. That makes too much sense.

What she DOES do is storm over to her friends, demand why they aren't wearing costumes like hers as they agreed, then deems their excuses as inadequate and runs out of the place, knocking over drinks and plates of biscuits and people along the way. She then goes running through the streets, still dressed as a stuffed olive. Actually, that scene is the film's main highlight as it did almost change my look of disbelief to a weak smile for a second or two.

After arriving home and throwing a full on tantrum which involves stomping on her costume, ripping photos off the walls and throwing all her teddy-bears onto the floor, Georgia takes a deep breath and announces to the family that she's going to be 'more mature from now on'. Well, she's made a good start! Drinks all around! At school the next day, suddenly Georgia and her three school-mates are all best friends again. Obviously there was a major plot point when I wasn't looking. And during their lunch break, they notice two new guys strolling through the grounds. And 'it's boy-stalking time!' Yes, that's their dialogue. Okay, maybe teenagers talked like that in 1886, but come on, screenwriter. Get with the times.

They stalk the poor boys through a montage, taking notes and spying on them through a pair of binoculars (and even breaking out into an utterly ridiculous dance routine at the end). I half expected them to all tie their shoelaces every time the boys turned around. But this didn't happen, mainly because the boys didn't, not once, turn around, a fact that I find pretty amazing. How hard can four giggling-screeching-in-uniform-linking-arms-armed-with-binoculars schoolgirls be to spot? And so, obviously, Georgia gets to know the guy she's got her eye on (Robbie) and yes, obviously he already has a girlfriend. Georgia is heartbroken. I was mildly perturbed. I imagined what Georgia would tell the rest of her friends to be something like this: You know that handsome guy I talked to for eight seconds? Well, he has a girlfriend! I've never felt so BETRAYED! Anyway, Georgia tries to make him jealous by going out with another guy (screenwriter's motto: 'originality is, like, so overrated') he finds out and makes her feel bad (oh, the twists and turns!) etc, etc. You know the drill. It's only been done eight million times already.

So, after a lot of boring events laced with clichés that are too tiresome to think about, let alone write down, Georgia and her bestie, Jaz, split up and throw catty insults at each other during a netball game, the grand, dramatic finale when Georgia stomps on Jaz's foot. Oh, the horror.

The second-last sequence in the movie is a bit of a mystery to me because at the start of the film, Georgia was unpopular in her school, but suddenly, her night-club is packed with what looks like the entire population of her state, everyone cheering and throwing confetti like she's just handed out free flip-phones. And then Jaz comes up to her and hugs her as if nothing ever happened between them, forcing me to conclude that an entire chapter was cut out of the film for pace reasons. Either that, or I accidentally slept through it. Anyway, for reasons the film doesn't care to share, Georgia is now officially a hero. I have heard of the term 'suspension of disbelief' and actively engage in it with popcorn-fare such as the Indiana Jones films, and any line Orlando Bloom says, but this is going too far. Sorry movie, but no humans act like this. Not in any state, in any country, on any planet.

I thereby conclude that 'Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging' is the worst teenage film I have ever seen. Eye-clawingly bad.


I can't guess what to say about it /... what kinda of a person could find it funny ... it was torturous through out .. sheer waste of time ..

I can't guess what to say about it /... what kinda of a person could find it funny ... it was torturous through out .. sheer waste of time ..

I can't guess what to say about it /... what kinda of a person could find it funny ... it was torturous through out .. sheer waste of time ..

I can't guess what to say about it /... what kinda of a person could find it funny ... it was torturous through out .. sheer waste of time ..

I can't guess what to say about it /... what kinda of a person could find it funny ... it was torturous through out .. sheer waste of time ..

I can't guess what to say about it /... what kinda of a person could find it funny ... it was torturous through out .. sheer waste of time ..

I can't guess what to say about it /... what kinda of a person could find it funny ... it was torturous through out .. sheer waste of time ..


I just hate this movie. I'm a teenager myself and this movie disgusted me. For one, the main character in the film ,Georgia, was hideous looking. Oh my God i wanted to leave as soon as her face appeared. Now, now, before you go and reply back or whatever, hear me out, good god. Anyway, back to the movie itself. Her as a character is a completely different story. The way the characters put emphasis on their way of speaking made me just cringe, like i had to cover my ears it was so loud. The parenting was just disgusting. Like, in the end "I'm going to take you to your first night club!" as her mother said. WHAT THE HELL?! She's fourteen and SHES GOING TO A NIGHT CLUB?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! That's just. OH my god.

The story line is over used. Honestly, i think I'm actually going to read the books so i could get the REAL story and not some Hollywood trash they brought out. This movie was rated PG when i went to see it, it should be PG 13. Let me give you some examples

"LETS GO BOY STALKING!" "Yeah, my mom could put a whole pencil case in her boobs." "Well YOU DID ask what it was like being felt up!" "OH my God, you're like, going 7 on the scale already?!"(which basically means sex in what i heard from the movie. I don't know)

They put so much slang into their way of speaking, i should have brought a translator. Good Lord.

I have so much more to say, but this movie's so bad, i don't think it's even worth it.

I'd give it a ZERO, even a negative one if i could.

This movie is worse than EPIC movie. Id rather see THAT than this pile of trash. Just don't see it. Just don't i beg you. I wasted my money.

Also this is my first review ever. How lucky! Expect plenty more from me in the near future.


As soon as i heard that they were bringing this film out i was expecting disappointment. I mainly agree with slyttle, who essentially slated it, because i have been a big fan of the series for a long time too. Where are the books we love? She talked about the lack of acting skill - true, the lack of good direction - also true, and the shoddy dialogue - which i thought was "meh".

It's meant to be a mish mash of Angus, thongs and It's okay I'm wearing really big knickers but it's not. None of the characters were even slightly right. Jaz for example. Tom was not in the tiniest bit "hot" and in mine, and my mates' opinions Dave the Laugh was actually fitter than Robbie. "Wet Lindsey" was altered to "Slutty Lindsey" and i unashamedly was waiting the entire movie to get a glimpse of Sven who is a main in the books but is mentioned once in the film and i don't remember seeing him on screen.

I do admit though that the soundtrack was not bad. In fact i might go as far as to say it was really good. I am essentially the key demographic and i disagree that it was completely without it's merits though. Some people around me found it funny whilst i found it kind of cliché and unstimulating. There was no mention of her idiolect (the way she speaks) such as Kiwi-a-go-go land and it's like they just forgot that the books existed.

Independently from the books (if I'd never read them) I'd say it's just another shoddy English Comedy that needed to be slightly more real and slightly more thought over. The characters need to be jiggled and the script needs to be fiddled with if they expect to bring out a sequel. I think that they were trying ti make it too much like Bend It Like Beckham, when really the books have enough merit to make their own, even better film.

I essentially got the disappointment that i expected.


If a 'zero' out of ten could be given, then it should only be reserved for this film only. This is truly the worst film I have ever seen in my entire life.

If watching a countless young madams prancing around whimsically on screen, fresh out of acting school (and I mean fresh), then this is your cup of tea. However since no-one likes that, then this film is not suited to anyone.

Acting does not occur once in this film by the lead girls, their actions and their mannerisms are portrayed totally unrealistically; for playing the roles 14 year old English school girls they did not act like this in any way at all. The picture house was packed with young girls, ranging from around 8-16 years old and none of the supposed 'funny' parts of the film received any laughter. The film was very hard to like from the start, not being able to relate with the actors' poor portrayal of the school-girl demographic (not because I'm not a school-girl, but because they were such disastrous actresses), the hypocrisy of the storyline itself, and a general dislike for most of the lead characters, meant that I didn't care what happened to them at all. Everyone loves a love-story, a sort of 'princess and the pauper', or in this case, 'maid and the prince'.But when the lead actress, trying to woo this 'prince', lives on a quiet street in a seaside town, in a three story house, with wealthy parents and a scholarship at a grammar school, the story is meaningless. Its actually the princess and the prince. Who cares if little miss moneybags doesn't get her boy, she still has her thousands of pounds, her family and friends and her otherwise amazing life (the boy who, by the way, is referred to as a 'sex-god', and is also 16 years old, two years older than her.)

The film confuses its morals, and doesn't know what it's trying to preach to its audience, and as its audience is school girls, this is a little worrying. You should be yourself? Love your friends? Value your family? Enjoy being intimate with older boys?! The climax to this 1h 50m slow motion car-crash is a large birthday party held for the lead girl, and I'm talking large. A sort of 'my super sweet 16' kind of thing, but she's 15. If you already didn't like her character enough, this was the final nail in the coffin. The lead girl didn't travel anywhere throughout the film, she was wealthy and unlike the majority of all 14 year old schoolgirls at the start, and she was wealthy and unlike the majority of all 14 year old schoolgirls at the finish. The film was truly awful, even the film music was poor, arriving suddenly and impromptu, thoroughly curdling the already thick cheese that this film was.

You know you're watching a bad film when a cinema room filled with the film's key audience, young girls, is deathly silent throughout what was meant to be some sort of modern girly coming of age comedy, and the only laugh you get is when a Steve Jones makes an almost cameo-like appearance, and turns out to be a homosexual, which for every one who watched the film who was over 16 had already guessed.

£4.10 was wasted, and so were about 2 hours of my life which I will never get back. The film was so bad it made me angry. This was not entertainment on any level, and should have been a straight to TV movie, straight to Nickleodeon. It was deserving of going straight to VHS. And yes, I am aware VHS tapes aren't made anymore that is why.

Avoid this film, and definitely do not confuse/upset your children with it.


This movie gives teenagers and pre-teens a bad name, we are not all giggly little school girls who prance around and act all 'grown up' Its so childish, and is a complete and utter embarrassment. Throughout the film I was cringing in my seat and praying for it to end.

Various films like 'mean girls' and 'cluless' were genius and I felt 'Angus thongs and perfect snogging' wasn't up to that level at all. Georgia is portrayed as a little brat, and each character has no depth whatsoever, who cares what happens! The acting was awful,they simply couldn't, and compared to 'bend it like beckham, also directed by Gurinder Chadha this is an utter failure.

Keira knightly was brilliant and so was Parminder Nagra, but in this film there seems to be no talent whatsoever.

Overall i was very disappointed and compared to the books there seemed no connection between them at all, save your money and your time, and watch dark night it 'mazin :D


I went to see this movie with two girl-friends and a gay boy-friend - all three of us girls have known and loved the books for years, and the boy likes silly teen comedies like us.

Although I adore the books, I didn't have very high expectations going in to this. I expected a decent movie, an okay one.

This isn't okay or decent. It's just awful.

None of the lead girls can act and they over-enunciate EVERYTHING (imagine a movie cast entirely with the Harry Potter series' Emma Watson, only NOT AS GOOD, and you have an idea of this movie's young female cast) everything good about the source material is changed, and most of what happens in the movie didn't happen in the books.

The screen I was in was full of the key demographic for this movie, and yet nobody laughed. I heard much shuffling, sighing and groaning; and my lovely male friend was writhing in his seat, it was so terrible.

The casting is this movie's first major problem, and the writing is the second. Nothing of what makes the book funny or its characters charming is in here. The events are all jumbled around distractingly, and the girls act like idiots. Everyone looks too young (come on, Ellen looks about eight years old). It's not coherent, and the made-up-for-the-movie plot about Georgia's birthday party is stupid.

All the characters are unsympathetically written so you don't care about any of them. The only character that solicited anything from the audience is treated like a piece of dirt by Georgia, who does nothing but cry and whine throughout the whole bloody debacle.

Characters are completely changed from their book counterparts - look out for Wet Lindsay especially - and the direction is dire.

Lastly, the message of the film is repulsive. Once she gets a boyfriend, Georgia sees herself as "perfect" - because he tells her she is so! Georgia doesn't become a strong person on her own, she needs a man to tell her she is so.

This is definitely a stinker, and one to be avoided at all costs. It's cheesy to the point of embarrassment, the dialogue is stupid, nobody has any chemistry, the soundtrack is terrible and it bears no resemblance to the original books. We were tempted to walk out.


I watched this film after losing a bet with my fiend over who would win in a football match (log story).

Anyway, I could have been one of the only hetro sexual male at that theatre, so I sat at the back. So about 30 - 35 mins into the film I thought, screw this, because the Dark Knight was on at this time, I had a much better 30 mins in the Dark Knight than this. So I'm soy if you enjoyed this movie, but it's just not me. For 30 mins, the acting was below average, the lines were below average and the cast was below average, so it gets a 3/10 for being able to keep me in for 30 mins.

Men (and woman) don't waste your time with this, watch the Dark Knight instead.

3/10


I had heard of this movie and was expecting something artistic and unique. It was absolutely devoid of artistry and the only thing unique about it is that it stands out as probably the worst film I have ever seen.

It was just plain sloppy on every level of film making possible: camera work, editing, sound editing, acting, cinematography...any aspect of movie making found it's low point in this film. The plot is utter crap, with explicit homosexual overtures that are simply lewd. Warhol does not even attempt to portray sexuality (homo or hetero) as anything more than indiscriminate slut-dome. And for that it's not even erotic!

This flick is utterly worthless and there's a reason why no one would distribute it and there are so few copies of it out there.


With an inane plot, moronic script, half-assed directing, and, worst of all, inept acting -- in a word, CHEEZY -- you have to question why a movie like this even exists. The quick answer is sexploitation, of course, but then why not just pile on the sex, instead of complicating it with (a) a noir cliche like the crusading public servant falling into moral dissolution, (b) the enigmatic Christoid character from another plane of reality, whose name, Sam Silver, is a takeoff on the director's name? This dud was in the theater for one week before it disappeared, and when I went I was the only person in the audience! To see this was slumming and it was a guilty pleasure like junk food. The only reason I remember it is because of the unexplained pretentiousness of inserting an ill-fitting note of profundity in the person of Sam Silver, and especially, the presence of Elena Sahagun, a very beautiful and underappreciated actress. It was worth the price of admission just to see her prancing in sexy white lingerie. Please, someone, give her a major role in a well-directed quality film and let her shine. She deserves much better!


While dragon ball and dragon ball z are two of the best animes ever created the pitiful ending that it was given doesn't do it any justice.Dragon Ball GT was clearly poorly written while it was some what entertaining it is a utter disgrace to previous dragon ball sagas.The fact that is was canceled was shame enough.The creators should have just ended it with Dragon Ball Z as the original plan was.Another thing,Goku in his super saiyan 4 form is as cocky as Vegeta since when Goku has the cockiness of Vegeta.All he is babbling about is what he is capable of when really there doesn't seem to be much strength in that form.Its Super Saiyan 4 for God sakes at Super Saiyan level 1 he seemed to had more power.How the hell you could get trashed so much at level 4?Very disappointed in this stupid end to a brilliant anime saga.


I was a die hard fan of Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. I loved Goku and his friends. The hype online for this show made it sound pretty cool. Super Sayian 4 looked amazing. I couldn't wait. Then the show hit and all the great things that the first two held was gone. So many mistakes happened. 1. It seems like the creators just ripped off Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z and combining the campy fun of Dragon Ball, and the action of Dragon Ball Z. What do you get? Crap. Each show was special for being different. GT brings nothing special of it's own to the table because honestly, there is no story left, just some people who want money. 2. Why is Goku a kid? I loved Goku as a kid back in the day but that was then, this is now. I want the adult Goku. I really can't take little Goku seriously. I mean I understand that's how they figured they could bring back Goku's tail which meant he could go Super Sayian and be monkey, which turned him Super Sayian 4 but then why doesn't he return a kid at Super Sayian 4? 3. The villains in this are horrible. Baby looks like a combination of Buu and Cell. Can't anyone make a new villain??? Super 17???? Android 17 could very well be my least favorite villain in DBZ next to Garlic Jr.(I did like him a little cause it was Gohan, Krillen and Piccolo that fought him and not Goku) The Dragons could have been cool but just were another version of Buu. 4. Our old friends were worthless. Goku and Vegeta are the only heroes in this entire show. In Dragon Ball Z, the others (Gohan, Krillen, Piccolo, etc.) hung around and fought the villain to make time for Goku to arrive. Now they sadly, have been overlooked. Most are old or just gave up fighting. Gohan once had some spotlight but now is nothing but an idiot. Goten I had such high hopes for. While Gohan had always been pretty weak in DBZ, Goten could have been greater then Goku but of course, Goku can never be beaten. One of my biggest problems is Trunks. I remember future Trunks from DBZ and the later kid Trunks and they were awesome. This Trunks is stupid. He's about as intimidating as a paper bag. Pan is beyond annoying too. Pan could have been the female hero of the show which would have given the show a female audience. Instead she's weak and annoying. She can't even go Super Sayian.

Sadly the only good part this show is the end which was sad cause it was the end to one of my favorite series. GT was horrible. I think me and my friends could have done a better job. Too bad......it could have been great.


Firstly let me say that i loved DBZ in every way, i was hooked on the American English version. The transformations, the music, the story, it was awesome.

Now on to DBGT, it makes me sad when I have to comment so bad on something in-line with the dragon ball series. After I had finished DBZ I heard about DBGT and I was so happy that they continued after with DBGT, I then watched the first episode of DBGT... I didn't really know what to think at first, I decided to continue watching until i had seen just about all of the episodes (and that was hard work). What went wrong? The animation from the buu sagas in DBZ has far better than the animation in DBGT. I have nothing against the music style from DBGT but Bruce Faulconer's music style in DBZ should have been continued in DBGT, I was so upset when I didn't hear the good old Bruce Faulconer music playing within the battle scenes in DBGT. NOW let's look at super saiyan stage 4, WHAT THE HFIL IS THIS? It has nothing to do with the other stages of the super saiyan. What they should've done was make the fur/hair yellow/gold and keep the green tint in the eyes, this would've made much more sense, SSJ 4 in DBGT sucks to say the least (in fact it was the biggest disappointment of the series). The story is really week in places and really isn't fun to watch (pretty much the whole of DBGT is boring and just no fun to watch). Why oh why give vegeta a hair cut, since saiyans hair stays the same from when they were born, vegeta's hair was so awesome in DBZ, unlike DBGT. Only things I like about DBGT are that the voices from DBZ are continued here, the bad guys have potential. Other than that that's it.

DBGT ruined the dragonball series for me and it upsets me to have to say that. Dragonball GT could've really been something great, but they screwed it up so very badly. If only they could remake DBGT to something more on par with DBZ.


I've seen some bad movies in my time and this one has to top the list. Val Kilmer and William McNamara are two of my favorite actors. They should be ashamed of themselves to have their quality acting names associated with this awful thing called a movie. Its and Ed Wood reject.


G'day. I will start by saying, yes, I did only pay a dollar for this DVD, plus it came with "Dream a Little Dream 2", but one dollar was ten dollars too much, hahaha.

There is not one single good thing I can say about this, which is honestly the first time I have been in this situation. I'm at a loss for words.

Basically, it just involves a man (would-be actor) acting pointlessly crazy, screaming and laughing, and talking to himself, and carrying his dead girlfriend around, and for some reason, her body never becomes even slightly stiff and she never even loses the light from her eyes. Not for one moment does she actually look lifeless, which would have helped with the darker side this movie tries so hard to project.

I would also like to take the opportunity to mention that the ending to this almost turned my friends and I off movies for life...

Hey, I even enjoyed "Weekend at Bernie's" a little bit, but this? "Bleh" times a thousand.

I don't really "get" any of it, but perhaps I am to blame and not the ones who put it out. Oh well.

The fact that this movie has less than a hundred votes (nearly 50 giving it a 10, yeah right) indicates that the true public totally ignored this one, which can only be a good thing (especially for Val Kilmer fans).

1/10. Sorry, that's my one and only verdict. Worst movie ever. Although there are plenty of movies far better than this, which I also gave only a 1/10. On a scale of 1 to 1,000, I'd still give it a 1...

Perhaps I should point out that all the others I saw this with also said it was the worst movie they'd ever seen, and one of them was nearly 50, so I'm not alone.


Okay, it's obvious that this disturbing exercise in totally annoying any potential viewers was not meant to be a movie or to be viewed by anyone in public, as it states. I too got this cheapy cheap as a double-feature with an additional non-movie. I think the store had only ordered in one or two copies even at bargain bin rates.

Yeah, the ending, what was that all about? Don't know if people should really even be allowed to rate this, but I'll give it a full one just for daring to mimic the concept of film, in and of itself.

Sort of like if you took a photograph of dirt and hung it up, and called it a painting.

Go watch "River's Edge" instead.


Nothing I dislike more than a kung-fu movie that plays for laughs. It is the main reason I can't stand Jackie Chan (or his lookalikes). He was not always a clown, I must add. "My Young Auntie" is slapstick martial arts of the worst kind. It is a perfect example of how the subgenre was brought down to the mud by endless silly antics and childish behavior. Unless you are 5-year-old, I really don't understand how anyone could find this kind of film funny. But humor is indeed a very subjective thing. Personally, I think this type of approach did permanent damage to the beloved subgenre. I did think leading lady Kara Hui was very good here. But I had such a hard time sitting through this one that I could not enjoy her fine performance. If you don't mind all the silliness, you might enjoy it. I know I didn't.


The perfect complement to the current news stories about pedophile priests -Brian Cox as the sympathetic pederast!! Apparently, writer/director Michael Cuesta checked his moral compass at the bath house door. This story of a sexually confused youth, a cartoonishly awful father and assorted teenage dregs neither entertains or enlightens. Of course the cosmopolitan critics loved it! It's not provocative or challenging, just nauseating.


This was the worst independent film I've seen since Clerks. That's pretty bad film-making. It was a waste of celluloid and the filmmakers should have burned the negative and collected the insurance--because it doesn't even belong on the American market.

Have you ever seen those crappy European movies about lifestyles that you know for a fact doesn't exist in this part of the world? It's kind of like that--but on a larger scale. The content revolves around homosexual behavior among children and old guys--not to mention a boy who screws his sister just about every single day. This was obviously the director's personal wet-dream--turned real.

I give this piece of junk a solid two thumbs down. And if I could I'd give the director a big kick to the head.


Movies like this should be outlawed, or at least come with a warning. I have never left a movie before, but this was too much. I was dry-heaving after the movie was over, and thought i was going to throw up. Not only was the theme of the story grotesque and repulsive, but there was absolutely no plot. I was going to ask for a refund after seeing this vile work, but it's not the theater's fault for letting trash like this into society.


The problem with this movie is that it doesn't ring true on either an emotional scale or a rational one.

 The key to a good twist ending is that the ending allows everything to make sense. For instance, you can watch the end of "The Sixth Sense," and suddenly you realize why everyone behaves the way they do. Unfortunately, instead of allowing the story to make more sense hindsight, the "twist" ending in BLM refuses to stand up to any sort of scrutiny whatsoever.

 But the greatest flaw in "Bobby Loves Mangos" is the fact that all reasonability seems to be sacrificed for the sake of a catchy title.

 Spoilers:

 The ending revelation that the title refers to is the fact that Bobby isn't allergic to mangos, even though the tape says that he is. Now, this sound like a relatively HUGE flaw in his father's plan, now doesn't this? I mean, assuming that they behave as normal and give Bobby a mango, his whole scam is blown wide open, and they send cops searching for him and the alternate route.

 But wait. The plan works, because the idiotic secretary decides to conveniently buy out all the mangos, thus preventing them from ever proving the tape to be the fraud that it is. She does this because she doesn't want Bobby to get sick, like the tape says that he will. Even though, according to that same tape, Bobby getting sick is the only thing that'll save his life. And even though her plan doesn't even make sense, because in all seriousness, there shouldn't be only one fruit vendor in a given city.

 Given how the story laid out, there was NO reason for the father to go out of his way to fabricate a story about mango allergies. The ONLY thing that such a fabrication could have done was prove him a fraud. If he needed an excuse of why Bobby was the sole survivor, he could have just insisted he fell off his bicycle or something.

 Given how the story is laid out, there was NO reason to reveal that Bobby wasn't actually allergic. What did this actually add? The fact that we now know that the tape is a fake? Nope, Bobby has been kidnapped at that point, so we already know that. The fact that the Principal was a moron for falling for it? No, buying into time travel was what made him a moron, the mango allergy had nothing to do with it.

 Seriously, you could take out all the mango references, and the father's plan would have worked just as well. The only thing lost would be the catchy title.

 And therein lies the rub. Imagine if "The Shawshank Redemption" decided that "Killer Klowns from The Sahara Desert" would be a more catchy title, and they adjusted the storyline to include a subplot where Andy and Red fight Killer Klowns from the Sahara Desert in order to support the title. It'd suck, right?

 Well, so does this "Bobby Loves Mangos."

 2 out of 10. It'll keep you guessing til the end, but after that, you got nothing. Worse, you get negative points due to the "twist" ending."


Unsuccessful Broadway show from Max Shulman and Robert Paul Smith becomes glossy, tepid M-G-M romantic comedy with one song. Frank Sinatra is certainly well-cast as a womanizing theatrical agent in New York City, and Debbie Reynolds is cute as a singer-dancer under her own personal deadline to get married, but this archaic set-up is no longer any fun. To the bachelor, available girls are just "tomatoes" (pronounced tuh-may-tahs); to the talented songbird, being a woman means nothing without having a husband to validate her. Premise comes directly from that antiseptic '50s aesthetic that women want marriage in order to start a family (just like their mothers), but men want marriage in order to get into the bedroom (because no self-respecting 'tomato' would go all the way without vows). Ladies-man Sinatra does a lot of sweetheart-talking and forehead kissing, yet his randy excursions (and drunken escapades) are merely chatted about, never seen. He's called a monster, a heel--which seems a tad severe for a guy who never seems to get any action because his phone is always ringing and his doorbell is always buzzing. Sinatra and Reynolds may have indeed proved to be a splendid screen-couple, but they are trapped by "The Tender Trap", which curdles from coyness. ** from ****


A dream cast, a high-gloss MGM CinemaScope production, a title song hit--what more could one ask for? A viable script! What seemed the height of sophisticated froth in 1955 (and was indeed a smash commercial hit, of which I had fond memories) is painfully unwatchable today. Other reviewers on this website have blamed the mentality of the 1950s for the now-beyond-dated nature of the film. Not true at all. One year later, Sinatra & Celeste Holm would be reunited in the still-dazzling "High Society." And Debbie Reynolds, who tries her best in a horribly written and conceived role, is still a delight in the similar 1954 comedy "Susan Slept Here," which was far from a hit in its day but now looks better than ever--especially compared to this mind-numbing disaster! Put the blame squarely on the screenplay (adapted from a hit play, God help us!). Celeste Holm comes off best, as usual, but under these circumstances, consider that feat a very minor victory.


This film was originally called "Wild Weed." The star of the film is Lila Leeds, a promising starlet who had very minor roles in earlier films, but achieved worldwide notoriety when she was arrested along with Robert Mitchum and other for smoking pot in 1948. She spent several months in jail, and when she was released this was one of the few film roles she was able to get. On the contrary, Robert Mitchum, who was also arrested, came back to resume a hotter then ever film career.

Leeds is beautiful, a sort of young Marilyn Monroe lookalike. The film is not one of the better "exploitation" films, but is notable for its cast of authentic Hollywood actors, though they were at this point well past their prime. Perennial B-movie actor Lyle Talbot, Alan Baxter and Michael Whalen, among other round out the cast.


This story of 'tea' and 'tomatoes' purports to boast an 'All Star Hollywood Cast', but even if you're a follower of films from the 1930's and '40's, I don't think you'll recognize a single name in the credits. Maybe Lyle Talbot, who's screen credits total nearly three hundred roles, but after that I think you'd be hard pressed to recognize another actor in the picture. Except for Jack Elam in one of his very first screen roles; he actually was a rather good looking guy back then. That might have been the single treat in the film for me.

It's curious how all of these exploitation films wind up with a handful of different titles. I saw this picture under the name "She Shoulda' Said No", and just like the classic cult film "Reefer Madness", it tells the story of youth run wild after falling victim to the evil terrors of marihuna (sometimes spelled marijuana as a closing segment informs us). It's hard to take seriously today of course, and I really wish there were some folks around from the era who could tell us first hand how these flicks were received back in the day.

I have to say, I was really distracted by Alan Baxter's portrayal of the local pusher Markey. He's a dead ringer for a young Jack Nicholson, and if I didn't know better, I would have been checking the credits to see if it was him or not. Another weird thing was the use of that eerie sci-fi/Twilight Zone type music whenever folks on screen were shown puffing on the dreaded weed. You know, I had to laugh when I saw the "I'm gonna die' guy under the influence. It reminded me of the very first and just about only time I tried pot myself. It was in an apartment that lost it's heat in the winter, and my best friend was convinced he was going to freeze to death. I wasn't as hysterical as Rita and her friends, but I thought it was all pretty funny at the time.

I had a curious thought about mid-way through the picture. Wouldn't it be great if the Coen Brothers took the idea of these exploitation flicks and made one of their own? You could really get some mileage out of characters portrayed by John Tuturro, Jon Polito, and Steve Buscemi. Jack Nicholson might be a little too old for this sort of stuff, but I think a cameo would be just the right touch. I think he would be up for it.


This film's structure, at least for the first half is very similar to the classic bad film, REEFER MADNESS. Both had preachy prologues and both showed wild pot parties where the guests behaved as if they were on LSD, not marijuana. While I think pot use is very stupid, I can't see how this film in any way could discourage it, as the way people act on this drug is so silly that any child would laugh at the ineptitude of the film and the central message would be lost.

Oddly, at about the middle of the film, the movie became much less silly in its portrayal of drug use and became a somewhat standard (though very poorly made) cop film. While this improved the film a bit, it was a case of just too little too late. The bottom line is that the film suffers from a horrible script and production values. About the only interesting things about it were how silly it all became and to see both a down-and-out Lyle Talbot as well as Jack Elam in his first film. It's all just a very silly mess.


1st watched 2/19/2007 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Sherman Scott): Over-the-top marijuana educational film goes way beyond it's earlier predecessor's with an obvious bigger budget but having the same results. Please -- get a life people!! Stop making these silly movies and bust the offenders instead!! I absolutely hate these government funded opportunities to make bad movies. In this one, a dancer is turned onto the drug at a party as she's trying to get her brother thru college. She's promised lots more money from the seller and is enticed into his world where only heartbreak occurs instead. Her brother kills himself and she blames herself, and her reason for staying in the business is now more self-induced. She is eventually picked up by the cops with the rest of her friends, spends some time in jail where she freaks out but doesn't reveal the seller and his whereabouts. The rest of the movie I won't reveal in case you want to see it. There are some special effects thrown in on this movie but otherwise it's very similar to it's earlier exploitation movies about the horrors of the drug. Too bad the money to make this movie wasn't spent on something more useful, like rehab for users etc


This movie can only be described as sycophantic. It offers little in the way of a history and is more a collection of sound bites from a scattershot of punk personalities. Unfortunately those who might actually have something interesting to say, such as Ian Mackaye, Henry Rollins, Keith Morris etc. are given the least time. There is also some attention given to the newer pop-punk/emo acts and the debate on whether or not they are punk. I really don't care for any of those bands so I guess it's good the film doesn't delve too deeply into that either.

If you want a good punk documentary check out American Hardcore. If you want a bunch of old farts with blue mohawks reminiscing about the good old days check this one out.


I'm sorry people but if you want to learn about punk this movie isn't it. Plain old. Watch American hardcore if you really want to see what the punk is. For Christs sakes. Good Charlotte? Green day? BILLY IDOL!?! MY CHEMICLE ROMANCE?! Pennywise? The Casualties? Rancid? Sum 41? These aren't punk. I'm sorry when a punk documentary includes these bands you know its complete bullshit. For example. Most punks won't even consider Sex Pistols or The Ramones to BE punk. Sid vicious was a nihilistic junkie, and Johnny was a conservative Raegan Supporter. Now not to say this movie doesn't have some good points.

But if you really want to see what punk is and not some people trying to follow a formula go out to local $5 shows, and stuff like that! Listen to bands like The Exploited, TSOL, Minor Threat, Circle Jerks, D.O.A., Black Flag, The Stooges, MC5, Dead Kennedys, FEAR, Subhumans, Social Distortion, 45 Grave, Bad Brains (early stuff), Gang Green, Johnny Hobo and The Freight Trains, Battalion Of Saints, Choking Victim, Citizen Fish, Crass, Gang Of Four (Sex Pistols with meaning), Iggy Pop, INDK, Jerrys Kids, Leftover Crack, Lou Reed, MDC, Negative Approach, Nig-Heist, Nina Hagen, Operation Ivy, Pere Ubu, Siouxsie & The Banshees, Sonic Youth, Sublime, The Addicts, The Clash, The Stranglers, Koffin Kats, Tiger Army, The Vandals, The Velvet Underground, Transplants, Scream. There's TONS! And remember. Punk doesn't need to be hardcore punk. Lou Reed, Pere Ubu, The Doors, and The Velvet Underground are perfect examples.

See American Hardcore for a good punk Documentary. You will NOT be disappointed


This is an amazing story about a true hero. However, the filmmaker should have let the story and characters stand on their own. Instead he injected himself into it, playing narrator and saying things like "he changed my life." This film didn't need a narrator at all. The other soldiers did a great job of telling the story.

Without needing to, the film crosses into the realm of schmaltzy with its music and "hero shots". He removes the opportunity for the audience to consider for themselves how brave the acts of this man are. I'm glad the story was told but I wish the filmmaker had taken his feelings out of it and let the audience come to same conclusion without forcing it on them.


I'm not going to say this movie makes the least sense of every movie I've ever seen, because I've seen an awful lot of movies, but it's got to at least be one of the most senseless.

This movie starts quite well with a puzzling but intriguing intro that sets up the film's excellent visual style. In fact, there are a number of really cool moments scattered through the movie.

Unfortunately, Natural City turns out to be a remarkable example of what happens with a writer who can't put together a coherent story proves to also be a director who is unable to tell a story clearly.

Nothing in this movie makes much sense. I don't just mean the story. Once it's all over I can say I at least understand what happened and for the most part why. But character motivations and reactions are inexplicable, the science is ludicrous and the futuristic vision is muddled. This is a movie where a kidnapping is treated like a case of bad manners and the protagonists outrageous behavior causes barely a ripple.

The lead character is unlikeable and outside of Cyon (played very nicely by Jae-un Lee) and some old lady named Bonggong or some such thing, the rest of the cast is underwhelming. The cyborg love interest seems to have the personality of a cocker spaniel, making it difficult to have much feeling for her, and in fact all attempts to wring an emotional reaction from the material fail abysmally.

The movie makes more sense in the last third, becoming a relatively straightforward action picture, but by then you're trapped in a movie with characters you don't care about making everything that happens feel trivial.

The movie is slick and glossy with some nice special effects, which is what kept me from turning it off (that and the hope that somehow it would all come together eventually), but it's just dreadful film making that gets more and more painful as it goes along.


I rented this movie because I adore Ji-tae Yu - I think he's a wonderful actor. Unfortunately, the material he was given here was just not up to par. The movie goes beyond just being an homage and at several points DIRECTLY rips off Blade Runner (the stripclub, the eatery, etc etc) I could even have liked it in spite of its blatant lifting of Blade Runner's scenes, had it not also had a meagre created world in comparison to the original, and more importantly, had it had a sympathetic main character. R is a drunken lout who we are supposed to believe 'loves' his (replicant!) doll Ria...but we are shown no evidence to actually support this except for his protestations. Ria herself has no personality. Cyon is the only character which I felt in any way sympathetic towards, and for most of the movie she's being horribly abused (raped, kidnapped TWICE, repeatedly attempting to kill her/steal her body etc etc). There's just not much about this that is worthwhile.


Natural City is one of several recent Korean movies (such as 2046) from a new school of film-making in Asia. And unfortunately, after watching, digesting, and allowing this film to sink in, I can only reach the inescapable conclusion that this 'new school' consists of former music video directors who have watched Blade Runner far too many times. The discerning film-goer will even notice some exact shots are actually lifted in this movie from Ridley Scott's neo-noir masterpiece. This film - perhaps even more than the source material that it clearly owes its entire existence to - relies far too much on slick, but ultimately hollow and meaningless, cinematography.

Its story slows to a crawl, and patches together pointless scenes such as R's bar fight to keep what semblance of kinetic energy it promised on the film's back cover going. Ridiculous logistical scenes are turned into ethereal mini-music videos with no point and no underlying symbolism. It's as if the director is desperately trying to emulate the emotional power of scenes in Blade Runner by using that film's same tricks - slow motion, sappy music, and rain. Unfortunately, Natural City never hits anywhere near the mark it sets for itself, and the director seems genuinely clueless as to what his movie's actual symbolic meaning is. The result is a muddled atrocity of a story that moves like frozen chocolate pudding and has to resort to a big gunfight and cliché 'self-destruct countdown' sequence as its climax to make up for its own glaring shortcomings.

The good things about this movie? The lead actor, playing the part of R, is actually quite good at attracting empathy. Visually, there are a few interesting bits. The death of one of the film's main characters is a touching but hollow scene, which perhaps unintentionally works in its favor. Some of the atmosphere is very depressive and moody and really lends to the overall feel, but I don't think any single scene really steps out and defines this film visually. There is a very generic sci-fi feel to certain things (such as the M.P.'s, and the gunfight at the beginning of the film).

I should make very clear that while this film is clearly derivative of Blade Runner, it is nowhere near the feast for the eyes that the former is, and it also fails miserably at putting its own unique visual spin on the future. And as a simple aside, to those who suggest that it is unfair to compare the two films - Natural City itself draws the comparisons, actively inciting them on its front cover. That is this movie's gimmick, and ultimately, its failing.


I don't suggest this film. I wasn't able to watch more than 20' of this film... I wonder how did this movie have above 1 ratting... :( very bad film... There is almost NO connection between the scenes... I'm afraid that this movie has nothing to provide... Only laugh but sometimes even laugh gets boring... The hypothesis is lost... The whole setting is u-n-r-e-a-l-i-s-t-i-c... This is my 1rst comment on a movie here and I'm so sad that it is for a "bad" comment..

PS. there are thousand film to watch except the Natural City.. trust me....

I 'll vote: 1


In the tradition of Ed Wood, this film is so bad that the audience continually cracked up at various sequences. This was especially true when the love Keitel had for Winslet became apparent and he began chasing her up the hill.

The comic relief became even more apparent when Keitel had the vision of the three Indian women singing to him. It was like watching high "camp" that had no intention of remaining that way.

Further, Ms. Winslet, one of the most talented actresses of her generation should think twice about continuing to take roles like this. She had the capability and opportunity to be a major force in the movie business. Now, she will just be considered another actor.

Lastly, I hope Hollywood realizes the wool that Jane Campion has pulled over it's eyes. There are many people within the community that believed "The Piano" was a case of "The Emporer's New Clothes." Now, I'm sure everyone will realize that this women has no talent. Maybe it will be a long time before she makes another piece of trash like this.


With over-used ideas such as the legends of King Arthur, filmmakers often have their work cut out for them unless they are willing to go the extra mile to be creative. The producers of Merlin are no exception, as they have failed miserably in that aspect. The performances are laughable to say the least. Sam Neill's wiseguy persona seemed out of place for the typically cold and reclusive Merlin. And just when things couldn't get any worse than Helena Bonham Carter's speaking with an annoying lisp, enter Martin Short. As Frik, he delivers line after line of irritating one-line inanities. The producers probably thought it was funny to employ racist jokes, but I sure didn't. What does dressing up in traditional Chinese garb, slanting your eyes and blurting out "Farro mee! Farro mee!" ("Follow me, follow me") in a mock Chinese accent have to do with sword and sorcery in medieval Britain? Absolutely nothing. With a script so trite and meaningless, it's surprising that they didn't even bother to go all out and have the Rockettes perform with Darth Vader in front of Macy's Camelot. Hallmark has done here to the legend of Merlin what they also did to the Bible in the horrible 1999 NBC mini-series "Noah's Ark". They turned it into a laughable Las Vegas nightclub act. Unlike its brilliant cinematic counterpart "Excalibur", Merlin plays like an awful made-for-TV movie because it happens to be just that- an awful made-for-TV movie.


Complete waste of money and efforts - and everything just for the sake of special effects (which are, actually, very good). The main characters of the great legend look like a bunch of losers and the epic side of the story is obstructed by Merlin's love affair - and, be honest, Sam Neill, though a wonderful actor, is not the right choice for Merlin! Nothing to compare with Boorman's "Excalibur" which I strongly recommend to those who really love Arthurian legends.


As the hype was brewing prior to its initial airing on NBC, I was really looking forward to watching Merlin and what seemed a promising addition to an almost non-existent collection of "good quality" Arthurian films available. High expectations can often lead to big disappointments, and such was the case here. The acting was horrible, the dialogue ridden with cliches/nonsense drivel, and the plot full of holes leaving the viewer with more questions than answers. Even an all-star cast of such legends as Sir John Gielgud, Helena Bonham-Carter, Rutger Hauer, and Isabella Rosellini couldn't save Merlin from becoming yet another casualty of the TV junkpile (`Journey To The Center of the Earth' should ring a bell). I blame this soley on the poor direction of Steve Barron, who blew a golden opportunity to right the ongoing injustice of one bad Arthurian film after another. Rather than taking time out to do the research, it appears that most of the screenplay was borrowed and put together from various Arthurian films, most notably Disney's animated `The Sword in the Stone,', `Knights of the Round Table', and `First Knight'. Sam Neill and Martin Short were both also mis-cast for the title role and sidekick respectively, and it shows throughout the annoying banter between the two. It's like a nightmare of watching a bad Abbott & Costello film, only worse. The only bright spots were Paul Curran, whose portrayal of a weak King Arthur was more an afterthought than anything else, and the talking horse whose voice I could've sworn was the reincarnate of Mr. Ed. The special effects and Jim Henson Muppet Shop also deserve mention, but weren't nearly enough to offset the absence of a plausible storyline and great acting as can be found in `Excalibur' and `Dragonslayer'. Chalk up another in a long line of mediocre outings from Hallmark Entertainment. 1/10 stars


If only The Mists of Avalon had the production resources that Merlin I & II did. Merlin's director should stick to Mutant Ninja Turtle films, and stay away from deep mythological tales. No one should foist this on their children, unless they honestly point out its' major flaws.

The Lady of the Lake and Morgan Le Fay can easily be understood as more complex than in this fiasco of a film. Nothing wrong with humor, but this is just plain silly. I really hope that people read The Mists of Avalon (the film couldn't hold the story since it was Hollywood- produced, rather than British) to counteract the bizarre way the stories of Merlin, Arthur, Guinevere, Morgan and the gang are drawn in over-simplified black and white in this 2-part film. All the female characters are either really bad, or good - and dead.

Like I said, the only value here is what $$ could buy in effects, costumes, etc. It gets a 1/10 for that. I don't understand why Neil, Carter & Rossellini lent their skills to such nonsense. As the last line in the film says: "This is the end of magic". Thank goodness, this must mean there won't be a sequel.


Usually in a film if the acting or writing is bad, it's just boring or unfulfilling, or so stupid it's funny. In Merlin's case, it was painful to watch. I have never been so disappointed in a movie. I did not have particularly high expectations for a TV movie, but I do like the Arthurian legends, and this movie was a butchery. Particularly annoying were Helena Bonham Carter, Miranda Richardson, and of course, Martin Short. Sam Neill did do a reasonable, but not memorable, job.

The Dungeons & Dragons movie, while bad, at least had some redeeming scenes and characters.


Painful to watch such great acting talented wasted. Who comes up with such plots? There are so many good sources... While I understand the commercialism involved in making such a TV series, I never understand why producers and directors believe that audiences will tolerate such poor quality as fare... Those interested in Merlin would be advised to read Mary Stewart's trilogy.


I know I'm probably gonna get a lot of negative votes on this comment, but this was honestly one of the least enjoyable stand-up routines I've ever seen...and I've seen many! So on to my personal reason why I was barely able to watch this till the end:

Ellen to me is like a person in a wheelchair who everybody feels sorry for. Because she got treated badly after she "came out" there's now almost this unwritten obligation and sense of right to applaud to everything she says and does. It's pathetic! I condemn the spiteful reactions towards her coming out & everything, but empathy stops at a certain point. What's happened in Ellen's case is that now her loving and devoted fans are mostly people who've been hurt themselves. So they gobble her every word as if it came from high above...Ellen is to her fans what the AMWAY director is to his devoted fanatical ant workers.

The most she made me was smile on a couple of occasions, but the crowd seemed to want to eat her up. Everything was to-die hysterical to them and I couldn't fathom it. Her material wasn't really bad, but her delivery and timing were painful to watch. She was waaaaay too predictable and what's even worse, she went for the cheapest laughs: "God...is a She" (and the mostly female crowd bursts into applause)

Somewhere towards the end she even steals stuff from other comedians, but by that time I had already begun writing this woeful comment. Why I bothered to watch this till the end I honestly don't know. Maybe it was the empathy in me, trying to want to approve of this woman's comedic skills. She has none!


This is a sketch comedy movie done in the style of movie trailers. It's another in the long line of films that filled theaters in the mid to late 1970's like Kentucky Fried Movie, Groove Tube, American Raspberry, Tunnelvision promising to do what Saturday Night Live was doing but with dirty words and naked women. This is probably the weakest of the bunch.

Spoofing everything from musicals (Darktown after Dark) to prison films (3 Chairs for Lefty) to public service announcements (Buddy Hackett on bed wetting) to biker films (Skateboarders from Hell) to Charlie Chaplin films (The Kid and the Yid) and a few things in between this is a very hit or miss film. Most of the gags had been done before and better in other films and on TV by the time this was made so it was like watching reruns of reruns.3 Chairs for Lefty, which stars Bill Murray is rife with the sort of prison jokes that have been around since the 1930's,including giving Lefty a roast to cook when he finally goes to the chair.

The real problem is that almost all of the sketches go on way past the point of being funny. There seems to be some need to spoof a complete film, so in Skateboarders from hell we get a climatic funeral scene that isn't very funny and destroys the laughs that the film had generated with the "biker" fight. There is no reason that this film needed to be almost two hours long since tighter cutting could have made this a classic.

Worth seeing if you run across it on cable and you're in the mood for a very uneven comedy.It would be also okay to get in the bargain bin at the 99 cent store (which is how I got my copy) since its not worth more than a dollar.


An occasionally amusing, often confusing, gleefully profane 70's movie that hasn't really aged well. A precursor to Saturday NIGHT LIVE, it's a hodgepodge of spoofs and takeoffs of popular movies of the time. Some of the material is quite good ('The Shaggy Studio Executive,' where Walt Disney comes back as a guy in a dog suit), some of it's dated badly (A 'Snacktime' concession stand advert featuring a stoned guy with the munchies), a lot of it you have to think for a minute or two to figure out what's supposed to be funny (Who knew the eulogist at the biker funeral was supposed to be a takeoff of Georgie Jessel?). Best if you remember the time.


Most collections of comic sketches are extremely uneven. "Loose Shoes" is an exception. It is CONSISTENTLY unfunny, and all the episodes are awful. Their humor is infantile, aimed strictly at kids. Murray, who stars in just one episode, is awful,too. At 74 minutes, this excruciating "comedy" doesn't even qualify as a movie. It's just a fraud. Be warned.


Stephen Baldwin, futuristic convict (but he's actually an excessively good guy) gets abandoned on a desolate planet by the futuristic prison people. . . .meets beautiful woman (Lisa Bonet) with cute child in tow. . .desert pirates who repeat cliché bad-guy talk and do cliché bad-guy things, etc., etc. Sorry I couldn't finish this one to give more info(gave it about 45 minutes) due to the boringness.

I gave this movie three stars just because the actors make a concerted effort but even they can't save it. Formulaic, predictable (oh so predictable!), recycled story and dialog, etc. Bad movie. . . . .bad, bad, BAD movie!


I was an extra in this movie it was my first and only stint in film, It was filmed inside the Albuquerque convention center and in white sands NM around 1993. I wish I was in the credits but they forgot to mention me despite my awesome acting skills. I'm in the first few scenes I'm a prisoner on the ship there is about 3 scenes were i can be seen if your quick with the pause button. The film was not a very big budget movie but I'm not really sure how much it costs to shoot. The reason I auditioned for the film is because I wanted to be a sand pirate but they ended up casting me for a prisoner due to my poor horse riding skills. The movie was originally made for the Sci Fi channel and VHS copies were scarce and expensive to purchase, however you can pick them up on ebay from time to time.


This, quite simply, is the worst film ever made. It's hard to say whether the almost entirely stolen story line, the horrific plot holes, the embarrassing special effects, or Alec Baldwin made this movie so ruinously poor. Probably all of those factors are very important, but mostly, the film is crashingly, achingly dull. Even the occasional random dip into soft core pornography with the lovely Lisa Bonet does not raise even the slightest flicker of interest, neither when the buggies come and circle round our "political prisoner" (He was imprisoned for writing a slogan on a wall, oh yes...).

Watch it, because this is a landmark.


I had hoped for much more. With the cast it should have been great. With the topic of the story (abortion) it should have been great. Instead it became a scene tearing, over done, over emotional, ultimately boring movie. Talk about waste, this is a good example. In addition, it was unrealistic, not believable, i.e: the most junior justice, only on the court 3 days, delivering one of the most important decisions in years. A dying man singing Danny Boy to change his friend's vote. I could go on. Fortunately, I dozed through parts of the movie so was spared the full disaster this movie represents.


Sorry, at this point in my film viewing career I have a hard time taking seriously old films that were shot exclusively on a sound stage; especially if they have a very low budget, and especially if they try to make you think you're looking at the outside of a house. The minimal sets give the film a cramped, claustrophobic feel. In a horror film, that should help the film accomplish its ambitions, but it really doesn't, it just draws attentions to its shortcomings. But this certainly is an appropriate film for a midnight showing on a local UHF station passing like a ghost in the night...

There were a few odd shots in the film that made me think: "Hmmm...was this film originally supposed to be in 3-D?" That should give you some idea of the gimmicky directing style on display here by Mr. Cahn.

The actor playing Dr. Zurich was quite good but I couldn't stand the sub-Jack-Webb cop character who seems to show up far too often in 50's films, be they sci-fi or otherwise. This guy is supposed to be the hero? What a stiff! He's got about as much charisma as his starched hat.

The DVD in the Midnight Movies series is quite good, with stunning visual quality, probably better than this film looked at the drive-ins where it played to teenagers making out in the back seat of Dad's '59 Buick. The soundtrack was a bit weird though, the music was too loud compared to the dialog. Pared on DVD with "Voodoo Island," that film is clearly the more enjoyable of the two, but only by a bit. FSOJ certainly had a lower budget. As a fan of Ed Wood films, this film is a good testament to whatever it is Wood's art had: it takes more than a low budget and a meager script to reach the delirious heights of an Ed Wood anti-masterpiece.


I saw this movie on TNT a few months ago, for only about the second or third time in my life. I had remembered it as very creepy and scary, but the last time I saw it was when I was 12 or so. I was able to tape it and view several more times now. And as an adult viewer, I have to admit that it's pretty goofy and unconvincing, in that you have to believe some fairly silly, improbable things to get even a slight tingle up the spine from it. (And as a child I never really appreciated how hopelessly racist the film is). There isn't the slightest mystery about what's going on either; unless you're in the clutches of severe Attention Deficit Disorder you know from the get-go who's responsible for all this death and mutilation. Sure it scared me at age 12; so did "The Screaming Skull". Maybe it's just skulls that give me the creeps.....


This movie at a running time of 92 minutes was about 62 minutes too long. The storyline in itself was good but the problems are in the story telling. The viewer did not need to be beaten about the head with the repetition of Molly Parker's expressionless face 'seducing' the travelers finding their way to this apparently dead-end town and Batesish motel. We sorta got the idea by the time Jay Brazeau shows up looking for a room and 'company'. It would have been ever so much better to make it a short film and get to the point. I had already figured out the twist in the storyline long before the audience was supposed to get it and spent the next hour bored out of my mind. I actually took a break from the movie to clean my oven just to make it more bearable!

The second detail that disturbs me was mentioned in another user comment and I agree. Why was this Canadian film made with Canadian funding, starring Canadian actors and shot in a Canadian location set in a fictitious town Americanized? Why could it not have remained a fully Canadian film?

I'm not sure why this particular group of women are so fascinated with the idea of placing their lead female in roles of such depraved degradation - I seriously question their intentions.


A deeply disturbing film, with some coarsely difficult scenes to view. Dark from the outset, with nary a glimmer of hope evident in its passing, this film is wanting to capture much more than it does. Overt symbolism weakens the plot, and were it not for Molly Parker and Callum Keith Rennie's stunning performances, this film would be seriously damaged. A difficult film to recommend.


I saw Suspicious River at the director's home town, Vancouver. The director gave the audience a self-indulgent speech prior to the film and carefully noted that she was unable to stay for a Q&A afterwards. I now know why. Suspicious River successfully manages to be silly, stupid, anti-women, anti-men and anti-audience-with-a-grain-of-intelligence in them. The script and direction was uninspired and cliche. However, the only thing worth mentioning was Molly Parker's decent performance. I think the director was trying WAY too hard to shock our sensibilities with scenes of gang-rapes and sexual degradation. Unfortunately, none of these scenes had any form of dramatic impact on the story. I came into this film expecting a lot, and what I got out of it, was nothing more than despair, not because of the dark subject matter, but the waste of talent and celluloid.


This HAS to be one of the most boring movies in the last few years. The story was vague at best, the acting was horrible, and I don't know where they found the music they used - but it was unbearable.

Definitely not recommended. If you want to see a good movie, go see Shrek for the fifth time or something.


i had a lot of problems with this film but the main ones were that it is largely boring and seemingly implausible. molly parker was rather weak and her character was thin - i didn't think the motivating force for her actions was adequate. callum keith rennie was fine but the dialogue they were all given was very stilted and silly. it did not come together at all. although i had heard it was offensively bad and horribly violent, it wasn't as bad as all that. but the swans were definitely annoying.


We saw this dark comedy at Sundance (SLC showing). I wanted very much to give this a totally positive review, but it's just so disjointed that it was hard to decide what it was trying to say. The cast is terrific: John Malkovic, Anjelica Huston, Jim Broadbent, Sophie Myles, among others. There are a lot of things that are funny in this film, and we did laugh. But the storyline is all over the place. I read an interview with the director (who didn't come for Q & A after this one), and he said the storyline has a lot to do with his fear of New York, along with his fascination for it. The NYC shown in this film is very scary; I don't think I'd ever even want to visit it, much less want to live there! The film skewers a lot of snooty art types, and in that arena, it works. However, the second half of the movie just didn't quite work for me. The firsthalf of the film was amusing, but when it turned extremely dark in the final act, it just didn't feel right. It's too bad, because I think it's great fun to skewer the snooty art world...but this was just too far over the top.


Much of the problem with Art School Confidential lies with the character of Jerome. Clowes writes graphic novels, and the main character he's written here is simply a cartoon figure with no depth to speak of. He falls much too fast from his ambition of becoming the world's greatest artist to someone willing to compromise his talent for the sake of coming in first in a college competition. Granted, he is pliable, aping whoever he happens to be with at the momentit's Bardo one moment, star alumnus Marvin Bushmiller (Adam Scott) the next and adopting the bitter, nihilistic rantings of failed artist Jimmy (Jim Broadbent) as if those beliefs were his own. This might all be interesting if Jerome was, say, the type of troubled, seeking boy that Minghella played in Bee Season. Sadly he is not, and though Minghella is a fine actor, there's not a lot he can do with what is essentially a stick figure.

That's not to say that Art School Confidential is completely worthless. Malkovich (who also produced) is very funny, and so is Broadbent, but mostly this feels like the type of comedy Jerome's roommate Vince might someday make: overly broad, obvious, and very self- conscious. It wants to be cool, it wants to be hip, but like Jerome in his quest to be the next Picasso, it's merely clueless.


Zwigoff, Schmigoff - this movie was boring, awkward, and very rarely funny. There were glimmers of freshness at the start, but then the staleness took over and even efforts to view it as dry self-parody were met with cricket chirps. Still, with such artistic giants in the cast - each of whom, I'm assuming, had a pretty good sense of what they were getting into - I'm struggling to make more sense of it. Maybe, just maybe the joke was on us. Maybe Zwigoff knew all along that he'd attract a certain audience - the type who assumes it's coming to sneer at these tired, overblown, kiss-ass stereotypes - when, in fact, the tables were turned and he's actually laughing at our banal sense of superiority, not to mention our eagerness to project greatness onto any schlock he throws our way. If so, that would be very clever of him, but the movie would still be a waste of time.


It started out funny, petered off into darkness, and became an overdone artsy look at overdone art.

Jerome is an artist who's been the underdog his whole life. He wants to go to Starthmore to learn art and launch his career, and arrives in the middle of a serial killer spree.

His roommate is a hilarious typical wannabe-gangsta film maker who should have had lines after the first third of the film but didn't, and they bunk with a repressed homosexual fashion major used for good cheap laughs.

Jerome falls for Audrey who appears to be a 28 year old who hangs around campus as a model without actually being a student or anything other than a once-lesbian b*tch.

His rival is Jonas, a new student who looks like he should be at Boston College on a football scholarship about ten years ago. Jonas paints like a retarded twelve year old but not only wins the hearts and minds of his class, but also Audrey's attentions.

Jerome is introduced to a failed alcoholic artist who has paintings of the victims of the serial killer. It is at this point you'll see the movie flops, and Jerome proves to be "too stupid to live" (which is what he shouts that all of humanity is.) The first 1/3 is a comedy with dramatic elements, the second third is a drama with comedic elements, and the final third is a bizarre dark fantasy that ends in a way I can only describe as "suddenly I am run over by a truck".

Too bad; the acting was superb, the directing was good, but the script was DOA. I think this is at most worthy of a rental, but probably from Netflix so you don't feel ripped off.


This movie seemed to have been made by people who have never actually been to an art class, and don't know how they operate - surprising, as Daniel Clowes is co-author. Maybe he wasn't paying attention.

First, the art itself: I do art classes at night at a big downtown technical school. A number of my classmates and a great many of the day-school students produce better work than Clowes/Zwigoff's hero does. I'm talking Grade 12 here, at most. Minghella's character, Jerome, is supposed to be a devotee of Picasso, but his art shows no evidence that he knows Picasso ever lived: it's careful, literal likeness, with no expressive power, like a sidewalk-artist's ten-minute portrait. There is a scene where three chicks get together to puff the self-portrait one of them produced. They obviously have their own agenda, but in fact the picture in question (which suggests eyes seen through a veil of hair) actually has a certain amount of expressive power, and when Jerome objects, you expect him to say, 'My five-year-old nephew could do better stuff than that!' For the audience to care about a character, there has to be something to him - more at least than just a wish to be famous and get chicks. From the quality of work shown (which is Clowes' work, by the way) that is all there is to him. It looks like the example pages from every 'Easy Way to Draw and Paint' book ever written.


There are probably spoilers below, but who really cares. Luckily, I did not pay to see this film. I have enjoyed Terry Zwigoff's work in the past, especially Crumb, and Ghost World was even slightly acceptable for entertainment value. But I should have known a movie called "Art School Confidental" would be a piece of crap straight off the bat. I expected the typical clichés to run rampant in the film and they were. But I hate to tell you that there are people in this world who are serious about their art, and aren't just some sort of after-school special stereotype of what someone who is creative should be.

The plot was all over the place. I couldn't understand what the "hero" aka Holden Caulfield was even being arrested for. Was he ripping off the man whom he killed with his stupid cigarette, or was he bring framed as the strangler? And I hate to break it to the average movie viewer, but art school models certainly are not attractive. If the director and cast were trying to push the protagonist as some sort of unrecognized genius, they should have attempted to make the art work he produced slightly respectable and impressive.

What was with throwing the token gay fashion student in the film? Was that supposed to be funny? Because everyone in the theater was laughing at him, and not for the right reasons either. There seems to be a slightly racist, homophobic undertone to both Ghost World and Art School Confidential.

This was a self-indulgent masturbatory piece of gar-bage film. AND THE ENDING WAS AWFUL. everyone walking out of the theater kept saying how bad the ending was.

I actually would go as far to say that it was the worst ending in film history.

I recommend Pecker over this movie, and that was John Waters at his worst.

Sorry if this review seems vile, but I hate wasting the precious moments in my life on such putrid feces of celluloid. Please do not do the same, even if you are an art student looking for a laugh, even if the price is free, go elsewhere and do something productive with your life.


This movie tries to be intelligent and witty, but totally falls short when it can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a satire, a murder mystery...etc. the characters are totally uninteresting/unlikeable, and the entire meandering plot is not only boring and predictable, but unbelievable and frustrating. There is no development with any of the multiple characters, and the brief cameos by angelica Huston, Steve buschemi, and john malkovich cannot carry this disaster of a movie. I was so bored by this cliché attempt to criticize art school culture, that I was seriously considering turning the movie off halfway through, but I stuck it out hoping it would all come together and actually reach a final destination. I wish I would have turned it off. Watch Ghost World instead.


Two of us couples decided to go see a movie on a Saturday night. One of the ladies had gone to art school in New York and thought she would enjoy the film. Since it was Mother's Day we all decided to go see this film. Since she is the artist in our group, we thought she would enjoy it. To sum it up, after about 20 minutes, she kept lighting up her watch to see what time it was. We stayed to the end of the film (which seemed an eternity) but just when you think it can't get any worse, it does. It didn't seem to understand where it was going and spun entirely out of control the last half of the film. I wouldn't recommend this film to my worse enemy. As an added note, somebody should buy our "star" a pair of tweezers! LOL


Art School Confidential is a simply terrible movie built from a script that needed dozens of rewrites before it would've been coherent. How Clowes went from creating such a lovely screenplay as Ghostworld to churning out this desperate schlock is beyond me, but it's clear that something went terribly wrong in this, his second collaboration with director Terry Zwigoff. It's apparent that they needed to rag on art, understandably, but the two must have been very hard pressed for a project to attempt this. Watching it, I was embarrassed for them.

The cast is wasted. Angelica Huston, far and away the most talented actress in the film, is in all of two scenes. Why is she even in this movie? Malkovich's performance as Professor Sandiford is entertaining enough, but the character is totally inconsistent. The main character, Jerome, played by Max Minghella, is hopelessly naive and unlikable. Minghella tries his hardest, but I wanted more to see Jerome get slapped than to see him succeed. After ogling love interest, Sophia Myles, from across the room and then briefly meeting her, Jerome starts calling her his girlfriend. Huh? Where did this kid come from? There are myriad unbelievable, sometimes cliché developments like this which only confuse the viewer.

What is the intent? Did they set out to make a dark comedy, a farce, or what? The prat-falls and attempts at slap-stick negate any value it might have had as commentary on the art world. The plot is labored and full of holes, the comedy is lame at best, and the so-called "twist" at the end is a cheap trick which bundles up dozens of loose, frayed ends.

Not since Crash has a movie so enraged me.


how can the apparently gifted director and screenwriter who gave us the brilliant teen cult movie Ghost World, produce this load of crap?!

it is like they have no touch at all with the two factors they are dealing with: art, and being young. The whole thing is one big cliché. For example when they make the students compliment the childish paintings of cars and tanks. It is unwatchable!!!

When you make movies about something, you have to be true and humble towards the subject; that is if your intention is the celebrate with a slice of criticism. If you want teen movie, watch Superbad. If you want art, watch Basquiat or Pollack..

couldn't bare to watch more than half of it

RIDICULOUS MOVIE! don't watch it..


I had high expectations for this film  primarily based on the amusing trailer. The first twenty minutes had me laughing and engaged in the characters and story. And thenit all fell apart. And I mean the film went cold almost at an instant. It was as if the writer and director scrapped the initial blueprint and started a new, much less enjoyable movie, somewhere before act 2. The laughs and character interest disappeared and what remained was a strange and pointless denouement, which was otherwise terrible. I'm still unsure as to what the filmmakers were trying to achieve seeing as it felt like they gave up hope early on in the story. Needless to say it was quite disappointing.


There is way too much wiener in this film. I get the whole male full frontal equals street cred for an independent film, but come on. Wagging a penis in a woman's face for laughs is infantile.

This movie worked as a mockery of art school, it didn't work when it turned dark. It is as if two different movies were crammed into one with some wiener sprinkled on top.

The stereotypes of the art students were great, but what is with the gay fashion student roomie. How exactly does he fit into the plot? Oh that's right, he doesn't. The character is only there to make fun of gay fashion students.

If you are a fan Malkovich avoid it. It is not as smart as most of his other films. If you are a fan of wiener, dig in. This movie is for you.


No substantial plot, gratuitous nudity and language (the f-word), no positive values.

There are very few movies I want to walk out on, but this was one of them. 10 to 15 minutes into this . . . this . . . this thing, the movie had no direction or plot--except to prominently display a male in full frontal nudity and assault on my ears and sensibilities. (Any creative artist who has to resort to continued obscenities to carry his piece is neither creative nor an artist.) Frankly, I'm surprised that many "stars" appeared in the film. An embarrassment.

It's as bad as the "movie" being made by one of the students at the art school----oh, maybe that's it: Confidential is actually an escapee from a first year student.


there was nothing good about this movie nothing

nothing

if i could give it negative stars i would

if i was missing some sort of underlying "purposely-awful-movie-for-the-sake-of-irony" vibe

then i might understand more

some scenes attempt introspective depth and just come off as being cheesy

the humor is interspersed in a sporadic low-brow way

the impression it gives me is that the author only respects artists who are good at realism before they paint abstract things

the movie gives off an alienating attitude and shallow view of the subject filmed

the characters are mediocre at best

it's too bad cause ghost world wasn't that bad


Where do I begin talking about a show that was unrelentingly bad on so many levels ? The characters seemed to be motivated by Brownian motion. The series pseudo-science made no sense (space sonar ?! Sonar, by definition is based on sound waves, which cannot be propagated through the vacuum of space). Even the Star Trek fans were mocking this one.

Linda Hunt was supposed to add some gravitas to the cast . Poor Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa was asked to act but was given only a costume, not a character.

This series was so bad I was expecting the credits to say "A Bialystock Production".

I forced myself to watch all 4 episodes that aired in the US. When I'm lying on my deathbed I'm sure I'll wish I could have those 4 hours back.


First, I want to come out and say that I only watched one episode of this show, "Death Before Dishonor". Frankly, that was enough for me, and I have since used that episode as the lowest end of the scale by which I judge Sci-Fi. From Otherworld to VR5 to the current Flash Gordon, this remains the bottom of the proverbial barrel. I remember the initial buzz this show created, what with the resumes of some of the lead actors. I also recall that the visual F/X were not bad for the early 90's. While the actors were doing the best with what they had, the writing was severely lacking, and reminded me more of a Saturday morning cartoon script than anything else. The only thing I took away from this show was that I never wanted to see anything like it again. I was also gravely concerned that this show would make the networks more reluctant to take chances on future Sci-Fi oriented series, due to it's quick demise. Fortunately, that did not happen in the long run, but to me Space Rangers remains the type of show that gives Sci-Fi a bad reputation.


OK, let me start by telling you a little about myself. I've been a member of IMDb for 10 years now. In all that time I've NOT ONCE posted a comment about a movie.

BUT .... THIS MOVIE ..... NEEDS A REVIEW.

This movie is quite possibly the worst movie in existence. The story is old and the acting is... well..... ATROCIOUS!!! I've not seen acting this bad since ... Well, if I'm frank I've NEVER seen acting this bad.

In small places the acting is almost passable, but they only stand out because the majority of the acting is beyond a joke.

The dude that plays Carl in this movie (Larry Bagby) is by far the worst actor in it. I actually checked out his IMDb profile as my instant reaction was ' I bet he hasn't or won't do much more than this movie'. To my ultimate horror I see that he's actually done a vast amount of work as an actor. To say I'm shocked is an understatement.

Let me put it this way. If you've ever dreamt of being an actor, or even if you've failed miserably at being an actor ... HANG IN THERE!!! .... If this guy can make a living out of it, then ANYONE can.

Unfortunately, none of the other cast could actually carry him, so it let the bad story, awful script down.

Please, I beg of you .... AVOID THIS MOVIE!!!! You'll never get that 1hr and 25 minutes of your life back!!!!


You're not likely to see this playing at the cinema. I don't think it'll be showing on TV. The only place you're likely to find this laughable "film" is at the video store. If you do happen across it there, whatever you do, don't rent it. Doing so would put a few cents in Mark Cross' pocket and encourage him to make more "films".

I've seen some pathetically amateur films in recent times; up till now, 'San FranPsycho' took the cake as the worst. I now consider it dethroned by this piece of crap.

Film School Project is actually being rather kind. If I were teaching the class this was submitted to, I would give it a D-.


This movie was bad. When I first found it, I thought maybe it was an "advanced" copy of the hell ride coming out soon, but I was very mistaken. I'm not sure when the name changed from the trip to hell ride, but I had to look up the director/writer to find this movie. Anyhow, The feel of this movie was like watching a college level production, with a little more money involved.

The crazy driver honking his horn over and over as he chased the kids got on my nerves. The only thing good about this movie was.... ..... The brief breast flash of the ghost girl. THATS IT! If this movie was on HBO 3 or something and you have time to kill waiting for the paint to dry in your bedroom, then this is a great movie to sit down and watch!


The Trip starts as eight college friends begin a trip from Los Angeles to Arizona for reasons which aren't important, up front in the sports car it's Carl (Larry Bagby) & his girlfriend Devan (Courtney Cole) along with Garry (Michael Chamberlain) & his stash of ecstasy that they plan on selling, then in the off roader it's Devan's sister Cess (Heather Shrake) along with Dana (Elizabeth Keller) & Darius (David Slocum) while in the piece of crap run down car it's Sylvia & Veronica (Cristal Gerrick). The three cars travel across the long winding roads & encounter a dirty blue truck which Carl gets involved in a road rage incident with which turns out to be a bad idea since the driver of the truck then decides to go after the friends & kill them one-by-one...

Written, produced & directed by Mark Cross this is another rubbishy zero budget independent horror themed piece of nonsense that really is no fun to watch at all. The script takes itself extremely seriously & is a complete total & utter bore from start to finish, virtually nothing happens that could even begin to pass as entertaining & to me by the last 20 odd minutes The Trip felt like it was nothing much more than scenes of cars driving along edited together between a few dull than dull conversation's amongst some very annoying teenage character's. There is a bit of a story here & it all ends with an absolutely horrible sentimental message which you feel is close to the director's heart in the way it comes across. The story itself is thin, it makes little sense, there's no real explanation to anything that's going on, there are more than a few holes in it & the twists are extremely obvious & predictable in a 'I worked out that was going to happen 20 minutes ago' sort of way. Then there's the fact The Trip is incredibly boring & slow, there are huge chunks of this film where virtually nothing happens & it nearly put me to sleep on several occasions.

Director Cross can't write a good horror film but he has some technical competence & The Trip is reasonably well made, I'd have said it was well made if not for the fact the colours are very muted & during the night scenes you can barely see anything. The Trip isn't scary in the slightest, it has zero tension or atmosphere & it hasn't a single drop of blood in the film as people are run over in very unspectacular ways.

The budget was obviously low on The Trip, the so-called action scenes between the various cars lack any excitement or pace & they can't even afford to show anyone actually run over as it's mostly hint's & suggestions. The acting is generally on the wrong side of average.

The Trip seems to be quite an obscure film & to be honest you should be thankful that it is & hope that it stays that way. Zero scares, zero gore, zero excitement, zero sense & zero entertainment.


I first saw and read the cover and it sounded promising.It was nothing like "Joy ride"(which is my favorite movie)or "I saw what you did last summer" like it implies.If i rented it instead of buying the bloody amateur movie i wouldn't be as mad.There was nothing interesting about it including the ending.If the movie had a bigger budget for better effects and better camera's and actors it might be OK.It did look promising up until they all got to the motel.After that it was lame and annoying.The characters were so aggravating that you wanted them to get killed off as quick as possible.The part I hated the most was when the 3 survivors had a man trapped at his home and tied up.They all screamed at him to shut up like a bunch of psycho's while he was pleading "you have it wrong it wasn't me".This Gawddamned scene made my blood boil it was so painfully annoying. As well as having a brainless plot,it was filmed horribly as well.The whole movie was incredibly dark you couldn't see what was happening.These discs seem to all be defective. There is a chapter in the middle that skips. I thought at first I just had a dud.I wasn't able to get a refund only an exchange for the same stupid movie, and the next factory sealed one also skipped in the same exact spot so obviously the master copy is bad and has been transfered to all of the discs.I won't buy or rent anything again by this no-name new filmmaker and hope other's don't make the same mistake unless you like bad quality, grainy B-rated films made by a guy and his friends with a cheap hand held video camera.It is nothing more then someone's student film.All the money was spent on deceiving us with interesting looking cover art and a nice animated main menu.This is the only reason I even gave the movie a 2 out of 10.That is all this movie has going for it.It's a shame because I wanted to like this film but could never sit through it again.Now i've lost 14 bucks that could have been spent on something else.I feel ripped off!