If one is good at suspending disbelief, "Flight 93" is a mildly entertaining piece of drama, along the lines of a typical 'Lifetime' TV movie. The unforgivable sham is that they would make a cheesy TV movie about a subject like this. As a documentary, this is pure lies and propaganda. Cell phone calls at 3,000 feet? Impossible! Don't people realize this?? Only now, in 2010 are the airlines beginning to install the equipment to make this possible. Perhaps Flight 93 was a magic plane, because there were no cell phone calls reported coming from the other three planes that were hijacked that day. People need to think, and it is frightening how many people will believe anything that they hear on television, or from their crooked government. I realize this is a movie site so I will review the film.

first off, those endless, obnoxious scenes of children playing, crying, laughing, running, hugging; I haven't seen an example of such shameless propaganda since the newsreels from Nazi Germany! Did every single passenger on that plane have a litter of children? In one hilarious scene a man phones his wife (ON A CELLPHONE FROM AN AIRPLANE NO LESS) and she is there with three other women, and EACH WOMAN IS BOUNCING A BABY ON HER LAP! The thing that worried me most about this film is that the USA is going to have a population problem soon, if every American has an average of 8 kids!

But the most unforgivable thing about this mess is the way the terrorists were portrayed. They are given no character development, and absolutely no attempt was made to even offer a basic explanation of their reasoning, of their philosophy, of the way they view religion and their beliefs of the afterlife. The entire film focused on a bunch of Americans calling their families and saying goodbye. Sorry but, can't people see that, although those people might have been good, fine citizens with families, they are not very interesting? The most interesting characters on that plane were the terrorists, and the only thing we got to learn about these guys is that: A: they are sexy, and B: they like to wear red Rambo bandannas! Shame on all involved, and mostly on the United States Government that is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 9/11 INCIDENT as Al'Quaida, with their lapse, lazy security and their failure to handle a disaster of this proportion. If America is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth, as they are fond of saying, then where is all the money going?? certainly not towards protecting its own land. For those thinking people who are interested in the subject, see "United 93," a professionally-made film that leaves out the melodrama, and presents the hard facts, while giving at least some insight to the mindset of Islamic Extremists, (and please remember that these extremists only account for about 10 percent of the Islamic World, as the majority of Muslims are deeply saddened and ashamed by these violent events.)

Lastly, this ridiculous film perpetuates the myth that the passengers of Flight 93 were heroes. Do people actually believe that these people, in their last moments on Earth, were thinking, "Well, were gonna die anyway, so lets save the White House!?" I wasn't on that plane, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that they were doing the most natural thing in the World; they were trying to survive, to save their asses. I don't think that saving the White House entered the mind of even one person on that plane. These people were not saints; they were just ordinary people, falsely portrayed as heroes to boost the US morale and get Americans "bloodthirsty" for revenge. "Flight 93?" See "Snakes On a Plane" instead; it's better fiction, and not so offensive...


I watched this on 'More4' on Friday 2009-09-04, thinking that it was the work of Paul Greengrass, the genius behind 'Bloody Sunday'. One hundred and ten tedious minutes later, I thought 'he's lost it'. I didn't realise that I was confusing 'Flight 93' with 'United 93' which I've just finished watching on 'ITV1' on Sunday 2009-09-06.

(Why did I include a spoiler alert? Well, I am assuming that in a few years' time, there will be visitors to this site who will not have heard about what happened in the USA on 2001-09-11 or, at the very least, will not remember what was special about United Airlines flight 93. For those future generations wanting an idea about what happened that day, stay away from this patronising slush.)

A hijacked airliner in itself makes for an interesting story, but the makers of this tat appear to have assumed that everyone watching was fully aware of the context and the ultimately fatal crashes of this plane and three others. Instead, it chose to focus on several conversations between the passengers in the air and their beautiful wives and parents at home in their beautiful houses. For an hour and a half, sweet syrupy goo oozed from the screen. 'Look!' say the film-makers, 'these nasty men killed beautiful loving American people.'

What idiot script-writer feels the need to point out that most people are nice, and have others around them whom they love and who love them back? This insults the viewer, and what's worse, insults the memory of real people who died in that crash.


The entire time I was watching I kept wondering why this movie looked so different than the one I saw on DVD-United 93. Well, it wasn't the brilliant movie but a terrible remake from A&E who should have just let things be.

This is why a good director is a good director...it's not until you see a mediocre effort and talent try to play with the big boys.

This TV movie is a sham of the movie United 93. It contains non of the drama, storytelling and detail of the movie. Why make a move that links itself to such a pivotal piece of American history when you can't improve on the Hollywood version of United 93? Why?

Do yourself a favor--rent or Netflix United 93. One of the best movie made that covers a historical event. That movie took risks and they paid off. The DVD also has amazing extras with interviews from the actual families. The whole project was class all the way.


I am currently watching this film as we speak. It has a very trivial plot line. The whole film involves 4 terrorists, who look like fashion models sitting in the cockpit of the plane with Ninja Turtle like scarfs on their foreheads. The whole film is nothing but the victims calling their families over and over. Nothing more. It is very poorly constructed and directed. I am going to view the film version and then formulate an opinion. I just didn't enjoy this film very much. The filming quality even is mediocre because it looks like it was shot in the 1980s. It confused my husband and myself into believing that this was the actual film version. It is not. I did not like how they made it seem like they were using cell phones in mid-air. Everyone knows that this is not at all possible.


for the purpose of full disclosure, I am not American, but I do not mean do offend anyone by saying that if you watch flight 93 simply as a movie, it sucks. it really really sucks. The corny emotional dialogue and contrived filler scenes that were made up for dramatic purposes really killed this movie for me.

United 93 also made some stuff up, as was necessary considering the mystery surrounding the whole thing, but at least it was believable. The way the air traffic controllers and the military people discoursed sounded, more or less, exactly as they would sound confronted with a situation for which virtually nobody was prepared.

and was was with that line near the end? "The plane is down" "down as in landed?" "no, down as in..some field" Was this supposed to be funny? terrible. Just watch United 93 instead. it's emotional and touching for all the right reasons, and it doesn't exploit anyone. oh, and its well acted


I'm sorry to say that this film highlights the problem with trying to recount "true" stories on the screen.

Whilst the events of that tragic day need to be told, I'm not sure that this film does the passengers and crew of that flight any service at all.

The following comments about this film may appear controversial, but please remember I am comment in the FILM and not the people involved in the real events.

The film itself is little more than a montage of people making phone calls to say goodbye to people. The terrorists who hijacked the plane appeared unconvincing and didn't seem to make much of an attempt to stop the passengers from calling people and getting themselves organised.

The plane is hijacked quite early in the film and even after the passengers decide that they must act they spent another half hour making calls, you can't help but think that if they had organised themselves earlier that they might have had more success retaking the plane.

The passengers never really seem to be in direct personal jeopardy, particularly with odds of about 1:10 (including the terrorist flying the plane) and yet they seem too paralysed with fear to do anything. If this was a fictional story, then Stephen Segal would kick everyones ass and all would end happily ever after! This is the problem with true stories, they are rarely really as dramatic as they sound in real life.

They spend more time debating what to do than actually doing anything! Please remember that this was a dramatisation about events that we don't really know about. The director necessarily had to use some artistic licence in making this film and yet could have used more to establish a bit more tension.

In all, a disappointing film where nothing really happens.


Not only is the film itself of poor quality, but its based around uncertainties, and in some cases downright lies. The truth is we don't know what the hell happened to flight 93. Do the research yourself and you will immediately notice a few things. Number one, the crash site is extremely peculiar. Its a 15 deep hole. No and I mean NO major sections of the plane were found other then one of the engines( 100 yards away from the hole) and later a few larger scraps ( 5 feet to 10 feet, no larger) . Oh and somehow a bandanna and a magazine page also survived intact( WTF? ) and were later used in the Moussaoui trial. Larger sections are almost always found at a crash sites, even in the case where an airliner slammed into a mountain, at the same angle flgit 93 supposedly hit. Look it up yourself, large tail sections etc found. Number 2, eye witness testimonies suggest multiple aircraft in the area which is not what the government claims at all. Eye witness testimonies also suggest many other things including there was no plane at the crash site and some claiming to have seen it smash into the ground. Number 3. The only known photographic evidence to exist at the time of impact only shows a large mushroom cloud halfway hidden by some forest. Not only do plane crashes not leave mushroom clouds, but when the image is compared to those of military grade bombs, a striking resemblance can be seen. After impact no fires rage as normally seen with airline crash sites. DO YOU OWN RESEARCH and do not watch this film until you at least have heard the whole story. The back of this movies box doesn't even depict the crash site accurately. Is that OK for a documentary like this one?


For a movie that is of no interest whatsoever, this has quite a lot going for it, especially in the acting department: Larry Hagman, Susan Sarandon, Joe Don Baker et al are relaxed and agreeable. But no one manages to channel the glib repartee into anything resembling a character, in part because their contributions are mere slivers of celluloid crammed between pictures of cars driving around. Which does make a depressing kind of sense, since it's a racing movie; what makes no sense at all, especially given some promising set-ups, is the total absence of kinetics or pyrotechnics. It's a total arbitrary mess, looks like it wasn't even storyboarded. The filmmakers revert to slow motion every single time anyone does anything other than drive in a straight line, but that doesn't fool anyone. The one punctuation mark of the whole movie comes at the climactic Baker-Alan Vint coin toss, and I laughed as hard as anyone, but a REAL movie has one moment like that per scene. Allow me to lodge a special protest on behalf of poor Daina House, who is required to regress from classic tough-chick to wilting sex object the moment some creep gives her a flower.


The below commentary on the movie was written by a friend, who caught a Spanish dub of "Checkered Flag or Crash" on Telemundo well into the evening.

------------------

"Checkered Flag or Crash" is about as bad as it gets. From what I can tell, Joe Don stars as Joe Don Baker, the lovable lunk he always plays. He's competing in some off road challenge race. (By the way, the lyrics to the theme song for Checkered Flag or Crash, "Checkered Flag or Crash", has four words - can you guess what they are?)

The supporting cast of Larry "J.R. Ewing" Hagman and Susan Sarandon (?!) made it way too fun not to share with you guys. I really don't think MST3K could have done this movie. They would have choked to death on a combination of vomit and laughter. The movie seemed to be a series of spectacular and more often unspectacular car crashes - mostly stock footage. Essentially it was an hour of the chase scene from Mitchell. There were hilarious moments when the camera was trying to get the natural vantage point of an off road race, but because of the wind all you could see were tires and dust because tree branches covered the screen. It was as if they had budgeted exactly an hour of tape, so everything was done first take and then all this nonsensical stock was added. I think they may have had footage from NASCAR - Joe Don in a jeep, Joe Don in a Jeep, Richard Petty crashes in turn 2 at Talladega, Joe Don in a Jeep... Did I mention that I'm watching all this in Telemundo?

The worst were the uncomfortable moments when Joe Don whooped it up after knocking innocent, unassuming competitors into walls, off of cliffs, or out of focus (each ending in explosion and emphatic death). I wonder if in the closing credits they were listed as "Unnecessarily Killed Driver 1-12" The movie ends with a final, triumphant vehicular manslaughter followed by our pudgy hero recklessly and needlessly going at the finish line at full speed with nary a competitor in sight (perhaps there was a time limit he had to beat - I didn't know and I didn't care). As the car crosses the line, he loses control, jumps a bridge like KITT (you know, there's no ramp, but the car somehow becomes airborne), and flips over repeatedly. Four crashes are shown to represent the incident. Note that I didn't say "four angles". There were four independent crashes filmed - they physically could not have been the same accident. The best part was that it almost looked like the car was hitting spectators at one point - the over-under on extras injured during filming must have been 60.

So as a smoke machine billows and the shocked crowd approaches to ask a) if Joe Don's character has been killed, b) if the movie is over, and c) with whom should they file their injury claim, our man's hand eases out the passenger side window and gives the thumbs up. Sarandon shakes her head dumbfoundedly and Hagman is seen racing toward the nearest bank to cash his check before the studio goes under. Then the theme music comes in. "Checkered Flag or Crash". Absorbing stuff.

Since this viewing, I have been reflecting on the three stars: 1) Hagman - Really, between 'I Dream of Jeanie' and 'Dallas', there was ten years of him doing nothing. I wonder if he did any porn in that time. And I wonder if that would have been a step up or a step down from 'Checkered Flag or Crash'

2) Sarandon - you're kidding me, right? And here's the weird thing, in this movie she's probably 20-25 years old, and not remotely hot. I've never found her to be good looking, but I always figured she must have gotten in by being hot when she was younger. Not the case. How does she always get guys in movies? Did Joe Don tell her the secret to being a hatchet face that still gets cast as a romantic lead? Which brings us to...

3) Baker - How the hell did he get lead roles? And how the hell did he always get a romantic partner? Was he a sex symbol in the 70s? He wasn't attractive, he had no charm, and his characters were horrible people. His movies seem to be ninety minutes of him getting the crap beat out of him until he finally kills everyone else. Do you realize this was like casting Drew Carey as the lead in 'The Fast and The Furious'?

And finally, what did it take to stop a movie from being produced in the 1970s. This budget couldn't have exceeded thirty thousand dollars. The major special effect (used with great frequency I might add) was dust. I figure the only significant costs must've been the wrongful death suits by families of extras.


Feeble off-road racing action pic that raises a flicker of interest due to the presence of a young Susan Sarandon (who is given very little to do) and Joe Don Baker in his brief early career as a leading man. Joe Don stars as "Walkaway" Madden, a hard-core racer whose "crash or win" attitude brings him into conflict with his fellow racers. Sarandon is a journalist in the George Plimpton mode, out to get the inside view of a 1000-mile race held in the Philippines. Larry Hagman also features, in a bold casting against type, as a fast talking wheeler-dealing Southern entrepreneur who runs the race.

The film bogs at the start and never recovers, due to woeful dialogue and absent character development. After journalist Wainwright (Sarandon)persuades a reluctant Madden to allow her to ride in his race car during the event, the next half hour or so consists of the two leads engaging in a stilted and repetitive dialogue about what to do if Wainwright develops motion sickness, interspersed with reasonably well-edited race footage.

The 3-day race format imposes a rigid structure to the film, with race days interspersed with character "interaction" in the pits. There is a tiny romantic sub-plot with an anonymous black clad biker ("acted" by Playboy playmate Daina House) getting off with a stereotyped suave Latino Grand Prix driver. No sex scene, though - this is an action picture!

The action footage is not bad and the stunt guys really earned their money on this one, but there are too many camera in the car shots on rough roads where the camera is jolting around so much that the picture is hopelessly blurred and the effect is quite nauseating. Perhaps this film inspired the camera work on "Blair Witch Project", I don't know. There are a few picture-postcard shots of delightful Filipino scenery, and I just wonder if some Marcos money was behind this film.

In summary, a waste of the talents of Sarandon and Baker, who have both done vastly better when given better material. Despite being a documentary, "On Any Sunday" is a superior off-road racing film in every respect. Susan Sarandon fans would be better off sticking to her later roles if this is anything to go by. I imagine that casting agents saw this talented young but unconventionally beautiful actress and had no idea what to do with her. As for Joe Don Baker, yet another blot on this underrated actor's record. It's a shame he wasn't born in London instead of Texas. Watch "Edge of Darkness" if you don't understand what I mean.


Absolutely terrible. The filmmakers did an awful job of recreating any of the suspense or emotion of the ALCS. The 7-game series between the Yanks and Sawx was one of the best ever for fans of either team. Both teams played their hearts out and the fans showed more love for their respective teams than I've ever seen. But, watching this film, you'd never know it. It had all the enthusiasm of June game between two last place teams.

The "fans" they chose to chronicle showed no emotion either. It seemed to me that the filmmakers filmed the movie after the series ended and just used poor actors posing as fans. Their teams just lost a heartbreaking game on a series-ending homer and no tears, no anger, no nothing. They just sit there emotionless...probably because it happened a month earlier and the "fans" couldn't recreate the raw feelings they had that October night.

Regardless, only Red Sox fans looking to rehash a lost season or a Yankees fan looking to laugh at how pathetic Red Sox nation really is should waste their time with this waste of film.


A movie that is supposed to feel like a reality series comes off as a scripted poorly edited documentary. You want reality talk about ticket prices at Fenway to go see those schmos! I'd rather send my kids to college!! Unfortunately this movie makes all Bostonians look like ignorant morons. I live here it's not true but you do have idiots yelling "Yankees Suck". Gee if that's the case Genius then why are they the best sports franchise in history? The response you usually get is "they suck anyway". Yes, very intelligent indeed. Remember baseball is a sport that honors respect for players of all teams and is a combination of physical and mental ability. This movie drags Baseball into the empty headed dungeon of Sports machismo. If you want see a truly great Baseball movie watch "Pride of the Yankees" instead. You'll feel better about yourself and appreciate life a bit more.


I'm a baseball fan, have been one for over 40 years. This film had me looking forward to it, not because I'm a Red Sox or Yankees lover/hater, but because I really like baseball. This film was a huge disappointment, and it was so in the same way that baseball itself has disappointed as well. When I go to major league games (or try to watch them on tv), they are so filled with extraneous stuff, with fluff, with "People magazine" personality filler that it's hard for me to see the baseball in baseball. I mean the strategy, the moves, the subtleties, etc. I get my ears blown out in Minneapolis, my eyes assaulted by a constant-action huge center-field TV in Montreal. And this movie: It was mostly about the BoSox executives, owner, general manager. WHO CARES?? Not I. The clips of actual BoSox baseball from the great 2003 season were quick and fleeting, afterthoughts, really. In short, there was almost nothing about baseball in "Still, We Believe...." And that was disappointing.


"Triloquist" centers around a sister and brother who are taken in by their abusive uncle after the death of their mother, a famous veltriloquist. When they kill their uncle, they go on some kind of killing spree with their doll. Sound exciting, but the story is rather dull. The weakest part is the cast, they are extremely annoying and really get on your nerves. Their characters are badly written, the story is supposed to be scary and funny at the same time, but the result is neither. It simply does not work on any level. This is certainly not a horror or comedy.

75 minutes is even too long for this boring tale. Don't bother, I cannot think of one reason why you should watch this...


In 1993, in Hollywood, California, the addicted in heroin mother of two children is a decadent ventriloquist that can not find work anymore. When she has an overdose and dies, the siblings Norbert and Angelina are sent to a foster house with their dummy. Later they are sent to their uncle's house; the man sexually abuses of Angelina and the dummy kills him. Years later, the autistic dumb Norbert (Rocky Marquette) and his seventeen year-old alcoholic sister and whore Angelina (Paydin LoPachin) are living on the streets; when the dummy slaughters a boy, Norbert is accused and arrested by the police and sent to an asylum with his dummy. Later Angelina decides to release her brother and find a woman to give an offspring to her family. She breaks in the institution, kills the male nurse and Norbert escapes. When they meet Robin (Katie Chonacas) on the road, Angelina decides that the teenager will be the mother of her nephew and they abduct the girl in a journey of killings.

What a crap this "Triloquist" is! The director and writer Mark Jones certainly had the intention of making a film with black humor, but his "heavy hand" made actually an unpleasant and annoying movie but never funny. The story is of a total bad taste and the amateurish acting is awful. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Dummy, o Boneco Assassino" ("Dummy, The Assassin Dummy")


Okay, to start things of, I've seen some pretty unbearable movies in my time; EG: Disaster Movie, Troll 4, Epic Movie etc. But this one comes very close to taking the cake. The idea of the movie is pretty juvenile, a ventriloquist mother dies leaving her children in a foster home with the dummies, and yep you guessed it, the dummy is actually alive!

From here on the movie takes very lame twists and turns, it wasn't even fun to predict who would die or what would happen next because it was so predictable.

The movie was also very poorly written and badly acted, every second word the main female protagonist said was a curse word and the male character didn't was mute or something.

Anyway this movie really blew me away, how bad it was of course, blew me away.

1/10


When a friend of mine brought this over the other night, I looked at the cover photo and read over the plot synopsis on the rear cover and demanded we watch it right away. I am a huge fan of amazingly-bad horror flicks. Having recently viewed Feast and Feast 2( two hilarious "A" for effort movies) I had the utmost faith when I saw the Dimension Extreme logo in the corner. My friend's head was in the right place when he purchased Triloquist on a whim. However, his whim of keeping the receipt was undoubtedly the wiser.

Without giving the story, or complete lack thereof, away, I want to just put out this disclaimer to potential purchasers/ viewers. If you are in the market for a wild gore-fest, steer clear of this movie. You will find no such thing here. In the film, any scene that leads to a killing or anything remotely close to a death scene is cut short. The screen always goes black. You only are treated to very little tension before these happenings, and an unsatisfying, weak aftermath shot.

Most budget horror films rely on ridiculous points of comedic relief. I was hoping for plenty of these points. Though I did chuckle a handful of times, this one runs dry pretty quick. Angelina says some pretty wild stuff throughout, but about halfway through the movie the gimmick runs dry. I was hoping that at least the dummy would be hilarious, but his dialogue is pretty stale.

The reason that budget horror flicks remain as popular as they are is because they are usually over the top. They make up for the lack of money afforded with great entertainment, and often, shock value. Triloquist is an epic failure in all departments. I can't even imagine the most low maintenance, easily entertained viewer to think that this movie is worth the labor it took to package it and the fuel it wasted on it's way to the store. If you enjoy "Horror/Comedy" movies that contain absolutely no horror, and lame comedy scattered few and far between, then Triloquist is right up your alley. I'd recommend it as bird-cage lining myself. If you want a good "evil doll" fix then check out something that at least tries. Magic with Anthony Hopkins, Puppet Master, Demonic Toys, even Dolly Dearest. Steer clear of Triloquist.


This Movie, is in the worst "B"-Grade Horror Movie Catagorie. The plot is based off of an Old 1950's show created by Rod Serling "The Twilight Zone" (IMO)-- Ventriloquist dummy is alive -- this does have a little more ridiculous, stupid, and down right very quickly forgotten atrocities. --Some one taking on police force.

An abductee, running through the woods trying to escape a crazy shot-gun toting, crazed maniac, then all of a sudden wow -- there's a saloon -- what luck!!!!!!

Give me chuckie any day -- and I didn't like that movie either -- But it was hands down a 10 over this one.

Waste of time -- I gave it a 2!!!


I pretty much just saw this one, and it isn't much good. The plot sees annoying foul mouthed psycho Angelina on the run with her creepy, non speaking brother Norbert, and a crazed ventriloquists dummy called, imaginatively enough, Dummy. Its sort of a mockery of psycho family road films, with killing and supposed chuckles, but it lacks any gore and it isn't very funny. There are parts that should be funny, or could potentially be decently twisted, but the film is too weakly written to be funny and not well executed or demented enough (it never goes far enough) to shock. As the non speaking Norbert, Rocky Marqutte does an OK job, but all he has to do is not speak and look creepy, whilst Paydin LoPachin is just irritating as his sweary trollop sister. Katie Cochanas does OK as the girl they kidnap, but she has little to do in the way of acting either, and Bruce Weitz is semi amusing I guess, as the voice of Dummy. I thought the direction was OK, nice use of black and white, some OK shots and an overall suitable feel, and the soundtrack worked as well, a bit repetitive but it sorta suited the film. Unfortunately the nice ambiance couldn't really stop the film from being irritating and a bit tedious. Altogether, though I didn't hate this film as some have, I can't really recommend it, it tries hard but it just doesn't work, and its meagre bright spots and smattering of fun ideas don't really make it worthwhile. Definitely skippable, I'd say.


Wow, this one's bad. Real bad. I guess it's a horror/comedy hybrid, but it fails on both fronts. The writing here is just really weak. The script jumps all over the place. When I saw this on the shelf at the video store, I thought "what the heck?" I might be getting another cheesy classic a la Chucky or Leprechaun with this one, but it was nowhere close. I'm really not putting much stock in the Dimension Extreme branding anymore. They're churning out too many stinkers. The one bright (?) spot in this movie was the acting. I thought both the leads did a good job with the material they were given. I expect to see more from the actress who played the sister.


Man, I expected a lot from this movie. It sounded like one of those puppet horror movies with a killer twist. Trailer seemed nice, but what a let down this was.

The role of Angelina seemed way over the top; first it was like watching a killer spoof from Scary Movie. Not believable. Her brother was a retarded nut that didn't convince either.

Was it a comedy? IMDb says it's horror. A few slightly scary moments, a few unexpected story lines. But the rest has been done before and better.

The 78 minute runtime of the DVD was too long, I skipped some scenes. I wondered why it wasn't in the cinema in Holland, and why not released on DVD with my native language as subtitle, and only in German. Well, there is a clearly obvious reason for that. Thin characters, annoying at times.


This film is not a so bad its good, it's a so bad the script doesn't warrant being used as recycled toilet paper bad. Having read rubbish reviews i thought the film can't be that bad. IT IS. It's obvious the film was made bad on purpose but it appears in it's attempts to be bad it overachieved and made it terrible. I love every film I've seen with dummy's or dolls but this one just didn't hit the bar and pales in comparison to The Leprechaun, that is a franchise so bad its good. This however could never ever hope to be held in the same regard as The Leprechaun, from the pitifully bad acting to the rubbish dummy it self the film fails in every quarter.

Stay away from this film unless you love the worst films out there or this is going to be the first film you will ever watch because from here the only way is up and for the Triloquist I don't think it could get any lower.


Triloquist starts way back in 1993 in Las Vegas as a female drug addicted ventriloquist(!) & her two young children are about to get thrown out of their motel & onto the streets. After a large drug dose kills her her two kids are taken into care & her creepy ventriloquist dummy imaginatively named Dummy locked away in a suitcase. Jump forward to the present & now the teenage Angelina (Paydin LaPachin) & her mute brother Norbert (Rocky Marquette) decide to head back to Las Vegas after going from foster home to foster home with Dummy to find the fame & fortune as a ventriloquist act their late poor mother never did. The trip will not be easy & sacrifices need to be made along the way, cars need to be stolen & anyone who gets in their way must be killed. Angelina also wants to continue the family bloodline so kidnaps a teenage girl (Katie Chonacas) for Norbert to rape & impregnate. With the cops hot on their tail will they find the success & happiness they crave?

Retitled to simply Dummy (which was apparently the films original working title) here in the UK this was written & directed by Mark Jones the man responsible for starting the Leprechaun (1993) franchise (gee, thanks a million mate...) & I have to say that I thought Triloquist was rubbish & there's not a lot else to add although i will attempt to try & explain why I am of that opinion. The first thing to say about Triloquist is that it's a horror comedy with heavy emphasis on the comedy, unfortunately it's not funny in the slightest which is obviously a big problem. There's plenty of swearing & some may find the very innocent looking Angelina talk dirty amusing but I am sure they will be in the minority. There are a few visual gags like the dummy Dummy having a dream in which topless strippers caress & kiss him but these come across as childish, immature & quite frankly desperate. The one-liners suck & I seriously doubt many viewers will find anything in Triloquist funny, I certainly didn't. Then there's the rubbish story which makes you feel like you didn't even watch a proper film, there is one of the worst twist endings I have ever seen that makes absolutely zero sense & in context with the rest of the film doesn't work as there are clear contradictions & plot holes. It's never explained quite what Dummy is or who is controlling him & the twist only adds to the confusing & some might say frustration. To be fair to Triloquist the film moves along like a rocket & there are few dull moments but with such a bad story, such unfunny jokes & gags which miss by the proverbial mile & an extremely unlikable central character it's still an incredibly difficult film to either like or enjoy.

Basically a bad taste road film as we see Angelina, Norbert & Dummy murder their way across America stealing whatever car they fancy along the way there's not even that much gore in it. There are a few severed fingers, a neck wound & a bit of blood splatter which amounts to just about nothing. There's some nudity as well as a few topless girls are seen. There are no scares, there's no atmosphere & a really flat visual style that grows old very quickly. I also have to mention the soundtrack which I found extremely annoying & some of the songs used gave me a headache.

Although Triloquist is reasonably well made it has no style & looks both dull & bland. The editing is also poor on occasion with some scenes not making any sense & character's suddenly popping up from quite literally nowhere. The acting isn't great although Paydin LaPachin is a real looker but not enough of a looker to make Triloquist worth watching.

Triloquist, or Dummy if you live here in the UK, is crap by any name & I think it's as simple & straight forward as that really. It's not funny, it's not scary or gory & it's definitely not clever with a terrible twist that insults the viewer.


From the writer/director of Leprechaun, we're brought another pint-sized horror. After Norbert, the son of a dead ventriloquist, is locked up in an asylum for attacking a young child, his sister, Angelina, and their Dummy break him out and hit the road towards Vegas to put Norbert and Dummy where they belong: onstage.

Where to begin. . . well, I've certainly never seen a film like this. Oh, wait, yes I have, just split up among four (or more) other films. Triloquist plays like a lower-quality mix of Pin..., The Devil's Rejects, Child's Play, and Dead Silence. . . only less funny and a lot worse. It tried to be quirky and cute, but it failed. It tried to be shocking and scary, but it failed. I'm sure it also tried to be well made. Guess what? Failed there too. Other than nervous laughs from my "Oh, it really can't be this bad" thoughts, this film was not funny at all. The plot was erratic and stupid, never settling to get its bearings before moving on to another weak plot turn. The acting was dreadful, except by the mute who did a good job of, um, not talking and looking creepy. The puppet effects were ridiculously bad, and the dummy looked like it had been melted and stuck down a garbage disposal at some point. Dummy didn't have any of the charm, wit, or brutality of Mark Jones's other creation Leprechaun. . . instead, Dummy was just a nuisance. Ugh. There really isn't much good to say, except. . . well. . . it's only eighty minutes.

Final verdict: 3/10.


when i saw the trailer to this film i had high hopes and then when i found out that Mark Jones was behind it i figured it would be good i loved the first leprechaun but even though the trailer was good sadly thats about the only good thing about the film, it trys to hard to be funny and you just start feeling sorry a quarter of the way through asking yourself why am i still watching this maybe it might get better I've seen it all the way and let me answer that question with a big no.

some spoilers: the actress playing the sister was not convincing and seemed way to out of place, the story was OK but really did not make sense not one of the bigger problems but it did confuse the 3 people i was watching it with. this is like a bad sequel around the lines of leprechaun in space, but i forgave that movie simply because the first one was good but this on the other hand you cant forgive it trys way to hard at times and throws a little blood and boobs ur way every now and then to keep u watching, a part made me smile close to the end because it was simply a scene stolen from dead silence.


First thing to think about: Don't enter this movie thinking a serious horror movie. It's nothing like that. I guess in a way I blame myself for not liking it, expecting something at least a little bit like Dead Silence.

This movie is mainly a comedy, or at least I thought so, because I was not frightened one bit. The voice of the dummy is not scary it all, in fact it reminded me a little of Chris from Family Guy.

The soundtrack is the worst of recent films. Painful songs that they play over and over again.

Don't expect any cleverness or thrills from this flick. You may get some laughs, but overall, this movie is not good.


The idea is interesting. Follow a group of slackers interacting with each other and then cut away to new group when new passerbys come on-screen. The problems are in execution.

The point is well-taken after only a few of these interactions and new digressions. But the exercise goes on far too long. This would have worked much better as a movie short. There is nothing new to gain from seeing 40 interactions as opposed to just the first few.

The second problem is that the characters are not interesting. They are all, every single one, simply annoying. They go on at long length about conspiracies, and make many idiotic statements throughout (both young and old), but never offer any new insights. Since all the characters (and there are many) are slackers of one variety or another, it makes it appear that the entire town of full of nothing but weirdos. As a former resident (and student) of Austin in the mid-to-late 80s, I can attest that there are *some* individuals like this, but they are certainly in the minority and not at all representative of the city. The only interesting thing for me was seeing the various Austin locales.


I don't know what prompted the praise for this movie. Maybe it was a forerunner of a genre where the offbeat vignettes of a disaffected generation were to reflect normal day-to-day reality.

The fact is I really enjoy the offbeat and quirky and dark comedies, but give me a break - in other words, give me some sort of plot or character development. Is that too much to ask? Although this film has a few amusing moments and some well-observed takes on the not quite sane, I could experience the same by taking a walk downtown or riding the subway. There are many quasi-intellectual ideas raised by many of the characters, but to what end? Is the point of the film that there is no point, and if so, what's the point of that?

And I am to believe that an elderly store owner is going to take a spaced-out youth who just held him up at gunpoint under his wing and treat him as a son? The film does this in a 5-minute sequence and leaves us bemused and frustrated - and leaves the characters, like all the others in the film, to disappear into oblivion.

I much preferred Linklater's later film, "SubUrbia" - it too was about young people with no particular goals, but it was about something: the characters had depth, interacted, and went through significant explorations and discoveries. I'm glad I saw it before "Slackers" because otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

Rating: 2 out of 10.


People share their random thoughts as they walk through their lives, chat at coffee shops, and preach on street corners. Everybody's got a theory and they seem to have a suspiciously nihilistic throughline: it's the 90's and all the good reasons for getting out of the house have been used up by the anarchists, the radicals, and the rooftop snipers. As we meet dozens of characters in thinly connected vignettes, we get a vivid picture of a time, a place, and a group of people. As Richard Linklater himself says in the opening monologue, all the choices that we make in our lives create alternate realities spinning off into space, formed by the possibility that we could have made a different choice, thereby creating a different future. Deep? Oh yes. Is life really like this? Definitely. We meet someone in a convenience store for two minutes, get a picture of their life, formulate some questions about them, and then, poof, they're gone, and you never know what happened, just as we never know what happened to the boy who runs down his mother, the couple who weren't on the guest list, the roommate who disappears, or any of the other characters in "Slacker."

But is it worth a movie? Open question, as far as I'm concerned. With such a string of unanswered questions, the audience eventually tires and refuses to invest emotionally in anything, knowing that they will be, once again, left hanging. Sure, life is just like that, but, like Andy Warhol's day-long film of the Empire State Building, the experiment might be better in theory (and in one of the coffee table conversations so prevalent in "Slacker") than in practice.


I started watching this movie with a lot of interest. It seemed different. But, by its mid-point (if one could say something like this), I decided that the movie became predictable, and frankly, quite annoying. I wonder who needs to be continuously in the flux of things, wandering aimlessly. But I guess here's the trick: this is a movie with a (hidden) structure: its apparently aimless characters and their events do encircle into a series of "uneventful" experiences. The pattern is to paste all these events like in a randomly done collage. Finally, I think the movie reinforces the idea that even apparently nonsensical events do have a structure. If I am correct, then I guess the purpose of the movie diminishes considerably, and its philosophy works against itself like a boomerang.


Unless you are interested in twenty-somethings spouting nonsense which they consider profound, you will probably be bored after 10 minutes. While I'm sure the characters can all be found in real life, this movie could only hold someone's interest if the monologues were either hilarious or truly profound. Neither condition is met unfortunately. Actually, I found the film pretty depressing. The characters are all caught in their own Ground Hog scenarios with no wish to break free. The monologues really don't present any new ideas but rehash various conspiracy theories and so forth. If anything, the film demonstrates the need to move out of college towns and get on with your life. 3 out of 10 is generous.


After watching this movie, I realized something. Movies like 'Less Than Zero' (more so in Bret Easton Ellis' novel than the movie, though) and 'Bonfire of the Vanities' and other similarly themed movies presents one class of people, wealthy apathetic socialites who exist in a state of perpetual uselessness. 'Slacker' presents the other extreme. Young people in their twenties in this small Texas town with zero prospects, zero interest, and a lot to say about nothing. They're so hell bent on some kind of 'anti-establishment' philosophy, that they completely consume themselves in absolute drivel. Sort of like, rebelling too much about something they really know nothing about. No tough lives, nothing. Just person after person pontificating about absolute nonsense. These kind of people aren't profound philosophers, but instead, are just as useless as the obscenely wealthy bonvivants of the films of the 80s.

I don't think 'Slacker' is a celebration of that type of character either, since most of the people in the movie, at least to me, come off as giant idiots. I think it was the intention of the filmmakers to mock that, although I don't remember the early 90s enough to conclude that based on its original context. The movie drags on and on, passing from one person to the next in this small Texas town, doing their bit before the camera before it passes them over and travels on to the next. They're not particularly interesting and to me, and in fact, are annoying enough to give someone the homicidal twitch. If you can tolerate the near hour and a half of convoluted yammering of the characters (because that's all there is), then you'll probably be able to get through it. Once was enough for me.


My gods, that was terribly boring. You could literally put someone to sleep with it. It almost put me to sleep. and the dialog made me cringe more than just once.

The whole 'body switching' crap is so terribly uninteresting for me. The episode is also completely forgettable, I keep forgetting about it unlike other bad episodes like 'Space' where you immediately know what it was about. Honestly, only good thing about this episode was Gillian Anderson's acting. She's entirely believable.

This episode is my third ONE star. I think I might even like Ghost in the Machine better. This is boredom to the max.


Turkish comedian Cem Yılmaz ("Her Şey Çok Güzel Olacak" & "Vizontele") and director Ömer Faruk Sorak ("Asansor" & "Vizontele") re-unite to spin-out a sketch from the former's "Bir Tat Bir Doku" stand-up show into a record-breaking Turkish box office hit.

Turkish tour guide and carpet salesman Arif (Cem Yılmaz) is abducted by the evil Commander Logar (Cem Yılmaz) and taken to Gora where he is chosen by the mysterious Garavel (Özkan Ugur) to rescue Princess Ceku (Özge Özberk) in an uninspired comedy set-up.

Cem Yılmaz puts in a rather insipid performance as the stereotypical Turkish every-man Arif but comes alive in his brilliant turn as Commander Logar with solid support coming from the likes of Özkan Ugur, Rasim Oztekin, Ozan Guven and the gorgeous Özge Özberk.

The film-makers' three year struggle with budget and technical problems paid-off with a convincingly realised sci-fi movie pastiche that acts as a magnificent backdrop for a tired series of parodies and gags that are more well-worn than one of Arif's carpets.

"I learnt to look at life from a different angle."


OK, OK, I can understand how some movies try to use womanly figures to promote their movies and give some cheap thrills to the male audience, but you have to begin questioning a film that has the main lead getting it on with the first two nameless bare breasted chicks he rescues.

But that's not what makes the movie bad, nay painful. The script was a disaster and the delivery of said script was a travesty in the art of character portrayal. That being said, the characters in need of portrayal were shallow, one dimensional stereotyped fantasy figures and overused to the extent of being nauseous, so the actors can't take all of the blame.

The worst part of the movie occurs with the introduction of the "cute little sidekick" in the form of the abomination named Wooby. It is some mix between an Ewok and a giant teddy bear but shares none of the admirable qualities of either. The costume looks like it was a halloween costume thrown out by a 10 year old who knew better. The fight scenes involving Wooby are equally ridiculous and are little more than the light tossing of stones that plink of the chests of the bad guys but somehow manage to do enough damage to kill or otherwise disable them.

The only redeemable quality of the movie is O'Hearn himself, but not because of his acting ability or skill with martial arts and clearly not for his theatrical fighting abilities. The sole benefit he gives to the movie is that he looks the part and looks it well. The plot is overly cliché and reminiscent of fourteen year olds playing Dungeons and Dragons and the film doesn't even take itself seriously enough NOT to steal footage from other movies. Yes, an entire scene was taken right out of "DeathStalker".

The movie was a disaster and rivaled only by the likes of films such as Time Bandits and Cave Dwellers.

And for goodness sakes, it has Wooby.


You've seen this movie before. Don't lie, of course you have. You take a lone hero with a sword. Set him up against a dark sorcerer with monstrous servants. Make him run around a mythical backdrop searching for props to defeat said sorcerer whilst picking up a small party of comrades. For good measure, throw in a mysterious witch, concubines, a deposed noble, and lots of dry ice. This movie was made countless times in the 80's with slight variations: maybe it was "Conan The Barbarian", "Deathstalker", or "Red Sonja." There was probably a role-playing game tie-in. This grand tradition is continued into the new millennium by the laughably bad, Roger Corman-financed "epic" film "Barbarian."

In a land overcome by a dark, sorcerous tyrant named Munkar (Martin Kove), the people's last hope for liberation is a swordsman named Kane (Michael O'Hearn). Conscripted by a Witch (Yevdokiya Germanova) to collect some mystic artifacts needed to overthrow Munkar and in return win the hand of Princess Gretchen (Irina Grigoryeva), Kane battles stock villains while collecting his traveling companions. Furry and cute but indescribably annoying sidekick Wooby (Yuri Danilchenko)? Check. Hot amazon babe Gilda (Svetlana Metinka)? Check. Brooding, disaffected solider jealous of Kane's manly jaw and pectoral development Zigrid (Aleksandr Dyachenko)? Check. So where is Brigitte Nielsen in all of this mess?

This film has so many things wrong with it that it truly boggles the mind. One of the most noticeable flaws is the cast. The film was shot on location in the Ukraine, and presumably to keep down the budget, all but two speaking roles were filled by local Russian actors whose voices were then later dubbed over by uncredited American actors, often quite poorly. The producers try to hide this fact by placing all non-Russian names in the cast (including non-speaking extras) in the opening credits. Another major flaw is the design of the film, or lack thereof. The costumes and props, including weapons and armor, were culled from at least 20 different time periods and regions, from Bronze Age Greece to 15th-century Italy. Often, the film looked like little more than a second-rate Renaissance festival, complete with the amount of slipshod authenticity that generally accompanies it. That's to say nothing of the stultifying script and ridiculous story, which seems to be either a continuation or a rip-off of "Deathstalker" (and there are even clips from that film in this one), and the poorly choreographed, sloppily edited fight scenes.

Most of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of one John O'Halloran, who wrote, edited, and directed the film (sometimes under the pseudonym of Henry Crum). The film plays out with all the clumsiness of an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons module from 1985, with O'Halloran being the awkward Dungeon Master who takes himself far too seriously. Characters appear and disappear with a randomness and lack of motive, but with perfect timing, that mimics a night spent rolling dice and comparing saving throws. In this case, the game goes on for far too long, the plot becomes far too ridiculous, and when the players get tired, the DM wraps the ending up with far too much haste and too little closure.

So what's good about this film? One thing, and his name is Michael O'Hearn. O'Hearn seems to be about the only person in this train wreck possessing anything resembling acting ability. He's not good by any stretch, at least good enough to get his own syndicated action series, but he far outshines the rest of the cast. In addition, he is pretty. So very, very pretty. One of the most successful fitness models in the world, and winner of several bodybuilding championships, O'Hearn has the awe-inducing physical presence to make you briefly forget about the schlock he's surrounded with. He's also got just enough stage combat ability to make some of the fights vaguely entertaining. He even makes some of the cheesy one-liners he's forced to say sound cool, and that takes talent.

Fans of low-budget (or no-budget) sword-and-sorcery fare like "Barbarian Queen" or "Ator" will relish this film in all of its ludicrous beauty. Virtually everyone else will be more compelled to watch the opening credits lovingly worship O'Hearn's form, then promptly return the film to wherever they rented it from. And fans of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" will seek out this film at all costs for their next Bad Movie Night showing. 3 out of 10.


This is a zero budget, amateurish film that is laughably poor in parts. Obviously made on the cheap, with scenes cut in and some very poor acting and dubbing. It was made in the Crimea, in Ukraine and the scenery is the best thing about it. The soundtrack has been over-dubbed subsequent to filming, presumably because the local actresses accents were too heavy to be understood. This has made an already clunking script even more laughably bad. Where filing is off location, the sets are blatantly plywood, with no attempt made for solidity or weightiness.

Assorted bad guys are too clean, the same locations are used for different parts of the plot, and overall it looks like it was thrown together in a wet weekend. Good points: the scenery, and surprisingly the score. And the girls are very pretty. Bad points: the rest of the movie.


This is a straight-to-video adventure flick, made in Russia, probably with the same crew Corman paid to do the Playmate remake of his Pam Grier potboiler THE ARENA. Strictly for those whose guilty pleasures include the DEATHSTALKER and BARBARIAN QUEEN series. Mike 0'Hearn provides the ample beefcake, but in decidedly off-kilter GQ style. B-movie villain Martin Kove is thrown in for good measure as the only other pronounceable cast member. Forgive the histrionics while they flex!


Shirley Temple once again takes on the role of Mary Lou Rogers, co-starring with her irritating brother Sonny, who is just as contrived and unconvincing as he was in the same role in Pardon My Pups, as I imagine he is in most of the other short films that he stars in with Temple playing Mary Lou.

It seems that Sonny's childhood friend is going to be attending what is evidently a very coveted military academy, and after briefly celebrating, Sonny becomes sad, knowing that his own parents can't afford to send him to the same school, and that the news means that he'll be losing his best friend.

What follows is a film during which the two boys constantly act just an unrealistically as the Hardy Boys who, when faced with things like the sounds of ghosts in creepy mansions, are famous for uttering such things as "I don't feel obliged to remain in this house one moment longer!" There are a series of meaningless sight gags thrown into the movie as the boys set out to search for gold in the desert of California, setting off on bumpy dirt roads in an old jalopy (which I suppose may have been brand new at the time) on the sides of which are such crudely scrawled handwritten phrases as "Chickens Ride Inside, Roosters Ride Out," and "No Good on Dirt Roads."

Shirley tags along, the curious little sister who wants to go hang out with the big kids, and ends up running into a strangely well-dressed but crazy man in the desert, who struggles to get her to ask him silly questions but fails because she already knows the answer. Turns out he is a man of some level of fame who has been suffering from amnesia, brought on by a cause which is never explained.

Not that it matters, his whole presence in the movie is never explained. My theory is that they just needed a reason to have a man diving into a mirage that is really just hot sand to add to the sight gag of the kids plowing a wooden shack to the ground because they thought it was a mirage, just like the cavernous mansion that disappeared before their eyes earlier.

Of the few of Shirley Temple's early short films that I've seen, I've found that the ones in which she plays Mary Lou, co-starring with Frank Coghlan Jr. as Sonny, are by far the least entertaining and amusing, and this one is no exception. Temple is just as charmingly adorable as she always is, but with that level of instant adoration, they could certainly do better than this. I think her cuteness worked against her in some ways, because she's been in many films which have little else to offer.


Frank (Junior) Coghlan portrays Sonny who, along with his best pal (Kenneth Howell) and their tiny friend Mary Lou (Shirley Temple) decide to try prospecting for gold into California's high desert region, the point of which is an attempt to gain enough money for the financing of Sonny's tuition into a military academy which his parents cannot afford for him to attend. A variety of silliness transpires during this short, much of it concerning Mary Lou's new-found desert tramp friend (Huntley Gordon) who is a victim of amnesia, but the ofttimes spontaneous roughhousing between the two teen-aged boys along with their complete artlessness causes the viewer to forget the thinly written script.


Mary Lou (Shirley Temple)'s older brother Sonny (Frank Coghlan Jr.) wants desperately to go to a coveted military school along with his buddy Sidney but his Dad cannot afford it. This doesn't deter Sonny however who hatches up a scheme to go prospecting for gold so his Dad will have money to pay for his education at the institute. Mary Lou, ever getting into trouble, decides to stow away in the back of Sonny's old car.

This whole short is built on and relies on the prospect of Temple's being cute enough to entertain most viewers and get a laugh because there's sure very little else here to really laugh about. Temple's meeting with the crazy "gold prospector" in the desert is more often uncomfortable than funny and all attempts made here at comedy feel far too forced to be the least bit effective. Only required viewing if you like to see a young Shirley Temple being cute.


In another short film by "Educational Films", Director Charles Lamont has re-united Sonny (Junior Coughlan) and Mary Lou (Shirley Temple)in this early Temple vehicle. In this one, Little Mary Lou is watching her big brother Sonny do a chemistry experiment. Sonny's pal shows up and they make plans to look for gold in the desert, to raise money for Sonny, so he can attend the military school his friend will be attending in the fall. Mary Lou hides in the trunk of Sonny's car, much to the consternation of Sonny when he finds her. While he and his pal look for gold, Mary Lou befriends a man she calls "GUS", who seems lost and can't recall his identity. When the boys tell him they're searching for gold, "Gus" shows them bags of "gold dust". Back at home, the boys show their find to a local assayer while "Gus" fiddles with Sonny's chemistry set. The resulting explosion helps "Gus" regain his memory and he rewards Sonny. Director Lamont is better known for other films, including Abbott and Costello features, Ma and Pa Kettle films and "Hit the Ice" and "Where She Danced"


From director Phil Grabsky we learn that he wanted to find out how much truth there was to the movie Amadeus. I hope he hadn't. Amadeus may be fiction, but it was a passionate, captivating and an emotionally deep film about Mozart. This highly praised documentary however is a soulless, trivial and dull recounting of Mozarts life through quotes of his letters, interlaced with comments of experts. It has no dramatic exposition, no original approach and terrible shots of modern day Salzburg, Vienna and random people on streets. There are way too many directors, opera singers and historians, who all have there say, not always too interesting and sometimes contradicting each other, who are so closely framed you instinctively withdraw from your screen. Apart from knowing the chronological order of Mozart's works, I have no better view on the man itself: it's a long enumeration of dates and facts. The only interesting footage is when musicians explain the emotional impact of Mozart's music. After which some German prof is allowed to share his platitudes again.

When Mozart dies we see a string of shots of snow on trees, that's the level of creativity Grabsky is able to produce. Ouch.


Based on previous comments and critical reviews, I went to see this movie. I expected to see a well made documentary about Mozart's life, a composer I love to listen to and whose home I have visited. I was very disappointed. There was nothing new in this movie that made me sit up and take notice. You might learn a little about Mozart's life if you knew nothing, but taken as a whole, I was unimpressed with the details that were presented. You could not get emotionally involved with this genius by watching this movie. The presentation in many respects is unfortunate. Interviewees spoke in their native tongue, no translations were given. Now I know a little German, so I could understand those speakers, but the Italian, French and whatever other languages were spoken were beyond me and I'm sure to most other viewers. There was also no identification of who the interviewees were, so you could not relate to them in any way.


Long and flabby, with few originalities into Mozart's life, work, genius. Some primary sources -- ie the letters (all voices are good) -- illuminate the unextraordinary, loving man under the extraordinary artist, but I did not leave knowing him better than before I went in, which anyway is not well.

BAD photography.

No dramatic momentum. Most interviewees are well-meaning but dull. Sound is lush and clear but the film feels like an amateur filmmaker's labour of love.

OK, For $15 and at over three hours, and given the APPALLING low-resolution photography (shot on 1990s Handicam?), I can't recommend this film. Even on daytime TV it will be tedious.


Z Channel A Magnificent Obsession: 4 out of 10: Well they got the obsession part right. Jerry Harvey was the programming genius behind Z channel an independent LA cable channel that did help revolutionize the way pay cable shows film.

He was famous for finding obscure films and directors and showcasing them to the Hollywood elite. He was also a troubled soul with a horrible family history who murdered his wife then took his own life. The documentary attempts to tell the two tales intertwined.

The latter of the tales seems unfulfilling. Reminisces from former friends and colleagues are quite frank. (Some, 20 years later, clearly don't forgive him) but there is virtually no insight into causation.

What the latter lacks in drama and insight the former lacks in scope. Jerry actually became programming director in 1980 at the death scene of big studio director driven independent Hollywood film of the seventies. (His pal Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate was the film that inspired the studio coup d'etat.) So his influence on independent film was more of a eulogizer than influential promoter. (Cimino, Peckinpah and others in his independent circle simply couldn't get work Z channel marathon or no Z channel marathon. Only James Woods (whose Salvador performance was highlighted during Oscar season) and Paul Verhooeven (who claims he got his Robocop job after a Z channel marathon of his films) show a career boost from Jerry.

So Jerry plucked tons of virtually unseen studio films of the seventies as well as foreign films for his channel and used these movies to help fill the twenty four hours a day.

The documentary avoids one reason for this (These films were cheap if not outright free to show) and barely acknowledges the other reason (These films had plenty of nudity making them the perfect cable only product).

The film also avoids answering some simple questions such as if it was so popular why didn't Z channel expand to San Francisco or New York? Jerry does deserve credit for introducing the now ubiquitous director's cut. (Though Heaven's Gate was a really bad movie to start that trend on) and his love of the obscure can be felt from Sundance to Netflix.

The film does highlight some great obscure films I still haven't seen but surprising shows no footage whatsoever from the Z channel itself. Long and talky Z Channel is a great place to find some obscure films it just isn't that great a story.


The makers of "Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession" take a potentially fascinating subject and completely botch it. I have to admit that I only got through about a half hour of the thing, but I can only wait so long for a film to let me know it's going somewhere.

I'd never heard of Z-Channel before and was very interested to find out about it, but the filmmakers refused to present me with a clear context or history of their subject. Too much was assumed before any solid groundwork was laid. All I was getting was just a bunch of vaguely connected quotes about a vaguely defined subject and wild praise of someone I had been told nothing significant about who had apparently done something amazing, though what exactly that something was remained foggy. It's confusing and annoying to be repeatedly told of the significance and importance of something before that thing is fully explained. Maybe say it once, to peak my interest, but not over and over from different people time and again. Get to the point! Tell the story!

Now, I admit that I could tell that this was supposed to be the story of a movie fan named Jerry Harvey who was involved with the first pay movie channel, but that was about it--and I think I should have known more after half an hour! I'm pretty sure that other people like me, people who had never heard of Z-channel before, were similarly bored or confused. This film was obviously not created for us, but for people already "in the know." And that kind of seems to defeats the purpose if you ask me.


I am sorry I have to post this, but I have a deep respect for John and one cannot wonder "Why waste such good actors on crappy stories ?", how on earth can anyone try to make me believe that a human being can stand such drama and do nothing about it ? That is the spirit in South Africa? I honestly don't think so. Even if you don't put much thrust in the police (as they claim in the movie) you still can act on your own, and I am talking here about him as a protector of his daughter and as a protector of his own skin - for God's sake, that kid RAPED HIS DAUGHTER , BROKE HIS HEAD AND SET HIM ON FIRE TO DIE !!! I can ask anyone if he or she were able to find the one responsible, would they let him get away with it ?


"A murder is committed at the Forest Park Planetarium during a lecture by the celebrated Astronomer, Professor Ernst Einfeld (Lee Kohlmar). The fatal shot is fired in semi-darkness while a distinguished audience observes the stars projected on the dome above them. A hardboiled homicide detective (Russell Hopton) trades verbal jabs with a wisecracking gal reporter (Lola Lane) as they attempt to unravel the mysterious killing," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. In a very dull manner.

The "gal reporter" character played by Lola Lane was, in part, writer Jerry Siegel's inspiration for Superman's Girl Friend, "Lois Lane"; however, Ms. Lane's later "Torchy Blane" characterization is a more accurate reference point. Perhaps, "Death from a Distance is most notable as featuring the penultimate performance of George F. Marion (as Jim Gray), who so memorably played the father of Pauline Lord (1921), Blanche Sweet (1923), and Greta Garbo (1930) in Eugene O'Neill's "Anna Christie".

*** Death from a Distance (9/17/35) Frank Strayer ~ Russell Hopton, Lola Lane, George F. Marion


During a lecture at a planetarium, a man is murdered. However, despite this occurring in a room full of people, it isn't clear exactly who is responsible.

This is a super-low budget film that isn't horrible, but it isn't particularly good either. Much of the fault for it being such a poor film are the result of poor writing (with a WAY over-complicated murder scheme), an annoying and clichéd character (Lola Lane playing a very stereotypical "pushy female reporter") and an overall lack of energy. In fact, as I watched the film, I kept found myself falling asleep because there wasn't much to interest me and the lack of incidental music made the film seem very static and subdued. As far as I am concerned, that was an hour of my life I wish I could have back! Amateurish but watchable--not exactly a glowing endorsement.


I am an advocate of a category I like to refer to as the "drunken classics". If you want a film to really move you, your selection is severely limited by the few hundred great films that have been made over the years. However, if you're getting drunk before or while you're watching a film, there are literally thousands of terrible, terrible films that become enjoyable where they would otherwise be unwatchable. The prime example of this theory would be the American Ninja Series (I-IV anyway, V is still unwatchable). It was in this mindset that I picked up Ninja:The Protector and I discovered something astounding; the film can actually make time stop. The running time may be listed at 90some minutes but I swear it took a week and a half out of my life. This film is not just terrible. It is terrible, cheesy, low-budget, slow, and although it has such an incredibly innane straight out of Thundercats plot, still manages to be one of the most confusing films I've ever seen. It is my belief that what actually happened was that they took 45 minutes of stock ninja footage together with a reject 70s drama pilot and just stuck them together and put all the money into the box art in the hopes of suckering someone, anyone into renting it. Anyone who sits through this film should have the opportunity to slap anyone that was involved with it, and then be slapped themselves. I know I deserve it. Please, if my only contribution to this world is that I saved one, just one person the pain and agony of this film, my life will have been worth living. Yes, I am that shallow.


I love cheesey ninja movies. I LOVE them. The title lured me in, and the movie preceded to take away my will to live.

The first twenty minutes of this movie are solid gold. Cinematic trash at its very best. However somewhere in between the feuding twin brothers who also happen to be spies and the repeated sequences of bondage sex and violent rape, this movie made me want to die.

Imagine three of the least interesting and most melodramatic plots you can concieve, and then cram them into one movie that manages to bore, confuse and disturb all who view it, and there you have it. Nothing in this movie makes sense. Forget being believable, i couldn't UNDERSTAND it enough to pass judgment on that. I felt as if i had been drugged and then subjected to several hours of beatings and disorientation. The movie was only ninety minutes long, but i swear the hands on the clock stood still as this abomination continued to unfurl its tenticles on my mind. I will never forgive the makers of this sin.


So apparently this movie is about this good looking (in a Marlboro Man way) blond guy in a camouflage ninja costume and his fight with a chubby businessman (in a red ninja costume) and with the red ninja guy's minions to break up a counterfeiting ring. No, wait, it's about a cop working undercover as a men's fashion model (uh-huh) and his relationship with his brother (a "playboy and troublemaker") and his girlfriend and the price he pays to perform his assigned duty (which seems to involve a lot of soft core porn and soap opera dialog).Wait, it's both those things...and a lot less!

I enjoy bottom of the barrel cinema more than I probably should, but this particular genre - in which Richard Harrison apparently was edited into an unrelated and obscure action move by director Ho - was new to me. Lucky me, I got to experience confusion and cheese overload in one compact movie!

I counted about six extremely silly ninja battles (which is fair enough for a movie called "Ninja The Protector") as the blond guy dispatched the chubby businessman's -er, "Ninja Grandmaster's" - little helpers in a series of increasingly desultory battles involving teleportation, exotic weapons, instant costume changes, tons of eye liner, and finally...jousting on motorcycles(!) Meanwhile, the director and editor tried to pretend that all this was connected to the other plot about the fashion model with some linking dialog. The end result was...weird and disorienting, as if I'd swallowed a handful of No-Doze and washed it down with cough syrup. I kept expecting the movie to make sense and follow through with something...for the laws of cause and effect to kick in...for characters to do things that made sense...and the screenplay kept bouncing from scene to scene without ever being coherent.

Upsides to the movie: The blond guy (Richard Harrison?) was at least good looking. The battles were sloppy and silly but it looked like someone at least tried to pump some adrenaline into the proceedings by including a variety of weapons and stunts. Also, the undercover cop's brother was fun to watch - he was like the "Energizer Bunny" of sidekicks, always bouncing back from getting slammed around and managing to win most of his fights with sheer elastic energy.(The second plot should have been about him). And the English dubbing was better than usual for a quickie exploitation product like this; the overdubbed line deliveries at least didn't grate, and the sound wasn't mixed in such a way as to make your ears bleed the way some Hong Kong sausage product is.

The best I can say for it is that a bunch of kids and ninja fans probably watched it while drunk (or stoned) and cheered a lot. But this is an insult to anyone who expects his movies to, um, make sense.


Ninja The Protector is a watchable ninja flick. However, The Ninja Protector isn't a great ninja flick, its plot is just crappy. Let's begin with the fact that most of its ninjas are white, even though that some are Chinese. Its plot was a combination of exploitation, ninja action and a crappy drama, I know that it sounds cheesy and fun, but it's not that great. Actually, The Ninja Protector has boring scenes whereas the some of its fights save it. The ninjas are mostly white as I said above, but they have some interesting swords and daggers. Its plot is so awful that I won't even write about it, However, its soundtrack is actually cheesy and fun. Morever, its soundtrack is maybe the best part in this silly film, it is heard after and during the cheesy fights. In a nutshell, The Ninja Protector isn't very recommended, unless you really like ninja movies. 4/10


This film remains alive in my memory in the form of its emotional impressions (the term "bittersweet" may be overused here but is completely appropriate) as well as the final chords of the soundtrack, which darkly underline the story's conclusion. I'm with everyone here astonished that this film's still not available for personal acquisition. It's not as if it was a misstep for either of the stars, something to be kicked under the rug; if anything it's akin to "Harold and Maude" (but not an imitation...the resemblance is superficial). I can still feel this film in my blood, though it must be 20 years since I last saw it.


If you like your movies sappy, then this one's for you. I can't help but think how much tragedy would have been prevented in this movie via the use of a concept I like to call "scouts". I'm all for the suspension of disbelief (especially when watching a movie on the hallmark channel) but the idea that a guy could be riding his horse around in a war and *not* know it was pregnant strains incredulity to it's limits. I'm not the target audience and I admit that I was forced to watch this but I really didn't like this movie. I found it pretty amazing how much outright death this had for a family movie. The ending especially could be pretty traumatic for little kids.


Take Care of My Cat follows the lives of a group of girls who have recently left school in South Korea and are searching for a meaning or a purpose in their life.

To say this film was dreadful is a compliment, as it was worse than dreadful. I am not a new comer to far eastern films and I must admit I really was looking forward to seeing this film, which I had read only good things about. This movie felt like 9 hours long and it went nowhere.

The only interesting areas of the film were the parts with the girls sending text messages and the text appeared in windows etc. Some of the split screen stuff worked well too, but ultimately the plot went nowhere. Sure I am interested in cultures from the other side of the world but at least attach a story to it.

It could have been aptly titled "Take Care of My Plot", as the scriptwriter clearly didn't.

Not recommended at all. 2 out of 10 and that is just for the clever graphics.


Well, I didn't choose wisely when I rented this movie. Yikes! Although the concept for the film had potential, the attempt failed miserable. The story is about a drug addict artist who wakes up from a drug induced stupor and finds his friend murdered. He doesn't know what happened and whether or not he's responsible. The police then investigate and interview all the cocaine snorting friends who last saw the man alive and think they may have a suspect, but there's a twist in this struggling plot. There were some familiar character-actor faces within the cast and even an appearance from former KISS guitarist Ace Frehley in a "vain" attempt to attract viewers to this sorry film I begrudgingly admit that I took the bait. What makes this film weak is it lacks stability and a strong storyline with good character development. The acting was amateurish and the dialog was lame that is if you could understand it through all the mumbling. If that wasn't enough, the poor quality of the film, due to the low budget, was quite apparentfor instance, the poor sound mix and jiggling camera made it seem like I was watching a home movie or a student film. To keep viewers awake or to continue watching, some sex and naked women were thrown in the mix for the guys. As for us ladies, there is nothing to hold our attention. In closing, unless you're like me, a KISS fan who wanted to see Ace in his first dramatic role, don't bother with this movie. I give it a generous 2.


I considered this a poor and basic movie, why? Well, the story is very poor, the cast is very poor and the shooting is also poor. For starters the plot begins with the final scene which is something I really find irritating, however, many good movies do that...Anyway, the whole movie centers around a crime which is investigated in a very pointless way and very little happens besides that, except for a few needless sex scenes... The cast didn't help either, sometimes it felt like an amateur movie, the main character was OK and the police detective was funny but the rest was very bad. I didn't like the way the movie was shot either, nothing new here and I felt the camera could have transmitted a much better idea and feeling with a bit more effort.

I stress the word basic and not simple because simple things can be very beautiful and interesting, however, this movie has no depth, explores the drug world in a futile way and as a detective story it did not convince me.

I didn't give it a lower vote because with all its flaws it still entertained me for a while (it was a Sunday night).


When I read an analysis of the music video, I thought the ripping off of skin part would look cool. I was extremely disappointed. Since then, I have not liked any of Robbie's work.

The video is also fairly unrealistic. If the chicks aren't impressed by him taking all his clothes off, what the hell makes him think that ripping off his skin does? And why did the people involved in this even think about a video with this plot, especially since he's supposed to appeal to a young audience? God, the things that ruin pop music and their videos...

If you want to see a music video where a sleazy drug addict rips off his skin to impress chicks, then go ahead, watch this video. Parents, if you don't want your children (especially if they already like him) to be traumatised, please, please, please don't let them watch this video. If it comes on at all, go in the room and turn off the television. I don't care if it's censored or not, just don't subject them to this video.


And here we have yet another cheesy Italian knock-off of the spy film genre, trying to capitalize on the 60's popularity of the Bond films. Our super agent, one Bart Fargo by name, is a bland layabout loser, who'd rather be sleeping than out saving the world from bumbling super villains. Smart man, actually, but it doesn't make for very good cinema to watch Bart lounge around his various hotel rooms for at least half of the movie.

Bart's boss is a morose, whiny guy with a thoroughly festive racist attitude and an extreme dislike for Bart(not surprising, really). He summons Bart from his perpetual snoozing and has him dragged to the office by two pretty girls(who rough him up a bit, but what female wouldn't want to?). There, he tells Bart his next assignment is to retrieve a scientist who's built a 'peaceful death ray'. Huh? The scientist was kidnapped at the opening of the film by several accountants in a huge car, set to a bouncy tune that gets on your nerves after about the first five minutes of endless repetition. The accountants haul the good doctor off to a toy helicopter stolen from a Godzilla set, then transfer him to a model submarine swiped from the Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster set. They then blow up the toy helicopter, like a five year old gleefully setting off a bottle rocket.

So Bart's mission seems to be accomplished by his flying off to yet another vaguely European city and lounging in a different hotel room. the bad guy's thugs conveniently come to him, so there's a set of lame fight scenes in the hideous 60's hotel room. At one time Abe Lincoln uses a time machine to hunt down Bart and try to kill him, maybe because Bart resembles John Wilkes Boothe. There's an amazingly slow car chase, in which Bart shows what a useless super spy he is. I mean, did he really think that the thugs wouldn't notice the candy red sports car practically kissing their bumper? And then Bart demonstrates how incompetent he is, letting the thugs drive the car over the cliff. In an unforeseen tragedy, Bart was not in the car at the time.

Bart saves one of the thug's lives, so the guy helps him find the lair of the super(or not so super, really)villain. It looks like a badly decorated bordello, with wall mounted machine guns. Wow, this madame REALLY likes to discourage bad customers. Like Bart, I'm sure. Anyhoo, the bad guy buddy gets fragged, and Bart rushes in to save the girl and the idiot scientist(I mean, a peaceful death ray?! come on, man!) and kills the tepid villain. The 'death ray' causes a lot of wallboard and plaster to fall on their heads, and then there's a scene in yet ANOTHER hotel room of Bart and the red-haired artist chick he saved from 'certain death'. There's a final scene where our hero chucks a talking watch out the window to avoid talking to yet another one of his girlfriends, his bosses' secretary. Was it a Timex? And did it signal the wasted hour and a half that we spent watching this dud? We'll never know.


MASTER PLAN: get the death ray plans from a kidnapped scientist. Yet another in a long line of European James Bond knock offs during the swinging sixties, this piqued my curiosity due to the casting of Gordon Scott as the super agent - meet Bart Fargo! I was mostly familiar with Scott for his Tarzan portrayals of several years earlier, some of which were quite good; of course, he is also well known for his roles in Italian musclemen epics, playing mythical heroes named Goliath or Maciste. So, he has no problem depicting the physical aspect of being a hero - you have no trouble believing he can beat up a couple of henchmen. In fact, most of the entertainment value here stems from a wry sensibility developing by the time Scott is thrashing his 4th or 5th thug (Fargo is the target of several killers during the movie). By that 4th time, Fargo is barely trying - he merely taps a door into the bad guy and then starts slapping him around like a wet noodle. I thought, this is what happens when Goliath puts on a suit and pretends to be a secret agent. This was one of Scott's last leading roles after a career of over a decade and it's actually a shame he didn't get to do more of these, improving on the formula.

The plot begins with the kidnapping of a scientist - much gunplay and cars moving in the night. Fargo isn't introduced until a good 20 minutes in, awoken from his beauty sleep by a couple of babes. He has the now-familiar repartee with this film's version of M and Ms. Moneypenny - it's blatantly derivative. The problem with Italian pics such as these (such as "OK Connery" aka "Operation Double 007") is the dubbing; the voice actors obfuscate the speech patterns and you're guessing what Scott's performance was really like. The spoken dialog itself is terribly crude: a woman is painting some self-portrait and Fargo climbs into her apartment thru the roof; 'What's the matter?' she says. 'Haven't you ever seen an artist's studio?' This passes for sophisticated spy seduction talk here. Later, Fargo interrogates one of his attackers. 'Awright, talk!' Fargo demands, pointing his silencer. 'If I tell ya, the boss'll have me killed,' the guy answers, 'please try to understand!' Then, Fargo pauses and growls 'Listen, you tell me or you're gonna be in REAL trouble.' What's Fargo's threat? Kill the guy even more? Finally, the FX - oh, oh. Fargo is forced off the road at one point in his red European sportscar, falling off a cliff into the sea; only, it's obviously a tiny model car falling into a pond. I laughed out loud yet, at the same time, admired the filmmakers' audacity. They're telling the audience, hey, this is what you get; you don't like it, sue us. Hero:5 Villains:3 Femme Fatales:3 Henchmen:3 Fights:4 Stunts/Chases:4 Gadgets:3 Auto:4 Locations:4 Pace:4 overall:4-


I'm probably being generous by giving this a 3 but it is in color and the people do speak on camera so that rates it higher than my all time low 1 of 10 standard, Beast of Yucca Flats. Oh man is this a really bad flick. No it's not as bad as the Attack of The Eye Creatures (also in color and having the "actors" speak on camera) but man for a spy flick from this glorious era, this one is close or is rock bottom. I mean this is worse than the Operation Double 007 and that one was really bad! I'm typing this out as the movie plays it's just going nowhere, and I'm not missing anything. Thank god for Italian film-making though, as bad as this turd is they put out out some other great stuff. At least if it had some hot Italian babes it would be worth watching but there ain't no Sophia or Gina wanna be's around here, just mid 30's producer/director wives (which aren't dogs but are not the kind of eye candy one would want in a bad flick like this to make it worth something rewarding). You'd think that a crappy flick like this would make a great Mystery Science Theater 3,000 episode but even that commentary only makes this a 5 in my book. So in summary, to each his/her own, worse than even Operation Double 007, no hot babes under 30 here, toy sub's and cars and helicopters, really boring, the guy doesn't get any action, the Death Ray is lamer than Battle Beneath The Earth, the MST3K commentary barely makes it tolerable. Avoid at nearly all costs, you have been warned! 3 out of 10, 5 out of 10 with MST3K commentary.


Man, the late 1960's sure did produce a whole mess of James Bond clones. Bart Fargo, hero of Il Raggio Infernale is one of them.

However, unlike the Albert Broccoli offerings, the gadgets here aren't very inspiring, the acting is pretty bad, and the plot gets very contrived very quickly. The artist woman chosen to be Bart's romantic interest was definitely chosen for her good looks and not her acting ability. Then again, this film being from Italy, one shouldn't expect a whole lot.


it's a blatant rip-off of Hollywood cult hit flick Scream starring Drew Barrymore and Neve Campbell. Only here, you have over three hours of gut slashing blood spilling gore. The film introduces Kajol little sister Tanisha to Bollywood, but trust me she is nothing special. Her sister Kajol is Meryl Streep in comparison. Anyhow, since I've told you that this is a copy of Scream, you should already know the plot. Don't suspect anybody because I can assure you the director and writers have gone out of their way to really throw you off. You won't be able to guess who the killer is until they reveal the secret. Dino Morea co-stars as sexy Rocky who's secretly in love with Mehak (played by Tanisha)who is in love with Suraj (played by Karan Nath) who is brothers with Rajat (played by Gaurav Kapoor) who is in love with Gehna (played by Suvarna Jha) who is secretly sweet on Rocky. Yup! it's a teeny-bop-per-soap-opera mixed into a scary movie. People probably turned their noses up to this one at the Cineplexes, if the kissing scene and brutal almost rape scene are any indication. C-


I saw a screening of this at the Bend film festival. It seemed to have been well received by those that stayed until the end. The acting starts off great but soon fades to mundane texts. The movie makes many twists and turns and effectively creates a solid storyline BUT it's main effect of the hand-held camera destroys the depth of the story. When a movie, or any story, puts everything from a "character's" point of view that character must have some effect on the audience. It turned out to be a cheap trick that in the end made the movie a cheap exploitation rather than the gruesome thriller it could have been. This was my first experience with a film festival, particularly with a world premiere. I'm not sure how much to forgive to those that are working with a minimum budget. This team may have better luck in the future with some more money to not have to worry about shoddy camera tricks and focus on the story.


Here we have yet another movie directed by someone who has absolutely no business behind a camera. His last name is Olmos. Edward James Olmos is in the movie. Gee, I wonder who he's related to? Someone needs to educated these awful wannabe directors that a bunch of jump cuts in every scene doesn't look cool, it looks like the editor and/or director didn't have a clue what they were doing. Of course, there's a lot of hand held camera work here, which is terrible.

There is bad acting by everyone involved (of course all the women are hot) and if you can't figure out who the killer is in the first ten minutes, you've never watched a movie before. I couldn't even finish this awful movie (I got about 40 minutes into before I just couldn't take it anymore) but there was no doubt who the killer was.

There are so many of these types of movies coming out now where the director has lots of quick edits, hand held cameras and jump cuts throughout the film, please please tell me this isn't how all movies are going to be done from now on.

Remember the days when directors actually directed films?


Though not completely awful, this film disappoints. Though independent directors bemoan the studio system and how it stifles creativity, there is at least one thing that the studios have done fairly consistently: they've been able to remind directors that good acting is highly desirable. Too many indie directors take a concept and some creative ideas and then simply relegate the acting to the lowest priority possible. That's one of the problems with "Splinter"...budget-level acting. I don't consider Sizemore to be an outstanding actor, but he truly embarrasses virtually every other actor in this film, especially Atis, who simply appears amateurish and uncertain in every scene.

So, sorry...can't recommend this one at all. Crummy acting condemns a movie, regardless of the concept, story, and other production values.


I give this one four stars, solely because of Tom Sizemore who, for me, was the only interesting thing in this whole film. Though getting top billing, he isn't in this one nearly enough to rate it any higher. Why he wasn't given more screen time is beyond me. In fact, Resmine Atis seems to get as much, or more, screen time and, in my opinion, is as wooden an actress as I have seen on film. I kept waiting for some kind of real emotion to come out of her character, but it just wasn't to be.

I guess, perhaps, I am the wrong demographic for this kind of film, as I found the story and most of it's characters extremely dull and unimaginative. I found myself counting how many times they called each other "dog" just to keep myself amused. And, no, I can't give you the actual final count...you'll have to watch and count for yourselves....


I liked this movie considering it was about gangs. Usually I cannot stand these types of movies however I found this tolerable. What I could not stand is the main female actress. She was supposed to be a hard a** personality but would break down crying over things that seemed to be not so important. The movie did not develop her character too well and yet a lot hinged on her.

The male characters were good, but not great. It was typical of the gang movie style. I am not sure why this movie caught my attention though, usually I would loose interest fast and stop watching.

There is something i liked and respected in this movie. I am not sure what is was but I will say this is a movie I probably would not watch a second time.


An hour into this movie, and I thought "okay, enough now; this is as much as I can take of this crap." I haven't seen the ending, and I really don't care.

This inept piece of garbage would have even Ed Wood splitting heirs over its numerous flaws. Olmos, who is I assume either the son or nephew of that other Olmos - the one that played in "Blade Runner" - made this amateurish junk, proving for the umpteenth time that nepotism doesn't work. Not in movies, not anywhere. Movie-making is not DNA-based.

Awful acting, phony-sounding "ghetto dialogue", muddled editing, an ugly look, and a dull plot. What more can one want?


After watching this movie, I just couldn't stop talking about it. Mind you, not in the sense that someone can't stop talking about a great book or show, but more along the line of how someone can't stop talking about their colonoscopy during a diner conversation. In other words, after seeing this you can't help but try and remove the stain it left on your very soul by vomiting out the experience onto others.

This movie entered with the tag line of being "written by two of the six writers of 'Scary Movie'!" What they forgot to mention is that the two who wrote it were only responsible for writing the credits and all the jokes deleted for the sake of not causing mass suicide. Put more delicately, this movie almost makes Pootie Tang look Oscar worthy, which ironically enough was made fun of in the last Scary Movie for being horrid. Coincidence? Yeah, not even some sort of Karma dealing fiend would wish this movie upon the world.

"So," you ask, "What makes it so bad?" I bet your thinking that all of the funny stuff was in the previews, right? No, actually there was no funny content in the previews at all, it just seemed that way when taken out of the context of the movie. Much the same way "Hogan's Heroes" was funny to people who weren't in Auschwitz during the Holocaust, the previews are funny to those who haven't seen the movie. When you actually see the movie, you start to ask, "Why was that funny in the preview?" The answer: You can see pretty flowers if you ignore the fact that they are growing from the corpse of a man who died during a freak green house accident.

Do yourself a favor, rent a History channel documentary on the history of documentaries and hit yourself in the head with a hammer. It'll be twice as funny, make three times more sense, and be only a fifth as painful.


It's a shame to see films that promise to parody the formulaic and over-constructed nature of "epic" films, but fail, and subsequently conform to what is now the "spoof" genre. In parodying said films, they merely reconstruct the setting (poorly) i.e. Willy Wonka's chocolate river becomes poo. The references to pop culture are 1: over used 2: Poorly used 3: Irrelevant and not funny. It appears that the budget was spent on midgets and a dance choreographer (apparently it is funny when medieval knights, pirates, dwarfs and oompa loompas dance). The narrative is infantile and not remotely funny, no imagination could possibly enjoy the pure nonsense of the characterization. Parody films are meant to parody and this one fails to come even close to funny, it irreverence is pathetic, not hilarious and the writers...well, where to start with them.

If you like watching pictures move and people talk, this film is probably for you. If you like films that are intelligent in their parody and genuinely funny, then stick to the Scary Movie catalogue. Even Date Movie was better than thisand that's saying something.

This film trades on the pretension that it will be funnyit is not, someone should report it to a fair trading body. I personally wonder what is more disturbing, that people would enjoy this movie, or that Hollywood thinks that people will enjoy it.