As I tuned in for the new 5th season, I was amazed. Not in how good the show was (not that it's ever been Emmy material) But how the creators/producers thought that people were so stupid. Clearly, it's scripted and set up. I was flipping through the channels and it came on one day and I looked and what seemed to be a giant snake on one of the campers bed. That snake CLEARLY came from the amazon. It was as long as the bed, it was huge. The other head camper man (I think his name is Hunter) tries to get it and he's so "freaked out" he can't. Oh! No. Here comes Paris, she single handedly put the what looked to be like a python into a big gray bucket and carry it away. I mean, Come on.

Another thing is the premier episode (which is the only one I watched all the way through.), Paris is talking with her mom and her mom say's "Oh it's Nicole's birthday, why don't you call her?" and then the camera switches to Nicole who see's her phone ringing and is like "It's Paris." And they make up on national TV. How cute and convenient that they both had cameras ready. Yeah OK. Plus I think the whole fight was a publicity stunt that got out of hand and they carried on. Then they made up just in time for the last season.

The first season was good and so was the second. The third started gettnig worse and the fourth wasn't that good at all and now the last of the "Simple Life" series can have it's last season be as scripted as a CW drama. A reality show? Not even close. Entertaining? Hmmm... Not really. Believable? Please. In the last words, there are much better things on TV to watch on a Sunday. I highly DON'T recommend this TV show.


if you need a laugh, there are better ways to get it. Paris Hilton (while stupid) is no dummy when it comes to money.

She laughs all the way to the bank while audiences in America continue to watch this. Nicole Ritchie at least added some edge, now she is gone from the show.

Send a message to Paris, don't buy her products or tune in. Trash like this is worse than "The Apprentice" because it has six year old kids, tuning in and thinking its "cool". Yeah, it's cool to make fun of people 24/7. That will help them a lot when they get out in the real world, and think that having a pink cell phone and Vuitton handbag will equip them for reality. One star for Nicole.


i have actually just recently seen an episode of _The Simple Life_, not of my own volition either. i just have to say that i would have to not only rate this pathetic excuse for a show as a "1," but i would have to say that Paris Hilton's IQ is probably lower than that, even down into the negative digits if that's possible. how could anyone sit and watch this drivel? i just don't understand what television has come to. this show points out the most shallow and selfish aspects of human beings, and people find this entertaining? oh, yes, probably people with the same IQ as Paris herself. forgive me, folks, but this just happens to be my own opinion. if you've not seen this show, for goodness sake, find something else to do with your time.


I honestly can't see what is even vaguely entertaining about this show.

Sure, I've tuned in out of the same morbid curiosity which causes you to stick your finger in an electric outlet once in your life.

One has to wonder "just what IS this"; yet what compels one to continue watching? I really see nothing amusing here. Merely pathetic. There's no clever satire or scathing commentary. It's merely mental depravity and an attempt to make the poor feel superior. I doubt even these ditzes are quite as stupid as they portray themselves. Yet what stupidity is real and what is scripted becomes a moot point; it's stupidity without redemption.

Crud like this is an indicator of how poor American society has become.


Peak Experience brings together some quirky and intriguing characters for a ride of their lives. They are diverse and attractive, and even balanced and likeable. The setting is gorgeous and production values are relatively high. The let down is the bizzare sci-fi twist to the story that really de-rails any hope of a satisfactory resolution to the conflict between the characters. This element to the story is entirely unnecessary and ugly. A real shame as the film would otherwise have real appeal and market-ability.


Luxo Jr. is a wonderful example of why people still prefer cartoons from 50 and 60 years ago to today's material. The problem is simple: these new cartoons, such as Pixar ones, aren't funny! Oh, they may be clever as anything, but funny? Not really, so it misses the mark because 98 percent of the human population watches a cartoon to get some laughs.

To describe this two-minute animated short as "ingenious" and/or "innovative" is a lot more laughable than the cartoon itself. All it was, was Pixar lamp watching his little child lamp play with a rubber ball for a minute We see a lamp hit the ball and then hop along and then jump on it.

Wow. I have news for those who thought this was "ingenious." Drawing Inanimate objects coming to life is as old as cartoons itself, so what's "innovative" about this?

You want innovation? Watch Felix The Cat silent cartoon from the early 1920s - 85 years ago. That was innovative, as were tons of Looney Tunes and Pink Panther cartoons....plus we laughed a lot more, This "cartoon" is nothing.


Hilarious.

Not the film, but the review by RAROME when he calls the film, "One of the funniest Latino Exploitation films ever." He WOULD think that. He's the star of the film.

Rarome posts elsewhere: "yes I'm Richard Azurdia and everyone can know it. I have nothing to hide." http://imdb.com/title/tt0452703/board/thread/19924618?d= 29238104#29238104

Has anyone out there, NOT related to the filmmakers/not crew, cast, friends, or family of this film seen it and care to comment on it?


This is a story right out of the "Hey, kids, let's put on a show!" cliché. One implausibility piled on top of another in a "feel good"/"right will triumph" pattern that is SO OVERWHELMINGLY dominant in American movies. John Sayles has long been one of my favorite directors/screenwriters, so the foolishness of this movie came as a shock.

What happened? Where has the creator of "Casa de los Babys" and "Lone Star" gone? What happened to the creator of such exhilarating plots as "Limbo" and "Passion Fish"? I can only guess that he farmed it out to one of his kids, or an intern, or something like that. This movie fits in more with the rush job of the Scorcese-produced blues films than with a Sayles project.

Here is my "disclosure" statement. I have been a working musician and have spent most of my adult life in the company of musicians. This movie reveals some of the biggest complaints musicians have about their portrayal by non-musicians. The biggest is that non-musicians don't understand the role of rehearsals, individual practice and the huge amount of work and effort it takes to seem "talented." This movie is another example, and a rather extreme case at that.

I also have a question for Keb Mo. Why do you sign on to so many projects that undervalue your efforts? I am thinking of the NPR Blues History radio series and now this. Don't you have more leverage than that?


So this self indulgent film about absolutely nothing of any import has just wasted two hours of my life ! Set in the deep south of 1950's America the plot is as transparent as it always is in a film were nothing is always about to happen. The plot is actually so thin you will have guessed the ending & how we arrive there quickly. In my case in around 90 seconds of the opening titles. Guess what - A middle aged black club owner, with relationship crisis & broke, has to keep his 'wooden shack' / club open. Oh the unbearable excitement of wondering whether he will succeed or not! Along the way we are treated to an array of cardboard cutout characters that include the local racist, white sheriff, [ so original ] the habitual enigmatic - oh no could it be a ghost to be laid character, who in this case is a sort of blind Alan A Dale & a young itinerant, rock n' roll, electric guitar playing musician who blows into town.

It gets worse! The dialog is at best a series of cheap, stilted diatribes fed through the mouths of comic book, deep south, 1950's black / white stereotypes. I must presume the script was written by an intellectual midget with a range of English & clichés rarely seen outside of Batman comics.

Then we have the music. A poorly performed mishmash of blues going' into rock n' roll, a genre not even favoured in its own time. Long dead it should have been left that way & certainly not resurrected with stiff, stilted, zombie like musical performances.

Lastly we have the director, one John Sayles famed for being involved with such mega blockbusters as Bruce Springstein - The Complete Video Anthology & that other great masterpiece, Passion Fish. That says it all really Lets be honest - if you have 3 brain cells or more, have enough understanding of English to know that batman should actually be two words not one, have an intellect equal to or better than a nematodes, and a musical taste beyond thinking my My Ding A Ling was a good rock song, well then you'd have a more stimulating experience watching Thomas The Tank Engine!


This film is painfully slow and uninteresting. The dialog is brutal. The characters uninteresting. I have seen thousands of films, and this horrendous product should have ended the career of John Sayles. Sayles' Eight Men Out is among the most boring modern baseball films, but Honeydripper is at the very bottom of its genre.... and of all film making. There are countless good films about race relations in the southern United States, and this is not among them. Young directors and writers should watch this as how *not* to make a film. Danny Glover, Charles Dutton, Lisa Gay Hamilton, Stacey Keach, Sean Patrick Thomas, what *were* you thinking? There are always other movies to see instead of this one. See them all, then hesitate before renting Honeydripper.


This is the 10th movie collaboration from the brothers Ed and Jose Quiroz, with so much experience I would have expected better. The movie is centered on two gangsters who are working for Lead man played by Victor Sarigosa. On the acting front, most actors look very uncomfortable in their stance and some of the actors appeared to have trouble walking. Jose Rosete shines way way above the other actors and I believe saves the movie from being just awful, but even so, he is well below par. The film gets off to a shaky start, I initially thought that I had sat down in front of an adult movie, after about twenty or so minutes the film picked up pace and with some very good editing it became very good and dare I say engrossing, the most striking observation at this point is that there is little if no dialogue and each scene is cut to bare minimum in length. Overall it is the script and cinematography that lets this movie down more than anything but having said that, the camera work is probably good considering what equipment I imagine the crew are using. More noticeable is a lack of attention to detail. For instance the homes where most of the filming takes place are believed to belong to these tough criminals but the decor and level of cleanliness, not to mention a vase of flowers which wanders into shot several times leads us to think that they are the homes of middle aged ladies, which kept me thinking that these guys live with their mothers, but where are they? If this had been the first film by the Quirozes I believe it would have been a good attempt, however, after more than ten films apiece the product is very poor. Sorry guys


I for one like B-movies. If u like B-movies too, I suggest.

I saw it about a week ago and when I decided to watch it, I didn't get my hopes up. Plot is fine and the FX aren't that bad. It's simple gangster movie with the usual happenings. They sell dope, collect money, usually they beat up the guy, or brake something. Violence should've been better, guns r so fake. In the end wins the one who can pull out his gun faster, than the other.

Everybody loves the money.....

The more, the merrier!!!

I'll give 4* out of 10*(B-movie rating)


Well the movie is full of bad words. Makes sense if you are using those words yourselves very often. I didn't like it for the fact that you cannot watch it with family. I give the movie 2 of 10. Well talking about the actors. They have done a decent job. Not special to write someone about it. The background score is also very dull. No suspense at all. Script is also very dull. Looks like the script has been written by someone who is very new in the field. Overall a boring movie. Since the start the movie is very slow paced. It does gather some pace in the middle but fades off during the end. Had the script been modified and some good songs or some interesting people been added, the movie could have been much better to watch.


A schmaltzy, violent, slow moving action flick following a young girl who witnesses her family's massacre and returns 14 years later to seek vengeance. The soap opera's hamminess and relationships lend it some interest, as do a couple of camera shots.

The sound recording is pretty bad as is the acting and much of the story line. The direction drips with cliches such as the vixen shot of stockinged legs getting out of a car.


Takashi Ishii's Kuro No Tenshi is a good action film but borrows too many themes and ideas from better movies such as La Femme Nikita, Leon:The Professional and Naked Killer. Reona Hazuki is perfectly cast as Ikko, the child turned cold-blooded assassin who is out to revenge the murder of her Yakuza father. Yoshiyuki Yamaguchi is 'Jil' her Japanese-American companion who helps her on her mission and steals the movie with his street dancing moves and peculiar Japanese-English mixed-up dialog. Ishii seems to borrow a lot from the Hong Kong school of gunplay action which keeps the movie interesting but the story and plot drag at times and there are many odd moments of fancy such as Ikko and Jil's dancing sequence in a hotel room which seem a bit out of place but I guess breaks the gloomy and tense atmosphere of the story. Viewers may recoil at a couple of scenes but the movie is very tame when compared to movies such as the Killer or Hard Boiled. Tenshii is an interesting entry from Ishii who has a unique flair for visuals and style but it isn't the best of the genre.


The programmers at Channel 13 made an interesting choice to kick off their new (and kind of exciting) Reel 13 project in selecting James Bridges' 1973 paean to law school THE PAPER CHASE. I realize that 2008 marks the 35th anniversary of the film, but if it's anniversaries they're interested in, why not select a film with a little more punch  say THE STING or American GRAFFITI  or even if they wanted to go back 50 years to show us GIGI or VERTIGO  something that opens this new initiative with a bang.

But THE PAPER CHASE is what we got and so THE PAPER CHASE is what we'll deal with. I hadn't seen THE PAPER CHASE since I was fourteen years old or so and mostly remembered it as being boring and a little dull. I was excited to re-watch it on Reel 13 because I felt that now, as a more educated and hopefully more sophisticated viewer, I could fully appreciate it for the important work of art that it was supposed to be, butno  it's still pretty boring.

I don't mean to be flip about it. The more educated version of myself can now see why the film didn't work for me and ultimately, I think it boils down to the episodic nature of the piece. The film follows first year law student James T. Hart (Timothy Bottoms) on a series of misadventures and anecdotes mostly revolving around his borderline obsession with one of his professors, but also dabbles in his relationship with a local woman he meets, the lives of some of his fellow students, the pressure of finals, etc., etc. There are a number of good and interesting scenes in The Paper Chase (I particularly like the scene on the frozen lake and most of the study group scenes), but as a whole, they don't add up to much. The film doesn't have a sufficient overall arc or thru line and the result is a jumpy and disjointed narrative.

Part and parcel with all that is the trouble with the romantic relationship between Hart and Susan, as played by Lindsay Wagner (who two years later would become television's original Bionic Woman). Firstly, they meet when Susan comes up to him randomly and abruptly on some Boston street and asks him to walk her to the corner because someone's following her. And he says he'll walk her all the way home. What??!?? Are you kidding? This is how our romantic leads meet? Then, on the walk home (we never see the alleged stalker, btw) all he does is ramble and babble about law school  the Bionic Woman looks (appropriately) bored and disinterested. A few scenes later, he lurks outside her house, builds up the courage to knock on the door and she instantly invites him in. Cut to a light turning on when they are naked in bed. I mean, really??? I know the seventies where freewheeling and everything, but this is ridiculous (or am I the only person that these things don't happen to?). And then, in this post-coital scene, he starts philosophizing about law school AGAIN. I swear  the BW has only had two or three lines of dialogue to this point. And wouldn't you know it, guess who's daughter Susan turns out to be? It's contrivances like those that can ruin a script/film. Furthermore, I have long maintained that writers and filmmakers need to take the time to build a foundation for the important romantic relationships in a film. We need to understand and feel why two people like each other and are together. Bottoms and The Bionic Woman have absolutely zero chemistry together as actors and neither is their relationship strongly supported by the script. As one of the key (albeit tenuous) conflicts in the film is the balance between Hart's romance with Susan and his pursuit of good grades at Harvard Law School, the lack of effort put into the former does serious damage to the overall impact of the film. (Sidenote: The relationship had some potential in the sense that both characters seemed to be separately obsessed with the same person. I thought this was kind of an interesting (and unique) idea and a potential building block for them, but the film doesn't capitalize on it nearly enough, instead letting it linger drifting in space).

The film is mostly remembered for the performance by John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield. He won many accolades for the performance, including the Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor of the year. Now, Mr. Houseman's performance is fine  after all, he was a stodgy and imperious professor at Julliard for twenty years before this so playing a stodgy and imperious professor at Harvard was hardly a stretch (as Neal Gabler jocularly hinted at during his opening remarks)  and he has a lot of snappy, quotable lines of dialogue. However, I hardly felt he was Oscar-worthy. Houseman won the Oscar because he was a legendary theater producer and director (he worked with Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater, etc.) and it was a fun story that he was making his acting debut at the age of 71. If you really look back at that year, I think you have to say that the best supporting performance was Jason Miller as Father Damien in THE EXORCIST. I mean, he was amazing  subtle and displayed lots of range. I would even rank Robert Shaw in THE STING, Jack Gilford in SAVE THE TIGER and hell, even, Paul LeMat in American GRAFFITI all above Houseman here. (Does anybody have any thoughts on this? I'd love to have a revisionist Oscar vote here  weigh in with your comments and postings on the Best Supporting Actor of 1973 if you get a chance).

(For the rest of this review, check out our myspace page at www.myspace.com/realthirteen.)


Usually any reality show or documentary that shows you an inside view of some part of the culture is at least interesting. Mix in a little of the entertainment business and you have a sure winner, right?

Wrong. This show is just garbage. Although some of the kids are genuinely talented, that is really beside the point. This show fails to provide any insights into why these people act like this, and what effect it has on the children.

It also looks very cheap, more like home movies than a TV show. I would give this a lower rating, but it is a good subject. I don't know how they managed to mangle it up.


I read where the producers of this show originally told the families that they were doing a show called, "Bravo Kids", and that they would focus on the kids and treat the families with respect. Now the families are all p***ed off because they have portrayed them so badly.

I know that these parents can act pretty badly, push their children too hard, and just generally act like a bunch of jerks, but it still raises the question of whether it is right to dupe people in top something they are not aware of - especially something that they will be judged the rest of their lives for by millions of people.

I know that some people will say that they never would have gotten access to the families if they had told the truth, but is the story really that important? It is not like it is some 60 minutes news investigation or something. And any of you who think that Bravo or the producers of this show had any higher calling other than getting ratings or looking at "these freaks" are deluding yourselves.

In the end, the way everyone on these boards and elsewhere rags on these kids lack of ability surely is more harmful to their self-image than their parents forcing them into the spotlight. Right?

It reminds me of the way they used to treat Chelsea Clinton during her most awkward stage.


Talk about sabotaging a bestseller! This Cold War Era thriller about a massive effort to raise the legendary Titanic was a complete botch. If you haven't read Clive Cussler's imaginative, but right-wing thriller about a gigantic defense shield that will protect America, then you might enjoy this soggy saga. Long, boring, with few action interludes of any cinematic significance, "Raise the Titanic" is a complete waste of time. Richard Jordan isn't a very charismatic Dirk Pitt and the word is that the failure of this mega-budget movie sank Cussler's Dirk Pitt franchise until "Sahara" came along to revive it. They are raising the Titanic because it may have hidden in its waterly bowels the secret element to make a defense shield feasible. The ending truly sucks. It appears as if the liberals got their hands on this movie. We don't get the defense shield in the movie because that would make us villainous! The two decent moments in this dreary adventure are the opening scenes set to John Barry's unforgettable theme music that recounts the construction and voyage of the Titanic. Later, Alec Guiness gets to put the old flag on the cruise ship after it is raised. Avoid this debacle!


In the movies anything can happen. Its where logic goes out the window for a start. No way could you raise a ship like the Titanic by setting explosives under it.You would need hydraulics for a start. Yet it cops out by being made bouyant by filling the ship with foam rubber! Then the huge gash is patched up just like that. It was more like a fairy tale when the byzantium turned into gravel! Never having read the novel-as I have a short attention span-its not,by the sound of it,done the novel justice. Why for instance did it cost $40 million? And in real life if the Titanic had been raised it would be the Talk of the World-yet here its just a 5 minute event


I bought Raise The Titanic on DVD for one of my mates for Christmas 2003, mainly because we've read all of Cusslers books and thought them very very good. I knew the film was pretty poor before I bought it, that was another reason to get it though, some poor films can be quite entertaining.

It follows the book very poorly, missing out huge chunks, the actors are all poorly cast (with exception of Alec Guinness), as non of them appear as described in the books, where's Sandeckers fiery beard?

Anyhoos, the best bit that made me laugh was the US Huey helicopter with a nice Russian red star on it. Why they couldn't have found a Russian heli from somewhere, there are enough budget films that dress random Russian Mil helis up as American ones. :)

Best part I thought was the internal set of the Titanic, looked genuinely like a rusted up old ship.


I highly anticipated this movie, having enjoyed the book. Was very disappointed, as the movie either left out most of the exciting parts of the book or completely changed them. If you have an interest in the Titanic or in spy/action novels I highly recommend the book, but not the movie. Might be watchable if you haven't read the novel.


There are films that you can say, they're so bad, they're good, like some of those silly locust/piranha/snake/shark/pick a creature of your choice infestation movies.

"Raise The Titanic" is merely bad. It is well chronicled that Clive Cussler, author of the book upon which this garbage is allegedly based, was so horrified with the end result that he refused to allow another of his books to be filmed. He eventually relented more than 20 years later, when "Sahara" arrived. By the sounds of things it may be a freezing day in hell before Cussler gives his blessing for a third time.

That is a pity because he writes those wonderfully absurd and over-the-top stories that are just begging to be turned into popcorn blockbusters, but who can blame the man. "Raise The Titanic" may be the worst big screen adaptation of a novel ever, although the "Da Vinci Code" isn't far behind.

We'll forgive some of the technical absurdities in the story line. The film was made some years before the wreck of the Titanic was discovered and nobody could have known that it is so thoroughly mangled, even if the beautifully whole and well preserved specimen the movie offers was always going to be wildly unlikely. We need an intact Titanic for the story to work, so fine, we can live with it.

What we cannot stomach is the incredible hatchet job which the screenwriters did on Cussler's novel, changing place and people names for no reason. Historical research obviously meant squat to these people so in the film we end up with a man who played in the band on the Olympic for three years before joining Titanic. The fact that Olympic went into service only about one year before Titanic is calmly disregarded. It's a minor point to all but real ship buffs, but you won't find it in the book.

The story is set during the Cold War. Apparently some very rare and utterly fictitious metal called Byzanium will for some reason make nuclear war obsolete, or some such crap. Surprise surprise, the entire world's supply of Byzanium is...you guess it, lying on the bottom of the Atlantic, thanks to a dastardly iceberg. The Americans must have it, so Dirk Pitt and company accept the challenge of raising the Titanic from two-and-a-half-miles down as if they were being asked to wash the dishes.

The threatening hurricane which adds excitement to the book is totally missing here as our heroes plod through one of the most tedious and poorly filmed "blockbusters" ever to disgrace the cinema and eventually pop the Titanic to the surface. After endless and quite stunningly boring undersea shots of what a three-year-old child could see is a scale model, the Titanic unglues herself from her watery grave and, hey presto, there she is, ready to complete her interrupted journey to New York. Lovely stuff, but after taking forever to set the scene the raising itself is made to look about as tricky as lifting a toy submarine from the shallow end of a swimming pool.

And, guess what, folks!! The Byzanium ISN'T on the Titanic, after all. It's in an English cemetery, but of course opening graves isn't much of a story line when compared to raising sunken liners, is it? The final plot "twist" in said cemetery is so absurd it defies belief, and again it didn't come from the book.

Acting? Some talented actors do the best they can with a truly atrocious script. Anne Archer is left with the unenviable task of uttering the most stomach-churning line ever committed to celluloid - "I just can't get the wormie on the hookie,". which could have been enough all by itself to destroy her career. In fact her role is removed of all meaning by the screenwriters and Ms Archer seems to have nothing more to do but be the pretty female in the cast.

The late Richard Jordan is a passable Pitt, but Jason Robards is nothing like the feisty Sandecker of the Cussler novels. Even Alec Guiness as a surviving crew member of the Titanic can't do much in his cameo role to stop the pile of rubbish from sinking faster than the object of its storyline.

It is no great surprise that "Raise The Titanic" quickly gained notoriety as one of the, if not THE, biggest bomb in Hollywood history. The special effects are awful even by the standards of the time (1972's "The Poseidon Adventure" is even older but fares much better in this department). The acting is wooden, the film is disjointed, and it just doesn't gel. There are a desperately few moments to savour. The scene where the Titanic surfaces is moving, and the music which accompanies it is evocative, but that's about it.

With a budget of some $30 million - enormous for its time - they could hardly have done a worse job of it. Why on earth they hired a director whose experience was limited to TV serials is one of the greatest mysteries of all time. What is much clearer is what producer Lew (later Lord) Grade meant when he said "Raise The Titanic? It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic."

That is my favourite quote in showbiz,and is ultimately the movie's longest lasting legacy. Famous, for all (and I mean ALL) the wrong reasons.


I remember this film coming out in 1980, I think I even went to see it at the cinema.

I remember then that I thought it was utter rubbish.

America the good in another excuse for a confrontation of good against evil, in this case Russia. I do seem to recall that at the time of The Titanic going down, there was no cold war. So to make a film where America the good is in a battle against time to beat Russia to the "Byzantium" is a country purely self obsessed and blinkered to think it has any right to go down and get the Titanic up, which I recall was a British ship.

This is a terrible film, made by an arrogant and self obsessed USA, yet again, an example of that country's arrogance and why it is so hated today by many.

I urge, delete this film from your thoughts, it has been proved the ship is in pieces any small amount of research would have come up with a probability of such a big ship hitting the sea bed and remaining in tact is pure darn right stupidity, as is this film.

D


Poor casting of some fine actors in the wrong roles. Movie has some great moments in it, mainly where they actually followed the novel. Unfortunately, this film chops out most of the action that was in the novel, and several key characters. Congresswoman Loren Smith, MIA. Al Giordino, MIA. Navy Seals, MIA. Russian spy's on-board the Titanic after it is raised, MIA. Titanic adrift in a storm with Russian Spetznaz on board Titanic during the storm, MIA. The LONG & BORING stretch of this movie that was wasted on underwater submersibles looking for the Titanic could've been used for some of the real action that was in the novel. Any 1st year film school student could easily edit out 30 minutes of waste from this poorly produced film. It was a great novel, and the movie could've been great and launched a series of Clive Cussler/Dirk Pitt movies. But this film was poorly made, and the more recent actual discover of the broken Titanic wipes out any second chance for turning this fine novel into a movie again.

This film was such a disaster, that novelist Clive Cussler refused to consider any more of his novels for films, for many years. Finally, Matthew McCougnahy talked him into it. MM is both playing Dirk Pitt and an Exucutive Producer for the film Sahara. EXCELLENTLY DONE! That was the first of a 3 movie deal that Clive Cussler sold. Clive maintained final veto power of much of the deal, a lesson sorely learned from Raise The Titanic. I can't remember what the other 2 novels are that make up that deal. Hopefully, we will see them soon.

Dirk Pitt novels always have had the potential to give us a uniquely American action hero movie series (sort of modern Indiana Jones/James Bond). It is a shame that British actor (RIP) Richard Jordan was mis-cast for the role in Raise The Titanic.

Final little side-note. Raise The Titanic was NOT the first Clive Cussler/Dirk Pitt novel. It was preceded by a couple of years by "The Mediterranean Caper". That was the shortest of these novels, and in my humble opinion the best written. It would make a great movie even today.


Let me state emphatically that I loved and throughly enjoyed the 1976 novel "RAISE THE TITANIC" by author and deep-sea discoverer Clive Cussler, it was one of the greatest and most spellbinding books of the 2oth century. But this 1980 movie that carried the title totally destroyed this great work of fiction. Admittedly Dr. Bob Ballard's 1985 discovery of the actual wreck of the giant liner has made this the most dated version in history, considering that people in 1912 ignored some of the survivors who said she didn't sink in one piece, but broke up just before sinking. Ballard's discovery has authenticated these statements. I have been a history buff on the sinking of the RMS TITANIC ever since September of 1966 with the opening episode of the ABC-TV IRWIN ALLEN SCI-FI SHOW "THE TIME TUNNEL" where time travelers Tony Newman and Doug Philllps (Jimmy Darren & Robert Colbert) went on the first of many journeys to this ship just hours before she struck the iceberg sinking carrying 1,502 men, women and children to their untimely death's in 28 degree water. How anyone survived the water for over 10 minutes no one knows, but it is true that at least 6 person's were pulled alive and stayed alive, after this time though originally 150 were pulled out still alive but died and were buried at sea by the rescue ship Carparthia. Incidentally the Carpathia was torpedoed in WW I in 1918, and was it's wreck was found by Dr. Cussler in 2001. The main note of a person surviving the water was Bakker Charles Jorgen (1888-1977) who was kept alive for more than 2 1/2 hours in the water before being pulled onto Second Officer Charles Lighttoller's overturned Collapsable B lifeboat after 1st Wireless Operator John Jack Phillips froze to death on the boat minutes before Boat No. 12 took them all off just as it was about to submerge. This 1980 movie really isn't worth the time to even focus on in any way shape or form, it is such a total waste of the talents of such great character actor's such as the late Jason Robards. It totally wiped out the entire plot of the 1976 book. For example they have a takeover of the ship by the Russian Col. Prevlov, who is captured by the American's and turned into a good guy for us. Gene Segram goes totally mad at the end of the book and Dana his wife is divorcing him, and has an affair on the ship with Dirk Pitt. Leaves out the start where the guy is brining the stuff over on the Titanic the night of the disaster, and locks himself in the vault. The old man that Pitt talks to is not running a pub in the book, he is the last surviving crew member in 1987, and calls Dirk Pitt away from the expedition to hear the story of a dying old LYMIE as Pitt calls him at first, but through him learns the story of the Titanic. They also leave out all about the mens expedition except finding the miners body in the mine in northern Russia, and don't mention that his widow who was a lot younger than himself in 1912 is still alive in 1987 now aged 93 and gives an interview to one of the important people. It also changes the ending of the story about at the one miners grave, where they find that the just and rocks are actually in the grave but they leave the grave untouched in the movie, which went totally contrary to the book. In the book they dug up the grave the stuff was tested at the very moment that out in the north Atlantic that old crewmember who had just died his ashes were spread over the wreck former wrecksite of the Titanic. This was taken from actual history for Commander John Joseph Boxhall (1878-1967) the 4th officer of Titanic and the last surviving officer to pass away in 1967 actually had this done at his death. May it be noted that Boxhall at age 80 in 1958 was technical consultant to the B& W film "A NIGHT TO REMEMBER" an excellent film. Also anyone who read the book will also remember that in the book Gene Segram was not in the submersibule that they had to rush the Titanic up with to save the men in the sub. And when the Titanic came up in the book it came up the way they last saw TITANIC in 1012 stern first. They were afraid that it would come up so fast that it would raise too far out of the water and flip bellyup. They also left out the Hurricane that Titanic had to survive getting to New York or the 2 Russian born spies that tried to sabotage the ship drilling holes in the bottom. They did hold to some of the story but what little they did even this they destroyed. I aeiterate go out to the public library and read the book, by Clive Cussler is fantastic reading but as the main critic of this movie said "AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAUGE". Personally I gave it a 1-STAR only because there wasn't anything less to give it. If I had my personal choice I would give it a -10 stars on a 1-10 scale it stunk so bad. Only some of the Sci-Fi movies of the 1950's were worse than this destruction of a great novel.


The book was told from the viewpoint of Black Beauty, and focused primarily on what happened to him and the other animals. If there's any story that demands talking animals, then it's this one. While they didn't have CGI back in the 1970s, they could have done something similar to Mr. Ed.

This show suffers from a major change in focus from the book. It's not about Black Beauty. It's about the humans in the story, plus some extra characters they threw in.

It's like making a show or movie based on the novel Traveller by Richard Adams and having it focus on General Lee.

The show was pretty, and the acting was good, but I can't give this show a good rating. A show supposedly based on the novel should actually be about Black Beauty, not about the parade of humans that passed through his life.


Despite having Charlie Lau helping Mathew Broderick's character in his hitting, the high school baseball scenes were completely unrealistic and look like a bad Pony League game. I cannot see a high school coach treat a varsity level game in this manner. Make the umpires look like real umpires, too.

Another thing, high school baseball is only seven innings and they are playing in the ninth inning. Come on, a little research here. A simple detail like this really ruins movies with sporting scenes that are filled with these kinds of errors.

Being involved with sports, some mistakes like this type of thing can lose any credibility. Movies need to make sporting events to look realistic, especially down to the officials. I see too often referees and umpires in out-of-date uniforms (I mean vintage 1940s) and doing things most trained officials would never do.


I owe a great deal of thanks to Neil Simon for this awful movie. After 15 minutes I walked out and went in to see the only other film at the duplex, an unknown called LOCAL HERO! WOW! One of my all-time TOP 5 FILMS! It was a stark contrast between this tired old c**p and the brilliance that can be achieved in movie making.


I saw Strength and Honour last night. I expected a lot and was let down. I walked out of the cinema talking about some faults it had. I slept on it and when I woke up I realised that there was so much more wrong with this film. I think it was the worst film I saw this year. It is set and filmed in Cork, Ireland (my hometown) so I really want to say it was amazing. It was just a massive letdown. It wasn't even a movie that was 'so bad it's good/funny', it was just a horribly acted, poorly written piece of clichéd rubbish. I applaud that the 1st time Director Mahon has put his heart and soul into this and I must admit the film is beautifully shot, but how this movie got produced is beyond me. I think that he should get some help with writing from a Hollywood veteran because his idea was good. I hope his next film about Brian Boru starring Leo diCaprio will be much better. This film simply deserves the Razzie for worst film(for being oblivious to how bad it is) and worst performance(by Madsen). Madsen is a great actor, but this role was not for him. It pains me to say it, but Strength and Honour is a stinker that should be avoided at all costs. I hear there's a sequel in the pipeline...but I have a question...why?


I tried so hard to take the movie seriously, but being from the City where it was filmed, it just seems they took the complete mickey out of the city/culture etc... and every time I was nearly taking it seriously again something else "local" happened that we couldn't stop laughing at! I will agree it was a good attempt, but way too cliché-ed! The accents were awful and bore no resemblance to authentic Cork accents. As previously commented on, I'm sure it will be a hit in the States, but for anyone in the know, it will be a cringeful experience. I just feel that they put the scenes together and no one "proof-watched" it. All in all it tells of a true Irish tradition, but overly and badly dramatist.


This film is rubbish. Lazy, join the dots 'storytelling'. It purports to be about Ireland but unless you believe that Darby O'Gill lives with the little people there is no credibility whatsoever; could have been made 50 years ago and even then would have been crap.

There is no attempt to address Ireland in the noughties, the Celtic Tiger, the boom, the me culture, immigration or whatever. Just another Oirish pastiche for some gullible Americans - who must be sick of this rubbish as well.

How this film got made mystifies me but perhaps therein lies a more interesting story.

I'm from Cork so no 'anti Cork' bias stuff please..This movie is the worst tripe I've seen in years and makes me embarrassed to be Irish and a Corkonian.

Avoid, avoid, avoid.


Absolutely everything about this movie is awful. The drawings and animation are terrible. Absolutely terrible. Dull colors, empty backgrounds and generally really poor work. Adding to that is the terrible character designs. The goblins look like toads, Smaug looks like an oversized bat-creature and all the main characters look wrinkled and ugly with strangely shaped eyes, noses etc.

The music is terrible 70s stuff, including some awful folk music they insist on playing all the time. The plot isn't nearly as good as the book, dialogue is so-so and the voice acting is just bad... In short, this movie is an insult to Tolkien's work and an insult to the viewers' good taste. Avoid at all cost!


this movie corrupted all that was good about the hobbit.

the music was frightening.

the script was a product of too many late nights of white lining.

it gives you a brief, misleading summary that not even a child could enjoy.

at least it is better than Ralph Bakshi's LOTR.

apologies to those who actually finished watching the movie.


After Seeing the other works of the directors (Coneheads & The Last Unicorn) I didn't really expect much in this movie, since its older and the directors might not have done better earlier in their career. I also didn't think it could get any worse, but it did. You start off with the dwarves meeting Bilbo a little too fast, and the music starts. The horrible music was so annoying I could hardly concentrate on the plot of the movie. When they get to after they meet the eagles I though they had skipped a part of the movie. I thought they really screwed up, but no they left out an important character (Beorn). I believe he was too important to just skip him. He was a big part in helping them on their journey. I don't think the goblins really looked good. They don't look like goblins to me they look more like an orc would. I think Don Messick should have stuck to doing the voice of Scooby Doo. To me he wasn't a good Bilbo. If they rated the movie today they would probably give it a G rating (in less the deaths of some of the creatures was too violent). Most of the voices were good but they were just stuck with a bad project and bad directors who seem to get stuck with bad movies a lot more.


If you are a Tolkien fan, don't see this. If you are not a Tolkien fan, don't see this. For the time, the drawings and animation are slightly above average, but very unrealistic. The battle scene is a bunch of dots sending flecks at each other. The accuracy to the book was barely there. The elves sounded and acted like refugees from a WW2movie, Words and names were mispronounced. And Smaug was an Oriental dragon. The only person who seemed to demonstrate any knowledge of the book at all was Richard Boone, who did an excellent job.


What is the hobbit anyway? April 15, 2004 was when saw this movie. The intended audience for this movie is children although the movie was not rated. The hobbit is an action/adventure movie. The opening date for the was in 1977. The movie was 78 minutes long. Some of the voices are John Huston (Gandalf) who also directed Annie, Otto Preminger (Elvenking) who also played in The Human Factor, Rosebud, and Skidoo. Also, Cyril Ritchord (Elrond) who played in the new clothes, half a sixpence. Jules Bass, the director, also directed The Wind in the Willows, 'silverhawks,'flight of the dragons, the Thundercats, the Coneheads. The general opinion of other people that have viewed this movie said it was magnificent. One viewer said, "as echoed on my "lord of the rings" comment, this production captures a positive aspect of the Tolkien material that I believe is missed by current critics and readers-namely the distant but constant promise f success in the quest."I didn't think that the Hobbit was as good as some of the other movies produced in the 1970's, like the many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, and watership. I personally thought there too much music. Maury laws has also done Wind in the Willows. The company which made the movie was Rankin Bass productions. Overall I really didn't like the movie "The Hobbit."


This was the worst movie I have ever seen based on a book. Everything was messed up. There were ten survivors in the end not six. So much was left out of it. Mr.Tolken would probably not like this at all. I was so angry when I watched this movie that I threw it in the trash after I broke it in a million pieces and cut the tape to shreds.


I saw this movie at the theatre for lack of anything else to do, and only paid a dollar to see it. God help me if I'm ever this desperate for "entertainment" again. None of the characters were likable, and although it can be fun to dislike awful characters, this film was just too horrible to offer that solace. Terrible acting, ridiculous characters, bad, bad movie. I should've asked for my dollar back.


There's not much I can say that could be taken as flattering except that it didn't go on any longer than it did. I didn't pay very much for this movie when I bought it but I felt bad when I sold it knowing that it was not worth what I got for it. Save your money and get a root canal instead.


What a comedown for director Paul Morrissey (Flesh For Frankenstein, Blood For Dracula). This film is not only boring, it features an incredibly irritating and overamplified score by Coati Mundi (he of Kid Creole and the Coconuts) and it has enough racial stereotypes to offend not one but two ethnic groups. All the Italian-Americans are loudmouths who scream obscenities at each other over a pasta dinner, and all the Puerto Ricans are crackheads, hustlers, or lazy welfare loafers. If not for the transcendentally beautiful Talisa Soto as the secondary love interest this would be a total write-off. Even with her it's nothing less than dreadful.


In many ways this is one of the finest casts assembled in the last 5 years. Unfortunately the film always has the 'straight to video' feel. Penn and Thornton are excellent, whilst Nolte (majorly hamming it up) and Lopez are poor. The black comedy/noir works for a while. Ultimately it's source was a novel with potential, that collapsed into a messy conclusion. The film sticks to the source for once. Stone does seem to be losing it big time. The visual tricks and images are becoming increasingly irritating. For films that cover similar topics/themes, check out the superior 'Red Rock West' and 'The Music Of Chance'.


On the first viewing, this struck me as an overwrought film noir with the tragic overtones slathered on heavily. On second and further viewings, it struck me that seen as an extremely dark comedy, it's hilarious. The so-called comic relief becomes the entire point. Now every time the horns of "Ring of Fire" announce Powers Boothe striding in to the rescue, I'm ready to bust a gut. The supporting players become either Sean Penn's comic foils or high-strung straight men. Speaking of which, this movie really marked Jon Voight's transition from washed-up blonde leading man to a truly quirky and interesting character actor. My only complaint is that a theme from Ennio Morricone's score kept running through my head before I could remember this is the movie where I heard it.


I had this movie described to me as a vampire comedy, so I figured I'd like it. It isn't, and I didn't.

The thing is, these creatures aren't vampires - they're a new type of creature that I hadn't heard of yet. Which is great, 'cause we need some original ideas in a world of remakes and sequels. Unfortunately, though, since these are new creatures the filmmakers spend most of the movie explaining to us who they are, their history, their likes and dislikes, how they live, how they die, etc. This goes on . . . and on . . . and on. It constantly interrupts the movie. The filmmakers try to make these scenes of exposition visually interesting but it all comes across like a Powerpoint presentation.

Exposition aside, the story itself is pretty good but I would have liked to have had things explained in a more sophisticated way.

The comedy is there in spurts but it is too uneven throughout the film. The opening scene and the film's climax are the two funniest things in the film. Throughout the rest, though, it felt like a big inside joke that I wasn't in on. Some scenes fall completely flat, some resort to toilet humor, and some make no sense.

As far as actors go, Darrel Hammond is funny doing what is essentially his Bill Clinton routine from SNL. His opening scene is hilarious, but unfortunately he takes a backseat quickly. David Foley is completely wasted in a flat role. I couldn't believe that they bothered to cast one of the funniest men alive and have him do nothing interesting. Jason Mewes pops up for a pointless buddy role halfway through the film. Judd Nelson definitely steals the show as the movie progresses and is at his best in the film's climax.

My other gripe is that the chemistry between the lead actor and the main girl felt very forced. I didn't buy their relationship for some reason.

Overall, it provides a few laughs but feels like a missed opportunity. I would suggest it on DVD only to fans of independent cinema who can get over things like horrible lighting and camerwork. This is one of those movies that will probably get a cult audience but everyone else will hate.


Netherbeast is a good example of why some ideas have to be made as independent films. First, its story isn't interesting enough to appeal to general audiences. Second, the quality of the movie is pretty bad for a few reasons.

I hoped it would be better considering the cast had a couple of people I'd actually heard of in it and it was billed as a comedy. Although it tries to be slapstick-y a couple of times nothing seems to work. The jokes just aren't funny and most of the dialog is flat or very forced. Robert Wagner plays the president and adds nothing special to the role that an unknown actor could have. In Dave Foley's scenes, he seems like he has nothing to do. The non-marquee actors are awkwardly unnatural. Steve Burns does the best of anyone in the cast with what he was given, but is still not enough to make this entertaining.

The movie's concept, which is told from inside a group of exiled 'mutants', is not done in any way that is new. The main plot, which I guess is closest to a who-done-it, is pretty weak too, is short on clues and has an ending that is really telegraphed. Netherbeast does a lot of explaining to make up for a lack of real story-telling, mainly relying on the tired voice-over treatment to do it. It doesn't do a good job of making the viewer care about what is being said or why they should care.

With the writing, acting and production quality of the film itself, the whole thing seems more amateurish, like a student film, more than an indy picture. I'd recommend skipping it.


Just finished watching Netherbeast Incorporated and well...it had a few moments. It star's a pretty well-stocked cast and a moderate budget. The general plot is a re-invention of the vampire, and the movie spends about 1/3 of it's time explaining just what they are. For one thing, they're not that different than normal people...except for the fact that well...they eat normal people to survive. The Netherbeasts, as they like to be called, spend their lives in a corporate building, protected from the outside world. It's kind of like Office Space for vampires. They do office work...except they don't retire after 30 years...for some of them it goes on for several decades. Their current lifestyle is in danger from outside sources which is actually more of a sub-plot to their everyday normal office lives.

The problem I had was that the majority of the jokes just fell flat. Whereas I had a few chuckles, they were all delivered dead-pan without any enthusiasm whatsoever. I understand they're portraying the boring office life, and that these netherbeasts are in somewhat of a rut having the same routine for decades at a time, but the delivery of the humor should have been more engaging. The main story is really just kind of going on in the background while a forced romantic story is developing...and the rest of the cast just enters screen to say their lines and walk off. The acting was pretty sub-par, and the lines in general had a scripted sound...the sort where they literally just read it before the director said action.

It had it's funny moments, but from the cast involved I just kinda expected better. For all the actors and comedians I recognized this was probably their worst work that I've personally seen. I wouldn't say avoid this movie, but I wouldn't be rushing out on release day to grab it. If you're more into a small budget, mild dark-comedy, somewhat laggy feeling film...give it a go.


The first scene of this movie is the best scene, and as soon as it's over the movie falls flat on its face and never gets up. Darrell Hammond and Dave Foley are the only things worth watching in this movie, and they are given almost nothing to do. At some point, the producers should have realized what was going on, thrown out the script, and let Hammond and Foley improv their own movie. Whatever they'd have come up with would have been miles better than the nerdfest that this film is.

What is the problem? Well, for one thing, this is one of those "vampire" stories where the writers think they have to cleverly re-invent the vampire mythos for the hundredth time. And in this case, their re-invention is not at all clever, and is so contrived that the movie has to be narrated, so they can endlessly explain their idea of how the vampire thing works. It takes a lot away from the flow of the film. You'd like to see the story unfold, but the idiotic protagonist has to keep interrupting with dumb little explanations, of dumb ideas, accompanied by cartoons and dumb 50's music.

If you don't like narrated movies, or sci-fi nerd movies, you won't have any patience for this kind of thing.

The story is lame and dull. Only Darrell Hammond and Dave Foley are worth watching, even though Foley is tragically underused yet again. Amy Davidson plays a temp who follows movie logic and immediately hits on the nerd protagonist, again a nerd movie trope. In reality, hot young temps don't come on to whatever shlub showed them around on their first day. She also has one of the most embarrassingly stupid scenes in recent movie memory, where she has a little monologue about how much ventriloquists turn her on. I can't respect any actress who wasn't smart enough to turn down a part like this.

Steve Burns as the protagonist is just in the way. A Simon Pegg wannabe.


I would have no problem with this movie and book if it word told as a fictional story. what disgusts me is that Alex Haley wrote this as an "Accurate tale of his family history" or his "roots." the problem is that in his "true account" Haley plagiarized from a FICTIONAL author. This author was a Caucasian who enjoyed traveling, and in his travels found a deep love for folklore. In particular he discovered an interest in African folklore, and spent several years going to villages and collecting very intriguing tales from different people in different African tribes. A very noble endeavor in the realm of fiction. But Haley's plagiarism is much worse than a petty crime, it shows the falsity of his book. I'm not talking sentences, I'm talking entire paragraphs, entire childhood accounts. If you want to watch this as fiction go ahead, but please do not watch this as a history lesson, because it's simply not.


Taken from http://www.martinlutherking.org/roots.html

January 16, 2002 -- ON Friday, NBC will air a special commemorating the 25th anniversary of the landmark miniseries based on Alex Haley's book "Roots." Ironically, the original series aired on ABC - but officials at that network took a pass on broadcasting the tribute.

What's truly amazing, however, is that "Roots" is receiving a reverential tribute at all. For while the miniseries was a remarkable - and important - piece of television, the book on which it was based has now been widely exposed as a historical hoax.

Unfortunately, the general public is largely unaware of how Haley's monumental family autobiography, stretching back to 18th-century Africa, has been discredited.

Indeed, a 1997 BBC documentary expose of Haley's work has been banned by U.S. television networks - especially PBS, which would normally welcome such a program.

Coincidentally, the "Roots" anniversary comes amid the growing scandal over disclosures of historian Stephen Ambrose's multiple incidents of plagiarism. Because as Haley himself was forced to acknowledge, a large section of his book - including the plot, main character and scores of whole passages - was lifted from "The African," a 1967 novel by white author Hal Courlander.

But plagiarism is the least of the problems in "Roots." And they would likely have remained largely unknown, had journalist Philip Nobile not undertaken a remarkable study of Haley's private papers shortly before they were auctioned off.

The result was featured in a devastating 1993 cover piece in the Village Voice. It confirmed - from Haley's own notes - earlier claims that the alleged history of the book was a near-total invention.

"Virtually every genealogical claim in Haley's story was false," Nobile has written. None of Haley's early writing contains any reference to his mythic ancestor, "the African" named Kunta Kinte. Indeed, Haley's later notes give his family name as "Kante," not "Kinte."

And a long-suppressed tape of the famous session in which Haley " found" Kunta Kinte through the recitation of an African "griot" proves that, as BBC producer James Kent noted, "the villagers (were) threatened by members of Haley's party. These turn out to be senior government officials desperate to ensure that things go smoothly."

Haley, added Kent, "specifically asks for a story that will fit his predetermined American narrative."

Historical experts who checked Haley's genealogical research discovered that, as one put it, "Haley got everything wrong in his pre-Civil War lineage and none of his plantation ancestors existed; 182 pages have no basis in fact."

Given this damning evidence, you'd think Haley's halo would long ago have vanished. But - given this week's TV tribute - he remains a literary icon. Publicly, at least.

The judge who presided over Haley's plagiarism case admitted that "I did not want to destroy him" and so allowed him to settle quietly - even though, he acknowledged, Haley had repeatedly perjured himself in court.

The Pulitzer Prize board has refused to reconsider Haley's prize, awarded in 1977 - in what former Columbia President William McGill, then a board member, has acknowledged was an example of "inverse racism" by a bunch of white liberals "embarrassed by our makeup."

Yet the uniqueness of "Roots" is that it was presented as factual history, albeit with fictional embellishments. Haley himself stressed that the details came from his family's oral history and had been corroborated by outside documents.

But Professor Henry Louis Gates of Harvard, a Haley friend, concedes that it's time to "speak candidly," adding that "most of us feel it's highly unlikely that Alex actually found the village from whence his ancestors came.


First I want to point out that the revelation that Alex Haley plagiarized part of his novel and the allegations that he largely fabricated his family history are irrelevant to an evaluation of this program. Whatever the degree of truthfulness in Haley's work, Roots had completed its transformation from history into hackneyed fiction when it came to television screens. That should be obvious to any viewer who can manage to see through all the hype. The later episodes are standard issue TV entertainment for the time, on a par with Gun Smoke or Little House on the Prairie.

But the earlier episodes don't come off too well either. In the first episode a scene is added for no other apparent reason than to allow O.J. Simpson a cameo. I cringed when I saw Simpson running across the African grasslands, not because of his subsequent notoriety, but because of the very unsubtle association between African ancestry and modern day athletic prowess. The producers also apparently feared, perhaps correctly, that they would lose audience share if they didn't have white faces on the screen every fifteen minutes. And so the moral anguish of the slave-ship's captain (Edward Asner) is given as much importance as the ordeal of the Africans in chains below decks. In another gratuitous scene, we see Kunta Kinte's master (Robert Reed) having a tryst with his sister-in-law (Linda Day George). That scene is pure trash, especially when George tells Reed that she would like to be a "darkie" so that he would come to her cabin and take her.

Given the film's "all-star" cast, it's not surprising that the performances are of very uneven quality. Levar Burton, Cicely Tyson, Ben Vereen as the young Chicken George, and Olivia Cole are excellent. As Kunta's grandmother, Maya Angelou seems to be channeling, well, Maya Angelou. (The subtext of her performance is "Look at me!") The white actors are second rate at best.

Thirty years after Roots, it's time for white and black viewers alike to forget this tripe and read a few history books.


This series about slaves coming to America is not particularly good, or well made. The only reason African-Americans like it is so they can hang on to a 150 year old memory to guilt European-Americans into submission. The only reason European-Americans like it is for fear of being branded a "racist" because they don't enjoy a mini-series that is not good in the first place. If I make a mini-series about my ancestors coming to America in the boiler room of a passenger ship no one would even care, some would probably even call me racist because there were no blacks on the ship . This does not even compare to modern masterpieces such as "Band of Brothers" which do not cling to distant memories that divide America and cause much hurt. Stop the real racists and don't see this movie.


This must be one of Shue's worst yet, While watching the film I was intrigued by the sheer mystery of the film.

I had no idea or could have guessed what the outcome would be...

And then a truly awful ending which ruined what originally had me gripped.

I only voted four because of my original impression of the film(before Isaw the end) Avoid at all costs!!!!!

Story outline - A dancer (shue) finds she is pregnant, her husband , an up and coming businessman moves them out to a big house to raise their child away from the city, While battling her own depression the lonely house starts to eat away at her , causing a large amount of paranoia, or is it?


This one was a great movie about nothing, and I mean really nothing. From the beginning till' the end, everything happens has nothing to do with reality(or fiction) and common sense, not even touching common sense. However, I might add that from the "directoral" point of view it is a great achievement to create that much suspense without practically having a story. In the end, I do not regret watching it(we all need to see all kinds of movies to create a real and correct hierarchy in our minds) but I would not recommend it to any of my friends... I hope I didn't offend anyone who reads this, and I apologize for my English. Thank you.


This movie was one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. I was very disappointed, I love Psychological thrillers, but this was far from that. Although Shue did a decent job in the movie, it couldn't save the fact that it was a horribly written movie. The story literally went nowhere, leaving me frustrated and annoyed. Many questions were never answered, and the character development was almost non-existent.

In the future I will think twice before ever seeing another Isaac Webb movie.

VERY DISAPPOINTING MOVIE

DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME


Elisabeth Shue's voice mail:

"Hey Elisabeth, this is Nick. Remember when we made "Leaving Las Vegas", and we promised each other that we'd each try and make the worst film ever just for kicks? Well I just did an incredibly awful remake of "Wickerman"! So you're up...."

Nicolas Cage's voice mail:

"Hey it's me, two words - First Born! I win, you loser!"

Something has gone wrong, horribly wrong with movies lately. I can't even stay awake sometimes for the ending. The problem here is I really do like both Cage and Shue but the scripts and supporting cast that they got on these movies was awful. As far as First Born goes there is not one thing RIGHT with the movie. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME WATCHING THIS. I suffer so you don't have to.


I was expecting more from this film. It started off dark with the potential to be creepy. I kept waiting for a climax or a twist but nothing. Shue acted well but an actor can only do so much. This film was doomed from the moment the ink hit the paper. A young woman has her first baby after moving from the city to a large home with her husband. He works all the time and she is left alone with the baby. She starts to slowly go mad. Although you keep hoping that something eerie or sinister will happen, it falls flat. The ending was terrible but I was so glad when it was over. It was an absolute yawnfest! Don't waste your time this movie SUCKED!


Alright, I am not sure where to start with this so here goes.. The movie overall was well acted but there was very little a solid acting performance could do so save the weak plot. I am a new father and have a 3.5 month son who happened to be with his mother at the time. The ending to this movie was the most disturbing thing I have seen in any recent movie I can think of. In fact it was so horrifying that I had to see my son ASAP. Please, if you are new parent, do not watch this. I can handle the most gruesome of movies but this, hit to close to home and just haunted me. Honestly, the movie was well done and it was a great performance by Shue. But I will never ever look at her the same again.


While I thought Elisabeth Shue did a wonderful performance of a new mother going through the anxiety of post par-tum depression, the supporting actors were not as engaging. Her emotions were believable, but the storyline was extremely confusing. Perhaps because that was the whole point of the movie? Was the entire theme centered around the confusion, fear, and anxiety that most new mothers face? Because the ENDING completely destroyed any sympathy I had for what the main character. This movie left me with a HORRIBLE, unsettling feeling. I don't want to spoil the movie for everyone, but to the comments posted prior, I actually DID have to watch the movie again. There are subtle foreshadowing events that reveal her insecurities building...not only as a mother, but also as someone responsible for another life. I just hoped for a better ending.


Reading the other comments, I certainly see why people say this movie is lame. It does drag on with seemingly no point and just when you think something big will happen... it doesn't. But you are able to tell that this movie was made like this on purpose. All though may not have been the best idea it has a real life feel to it. Its shown through the perspective of "Shue" the whole movie, a lot of unanswered questions and confusion left at the end is because she never had them answered.... and honestly all of the questions are answered if you pay close enough attention there is just no "WHY" but you can figure the "HOW" out. Her hallucinations and the way her mind goes downhill is believable and the way things weren't always what they seemed, which disappoints the movie fan in you, really portrays something that could happen in the real world. This movie is good because it gives you that eerie feeling of real life where as if it was laced with a bunch of special effects and corny situations made strictly for fear and not the story line, it would have been much worse in my opinion.


Yes, Elizabeth Shue is acting well, so what? To watch a pregnant woman for one hour, with nothing else going on, is a waste of 35mm film! There was no real climate to build up to. The "climate" ended in the last scene and was no surprise to me. The character "Laura" (Elizabeth Shue) is a little strange, really stupid and at the end mad (big surprise), that is it. It reminded me of "Hide & Seek" (just a little), but actually stands no comparison. There was no real thrill in it and the pseudo scary sound effects didn't do the job. The film was really boring and I was having a rough time staying awake until the end. This movie does not deserve to be called: "Overall, a very good film" This movie sucks!


I thought the movie was horrible. It had good intentions until Shue went crazy. With all the characters in the movie you would have thought the director would have used them more. For instance the mother, what mother would not come to see her first grandchild because she was scared to fly. How did she get there if she was afraid to fly? The housekeeper who knew something was wrong but never thought to call the husband to say to him "I found a knife in the crib." I mean there was a lot of unanswered questions. The girl Jenny, the diary. I hope there are no plans for the making of a "First born 2" This could have turned out to be a good movie if the director would have used his characters more.


I did find reason to watch this movie to the end although I fast forwarded some of the more seemingly irrelevant parts. I say seemingly because there may have been plot clues that I missed.

Possible SPOILERS Here: Unfortunately the DVD box presents this movie as more than it is, almost supernatural, when it's really a psychological drama. I understand this movie to be about a woman whose life is going the way she wants until she becomes pregnant. She represses not wanting to have a baby to the point that her personality splits as she tries to be the mother and wife that's expected of her.

This movie seems to be a look into the minds of people who do things we can't understand; a look at how the subconscious mind can overcome the conscious mind with its darker, suppressed desires or fears if the subconscious thoughts are stronger. The director/writer appears to do documentaries as well, so maybe that's why this movie has the feel more of a learning experience than entertainment. If a person enjoys looking into the workings of the human mind, this movie may be worthwhile.


I had to seek medical attention after watching this movie. It was so bad I swear I started to bleed from my eyes and ears. It may be the worst movie of all time. This movie created more questions than answers and left me feeling unclean. The whole time I am waiting for something to happen and then....nothing. I'd rather watch Ben Affleck and Jenny from the Block in that other awful movie that we dare not say its name, while watching it with Chinese voices dubbed over it and bamboo being shoved under my finger nails. As for the acting.....the best part was the Dog named Parker.....I actually believed he died in the movie. Whatever acting school the dog went to you should send the rest of the cast to. WOW STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE!!!!


The most boring film of 2007, and one of the most boring films of all time.

First Born starts slowly and then...becomes even slower...and then Zzzz. What!? Oh, I'm still commenting. Yes, well what can be said...a seemingly normal woman (Laura) goes completely insane after giving birth to her first child, a girl, if that matters. She is too wealthy to get any serious attention, so everyone lets her aberrations slide, not wanting to confront her, especially those who could be of most help to her.

No matter what is done to assist Laura, things just keep getting more and more out of control. Even as her personality is making major changes (she starts smoking) no one stops and says; "Hey, you're acting weird and freaking everyone out, including yourself."

Any real help comes too late and still no one is confronting the real issue that Laura is insane, not depressed, insane. So what happens? She buries her baby girl alive (thinking it was a doll), and forgets that she even had a baby. So now she is completely delusional and forever insane. The End.

Really. The End.


Not sure how this movie is at a 7.5/10 at the moment. My guess is all 11 voters have worked on the project.

And the first person to comment on this movie is talking about a Horror movie. Well, there is nothing horror about it - besides the camera work and acting that is.

It's basically a Thriller, with some small sci-fi elements (in the story, not special effects).

The beginning is fine, and opens a lot of possibilities for a good movie, but it never gets better, only worse.

Avoid this movie when you can.


Just saw this movie. The acting was good, the plot boring, and where was the suspense, thriller, or horror in this movie. It seems to have been made as a TV movie for the ABC Family channel, or Disney channel. A very safe movie. Courtney is a very good actress, she moved the movie along, but deserves a better vehicle and scrip. I can not say more without giving away the ending, but there were so many holes in the plot, and not believable situations, that it was hard to even suspend disbelief. For an after school movie might have been nice, but the synopsis, and other comments supporting this movie on Netflix were misleading. I was hoping to see something scary, or suspenseful, instead, I was wishing for the movie to end.


There is no word can describe how awful this movie! The acting is actually very bad, no; it was the most hideous act I have ever saw. The cinematography is very poor to the point will convince you that the movie was filmed by an armature camera man using normal portable camera on the planet which didn't discover the film effect yet ! If somebody can stand more that 5 minutes watching this film, he/she must suffer with a severe brain damage ! I wished it had at least some nudity, & even if it does, I bet it will be boring ! If you think that you have saw a bad boring film before this one, you are wrong !

what a waste of time..


Silk is a mishmash of science fiction and horror which doesn't work in either field. Some scientists have captured a ghost boy in a room and want to study it. They bring in a super soldier type guy to help them and he proceeds to investigate the history behind the boy's death. The special effects in the movie start out OK, but get progressively worse as the movie nears the end until eventually it gets more and more ridiculous with each death of another character. The capper is when a ghost lady comes out of a bowl of noodle soup. I find it hard to believe the director could think this scene was going to be scary or effective, what was he thinking. The science is only hinted at and is explained away in a cursory fashion, it would have been more interesting to expand on the strange science theme instead of going for typical cheap scares which is what the movie devolves to in the conclusion. The movie has a lot of unnecessary subplots that take away from the atmosphere which can't decide between horror or science fiction or philosophy and ends up being a confused patchwork that doesn't work or jell together. I thought the lead scientist character (he is on a quest to be a ghost) was played too cheesy and it was hard to take him seriously. Although this movie had some creative ideas it had too many drawbacks to rate it higher.


Maybe I was a little impatient with this film. I watched it one sunday afternoon when I was bored out of my skull and there was nothing on television. I am a big Fan of Nicholas Cage and havent really seen a bad Ridley Scott movie but I actually ended up switching this off half way through. Perhaps had I stuck it out Id have got my reward but in the first half this just didnt have anything to excite me, make me think or particularly want to see how it ended up. It just didnt seem to be going anywhere.On the plus side Cage was good if nothing spectacular and his character was brought some humourous moments. The female lead (her name I forgot just now) was refreshing and radiant and definately one to look out for. Though I dont always agree, Robert Mckee claims all films needs something to keep the audience hooked, alas, if this had one I must have missed it or it was too late in coming.


Boy, they just don't make them like this one anymore. Thank God for that! This is a pathetically dreary film about a "gang" of drug smugglers and their not-so-funny misadventures as they are hounded by the Georgia State Patrol while first in a beat up camper and then a huge rig. I would guess that at least half of the film is made up of lame chases, which is considerably better than having the acting "leads" on screen for any time at all. The police are portrayed as complete idiots as they have multiple cars unable to derail a camper until a fifteen minute chase has ended - only to have the "gang" break out of prison by a helicopter. The two leads are long-haired non-actors Don Watson and Bobby Watson playing Oosh and Boosh. They are criminals with no redeeming attributes and live to have a joint. The other performers are just as talented with some really bad turns by the likes of James Crews as "Bubble Eye, " Sandy St. Armour as the head of "the Organization, " and in the most ridiculous role we have Jim Whozitt(sometimes credited as Big Jim - c'mmon this is the only film he ever did) as the Pilot. He is flying to Columbia to get 10 million's worth in cocaine and pot and wears the most God-awful sansabelt slacks even for the 70's. This is a bad movie all around and very amateurish, but unlike other inept efforts in film-making - this one is just no fun at all to sit through. It plods on and on, trying to funny in some spots and failing miserably. It fails when it tries to shock a few times as well. This makes the Smokey and the Bandit series almost look like art.


I haven't seen this movie yet, but my husband has. He said it stunk as bad as the previous commenter said.

My take on it is, I grew up just a few miles from where the plane landed, just down Highway 100. My dad and my uncle heard about it on their CB radios and went up to see it before the Sheriff ever got there. A short time later, they took the rest of us up the hill to see it. The plane was empty, but it was amazing how small the clearing was in which they landed this plane.

Literally, a square landing field was made in the middle of the woods. There were tree stumps and debris and Georgia red mud, it was like a choppy ocean with hard, stationary waves.

The plane had clipped pine trees as it came down and there were still pine needles stuck in the prop.

I was only about 10 and I'll never forget how surreal it was. Maybe if I ever actually see the flick, I'll come back and tell you how they did.


If more people had seen this movie, I'm sure it would have a high (or low) place on the IMDb's 100 lowest rated films. It's a worthy companion to Ed Wood's flicks or anything you might see on MST3K.

This very low-budget production was inspired by a real life event in rural Polk County, Georgia. Some long-forgotten state legislator thought it was intriguing enough to have a movie made about it (it wasn't). So he got some minimal financing and hired a cast and crew which apparently was mostly amateurs and made this great embarrassment of an action film. It may be cruel to make fun of such obviously handicapped folks (in terms of their moviemaking talents) but it's impossible not to laugh at the sheer ineptitude of this effort. Every element of this movie is hilariously bad- the acting, the screenwriting, the "production design" and "special effects"- even the film's title theme song will have you in stitches.

I realize that no one will hardly ever have a chance to see this movie. It came and went with barely a trace, probably even in Polk County. I saw it myself on a brief run as the opener at a local drive-in. Incredibly, though, I saw it one night on television, on some kind of syndicated "action theatre" network. It was shown under a different name, which I can't recall. But there's no doubt you'd know it if you saw it.


Boy, this one is realllllllllllly a chore to sit through. I am glad I read up on the film here, though, because when I watched it I thought Oosh's brother was "Doosh." It sure sounds like that on the soundtrack. I'm kind of sorry he wasn't; Oosh and Doosh are perfect names for these two. The film: if there is any way at all to shoot car chases imaginatively, this crew didn't find it. Long, lame set-ups to gags: a house is being hauled down the road with a drunk hillbilly asleep inside, on a dirty pallet. Cut to the weed haulers and the cop cars. Cut back to the hillbilly, who twitches in his sleep. Cut back to the weed haulers. Cut back to the hillbilly. Gee, I wonder if the weed haulers will crash through the house, and the drunk hillbilly will wake up to find the house in pieces? He's bound to have a really funny reaction to that. Look, they crashed through the house and the hillbilly woke up. Other things to love: the drug kingpin who wears a little businessman's hat inside his house -- the pot plane ballad, sung over the freeze-framed plane at the end -- the pilot telling Oosh and Doosh (sorry, that's his ideal name), "Now, I'm going to get to the meat of the coconut!" as he lays out his big scheme.


Very wrong description on the first page for this movie here on IMDb.

In Genre, Tagline and Plot no one mention Gay Interest, Anal Sex, Gay Teenager and so.. and this movie is all about that, nothing else.

Please be fair and put this staff in main description!

Someone of you honestly said "Artless".. progress!

Attack me for not being a lover of watching "Anal Sex With Teenage Boys" but this is nothing more that "Pedofilia legalization activists movie"!!!

I don't see Comedy, Drama in here at all..

My suggestions for plot keywords are: "For Pedofiles" "Teenage Boys and anal sex" "More tips on mastrubating" "Artless" and so on..


This movie shows a too simple story about friendship between two youngsters, one of them a homosexual. It´s a very boring movie a the dialogues are nothing but awful and non dramatics. Just another movie from Spain where nothing happens. Too art for few ideas


This is a very very outright bold show. Mostly consists of toilet humor that seems to so very common today. The very first show I seen, had the characters burping/belching, and flatulence/farting as they were laughing about it all. If that is okay with you parents let the kids watch, if not.. I suggest something else. As far I as I am concerned this show belongs on Adult Swim on Cartoon Network. This show along with some others are not for children. But that is up to the parents to decide. I can think of so many other shows that could be better suited for children, no matter how you look at a television show, there will be some sort of negative that you will find. Be it violence, toilet humor, sexual innuendos.. etc.

The final say here, is you the parent.


I first saw Brandy & Mr. Whiskers on the Disney channel and decided to watch it. While I do like Charles Adler's voice acting, this show don't really make me laugh. I really didn't find it funny. I found Dave the Barbarian to be funnier.

SPOILERS!!! For those who don't know anything about this show, it's about two animals who get stranded in the Amazon Jungle. A snotty and pampered pooch named Brandy and a brain dead rabbit named Mr. Whiskers who wears an orange jail outfit or so that's what it looks like.

The first episode showed them falling into the jungle, meeting Loa-Boa, a snake who is purple and pink and wears earrings. She saves them in the first episode towards the end.

The show is mildly enjoyable, but don't have the charm as some old school shows like Nick's Nicktoons per say Rocko, Angry Beavers and the Ren and Stimpy Show.

The only thing I found kind of funny was when they cue to real photos in the show.

I rate this show 3 out of 5 claw prints


Of all the cardinal sins in cinema, boring an audience to tears is perhaps the most fatal, and "Lady Chatterley" is guilty on all counts.

Based on D.H. Lawrence's novel Lady Chatterley's Lover, this French version, complete with exhaustive subtitles, tells the story of Lady Constance Chatterley (Marina Hands). Though vastly wealthy and living on an expansive estate, Lady Chatterley is unhappy; her husband, Sir Clifford (Hippolyte Girardot), rendered paraplegic during the Great War, is incapable of fathering any children. Much of Lady Chatterley's time is spent taking care of her invalid husband, socializing with her rich friends and family, and doing light chores around the house. Life continues in silent desperation until she first lays eyes upon the ruggedly handsome grounds keeper, Parkin (Jean-Louis Coullo'ch).

Visually, "Lady Chatterley" is an artistic masterpiece. Whether it is a flower gently bobbing in the wind, the Lady Chatterley drinking from a spring, or Sir Clifford pottering about in his motorized wheelchair, there is always something beautiful to look at. "Lady Chatterley" even makes a brief segue into cinéma vérité, replacing the crisp, smooth steady camera with a hand-held 35mm, replete with washed-out color and uneven focus, making it look as if we were watching a home movie of her life.

The acting was also quite remarkable. Even before they first consummate their love, it is quite evident that Lady Chatterley and Parkin want each other. Sir Clifford's own inner anger comes through quite well, knowing that he can't perform for his wife in the way she'd like, but still refusing to let her go completely. While he allows her to get pregnant by another man, Sir Clifford insists that the man with whom she copulates be someone he approves of, though in the end she never reveals to him who her true lover is.

Of course, there comes a point where visual wonderment, intense emotions and deep, important symbolism become too much. Half the scenes contain very little dialogue conducive to the plot, and where there is something to be said, it is constantly broken up by vast pauses drenched in meaning. The director also felt that some sequences could be cut entirely, replaced instead by the all-knowing Voice-over from God. If used properly, voice overs can be useful to the story- here, the voice-over is little more than a giant "up yours" to the viewer.

There is very little reason to see this movie. The acting, visuals and cinematography are all incredible and surpass the quality of most recently released movies, but at just under three hours, it is just too long. Had the director cut out an hour and a half's worth of extra material, unnecessary sequences and needlessly artistic shots to give us a bare-bones story of Lady Chatterley and her lover, or simply told the story better, he might have made something one could actually care about. Those familiar with the frankly erotic nature of the source material, hoping the love scenes may add some extra "oomph" to an otherwise dry romp will be sorely disappointed. At its high point, the two lovers go for an unnecessarily long frolic in the rain, culminating flowers laced about their nether regions.

Instead of a tight romance between forbidden lovers, we get three hours of walking around large French estates and rich people frittering away their afternoons. 2 of 5


One of the worst movies I have ever seen. We kept on thinking that it must get better due to it's good score of over 7 points on IMDb. But no. I just wonder what made the actors choose to be in the film after reading the script " two sentences. She walks in the forest. sex scene. Two lines and She looks through the window and Sex scene." Really boring and slow. The sex scenes are particularly disturbing. It starts of very stiff, no kissing, he just takes off his trousers and "does it", then stands up an puts them back on. Not the best performance by the actors and it just does not flow. Nothing ever happens. And it just goes on and on and on. a true waste of time I would say.


Apart from the beautiful clothes, houses and landscapes, this overlong film goes nowhere very, very slowly. I must admit that I've never been a fan of D. H. Lawrence and this French production certainly faithful to its original.

I love movies with a slow, contemplative pace, such as Visconti's, and am a decided admirer of European - particularly French - films, but this one just produced an endless stream of yawns. Its director has tried every trick in the book to create a "meaningful" movie: long shots, dreamy facial expressions, gurgling creeks, slow, al fresco sex, pseudo profound conversations. Nothing works. It's just pretentious tripe, so devoid of any interest that it may well get all kinds of Oscar nominations.

My advice? Regardless of whether you are in the Hollywood or European movie camp, avoid this one.


I have never left the cinema before the end of a movie, until now. How anyone can last through 3 hours of this film, is a true measure of how much the human body can endure. I for one (and an unprecedented number of others) couldn't take it.

For a movie billed as a sensual & erotic journey of sexual awakening, this movie serves up a very long series of nature shots, badly & roughly chopped together with the worst sex scenes ever. The was more chemistry between Tom & Jerry that these two. The only thing that keeps your attention is the knowledge that something has to happen between these to characters soon. When it eventually does (after what seems like an eternity), you only see the first 5 seconds of the sexual encounter then you fade out to the aftermath. You only keep watching because you think that surely there has to be more? It can be this bad? But is it, more never comes. When some interesting events do happen, they are only told by the narrator (in subtitles because this movie is in French if you didn't already know).

I don't know how this film ended and the worst thing is that I really don't care.


I left the cinema very happy and with a feeling of a still lingering fear and intense joy that perhaps could come close to what you feel, still running but just having escaped unharmed after three hours of torture by a sadistic lunatic. The film was over. Following this sentiment of immense relief, there came anger. I know my Lawrence well and I have read all of his books, and my first encounters with Lady Chatterley's Lover (the book) was strong, so I had been looking forward to this adaptation. And here was the worst film I had seen for a long time. I was angry, because I couldn't find a single thing in this adaptation that would explain why I had had to pay for this. Nothing. Even the actors were mediocre (if they ever spoke!), our dear homme de bois, was actually at times quite laughable (the audience did laugh when they certainly weren't supposed to). Why, why, why? Why make a film that is so murderously non interesting? Why is every theme that Lawrence touches upon in his book grounded down to a sloshy Harlequin devoid of all suspense? Why did anybody come up with the idea of financing this film, less acting in it? Did the director take money out of her own pocket, did she rob a bank? And what had the jury smoked before they decided on giving this film a César???

Or if this is the best of French films this year, then just how bad is a bad French film?


The title is misleading. If you expect a bloody, graphic horror film with machines slicing up humans and then neatly stacking them up in cupboards, you'll be sorely disappointed. The robots merely zap and stun, firing the occasional laser toward the hapless, horny and idiotic humans. It also takes quite a while for the killing to start, because the makers of this vaguely likable crapfest thought it necessary to introduce us first to the utterly dull and unfunny humanoids. During the introduction it became very clear which ones will survive the ordeal: there are 8 young people, and 6 of them have sex. Guess which ones manage to save their lives?

The irony about slasher films - and I guess CM can be classified as something of that nature - is that religious folk probably don't approve of them at all, yet the moral of most such films is very clear (and very Catholic): IF YOU HAVE (EXTRA-MARITAL) SEX, YOU MUST BE PUNISHED - AND DIE. It's as simple as that. Sending this strange message to the viewer must have something to do with the human need to hate those who have more or better sex (or ANY sex) than themselves. I can't see any other logical explanation.

CM has a certain 80s charm - though by "charm" I definitely don't mean the horrendous overly blonde hair-dos or the ultra-skinny women. The soundtrack is cretinous but fun. If you liked "Killer Klowns From Outer Space", you'll probably enjoy this, too.

The main problem with CM is the same as with most horror comedy: not funny at all, and because there's "comedy" in it, no scares whatsoever. Not even close. Dull in parts, even when the action starts.

Bodycount: 9.


From the film's title - "Chopping Mall", I was expecting a movie along the lines of a slasher film. And, well, I was completely surprised. While "Chopping Mall" is in a way a slasher movie, it's of a different kind. The movie basically revolves around a group of eight teenagers who are hanging out in a high tech security mall after closing time. The kids are enjoying themselves, having sex and whatnot, when suddenly one couple is murdered by the mall's high-tech security robots. The steel doors to the mall slam shut, leaving the remaining teens trapped in the mall with a gang of killer robots mercilessly attacking them. The doors don't open back up until six a.m. the next morning - can they make it through the night?

This film has complete B-movie cheese written all over it. The story for this movie, for one, is creative but flat-out silly if you really think about it. The acting - well, let's not go there. I'll just say that it was pretty bad overall - bad delivery, and they were completely unbelievable. There were typical archetype characters, including the promiscuous girl, the nerdy guy, and the good girl. The film's special effects are another thing. The CGI is completely horrible, although back at the time this was made (1986), I suppose that this could have been looked at as some high-quality technology. Viewers today though will be able to see how unbelievable it really is. The robots also kind of reminded me of vacuum cleaners, but that was just me. Aside from this movie's negative points, it's got one good thing going for it - it's really entertaining, in all of it's cheesy glory. It's not scary in any way, just entertaining, and may please gore fans for some of it's murder scenes - I have to admit, the head-explosion bit was classic.

Overall, "Chopping Mall" is nothing but a corny B-movie. It's campy, the acting was far below average, the strange techno music was annoying, and the special effects are unconvincing - but despite that, it's entertaining for the most part. You'll have a fun time watching it, but it's hard to take any of it seriously at all. 4/10.