This show made me feel as though I wanted to vomit. Brian is one of the most dysfunctional, manipulative, abusive egomaniacs I have ever seen (even on t.v.) - and he stated that he is a psychologist??!!?? These women are nothing short of victims. Pam - the subservient, non-confrontational pleaser, Kathy - the insecure other woman, and Denise - clearly abused in previous relationships and feels she doesn't deserve a decent man. As other commenters have remarked, the children have lost the most and will carry the dysfunction consciously brought on by their ignorant parents for the remainder of their lives. I can almost understand polygamy for religious reasons (while recognizing the welfare fraud, statutory rape, and other associated criminal acts that commonly accompany this lifestyle), but this pig of a human openly states that his polygamy has nothing to do with religion - just his inability to keep his organ in his pants. The only redeeming moment was when Denise finally left (even if it was not of her own doing). At least she stands a chance at getting some counseling for her self-esteem issues. It is disappointing that TLC would air such a low class show. To give them the benefit of the doubt, though, perhaps they were hoping to shed some light on abusive relationships. They could have done a better job of it, though. Would I ever watch this again? No way. It was a complete waste of one hour of my life. I write my first ever post to save someone else an hour of their time and a bottle of pepto to quiet an upset stomach.


Three wives and one husband in one house! What a mess! Apart from the moral issues I have with this situation, it seems detrimental to nearly everyone involved. This guy doesn't have three wives. He has three concubines and no wives. Not one of these women can possibly be having a fulfilling relationship with her husband. The guy has variety in bed and doesn't seem to really care about anything that goes on in the house, let alone the children. The most important problem with this arrangement, in my opinion, is with the children. You'd think having three moms would make it easier for the kids to get attention, but... NO!! The women are so busy competing for their husband that they don't have any time for the kids. The kids are just there kind of on their own. It's awful!

The husband asks his wives to be sisters. EWW!! He's just crazy. He tries to order his wives around as if they were his children. I don't know how this situation can possible work. It is certainly REALLY messed up! It seems like the buy wanted to have a lot of slave labor so he can go out and play pool. I just don't get it.

Overall the whole situation is just weird! The man seems like he's been very creative in trying to justify his unwillingness to commit and have just one wife which is what man's and God's laws decree.


Warning: This review contains spoilers. This snippet of reality t.v. isn't about polygamy in the truest sense of the word. It's about a man (Brian) who admittedly craves sexual variety and works overtime to rationalize his lust into something respectable. While married to his first wife, Pam, he has an affair with Kathy who bears him a son out of wedlock. His cons Pam into accepting Kathy and her son as a part of their family. Pam, admits that she is very angry and resentful of Kathy when she first moves into their home, but now, 18 years later, she loves her and can't imagine life without her. Enter Denise, the woman Brian has met in his Ph.d classes--Brian the psychologist wannabe who tells his aging mother whom he blames for his need to have a variety of sexual partners "You can call me doctor, now." Take a beat to ponder the irony of this self-involved sociopath dishing out relationship advice. Though she is attractive, Denise appears older than both Brian and his two other "wives." His motivation for choosing her becomes apparent when he admits that Denise has made the payments on his house that kept them out of foreclosure. Denise's motivation becomes apparent in her love-starved gazing at him coupled with her deer-in-the-headlights pleading for acceptance from both Kathy and Pam. No surprise that neither of his current women like or want Denise in the mix. It is difficult to feel anything but contempt for a continually pouting Kathy who doesn't like being in the very position in which she placed Pam so many years before. Foolishly, Denise appears to have tried to buy her way into their lives because she's so desperate for love and for a family, but it also appears that she likes the role of favorite woman, lounging around while the others are cooking and cleaning. She's clearly there for sex with Brian and is accepting the package deal to get to him. The argument about being an family unsoiled by divorce as a rationale for their lifestyle is a smoke screen. These are single parents. Brian is out riding his motorcycle when things don't go his way. My advice: Don't waste your time on this show about a man, his passive wife and his shack jobs. He's just a user. If you're looking for a peepinto real polygamy, read Carolyn Jessup's book "Escape." It paints a disturbing picture of what polygamy really is and why it persists. This is just a show about a guy who's trying to satisfy his ID 24/7 and three women who sadly feel he is the best that they can do--well, that is until Pam divorces him and remarries, Kathy is separated from him and who knows what happened to Denise. Once he didn't need her money any more, he kicked her to the curb. He is apparently working his charm on a new woman to whom he became engaged.


Well I had heard this show was on at various time over the past couple of years. It was interesting seeing it. I do know Brian somewhat and know he has a "sketchy" past. What I didn't see in the show, ( and it may be mentioned in his book - which I haven't read) is where is his actual first wife? Pam isn't wife number one, he was married before to a girl named Sherrie. He has two kids with her named Candy and BJ. Where are they? TLC, do a follow up and investigate him a little more. Don't focus on the polygamy, see what kind of con-artist this guy really is. It's a shame Pam has to put up with this guy, and the other's as well. What a crock!


So, we already have a summary of the show. I suppose it is a good thing that we are learning about different lifestyles. ???Maybe? However, I just do not understand how any self respecting woman would allow this. I am almost able to stomach this family, they do seem normal besides the whole multiple wives thing, however, a third wife? How "hot" does this guy think he is? (By the way, he's not). It is a confusing show because all of the adults are claiming "true love", and that Brian is all of their "soulmates", but I find it hard to grasp how a woman can settle for only a part of that man's love, and part of his attention. This show doesn't seem like it is supposed to educate the world about polygamy, but more about Brian's "stresses", and how he's going to "handle" all these women that are "so desperate" for him. All of the women in the show seem very nurturing and kind, yet brainwashed by Brian. Basically, it totally blows.


"Stealth Fighter" is perhaps one of the worst low-budget espionage films concievable. Ice-T's portrayal of a navy fighter pilot borders on ridiculous even comedic as he brings unbelivable adolescent "gang" behavior and language to the film. What happens when the gangsters of New Jack City meet political terrorists? You get "Stealth Fighter" a movie that is almost insulting to the intelligence. How is it possible that a pilot can be concurrently enlisted in both the Air Force AND Navy, be a Navy SEAL, and lastly, be qualified for all major US aircraft? And with all the intelligence neccessary to do all of those tasks, we're to believe that Ice-T's character can't even pronounce the words "seven-seven-seven" with good english? (Ice-T pronounces seven as 'tevin-tevin-tevin.') Not to mention that this film excessively steals stock footage heavily from such movies as Iron Eagle, Interceptor, Clear and Present Danger, US Navy Seals, Diamonds are Forever and includes a battle sequence constructed entirely from edited footage of the bombing scene from Flight of The Intruder, where the only noticeable difference is Brad Johnson and Williem Dafoe have been conviently edited from the scene. The "stealth" F-117 which is stolen from the US gov't is actually the prop used as the "Manta" transport plane from Executive Decision. What is supposed to be a high-tech Los Angeles class submarine is actually the WWII era submarine set featured in Down Periscope. And the center attraction, a stolen SDI satellite, is actually stock footage of the killer satellite from James Bond "Diamonds Are Forever." To make matters worse, the footage editors didn't even bother to remove the original on-screen text from US Navy Seals in the carrier scene...the text that says "Off The Coast of Lebanon" does not match the on screen text used earlier and for the rest of "Stealth Fighter" - it's like comparing italic Times New Roman to Arial font. There are way too many character flaws, plot inconsistencies, and easily recognizable props and footage from other movies included in "Stealth Fighter" to make it believable.


Satellite ran this stinker late last night and, what seemed on the surface an interesting premise was lost quickly in the poor writing, stiff and otherwise horrible acting, mute extras, and overall lack of direction. Here are but a few examples: there are no colonels in the US Navy; men on the disabled sub were having difficulty breathing, but they were not breathing "carbon monoxide" as the med staff suggested unless their exhaust was leaking into the compartment; lifting off from an arms seller's supposedly isolated base of operations, the Nighthawk rolls along a clearly marked runway, then passes a VOR station, a type of navaid that would assist in identifying the location of this base. How about a GPS receiver that we're to believe also transmits its location, despite it being noted in the dialogue as simply for finding one's position?

Most of the dough must have been blown on the really cool opening sequences that hooks the viewer, these scenes depicting Navy fighters roaring through and taking out an urban area, 'cause from there on out, it's the movie itself that proved stealthy.


Pretty bad as compared to Top Gun and Flight of the Intruder.

Stock crap and only one flight director..... Yeah right People don't age in 10 years ????? I like the scenes at the Air force base , where they steal the F117, with all the private planes all around... uh huh. The Navy officer in a Naval Uniform being addressed as Colonel ???? Ice T is supposed to be acting ?????

Wasted performance by William Sandler.


Okay, this is an action flick, Ice-T, Tiny Lister as super bad boys, Costas Mandylor as the tough hero risking his future with his family to serve his country. I guess if you are fans of those guys there is something in here, but couldn't you have given them a tighter story, and better execution. And, puleeeze, make it a little believable. This is pure formula with too much unbelievability, like when Ice-t rats out William Sadler's character to the president and his staff. Why did I know that Sadler was going to be leak here. That is another example of formulaic casting. Give the guy some roles where he's not the bad guy so its a harder to spot. Or how about the fight at the end where highly decorated Costas' character puts down his gun so he can go hand to hand with Ice-T's character? Then Ice-T doesn't kill him!? What is that? Some kind of honor among thugs routine? It is just too much of a fairy tale to be a good action flick. Costas "sneaking up" on character after character while making all kinds of noise, the enemy compound so sophisticated it controls top secret space satellites, but such shoddy security that the marines' walkie-talkies go undetected as far a underground subs and Costas runs around without any surveillance picking him up. TOO Unbelievable!!!!


This is one of those movies that is so obviously thrown together to make a quick buck that anyone stuck watching it is bound to feel embarrassed after sitting through, say, the first ten minutes, wondering why they have chosen to waste their time in such a way. Everything about this flick- the acting, the special effects, and especially the writing- are so bland and derivative that it is clear that no one involved in the making of this picture really cared about what they were putting together, didn't care if the film they were making was memorable or meaningful or even entertaining in any way. The fact that the people who made this movie put so little effort into it is genuinely insulting to anyone who has chosen to invest precious time in this excuse for a movie. The plot, by the way, in case you care, focuses on a heroic fighter pilot (Costas Mandalys, in an astonishingly dull performance) who attempts to retrieve a stolen jet from a villain who has happened to employ the pilots wayward ex comrade (Ice T). Its all stuff you've seen a thousand times before, and almost always done better than it is here. With so many great action movies out there, there is no reason to waste your time on this.


I watched this movie for the 1st time, today, Sep 5, 2006. As an "action movie" addict, I don't know how I missed it before.

I knew, before watching, that it was, at best, a B MOVIE. The CAST gave it away!!! Ice-T as a Ex-Navy pilot. Get Real!! Ernie Hudson as the President!! Come on! Ya never know if he's gonna be a good guy(Everthings Jake) or a bad guy.(the Subsitute) William Sadler as a Navy Admiral- He's a BAD GUY IN EVERYTHING!! Andrew Divoff- Ya knew he was a bad guy!! Tommy "tiny" Lister. Ya never know what part he has.

John Enos- A SOAP star in a real movie? There are others, but these were enough to tell me what I needed to know. It was going to be a B at best, but, I had to "stick it out" After all, IT"S AN ACTION movie.

Tere a a number of "stolen scenes"-taken from other movies(previously sited) It kind of reminded me of some of the "westerns from the 50s/60s". Same scenes of stampedes, posse chases, etc.

All in all, it real isn't "that bad", but, bad enough. Contas Mandylor reminded me of both Michael Pare and Michael Dudikoff.


This movie was horrible. This only reason I watched it was because my roommate and I were playing Mystery Science Theater 3000 to it. The technical facts are virtually all incorrect, and the acting is even worse. The producers couldn't even afford to produce their own effects, they had to steal footage from Flight of the Intruder, Crimson Tide, Bat 21, and others. Do not watch this movie unless you want a good hour and a half worth of laughs (although the director didn't intend this ).


I'm not going to argue with anyone else. This has "fortnight old turkey, should have been chucked in the bin after Christmas", writ large upon it.

Ice and Costas have worked a lot together. They're obviously mates, the fight scenes are laughable. The only reasoning I can see behind why they would want to be involved in this, is that the gas bill must have been pressing again.

They are both capable of much, much better.

C'mon boys, don't do this kind of thing again. Please. Pretty please!


Truly, a horrible movie. In the opening scene's with Ice T and Costas Mandylor in their *Cockpits*, they are supposed to be in A-6 Navy Attack Jets. ANyone that has ever seen the inside of an A-6 knows this movie was "NOT EVEN CLOSE!". The producers would have been better off just playing it like the actors were in a large Air Force Bomber. I like Costas Mandylor as an actor, I really do. This was not one of his better efforts. Ice must have been working on his own skills because I am sure this film is not something he brings up when discussing his past projects. And what was Ernie Hudson thinking? Were the Repo men being held off with baseball bats and Ernie was desperate for a payday? This is so beneath Hudson. Unless you are suffering from insomnia and you happen to catch this on FX, late one night...don't waste your time.


The original description I read of this movie made it sound like it might be decent. Unfortunately, this movie is far from decent. In fact, the best part (some flying in the desert/Utah) has very little to with the plot of this film.

This is far from the best movie Ice-T was ever in. I haven't seen too many of his movies but there is no doubt that he gives a much better performance in "New Jack City".

The special effects are laughable, the military protocol is horrendous, and the acting isn't too hot either despite the fact that this movie features oft-seen actors like Ernie Hudson, William Sadler, and "Tiny" Lister.


About the only accurate thing in the movie is the title. Yes, it does feature an F-117 Nighthawk. Well, sort of. Anything other than close-ups of the actors is either stock footage from other movies or government films. Virtually all of the F-117 is identical to what you'd see on a History Channel special (any of which, by the way, is more worthwhile to watch than this). One of the most laughable scenes is the one in which the Good-Guy-Hero-Extrodinaire flies virtually every variation of the F-16! First, he climbs into the cockpit of an F-15. As he takes off (without removing the wheel chocks, of course!) its your generic F-16. But...my God! By mid-flight, its been magically transformed into a two-seater F-16B trainer! But wait! Now the gray F-16 has altered its paint scheme to become a bluish tiger-stripped Red Flag adversarial training jet!

So many other screw ups and laugh-out-louds that others pointed out, like the Presidential Motorcade consisting of his limo and one other sedan (whatever) as well as the "War Room" consisting of 9 chairs, a table, and a 20" Sony.

As far as the actors go, Ice-T has moved on to bigger and better things, like Law & Order: SVU (an excellent franchise to be a part of).

1/2 out of ***** for plot, storyline, accuracy, and everything else important in a movie.

****1/2 out of ***** for camp value.


"Stealth Fighter" is a joke from start to end. Terrible actors, horrible screenplay and an even worse story makes this one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The film is a bad copy of "Golden Eye", which already is terrible so what is to be expected anyway? Then mix it up with actors from the bad side of gangster rap and "Picket Fences", and there you have it, Stealth Fighter. The only positive thing about this movie is that it even makes Steven Seagal-films look good, a hard task all by itself. Do yourself a favor, don't waste any time by seeing this flop.


Pick a bad script, pick a famous person to play in a film, and sit back and watch the money roll in.

Yes, Hollywood is that cynical.

Ice-T stars [if you can call it that] in a predictable and typical action film.

Don't see it -- it's rubbish.


The Horsemen touts itself as another serial killer cat and mouse and admirably attempts to mix in several sub-genres including torture, exotic piercing, plot twists, and even a silence of the lambs (more Primal Fear in execution) style prison exchange. What transpires is unfortunately a lot of set pieces that don't add a lot to the whole. Dennis Quaid has always been fun to watch and has had several noteworthy performances (my fav will always be Savior). Here he struggles to play a hardened detective reminiscent of Al Pacino in Insomnia, his lines are forced, he is simply a poor casting choice for this role. He never reaches believability as the detective, and the dramatic subterfuge of a single dad with 2 kids is laid on so thick, he never sloshes out of the muck long enough to fill either role. The plot is OK, fairly standard shake on a playful serial killer vs cop movie, but the dialog is simply horrible. The lines are terribly cliché' and the actors, while capable, are just waiting for there time to speak, never fully absorbed into the movie. This will likely go to video soon where it may attract an easy to please crowd but ultimately does not hold a candle to any of the movies it copied.

Maddis


This was one of those "clever" movies that had a twist at the end. The whole point in these films is the twist at the end. The twist in this film was obvious in the extreme but so stupid that you discounted it as being too dumb.

During the second half of this movie the only thought in my head was "please don't let this be the twist, please tell me that writers are more imaginative than that, please don't let me have to watch the second half of this movie only to find it was what I guessed after the first 20 minutes".

The moral message of it all is dumb and a bit tired for anyone who has watched enough American films. You could parody this entire movie and make the moral message play out like an episode of southpark.

You could probably have condensed the whole film into an episode of Steven King's short stories and it would have had a much wider impact.

Awful, just awful


7.2 on IMDb? Really? It must be a reaction of Middle America to the recent atheist uprising (books by Hitchens, Dawkins, etc.) that there are so many fantastical movies lately. Not satisfied with comic book heroes (Batman, Iron Man, Spiderman, etc.), or flat-out fantasy (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.), Hollywood has turned to outright religious propaganda (Knowing, Henry Poole Was Here, Taking Chance etc.). I enjoy watching movies as often as possible, so this trend was readily apparent to me. Unfortunately, it doesn't make for a quality movie experience.

I can only imagine the pitch the writer made to the studios: "It's like Saw/Seven mixed with the Davinci Code!". Except with even worse writing:

Quaid: "He made 4 rigs. We got 2 victims".

Detective who looks like Chuck Berry crossed with Willem Dafoe: "Ah, sh*t, so there's 2 more".

Sherlock Holmes, watch out! That's some fine detective work. How about this:

Quaid to Zhang Ziyi: "Well, I should also tell you that...I'm not very good with children."

Ziyi (who is 30 years old and looks at least 25): "I'm not a child."

You don't say! This is only a sweet taste of the delicious dialogue you can expect from...THE HORSEMEN! Further, the foreshadowing is so heavy you can barely see. I don't want to spoil the grand experience of enjoying this cinema for anyone, but from the opening scenes of Quaid dealing with his emo sons (the older one is admittedly not bad in this movie), well...it ain't no Sixth Sense, let's put it that way.

Not really sure who this is supposed to appeal to: either parents of Columbine-type nutjobs who can be reassured that their poor parenting skills are understandable because they're explained IN THE BIBLE or misunderstood youth who feel neglected by Mommy and Daddy, so it's okay if they act out a Marilyn Manson video. Regardless, it's the viewer who pays the price.

The only revelation this movie provides is this: Hollywood has your money and time yet again!


An earlier reviewer said his friend thought this was the worst movie he'd ever seen. My friend turned to me after watching this on HBO On Demand and said literally the same thing to me. I wish I could give this film less than a '1'. I've seen a lot of Michael Bey productions, and true to form it is a total mess. Dave Callaham should really rethink this screen writing thing. He's no good at it and his sense of story and dialog are an insult to anyone over six years old, make that four years old; I know some six year olds who could put together a better story than this. I'm actually a fan of Dennis Quaid, can't imagine what got him into this project. Maybe he was drugged and forced to do it. And of course none of this would have been possible without the steady hand and crystal vision of Jonas Akerlund, holding the wheel as he sailed this turkey right into the rocks. I guess directing the Madonna and Metallica videos won't qualify you to direct features. I'm so sorry to have wasted 90 minutes on this.


This film was something I had high expectations for during the initial half an hour, it had all the requirements of a good movie-good setting-good actors-good originality somehow... At the end of the film (it has a surprise ending) I found myself annoyed with it, like in lieu of creating what I think would be a believable ending, they hired another director to complete it or something, and that person just took the shortest route to achieve exit speed, leaving the film finished but not finished right. I found the ending ridiculous in fact, as in junk, unworthy of the build up of the rest of the film. Maybe just avoid it, go to the bathroom for a few hours or maybe rearrange a bunch of old clothes. That probably would be time better spent.


Well, I don't want to give any real spoilers (heck, it practically spoils itself) but 'Horsemen' sadly is an unfinished movie, like an exciting auto chase in the middle of a film and without warning the good guy swerves off an unseen cliff and the film's over.

Speaking of spoilers, all the way through this, about four scenes before something happens, I kept thinking, "Oh, he's this" or "He'll discover this" or "The killer is" Despite the fact I thought the movie was well shot, the locales made the most of the depressing city it portrays and Quaid did an above-average job, as he almost always does, the movie was very flat, (again) predictable and too clichéd.

We have a recently single parent who's putting his job (law enforcement) in front of his two boys. We have a detective that visits an "oh, I'm smarter than you" criminal in jail for clues to his case. We have torture porn. All of these are very familiar stomping grounds.

Unfortunately, when it's revealed (well fully, all the clues are spewed from minute one) why the bad things are happening, it's so off-center and contradictory (There are no four horsemen! There's thousands! And when the four horsemen comewhat?)

I think there was a great movie here, if they had finished it. Perhaps another 2-3 rewrites and it would have been more eerie. Basically the movie's about a detective bent on finding a killer or killers in so-called random murders, with clues left behind, before the next person dies! I can barely write that without laughing. Go watch (or re-watch) 'Seven.'

Side note: I'm surprised I didn't get the phrase "Come and See" before Quaid's character did; I've heard it before listening to one of my favorite songs more than a dozen times: Johnny Cash's 'The Man Comes Around.' I first heard that song during the opening credits of the much better movie: 'Dawn of the Dead' (remake.) Yes, I know the original reference, but I haven't read that verse as many times as I had heard the song.


Although the movie starts well, its plot twists and awful acting make this movie bad, painfully bad.

In it's first scenes I thought the movie was promising, and it kept me going for like 20 minutes, without complaining, but when the plot begins to twist, I began to think that it was not worth watching, and then that it's one of the worst movies of the year. But When Ziyi Zhang started playing villain, the last drop of hope felt, Zhang's performance is probably the worst performance i've ever seeing, her efforts to sound sexy are in vain, no movie lover will find one of the worst performances ever, sexy. Quaid never impressed me so much, and this one is not an exception, he commits an unacceptable mistake of acting, he doesn't seem real sometimes, the least I want from an actor is for his performance to sound and look real.

Like I said, the beginning was promising, but the plot twists are so unbelievable and dumb, that when the final twist came, I could not believe that I wasted two hours of my life watching the worst serial killer movie I had ever seeing, when I could be watching "The Silence Of The Lambs" again.

Verdict: This is not the movie that's worth watching because it's too bad, it hurts and insult your intelligence, and by don't watching it, you will save yourself for having Zhang's performance in your mind.


This film was an insult to the intelligence of the viewers.

The plot is that this police department has an investigator who is an expert of Teeth. So he's called out on a case where a bunch of teeth are left on a silver platter. Soon we are enmeshed in a movie where a bunch of creepy kids are involved in a plot to bring about the "Apocolypse" by mangling the scripture.

Okay, here's the plot twist. Ziyi Zhang (who is a 30 year old playing a teen...) gives herself up in the murder of her adoptive mother. Now, oddly, this police department apparently has a dental expert, but doesn't have the computer experts or psychological experts to pick this girl's life apart, figure out who her associates are, including the son of the lead detective.

Now, I'm sorry, if you are a detective, you have to be pretty poor at your job to not realize that your kid is seriously messed up. Yet he hasn't been in the kid's room in three years? Come on. No cop in the world is that dense... You just don't understand police mentality. Policemen tend to be overly suspicious of everyone they encounter. That's the point.


Somewhere at the core of Horsemen there is a good idea and a riveting premise. The execution, however, is all style and too little substance. There may have been a great screenplay at the beginning of the development of this project, but if there was, it got into the wrong hands along the way. The end product is a mess, like Frankenstein's monster, as if it were pieced together from material from past, better films.

Every single "serial killer on the loose" movie cliché is lined up, making Horsemen a tribute to these flicks or a "best of" compilation at best and a sad copy at worst. There is a neat twist almost half way through that cannot be described without spoiling the central premise, the only truly interesting part in the film, but in the end nothing remotely remarkable is done with it.

I am very sure that the people at Platinum Dunes are very good at what they do and they consciously aim their releases at a specific genre audience and most of their films are a success in that respect (I liked the raw energy of the Friday the 13th remake) but Horsemen is a failure of diabolical proportions. Dennis Quaid looks like he's sleepwalking through his role and his character is ridiculously clichéd. The rest of the cast cannot really do anything with their roles either, their characters being sketches at most  there is not one credible personality in this film's universe.

Photography is great, though: the film looks slick  just like an episode of CSI. The similarities do not end there; there are even a couple of those CGI zooms into wounds accompanied by a metallic sound. In fact, the whole film reminds me of an episode of a Bruckheimer TV procedural, only somewhat more gruesome.

Thankfully brief, Horsemen clocks in at a mere 80 minutes, but there isn't a single memorable moment in the entire experience. The "message" or "controlling idea" in the end ultimately turns out to be pretentious and very shallow. This idea could have been worth a much better execution  no pun intended.


This story could have been good but the movie falls terribly flat.

The script was lacking and the acting was just not up to par. Dennis Quaid usually does a good job. he is the reason i watched it. But, I am guessing the script itself was so bad that the acting followed suit. There was no flow in the story. It went from one very basic scene to another. Very little was slowly revealed but rather just bluntly stated. I watched it with two other people and the response to it was all the same. Wow, that was bad! The story itself could have made a great movie but the attempt to make this movie good, failed miserably. Re watch 7 & Silence of the Lambs & you will be better off!


The start of this movie gave me hope I was on to something OK. There was some artistry in it, and the opening twist was promising. (But why does the bloody graffiti, i.e. "Come and see," have to be written in such phony, perfect handwriting?) That was all lost in an instant when Ziyi Zhang's character suddenly revealed herself for "what she was" - in the process suddenly going from normal middle class immigrant girl to ludicrous, evil, wry, hissing, (awkwardly) seductive, bloken engrish Oriental villainess. Cringe! I felt embarrassed on behalf of her and the producer.

I should have done what I wanted to do and gone straight to bed. But (deadbeat) curiosity got the better of me. However, I found everything else went downhill, too.

Particularly repulsive (and it takes a lot in a movie to actively repulse me) was the virtual rubber stamp this movie gave to homophobia. One of the "horsemen" as a gay character with a big brother so redneck and devoid of familial feeling that it almost went beyond belief, and who the gay character ended up disemboweling himself in front of because of his brother's rejection.

That plays on so many nasty old preconceptions, myths, and prejudices about homosexuality ("Homosexuals are never happy," "They bring it on themselves," "'Real' men can never feel comfortable with gay men" etc. etc.) that it's hard to believe this movie was made in the 21st century.

And as for the "revelation" (excuse the pun) at the end about who the fourth horseman was - puh-leeze, give me some credit. Saw it coming from way back.

Predictable, poorly acted, out-of-touch pantomime.


Horsemen is everything that I hate about movies. It is ruined by poor imaginations. It actually has potential, it has a good plot, and has cast that draws you into it. But the lack of intelligence in this movie is befuddling. The script is written to (what it seems) be able to let 2 year old understand what is going on. Some of the most obvious things are said numerous times and it becomes repetitive and annoying.

Next, some may disagree, but I liked what the plot had going. Although it seems like a copy cat of many other movies, I was totally enticed from the get go, starting with Denis Quaid(who plays Detective Aidan Breslin), who is called to the crime scene where he finds a bag of teeth and the message "COME AND SEE" written on 4 trees surrounding. You are automatically thrown into mystery and suspense with the first body being discovered. As the movie progresses, you become more and more confused by the plot. Numerous story lines emerge, and how it all ties together is so poorly executed, I was angered. The writers should be ashamed! In the end, we discover the white horse (final horsemen, ring leader, etc) is (who knew?!? oh wait..I did!) Quaid's son. The quiet, angry teen who is obviously really upset by his dad's ignorance. Not only was the twist so predictable, the boy doesn't even fulfill what he wanted to. He is saved by, of course, Quaid (dad) in a not-so-emotional scene where his dad yet again promises to be there for him in the future. Look what it took to make him notice! But really, do the writers expect us to believe that his son was involved in this, murdered numerous people, and his dad is telling him everything will be OK? And the kid just agrees to it. "Yeah dad, I believe you this time. I just killed a bunch of people and am possibly insane, but hey- I'll take you up on that offer for that weekly visit to eat! How about it?" So that's basically the conclusion. And it leaves you feeling like the writers questioned your intelligence and angered that you wasted your time on this terrible film.


This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Why did Dennis Quaid star in this? I picked this one up at the Redbox. I misread the plot. I thought it was about 4 people who had one thing in common, they were all the bringers of the apocalypse. I thought they were the 4 Horsemen. Instead, we get a cheap rip off of 7even. It tries so hard to be suspenseful, scary, creepy, etc. The movie was very boring. I wasn't the slightest bit thrilled or given the creeps. The movie is basically about 4 serial killers who base their killings off the 4 Horsemen of the apocalypse in the bible. The serial killers kill their victims by suspending them in the air with hooks digging into their backs. The more they squirm, the more they bleed. The even post it on the internet where supposedly, millions of teenage serial killers are watching. This is a rip-off of FearDotCom and another film which I can't think of the name right now.

There are plenty of plot holes and problems in this film. I would strongly recommend you avoid this part if you don't want to be spoiled:

1. Alex's Bedroom: Late into the film, Aidan enters his son's bedroom and finds white paint everywhere! Alex has been painting his room white for 3 years. His father hasn't been in his Alex's room for 3 years. This is stupid. Wouldn't Sean, the younger brother or Aidan smell the fumes coming from the paint from Alex's bedroom? Everything in his room has been painted. His bed, pillow, sheets, walls, ceiling, floor, possessions, computer, etc. Everything has been painted white! Wouldn't Aidan or Sean notice the smell of new or fresh paint coming from Alex's bedroom? Big, BIG plot hole! Also, wouldn't Alex have been so sick to the point that the poor kid is bedridden. He hasn't been that sick in 3 years? No colds, flues, food poisoning, etc? I usually get colds about once or twice a year.

2. The 4 Suspension Rigs: The suspension rigs are about the size of my bed. It is a queen size bed. These rigs would be pretty suspicious if a bunch of teenagers were buying them. Wouldn't somebody notice these kids unloading these things and putting them into abandoned buildings? Also, when the cops go to the store where they bought them, the owner of the store says he's only sold 4 of them to a bunch of teenagers. Yet, the store owner doesn't act suspicious or anything! What do 4 teenagers need 4 suspension rigs for? Why not just buy one and rinse whatever you need to rinse in alcohol so you don't get an infection? Is rinsing suspension rig hooks in alcohol too much of a chore?

3. Alex: I knew he was one of the Horsemen right when I first saw him act shy, blame his father for not being there for his mother when she was dying of cancer, taking care of Sean while his father is busy working, etc. It was so obvious he was one of them. This was only 20 minutes into the film.

4. The Ending: At the end when Aidan comes home after his son dies, he wakes up Sean and Sean asks where Alex is. After telling Sean not to worry about Alex, the credits start rolling. I'm not even kidding. That's the ending. I expected a funeral before the credits started rolling. You usually get that in movies but not in this one.

There is one scene that just bugged me. There was a homosexual who invites his bigoted brother to a restaurant to chat. Instead, he drugs his coffee and takes him to an abandoned building and hooks him up to a rig. Before his brother wakes up, he fills a syringe up with a medicine of some kind. I think it might have been PCP or a very powerful drug like morphine. After he does this, he wakes up his brother and proceeds to kill himself in a very gruesome manner in front of him. He tells his brother he must do this because he is gay and that he doesn't deserve to live in this world.

That is unacceptable. There are hundreds of gay teenagers all over the country who kill themselves. We shouldn't use a scene like that in this movie. Who knows, this movie might make the problem worse. Maybe some heterosexual will get the idea that if they cuss, taunt, and harass them enough, they'll kill themselves. This is very inappropriate and very, very dangerous. The movie could have done without this scene.

That's most of the movie. I hope Dennis Quaid chooses better roles. I would hate to see his career wind up in the toilet cause he chose to star in a lot of bad movies.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10.


What a piece of junk! I would really like to know how movies this bad are made. Dennis Quade is as bad as Mark Wahlberg in the Happening.

The whole plot is a kid becomes a mass murderer because his dad didn't spend enough time with him. That's it! Nice home, school, neighborhood, but dad was working hard, not home, so he is so sad he just has to become a mass murderer. And convince others who are sad to murder also, because people were mean to them.

Dennis Quade was horrible in The day after tomorrow, and he stinks this one up also. this could have been good, but they worked over time to ruin this one. There must be a great story behind the making of this bomb. I would love to know what it is.


Detective Breslin (Quaid) is after someone who is killing people and hanging them on a contraption with hooks boring into the skin. Ouch! Double Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

I like horses. I thought this was going to be a horse movie. Fooled again. No, it has to do with murders and Bible prophecy. OK, but Dennis Quaid is in it so it can't be too bad. Fooled again.

There is a mixture of Quaid's character Detective Breslin agonizing over not being there for his two boys after his wife's death and the bizarre murders cropping up all over the place. The mixture needed more stirring. The murders are gory, bloody, perverse and it's hard to watch the crime scenes where the victims are hung up on some contraption with hooks boring into the skin. Makes your skin crawl when you see it. But, they do a very good job of showing this. Are they to be congratulated for this? I think not.

I like Dennis Quaid. I thought this was going to be a good Dennis Quaid movie. Fooled again. Something went very wrong. The story for the most part. The clues are loosely presented to represent The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and what will happen to mankind when the veil is lifted. Give me a break.

The ending is not surprising because the people in charge forgot to introduce other characters who may be the suspects so that leaves.well, I'll let you figure it out. You won't like it. You won't believe it. You will want your money back. Also the ending is incomplete as one cannot put oneself onto a contraption with hooks in the skin. So who put this person on the contraption? The killer or accomplice wasn't caught.

I like horses. Next time I see a movie title with "horse" somewhere in the title, I will read the box to make sure I will be watching horses and will try not to be fooled again.

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes, some, not much


The movie is too predictable, after watching the half of it, you know by 90% how it will end. The quality of actors (especially the Chinese girl) could not be worse. She tries to act scary and mysterious, but it didn't go further than an attempt. There is an attempt to bring some humor in the movie, and I must say some lines were funny, as much it can be funny in such kind of films. That would be probably the single positive thing, I can mention about the film. You would expect, that they will link all events at the end together. Sadly it was not like that.

I wish I wouldn't have spent my time by watching this film. Nothing new, nothing special, nothing...


You know, throwing out a psycho thriller in 2009 with fragmentary cuts, somber tone and final twist, and doing it as if it were the most profitable years of the genre (namely, a bit after the release of se7en) is risky to say the least. But the worse part of Horsemen is how badly does nearly every thing, from lazy actors, a script so inconsistent on what it is telling that I cannot understand how anyone approved this (characters coming out of nothing at half of the movie, others disappearing, blatant incongruence in the investigation...), and a direction that does very little to hide the weakness of the story. The fascination with hooks and skin was better and more gruesome (and interesting) in the Hellraiser movies or in The Cell, the kind of millennium murders are something too old for its own good, and this movie just repeats the same clichés all over again without any inspiration, any intention of being original in anything. OK, there's a smart subtext of young nihilism readable in some of the lines, but that subtext is destroyed by horrendous dialog and laughable melodramatic scenes. So a failure in every sense, but most of all a failure of Michael Bay, who I see as the responsible for having this project go ahead.


Considering there were very few interesting movies at the video store last night, I decided to go with one that I hadn't heard about, Horsemen A Dennis Quaid film that flew under the radar? Well that seems to be the case considering it had an incredibly small theatrical release and now it appears Lionsgate is just dumping hordes of the movies at video stores in hopes of salvaging the production costs. So I get home and boot up the DVD and begin only to find something so horrific that I almost broke the DVD right then and there. It's a Michael Bay production. Dammit.

I am being honest here when I say that I gave the movie a chance. I didn't automatically assume it would be crap even though it was more than likely, but instead went into it hoping for the best. The movie stars an aging Dennis Quaid who is an Indianapolis homicide detective who falls into a brutal case involving many different homicides all linked by the words "Come and See" written all over the walls surrounding the bodies. Ah, but this is not all as Dennis Quaid is also having problems with his children after a recent family tragedy What a shockingly original twist in a shockingly original plot! Gag me. As a Dennis Quaid fan, it pains me to see him in such an awful role. The script he is given is so clichéd and uninteresting that it is unbelievable this ever made it to production.

Even though Michael Bay only produced Horsemen, his trademark screw-ups can be found slapped across every square inch of the film. The major problem Michael Bay films always has are human characters and emotions. The humans always have the depth and charisma of pieces of cardboard and always act like robots striving for emotional moments instead of real people acting, well, in a real fashion. It's all so fake and ridiculous that it's hard to take anything seriously, this in addition to how the script must have been written by a brain-dead squirrel. But my favorite aspect is the editing, which is simply astounding. There are montage sequences that utilize fading to black in every sequence, and almost all of the other scenes fade to black as well. If they were going for a dramatic and edgy feel, it failed miserably since all it leads to is a headache.

Oh wait, I lied. My favorite part of the film is not the brilliant editing techniques, oh no, it's the incredible plot twists that I hinted at before. There were multiple times in the movie where I literally yelled "PLOT TWIST!" at the screen hoping that if my voice was loud enough, it could fly across the country and kick Michael Bay in the ass. Seriously, the twists were so ridiculous and uninteresting that none of them held and tension or were effective in any way. The ending is about as satisfying as sucking liquid feces through a straw, but I won't spoil it since I'll let viewers take it all in for themselves.

After the film was over, the person I watched the movie with turned to me and stated that it was truly the absolute worst movie he had ever seen in his life. This is the same person I watched Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with, mind you. Horsemen may not be worse than Transformers 2, but it really is a black hole of entertainment. It's about as much fun to watch as it is to have your poopchute Super-glued shut, and I would be hard pressed to make anybody suffer through this waste of time, let alone have to pay to see it. Michael Bay, can you please start using toilet paper instead of wiping your ass with film reels? It's expensive and it makes humanity cry.


Why do they make crap like this? And why do credible actors like Dennis Quaid lower themselves to appear in such garbage? Someone needs to inform the cocaine befuddled writers in Hollywood that grizzly, disgusting blood and gore do not make suspense. The only suspenseful thing about this movie was wondering how much longer it could go on, how much more hideous torture we would be subjected to, and when the totally predictable ending would finally arrive. Suspense movies these days seem to get progressively worse. This film had no one to identify with and no one to care about. My first reaction was to shut it off half way through. I wish I had.


'The Wolf Man' is a likable but completely unremarkable addition to the Universal horror stable. With such transparent effects as pentagram scars drawn on with pencil crayon and werewolf transformations that simply dissolve from a pair of bare legs to a pair of hairy ones, this isn't exactly the most sophisticated movie, even for its time. It lays on the werewolf mythology pretty thickly, in particular the unconvincing dictionary definition of lycanthropy that opens the movie, and the poem that several characters repeat boringly throughout. There's not much chemistry between the actors: Lon Chaney Jr. and Evelyn Ankers don't convince as a possible couple, and Chaney and Claude Rains don't convince as father and son. It's all very run of the mill. I think my favourite part was the completely irony-free bit where a priest tells an old pagan gypsy woman: "Fighting superstition is as hard as fighting Satan himself!"


This film is like when you're sitting around drunk with your friends and some guy says something clever, and then you're like "Oh dude that would make a cool movie!" Then you wake up the next day and think "Wow, I was really wasted last night, what was I thinking"?

*SPOILER*

So, some scrawny old balding guy decides to kill his brother who is this big black guy. He slips his magical, indestructible drivers license into the black guy's wallet, and proceeds to blow him up. The dental records won't survive, but the ID card certainly will!

The black guy survives, but has amnesia. But somehow everyone mistakes the black guy for the white guy... Apparently, being in an explosion gives you black skin, African facial features, a full head of hair, and a different voice and personality.

Despite how insanely ridiculous this movie idea is, somehow the film continues to be completely predictable throughout. It's boring to boot.

If anyone can give me one good reason this film exists, please do.

But I will say the cinematography was pretty good/interesting.


"Plan 9 From Outer Space" is a brilliant accomplishment compared to this piece of crap. Whatever possesses some people to write reviews saying this movie has merit is beyond me. Whenever the discussion of the worst movie of all time comes up, I immediately think of this film "Suture". Some movies are so bad, they leave a vestigial imprint on your memory cells which one wishes could be obliterated. This is such a film. The visual imagery of having two individuals exchange identities, and then no one notices, is absurd. Nothing hangs together throughout the film. The script is preposterous. The miracle is the fact that funding was obtained, a greater miracle that the film was produced, unbelievable that copies are out there for you to rent, and mind-boggling that some people like it.


Slight plot spoilers!

Oh boy. Where to being with this one. First of all, regardless of what the back of the Blue Underground DVD says, this isn't much of a giallo. It is hardly a horror movie and I am not sure I would even call it a thriller. This is a story that takes place in Australia, but you would never guess it until a scene that takes place in Sydney outside the popular landmark Opera House. Although the true-story premise is fascinating, and the beginning and end of the film are cool, the rest of it is terrible, over-stylized, and dull. The only redeeming thing I found about it was the unique plotting and the funny Nico-like theme song that played over and over again with the unforgettable lyrics "aaaaa paaajaaaamaaaa is a thing that you wear...the sun on yooooour bodyyyy....because yoooou aaaare a wooooman....freee loooove is exciiiiiting." Yeah! The rest of the music consists of annoying synthesizers that sound out of place in such a drama.

Anyways, here are Six Things I Learned About Australia Thanks to THE PYJAMA GIRL CASE: 1) Women in Australia clean their feet in the bidet. 2) when a woman dies and goes unidentified, her nude mutilated body is put on public display. Said public gawks at body as if it were a piece of art. More people will claim said body than fake parents claiming that little Natural Redhead "Annie" after Daddy Warbucks offered a reward. 3) It isn't unusual for a bus filled with a female marching band to run over someone. It's such a mundane thing that the band will just march away uninterested. 4) $100 is a reasonable price to charge for a group sex session featuring 2 fat sweaty old men and a Napoleon Dynamite lookalike. 5) Everyone in Australia, including women who live in trailers, have photographs of naked women on their walls. 6) Everyone in Australia is actually from some other country. Yes, this is a goofy movie indeed.


Playing the new English teacher at an Italian college full of prankish boys, Edwige Fenech looks incredibly beautiful - perfection in the form of a woman. We just want to look at her on the screen, but these annoying trying-to-be-funny people keep blocking our view. One teacher has poor eyesight, the gym coach is clumsy, one student's father is a millionaire posing as a poor man, he also has a mistress, and a fat assistant....seriously, does anyone care about any of this? (though at least the mistress gets naked twice). There are perhaps 2-3 chuckles here and there, but most of the "comic" material is lame slapstick. Another movie to be watched in fast-forward mode. (*1/2)


This is just so awful that it is hard to comprehend that it was ever made. Yet, I understand the series was popular in Italy at the time. Presumably, one or two of these overgrown schoolboys playing buffoons were popular in themselves. Fashions come and go, however, and I doubt they would have a fan on the planet now. The drawn out slapstick gags come one after the other, each more unfunny than the last and all accompanied by the cast laughing uproariously to their own stunts. The lovely Edwige Fenech, of course is ravishing throughout, but deigns not to take her clothes off as much as in the first film. There must have been cinema-goers, like me now for instance, who might have been tempted to see the film just for the lady but I feel it has to be admitted that their really was an audience for this stuff in the late 70s. Pretty likely that some highly considered gems of today will look a little flat when the fame has faded away. Just worth it for Edwige.


As a kid, I loved this short. I think my tolerance for Mickey's bad acting was higher (but still not all that high). It's still kind of cute in its own way, but once again, whatever "gags" are here are ruined by MGM's bad sense of pacing.

Buckwheat tries to milk a cow just by setting glass bottles below it and standing next to it. As far as gags go, this is a far cry from "Mush and Milk" when the kids would rig a vacuum cleaner for the cow (though a lot less abusive, I will admit). In the meantime, we see Mickey get dumped into a well (yay!) and Froggy carried up by an obvious piece of wire as a mule bucks him off.

In this short, there's also another kid named "Happy". You know, what's very odd about MGM's later shorts is that they simply could not find other kids who could act. They all dispense their lines wearily, as if making movies was the most depressing thing in their lives. Compared to some of the ancillary characters, Mickey's manic screeching is at least notable for its ENERGY.


Farm Hands has one huge thing going for it: Janet Burston's not in it. The death knell for MGM's Our Gang's was the fact that as Hal Roach's holdovers aged they were invariably replaced by an unlikable cast of untalented kids (the sole exception was Buckwheat) in unfunny plots that usually centered around a lesson. This mentality was a radical departure from the earlier, vastly more entertaining Roach/McGowan entries; unfortunately these later MGM installments are what most people have seen. Here, by 1943, MGM had been producing the series for 5 years and allowed it to descend into what might be called benign disinterest only to be summarily shelved when studio bean counters pointed out the last several productions had actually lost money in their initial release. As this final roster of kids go, Robert Blake became a decent actor, but you'd never know it from seeing him as a child. Billy "Froggy" Laughlin is a one-trick pony, riding on the voice (okay, he also had crossed eyes), but he never looks like he's actually enjoying himself "acting"--- he reportedly never did and died tragically in his middle teens in a motor scooter accident. Farm Hands has the kids spending some time on Mickey's uncle's farm and has them screwing up their chores, ultimately winding up in a hay baler. All the gags are pretty watered down but at least this short has some action. 2/10.


Mike Harlan (John Stockwell, in his first top-billed role) is a laid-back car junkie who doesn't seem to care about anything else BUT cars. He is handed down an ultimatum by his science teacher, Bob Roberts (Dennis Hopper): hand in a science project or get flunked.

Mike takes what he thinks will be the easy way out: he scours the junk-pile in a forlorn Military enclosure, and makes off with what has already been revealed to be an alien gadget. It can create warps in time and space, not to mention put on a heck of a light show.

When the device is accidentally turned on, Stockwell and associates have to work together to save the world.

The directorial debut for "The Last Starfighter" screenwriter Jonathan Betuel is for me a missed opportunity. It's not as much fun as I think it should have been. It takes too long for the movie to build up any amount of steam, and even the climax does not seem to have an overwhelming amount of energy. The special effects may be a highlight (the dinosaur actually doesn't look too bad) but they pretty much dominate a fairly unsatisfying movie with too much dumb dialog. Vince Latello's one-liners fall flat far too often (although that line that I used to title this review was one of the better ones).

The actors do everything that they can. The adult co-stars are mostly in the background, with the exception of Richard Masur's extended cameo as a broadly played detective with a long, slow drawl, and, of course, the incomparable Dennis Hopper, perfectly cast as the 1960's relic turned high school teacher. Stockwell is acceptable as the low-key hero, Danielle Von Zerneck reasonably appealing as the geeky girl who of course happens to be already rather attractive, Raphael Sbarge stuck in the one-note, over-the-top, grating nerd role (he reminded me too much of Urkel and Screech), and Fisher Stevens displaying his usual comedic energy as the flamboyant and cocky Latello.

As others here have noted, this was one of a number of 1980's pictures to jump on the science fiction-comedy bandwagon. I'm sure others will disagree with me, but I just don't think that this is one of the better ones. Of course, now when I see 1980's pictures and see those fashions and hear that music, I'm always amused because I think, "I actually lived through that." "My Science Project" is not a total disappointment but it leaves me thinking that I would have preferred to watch something else.

Cult actor Michael Berryman and Robert DoQui, "Sgt. Reed" in the "RoboCop" movies, have small roles, as does Pamela Springsteen ("Sleepaway Camp" 2 and 3).

4/10


For some reason I liked this film when I was young, but now I can't imagine why. The dialogue is incredibly corny, and the characters were far too cliche. The film starts off fairly slowly, with only minor comic relief from Dennis Hopper. It does pick up in the last half hour, but the special effects have aged significantly over time- they were really cheesy, especially the dinosaur. I didn't really find any of the main leads likeable either - they were all fairly irritating and seemed to act in a way which seemed in contrast to the characters they were mean't to be playing. This is probably the worst of the eighties high school/teen science fiction tales, we all know it was made in the mid eighties- but did they have to make it so obvious? The story wasn't so bad- they just needed stronger characters, better dialogue etc...Unless your a fan of bad eighties teen films (and there are a lot of them) stay clear.


and that's saying something! Story about some obnoxious teenager (John Stockwell) who finds a little "box" from a flying saucer that creates time/space distortions...or something. Bad beyond belief dialogue, a virtually incomprehensible plot (I assume that's from pre-release cutting...the film is barely 90 minutes), and lazy acting. Some of the special effects are cool (for 1985). I saw it primarily because of John Stockwell. A very handsome man, he was very good in other 80s flicks ("Losin' It", "Top Gun" and especially "Christine") but he's lousy in this. He looks depressed and like he doesn't care. Fisher's wisecracks are a blessing. A total waste of time. ALMOST bad/good.


"She's Out of Control" was actually one of two light comedies released in 1989 regarding overprotective, single fathers and their fifteen year old daughters who have just started dating. The other was "Dream Date," a made-for-TV comedy with Clifton Davis and The Cosby Show's Tempestt Bledsoe. Considering some of the minor characters in "Dream Date" (including Pauley Shore as a brain-dead high school student who was convinced that the father is the devil) and it being predicated upon more slapstick humor than we saw in "She's Out of Control," it is a bit funnier in comparison, although probably geared for the more "wholesome" family film choice. But in the end, there is still something lacking (and probably at my age, I would no longer find it all that funny) in a tale of an obsessive, overbearing father trying to prevent his teenagedaughter from participating in the dating game.

Be prepared for extra doses of Tony Danza, if you can. Here, he plays Southern California radio-show manager and single dad Doug Simpson, who's eldest daughter, Katie (Ami Dolenz)has just dropped her dorky vices (braces, magnified glasses) and gotten a make over. Now it seems, every boy in town is calling her or showing up at her doorstep to court her. And while this comes as a shock to her father at first, despite the insistence of his girlfriend, Janet (Catherine Hicks) that this is all normal for the girl and in fact, good for her, he is still unconvinced and becomes not only paranoid, but soon enters therapy.

Doug's therapist, Doctor Fishbinder (Wallace Shawn), decides that his book would serve as a handy guide, which encourages Doug only to intervene into his daughter's dating choices even further. On the one hand this is funny (such as the scenes with him walking in on a party and then befriending her "misunderstood" boyfriend, which winds up costing him his Jaguar), but on the other, the repetition may start to weigh on the viewer as the story becomes insurmountably ridiculous (I'm not sure where Danza was going with the explanation about being involved in the lunch counter sit-ins when he is under the impression that Leroy might have come to pick up his daughter for a date).

I would have to agree that this movie suffers from being too dated. That the appeal to audiences around the time of this film's release was probably the fashion, the music, even the actors themselves (Ami Dolenz for younger audiences and probably, Tony Danza, before he because more of a pop culture joke), things which are probably very cheesy by today's standards. Yet, I'm sure it is still a favorite among 80s nostalgics (although, I'll pass on this one). In any event, I think this kind of story much better done with Dream Date. Because it was a made-for-TV movie, it had to be sweet and concise.


SOOOOOOO cheesy! This is the old cliche about the ugly girl with braces and glasses getting a makeover and suddenly ALL the boys want her. Basically, Dad, who to me is just Tony from Who's the Boss, takes the backseat in her life and this new "hottie" with no personality gets tons of invites on dates, etc, etc. To me, this movie is priceless because it has a high school prom scene, which, when done is the 80s, was just too cool. NO ONE DANCES LIKE THAT! Heehee. I saw this when I was 9 and remember thinking how cool all the clothes looked. I didn't like the stepmom, because she was just too crazy. Basically, the only good thing about this movie is it's a priceless bit o' eighties history and nostalgic. No one can make a movie this simple nowadays without getting laughed out of the director's office. Ah, those were the days....


Actually, if only, but I couldn't resist.

I was condemned to see this flick tonight, and that's an hour and a half of my life I shall never recover. An obvious and clumsy attempt to make Danza's then-current Who's The Boss? series into a theatrical movie, Danza replicates his overprotective father with a popular daughter to a near-pedophilic degree (something that, with more than a bit of irony, the film touches upon).

The script hits every cliché in the book, from ugly duckling turned into tousled-blonde It Girl, to crackers psychiatrist who turns out not to know anything about his subject, to the lolita in a swimsuit (with amazing lack of support) jiggling in the surf in slow motion, to the string of young punk suitors, to the Recapturing of Youth scene -- complete with candy-red Jag yet -- to the final scene of the younger daughter replicating the same behavior as the wayward lass. The resolution is far too pat, there are a few too many plot holes (excuse me, what orthodontist would pull braces from a minor on the say so of her father's girlfriend?), and surprisingly enough -- given that she loses few opportunities to do so on the 7th Heaven set -- Catherine Hicks is the only principal to avoid shameless overacting.

In this alleged comedy, there are few smiles, no laughs, and very little that is entertaining or edifying. Give it a miss, unless you're wont to use VHS tapes as kindling for your fireplace.

3/10, and that's fairly generous.


Lame comedy that stars Tony Danza as a widowed father who freaks out when his daughter (Ami Dolenz, yes the daughter of former Monkee Micky) sports a new look. This is just an obnoxious rehash of "Who's the Boss," in which Danza also starred as an overprotective father, but in a more intelligent way. This film does very little to entertain anyone with its kiddy humor, and only people who think Ami Dolenz is attractive will be amused.

1 out of 5


There are so many things I hated about this movie that I don't know where to begin. Props first, Zhang Yimou is doing an awesome job behind the camera which, in my opinion saved it from total anonymity.

Yellow Earth, according to me is a very pretentious work of art. Chen Kaige has one immortal quote saying something like :"I don't care about the public, I do art"(sorry if it's not the exact words, I had the quote in french). That's wrong, that's terribly wrong. You can't do art without people to watch and appreciate it. That's what art is about. Art is about things being seen and appreciated. I appreciated Yimou's camera work, but everything else I hated. Poor acting, poor exploitation of a good idea, annoying Chinese traditional signing...and this damn Chinese obsession with doing nothing. It's like Kaige's characters were frozen up by Mao's broken promises. I know that was Kaige's idea to show that, but all in all it gave a pretty boring movie , targeted to a very slim audience. Word is that even the Chinese didn't liked it.


Few movies offer the senseless violence and absence of artistic skill that is evident in this movie. Why anyone would want to spend the necessary hours/minutes viewing something so devoid of entertainment value as this presentation is beyond my sense of comprehension.

Don't waste your positive energy and desire for entertainment on this one. Unless, of course, you are seeking misery, frustration and are bent on despondent expression of hopelessness. The sorrow that this film evoked was simply not worth the time it took to watch it.

I, myself, will seek a film with plot, substance and creativity that is worth my time and expense of life energy.


Here's my theory. An accountant with connections managed to score directing a film, a dream he's had ever since he was so influenced by seeing Fate of the Dolphin III as a teenager. He then proceeded to stumble his way through the production and managed to put something together that, and I don't say this lightly, was a movie. Well, only just.

Honestly. I've seen better production values on films shot with no budget whatsoever. I'm sure it had a low budget but it's no excuse for what they turned out. Absolutely no idea how to tell a story through the medium of film. Go back to filming birthday parties.

Anyway, it gave me a good laugh. 0 out of 10.


American B-movie favorite Steve Dorf plays a Hungarian-American FBI agent working undercover as a henchman to a Russian mob boss (a very fat Bob Hoskins) living in Budapest. The movie consists largely of Dorf and others tooling around Budapest, with several time outs so that Dorf can reassure Hoskins, who never leaves his study presumably because of his great girth, that he is not wearing a wire. The movie was shot on the cheap in Hungary, and like all such productions employs the typical mix of American, British and local actors. It is truly terrible. You will be kept waiting in vain for something to happen. This one of those films that depends on the actors to work without benefit of real direction. Even the best actor cannot work without a decent director. Just watch Hoskins stumble around throughout this.


How this movie is earning a 4.9 I'll never know. It is boring and dull enough to where settings, recording quality and such really don't matter.

We were attracted to this movie because of the cast. Bob Hoskins, David O'Hara, Stephen Dorkk, and Ian Hart were all recognizable. However nothing ever feels like it melds, nothing really paces and all the characters just come across as uncomfortable. Except perhaps for O'Hara, he seems to have a good grasp on his role, and can be excused for perhaps turning in a lackluster effort...after all, it is very difficult to not be affected by having to share scenes with Dorkk.

So while there is no sign of Uwe Bohl directing (not nearly enough copious amounts of blood) nor any appearance of Wings Hauser (who probably would have fit well), this movie still sucks. Don't waste your time or money on it.


I had great hopes for this movie...none of which were fulfilled. My family and I enjoyed the first two Santa Clause movies, but this was a major let down. Sad, too, because it had great potential. I enjoy Martin Short, and think he was well cast in the role of Jack Frost. However, the writing and editing were so disjointed, and it seemed like there were too many subplots going on for any one story line or character to get any substantial development.

Unless you have kids who are dying to see this, I would skip it altogether or wait for it to come out on DVD. I definitely wouldn't spend another $20 to go see it.


Perhaps, I shouldn't have waste my time watching this movie. I thought it would be funny based on the preview. When I went to watch this movie on Saturday, I did not find one scene funny at all. The only funny stuff in this movie was the bloopers. Overall, the movie just sucks! It wasn't that great as the first one. The first one was more funnier. The second one was good too, but this one was just not that great. It was okay and all but it just wasn't that funny. I personally think that I should have seen Borat instead of this movie. At least, I would have something to laugh about! I miss the 90s! They used to have such good movies that were much more funnier! If anyone want to see a good Christmas movie, I would recommend Home Alone 1,2, Miracle on 34th Street, and The Santa Clause 1,2.


Sad to day -what was once a great idea has become painful.

This should never have hit theaters - a DVD only release would be pushing it. Strained, forced, uninteresting and poorly conceived.

Tim Allen created a great character in the first film - the 2nd was pushing it - this 3rd outing was simply vengeful.

The idea was bad; its execution is worse - to subject movie audiences to this type of tripe should be illegal, if not unconstitutional. (Oops! wait - it is... cruel and unusual punishment....) The best use for the DVD release of this? Christmas ornaments for your tree next year...


Tim Allen was pure genius with the 1st movie of this installment, and surprisingly enough the 2nd was also delightful. But I have to say, the 3rd, having added Alan Arkin, Martin Short & Ann Margaret, SHOULD have made "The Escape Clause" a film trifecta.

But it didn't. All the humor from the 1st film was missing, and all the nuclear familial bonding from the 2nd film just didn't appear.

What we got instead was Martin on a Short leash. His humor is an acquired taste to start with, but the man is known for creating quirky characters that leave you amused by their human flaws, and touched when they realize the error of their ways.

Then there were Alan Arkin and Ann Margaret's couple bickering so much you really wondered what they ever saw in each other in the first place.

Santa & the Mrs. seemed out of touch with each other. The other Legendary Characters, though fun to see, seemed they could have been utilized better. Kevin Pollack and Michael Dorn never fail to deliver.

My favorite secondary character though is Judge Reinhold's ever optimistic, quirky psychologist.

Tim Allen, whom I've always found amusing, seemed as though he rushed through the film. I think it would have been nice if Bernard the Elf, had been able to leave his "Numbers" chalk board long enough to give Santa a much needed hand in the Supporting Best Guy Friend role.

The problem with the film for me, was that this time out I felt the script writers dumbed the movie down far too much. It came off preachy and left you wondering why, if they wanted to drive the moral of the storey that Christmas is for Familys, not just to make money, home so badly why crank out such a poorly scripted film, that would have made a better holiday movie of the week special? Perhaps it's my own fault that I was disappointed, because I'd had such high hopes for this film, but all in all, I was left feeling that this installment, which ought to have been another glittering Snowflake.

Was just another production line cookie cutter script: Aww Baby=Cute, Family Bickers=You Still Love Each other. Cute Little Girl + Grinch Like Bad Guy=Predictable Hollywood Ending Where She Changes His Stripes. Edit in filler footage, slam it on a reel and call it a great Holiday Fare for the whole Family.

Unless they have a fantabulous script, I hope they don't film anymore in this series.

This film felt like the dieing embers of a Yule log, spluttering, a few pretty pops, but none of the warmth that made the first 2 films so enjoyable. It wasn't entirely a waste, it had a few moments that were enjoyable, the scenery was great, but the poor script kept getting in the way.

If I could, I would have seen it at the dollar show. Or better yet, since I had to buy 3 tickets, I'd have rented it on DVD and been able to pause it to use the bathroom, because the treacles sweetness made my tummy queasy. Love, Grace & Peace, Gunner


My girlfriend talked me into seeing this movie because she loves Christmas movies. I don't generally mind them either, so I went. I was bored. I'm not often bored, especially at the movies, but maybe that's because I'm careful about what I pay ten bucks to see. I was truly disappointed in the lack of comedy, writing, or anything else that usually goes into making a movie. Tim Allen wasn't funny, Martin Short was REALLY annoying as usual, and the head elf this time around is a little nervous guy with a lisp. Who the filmmakers ride as if it's a stroke of comedic brilliance. The only thing this film had going for it was that it has Santa Claus in it and was released at Christmas time. Boo, Hollywood. Shame on you. But I guess I fell for it, and maybe kids who marvel at shiny things and bright lights liked it.


When I saw the first Santa Clause at the age of 10 it had set the standard for Christmas movies for me. Nearly a decade later I could understand why they brought out a sequel - Disney is no longer doing a feature film per summer and they need to pay rent. I saw it anyway and it was exactly what I expected it to be.

The third film I went to see with my girlfriend at a dollar theater and still walked out feeling like I wasted two bucks.

Tim Allen didn't appear to give a damn about this movie other than that it's going to pay his cell phone bills for the next three months. Martin Short, as someone else had mentioned, is an acquired taste -- a taste that I do not care for and actually found somewhat annoying. I couldn't believe the original Neil, Laura, and Charlie were brought back though I felt they were used as filler characters more than anything. They didn't have any kind of situation or purpose in the movie other than to become victims of Jack Frost's Polar Ice breath. Santa Claus seemed to enjoy the company of his ex-wife much more so than his current one. The omission of Bernard is inexcusable. The "legendary characters" was a bit much and didn't add to the story, especially the Easter Bunny's horrible 70's Wookie costume. The kids playing the elves didn't even look thrilled to be there, regardless of who was playing Santa. The set from the first movie was huge -- outside looked like a dark, expansive glacier and indoors was a gigantic toy workshop. In this movie the outdoor set looked more like the sunny, bubbly Dr. Seuss Land at Islands of Adventure, and anything indoors was inconceivably tiny and elf-like, completely ignoring the fact that the "head elf", Santa, is a full-sized man.

The special effects were far worse than the first movie 12 years ago. In the first movie, the producer actually cared about the outcome and therefore sunk a large sum of money into the best special effects at the time. SC3 showcases every possible SFX shortcut. The CGI reindeer were pathetic -- the cartoony Scooby Doo eyes were just stupid. Just goes to show you that the art of puppeteering is gone for good. The "magic snow globe" looked like a novelty souvenir bought at a convenience store. Santa's sleigh looked like a poorly-built plywood prop. A lot of the sound effects were textbook cartoon fare...for a cartoon made 50 years ago. These kinds of details do not go unnoticed.

The filmmakers even had the audacity to use actual cut-scenes from the first movie - about 90 seconds worth - which to me is pretty tacky; seems like they just needed some more filler.

The entire movie is supposed to be a story being told by Mrs. Claus to her classroom but the introduction was so short I forgot all about that. I thought the movie was ending just as it cut back to the classroom with about 3 more minutes of movie. I'm glad I stayed for the Buddy Claus scene though - the generic baby with a red scarf on his head was the star of this scene.

This movie was so dumbed down it's unbelievable. Seeing the first movie at the young age I did of course I wasn't going to understand some of the adult humor. As I grew up, though, it was a lot of fun to understand some of the jokes that I had missed as a kid, which is what's so appealing about that movie. In SC3, if a 6 year-old fails to understand something it's because he's had some kind of unfortunate mental handicap.

The storyline's been described so many times by other members it's not worth it for me to go into. What I haven't seen anybody mention, however, is that this is a Christmas movie featuring Santa Claus on Christmas Eve and there is barely any mention of delivering toys to kids, much less any kind of action taken in preparation to do so. It's small, I know, but again it's the details.

Just chalk it up as another crappy Disney sequel.


Santa Clause 3 is basically a sad, unpleasant story of a dysfunctional family--Santa Clause/Tim Allen's. It is seldom funny. Why in the world would anyone want to drop this franchise in the dumpster? Why would any parent want to take little children to see this painful reminder of their own family--or their friends'? Another killer is the flashback to the time Tim Allen's character first meets Santa Clause on his roof. We see Allen then and Allen now. Then was younger by years and makeup was not used to make the older Allen look, well, well, let's just leave it at older. In scene after scene one of the main characters, Sandy, falls asleep in the middle of meetings. Sandy, as in the Sand Man. Finally we get it. At first I just thought the script had put the actor to sleep. Better the audience had stayed home and slept through this one.


I liked the first film, loved the second one, but was highly disappointed with the 3rd film.

The first two films went together. The third film is just spun out there for no reason other than trying to make more money for the studio. The magic of the first two films simply was not present in this film.

Martin Short did a good job but the plot was silly and stupid. The exclusion of David Krumholtz as "Bernard the Elf" left a big hole in the link between the Elves and Santa. He was definitely too old looking to reprise the role and Spencer Breslin as "Curtis" was sad too see considering how big he has grown and that cute little big boy is no longer there.

The attempt to bring a bunch of family members to the North Pole seemed to also take away from the formula that made the first two films so successful.

It was if the writers threw every conceivable plot device at the audience to try and make us laugh. Then, tie in some sentimental Christmas message to it. It's like a big box of bricks thrown at a Christmas tree. A real holiday mess.

This film was rarely funny, confused, poorly executed, and the only real escape clause should have been for the audience...to get out of the theater within the first 15 minutes.


I saw the first one when I was about five I loved it. I would sometimes even watch it in the middle of the summer. Then the second one came out eight years later and I loved that one too. And then two weeks ago the Santa Claus three came out and wow was I disappointed. I saw the trailers on TV and in other movie theaters and I was so excited to see it and was really disappointed. The storyline was not followed and was often caught off guard. The trailers were set out for the whole movie to be about Tim Allen to figure out a way to become Santa Claus again. Ummm....wrong. He isn't Santa for a grand total of approximately 20 minutes, and then all the sudden he is Santa again. Don't get me wrong, this movie is great for little kids but not for fans of the first two Santa Claus movies.

**Spoiler** Bernard does not appear as the head elf anymore like he did in the first two. Curtis takes his place

Scotts son Charlie is only in the very beginning and in the very end and has only ten lines. But you do get to see a lot of Scott's niece Lucy, and Laura and Neil.

Oh yea say hello to the in-laws!


I went to see this movie like I did the second one because I am a very nostalgic person and I wanted to relieve happier parts of my childhood by watching this film in which it's predecessor or The first one was a great delight in my young years. It was one of the few Christmas movies that still holds up for me. About the only other ones that do so are Home Alone, Home Alone 2, A Christmas Carol(1984), and It's A Wonderful Life. I was sad to see though that when I went to see this my childhood images and memories were reduced to a glitzed out pop film with no substance. They spend nearly hour just in the toy shop in this film and never show Tim Allan as Santa interacting with kids on the level he did in the first or for that matter the way he did in the second one either. And Martin Short an actor I really like has been reduced to an overacting buffoon that is only a carbon copy of baddies that have come before him. I also hate the way the returning supporting cast is treated. They never reference that Allan's son should be in college. This is twelve years later and the kid is still in high school. I know this because they say something like at least you did not buy him a car or something to that effect. But I can see where this film would play well to kids who never say the original they would just see it as another movie and one the can hold in their hearts to be destroyed later when they remake it our some garbage like that. The only good thing about this movie for someone of my age (20) and generation is the fact that it brings back Judge (The MAn) Reinhold to the screen. He is the best and has been gone from cinemas for far too long. I say to Judge, get Eddie to make Beverly Hills Cop 4 and forget this career killing dribble. Only watch this if you have small kids, not if your trying to rekindle memories of youth because there are none of those moments here.


If you enjoy the feeling you get when you eat way to much or when you had a really hard day or when you have a killer headache then watch this movie. Santa Clause 3 seems to be so underbudget that I could have afforded to pay for all the budget including Tim Allen's sallary (which I assume was around 10 dolloars for his impressive acting). The plot was something pulled out of a 1st graders Christmas story he made for a school project(of course this story would still fail even for grade 1). The most amazing part of this movie (other than the lack of story, acting, decent props) was that the movie gave me a major headache until that lasted till the next day. This movie flat out blows. And it isn't one of those movies that is so bad its funny ethier. It just blows.


this movie is not that great.i found the story too banal(ordinary).there's not much originality here.it's a combination of many other movies.it's equal parts a Christmas Carol,It's a Wonderful Life,How the Grinch Stole Christmas,and Even The Cat in the Hat movie.the movie isn't very funny,but there is a bit of slapstick that works.this movie is,i felt,overly sentimental and preachy.in fact,i felt like i was watching a 90 minute commercial on how important family is.now,don't get me wrong.family is very important.i just find that subtlety works best with these movies.this was just way too heavy handed for me.but there is some good news.the movie has a great visual style.i mean,it looks fantastically magical.and Martin Short is terrific as Jack Frost,the baddie of the piece.he's not really scary,more mildly disconcerting than anything,and even a bit sad.i also like the look they gave him.this movie is also a bit of a tearjerker.anyway,this is a case of style over substance.and while it's not nearly as mean spirited or creepy as part 2,i still don't think it was as good.the negatives just outweigh the positives.for me,The Santa Clause 3 is a 4/10


I just have to sit down and write out a review to counter-act all the nonsense I have seen from people who give this movie a 10!

I am the first to admit I loved the first two Santa Clause movies and was really looking forward to this third installment. I even scoffed at the IMDb overall rating for this movie. I thought to myself and told my friends - critics don't know anything about movies and they were hard on the first two films in this series (both average around 4.7 out of 10). This movie can't be as bad as they say and on and on I went.

Well the people have spoken and the people are...uhm...well...hmmm...they are absolutely correct! I have to eat crow! This movie is a disaster! This movie SUCKS!!! This movie put me to sleep!!! I had to give it a one out of ten. I don't want to ever see this piece of dog doody again.

A movie that relies on farting reindeer for laughs??....sheeesh!!! Enough said. The movie looks like it was thrown together at the last minute with a mish-mashed story line that is so transparent you can see clear through it.

Even Tim Allen can't save this movie from being perhaps the worst Christmas movie ever made! If you suffer from insomnia this is the perfect remedy. Buy it on DVD and in minutes you will be nodding off. A word of caution though...should you wake up in the middle of it you will probably scream in abject horror...you will think you are having a Christmas nightmare...or hope that it really is all just a bad dream!'

Disney should be shot for releasing this lump of coal. I guess everybody was naughty this year...that is the only explanation for releasing this piece of punishment! Tell your friends to save their money and hard-earned cash and stay the hell away from the Santa Clause 3. They will thank you for it in the end...I promise!!

Ho Ho Ho Hurry up and run away from any theatre near you playing this load of reindeer dung!

My rating: An absolute disaster - 1 star out of 10!! (as zeros are not allowed!!)


Even the bloopers were boring. These movies show that Tim Allen's 15 minutes of fame are over. It seems that for my review to be accepted at IMDb I must have at least 10 lines. That's very difficult for a movie that offers nothing.

The children playing the elves have outgrown their cuteness-even the doctor who co-starred in Bonnie Hunt's show a few seasons back.

The fact that Ann Margret came out of retirement for this is quite amazing (amazing as in why pick this sinking vessel). At least Martin Short was having fun in the scenes they shared.

For once a Hollywood movie tried to cash in on the fact that Canadians make for a big part of their revenues in regards to movie receipts. But the only thing missing to make it stereotypical is for the adults to fall in a container of maple syrup.

Avoid at all costs.


STRIKE 3 - YOU ARE OUT!! I thought that for sure this movie would be an instant comedy classic because the prince of comedy, Martin Short, was going to be the evil villain. Boy, was I ever wrong.

NOTHING was funny in this movie. I'd hardly classify this movie as a comedy. The farting reindeer wasn't funny the first time and then they had them fart AGAIN about 20 seconds later like it would be funny that time, and it wasn't. None of Martin Short's lines garnered laughs. Just awkward "was that supposed to be funny" reactions. And Mrs. Claus in stirrups and 9 months pregnant? That is just too much, let alone for a kid audience. Kids don't need to see that kind of stuff.

Martin Short and Tim Allen did not have ANY comedic chemistry. Every scene and each dialogue just seemed too over-rehearsed and predictable.

And the kid actors SUCKED big time. You'd think with such a large budget they could get some decent kid actors. The kid that played Santa's right arm man that knows the secrets and clauses was the worst kid actor I've ever watched in my life. How did THIS kid get to be in a BIG movie like this? He must have a good agent.

I give this movie a 1 out of 10 because I was not entertained or amused by this holiday comedy. I predict this movie will be on DVD by the time Christmas rolls around.


We saw this years ago on DVD and it has got to be the worst of the entire franchise it IS the worst! Basically Santas wife Mrs Clause is about to have a baby yadda yadda yadda Jack Frost comes into the picture there's a horrible It's A Wonderful Life ripoff where he sees what it would be like if he was not Santa Claus.

The entire movie was abysmal boring like getting your teeth drilled without the novocaine basically. I understand that Christmas movies are normally heart-warming sweet and touching.

But seriously this movie was TOO sweet it made me gag through most of it it was like being bombarded by gumdrops and cotton candy as it devoured me.

The acting was awful everyone involved the ending was as stupid and cutesy as it could possibly get .Ugh even writing about this travesty of a Christmas movie makes me gag .

I had such high expectations for the third one too and it let me down big time.My entire family was bored to death my mom even fell asleep during it so did my dad.

Tim Allen looked angry bitter and bored throughout the entire movie the kids were extremely grating and couldn't act at all especially that red haired girl who played his niece in the film.

It stinks I can't give this less then 1-star but since I can't this will have to do even though it deserves a -10.

Oh and pay attention throughout the movie there is absolutely no chemistry with anyone just forced unfunny stale boring deliveries over and over again. The reindeer fart jokes by the way NOT FUNNY talk about lame .


When I was a child, I was lucky enough to have my father show me the hilarious family movie "Santa Clause". So naturally, when the new one came out I just had to see it. Seeing as the second one wasn't THAT bad, I figured this one would be okay. Well, I was wrong. Santa Clause 3 not only turns the series into a little-kid Christmas tale movie, but shows how unafraid Tim Allen is of ruining his reputation for money. Not very cute, not very funny, and not very fun for anyone but your three year-old. I only pray that Martin Short and the rest of the brilliant actors can get their careers back in order after this film. I recommend this film for no one and hope that your kid doesn't beg you to rent it.


when people ask you about Christmas films, what do bring up? The Grinch, the Rankin-Bass stuff, a Christmas carol, Santa clause 3? this is obviously the most boring film i ever saw (folowing Bee movie and Pinocchio 3000). the series is about adding laws to Santa Claus (exciting enough!) this one adds in Jack frost (played by Martin short) trying to take Santa's place. he does this using the "escape Clause". how does it work? simply make Santa touch a snowglobe and say "i wish i was never Santa". what makes a film worse than a boring story? actors who don't give a $#!t. Peter Boyle (Young Frankenstein, everybody loves Raymond) died after this movie! P.S i recommend Scrooged over this! (every one would)


Should have been used in this travesty. It had a huge beginning extremely short middle and a short end. It was written so badly you couldn't even tell what was going on. also the whole alternative reality thing has been used so much in Sci fi its not funny and this had no right to use it!. Tim allen was terrible in this and martin short was a dork!. again it had a 90 percent of kids in it. and abigail breslin only had 1 line in it lol she is the biggest thing in Hollywood and they give her brother who cant act even if you gave him a billion dollars to. the only person in this film i liked was......hmmm im trying to think......nope cant think. so this Christmas i advise you to watch the snow melt or if you really need to watch a good Christmas comedy movie watch national lampoons Christmas vacation.


On December 7, 1941 - according to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, "A date which will live in infamy!" - Lieutenant Ronald Reagan (as John "Mister Gardenia" Jones Jr.) finds himself stationed in Hawaii. His pretty sweetheart Laraine Day (as Joanne) helps mother Fay Bainter (as Emmy Jones) and father Charles Winninger (as John Jones Sr.) keep the home fires burning. They have a typical American home. Writer/narrator Carey Wilson explains how Mr. Reagan came to be called "Deany" (shortened from Gardenia). Reagan and his parents survive faltering patriotism, due to boredom; but, they rally 'round the flag when the Japanese attack. The USO (United Service Organizations) want you to support them by sending money for the war cause.

*** Mister Gardenia Jones (5/29/42) Carey Wilson ~ Ronald Reagan, Fay Bainter, Charles Winninger


Priscilla Lane begins the film as a secretary but because of her persistence and great ideas, she quickly moves up in the company and is a very well paid executive--something practically unheard of in 1938. However, when she marries Wayne Morris, their marriage is a very bumpy ride.

This is a film where most of the actors simply needed a better written script. Now the overall idea of a working woman who has trouble balancing her high-paying job with marriage is very good, the execution looks like it needed an editing--with some dopey performances and logical errors that should have been cleaned up before filming began.

One of the biggest problems I noticed was Wayne Morris' character. He wants to capture lovely Priscilla Lane's heart so he goes about it by being totally annoying and harassing the poor lady. Warner Brothers thought this was cute and romantic--to me it felt more like he was a stalker! Now it Lane had played a total ditz, perhaps this might have made some sense--but she was supposed to be a brilliant executive. He just seemed like a boorish jerk--yet she fell for him. So already I found myself hating one of the main characters from the start and having little respect for the other--not a good thing to say the least! In fact, throughout the film BOTH characters are really hard to predict or understand because there is no consistency with either of them. Morris is initially an obnoxious boob, then he is a rather sexist but loving husband with no great ambitions and then he becomes a HUGE high-powered executive. The dumbest part of this was his falling for an ambitious and talented Lane and then insisting, after they are married, that she drop everything to be his stay at home wife. If this is what he wanted, of the millions of women to choose from in America, he probably picked the very worst one!!

Lane is a high-powered exec but falls hard to Morris' crude and obnoxious advances. When they marry, she seems pretty happy but then dumps her hubby over practically nothing--as if she were doing this purely as a plot device. It was as if her character couldn't decide if she wanted to be a corporate climber or June Cleaver! Oddly, in this film it seemed that you couldn't be a little of each.

As for the supporting cast, most come off pretty well except for Hugh Herbert and Humphrey Bogart. Herbert is a "one trick pony"--a guy whose sole talent in films is giggling and fidgeting with his hands. One-dimensional, of course, but also seeming so stupid that you wonder how he could be such an important and rich man. As for Bogie, unfortunately, this film was made during his "limbo days" at Warner--when he was under contract but they had no idea what to do with him. Here, he seems rather bland and bears no similarity to the rugged character he would be in the 1940s.

Overall, the film is mildly interesting in spots. The folks at the studio tried, in their own way, to create a film about women's liberation and equality--though by today's standards it seems incredibly sexist and silly. Also because neither of the leads seemed consistent or believable, the film is more of a curiosity than a good film.