I bought this in a box set with "The Phantom Empire". I watched Empire and liked it. First off, these two movies are pretty similar. Each serial has one main hero with a child or children as the sidekicks. Next they each deal with a hidden kingdom (or empire) right under our noses. Each kingdom or empire is destroyed in the end with only the "ones from above" surviving. And finally, each serial uses the "cheat ending" way too much. With that being said, this movie felt more like "The Phantom Empire"-lite. It seemed to move slower than Empire and the story wasn't as good either. Personally I liked Gene Autry better than Crash Corrigan. Now I'm not saying that this movie is bad, it's just not all that good. I gave it an "ok". I've only seen four serials and this ranks number three. If you like old serials, I recommend it. But if your new to the serial genre, I'd try something else.


I have only seen episode two which was included as the short on the MST3000 episode where they watched the Indestructible Man. The likely reason it was included was the presence of Lon Chaney Jr in both. Lon's the key. Anyway.

I think that is the most memorable aspect of this episodic serial from the 1930's, as the rest appears to be rather common and what one would expect out of a serial of the period (cheap sets, cheap costumes and props, atrocious acting and simple plot lines). If you have seen the Flash Gordon or Batman serials of the same period, then you know what to expect. These serials have not aged well and can be especially (and usually unintentionally) comedic.

Atlantis. Unga Khan (think Ming). Ray Corrigan as Crash Corrigan. Thats an easy one to remember. You're playing yourself, dummy. Horses. Fighting. Robots. "Lasers". What's more to tell? It's not as exciting as it sounds. Outside of a 5 year old, the only entertainment value that can be derived from this as an adult is as some sort of stress relief comedy. Accompany the viewing with others and include at least 3 shots of Gentleman Jack.


UNDERSEA KINGDOM must rank at the very bottom of the cliffhanger serials. Why`s it so bad ? Well it was shown on consecutive nights on BBC2 many years ago and watching every episode less than 24 hours apart it becomes patently obvious that the audience are being cheated . Every single cliffhanger is re-edited at the reprise , the worst example is an episode that finishes with a tank that has the hero strapped to its front smashing through a wooden gate of a fort , a loud crash , splinters everywhere there is no way our hero could possibly have survived the impact - then the following episode shows ( !!!!POSSIBLE SPOILER !!!! ) the people inside the fort opening the gate before the tank crashes through . This goes beyond cheating and remains the worst resolution to a cliffhanger ever . So give this rubbish a miss unless you`re interested in seeing Lon Chaney Jr in a cameo in the first episode or you`re wanting to laugh at some bizarre robots who are obviously men with a water boiler over their heads


The idea of "Little Giant" seemed a natural for great comedy; Costello plays a country fellow, well-intentioned but naive, who dreams of success in the big city. Having completed a record correspondence course, he becomes a vacuum cleaner salesmen, with Abbott as his boss. Success and failure for Costello follow, with plot twists aplenty.

"Little Giant" is considered a weak entry in the A&C series, and for good reason. While one can appreciate the chances A&C took in making a film with much pathos, along with making a film where Bud and Lou don't play a team, the end result doesn't measure up to the promise of something different. After all, this is Abbott and Costello, and one expects some great routines and laughs. While their "7 x 13 = 28" sketch is reprised here (it originally appeared in "In The Navy"), it is weakened by the boss/worker relationship of Abbott and Costello (and the noticeable shift in Abbott's toupee from scene to scene). There are a few other chuckles here and there, and this film marks the attempt to have Costello emerge as a tragi-comedian, in the mold of his idol, Chaplin. The end result just is not very funny. 3 out of 10.


This, being the last Abbott and Costello film, I'm not surprised that it went downhill. In my opinion, Abbott was a minor character, and I didn't laugh once in watching this movie. We've gone from good old slapstick and walking into walls to making fun of the stupidity of Lou. He loses everything, and we get that horrible tragedy atmosphere. Then they squeeze a 2-minute happy ending in, and you never lose it. All in all, this movie, although it has a nice blurb on the back, stinks.


Well, I have been raised on the Broadway production of Les Miserables and just the other day I finished the complete (unabridged) version of Les Miserables. My English teacher observed that I was reading the book and eagerly gave me the film to borrow, saying that it was a fairly strong adaptation. With the thought of a strong movie adaption floating in my mind, I popped in the DVD and was met with a disappointing shock.

This film started out with a strong adaptation of the book, but it got progressively weaker. Important characters were eliminated completely (Eponine and Enjolras) taking with them important elements from the book. Eponine, for example, was the key to the complex plot of Les Miserables. She made the situation between Marius and Cosette complex because of her own feelings for Marius. Her character also makes the point that the poor are the essence of a city population, and somehow are easily forgotten. This was point was completely missed in the movie by eliminating Eponine's character (where are the miserable people without her?).

Secondly, as many people have said already, Valjean's character and Cosette's became less accurate as the movie wore on. Valjean is a new, honest man. With his new honesty, he has also gained kindness, compassion, and love. Cosette was a blessing which was bestowed on him, and he would never strike his adopted daughter. She's everything to him, and he would never have any reason to harm her.

Cosette is not supposed to be a brat. She's the essence of innocence; she does not question her father because of his goodness. Even her love for Marius would not make her disrespect her father.

Looking at the movie as a movie, I admired Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush's work in this film. With the so-so material given to them, they were able to do a phenomenal job. They were as loyal to their character as they could be, putting aside the story/character alterations made. Geoffrey Rush was perfect as Javert, with his determination and lack of compassion and mercy. (Although I must say that Javert would never hold anyone at gunpoint as he did in the film - that's against the law and as he says in the film, he is by the book; never done anything out of line in his life.)

I just wish that the filmmakers had put more time and effort into a truer adaption of the book. As a film, this is a good movie with strong actors and music, but as a book adaptation, I think it could have done with plenty more work.


This is one of the few movies that will actually prompt me to shout at the TV.

I was willing to be patient with a Les Mis movie adaptation, because the novel is sooooo lengthy and detailed. But they just completely twist everyone's personalities around.

I put up with the characterization errors (the characterization that made the novel so wonderful) but then I turned it off when I saw that they'd made Valjean the mayor when he couldn't read or write. It specifically says in the novel that he learned how to write/read in prison. Again, I wouldn't care, but I don't quite see how any town could flourish under an illiterate mayor.

Here is what all bothered me: - I saw people praise this movie because it didn't change Valjean as drastically, i.e. he sometimes becomes violent and hits people. Valjean was NEVER violent. He was freaking put into prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's starving family. Whenever he attempted to escape, it did not involve violence. Valjean would never, ever, hit anyone--prison made him full of bitterness and hatred, but not violent. - Javert is NOT sadistic. He's certainly not a very likable guy, but his personal experiences gave him a very rigid sense of justice. - Liam Neeson is just too young to play Valjean, I think. They should have aged him up a bit, especially during his stint as Monsieur Madeleine - I also don't think Liam Neeson looked powerful enough. Remember, the man lifted a cart and scaled a wall and bent prison bars. - Fantine and Valjean never had anything between them. She was a little too busy, y'know, dying. - Marius as a political activist is a strange and horrible thought. - Les Mis has many stories inside of it, not just Javert vs. Valjean. - Enjolras is a necessary character - ABC is pronounced "Ah Bay Say," it's a pun - Eponine isn't entirely necessary, but the movie would have been more enjoyable with her - Cosette is not a teenage rebel without a cause who throws a tantrum when she does not get her way - Valjean would sooner hit himself than hit Cosette

I could go on, but I won't. It isn't just the novel mistakes. It's just a very boring and stuffy movie. As one reviewer I saw put it: "You keep itching for someone to burst into song." The characters aren't endearing at all in the movie; I didn't fall in love with Valjean like I did in the novel. I didn't cry over Fantine having to sell her hair and teeth and locket. When you can't really like any character in a movie, you have a big problem.


It's not possible to watch this film objectively if you've read Hugo's masterpiece. The creators of this flop obviously had no understanding of the characters and barely included many of them at all. Eponine wasn't anywhere to be seen, Thenardier, Gavroche and the priest were only token inclusions and the death of Gavroche doesn't move us at all because we hardly know who he is. Marius is changed from a shy and reclusive young man into the daring leader of the revolution, Cosette to a painful teenager. They couldn't even get Valjean right as they didn't understand that he would never slap Cosette or smash Javert's head into a wall. The portrayal of Javert and Fantine are the only redeeming features of this mess.


As stated by many, this movie missed the theme and plot of Hugo's Les Miserables. It left out so many important details that makes Les Miserables the story it is known for. The absence of the Thenardiers was a terrible mistake, they are crucial to understand the character of not only Cosette, but Jean Valjean, Marius, and Javert as well. Eponine and Gavroche are favorites in both the book and the stage production, and although you see "glimpses" of them in the film, they just don't hold the obliged significance. There were major character flaws such as Cosette's extreme naivity and innocence and Marius' incredible stubborness. He is not the leader of the ABC by any means, he was too stuck in his own mind to think.I could go on describing all the peevish things this movie holds, but I won't.


I'm not one to usually comment on a film after watching it, I rarely do so. But I felt compelled to make a response to all the positive commentary on IMDb regarding Les Miserables.

For one thing, the acting was mediocre save for that of Geoffrey Rush and furthermore, the script was blunt and unimaginative.

Most importantly, I am sick of hearing people saying that we shouldn't compare a film adaptation to the original text. When a director/producer has utilized a well-known and much-loved epic such as Les Mis, they are already working on the goodwill produced by the original. They cannot conjure a weak excuse of a job then claim that it shouldn't be compared to the original. They could have simply changed the name (as Clueless did to the original 'Emma' by Jane Austen). Directors should not be allowed to get away with hijacking a masterpiece such as Les Mis without the necessary criticism when they do not produce something truthful to the text.

I was very disappointed in this movie as not only did it leave out important sections of the text, it was filmed in a manner that made it into a regular Hollywood police-chase-action film rather than the subtle encounters that glued the story together in the text. A narrative similar to that of 'Crash' and 'Magnolia' would have suited Les Mis much better.

Overall, utterly disappointing.


Warning: Contains spoilers. This movie isn't horrible. It's actually a fairly good movie, presuming you've never seen/heard the musical, novel, or summary of either. The story strays from the beauty of the Hugo's novel. While we are shown the complexity of Valjean and Javert's inner battles as well as external, vital characters are cut from the story, as are full story lines. For example, one of the major story lines of the novel and musical is a love triangle between Marius, Cosette, and another Thenardier daughter, Eponine (who's cut from the movie entirely). Eponine's unrequited love for Marius gives a bittersweet soul to Cosette and Marius and she is the one who gets them together. Also, I hate to break this to you, but Marius is NOT the leader of the ABC group (the revolutionary boys). The novel gives that title to Courfeyrac, and the musical to Enjolras (a sort of co-commander in the novel). The deaths of the revolutionary boys are much different and more heart-wrenching in the book. Also, the movie ends about 3/4 of the way through the book. If a movie version was done properly, with all characters and story lines, I have no doubt it would be a blockbuster.


We've seen the haunted car before: in 1977's THE CAR and perhaps most notably in the truly chilling Spielberg film DUEL (made in 1971 for TELEVISION, no less!). So it is not unexpected that Stephen King would take a crack at it, with somewhat mixed results.

The novel was too long, for one thing: a pitfall often seen in King novels. IT took eight hundred and some pages to tell its story and then the payoff was so obvious and disappointing that I threw the book in the trash. THE STAND, on the other hand, was even longer than IT, but there was virtually no waste; that novel NEEDED its length to tell its massive story.

Here the story is not massive: A nerdy kid decides to buy a rustbucket of a 1958 Plymouth Fury from an oddball named George LeBay. In an interesting switch of perspective from the novel, the original owner (called Roland LeBay in the book) was the current owner's brother and committed suicide in the car; George LeBay has never driven it and only wants to unload it. This is rather an improvement on the novel in my opinion; the book can't seem to make up its mind whether the source of the evil is the car or LeBay; in the film there is little doubt that it is the car itself (herself). Fleshing out the relatively small cast are the nerdy kid's best friend (one of the high school jocks, if you can buy that one), his beautiful girlfriend, and in extremely minor roles, his parents and a bunch of hooligans who like to pick on him, for which the car exacts a terrible revenge.

Not all that bad, really, and the movie is pretty well cast; there are no Oscar performances here, but they are not amateurs either.

What's missing is the soul of the book. Because the real tragedy of King's novel is not so much the car's destructive effects on Arnie Cunningham but the way it (she?) alienates him from everyone who loves him, especially his best friend Dennis, with whom he has shared his life since they were babies.

Anne Rivers Siddons, writing about her excellent horror novel THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, once observed that the really chilling thing about evil is that is smashes people and breaks up relationships, and the tragic message of horror is that sometimes even love is not enough to save someone. Carpenter is a master craftsman, but this is a cold film for all that. The novel was not one of King's best, but its greatest strength was showing the tragedy of the destruction of the friendship between two boys who really loved each other despite their differences. Unfortunately Carpenter either failed to see this or he didn't think it was important.


MR CANTON AND LADY ROSE (Ji Ji)

Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 (Anamorphic)

Sound format: Mono

1930's Shanghai: A naive country bumpkin (Jackie Chan) is appointed leader of a shady criminal gang and helps an impoverished flower-seller (Gui Yalei) to convince her unwitting family that she's a wealthy society figure with important political connections. Hilarious complications ensue...

Eager to dispel the notion that he was little more than an action star, Jackie Chan directed and co-wrote this sumptuous 'homage' to Frank Capra's POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES (1961), distinguished by its high profile cast and breathtaking cinematography by industry veteran Arthur Wong. Beloved by Hong Kong movie fans worldwide, the film's mixture of period detail, balletic action (among the best of Chan's career), uproarious farce and slapstick comedy is undeniably entertaining, but it's also something of a mixed bag. The emphasis on pratfalls and comic complications serves to dilute the basic storyline, and the running time is excessive. But as spectacle, it's hard to beat: The late and much-lamented Anita Mui emerges from Chan's shadow to camp it up as an old-fashioned chanteuse (get a load of her Busby Berkeley-esquire musical number!); the fight scenes are timed and filmed with jaw-dropping style and precision; and Wong's camera swoops and dives over some of the most eye-popping production design this side of a Hollywood blockbuster. Also known as BLACK DRAGON, THE CANTON GODFATHER and MIRACLES.

(Cantonese dialogue)


Before Jim Davis got his last and career part as Jock Ewing in Dallas, he had one tortured path to Hollywood success. He had a much publicized debut as Bette Davis's leading man in Winter Meeting which was one of her worst films. His portrayal of a war hero about to enter the priesthood met with a ton of critical guffaws. Still Davis persisted and took any kind of work. The Monster from Green Hell qualifies as any kind of work.

A wasp is sent up in space to see the effects. Unfortunately on re-entry the space capsule crashes in the region of West Africa and the wasp has grown to the size of a Panzer tank. To top it all off the geniuses sending up the rocket sent up a pregnant queen so we've got all kinds of those Panzer wasps running around Africa.

Jim Davis is sent to clean up the mess and runs into a medical missionary played by Vladimir Sokoloff. Albert Schweitzer was very much alive at the time and running his mission in West Africa. No one in 1958 mistook who Sokoloff was portraying. The wasps set up a colony in the shadow of a volcano. You can figure out the rest.

This is typical Fifties science fiction when all kinds of radiation was the explanation for these creatures. In this case it was the radiation from cosmic rays, presumably from the newly discovered Van Allen belt around the earth.

Tepid acting and chintzy special effects make The Monster from Green Hell great cult stuff. One thing though that is timely. An Arab character played by Eduardo Ciannelli joins forces with Davis and one of the natives Joel Fluellen to combat the danger the giant wasps present. Amazing how religious differences can suddenly melt away in time of crisis.


I was surprised at the amount of giant wasp animated action in the film at the start. There is even a giant full sized head prop too. But there seems to be quite a bit of Jim Davis voice over and as the movie goes on there starts to be more walking to get to the giant wasps than there is actual giant wasps. One major character dies off screen in a way that seems like they never got to shoot it. (Another character shows up and explains what happened) Then the ending is all stock footage and dissolves to footage we've already seen. And Jim Davis, as he did later in THE DAY TIME ENDED, explaining it all to us. Thank god otherwise you'd have only a vague idea of what you just saw, or didn't really get to see.

Too bad they ran out of what little money they had. A lively start progressively gets duller. Still that big wasp head was cool, another problem is the generally crappy quality of many copies of the film available which make the footage either dark or blown out. If you're going to watch it make sure you get a decent copy first.

The sending test animals into space aspect of the premise is a bit novel as is the idea of having the space ship crash way out in the middle of Africa and having to go find it. Certainly since the film was made, like with the remains of Space Lab, that type of thing has happened.


A typical 1950's Science Fiction flick; thrills are cheap and radiation takes the blame for mutated creatures. Low budget indeed, some footage seems to come from other films. But when your mind is set on watching a low budget movie perfectly fit for the drive-in theater, MONSTER FROM GREEN HELL will suffice. Dr. Quent Brady(Jim Davis)experiments with sending animals and insects into space. A testing rocket containing wasps more than exceeds its flight limits, but lands in a mystery location. When giant wasps are reported terrorizing natives near the location of Green Hell in Africa, Brady and fellow scientist Dan Morgan(Robert Griffin)fly TWA to Africa to investigate. Maybe these giant wasps are related to the cosmic radiation picked in deep space flight. Makes a whole lotta sense when you're a young kid paying to be frightened. Others in the cast: Vladimir Sokoloff, Barbara Turner and Joel Fluellen.


After a nuclear rocket, containing wasps from a scientific experiment researching the effects of sending the insects into space, crashes in an uncharted part of Africa nicknamed "Green Hell" by the natives, the frightening result is gigantic mutated monstrosities the result of prolonged exposure to radiation. Now with word that these monsters are terrorizing that portion of the African continent, the scientists responsible for the experiment travel into the heart of Africa hoping to put a stop to this newfound threat.

Dull. Dull. Dull. A better word could not be more apt to describe this turgidly paced movie filled with scenes of folks walking, and walking, and walking some more. Although this film is only 71 minutes in length, it feels more like three hours. Sure there's some half-decent stop-motion animated monsters but they are particularly disappointing in comparison to other stop-motion efforts of the era and the stock footage used from STANLEY AND LIVINGSTONE (1939) perks things up slightly as well towards the end but aside from those short moments of excitement, well there's lots and lots of walking. Did I mention that already? Did I also mention this movie is almost a surefire cure for insomnia?


Jim Davis plays a scientist who sends some animals, a few wasps in particular, into space to see how they fare under radiation. Alas, some wasps don't return and turn to gigantic proportions somewhere in Western Africa. Don't expect too much from this cheapie, but the film might be better than you expect prior to viewing. Despite the wasps and their infrequent screen time, the movie has the look and feel of a very cheaply-made film yet is able to tell a decent...okay, almost decent story. Made entirely in California with oodles of stock footage set in Africa, I found the film quasi-authentic. The acting was also somewhat acceptable. Davis was decent as were his co-stars. The film dives at the end with some quick resolution to an enormous problem. As far as bad movies go..you could find many much less entertaining and boring. Vladimir Sokoloff has a nice small role as a missionary in Africa.


Can you imagine the nerve of some people? What director dares to call his film "Monster from GREEN Hell" and then deliver a black & white movie? How we are even supposed to recognize this hell in between the rest of the colorless locations and scenery? Anyway, the basic premise of this movie is fairly simply: an American space rocket crash-lands somewhere in the middle of the African jungle and causes a plain ordinary wasp to mutate into a gigantic buzzing monster. Yes, of course, that's exactly what the radiation of a whole rocket does to the fauna & flora of a jungle  it mutates ONE  SINGLE  WASP! And this critter must look truly petrifying because even the animals in the stock footage run away. Have you ever wondered what a giant wasp looks like when appearing in a zero-budgeted 50's movie? Indeed it looks ridiculous, pitiable and funny and there's a good reason why they keep it off-screen for so long. Back to the story. Responsible as they are, the Americans send a team to Central Africa and destroy the monster. This is where "Monster from Green Hell" turns into a dreadfully boring movie for an even more dreadfully boring reason. Before the expedition reaches the monster's turf, they first have to undertake a 27 day long safari during which they encounter primitive tribes (primitive tribes big enough in number to fill the entire Chicago Cubs baseball stadium, by the way) and suffer human losses through lion attacks. They're even faced with poisoned drinking wells! Why the hell are there poisoned drinking wells? !? The environmental conditions are harsh as well. The expedition first struggles through weeks of drought and dehydration and then subsequently weeks of unceasing rainfall. I swear, at a certain point I even feared there would come a volcano eruption as well. People don't care about that in this sort of movies; they want to see the giant wasp eat obnoxious characters, damned! Anyway, all this just to illustrate that the mission is half dead by the time they reach the monster and YOU just sat and watched an hour of wilderness documentary footage even though you counted on seeing a Sci-Fi monster movie. There's a funny name for this sort of thing and it's "shenanigans!" The Americans haven't got an idea of how big the wasp monster is and all through their journey they keep guessing its size, unaware that it's about a hundred times bigger than they expect. "Monster from Green Hell" is a hopeless film. I used to think all monster flicks from the 1950's were solid gold, but lately I've seen a few titles that altered this impression; like this one and "Beast from Haunted Cave". The cast is politically correct enough, though. There's an American, a Latin American, an Arab, a black guy and a woman! Too bad there wasn't an Asian and an Eskimo; otherwise this would have been the ideal "United Colors of Benetton" campaign.


Nutrition-ed with radiation while in outer space, wasps mutate into giant wind-up toys that mimic a groaning sound like motocross bikes after being sent into orbit on a V-2 rocket during an entomology experiment. Jim Davis plays several rounds of pocket-pool before he decides to hoof it across the African wilds to try and locate the monsters so he can destroy them. Barbara Turner tags along looking appropriately concerned, though she isn't much help.

Rather empty science-fiction/horror/adventure story bridged somewhat by Davis' narration and Turner's fixedly grim expression, though well-directed by Kenneth Crane for California Studios.


Maybe it's because I just recently got into Indian soap operas. Or maybe it's because I am comparing to the other domestic and foreign shows/movies that I've seen over the years. Kasamh Se has to be one of the most frustrating and painful series I've sat through. Most of the time characters seem to be mute and unable to express themselves at times of relevance. People reveal their thoughts aloud when alone just for the camera. I understand wanting the audience to know what's going on, but if the writer/director/producer is looking for realism, they should consider how often they speak monologues to themselves in their lives. And to politely end my tirade, the one thing that annoys me more than the rest is how the show really takes only 10 minutes while the rest of the show just keeps cutting to characters faces repeatedly during seemingly tense moments. While the plot is possibly believable, I think a 15 year old could come up with more content for a 1/2 hour show.


My brother convinced me to sit and watch moving target and in the end i was pleased i did.It wasn't the god awful acting or the laughable dialogue that brought a smile to my face it was the fact that this movie was basically a remake of an earlier film of wilsons.By changing a few names,filming in a new location (uk) and mixing around a few scenarios they tried to pass this one off as a fresh idea.If you have seen bloodfist4-die trying there is no need to waste 90 minutes on this movie because if you've seen die trying your watching the same story...same ending... same man...just on a different continent,the only reason i kept watching was the constant laughter prevented me from being able to reach for the remote


It's a disastrous movie and wouldn't dream of watching it - in fact, as a karate enthusiast I'm insulted that they used Karate magazine comments in the trailer (I can only hope they were totally out of context!) - but I just want to clarify that the film was filmed in IRELAND, not the UK. In my hometown. *proud*

If you're going to watch this at all, just fast forward through all the bits with people in them and just admire the scenery (interiors don't count because they're not real). Ross Abbey is one of the best preserved 14th century Friarys in the country and it's beautiful, as is most of the countryside you see.


It´s no good point in this movie. The worst movie ever. I don´t want to say more. If you like boring movies, watch this.


If you've ever been to Ireland you will never forget it. The wide and green landscapes, the beautiful coasts and mountains, the friendly people, the traditional pubs and places... and there have been many good film coming from or being located in Ireland. So one might wonder why this stupid action movies has been filmed and produced in Ireland? No word about the story, but as martial arts b-movie fighter Don "The Dragon" Wilson - not the youngest actor anymore - gets into a stupid plot with mafia clans, FBI agents, martial arts gangsters and hostages, you really wonder why it didn't take place in L.A. or other well-known American action movie settings.

The locations are the only outstanding facts about this film. Whenever one of the stupidly acting muscle fighters appears, you just wish them away and would like to see more of the lovely harbors and landscapes and sheep... and when the film is over, you wonder why they haven't shown more of the beautiful sites of Ireland and just haven't erased the whole plot and actors from the film... the whole film could have been a really nice holiday documentary.

My suggestion - skip this movie and get a more interesting documentary about Ireland from your video store. You won't regret it.


Who doesn't love Marilyn Monroe? Not me, and not too many people, especially fans of classic movies. Most of us think of lot of her and enjoy watching her performances. I say these things because she sings three or four songs in here in the first 30-40 minutes and it is painful to hear. It's horrible. There is no other word for it. It sets the tone for this disappointing film.

Add some incredibly stupid i given to Robert Mitchum to speak and you have - speaking of embarrassing - an embarrassing movie to watch. Despite Monroe, Mitchum, Rory Calhoun and Tommy Rettig (of Disney fame), this is Grade B material all the way.

The raft scenes in here were so hokey they take away from the adventure part of the movie. You almost laugh out loud because it looks so fake.

I had high hopes for this film but it didn't take too long for them to be dashed. Don't let Marilyn's big name lure you into renting this film.....it's a bummer.


This is the first Otto Preminger movie I saw and I would have liked to enjoy it, or to find it at least interesting. But man, what a schlockfest. About as exciting as doing your laundry, only more predictable. No stereotype is left out. The role models that are set for the sexes are just terrible. You can feel the large Hollywood machinery humming in the background, and the actors play along with it, but you get the impression that Preminger and others who were creatively involved with this movie phoned their performances in. I got the impression that Preminger's stance was "What does the studio want? A Western? Man, I wish I was in Europe. Well, for chrissakes, lay on the blond floozy with a heart, bring in the kid and the butch guy with a past, and put some makeup and greasy whigs on the fall guys. Let's get this over with, and move on." I'll betcha this movie would have been long forgotten if it weren't for the celebrity cast. To say "they don't make 'em like that anymore" would be wishful thinking on part of the cineast.


I must admit it to myself and everyone else, that I've always found Marilyn beautiful. Who hasn't? She's a poster child for everyone who's come along since. But up until now I actually hadn't seen one of her films.

And on that note I must say, that it's not a very good place to start. Co-Starring Robert Mitchum, this movie is slow on most counts, which is kind of odd to say for a movie that doesn't actually hit the 2 hour mark. It's drudge though, is at least paced by the regular, strong performance that Mitchum's put through in every movie I remember ever seeing him in.

Marilyn however, is the death-piece to this film. Besides her mouthing the songs to pre-recorded tape, and strumming a guitar along with no notes that's the high point, her acting is nowhere near someplace that a person can believe, and is quite sub par. It drags the movie down to the depths and just when you think that it's about to get even worse, Mitchum and Tommy Rettig (the child) bring it back to life.

If this is the best of the bunch for Marilyn, I'd be hard pressed to watch another one.


I'm not a huge movie buff so I wasn't sure who the lead actor was in this load of poo poo I watched last night on AMC. I was curious and had to research it today. Mr. Mitchum was stiff as a board throughout the entire flick. Marilyn appeared to be a talentless bimbo. The storyline was pitiful. I'm curious how this movie merits a 6.7 out of 10 according to the imdb community. Please enlighten me.

Cousin Scuzzy


Jeff Chandler is 'Captain Hawkes' of the 'U.S.S. Belinda' and he doesn't take any crap.

Hawkes wants a taut ship and he'll gladly keel-haul anybody who waxes the wrong floors or throws metal objects across the room. If Hawkes has any short-comings, it's when he brow-beats the men and has half the ship's shore patrol laboriously construct a sailboat for the purpose of building 'morale'. A bit silly at times and Hawkes' head injury is a boringly unwelcome subplot, but ultimately an OK World War II naval drama.

One of Chandler's better performances.


Loretta Young is perfectly lit here, which enhances her beauty immeasurably, and she is quite believable in this role. I first saw her in her later movies--and on her TV show, swirling through the door every week--so it's quite a revelation to see her at the absolute peak of her talent and looks. Winnie Lightner does her usual gum-chewing, wisecracking shtick, and the rest of the cast is quite good. The script is a little weak, and things get a bit maudlin at times, although the pre-code one-liners are fun. (Winnie, as her bloomers blow off the makeshift clothesline and out the window: "Oh, that was my last pair of panties!" Loretta: "What will you do?" Winnie: "Stay off of ladders!")


The title is meaningless, the story just as pointless, and whatever interest there is to be derived from this girl-loves-gambler weepie comes from the delicate beauty of Loretta Young. It's a feast for the eyes (with nary a morsel of food for thought) as masterly cinematographer Gregg Toland captures the poetry of Young's huge, soulful peepers and full promising lips with one lovestruck close-up after another. The following year's "Zoo in Budapest" and "Man's Castle" would cement her position as the Depression's most desirable waif, the pin-up girl of the bread lines. With the barrelhouse comedienne Winnie Lightner as her wisecracking pal and Guy Kibbee, criminally wasted as Lightner's swain.


This B picture from Warner Brothers casts Loretta Young and Winnie Lightner as pair of shopgirls who both work for Guy Kibbee as a supervisor. Winnie plays up to Kibbee who's doing one of his patented old rogue characters. But Loretta is looking for something with a little more excitement and thinks she's found it in Norman Foster.

The problem is that while Loretta thinks she's married to a high living salesman, she's really marrying a very high living gambler. And when two might turn into three a crisis ensues.

Play-Girl runs exactly an hour which clearly puts it in the B category. Loretta and the cast do breathe some life into it, she's just beautiful and Lightner is cast in parts that Ruth Donnelly or Patsy Kelly would be playing in a higher grade film. What happens to Loretta in the film is just plain ridiculous and how Foster is redeemed is even more so.

But if you love Loretta Young than you must see this film. Her beauty literally carries it.


I honestly feel bad for the people who made this movie. You can tell that they take themselves seriously and are hoping something decent will come of their efforts.

Unfortunately for all involved, including the viewer, all we're left with is an embarrassing excuse of a movie. I won't get into the plot - there's really no sense. As you can imagine, there's a bad guy, some good guys and a lot of kicking. The only interesting twist in this one is that the star is a woman, and she actually has some pretty decent moves, I guess. Her acting, if you can call it that, is beyond horrific, even for martial arts movies, and she doesn't have much of a supporting cast to help her out either.

Even if you are a martial arts movie fan, stay away from this mess. My girlfriend walked in the room when I was watching it and it literally took twenty minutes of viewing to convince her that I wasn't watching a porno. I'm not sure she's convinced to this day.


This effort from Johnny To and his Milky Way cronies is unfortunately a huge step back for the company. While it can be admired that To (along with co-director Wai Ka Fai) is attempting a new genre, the romantic comedy, the cheap gags definitely threaten to bog down the entire picture. Andy Lau and Sammi Cheng star as Andy and Kinki, a pair of office drones in a company that somehow deals with computer chips. You can guess what happens next. The only saving grace here is Cheng's neurotic, charming performance. However, with Kinki's constant putdowns and desperate antics, this character makes Ally McBeal look like a model of feminist restraint. Lau takes his role a little too seriously and his temper tantrums threaten to turn this seemingly lightweight effort into something far more serious. A subplot about an Internet millionaire's affections for Kinki (which could've been nicely lampooned is instead squandered) never takes off. This is generally an unwatchable effort, which is hopefully only a temporary detour for Milky Way.


I'm really sick of these movies talking about the Israelo-American conspiracy against Egyptians, trust me they don't even bother to think about us! Egyptians are respected everywhere except in Egypt! Movies like these only convince Egyptians that they are inferior than other peoples and have only a negative impact.. it only accentuate their internal sufferings and make them more hostile towards the western world.. Please stop it!

And I'm really shocked that Youssef Chahine is that famous.. I can't understand why?!

This movie has nothing special, nothing impressive, wired story, wired philosophy, very dramatical, theatrical performance from all the actors, very basic cinematography!! what's going on?

This old fashioned way, that Egyptian filmmakers are never getting over it, of making the same actor do the father and son and grandfather and grandson... Mercyyy!!

He tries to give the film a hollywoodian look by putting as many sex scenes as possible even if some of them are unnecessary!


I Think yousef shahin should stop making films! I'm afraid he must hang up his boots, i.e, stop rolling. I saw portions of this film, not all of it but its the usual Shahine clichés. Shahin still insists on using songs & dances in his films which alienate viewers from the serious continuity of the film, when it exists. The scene where Yehia(Ahmed yehya) is angry and shouting at his mother Ginger(yousra) after finding out his real father is Egyptian (his looks aren't exactly American or Caucasian either) is just another example of cementing notions in the psyche of the audience. Another scene where Yousra-Ginger is confronted by a racial burst of venom that's only to inflame the inferiority complex of many. Some bits seem distant in nature & do not fit but then that could be just me. Casting the new comer Ahmed yehia wasn't a good choice. He can dance but cannot act. The other new comer Yousra Louzy seems quite promising but will she drift into the mainstream Egyptian cinema scene or will she break the mould & do something inventive? only time will tell. Shahin should have stopped those auto biographies years ago, it was OK for a film or two but now it's really boring & tedious. If there aren't any other interesting topics that fascinate him, then his health is obscuring his vision & must stop making films, at least not his biography anymore.


The first half hour of this film wasn't bad at all & I thought it was another ridiculous IMDB rating. Unfortunately it degenerated into a farce and the 3.5 rating ended pretty justified. I don't want to waste much time on this but two scenes were particularly poor & deserve comment. The Russian roulette & Bomber climbing out on the side of the plane, were both laughable (in the wrong ways) in the extreme. The ending was pretty atrotious too. I had trouble also working out how plan of the 'Evil Savage' linked in with the Bermuda Triangle type section, and what control (if any Savage had over that). Also the deaths of the other original survivors & the kidnapping of the girls' father seemed to be glaized over so quick they went unnoticed.

An ok start but awful last hour.

3/10


I actually saw this at the theatre 14 years ago. Then I decided it was the worse movie ever, man did watching it on video not disappoint. What can I say, terrible story, mediocre acting, and dialog as bad as something that I would write. Probably the least suspenseful ending I have ever seen. I would not recommend wasting the 90 minutes on it.


I am notorious amongst my friends concerning my leniency towards the plethora of Indiana Jones rip-offs that swamped, in the UK at least, the home video market but even I struggle to find much good to say about this slice of high adventure hokum!!! The beginning, as pointed out by another reviewer, does hold some promise with a sequence in the Bermuda Triangle - which in this movie isn't really too close to Bermuda but we are given hints of a slightly more intelligent fun film than we are eventually given. In the bizarre dimension our hero and his motley crew find the ships used in the infamous Philadelphia Experiment and this in itself hints that the movie is going to have some geek chic.

However, once they leave the mysterious unexplained dimension the movie plummets downhill faster than Indy in a Rubber Raft. It becomes a lazy collection of uninspired and misjudged scenes that vary between bland and just plain annoying. A low budget truck chase, followed by some badly and uninvolving fights followed by some admittedly quite pretty flying montages. These are mixed with some unexplained supernatural hokum and sequences that imply that the crew forgot to switch the camera on at times. The prime example of this is the sequence where Lt. 'Bomber' Harris is being attacked by a shark whilst diving being followed by a sub Indy sequence where he is hanging onto the side of the plane as the villains fly off - no explanation to where the shark is or how he got his heavy leather flying jacket back as I'm sure that it wasn't under his diving suit. I am sure that the finale wasn't just an excuse to blow 100 Australian Dollars on special effects and served a purpose but don't ask me what that might have been.

The filmmakers seem to assume that they can get away with the same levels of suspension of disbelief that Spielberg got away with in 'Raiders' and 'Temple of Doom' but that has to be earned. It's not the genre it's the style with which it is done - audiences will watch Indy climb onto a submarine and still be on it hours later because the care about Indy and are engaged by the film. Sky Pirates has not got that style or panache so we will never be on its side.

Couple this bad film making with some awful acting from Max Phipps (best known by genre fans for his role in Mad Max 2), a heroine that echoes Melody Andersons insipid turn in Flash Gordon played by Meredith Philips and prolific Australian actor John Hargreaves. To be fair the cast are not given much to work with when the scriptwriters blatantly copy dialogue from Dirty Harry movies and write one liners that are to humour what an elephant is to skateboarding. Example _ Harris rescues the heroine who has been tied up in a truck with the Bond style one liner of 'I didn't know you were into bondage?'. If you watch this film be assured your sides will be safe from any form of splitting incidents.

So terrible script, lazy and often embarrassed performances and appalling direction - is there anything of merit in this film? Not much! Brian Mays score isn't bad - it's derivative sure but it's done with a certain amount of panache. Hargreaves, a prolific and talented actor has enough rugged charisma to be watchable but it does make me wish that he had been in a better film than this as he would have made a tremendous pulp style action hero.

When all is said and done I wouldn't watch this film for whatever reason - as it isn't painful it's just boring!


There are good films I have seen. There are good films I won't bother watching e.g. Love Story. There are poor films of good books, which is annoying. There are bad films that are so bad that they get a cult following. Then below that there are films that the word bad isn't enough, i.e. There's bad films and there's BAD.

I cannot find a single redeeming factor to this film. It is obvious that this film had a household sized budget, but that is no excuse for poor dialogue hanging plot lines, disjointed direction, poor acting, and the list goes on. It is unfortunate that I cannot give this film a score of 0.

The only way I could recommend this film is to film students as an exercise in how not to do everything in a film.


The story is unique enough to warrant making a movie. However, this movie moved way too slow to hold a viewer's attention for very long. I wish this movie had been better because the story line is a very compelling one. Children respond to tragic events in many different ways. This movie does show that. This movie was frustrating because of the slow moving story. I watched it to the end because I really wanted to learn what happened. I won't sit through it again though. A good movie producer could make this story into a very riveting movie. Maybe there is a book on this true story. If there is,I highly suggest reading it. This story deserves to be told well.


It is a shame this is based on a true story. I bet the real story would be so much more interesting. I felt no symapthy for anyone in this movie, except a little bit of concern for the boy. There was very little sensitivity throughout the entire movie. I was shocked at the approaches everyone took toward an obviously traumatized boy. It ocurred to no one that finding a young boy murdered might damage the kid? And that they tried to reteach him how to talk, as if he never knew how, instead of finding the root of his distress! Thrusting him into environments where he was subject to taunting and torture, without a voice to fight back, apalled me. And that everyone seemed to blame the troubled child without concern for his obvious distress. I bet the story could have been told better. I hope the real story hasn't been tarnished because of an inadequate portrayal of it in a TV movie.


I will try to be brief about this film because I can't imagine anyone will ever really watch it. The only reason I even rented soemthing like this is because the woman I am dating thought it looked good and she recommended it. She has excellent taste so I agreed. Oh boy were we in for a shock. She hated it even worse than I did and she ended up fast forwarding a lot of the dialogue in the film just so we could get to the big secret. The problem with the movie is that it took so long to set everything up that by the end you can't wait to find out what it is just so you can turn the movie off and watch Sportsdesk. The young boys problem becomes annoying. Sure, at the end we can empathize with him and all that he went through but that does not make the film a good one. Trauma is a weird thing and I guess it affects everyone in different ways but I just didn't buy into why the young kid became unable to talk. Hey, here's an idea; if you are threatened by the local sheriff that seems to do everything the wrong way, tell someone. His backward ass tactics would have gotten him busted long before this movie does.

When the film is boring and moves at a snails pace and you don't really like any of the characters in it, then you have a problem. Locked in Silence should have stayed that way. It never should have been given the green light. This is proof that not all true life stories need to be told and made into a film.

Absolutely terrible! 0 out of 10


Unfortunately watched this the other night on cable because there was little on, and I was trying to see if I could remember what I had seen some of the cast in before. I was intrigued by the fact that the girl has 2 boyfriends and they all live together, but I wish I would have moved on after I watched it for 5 minutes and it did not become interesting. I did not catch it from the very beginning, but I was hoping to at least see some menage a trois action; of course no dice! I am not going to waste your time with a description of all the cinematography & everything, but let me just tell you: it was really bad writing, a bad plot, bad acting, and it was stupidly predictable. I just wish I had predicted that it would be so bad, and I could've done something else with that hour or so I wasted. UGH!


Um, this movie wasn't so good. It started out mediocre, before dropping into bad pretty quick. I think Kathleen Robertson was beautiful and played the role right. She was the highlight. She could've easily been over-dramatic and cheesy, but she wasn't. Kudos. She must've learned something from 90210. The story should've been more about the relationship and the struggle to make it work and more sociology, but throwing the pregnancy and that movie director guy into it were just huge, uncreative cop-outs in telling the story. The writer should be ashamed.


I watched this film because it was highly recommended. Needless to say I found it to be nothing more than an directionless version of Threesome right down to using New Order's - Bizarre Love Triangle in the movie. I thought it was biased towards men and felt it barely scraped the surface of any semblance of human emotion. Obviously this was directed by Gregg Araki... If this film bespeaks the future of relationships, I think I'll go for celibacy.


Not a bad movie. But not a great one, either.

Do not look to this movie thinking it will break new ground. It is a somewhat "safe" movie (only a few scenes implying adult behavior), but the characters don't really explore much about themselves. Calvin (Steve Weber) is given a limited script and limited direction. Rather than explore the absolutely wonderful idea that you can learn what matters at Christmas by repeating your day until you "get it," Calvin is sardonic and removed.

*** SPOILER ***

Calvin does learn his lesson. He realizes he doesn't "love" his bedmate; he doesn't need to meet for business on Christmas Eve 'cause it takes him and his executive assistant away from their families; he needs to spend quality time with his son (who shuttles between Mom and Dad after a divorce); he needs to be aware of his brother and dad; and he needs to make it better with his former wife.

Not bad in theory, and not terrible in execution, but just not very fresh, witty, or interesting. I wanted to see Calvin go through a little more thought about his choices instead of being shallow and predictable. Yes, I knew that he'd learn his lesson - it's a comedy - and I knew that he'd do the right thing, and that everything would work out. But really, there was so much more to explore here.

This was a Stage One movie that could go to Stage Three just with a little more thought and intention.

Steve Weber is so much more than this movie lets him be.

Get it for the kids, watch it with the kids (cover their eyes if you don't think non-married adults naked under the covers is kid-friendly), and maybe keep it around for those long Christmas vacations when you've already watched all three sets of Lord of the Rings, Extended Editions.


William Faulkner's story about an eleven-year old boy in Jefferson, Mississippi at the turn-of-the-century who tells his kin a string of lies in order to go on a stolen holiday with his father's handyman and a half-black relative. They travel into sinful Memphis, Tennessee in a yellow Winton Flyer, and initially their misadventures have the mud-spattered feel of an early-'60s Disney movie. Originally billed as rollicking family entertainment (though rated 'M' for mature), things take an odd, disquieting turn with an extended trip to a cathouse, where the kid's guardian (Steve McQueen) tussles with his favorite prostitute, who wants to go legit and get married (there's also a bloody fight between two youngsters that seems to come out of nowhere). Director Mark Rydell feasts on picturesque sunsets and auto-ride sing-a-longs, but he's got a penchant for vulgarity that undermines the comedy. It seems no one here wanted to make a strictly pictorial piece of scrapbook nostalgia, so the film ends up failing as both an American tall tale and as a boy-grows-up-fast character study. McQueen has some good, feisty scenes, but his character is rather hapless, and a Steve McQueen who does little but react to others is an automatic disappointment. The chief interests (the hazy, early-morning ambiance and cinematography, the quaint Winton Flyer which gets traded for a racehorse) nearly salvage the rest of the production, which was reportedly troubled after McQueen and director Rydell butted heads. The star later claimed this was a personal favorite of his films, but it is terribly uneven, occasionally perplexing and often sick-making. *1/2 from ****


Given that the National Board of Reviewers ranked "Closer" as the third best movie of 2004 (behind "The Aviator" and "Finding Neverland"), I'm still stunned at how patently ridiculous it was. As one friend said afterward, "I'm in the mood for something relatively painless--like a full-body chemical peel."

If you're expecting a movie that faithfully portrays relationships between men and women (at least those folks who live off Broadway and outside of Hollywood), you won't find it represented in a single frame of this movie. For 100 minutes--going on six hours--my friends and I waited for a recognizable human presence to grace the screen. Instead, here's what we learned from the alien life forms responsible for "Closer":

1) Julia Roberts has one acting pose: stare off-camera and look pensive.

2) Clive Owens has two acting emotions: fresh-shaved and unshaven.

3) Jude Law decided to reprise his role as the robot in "A.I." in every movie he's appeared in this year.

4) Natalie Portman has never been in a strip club. (Her 'pole-dancing' maneuvers--apparently inspired by her turn in "Mars Attacks!"--provided the movie with the most unintentionally campy scene since 'Showgirls.')

5) The screenwriter has never been in a relationship. (And if he has, he simply wasn't paying attention.)

6) When straight couples tell each other they've been cheating, they act excruciatingly polite for several minutes (except Julia Roberts, who stares off-camera and looks pensive). Then the cheated-upon will ask the cheating spouse how the sex was and insist on hearing the explicit details. This is the part of the discussion that finally gets a response, ranging on the emotional spectrum from the kissing and hugging one usually experiences during such fondly remembered heart-to-heart talks to exquisitely scripted battles of screaming wits.

7) Internet sex chats are astonishingly tedious on film, but are useful budget savers for the director who wants to make a 100-minute movie seem like six hours.

8) American women who live in England are willing to have sex to get whatever they want--even to get their ex-spouses to sign their divorce papers. (You have to see this scene to believe it has actually been committed to film.)

9) Audience-goers laugh at clichés. The more movies the cliché has been used in; the harder they'll laugh. (Then again, given how many people left the theater, maybe they were laughing at the movie itself.)

10) The new Hollywood formula requires a "surprise" twist at the ending, even when it's not a surprise.

I haven't seen so many people walk out of a movie in years--and this was on the East Side of New York, which has a high tolerance for the inertness and amateurishness one often sees in "art" films. At the end, there was mostly booing and catcalls from the survivors, accompanied (oddly enough) by a scattering of applause--from those, I would imagine, who were probably relieved that the rolling credits didn't show the outtakes.

Every once in a while, I'll see a low-budget independent "gay film" that is so lifeless that I am embarrassed for "my people." It's nice to know that there are equally unwatchable "straight movies" about relationships (although with Hollywood budgets, celebrity casts, and big-name directors).


I was extremely disappointed and irritated by this film. Movies should be about being transported into the lives and situations of the people on the screen but that singularly failed to happen in the case of 'Closer'.

The characters and relationships definitely do not ring true at all. It's not a question of not liking the people depicted, though none are likable, especially not the irritating doctor character. It's not a question of finding some of the language shocking - it is no more shocking than you'd see in a TV drama and there is virtually no nudity or sex. It's just that you couldn't care less about the characters as you don't really get to know them. Each one has no feeling of reality, no subtlety and no authenticity. They do things people only do in films, not in real life.

Do doctors really sit and engage in chat room sex talk in a hospital back office before going into the theatre to do an operation? Would photographer Anna have talked to and befriended sleazy doctor Larry in the aquarium... and then married him? Do people really hitch, split, re-hitch, bitch, bawl and spit at each other over who's been doing it with whomsoever's extramarital lover - or just ex, and is not telling the truth? Truthfulness toreal life is something this story lacks completely.

I found the dialogue wooden, the words contrived, the performances staged. Maybe it works better as a play. If so then it has not transferred successfully to film. I found it suffocating to have so many high profile actors together.

You know when a movie isn't working when you start to see the script roll in front of you like an autocue, and when you think you can see the crew looking on as the actors work through their lines.

After wasting two hours and five pounds on this movie I am losing my confidence in going to the cinema, except to see something I have seen before or has been personally recommended to me.


I am unable to recall a film with characters less appealing than the foursome of "Closer." Each character has his or her shade of nastiness that runs through this excruciating film experience.

One of the problems is that the dialogue does not provide the star actors (Julia Roberts, Jude Law, Clive Owen, and Natalie Portman) with sufficient motivation for the two pairs of lovers to be starting, ending, swapping, and resuming their relationships. The sudden and awkward transitions leave out the crucial scenes and moments where the relationships change. Out of this muddied and amateurish mess, there emerge three questions:

(1) Was this film intended to be funny? If so, the effort falls way short of the satirical writing of Edward Albee in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"--a film that was also directed by Mike Nichols.

(2) Was this film supposed to be engaging in the psychology of love? If so, the better films in this category would be "Dangerous Liaisons" or "Valmont."

(3) Was this film intended to depict the realities of contemporary romantic relationships? If so, the better film would be "Cast Away" wherein we see a much more healthy relationship with Tom Hanks and his soccer ball named Wilson.

In the closing credits of "Closer," Patsy Rodenburg (one of the world's leading experts on Shakespearean text) is listed as the dialect coach for Natalie Portman, whose character is from New York. The IMDb bio of Natalie Portman indicates that she completed high school in New York. Did Patsy coach Natalie on her New York accent, or only on her Iago-like line readings?


Don't worry about me spoiling anything. Save yourself the trouble.

How can I write this without the nuanced elite or the pitifully depraved thinking I'm just some two-shoes that needs to come down from his high horse? I feel a nasty lump in my heart after suffering through this film. I'm not one of those people that thinks all films should end happy, or hint at some moral, or be thought-provoking. Each style is quite valid, and has its own merits. But I can't find any such category to put this in.

Don't go into this film thinking it has anything to do with love. At its best, Portman's character is lonely and seeking someone to hang on. I can almost like her for that. From there, it descends to the other characters trying to satiate their lustful desires, and in the case of Owens' character, a basically vicious appetite for anything sexually depraved. I'm guessing that a porn addiction is the least of the writer's problems.

Can anyone honestly believe any of the characters when they say "I love you"? The only thing I liked was when Portman's character finally realizes, at the end of the film, "I don't love you anymore". The truth is, she never did. She's just finally realizing that no amount of loneliness can override the disgusting behaviors of these people.

As for the rest of the film... like one other reviewer said, I was just hoping some freak accident would simply kill them all. I think I finally understand the whole Noah and the Flood story.


The only thing worse than a boring movie is a pretentious boring movie. Closer is just that.

It seems like this movie is trying to present a realistic view of the dark side of romance and sex. To me, incessantly asking questions of your partner is not realistic. A large portion of the film consisted of the men asking the women (and sometimes vice versa): What did you do? When did you do it? How did you do it? Where did you do it? After the first hundred questions I didn't care what the answer was, I just wanted these people to shut up already. I on the other hand have just one question: Is this the way real people talk to each other?

In addition these are four of the most unlikeable people I've ever seen in a movie. I couldn't have cared less what happened to any of them. I guess the film is trying to say that they deserve each other. That's fine, they can have each other, but don't foist them on me.


This movie lacked a lot of elements, but above all it was unrealistic and shallow. I feel like I wasted the last 2 hours of my life, hoping there would be some climax or maybe just a linear plot. And don't try to tell me about symbolism... if this is how adult love really is, I have very dire expectations for the future of humanity. It seemed that the screenwriter had some wonderful ideas for argument scenes and exchanges of dialogue, and just filled in the rest of the story. What an absolute bore and complete disappointment. And just so you know, Natalie Portman was the worst cast choice for this role. Not even the bare breasts could keep my husband awake.


You might like Fliegauf's "Dealer" maybe if you haven't seen his earlier films. They are all clones, of which "Dealer" is at least the 4th of a kind, the others being "Is there life before death?", "Talking Heads" and "Rengeteg". His films use the same schema: extremely long close-ups of monologues. You can call this a "personal style", but it is also a trade-off for creativity and experimenting.

The reason why "Dealer" has been so successful in Hungary and elsewhere is probably because the issue of drugs is overpoliticised and it has been de facto taboo. In the last decade or so there have been very few Hungarian films on this topic, all of them were depicting drugs (undifferentiatedly) as the ultimate evil. "Dealer" certainly has a different approach, because it makes you mostly laugh at, and/or - to a lesser extent - feel sorry for drug users, whereas the other movies were intended mostly to make you hate drugs (and/or - to a lesser extent - also feel sorry for drug users). So this movie suits for both pro-drug and anti-drug people, because of not making any clear statements about the issue. It is yet to be seen whether Fliegauf or any other Hungarian director could make an intelligent and socially significant impact on the issue of drugs in Hungary.


Not a bad story, but the low budget rears its ugly head at times to undermine the effectiveness of the movie. A lot of the plot is predictable, but the film moves quickly and takes some time to introduce characters so you at least have some involvement and know what's going on. An illustration of the low budget is when a motor boat is "destroyed," you only see this as a CGI image from a distance. (No boats were harmed during the filming of this movie.) I also love the "metal mask," that looks like a pie-tin mold.

It's another big-sea-creature-on-the-loose story, but this one actually has an unusual motive for its vicious brutality (not simply hunger), a plot twist often absent in these made-for-TV flicks. The human characters are two teams of scientific artifacts treasure hunters (sort of an aquatic version of Raiders of the Lost Ark), and they're both after the same artifact. The bad guys all wear black so you know they're the bad guys; the baddest of the baddies (and the leader) always wears black suits, even though all the action is at a beach or on the water. Every line of dialog this guy has is a threat to somebody; they could have put a sign up saying "Generic Theat in Progress" whenever he shows up. The good guys wear other colors, even in their scuba gear so you know who's who during underwater fight scenes. The creature's inevitable attacks predictably interrupt these fights, and provide for other common monster movie clichés.

Certainly not a landmark film, but OK for a watch if you like these sea monster movies, or if you have nothing better to do.


Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep is set in a stretch of Ocean called the Desolation Passage where marine archaeologist Nicole (Victoria Pratt) & her crew are searching for a couple of legendary Greek artifacts, a ceremonial Trojan war mask & a hugely valuable Opal. Unfortunately Nicole & her crew are hampered by a few unforeseen problems, first off is Maxwell Odemus (Jack Scalia) the son of a Greek mafia gangster who wants the two relics returned to Greece by any means necessary & there's also the small fact that a gigantic squid is guarding the precious bounty & basically kills anyone who goes near it. Can Nicole beat the odds, find the treasure & become famous or will she & her crew end up as squid food?

Directed by Tibor Takacs this is yet another by-the-numbers Nu Image produced creature feature the likes of which I'm sick of. The script by Sean Keller & Brian D. Young has all the usual clichés & plot devices these creature features do, there's the beautiful female scientist, a rugged male hero type, there's the disposable character's who are included for no other reason other than to be killed & of course there's the assortment of bad guys who want something valuable that some mutated badly CGI animated creature of some sort is either guarding or is just generally in the way of. There really isn't anything original, fresh or new about Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep at all & quite frankly it's a bit of a chore to sit through, there are already loads of these bad killer creature feature type films out there & this doesn't do the sub genre's reputation any favours. I sat there thinking I'd already this dozens of times before & I'm right, scientists look for something, get attacked by monster, hero kills monster & saves girl at the end, that's all there is too it. The character's are bland & forgettable as is the dialogue, the giant squid isn't in it nearly enough & doesn't do anything particularly special when it does make an appearance. It's all very predictable & isn't even unintentionally funny, if you really like these creature features, someone out there has to or they wouldn't keep making them, then you'll probably enjoy Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep to some extent but for those of us who are really bored of this type of film I urge you to steer well clear of it.

Director Takacs was once a decent genre filmmaker with titles like The Gate (1987) & I, Madman (1989) but he seems to have gone down the creature feature route with dreck like this, Rats (2003), Mansquito (2005), Ice Spiders (2007) & his latest epic MegaSnake (2007)! This made-for-TV film is quite well made, the giant squid CGI computer effects aren't as bad as I had expected although that's not to say they are good. The version I saw was titled Deadly Waters which is what it was shot under, apparently the Sci-Fi Channel's website held a competition for fans to come up with a better title & I guess Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep won which I suppose is why the word 'Kraken' is never used in the film itself. Forget about any gore, there's a severed leg, some blood & a cool decapitation by fishing line but nothing else that graphic or worth mentioning. I'm also sorry to inform you that there is no nudity at all.

The supposed budget of about $2,100,000 doesn't sound too bad actually so it's a surprise that overall the film is rather flat, bland & forgettable. The acting isn't great from nobody worth mentioning.

Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep is another creature feature that is virtually indistinguishable from any other, catch it on the Sci-Fi Channel for sure but don't go wasting your money on it.


Kraken is an interesting film about a giant squid that links the monster's murderous rampage to a Greek myth. This provides for a rather solid story/background, despite the common problems the movie shares with other made-for-TV flicks. I had three main problems with the movie. First was how Ray seemed too easily accepted as part of Nicole's crew. Second was the pig-like squealing of the squid. The last point has to do with the end and might ruin the story; but Ray's shooting is what's in question. The CGI of the squid alone was pretty good, except for some scenes. Mix the squid with live-action and it gets fairly cheesy, but it's not bad for made-for-TV. All-in-all, an okay movie if the premise interests you.


Yeah, I know it was made for TV and it sure looks it. From the moment I saw the opening titles and heard the theme music, I knew I was in for a baaad movie. I'm talking real bad. Once again, I bought a used DVD movie based on the cover art and fake reviews. I didn't see the made for TV 3 point type or else I would've stayed away. (Silly me.) The special effects budget must've been extremely low 'cause the CGI was cartoonish and unconvincing. The acting was poor and the entire movie should be honored with a Golden Turkey award. A movie strictly for making fun of. This movie would even have offended Ed Wood's ethics of film making. Kraken, should be sunk in the cold deep waters of anonymity.


I've never read JAWS by Peter Benchley but have of course seen the movie andJAWS is considered to be one of the few films that improves greatly onthe book . Much of this I'm told is to do with a large number of subplots being jettisoned in the adaptation , leaving only the main plot of a man eating shark and of the protagonists mission to kill it . One can't help thinking the producers of this movie should have done something similar

The major problem is that much of the running time is taken up with a bunch of bad guys wanting to get their hands on a very expensive Greek opal . In many ways the story resembles another Benchley story THE DEEP which might not be a problem as such but when you've got a film called KRAKEN:TENTACLES OF THE DEEP then a prospective audience is expecting a giant squid to be the focus of the story rather than humans . The producers seem aware of this shoehorning a squid attack just to remind the audience there's a squid central to the plot when in fact it's the producers themselves who obviously need reminding

As it's produced by Nu Image Films the production values are rather poor with the squid being a rather obvious CGI creation . Like nearly every film featuring a giant squid it makes a roaring sound ( Squids are mute ) and can grab people off the decks of ships ( Considered impossible by leading scientists ) and of course when someone gets devoured underwater there's a big bubble of blood rising to the surface . Not only that but biologists are all in their early twenties , have blonde hair and walk around in bikini tops thereby exposing their admirable mammary glands . One can't help thinking Nu Image Films and The Sci-Fi channel are in cahoots to get more guys to sign up to university science classes . I doubt however if anyone who worked on this film would be able to spell the word science


At one point, still very early in the film, the male lead character can be seen reading a copy of Jules Verne's legendary novel "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" and even later in the film the book is mentioned several times more. This wasn't a coincidental choice, as the novel (and even more so the classic 50's film starring Kirk Douglas) largely introduced and immediately popularized the notorious Kraken-monster. The Kraken, these days primarily known as the thing that swallowed Johnny Depp in "Pirates of the Caribbean", is a gigantic type of squid that can reach a size of nearly 46 feet and reigns over the darkest depths of the sea. Normally the Kraken only lives in the Northern regions, like the cold seas of Norway and Iceland, but according to the script of this low-keyed and forgettable made-for-TV creature feature, the monster can easily also dwell American ocean stretches and it suddenly even got promoted to being the guardian of ancient Greek artifacts! For you see, the Kraken's territory in "Deadly Waters" encompasses Desolation Passage because that's where the valuable opal rests in a shipwreck, and the monster attacks everyone who sails in this passage, whether their intentions are bad (like multiple treasure hunters) or harmless (like Ray's parents). This may sound like a very interesting concept for a monstrous horror movie, but "Deadly Waters" is dreadfully boring and poorly made. I anticipated the giant squid monster to be entirely computer engineered, but it's even worse that anyone could fear, as it looks like a cute and big-eyed underwater puppy. The Kraken never looks menacing, not even when its tentacles embrace a medium-sized ship. The underwater cinematography is unclear and the monster's attacks are never properly shown, for obvious reasons. At best, we see people getting thrown into the water and pulled down to the depths. With a slight bit of luck, the water even colors a bit red. The acting performances are weak and the characters totally implausible. Nicole and Jenny hardly look like brilliant archaeologists in their tiny bikinis and Jack Scalia is probably the least convincing mafia lord ever. Why did I watch this junk, I do not know. They should make a law against the spreading of TV-movies in video stores, especially when they do not indicate anywhere it's a TV movie! Director Tibor Takács might consider a late career change, as he hasn't accomplished anything special since the late 80's, when he made "The Gate" and "I, Madman".


One disturbing trend in SciFi Channel original movies of late is that they're starting to feel like they have to weave more plot into the monster movie. Please. We don't care. This starts out interesting enough. Some family is sailing at sea, the mother tucks the kid into bed then hears a disturbance from above, when she resurfaces and father is clinging to one of the sails by his fingers, in the clutches of a giant squid's tentacles. She is, of course, woefully unprepared for a giant squid confrontation and has to fumble around for their flare gun. By the time she finds it, it's too late -- the squid has his next meal. Sweet. But this is followed by 90 minutes of boring treasure hunts, a couple of attractive female divers shooting the breeze with that dude from the 2005 edition of "The Bachelor" about lost treasure and precious little killer squid footage. What footage they do have features pretty bad special effects. Thus, "Kraken" Tentacles of the Deep" is an incredibly boring movie and does not hold your interest. Watch it while doing household chores so you can get stuff done.


This has got to be one of the worst movies i've seen in the last 7 years and i have seen a lot movies in these 7 years, as i can't watch TV in China. I was hoping for a good flick with some scary monster and a would have taken the bad acting for granted but the dialog killed me - lame as...

Awesome actors, original dialog, spectacular effects and gosh i loved the bad guys dressed in black - that actually cracked me up! Gotta love the blonde doctors with killer bodies - the second blond chick was a particular great actress - SARCASM if that wasn't clear yet.

Anyway can't recommend a bigger waste of time - top choice this one


I had to register to make a comment on this terrible movie. this is more of a warning for other people!I saw it last week at the Rotterdam film-festival in Holland an paid  8,- for the ticket. A waste of money and a waste of time. I was in the middle of the row so I could not escape the terror. The story is difficult to follow, the acting is bad, the camera-work is uninspired. The only good thing is a scene where a artist makes a painting, and it's only worth anything if you like paintings... Unfortunately I cannot give any more positive reactions on this movie. If you ask me, it is probably the worst film I've ever seen.


Becca appears to have it all: the hunky boyfriend who dotes on her (and Omigahd he proposed!); a chandelier-shattering voice that goes down well at the local bar; a great job teaching chill-drenn, validated by the 'Teacher of the Year' award; and an adoring family and friends. Should be enough for someone who's essentially a loud, large, brassy, not very pretty Jewish princess.

But no - a skinny, classically good-looking blonde shiksa disses her looks, and so Becca has to beat her at one game she's utterly ill-equipped for: a beauty pageant.

!Spoiler for anyone who didn't see it coming! Happily for her, the miracle of movie magic makes it all possible - ignoring any more realistic scenario in which a woman like her would be blown off in seconds for not adhering to Western beauty industry standards.

This one's not like any of a number of other beauty contest films, in which an essentially spectacular girl has her light hidden under a bushel of bad clothes and glasses, to be revealed in time to win in the final reel. And that's because this film is fundamentally a wish-fulfilment fantasy for - pardon me - fat, ugly, spoilt girls who don't look like Sandra Bullock at her messiest. Its message is that external attractiveness doesn't count as much as 'inner beauty'. Of course, the convenient thing about the inner variety is that there's no agreed standard, so just about anyone can claim it and be believable.

Our Becca has loads, of course, as she reveals constantly. The result is inevitable: hip, hip, hooray, the cute blonde is defeated (worse, she's converted), to the vicarious - not very beautiful - schadenfreude of the Becca-alikes in the audience.

The depressing thing about all this is that of course inner beauty exists, and of course it really is ultimately more profound than the external kind. But to specifically pit inner beauty against good looks *in a good-looks contest* is silly, pointless, and smacks of vicarious spoilt greed. A rather ugly film.

CD


I will admit I didn't pay full attention to everything going on in this film, but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered. Basically the film takes place at a lavatory factory owned W.C. Boggs (Kenneth Williams), assisted by Sid Plummer (Sid James). The factory is having problems with constant workers calling strikes, most started Vic Spanner (Kenneth Cope), and his co-workers, including Chloë Moore (Joan Sims) and Bernie Hulke (Bernard Bresslaw), were bound to get fed up with him. Meanwhile Charles Coote (Charles Hawtrey) is keeping up work and has invented a bidet, and W.C.'s son Lewis (Richard O'Callaghan) has secured large orders for it, but of course Vic is going to cause another strike out of this. For some reason the story then becomes a work outing on Brighton Pier, but when everyone does get back, everything is resolved. Also starring an annoying Hattie Jacques as Beattie Plummer, Jacki Piper as Myrtle Plummer, Patsy Rowlands as Hortence Withering, Worzel Gummidge's Bill Maynard as Fred Moore, Davy Kaye as Benny and Margaret Nolan as Popsy, but where's Barbara Windsor when you want her? The innuendo attempts have almost zero effect, and the obvious toilet humour is just too ludicrous, so this is certainly one of the weakest entries in the series. Pretty poor!


After watching 'Carry on Camping', which I found surprisingly enjoyable, I decided to watch another of the 'Carry On' series. Sadly 'at Your Convenience' left me with no further desire to watch any more from the series. Perhaps I was unfortunate in my choice, as I have heard better things of other Carry On's such as 'Up the Khyber' etc, but this goes no way to excuse the appalling 'at Your Convenience.' The humour never rose beyond the scatological and puerile, perhaps, bearing in mind the title, I should have anticipated this. Even the unique bawdy humour of 'Camping' was grotesquely overplayed. Characters were characatures and the plot was banal. Overall a sad disappointment. *1/2 /*****


I am a huge fan of the Golden Age of Hollywood, but even I had a hard time sticking with this old and rather lame cartoon from Warner Brothers. I was able to follow the many inside jokes and I knew who the celebrities were who were being parodied, but nowadays most people won't know who the actors are who are being featured--meaning that the film certainly would have gone over a lot better in 1941. The problem, though, is that even if you do know who everyone is and what the references were about, it just wasn't particularly funny. As for me, I much prefer a Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck cartoon from the same time period. Still, it is an interesting curio that old movie buffs or historians might enjoy--just be forewarned that it's far from Warner's best.


Confusing, that is what this cartoon was. I feel sorry for the children that had to watch this. This cartoon was too confusing. I didn't understand the jokes, I didn't know any of the celebrities. I think the woman that turned out to be a man in the end was a parody of a movie directed by the director of Plan 9 From Outer Space, and I knew the three stooges. That's it.

This cartoon gave me a headache because I tried hard to understand what people were talking about. It was just random people every few seconds. Half the movie was just people doing the cha cha and one guy saying he doesn't know how to do the modern dances, so he moves to Washington so he won't be made fun of.

Anywho, I do recommend this cartoon for historians. That might just be it. This cartoon was too confusing for children, and also not recommended for them either. It had people smoking.


I think this movie must be part of a series; having seen the 'part IV' in the title here at IMDb makes some of the movie make more sense (i.e., the baby-killing reference mentioned in another post). It's fitting that Corben Bernsen portrays a lawyer in this movie, since that's what I knew him best as (from L.A. Law), but I think he does a fine job in this movie. His presence was the best part of this movie and Mr. T did indeed provide some comic relief. Other than that, the production apparently had a low budget based on the props; the courtroom looked like something out of Star Trek; the defendant's hair was alternatively blonde or high-lighter yellow, depending on the lighting. I could go on but I agree with the previous poster, please make GOOD Christian movies.


It seems Macaluso the anti-Christ is putting in a lot of time in dealing with this one newscaster who has denounced him for who and what he is. It's been three films now and there might yet be more in the offing.

Leigh Lewis has returned as Hannah Hunter, a Katie Couric like news anchor, who denounced Macaluso on network television and is now a fugitive in the one world government that Macaluso has made for himself as dictator of the world. She was caught in the last film, but he spared her for this film Judgment where she is now to be tried for her crimes.

In Judgment the Christians are now called Haters and it's big time illegal to be one. What Nick Mancuso as Macaluso wants is a Stalinist like show trial and you need the cooperation of all the parties for that one. That would include the defense attorney, but prosecutor Jessica Steen assures everyone that her old boyfriend Corbin Bernsen is the right attorney for their purposes.

In the meantime such zealous Christians as Mr. T and Selma Davis are planning a rescue of Lewis before the trial. And Bernsen is not quite what he seems to Mancuso and company.

Call me old fashioned, but what seems to be implicit here is that man is incapable of solving his own problems. And when a guy comes along who does solve our age old disputes and brings world peace, inherently he HAS to be evil. A lot of that attitude is a self fulfilling prophecy, we can't do anything for ourselves, don't try, but trust in some higher power for this world or a good place in the next. And then the problems don't get solved in any event.

Judgment is a low budget Christian film on the days after the Rapture and before the Second Coming as some Christians conceive them to be. Remember it's all in the realm of speculation. Take out the religious component and we call it science fiction.

We may yet see Hannah Hunter and Nick Macaluso back again for those interested.


In an unidentified period in the future, nations become just one in the One Nation Earth, leaded by Franco "Lucifer" Macalousso (Nick Mancuso). The Christian opposers, leaded by Helen Hannah (Leigh Lewis), are systematically eliminated and Helen is put on trial in the O.N.E. Court of Justice. Her lawyer is Mitch Kendrick (Corbin Bernsen), a man who lost his father, murdered by the followers of Lucifer, and the attorney is his ex-lover Victoria Thorne (Jessica Steen). On the beginning of the trial, Mitch changes the defender, stating that Jesus Christ should be judged, and not his follower Helen, beginning the greatest trial in the history of mankind. The premise of "Judgement" is very interesting, but the movie is horrible. The screenplay is awful, having situations, development of characters and lines very shallow, and sometimes very ridiculous. The acting, with the exceptions of Leigh Lewis and Corbin Bernsen, is terrible. The "actor" called "Mr. T" is unbelievable, probably one of the worst performance I have ever seen. A couple of weeks ago I saw another Christian movie ("Left Behind") and I liked it, but "Judgement" is really a bad movie, for Christians only. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "O Julgamento" ("The Judgement")


This movie is so bad that it may make the list of worst movies of all time. The world has a one world goverment led by the devil. The hero of the movie is put on trail for "hatred of the human race." Nothing rings true in the movie. It all seems so dumb that you wonder why anyone would have any part in the movie. There is no real story, no one can act plus it has Mr. T in the movie. That should tell you the type of actors the movie has in it.

You can thank God that there is not a one world government and that I am not the leader. If I were the leader and you liked this movie I would put you on trail for hatred of movies (and art).

You will see some born again members of the God squad give this a review with five stars. If you rent or buy this movie try not to curse.

There are excellent movies out there about God and religion. This is not one of them. Pray that we are not subject to many more movies like this.


I started to watch this movie but gave up because it was so poorly made. I looked at the reviews and, for the most part, Christians thought it was manna from heaven, and others thought it stank. But this shows the differences between Christians and others - Christians, for the most part, are seriously deluded in their beliefs, and any film like this will have them patently ignoring their senses and lauding nonsense. Seriously, how can any sane, non-delusional human being say this load of tripe is the best movie every made? And why do 'others' say it like it is? The answer is because Christians are delusional and others are realists. I know which group I prefer.


This movie was just crazy, because I think that they could have made this movie a little better. I didn't like how made the courtroom look. It look like they took a Star Wars Saucer and called it a "courtroom". I think that Left Behind was 10 times better than this "movie". Whoever looks at this movie is:

a) highly depressed b)Doesn't have a life

If anything I think that the movie before this, "Tribulation" was better. It actually had me glued to the set. The part that I liked was when The Antichrist (Franco Macalausso) was bragging about his history (being Lucifer, having a throne in heaven with God, and how he thought he was better than God). Really I think the Left Behind Trilogy is better than this series.


I rented this knowing it was going to Christian propaganda, and that it would offer some fun MST3k style. What I didn't know was just how jaw-droppingly crude and inept the writing would be.

Corbin Burnsen must have been way behind on house payments to agree to have done this movie. To go from a star of the highest rated show on TV ("L.A. Law") to this drek was a fall indeed. Even Mr. T seems to be slumming. Neither has to stretch, as the characters they have here are almost identical to Arnie Becker and B.A., respectively.

The courtroom procedure in this movie is sillier than in "Ally McBeal," and that's saying a lot. What is particularly amusing is the presentation of the One World Ruler. Whether it's books or films in this gender, he's pretty easy to spot - he's the only character whose name has a pronounced vowel at the end. But the people who take the stuff seriously must be slow on the uptake, so the producers also dress him in sinister suits, give him a decadent haircut, and give an office where he keeps a big picture of himself hanging behind the desk. He's really, *really* evil, get it? Ruling the world must leave one with more slack time than say, running your average restaurant, because he's on ready call to be a witness at the trial of the title.

Oh, there are prequels and sequels. Probably with other washed up actors, in addition to actors so obscure even they don't know their own names. I think I'll pass.


I haven't seen such a bad movie ever before, It is absolute non-sense. First a daughter, then a wife, then a companion, then a sister, what is the director thinking of the audience. Do not watch this movie, you can watch a cartoon instead with your kid rather than waste your time on this bad movie.

Do not watch this movie, you can watch a cartoon instead with your kid rather than waste your time on this bad movie.

Do not watch this movie, you can watch a cartoon instead with your kid rather than waste your time on this bad movie.

Do not watch this movie, you can watch a cartoon instead with your kid rather than waste your time on this bad movie.


don know what they are trying to say through this movie. I don even feel like talking about the story. There is not even a single character in the complete movie who is normal. Every relationship is shown with a distorted point of view. when the movie ends one feels why did i even bother to watch it. As for the story the the widower who owns a restaurant finds a prefect girl for his Canadian born son but ends up getting attracted to her. Then his son has his own secrets. The daughter in law(Nandana Sen) has a family secret when her brother comes in the picture. So things are all entwined and make no sense. It does not give a good feeling after watching it. Good actors like Nandana and Mohan Agashe have been wasted in this movie thoroughly. They wanted to talk about some sexual taboos but then they distracted to some other topics by bringing in some utterly bogus plots.


Your suffering will be legendary, even in direct to video sequels! Doug Bradley gets another paycheck as Pinhead in the newest poopfest from Rick Botard, Hellraiser: Hellworld. This time, Rick insults the fans by having a story that acts as if Hellraiser was a movie and all made up. A bunch of cool style kids (punk girl, heroine, jerky guy, hero, and black guy) play a computer game and win a chance to go to a lame as hell (get it????) party run by Lance Henriksen who starts killing the kids off one by one because he blames them for the death of his son who poured gasoline on his body because Rick Botard wanted him to be in a Hellraiser sequel. At first I felt sorry for Lance but then I remembered he was in Mangler 2 so he deserves what he gets. Lance, we loved you in Aliens and Near Dark so stop making direct to video sequels! What's next, Prophecy: Lancelot the Angel or Witchcraft VXIVX: Couldron of Lance? Oh I got one, Children of the Corn 8: Lance's Children! These Hellraiser movies have turned into a Freddy's Nightmares but without Freddy and with Pinhead. Is it real or a dream? Who cares! I asked myself the same question as I was watching this DVD. I would have rather paused it on one of the scenes of nudity, send some knuckle children onto the TV set, and go to bed.


i want that hour and something of my life i spent watching this back. how this ever got greenlighted, for god's sake? the previous installment was excellent, but this one is simply abysmal.

i am a HUGE fan of the franchise and never got bored watching any of the previous movies, but i couldn't finish this one. what a bore... easily the crappiest movie i have seen this year.

plot - what plot ? acting - what acting ? scenes lifted from other movies all around. even lance seemed bored, the expression on his face, clearly saying - i know it's crap, but, hey, at least it'll pay the rent...