Wesley Snipes is James Dial, an assassin for hire, agent of the CIA and pure bad-ass special operative. During his free time Dial dons a cowboy hat and breeds horses with macho names such as Beauty.

Enter agent Collins, his supervising officer. Enter a new assignment - kill a terrorist that is in UK custody. Of course the United Kingdom being an allied state is a great place for covert ops and head-shots outside of courtrooms.

The assassination is a big success apart from the fact, that the escape plan blew. So Dial's partner and local liaison gets killed in action trying to escape the police, whilst Dial becomes hot property with the London coppers trying to get to him and CIA trying to dispose of him.

Fortunately for Dial the safe-house is routinely visited by a teenager Emily Day (Eliza Bennett), who loves hanging out with cold-blooded killers with arrest warrants and help them escape from the evil UK law enforcement...

With a script like that need I say more? On the plus side Wesley Snipes is Wesley Snipes (be that a pro or a con) and the movie is quite engaging. On the minus editing is very disjointing and has a hurl effect on the stomach.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

James Dial (Wesley Snipes) is hiding out on his ranch in Montana after failing to capture a notorious terrorist. Then he's approached by the agency again to travel to London to have another go. His target has been apprehended there and is under heavy police protection- but they don't want him merely to capture their man- they want him taken out. All goes well but then the mission gets botched and when a senior police chief, Windsor (Charles Dance) is killed, the blame falls at Dial's feet. Hunted like an animal, he takes refuge in a nearby house and befriends a young girl named Emily (Eliza Bennett) who's dealing with issues of her own and becomes his unwitting sidekick as he goes about clearing his name and working out who betrayed him.

This latest Snipes straight to DVD escapade came out of nowhere, with a minimal of publicity even for something so small time (I don't recall seeing any advertisements or trailers for it anywhere.) With this in mind and after Snipes's history of duff DVD efforts, this might have seemed like one which Snoop Dawg would tell you to drop like it's hot. But I felt compelled to give it a go anyway. It doesn't rank among his worst, but it doesn't reach any higher than the standards of some of his better ones (The Detonator, 7 Seconds, says it all, really), either.

This is, at best, mildly suspenseful, with a minimal of action, naff all in the way of cool dialogue and Snipes not exactly at his best in the lead role. Likewise, in a main supporting role, it's quite clear Dance has only showed up for the pay cheque as well and this is generally one that none of the cast are going to shout for the hills about on any of their CVs.

It says a lot that by the end the only 'contract' that's keeping you interested is when Snipes's will end with Sony and with it an end to any further sub par EL DVD action films. **


I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.

Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in "The Contractor".

One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, "unconsidered" directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bloody Sunday") might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for "action-enhancement". But the "Bourne Franchise," as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.

Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.

And "The Contractor" goes so far as to emulate "The Bourne Ultimatum" in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling "Yankee-Romeo" one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view "The Contractor" again.

I recommend to those of you who have yet to see "The Contractor": just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.

2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1.


Don't really know where to start with one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to watch in a very long time. From the setting which was quite obviously and very clear to anyone who has visited London for even 1 day will agree...was not London. To the much unexplained way how Snipe's character managed to escape the country back to the US without a single problem. Then he convinces the girl and grandmother to visit him in America, how on earth did Grandma agree to that...he's an assassin! Well that's the ending how about during the film, well unfortunately that didn't fare much better. We have British cops driving an amazing range of cars, I'm sure it was an eighties Vauxhall Belmont which chased the taxi after the assignation, but a modern Subaru Imprezza escorting the prison van in a few scenes prior. SO19 or whoever the gun toting arm of the Met they were trying to portray was happily running around the streets with their guns out chasing after Snipe's along with the CIA. There were children walking around, but the police were still stating they had a clear shot to shoot him, does this happen in London? No it doesn't, I live there. We also have the very implausible travel from central London to the airport (let's say Heathrow for arguments sake) within 5 minutes of receiving a call. We also have terrible American accents, a young girl who's posher than the Queen, but lives in Elephant & Castle. What does it say for British police when helicopters and a number of officers at Snipe's location can't find Snipe's and he manages to evade capture by hiding behind some stairs? The train station was obviously not even on UK soil and the fight scene sound effects were terrible. The plot was also extremely poor, boring and been written and filmed a lot better a thousand times before. But there were a few notable actors cast in this film, what were they thinking and please don't let that sway you to watch this film! This film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, if you are going to concentrate on the dramatic aspects from the aftermath of an assignation then you need a strong rigid plot with plausible scenery and setting, this is something the viewer has time to take in and appreciate and if you do it wrong then you notice it. If you want an all out action film (which this is not) then continuity and scenery can be put to the side.


The problem with THE CONTRACTER is summed up by the opening scene . The CIA want an international terrorist dead so contact black ops assassin James Dial . The terrorist is appearing at the Old Bailey court in London which begs the question why do they want to bump off a terrorist if he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail ? He's going to be out of circulation either way . Didn't the CIA have a chance before he was arrested ? If by some chance he gets a not guilty verdict then kill him . There's no logical reason to kill someone who is going to spend life in a maximum security prison

Since the premise sets up the story an audience might be choose to ignore the plot hole but the assination itself pours fuel upon the fire . Dial's colleague is killed by a police bullet and the taxi they're driving in crashes but Dial manages to escape . So the police were close enough to shoot someone but too far away to apprehend someone from a car crash ? The film of this type of plot connivance . Later Dial finds a police inspector pointing a gun at him saying " this airport is surrounded by armed coppers " yet Dial manages to escape very easily without explanation . The whole film cheats its audience by relying on things that are never explained . This includes an important supporting character called Emily Day . Why does she help Dial even though he's a wanted fugitive ? Your guess is as good as mine

This is a fairly poor thriller and don't be taken in by the " big name " cast . Wesley Snipes used to qualify as a film star but killed his career by starring in more and more inconsequental films . Charles Dance also appeared in big budget Hollywood productions such as LAST ACTION HERO and ALIEN 3 but again he's someone best known for appearing in straight to DVD fare these days , and he's basically playing a cameo role anyway . The likes of Lena Headey may go on to become big players in cinema but they'l certainly fail to put THE CONTRACTER on their resume


This film was horrible. The script is COMPLETELY unrealistic yet it is written to take place in the real-world, the editing and lighting effects are worse than most first projects in film school.

I do not recommend this film to anyone who: A) knows any detail about the world of police or covert operations. B) knows any detail about film making or appreciation.

I do recommend this film to the average or below-average mind, I think it would be enjoyable if I was a dumber. If you must watch this film on a full mind, I highly recommend some kind of inebriation

It is a total waste of what little production value it has.


I read in the papers that W.Snipes was broke so no wonder he would take parts in low budget projects like The Contractor.He is just the next action star to join a growing club:the penniless action stars of the 90s (Van Damme,Segal,Lundgren,Snipes). Here he stars the lead in a cheap action flick which was shot in Bulgaria( we are supposed to believe that the location is London, like only a complete moron would buy that)The story is the one of 1000 other movies: retired special forces good guy gets hired by the government again to do a wet job- after that government wants to get rid of him- good guy gets away after killing bad guys (was that a spoiler? guess not!) The star of the movie: the little girl (Eliza Bennett) outperforms everybody else of the cast!!!One star is for her plus one star for eye candy Lena Headey, makes 2 stars. Only for die hard Snipes fans!Everybody else:avoid!


In the words of Charles Dance's character in this film, "Bollocks!" No plot, no character development, and utterly unbelievable.

Full of stuff that just doesn't happen in the real world (since when were British police inspectors armed with handguns in shoulder holsters?). Full of mistakes (Bulgarian trains in London?). Full of dull and artificial dialogue. And the directing/editing is awful - wobbly hand-held camera shots that add nothing to the film except a vague feeling of seasickness; confusing jump-cuts; no structure.

Wesley Snipes' character is totally unsympathetic - why should we care what happens to him? Direct to video? Direct to the dustbin!


It is incredible!! ..yes, someone before me wrote that it was a time wasting to seat and watch this film.. it is! Don't do so! I'm totally rankled! I liked Wesley Snipes, and I founded funny that he played his name's meaning in a movie. Anyway, I wanted to see this film (at home only of course) but now (just after) I am absolutely disappointed! It was his worst movie ever. Inwatchable!! Bad actor-play! Bad cameraman! Bad scenario! ..Only one good think: that wonderful girl! Must be a manikin surely! Eeeeh!! MB ..10 lines minimum?! I don't want to waste you're time anymore to read my opinion! I hope, i was clear and under-stable, because English is not my native method of speaking. So have grate time, and see good films, like i try too.. Peace!


A lot of themes or parts of the story is the same as in Leon, then other parts felt like some other movie, I don't know which, but there are an familiar feeling over the whole movie. It was kind of nice to watch, but it would have been fantastic! if the story would have been more original. The theme little girl, bad assassin from Leon, is just tweaked a little. The opening scenes are really good :-) It is strange that people like to fight in the kitchen, in the movies :-) My biggest problem was to remember which parts was from Leon, Nikita and if they where from the French or American version. If you have not seen Leon, then this is a good movie. If you liked this movie, then I can recommend Leon.

Best Regards /Rick


After watching this I thought to myself, there are either too few good writers & directors or lots of producers.

At any rate, this is a terrible movie. Terrible in a way that it's not fun, but rather makes you grit your teeth and quiver. Makes you shout "this is wrong" at the movie. Immersion is zero. By now most of you are probably used to the terrible errors/weirdness-es in movies that has computers hackers etc. in them. This movie is like that in every aspect.

The only good thing about the movie is the little girl Emily, brilliantly played by Eliza Bennett. I hope she becomes big, and make this ..thing at least worth something.

Do yourself a favor. Don't watch this. There is not even proper action in it. Total waste of time.


haha! you have to just smile and smile if you actually made it all the way through this movie. it like says something about myself i guess. the movie itself was created i think as some sort of psychological test, or like some sort of drug, to take you to a place you have never been before. When Wittgenstein wrote his famous first philosophical piece the tractacus (sp?) he said it was meaningless and useless, but if you read it, after you were done, it would take you to a new level, like a ladder, and then you could throw away the work and see things with clarity and true understanding. this movie is the same i think.

As a movie it is without a doubt, the worst movie i have seen in a long long time in such a unique way. first of all, this is snipes. i loved watching this guy kick ass in various movies. and i have suffered through a few weak ones. however, although you know the movie might suck, you would never suspect that it could be as bad as it actually was. which is the fun of it. i mean this is snipes. you know it might be good, but it will be alright, right? smile.

so this thing on every level is pure boredom, pure unoriginality. the reference to the professional is both dead on and obvious, yet so poorly done as to be comical. there is not one character in this movie that is interesting, in the least. and to make the whole thing more surreal, they have a soundtrack that sort of sounds like parts to various Bourne identity type movies, only isn't quite right. in fact, although it seems close to action movie background music, it just so happens it is done in a manner that will grate on you fantastically.

then all the scenes in the total pitch black, where honestly since the characters are so flat, you don't really care whats going to happen, but regardless, after it happens and someone is killed, you just say to yourself, was i supposed to see that? what else? how about scenes with blinding, obnoxious flashing at a strobe lights pace, for a period of time that is too long to bear. sure let's throw that in. how bout this though. when you are straining and your eyes cant handle it any longer, do some more of these in the dark kills where you really don't see what happened. and on top of that, lets face it you don't care. you were past bored way from the beginning.

so i drifted in and out a couple times, but i caught almost all of this movie. and it becomes something you can watch, without something that engages your mind on any level, therefore, it becomes something you can effectively zone out with, and begin to think about your life, where its going, where its been, what we are as people.

and that... that is the true magic of this film.


The US appear to run the UK police who all run around armed to the teeth and did you know that CID officers change into uniform when they stop work and go down the pub! This has got to be one of the most unrealistic films with the worst portrayal of "real" UK police that has ever been foisted on the unsuspecting public. I can see that Mr Snipes might have needed the money to pay his back tax bill but what the heck a good actor like Charles Dance was doing in it is a mystery.

Worse than the worse low budget "B" film of the 50's. An hour and a half of suicide and time I will never get back.

Avoid it like the veritable plague.


Just a warning... This is the worst movie I have seen in years... I couldn't watch it to the end... It is a pure waste of time... I really feel sorry for Snipes that he ended up in such a movie. There really is not much to say about it. Horrible acting, incredibly bad lines, story, everything. The only reason I would advise you to watch this movie is if you really want to see how a movie shouldn't be. Just to tell you one scene: the police are searching for Snipes, and they are surrounding the building with helicopters and cars, they are shooting around inside the building, but still they are whispering so that Snipes doesn't suspect a thing.


I watched this mini-series because I had seen Paul Gross in Due South and Slings and Arrows. I don't have to be a "spoiler" to say that this was a truly inane mini-series. The issue of Canada withholding water from the USA was an interesting one that was quickly and completely drowned. There was good acting but only in scenes meant to show off good acting rather than to move the plot in any understandable direction (watch the interminable "mother of the prime minister" scenes). Dissecting this misconceived film is hardly worthwhile. Canada has a fine talent in Mr. Gross, but that talent doesn't extent to script writing. H20 does not hold water.


This is OK movie to watch. Exactly copy of Hollywood movie "Derailed" .. for god sake these directors needs to stop doing plagiarism. Now about movie, nothing great about it or the performance of the character. The girl Geeta (Ms Kapoor) is hot and beautiful and thats only the reason make me keep watching this movie. If you guys have seen derailed then in initial part of the movie only you will realize that its another copy of movie. Anyway overall I'll rate this movie 2/10 as it has some pretty looking girl. Songs of the movie is OK too.. I would say its another concept they are trying to follow like they did with movie Murder.


saw a sneak preview of this film yesterday in mumbai There are some "cheesy" moments but I'm happy to say that they are far and few between.

The acting is not academy-award winning but you will be pleased with the performances.

It is an engaging film that brings you into a dark and gritty underworld that actually can feel quite real at times. You feel for the lead character.

One of the strengths of this film is character development.

It also has some twists that may actually surprise you in a good way.

I think the real downfall of this film is that it has a "Hollywood" ending. For me the film loses points for this.

One final note: the climax, although still good, was pieced together in such a way that it did not hold the tension enough for the theater audience. There was laughter and some heckling in my theater.

I wouldn't walk into this film expecting a ground-breaking film that will change the genre forever, but it is does have some good pacing and the story moved al


Megghy(Martina Melino) is fourteen going on fifteen, just a shade older than Tracy Freeland(Evan Rachel Wood) in Catherine Hardwicke's "Thirteen". When it comes to sex, both girls are light years ahead of Liesel Von Trapp(Charmaine Carr), who was "sixteen going on seventeen", as Rolf(Daniel Truhitte) serenades this forewarning to the chaste girl under a full moon, set to the gilded music of Richard Rodgers: "Totally unprepared are you/to face a world of men/Timid and shy and scared are you/of things beyond your ken," in Robert Wise's "The Sound of Music". Rolf may only have been "seventeen going on eighteen", but the future storm-trooper sounds frightfully more mature than Melanie Freeland(Holly Hunter), or Stefania(Stefania Montorso), who is thirty going backwards, when she tells her niece, "I don't want to be a normal, old aunt. I want to be your friend," in "Dillo con parole mie", perhaps the first post-"Kids" movie that doesn't go through the motions of treating an underaged girl's sex drive as being the least bit shocking. The filmmaker frames Megghy's preternatural sexual development around a light-hearted farce in the sunny environs of los in Cyclades, an island off mainland Greece, and normalizes the potentially hairy situation(in the Larry Clarke film, the Chloe Sevigny character contracts the HIV-virus), by pairing the young girl up with a narcissistic aunt who gives her advice instead of admonishments.

As aunt and niece depart from the boat in the harbor, Stefania first learns about Megghy's plan to lose her virginity with some random guy, because the former girl scout who ditched her troop at the bus station, wants to be practiced for that other first time; with some boy she is actually in love with. To be fair, Stefania's judgment could very well be clouded, having just broken up with her longtime beau Andrea(Giampolo Morreli), but nevertheless, she misses the irony of her proclamation on her niece's venture to come-of-age as being "too big of a responsibility." The irony being: the aunt avoids taking any responsibility for the potential ramifications of Megghy's sex adventure, when she acts as a sister figure to her niece, rather than a surrogate mother, who in that capacity, would tell the young girl to wait, before dragging her back on the boat. But Stephania wants to be a girl(in her own words, "a friend"), and girls just want to have fun. Dressed in a two-piece bathing suit, Megghy has a figure that recalls Michelle Johnson in Stanley Donen's "Blame it on Rio", but Stefania lets it go, even though her niece is properly attired for a "porn star convention". It's not the bikini that she's reacting to; it's the girl's breasts. At the topless beach, "Dillo con parole mie" creates for the viewer, a torn feeling of wanting to see the bikini come off, and the awareness that the girl is a minor. When Andrea(who happens to be at the same resort as Stephania in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall"-like fashion) sees Megghy in that bikini, he's torn too; he echoes his ex's quip about the porn star convention. Not only does "Dillo con parole mie" compel the viewer into anticipating a round of statutory rape between Andrea and the lolita, the film is hopelessly contrived in keeping Stefania and Andrea apart, on what the latter describes as a small island. Reunited, after Megghy mistakenly believes that Andrea is dead, the film celebrates their reunion to the hilt with a high-spirited, but insipid musical number aboard a bus, which provides an inadequate suture for the fact that Andrea would have deflowered Megghy, had he not passed out in the tent. Stefania never realizes what a poor role model she was for her niece. But Megghy understands her aunt's failings; she tells her, "And you gave me too much freedom. Act like my aunt."

Act like that nice Nazi boy Rolf, who croons to Liesl, "Baby, it's time to think/Better beware, be canny and careful/Baby, you're on the brink." "Dillo con parole mie" is a chick flick that pretends to be sensitive; it's like a chick flick with a d***. At the heart of "Dillo con parole mie" is a semiotic riptide of girly banter and camaraderie, and ripe melons.


Wow, did I feel torn about this film! On one hand, the film had some exceptional characters (in particular the aunt). But, on the other, the play was so inappropriate and sick in how it dealt with teen sexuality it really made me angry. If you look at this film from a completely amoral standpoint, it is a very good film with a lot to recommend it. As a parent and teacher, I was just horrified at times as I watched.

First, what I liked. Aunt Stefania was a great character. At the beginning of the film, she was extremely rigid and controlling and so naturally her relationship with her boyfriend, Andrea, was falling apart. This opening sequence was extremely funny as they contrasted how both viewed the health of their relationship. He was miserable and yet all the terrible things she did, she saw them as the strengths of their relationship! Later, towards the end, there was a cute little twist that brought them back together. Throughout the film, some very good (but morally suspect) writing really kept my interest. Plus, having the beautiful backdrop of the Greek Isles made this film exciting to watch.

Now as for the bad. Stefania's niece, Megghy, was a horrible mess of a character. Although she was not quite 15, her sole ambition in life was to love her virginity with ANYONE and lose it quickly! In addition, she was a habitual liar and a self-absorbed little jerk. Now had she faced any consequences for this, it could have been funny or interesting--but this never happened.

What bothered me in particular is that Stefania is supposed to be an adult. Megghy lies to the aunt about a girl scout trip in order to go to the Greek Isles to get laid. When this supposedly responsible aunt discovers the ruse as well as why Megghy wants to go, she basically allows Megghy to run amok through the very horny island trying to find a willing partner and drink herself into oblivion! While Megghy looked older than her chronological age, her judgment was completely unsound and she was a child--and she was a likely candidate to get raped or get an STD or become pregnant (even if she went with her aunt to pick up boxes of condoms). This was supposed to be cute and funny--but to me it just seemed sleazy and morally bankrupt. Had Megghy been an adult, then perhaps you might have felt uncomfortable about her dippy behavior but you'd agree that as an adult she's free to mess up her own life. But to have the aunt help facilitate? This is just sick. Had Megghy wanted to become an assassin or sexually abuse farm animals, would Aunt Stefania have said 'no'? This film desperately needed some adults who were willing to behave as adults.

Excellent but depraved writing--I worry what messages this film might be sending to young and impressionable kids.


I laughed once during this movie, when Dr. Meecham (Howard Duff) - heading to the basement of the mansion as the powerful storm strikes - says "It's like the last 10 days of Hitler!" Perhaps, although I think the last 10 days in Hitler's bunker were probably more interesting. "A Wedding" isn't a bad movie. In a strictly voyeuristic sort of way it's even mildly interesting. The title explains everything. The whole movie is about the wedding of Dino and Muffin (Desi Arnaz, Jr. & Amy Stryker) and the reception that follows at the groom's home. The two families don't mix well, and the movie basically portrays their interactions. There's no real consistent plot to the story; just the account of the two families mixing. There's the senile bishop who conducts the wedding, the death of the family matriarch, an unexpected pregnancy and an unexpected love at first sight moment, but there really wasn't any one central point here. Neither was there anyone who stood out to me as being the real star of the movie. This was definitely an ensemble cast, with Carol Burnett as the bride's mother being probably the best known, and a variety of other actors and actresses who, in years to come, would become better known (Pam Dawber, Mia Farrow, and Dennis Franz leap to mind.) There's a very small role for the famous Lillian Gish as the matriarch who dies near the start of the movie (although her body stays front and centre through the movie.) In general, the performances were all pretty decent. The movie is too long, with a running time of a bit over 2 hours, and while the first hour seemed pretty well paced, the whole concept got a bit tired after that. 4/10


It never gives me pleasure to report that any Robert Altman film is a dog, but there's just no denying that "A Wedding" rolls over and dies about mid-way through. Altman tries to instill the same sort of divine chaos on his massive ensemble that he did in "Nashville" to such tremendous effect, but without the strong narrative threads that anchored the earlier movie, this one flounders around without going anywhere.

Mostly to blame is the absolutely terrible script, that no fewer than four people worked on. In an interview on the DVD, Altman reveals that the script was virtually made up as it went along, with scenes planned for filming late in the day being written that morning! Well, the improvisation shows, but in this case not in a good way. Altman has always been famous for giving his actors the freedom to experiment and build their characters in any way they'd like, but in "A Wedding" too much freedom is a bad thing. The characters in this film seem to each live and move in a universe separate from all the others; none of them is consistent, and nearly all simply act arbitrarily in what I suppose is meant to be a zany, farcical way, but instead comes off as incoherent.

Altman's project was actually probably doomed from the start, because the subject of weddings just isn't important enough for the brand of scathing satire that Altman brings to his movies. Somewhere in the unfocused mess of Altman's film is a very funny, light-hearted farce that pokes fun at an institution that Americans take very seriously, and there are some parts that work very well. But there are simply too many characters, too many plot lines, too much STUFF going on in general for the movie ever to come to any sort of conclusion. Altman's point seems to be that weddings are silly, but that's not the hook on which to hang a two+ hour film. And by the end, hot-button topics like abortion, homosexuality, class differences, etc. are being introduced at whim without the slightest effort at fleshing them out or tying them into one another or the plot (such as it is) at large.

The greatest tragedy in "A Wedding" is that a cast of marvelous actors is wasted. Carol Burnett is perhaps the biggest, most recognizable star, but unfortunately she's saddled with a terrible role that she can't do a thing with. Vittorio Gassman and Nina van Pallandt, as the parents of the groom, have a lovely moment together during which they reminisce about how they met and which is one of the film's sole attempts to build sympathetic characters with a history. John Considine has some funny moments as chief of security, one of which involves him escorting the doddery and cranky bishop to the bathroom. Pam Dawber, of all people, breezes into the film at mid-point and does some nice work as the groom's ex-girlfriend. And Lillian Gish is her usual cute self in a couple of early scenes as the family matriarch. She's lucky that her character gets to die before the movie's barely gotten started, so she can avoid the whole debacle. As for everyone else, they do the best they can, and there are throw-away moments here and there that are amusing, but they mostly get lost in the shuffle, and there are some characters whose names, let alone their relationship to anyone else, we never even learn.

To his credit, Altman had been making on average a movie a year for about ten years by the time "A Wedding" was released, and it was the first out-right bad movie he directed. That's a pretty good record. However, he would make up quickly for lost time by releasing in quick succession "Quintet" and "Popeye." I guess no one can have a winning streak forever.

Grade: D


Altman should have hung them up right after making M*A*S*H. This movie is bad. The character development stinks, the plot is incoherent and humor is scarce. Paul Dooley - as always - puts in a great performance which is totally wasted in this scrap heap of a movie. What was Altman even attempting to say in this bowser is beyond me.


OK, lets face it, if you're not a humble, faithful (and probably voting republican) American, craving to be choked on continuous moral lessons so obvious and predictable, I strongly advice you to skip this crappy non-original TV-show.

Actually I think u would do more good in church or read the story's in the good book; they're way better in a moral sense and offer at least some excitement so your brain gets activated.

This show is a total waste of time ánd money and I can only applaud it got cancelled, it was the only right thing to do. So to all of you out there who claim this show is great; get real, get a life and use your spare time in a better way


This movie, based on the book by the same name, is a completely false representation of the story. The movie was originally planned to be released by a major studio, directed by Oliver Stone and starring Al Pacino. But when Stone personally met Noriega, accused the script of being completely untrue. Therefore, no other studio bought the script and the only way to get it released was for a low budget, television release. Biopic? Don't think so. This film is everything but real, therefore you should think of it as a story you could could get lost in, instead of basing your whole knowledge of the events solely on what you see on a screen.

Never believe what you see in movies. That is why they are what they are.


OK, there are so many things wrong with this movie, I don't know where to start. I have been reading Jack Higgins for probably a decade and a half, so I am quite familiar with his work and his characters.

First off, Rob Lowe???? Good actor, bad accent. Oh, wait, I forgot, he can't do an Irish accent. Also, Sean Dillon is described as a nondescript figure, as far as his build goes. The only qualities that make him the man we love is his 'Fair, almost white hair and his pale blue eyes'. Lowe, obviously, has neither of them. Well, almost the eyes... MAYBE.

Hannah Bernstein, an intellectual Scotland Yard inspector. They got that right. However, Jack Higgins repeatedly dresses her in trouser suits.

Brigadier Charles Ferguson, always in an unkempt state, dress-wise, except for his Guards tie.

Also, the movie would've been much better had they followed the book a little more closely. The way which Ferguson and Dillon meet was in a different book altogether. And they didn't even get it right! The initial meeting of Asta and Dillon, again, not accurate. The arrangement made for reservations at Loch Dhu???? NOT EVEN CLOSE!

In other words, as a Jack Higgins fan, I was embarrassed by this movie.


The first Zenon movie was hilariously kitschy. This "zequel" however is not only unfunny, but unremarkable. Greg is written out of the whole movie by having him break up with Zenon at the beginning, mistake #1. Zenon's parents and Nebula are portrayed by different actors, mistake #2. The movie is almost saved when Margie (the hilarious anti-hero of the first film) arrives on the scene and makes Zenon's life a nightmare...unfortunately she becomes Zenon's friend, mistake #3. Then we have this horrible subplot with aliens (rainbow colored specks), mistake #4. And that's basically the movie. And oh yeah, they rip off the ending of the first movie, having Protozoa and his band Microbe play a new song, Galaxy is Ours which is alright but weak compared to Supernova Girl. This is painful major. The novelty has worn off. The first movie was creative and cheesy. Chelsea Clinton was president, everyone drove VW Bugs, people played games with spinning milk cartons, everyone liked to hack and kids had funny lines like "it was never you he liked it was the car!" Let me be the first to ask, why was this "zequel" ever made?


I don't know what the hell is wrong with you people. This movie sucked. They said that Zenon would save the world. Did she? No. She just saved some aliens that were trapped. Sure, the aliens saved the space station, BUT THAT'S NOT SAVING THE WORLD!!!! There's absolutely no villain. Maggie's father isn't the villain. This movie is a major letdown from the first movie. Zenon's new parent actors don't help. STOP MAKING SUCH CRAPPY MOVIES, DISNEY!


This is a confused and confusing adaptation, wherein stylish minimalism substitutes for story and meaningless special effects replace plot elements until the story is more or less completely gone.

A key plot event, for example, entails utterly unexplained and un-anticipatable magical powers being deployed, where Andersen's original invokes more poignant and symbolically instructive natural cycles.

The writers of this adaptation transform a story with powerful symbolic resonance into a bad Saturday morning cartoon.

Instead of this I strongly recommend you seek out some version of the 1959 Lev Atmotov / Nikolai Fyodorov adaptation, which preserves the symbolic power of Andersen's material.


A Few years ago I saw the Snow Queen on Hallmark, I was absolutely blown away with the story and magic of that adaptation. Thinking that it was the same movie I was disappointed to find I had gotten another telling of the story. Yet I was willing to give it a chance, as I usually love anything made by the BBC. I have to say though I agree that the score of this movie was beautiful, I may have to find a copy somewhere. I was terribly unhappy with the CG animation and acting, you could just tell that the actors were filmed on a blue screen. It felt extremely fake.It was just horrible, it hesitated and you knew from the moment you began that it wasn't real snow. It just felt cheep. The BBC didn't have a winner with this film. It felt rushed as well, even though it was quit close to the original story. If you want to really experience the Snow Queen, please by all means read the story. If your interested in seeing a film that is well made and acted, I recommend the one done on Hallmark,which can be found on Amazon. Steer clear of this film, unless you feel the need to waste an hour. However, if you like classical music do get a CD of this movie the music it's self is really the only good thing in this movie.


I really wanted to like this movie, especially when I saw that Patrick Stewart was in the cast as the voice of the raven since I'm a long-time Patrick Stewart fan. I realize I'm a snob when it comes to "The Snow Queen." This was one of my all-time favorite children's stories. I also realize that anytime you read a story and create your own image of things, a movie will have a hard time living up to your creation. That being said, I really enjoyed "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe" but, alas, I cannot say the same for this movie.

The CG effects were cool but distractingly obvious. It was sort of like watching somebody's first attempt at a video production using CG. Gerda's mother was played by an actress (Juliet Stevenson) I had seen before but couldn't remember where. To give a gauge as to how emotionally engaging the movie was, I spent most of the movie trying to figure out where I had seen her before.

I would say that, for young children not familiar with the original story, this would be a good 'pop it in the VCR for an hour so I can get some cleaning done' movie. But if it wins any awards, I'd be shocked.


The Snow Queen is one of Hans Christian Andersen's best fairy tales. However, there has only been a few adaptations of it, and most are mediocre and childish. This is no exception.

The best thing about this TV special is the musical score; which is so beautiful and mystical it could have come from a classical music piece. I can't say the same for the rest.

This made-for-TV special looks like it was made by a group of college film students. I'm not too sure how much of this is 'real', because it looks like every shot has been superimposed over an Adobe photo edit. Even worse, the motion capture has a weird, jerky style of action that really detracts from any 'magic'. This is proof that CGI can give authentic looking dinosaurs, and encourage some of the shoddiest special effects ever shot.

The character development is so weak that neither sympathy, nor an understanding of personalities is felt. The story mainly skims and summarizes the plot of Andersen's fairy tale, giving the feel of headline news when compared to the original book.

I would normally give an adaptation like this a three, but considering that this is a one hour TV special, a 'major motion picture' style cannot be expected. This gets a four.


A re-edited version of 1950's "Gone to Earth", which apparently derived after an artistic struggle between the production team The Archers and David O. Selznick. It's a rather overripe, humorless adaptation of Mary Webb's book "Gone to Earth" involving a gypsy girl in 19th century Wales who is caught between two men. Predictably handsome melodrama, yet one which seldom involves the viewer. Co-directors Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger have a unique and occasionally ominous way of letting nature unfold in front of the lens, and the cinematography is vivid and expressive; however, they don't seem to know much about actors or about the strength of performance--the technique seems to elude them--and Jennifer Jones in particular comes off looking like an amateur (which she is most assuredly not). The film has its charms, but it has no gypsy blood--nor a wild heart. ** from ****


This film couldn't decide what kind of movie it wanted to be: a serious spy film, a light comedy, a dark comedy, or a romance. The acting wasn't good. The screenplay was awful. The directing was abysmal.

The idea could have worked: a mothballed CIA agent and his former-KGB girlfriend find themselves on opposite ends of a post-Cold War dispute, putting their relationship (and their lives) in jeopardy. But much of the plot line was completely unbelievable. Also the film was too choppy and inconsistent, almost schizophrenic at times. Just when you're starting to enjoy the farcical parts of the movie, BANG! The movie turns dark. I blame the director. It doesn't appear that he had any kind of overarching plan for this movie, seemingly taking each scene individually, and setting the film adrift as a result. About the only thing going for it was sex appeal, and even that grew tiresome.

Take my advice: avoid this movie. There are better ways to spend 90 minutes.


We love movies of all kinds. This movie was filmed in Finland by a Finnish director who appears to be trying to imitate spy movies from James Bond to Mission Impossible...and they did a very poor job of imitating.

Sadly, some really good American actors worked on this film. It was apparently made as a serious movie, but even Netflix lists this as a spy 'farce'.

If you like the Scary Movie or Airplane type movies, you might like this one OK - no way you could like it that much.

We really like Bill Pullman, but this movie would made you doubt his movie making decisions.

The music is awful (retro) and the speaking volume level is way too low compared to the music volume.

I'd say, get a different movie.


This is no Spy Game. Picked this movie up by mistake. From the half of the movie I watched, Bill Pullman appeared to have done this film just to pick up a pay check. Maybe if you live in Finland and there is nothing else to watch but reindeer and snow this film will hold your interest. In my case watching a glacier is more interesting then this film. The film Spy Game (no "S") with Redford and Pitt is the favored film.


The Cold War is over and two adversarial spies (Bill Pullman and Irene Jacob) fall in love and dream of living a normal life. There is trouble in paradise, however, since they find themselves on opposite sides of an attempt to pass satellite codes to the Russians encoded into a homemade porno film. This is a good premise for an international thriller, but the execution does a belly flop.

This film was produced in Finland to very low filmmaking standards. Since I haven't seen many Finnish films, I can't say whether this is typical or atypical, but it was full of bad scene setups, plot inconsistencies and generally poor directing. The soundtrack was jazzy and nice, but it often didn't fit with the scenes to which it was applied.

Director Ilkka Jarvi-Laturi was trying to present this as a lighthearted romantic comedy and international thriller, but it was marginal on the first count and a disaster on the second. Bill Pullman can carry off the lovable romantic hero role, but as a spy, he is a joke. Irene Jacob was better at handling the two aspects of the role, but the dialogue was so excruciating that her acting talent and beauty were not enough to save it.

Jacob and Pullman had some chemistry in the romantic scenes, but both seemed flummoxed in the comedic espionage scenes. This was some incredibly bad writing and it must have been very difficult for these actors to say their lines without kecking.

This film is a jumbled mess with terrible writing and amateurish direction. I rated it a 4/10. Be sure to miss it.


How many movies are made that involve police corruption, where the corruption always runs higher than expected? How many crime rings run by corrupt police officers have been thwarted by civilians (in the movies of course)? Todo el Poder has your typical corrupt cop scenario, and plays out as expected. I have seen this movie around a dozen times, all under different titles, and wasn't very impressed by this one.

The plot is the problem: there are no unexpected turns or developments. Even though the film looks decent enough, and the acting is fair, the plot isn't intriguing enough to make you want to continue watching it.

I'm not sure if it was funny, either. I realized there were humorous parts, but I didn't laugh. This, most likely, can be blamed on the fact that I had to read subtitles.

Overall, if you are not tired of the old scenario, and don't mind reading subtitles, you may find this one enjoyable.


Intentionally stupid dialogues remain stupid anyway, purposefully idiotic plot is idiotic all the same and deliberately foolish heroes stay fools all the way through. For an hour and a half we see not a single motivated action and very little of any unmotivated action too. The only credible personage is one played by somewhat balmy Sean Penn. An apotheosis of bad taste comes when a paralytic wants to take a leak, so poppa and momma prop him up while Hugo Dugay is rummaging for his pissing gimmick. Mercifully we're saved from seeing his penis but are forced to hear horrible comments about his urination anyway. Alyssa Milano, Sean Penn, Malcolm McDowell, Robert Downey Jr - what a waste of talent.


Hugo Pool is a great movie if you are having trouble sleeping. I saw the credits and expected a very interesting movie. Instead I saw a silly, slow, and boring flick. Obviously, some people enjoyed this movie based on the score it received, but I found this movie very disappointing.


The movie remined me of a group that got together one weekend and decided to make a spoof movie. The acting was so bad that I doubted if there was any scene retakes. The cast was OK but acted as though they had just read their lines 5 minutes before and wanted to call it a day as soon as possible. The only way it could have been worse was to be in B&W. Even as a silent film it would have been an improvement.


This is one of the worst movies I've seen in years! I was so unhappy with this movie, I actually stopped watching it 30 minutes before the end... something which I almost never do!

Even if this movie was free to rent, I still wouldn't rent it! It's a big waste of time, especially when there are so many other movies out there!


Poor and lazy attempt at getting some aboriginal actors and history on to the cinema screens. Sadly (although there's plenty of funding for this sort of thing) though, it fails on many many levels. One wonders if the funding was just too easy to get.

All the white actors are terrible, the attempt to create 'atmosphere' through use of silence and absence of dialogue is just boring, cinematography is ordinary, and uh it just seems like a lazy filmmakers idea of a quick buck and a bit of PC egotism.

Much as I'd like to see some good oz films featuring aboriginals or stories about them, this isn't one. It's just embarrassingly bad and you'll find yourself fast-forwarding.

zzzzzzzzzzz


Many movies choose topics so that they can't be attacked or questioned: racism, the Holocaust, genocide, pederasty, the heroes of 911, Hitler, etc. This is about one of them: extreme racism in Australia. Nevertheless, the movie sucks.

The characters are one-dimensional (this is probably intentional - the characters are named for their traits). There's no character development at all. Gulpilil is great, as always. The rest are flat.

Far and away the worst thing is the soundtrack. Remember when John Wayne tells the woman that he's a loner, gets on his horse and rides away while she cries and looks pained? Just then some music comes up. Some weak ballady thing "He rides alone; his heart of stone; he knows the path; the wayward wind; ..." whatever. It's an RCH away a lounge song. Tracker has music at this level throughout. It's not just intrusive or weird. It's completely out of phase with the movie. And it's so bad it's painful.

Tracker much like a high-school film project about racism: you know you're not going to get an A if you defend it; you know it's bad; so you have characters with names such as Mr White; Mr Black; Mr Bigot; ... And your parents are really proud of you.

See the brilliant "The Chant of Jimmie Blacksnmith" (1978) and don't waste a minute on this one.


Being a fan of good well made Aussie films, I thought I'd check this film out. Heard it won a few awards so I thought "it must be good". What a let down this film is. The acting is terrible. Gary Sweet was a good actor once, not anymore I'm afraid. Or maybe I'm being too harsh on him and he was just very badly mis-cast. I did manage to sit through the whole film though, but kept asking myself "what message is this film trying to say". I never figured it out. Archie Roach sings too much on the soundtrack. If I want to hear him sing, I'll buy one of his cd's. Another dud Australian film, which proves to me , that the quality of Australian films has declined since the good old 1970's & 80's when all the classics were made.


I never realized how great All in the Family was until I watched Archie Bunker's Place... which was horrible. It made me realize what was missing - everything! It's apples & oranges - apples & zebras is more accurate. It is a depressing sequel/spin off in a sad lonely bar with flat lines & flatter jokes. Too much effort in trying to clean up Archie's act - tried to hard in my opinion, a bit unbelievable. I am disappointed that O'Connor even liked it enough to do it. Without Edith, the Bunkers don't exist to me. Gloria & Mike's absence is painfully obvious - Archie Bunker's Place story lines are manufactured, not natural, as with All in the Family. I don't know how this lasted FOUR years!


Before watching this, "Murder in a Blue World" had been described to me as a Spanish "Clockwork Orange". While its not a complete ripoff of the film, many plot elements are lifted directly from that classic. In particular, Chris Mitchum's character seems to have the exact same background as Alex DeLarge. The film lacks the wit or intelligence of "A Clockwork Orange", but the one area where it does outdo that film is bizarreness. "Murder in a Blue World" is one of the strangest European trash films I've seen from the left-field pop-culture references (Flash Gordan, Mohammad Ali, Valdimir Nobokov), the awkwardly executed social satire, and the incredibly close-minded view of homosexuality. None of this makes a lick of sense, but there are some unintentional laughs to be found. Ultimately it comes across as "A Clockwork Giallo".

The acting is pretty lousy, including Sue Lyon (whose career went straight downhill after appearing in Kubrick's "Lolita"), the always wooden Chris Mitchum (son of Robert), and familiar face Jean Sorel ("Lizard In a Woman's Skin"). The direction by Eloy de la Iglesia is reasonably stylish but dull and uninspired. The man has no idea how to keep the film moving at a quick pace. Even though its a bit dull, the film is saved by the moronic dialog which offers plenty of unintentional laughs and the overall strangeness of the product. Recommended mostly to die hard fans of 70s European trash. (3/10)


If there's one thing Spanish and Italian filmmakers in the seventies loved, it was making their own versions of popular American classics. Rip-offs of films such as Jaws, Dirty Harry and The Exorcist almost became genres in their own rights as so many films were made. Perhaps a less obvious to rip-off is Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'A Clockwork Orange', but director Eloy de la Iglesia obviously thought it was a good idea. It wasn't though as this exploitation/sci-fi garbage has little in the way of interest and doesn't manage to create anything worthy of the great ideas brought forward in the superior Kubrick film. The film appears to be trying to make some sort of social commentary and although similar ideas worked well in the 1971 film, here they're portrayed with the use of a daft looking biker gang and it doesn't really have the same impact. I was surprised to see Jean Sorel among the cast members; as one of the better known European actors at the time, I'd have expected him to have a bit more sense. God knows what the scriptwriters were thinking; sometimes you can see glimmers of a good idea in there somewhere but clearly the film is just a load of nonsense and I wouldn't recommend anyone sees it.


Adam Ant rocked. He always does. Sharon Stone played Sharon Stone (I forgive her for her poor acting, the part was *horridly* written. She deserved better.) Jonathan Banks was fairly good as the evil Iceman (who comes up with these names??), but with better writing he would have been far more impressive. Bad writing sums this film up. And Brad Davis' flat acting and monotonous character didn't help the matter much. There were some really amusing scenes (including the battle with the drinks machine, and the bad fish episode;), and some really fun artillery. And of course, the red-blooded male in me enjoyed seeing the lovely Sharon Stone baring all in her pre-gravity days. But it wasn't enough to save this second-rate CHiPs wannabe. 4/10.


Brad Davis plays a cop here tracking down his fathers killer, and on occasion has various encounters with defiant vending machines. Jonathan Banks shows his versatility by giving the same dry performance were all accustomed to, despite an unusual vocal disposition. Oh, and then there's Sharon Stone,no surprises here. Director Puzo tries to show some visual flair with gravity defying slow-motion car jump's, a la' Blues Brothers, and it comes off just as silly. The films sports cliché' locations and situations, routine acting, and the occasional twist here and there, but really, nothing ever leaves the realm of the status quo. Even the off-casting of Adam Ant couldn't help rise this mediocre entry above it's ilk.


This movie is an absolute must see for all true film fans. A wonderfully entertaining one and a half hour cliche fest. From the ludicrously over the top car chases, to the hackneyed dialogue, wholly predictable plot "twists" and diabolical attempts at comedy there's always something to laugh at (though never with). This film deserves to be a mainstay of drinking games, just go to one of the movie cliche websites, print off a list of the cop movie cliches and drink whenever one appears. If that's not enough to get you completely hammered you could always try downing your drink whenever Brad Davis's character seems to completely forget the fact that his father's just been murdered. Cold Steel is brilliant if enjoyed as a spoof or as a chance to get drunk. As a film, however...

0/5


Hackneyed dialogue, every cop show cliche you can think of, car chases that defy physics, a boom mike in the apartment, ill-timed "humorous" scenes, and a predictable ending. Adam Ant turns in a respectable performance but everyone else falls flat. See it if you're a diehard Sharon Stone fan but otherwise the movie offers nothing you haven't seen a hundred (thousand?) times before.


Cold Steel is one of the most atrocious crime films I've ever seen. It's little more than a tv movie of the week with foul language, and it's badly written to boot. Sharon Stone ends Cold Steel with the immortal line, "I hate sushi". Perhaps 'screenwriter' Moe Quigley is one of Joe Eszterhas' biggest influences.

Avoid at all costs.


This is the worst movie I've ever seen. It's so bad I found myself wondering if it was in fact a comedy instead of an action movie. Terrible acting.


More resemblant of a '70s TV cop show, this revenge flick from Dorothy Ann Puzo [and this is her only attempt at celluloid, praise God] is truly wretched.

The always-excellent Brad Davis stars as a cop out to avenge his father's murder [at the hands of Jonathan Banks]; femme-almost-fatale Sharon Stone is the only other reason to watch this.

0 of 4 NiroStars


When I think of all the teen flicks during the early 90's, one that will stick in my head as an example of how this decade tried so hard to recreate the 80's teen classics, is Pump Up The Volume. This movie was a sad attempt in trying to create a teen-flick with a message and turned out to be a really bad mix of Good Morning Vietnam, Lean On Me, and MacGiver all roled into one. Slater shows little of the acting potential that he supposedly has and you quickly find why Samantha Mathis joined Mary Stuart Masterson and Molly Ringwold in that "where did they go? list". Considering that I'm an actual disc jockey, I can say that most of what you've seen in this movie, while remotely possible, isn't in reality. Plus, I'm having a real tough time believing in the school getting away with what it has been doing. Please, allow Slater to leave this movie as a forgotten step in his superstar-in-the-making process that seems to never end. The upside to the movie is the soundtrack that has the universally heard Concrete Blonde song, which never appears in the movie, sadly. This flick barely got a 3 out of a 10.


This Christian Slater vehicle, which follows hard on the heels of "Heathers", is along the same lines as his 1989 hit, but it is nowhere near as good. Slater is smart-mouth D.J. 'Happy Harry Hardon', who broadcasts on his pirate radio station from 10 p.m. nightly. His rebellious attitude is soon adopted by his many teenage listeners, and the once troubled High School is soon in mayhem. 'Mark' ('Happy Harry') never quite does the right thing, as he continues to transmit even though he knows he should stop.

Allan Moyle's film only succeeds in being irresponsible. It does not give our youth a message of hope, but a message to stick it up everyone and do whatever they please. Hardly sensible!

Sunday, August 16, 1992 - Video


OK, so let's cut it short.

Apocalypse. I understood that part. No petrol. OK, i dig that too. No electricity without fuel ? My intelligence points fingers to the hydro energy, and eolian one. But, it's a movie, so i step over it. Random city - fine with me. They don't have what to eat - mmm, well it was summer and humanity managed to live ~ 4000 years without those specific sources too. Pick the f***ing apple in the tree ??????? Yet again, i'm indulgent, considering it just a small error in brain functioning maybe. OK, monsters kick in (big & stupid kind of human monsters, the message passed to the audience. They are big & got muscles, but that's all, probably). They line up like Australia rugby team. The good guys got a rifle and a gun, yet the rifle isn't used once in the movie.

Pretty much sums it up. Awful waste of time with this movie.

The acting wasn't that bad, but the script is just plain awful. Every single action is predictable.

I wonder how the directors find the necessary money for movies as bad as this one.

Waste of talented actors.


Going into Tooth and Nail, I was excited, Horrorfest is an opportunity to get away from the typical Hollywood narratives and enjoy some good old fashioned gore, and I have to say I was impressed with the first half of the film. It addresses a topic that is still untouched, in horror films at least, and is able to play off of human nature quite well. While the acting left something to be desired and the opening monologue made me want to scream, I was intrigued by the story and willing to go where the narrative took me. I was however disappointed at the Viking-like appearance of the cannibals, it was obvious from the start that they would not be the victors in this film. I also felt that it was all too predictable that Victoria would be rescued when she was captured, and then she would be the only one with the brains to overcome the obviously stupid cannibals, which she is able to do through the simple trick of not showing her drugging bodies. I felt that this ending was too much of a cop out. Her transformation into an "angel of death" is something common seen in the women who survive horror films, and I found myself rooting for the cannibals to overcome this tired convention.

This film had the potential to become something great but instead tripped and fell into the stereotypical ending of the horror genre, the Final Girl is able to overcome evil and escape into the world, bringing with her Nova, a child that represents hope for the future of mankind. It seems that the filmmakers were afraid to make a film that presented a truly bleak outlook for the future and instead chose to end the film in a typical Hollywood fashion.


This movie is horrible. It's a bunch of boring people sitting around a room talking and talking about boring stuff. It's like being stuck in someone's horrible poli sci college class or something. I almost walked out, and then like twenty minutes in, one of these guys gets his throat cut. And I was like, wow, maybe stuff will happen now. But no. They went back to the room with the boring stupid talk. By the time the bad guys finally show up, you're just praying for all these losers to get it.

The script is one of the worst I've seen in awhile. The sets couldn't be more boring than if you took a cam corder down to your community college. The cast cannot save this film. If I hadn't seen some of them in other movies, I'd swear they couldn't even act. I guess they were slumming it with this thing. Don't waste your time or money. It's not even worthy of a Saturday SciFi Channel showing.


A small community of young adults(..and a mute kid with roller skates)whose leader is a professor(Robert Carradine), living within the confines of a massive hospital in a major city after civilization has fallen apart due to the total absence of gas-fuel, fall prey to an ominous group of barbaric cannibals who collect a victim a night for their feast, led by the sound of a horn. This all starts when three from the group find a fallen young woman, Neon(Rachel Miner, of the previous year's "8 films to die for" feature, PENNY DREADFUL)who claims that the cannibals are called Rovers and slaughtered her whole family. Soon, the group fall one by one to these madmen, as their leader is the first to die, leaving them to fend for themselves with little hope of survival. Through this horrifying ordeal, one must strengthen the others as a leader or else they all perish.

Actually, for a good portion of the film, it's quite intense and suspenseful because there seems like such little hope for these kids, without a head once he's removed(..the kind of leader who was quite smart with goal of starting over, competent in his abilities, whose weakness was trust which leaves him vulnerable)against such amoral brutes with a nasty visage and even nastier weaponry..they resemble extras from the second Mad Max film, THE ROAD WARRIOR. Vinnie Jones is a memorable heavy, with his evil smile, bulging eyes & whistling scythe as he spins it around ready for blood shed. Michael Madsen, who at first appears to be the leader of this group, has a minor role as the cannibal "Jackal" who whistles towards his quarry before using a two-sided ax to do his damage. Rider Strong(..who also appears in 2007's "8 films to die for" entry BORDERLAND)has a strong role as the aggressive Ford, the kind of character who thinks mostly of saving his own skin. He voices his opinion loudly often antagonizing instead of helping to solve their terrible situation. Michael Kelly(..as Viper, who leaves the group, tired of being bossed around by Carradine's professor. and is an awfully good shot with a crossbow), who many might know from the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake as the irritating mall security guard whose attitude towards the survivors was quite unkind, has a heroic role towards the end as the kind of tough character who everyone else quietly respected, despite his rather negative reactions to what the community was trying to accomplish. I'm not sure why Carradine(..who most identify from REVENGE OF THE NERDS)isn't used in horror more. I think he's a welcome presence, and I sure hated seeing him exit this so early. The one thing this film direly needed was an adult presence. The film has some ferocious attacks on the kids, which are slickly handled using the darkness of night(..and a camera which moves the right way to avoid seeing the initial stabs into flesh), to avoid real graphic displays of carnage. I think the best thing going for the film is the cold, dank darkness of the hospital setting, even creepier at night. The post-apocalyptic premise is touched on here and there(..mostly through dialogue)but the overall theme comes straight from HILLS HAVE EYES.

But, I found the whole "wolf in sheep's clothing" twist absolutely ridiculous, and once we find out who is guiding this cannibal group, I couldn't take the film seriously anymore. And, Nicole DuPort's character Dakota, a soft-spoken, rather weak member of the group who was sleeping with the professor, putting her complete faith and life in his future plans, metamorphosing into a bloodthirsty savage with warrior paint, nearly had me laughing my ass off. And, to be honest, this whole method of executing the victims one at a time, using this specific time at night to hunt, had my eyes rolling. If you want to eat people, just f'n do it.


The world goes to hell after the oil supply runs out. A scrappy group of survivors holes up in a Philly hospital to try and rebuild society, but when their security is threatened by a roving band of cannibals, they must fight "tooth and nail" to survive.

First off, even though the run-time is listed as 94 minutes, this thing dragged on forever. Second, the performances were pretty bad, almost a sense of time-delay on some of the character reactions to other characters. There are plot twists, but they're easy to spot from a mile away. And when one character paints herself up in tribal warpaint, you know it's gone from bad to worse. I should have known better, since it's one of the 8 Films to Die for. And why are Michael Madsen and Vinnie Jones slumming it here? There are a few decent bloody scenes, so that's why I'm rating it so generously with a three.

Overall, the idea of society collapsing in on itself when the oil supply runs out was a pretty interesting conceit. Make that movie instead.


From last years 8 films to die for this is the story of group of people who have survived after society has collapsed on itself when the gas ran out. Not long after rescuing a young girl the survivors who have been living in a hospital find themselves stalked by a group of cannibals. Slow and not very clever end of the world tale that has a couple of nice twists sprinkled through it. (unfortunately the twists would give away details so I can't really discuss them.) Regrettably outside of the twists the film doesn't offer much else. Its too leisurely paced to build terror and the film suffers from chasms of broken internal logic-chief among them why would a group of people live in a place that had no defenses, or even a locked door. Its a mess. Despite having flaws it is watchable, though its probably best watched while doing something else (I'm guessing that you'll probably fall asleep if you watch it straight). 4 out of 10


Imagine that you are one of a small community living in a huge abandoned hospital after the fall of civilisation.

Do you a) fortify a section of the building to protect against attackers and methodically search for useful supplies, weapons and food? or b) elect a useless leader (who is happy to spend his day banging his woman), leave all the hospital entrances open, and not worry too much about food and weapons, since you have plenty of tasteless army rations and at least two guns and a handful of bullets in case of an emergency?

If you answered 'a', then you fully deserve the 'Max Rockatansky Award for Successful Post-Apocalyptic Survival; if your answer was 'b', then pray that civilisation never crumbles: you're clearly not built for life in a world thrown into utter chaos.

Now imagine you're a member of group of survivors that have been driven to cannibalism due to a lack of food. You and your pals have several people trapped inside a large building; they are outnumbered, poorly armed, unorganised, and ripe for the picking.

Do you a) storm in there, take them all alive (to keep the meat fresh), and cart them off to your lair? OR b) devise an elaborate plan to get one of your people to infiltrate the group, then wait until nightfall, when the building is plunged into total darkness, and take just one victim, leaving the rest for another night-time visit at a later date?

If you answered 'a', then congratulationsyou have the makings of a successful (and well-fed) cannibal; if you answered 'b' then you're as stupid as the bad-guys in Tooth and Nail, and fully deserve to have your own ass handed to you on a plate.

Full of annoying characters incapable of making a decent decision, Tooth and Nail is a dreary piece of dreck that struggles desperately for a sense of realism, but only manages to bore in the process. Whereas recent post-apocalyptic effort Doomsday revelled in its sheer cheesiness but suffered somewhat due to a lack of a thoughtful plot, Tooth and Nail proves to be the 'anti-Doomsday' of the genre, taking itself far too seriously and severely lacking any sense of fun.

Writer/director Mark Young's script is extremely weak, with it's 'undercover cannibal' plot device being neither particularly convincing nor totally unexpected, and there is plenty of banal dialogue to bog down proceedings even further. The direction is also rather uninspired, and with much of the action taking place in the dark, the film is a real strain on the eyes (and one's patience); it also makes seeing what might've been some half-decent scenes of gore almost impossible to make out.

I rate Tooth and Nail a disappointing 3.5 out of 10. Normally, I would round this up to 4 for IMDb, but thanks to a ridiculous final shot of a cannibalistic Vinnie Jones gurning maniacally through a window, it gets rounded down to a 3!


you can past that the general conceit of the whole film, America turning into a barren wasteland simply because they used up all the oil, is a straw dog impossibility and if you push aside that character's this stupid and ineffective could survive when nearly 2/3rd of the population have passed on, then this certainly had the capacity to be a fun little flick. Now capacity and actuality are two vastly different animals. It doesn't help that the three best actors in the film, Robert Carradine, Micheal Madsen, and Vinnie Jones, are vastly underused. Nor does it bode well that the twists are inane. I didn't completely detest the film and had fun with it up to a point. And while it's among the top of the "8 films to die for", that's more of an indictment on how crappy most of those films were than anything else. This still ranks FAR below "Borderland"

My Grade: C-


This movie begins on a weak premise and has a predictable plot with dumb characters. Every aspect seems to be pulled from other films, which is a cheap way to make a movie. This is the kind of movie where time and again you find yourself asking "now where have I seen that before?"

A few of the predictable story elements are as follows. A female member from the much larger cannibal pack infiltrates a young, buff group of survivors hold-up in an abandoned hospital as a wolf in sheep's clothing --- but no character even suspects this. As members start to disappear/be killed, the infiltrator is questioned and found to be with-holding information. But, since the group needs a leader (they're all too dumb to think for themselves) they elect this liar to basically set them up for the kill. The one guy who is smart enough to leave/escape, stupidly returns to rescue a girl who then doesn't want to leave until she can save the rest; the guy stupidly follows and gets killed while saving her sorry back yet again. None of the survivors bother to pick-up a weapon and defend themselves until half of them are already dead. Since it takes place in a hospital/lab setting, someone gets splashed in the face with acid, and some chemicals are used to poison people. For the final battle scene, the girl whose back was saved way too many times stops to put on war paint like in the movie 'Braveheart', and then single-handedly goes off to kill the cannibals as they are cooking her friends body parts over an open fire. Just when you think it's over, you see that there is one cannibal still alive which implies the real horror of a sequel.


let me start by saying that if oil is to run out in 2012 i promise, promise not to call myself something retarded like badger or python and dress like a retarded caveman! The cast of this movie however were unable to make the same assurances.. there is an actor in this film called kevin e scott, his career has spanned 10 years and consisted of 3 small movie roles, it is clear why after seeing this. At times he appears to have been drugged as he is mumbling completely unaware that he is in a movie or that movies even exist. Is it possible to trick somebody into being an actor without them realising? even when he is being slaughter by a retard caveman he hardly even snapped out of his rubbish acting induced coma, they should have smashed that cleaver into his head for real cos nobody would even realise he was gone and those that did clearly would have rejoiced. The actors didn't even seem to care they were being murdered one by one it was truly the biggest amount of garbage i have ever seen!!! p.s i don't think its acceptable to elect a leader as the intelligent one purely because he wears spectacles, the vinnie jones laughing scene was pathetic too. i would rather rub one out in front of my parents then watch this again!! enjoy


I'm astonished that some people are rating this movie a 9 or 10. It really just isn't that good. Sadly, it had all the tools to be successful, including an interesting premise, a wealth of experienced acting talent, a great filming location, and convincing effects (although this being 2008 you can't really give much credit for the latter anymore).

Unfortunately, they still managed to screw it up. The villains' actions didn't make much sense, neither did the protagonists', for that matter. They consistently made really stupid decisions, presumably to create tension and a "stalking killers" feel, except the killers weren't scary. The "twist" was predictable and lame. Dialog was passable, but nothing to write home about. I did feel the actors all delivered the best performance they could with what they had, but there just wasn't much to work with.

The script really needed a couple of critical rewrites before going into production, I actually laughed out loud at the cliché "dramatic face painting in preparation for war" scene near the end. The ending is frankly boring and unsatisfying. Instead of this movie, you could just watch Mad Max and Doomsday while completely hammered, then take the resulting mess of memories and remove anything entertaining or intriguing, it will be the same experience but far more fun.


Given the somewhat entertaining track record of these After Dark films, I had some certain expectations with the given supporting cast of Michael Madsen, Vinnie Jones, and Micheal Kelly though in reality they've had a little more than brief cameos. But somehow I found myself losing complete faith this movie due to terrible writing after the first 5 minutes.

One of the few minor positive things about Tooth and Nail was that it had potential. It tried to reference a would-be global crisis of the exhaustion of natural resources, and I thought it would take its aim toward something else more cataclysmic. The two plot twists were only mildly stimulating as I considered them to be possibilities beforehand, but none the less predictable. The flashback was a minor spark in the end.

This is the point of where it started to be insulting. The concept that the apocalypse started after the world "ran out of gas" was very far fetched as best, but what really got me was the aftermath in the storyline. It just didn't make sense. Are people that desperate to just wither away and die in the streets? Would they really starve to death or try to eat each other? Haven't they heard of growing crops, fishing, and raising livestock? Other forms of power such as solar power and hydro-power could have been utilized instead. Even if there weren't any available alternatives, humanity wouldn't go down to that level of savagery. Humanity has survived without gas for tens of thousands of years, and I wouldn't think they would devolve that quickly. That large and obvious plot hole could have been covered.

The level of fear factor in this movie is zero, it shouldn't have been in the mix of After Dark Horrorfest since it seemed like "made for TV" cheese. These survivors deliberately hide in a hospital in hopes "to rebuild society" in the middle of a concrete jungle. What do they do, when one of their own gets killed? They just wait like sitting ducks until another one of their own gets picked off. All these characters are labeled the constant horror movie cliché as "too stupid to live". They separate and one dies after another. What was even lamer was that Dakota character not accepting the fact that her boyfriend the Professor got killed. She saw the blood, his glasses were left behind, he is obviously not there.

The credibility of these villains are laughable. Maybe a reference to give these cannibals a better background would have worked. The movie should have told me that these cannibals have mutated or contracted have a zombie virus instead. But these big oafs for villains just walk around in a lobotomized state with tiny little axes and carving knives. They may be strong, but they seemed very dim witted. Michael Madsen obviously wasn't taking his role seriously with some of the worst acting minutes I've seen in recent memory. As for Vinnie Jones, he was fronting his role with a closing psychotic laughter. Oooh...I'm scared. Then there's that eloquent cannibal who was tooting the D flat note with his horn. Okay I've complained enough.

I can't recommend Tooth and Nail with these noticeable and unjustifiable flaws. Don't waste your time with this movie. Seriously.


Well it is rather bad, but what can one expect from the Afterdark series I have given up on them a long time ago. I only watched this one because I have owned it for so long now when I quit watching the second series of Afterdark films. This movies are not to graphic for theaters, these movies are to cheaply made and for the most part bad for the theaters. This movie was so boring from the get go I almost fell into a coma during the first hour or so. Then near the end it finally picks up a bit and is tolerable. The story the world is just about gone as we have ran out of gas and this of course would spell the end for people who have to constantly have a phone to their head as you take one convenience away they fall apart. What is left lives here and there sometimes fighting for food and such. Well this roving band of survivors who live in a hospital and pick up a girl whose boyfriend was apparently killed by this one guy who gets away. Well they take the girl back to where they live, in a hospital and you get to see how their boring lives play out. Then a band of cannibals goes on the attack and begins their take down of those living in the hospital. Along the way you get the obvious surprise and a bit of gore, not to much though considering this is a cannibal movie. So you get a movie with most of the action confined to the end and not much of Vinnie or Michael.


Michael Madsen is a B movie actor and is appearing here in a D minus movie. Another B actor is Robert Carradine who along with Madsen appear less than five minute in this so called movie. They are both quickly killed off and leave the film to be carried by a group of true amateurs. Speaking of amateurs the entire cast and crew combined have less talent than a shoe. The film fails on all levels. Even areas where horror film normally excel, special effects, are diminished here due to poor choice of camera angles and sloppy editing.

Special note must me given to the director who aspires to be the next Orson Welles but this film shows that he is a failed Ed Wood. The budget for the film is listed at 4.2 million dollars. They should have spent some of this money on sending the director to a screen writing class. There is no story here: a group of survivors are living in a hospital and a group of marauders who look like a bunch of rejects from a Mad Max casting call kill and eat them one by one. There is no dramatic tension, no character development. There are shots of the bad guys walking across the parking lot and then they appear in the hospital hallway. Don't they have the doors to this placed locked? They must have had access to just this one hallway to shoot this film.

The only other named actor in the film is Rachel Miner who has turned in some good performances in other films but here turns in a very wooden performance. I hope that Ms. Miner will be more selective of her projects in the future.

The director must fancy himself a creative fellow by naming all of the characters after cars. I was waiting for an Asian character to show up named Toyota! The lead actress, who must be the girlfriend of the director since she also stars in the directors only other film Southern Nights which never even received a DVD release, has all the screen presence of a pile of wet cement, she sleeps walks her way through the film. The only other survivor is a mute girl who failed to showcase her talent through pantomime but instead just roller skates in each scene. Obliviously the director must be a fan of Boogie Nights.

The director, who is also credited as the editor fails once again by failing to pace the film. One scene in particular when the lead actress is captured and thrown into a holding cell. We see an exterior shot of her pushed into the cell, a switch to the cells interior shows an empty cell and a good two seconds elapses before the girl hits the floor.

In addition to the dismal screenplay, the director can't even properly frame a shot, plus the DP armed with a low end camcorder screws up the color balance in each shot so that every scene has a sickly green tint to it. They obliviously skipped color correction during post since they wanted to cut their losses on this dog.

I could go on for hours dissecting this train wreck, but let me finish up by saying that the audience is not the biggest loser in this film it is the investors who were hoodwinked into putting their hard earned money into a project run by producers who have no idea what they are doing.


After watching another title in the Afterdark HorrorFest series and really enjoying it, I thought I would give Tooth and Nail a try. Now I have seen a lot of bad movies over the years, this has definitely got to be the worst. I am surprised Michael Madsen and Vinne Jones even agreed to appear in this turkey. I am thinking it must have been shot on a really tight budget as we were constantly shown the same shots from the outside, and also the same areas inside the building, despite the building being huge.

There is no atmosphere, the acting is worse then terrible, there is no

pace,and very little in the way of action.And the least scary 'bad guys' you are ever likely to see.

A plot, which could have had a lot of potential, which was full of promise in the blurb,was truly worse then terrible. And when played out on screen it was so so so predictable. This movie should be avoided at all costs, as you will be cheated out of time you will never get back.


This movie is bad...really bad. At first it starts telling about how we all were doomed cause we ran out of gas. People went crazy and started loot and kill each other cause of the lack of electricity and oil. OK, interesting start, then we follow a group of people, lead by a smart professor. They are hanging out at a abandon hospital trying to create a new life. But suddenly our poor professor is missing and lunatic barbarians with blood stains and huge me lee weapons(all sorts) start showing up everywhere. A newcomer in the group knows about these lunatics and she tell stories about them from back home...they are freakin cannibals! Oh no! They always come at night(they must have night vision!) and only take one each time(if they take two one of the corpses might decay). But then they enter the hospital and start murdering...they don't just kill one anymore apparently. Here i turned off the movie and threw it out in the garbage where it belongs...i vote it 2


Let me just say that after seeing two of the After Dark films last year (The Hamiltons in theaters and Gravedancers at home) I was very excited for this film, and considering the cast, it was warranted in my mind. Now...I want my 9 bucks back. How bad was the film you ask? Throughout the showing i was surrounded by nothing but drunkards laughing at inappropriate times, this was annoying at first, but by the end, i had joined them...not because the movie was entertaining in any sense, but they seemed to have found the only way to enjoy it, and i wanted to try as well. I don't know where to begin with this abysmal blunder, first off though (and most obvious) Nicole DuPont CANNOT ACT. Listening to her botch her lines in an over-exaggerated manner the entire film was simply painful...I WAS CRINGING BY THE END.Not that her lines were any good in the first place, which brings me to point 2, the writing was terrible, and despite the best effort of Ryder Strong, Michael Madsen, and Rachael Miner, the film was intolerable. I didn't not know how to feel about characters such as Dakota (just came off as bitchy and annoying, but was supposed to be a hero...wtf?!!!) and characters such as Jackal were underused and ruined by the bad script (WHY ARE YOU WHISTLING "I'VE BEEN WORKIN ON THE RAILROAD"?!!! THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!!) Third, there was nothing intriguing about this film, the gore was kind of cool, but neither the cannibals nor the protagonists interested me in any sense, nor showed any depth; locations were boring and rarely changed; and just not a whole hell of a lot happened. I'm sorry this review is long, but i cannot warn you against this film enough, it isn't even laughably bad, its the rare breed of horror that has no redeeming qualities...


put this on the long list of movies that had a slight potential of being good, but ended up being terrible. the idea that humans are gong to start eating each other after the gas supply runs out is completely ridiculous. the whole plot seems like something someone would come up with after a few too many at a wannabe goth convention. tack on terrible acting, high school play quality dialog, a completely failed attempt at directing, and overdone cinematography (cameras at off angles, long shots of abandoned cities) and you have a movie that should be left to collect dust in the dark corners of your local blockbuster. a good quote from the movie to sum up the viewing experience: "i just want the pain to go away."


Tooth and Nail is a horror movie that is neither scary nor interesting. So what's the point of watching it supposed to be? A few guys dressed up in costumes that make them look like rejects from Michael Jackson's old "Beat It" music video amble through a hospital. Occasionally open their mouths to show big fake yellow teeth whilst grunting and groaning. The leaders, Michael Madsen and Vinnie Jones, ham it up in a couple of brief scenes a bit more than the "standard" "Beat It" rejects, and while that is marginally entertaining for about 5 seconds, it hardly makes for a worthwhile movie. They have such dialogues as: "We can do this the easy way, or we can do it the hard way. I don't really care which way. But by sunrise, I'm gonna be gnawing on your bones!" ; and; "Let's play a game. Hide and seek. You hide, I seek. And if I find ya, I'm gonna eat ya!!!"

When one character tells a cannibal "I am going to kill you", the cannibal replies "Not if I eat you first."

Clearly the dialogue of Tooth and Nail is abysmal. There's isn't anything else going for it either. The acting ranges from terrible to mediocre. Madsen is a great actor but there isn't really anything he can do to get any mileage out of such terrible dialogue and a dire script.

The whole movie takes place in about 3 different rooms in a hospital and a few connecting hallways. Therefore, there isn't anything interesting going on visually.

Tooth and Nail looks as if it is a real-life film student's home made class project and sounds as if it has dialogue written by the student's younger sibling after the student partied too much the night before it was due to be able to write it himself.

The main characters are completely uninteresting and stupid. You probably won't care at all if any of them live or die. You may even find yourself rooting for the cannibals, because at least their hammy performances hold a small degree of comedy value in a "This is Uwe Boll-level bad" kind of way. The main characters, aka Foragers, have no redeeming qualities to make them worthwhile in the least bit.

Tooth and Nail is one of the worst horror movies there is.


We're deep into student film territory with this one. After an apocalypse in which the world just kinda runs right out of oil (yes, you read that right) a group of college students with names culled from the faculty parking lot are besieged by a handful of extras left over from The Road Warrior.

The students are lead by a slumming Robert Carridine, and Rider Strong is back from his Mexican spring break adventures in Borderland. Among the cannibals are Michael Madsen and Vinnie Jones, both playing characters who can be out witted by a 12 year old child.

This film does for peak oil what The Day After Tomorrow did for climate change - set the cause back about ten years. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where everyone above the Mason-Dixon has moved to Tallahasse. In fact, I'm sure I don't.


This is a terribly lame (and very late) attempt to cash in on The Blair Witch Project. Two wanna-be film makers want to send four "actors" into a supposedly haunted house armed with flashlights and camcorders so they can put together a Blair Witch-like movie.

Unbeknownst to the actors (but suspected), the film makers have the house rigged with bad special effects and hidden cameras to capture the mortal terror they are sure to suffer. Unbeknownst to the film makers and the actors, the house is really haunted by the ghost some unknown man who was apparently murdered in the house in 1888. Painfully known to anyone who has watched this film is that there are no scares, no chills, and laughable special effects.

There is absolutely nothing in this film that hasn't been done before (and done better) which leaves the gratuitous two seconds of nudity as the best part of the film. And those two seconds are certainly not worth the rental fee or the waste of 88 minutes of your life!

Bottom line: bad plot + bad acting + no scares = BAD MOVIE


This movie was the gayzor. It made me choke on stuff. I do know it was a student film, but it couldn't be any worse than if my cat directed it. The movie started off with a frat house with some awesome song playing. It kept switching from that scene over to some toy train coming close to the camera. It was quite absurd. Then it went to some stupid guys going to some house and they thought it was scary. This loser had to go into it to be accepted into their frat for asshole lickers. After the story, it went over to some crappy camera into this house of some losers and stuff was talked about. There was a director with 4 normal people who were supposed to be in a house that wasn't scary. Since it was a movie, the movie people wanted them to not know about the scary stuff so they would get quality acting. Then a guy and a girl went into the house as one guy and girl stayed outside with their horrible ad libbing skills. The movie crew found out that some scary stuff wasn't due to them and they ran away because a friend of theirs got cold. Then the guy who was outside went into the house and stayed in there for a while with some old man. Then they left. And for some reason after they all left the house, they all started dying for no reason whatsoever. The only parts that stood out was some guy saying "Be up in a minute!" and the night vision wind camera. I hate this movie and everyone who was in it. The only redeeming factor was the song called "Climbing up the stairs".


I just want to say something real quick before we begin. This movie shouldn't exist. If I could go back in time I would go back to the beginning of Conrad John's lineage and smite his ancestors so that he may never make a movie such that is this. I cannot even begin to describe how this movie fails on all accounts. The director makes a comment about how most of the dialogue is ad-libbed. I think most of his career is ad-libbed. And by ad-libbed I mean suck. Conrad feels the need to emphasize various aspects of the movie by showing his characters doing the same damn thing over and over again in long drawn out shots. One thing I do have to give him credit for though is that he doesn't pussyfoot around showing boobs. He just comes right out and says "lol it pretty much has to be done so we're gonna do it." Aside from that, and the awesome soundtrack, this movie has absolutely nothing going for it. It's not even cheesy, it's just over an hour of mindless whatever that will make you cry and say "What did I just watch? What is this? Where am I and why am I typing a review for it?"


I have to say this is the worst movie ever. However, there are some cool parts. First, the guy in the window, the door slamming shut by itself and of course the flashing by the girls nice boobs!!! Therefore, I gave it a 3 but if you are desperate in looking at this film then either borrow it for free!!! or rent it on your unlimited rental plan at your nearby video store. Don't pay money to watch this!!! I wonder if they will take a return if I say the disc don't work ?

Basically the story line is 4 college students get recruited to work on an independent film. During the filming process, things get crazy. A local legend of a dead homeowner returns to claim back his house as well as scare to "death" the trespassers.


Unfortunately, the DVD case doesn't warn you of the terrible quality of both the acting and the filming of this movie.

For over 50 percent of the movie, you cannot even see the actors. Apparently the filmmakers have never learned about lighting. They are in an unlit house at midnight, but you can't even tell where in the shot they are. Which is probably for the best, because the acting is so terrible that you're better off not seeing them. The story line isn't exactly great either.

Haunted House isn't even one of those terrible movies that you rent and laugh at because it sucks so badly. Its one of those movies where you genuinely feel cheated out of 5 bucks.


Haunted House (2004) is a waste of digital space upon a D.V.D. disc I have ever seen. I have watched crappy movies before but this has to be worst thing I have ever seen. This did not even resemble a movie in the least. The structure, lighting, writing, acting and direction is the pits. I cannot believe this "movie" was even distributed in a major video rental chain store. I mean I can not find one thing good to say about it. The flick was padded out to the extreme and the film makers seemed to have run out of ideas and other ways to extend the running time past seventy minutes.

The "movie" begins with some thirty something frat boys hanging outside of what appears to be a spooky "house". They seem to be reliving and old urban legend about people disappearing inside a ghost house. If you have heard the tale before it's old news (a "kid" walks in and never comes out and the frat boys come and and find him dead of fright, the boys soon fall victim to a death curse). The tale is told by a really bad film maker, he convinces his friends (A group of old teenagers) to hang out inside and outside an empty structure that looks like a cross between a barn and a large doll house. After torturing the audience with some of the worst movie making the world has ever since (I have seen Cable Access shows with better film making skills and production) they give us a cheap payoff by repeating what happened in the beginning. The movie ends with voice-overs, still pictures and rehashed footage.

They should take all the copies of this movie and bury them with the million copies of unsold E.T. Atari 2600 games out there in the New Mexico desert. Asylum should also be punished for helping to release this garbage. This movie failed all the simple logical steps that are needed to create a watchable movie. Haunted House had no acting, lame writing, terrible direction, no lighting and gutter level production values.

Avoid like the plague!


This film was soooo painful to watch that I almost had to smash the T.V. and flush the pieces down the toilet. I have been a horror fan all my life and consider myself very open-minded to student film projects, B-Films, etc. However, this piece of crap still sits steaming away in the *beep* pile (like crap does). What were they thinking? Still photos used as cut-away shots....horrible. An abandoned house with a porch light lit(very realistic). Take my advice...DO Not rent this film. After the first few minutes you will want to slash your own throat. I've seen wedding videos scarier than this. Please DO NOT contribute to the fattening of these people's wallets...please do not rent "Haunted House".