Oh yes, this movie. I noticed this movie on a $2.99 rack in a video store and it looked mind-blowing. The artwork was fantastic and although it reminded me of the Texas Chainsaw I still bought it. I got a refund. This movie was horrible, horrible, horrible. Basically it's about a group of teens driving on a dark highway, their car breaks down, they try to cipher gas from an old farmhouse and they are being killed, one by one, by a killer who lives in that house. This movie was a disaster but the title, it sounded good, almost like a kids book title.

The acting was so stale and wooden it was funny. The teens would usually overact or they would not act enough when the time called for it. The movie was a horrible rendition of your classic young-girl-stalked-by-unknown-killer tale. This movie looks like a bad high school movie project. I wish that I had more to say about this title but I forgot a lot about it and I would rather not remember it. So in conclusion this is a movie that should be sent to wheat thrasher.


first off, this is one of the worst movies i have ever seen. second, why does it say in the plot summary that the teenagers are hunted by a twisted killer with an ax? i never saw the killer touch an ax throughout the entire movie. what the hell is going on with this piece of crap? where was the first kid who got killed? you never see his body again. also, the killer looks like the killer from house of wax, another piece of crap. instead of wearing a wax mask they threw him in some overalls. hey haw. so, if you want to see one of the worst movies ever, watch dark fields. the killers death scene is maybe the worst acting that i have ever seen. i am not exaggerating. watch his reaction after he gets shot in the head. it is classic.


I was browsing through my On Demand and found this film, thinking, OK, this may be a decent low budget horror film. Mistake #1.

Mistake #2 was continuing to watch the film for about an hour before I finally turned it off. Not only was the acting crap, but the actual plot and scary scenes were lame. I can't even describe how annoying the characters were, which could be related to the Canadian "aboot." Who knows.

Granted, I did not finish the film and I don't know what happened to the acne ridden driver of the car, but I had a major problem with one scene. Tell me how hay can fall on someone and knock them out, to the point of unconsciousness? Come on. Don't even bother.

So, in general, I can appreciate poorly done horror films. Usually, at the very least, they're so crappy they're funny. This was NOT the case with this film. I kept saying, "Five more minutes, may be it will redeem itself." It made no such attempt.

If you wanna see a funny crappy horror film, I suggest Killer Nerd.


Hmmm,three guys,and two girls who, together, are all too stupid to figure out what to do when low on gas. Whoops,an old two lane road,a shabby farm,and a tank on empty.Can you see where this is headed?

Usually, when a director subjects you to this kind of terrible acting,ridiculous story,and pathetic props, they at least throw in a good serving of flesh as an apology.

Not only does this flick deny you that obligatory payment for your suffering, but to add insult to injury, you are actually teased several times throughout the picture,starting even before the title sequence,every time you think, "Well at least I'll see some skin for my trouble..." you are denied.Taking into consideration that this would have at least given you something to tell someone they may enjoy seeing, you'd think it would be there.

Jenna Scott is attractive and if you like a tease show,she doesn't let you down.As for her acting, well a poor high school play can easily compete with most any portion of this film.


Simply put, the worst film I've ever seen.

I've seen better acting from junior school dramatics, and been more thrilled by Noddy books.

The 'plot', for lack of a better word, revolves around a sexy teen on her way with stereotyped friends (geek, jock, bitch, clown) to a concert, which they NEVER REACH (!)... and the group fall into the hands of the dumbest hillbilly psychopath in the world.

"My god, this place is so creepy.... quick, let's make out!"

The actual horror content is not even comedic - filmed on a cheap 'shakey' cam, tired clichés of 'he's behind you!', and 'the body has VANISHED!' are over-used, and by the end, if you actually have the stamina for it, you're praying they get cut up and hung up on hooks.

I've had more enjoyable experiences picking my nose.


Don't waste your money on this one. The acting is horrible at best, the special effects are poor (when there is any) and the sound track doesn't fit in with what's happening in the movie. There really is never a feeling of suspense or impending doom. None of the actors tend to behave like a real person would in the same situation. One guy jokingly sticks his hand in a farm auger and when it turns on his hand is obviously mangled, but he dies instantly and his girlfriend runs off instead of helping him. Later, we see him dead and his whole arm is mysteriously gone. After all three boys are dead and the girls are being chased, one girl screams when she sees the farmer and the other girl actually asks her why she's screaming. Another scene, the girls arm themselves with knives and when they come across the farmer, they hit him with the flashlight instead and run off. On top of that, they seem most concerned with finding a place to warm up instead of the fact that their boyfriends are dead and they're next. Be prepared to feel like you've lost 50 IQ points if you decide to watch this one. What a waste of time and money.


A group of obnoxious high schoolers are on their way to a concert when they find that their car is running low on gas. The driver, dweeby, pimple-faced Drew(Ryan Hulshof)also gets the gang lost, having missed the highway leading them into hicksville, where a sinister farmhouse and massive barn reside on a country road. Clownish Zach(Brian Austin Jr), his fraidy-cat(..the kind afraid of her own shadow)constantly complaining girl-friend Justine(Lindsay Dell), annoying immature jock Josh(Eric Phillion), and high school hottie Taylor(Jenna Scott)find themselves looking for Drew when he leaves to find a possible fuel pump nearby the farmhouse never returning. As they search through the farmhouse and barn, they encounter a backwoods psycho whose face is hidden by long messy black hair, quietly awaiting each victim before attacking from behind when they are most vulnerable. Those who are able to get away, head for help and a phone trying to stay one step ahead of the predator.

Obvious Texas Chainsaw Massacre clone lacks any tension whatsoever. Despite some eerie locations such as the abandoned farmhouse falling to waste and ruin, a barn still equipped with livestock and hay, and a slaughterhouse up the road from the main setting of the film, there should be an abundance of atmosphere. But, it seems instead of building dread, director Al Randall builds boredom as his cast spend 85 minutes of the film searching for either each other, a phone, or assistance. Walking, walking, and walking some more, these characters are always looking with little action taking place. The violence on display is lacking as one victim sticks his hand in the blade of farming equipment(dumbass)attempting to prove that no one is among them, one victim is stabbed with a screwdriver, and another is knocked unconscious by falling hay. Jenna Scott as "final girl" Taylor, is very attractive eye candy, certainly nice to look at for 90 minutes, often seen pulling off her shirt with the director establishing just how developed she is under her bra, has no personality whatsoever. She's merely on screen, constantly keeping her hair out of her face, belly exposed after scissoring her shirt early in the movie. Taylor's confrontation with the killer during their final showdown is numbingly ineffective, devoid of tension. The killer spends a lot of time off-screen as the two girls run around trying to find a phone, easy prey yet the predator seems little inspired to catch them. When he does trap the two girls in the slaughterhouse, he moves so slow and gives his quarry plenty of time to fight back. Just a terrible climax following a tiresome 80 or so minutes of wasted time.


When you make an 80 minute horror movie and it takes 40 minutes to show someone getting murdered you should seriously reconsider making movies ever again. This film should not even be allowed on IMDb.

1: Character leaves his girlfriend alone in the car at a gas station in the middle of nowhere. 2:They walk around the movie for a half hour looking for there friend who went to the "abandoned house" and once they find blood a character responds with "it's a farm they kill animals all the time." and go about there business. 3: After one of the female character's boyfriend dies she runs 10 feet away and sits down crying, cut back to here 10 minutes later still seating then decides to make a move. 4: They aren't even in a field!


Written and directed by Al Randall, DARK FIELDS is a predictable slasher flick. At times irritating, but does have its elements of suspense and fright. Five teens were on their way to a killer concert; but run out of gas. Zach(Brian Austin)and jock Josh(Eric Phillion)are irritating as hell with their degrading jokes. Taylor(Jenny Scott)is the leggy hottie with the extra tight low rider jeans. Justine is the off and on again sexpot...off and on IS the best description. Drew(Ryan Hulshof)is the dullard that ran out of gas in the middle of nowhere of course. Seeking gas and a place to warm up from the cold, the teens knock on the wrong door of a deserted looking farm house that does have one sole occupant that has a big ass ax to grind. A missed killer concert, but a date with a psycho killer and a night of terror is more than expect. Randall appears as Farmer Brown.


This movie was horrible,and I pride myself on loving all kinds of movies,but this was just terrible.The actors were very good looking the actresses were pretty with cute little bodies,but goodness I would rather them put in a few uglies than to have a ucked up script and story line.These people CAN NOT act!OK who drops down and does the nasty in an unknown barn,with a buddy missing?Not even in the worst horror movies has this happened.The story makes no sense.But if you can get a copy with the bloopers at the end,those are pretty good.The best part of this movie was the bloopers.The unfolding of the story was way too slow,the plot DOES NOT thicken,the actors can not act,the music sux,there's no "boo moments" as my friend calls them,everything that is going to happen is so freggin obvious its sad.This was a TOTAL waste of production dollars.Someone suggested that this seemed more like a student film,but as I'm sure that person knows,student films have been so much better than this before,as he said,that is no excuse.I recommend to try it because everyone has a different opinion,but ewwww!!


First let me start off by saying, i LOVE bad horror movies. i think movies like camp blood 2 and my bloody valentine, while being retarded, can be quirky and fun. So believe me when i tell you, that this is the WORST HORROR MOVIE EVER MADE. and i'm not saying this lightly. This film is atrocious. In order to review this film, the best place to start is the beginning.

The first thing we are treated to is the title screen followed by A SHOT OF RUNNING. that's how the film opens. not a slow fade in with credits, nothing to prepare you, the obviously photo-shopped title and then RUNNING footage pasted on the screen. hoy boy this is gonna be horrible. we then learn that our band of heroes, who go to the community college of the cliché, (which by the way is one of the most deserted college hallways i've ever seen) as they decide how they're going to get a ride to the big concert. dorky mcdorkson (aka drew) offers the girls a ride to the concert, but uh oh, jockey ass-hat and the lovebirds want to tag along, but that's OK, why not. And so, they are off to the big concert. on the way, lover boy has to pee and then starts to make out with his girlfriend and they run out of gas. i just described to you about 10 minutes of the movie in those two sentences.

There's no gas station for miles except the Shell seen in the distance, and i assume the group has some anti-shell policy, so they're stuck. until they see an old house in the middle of nowhere. awesome. so they decide to stop at the old house to find some gas. Drew is sent to go get gas by himself after losing a match of rock paper scissors. cause lord knows when i drive 4 random strangers to a concert for free i'm gonna do ANY of the legwork. As Drew looks around he finds an outdoor gas tank. being the nice guy he is, after he takes some gas, he leaves ten dollars. He walks off-screen, and you NEVER SEE HIM AGAIN. i'm dead serious. i assumed later, his dead body would show up, or he would be the killer or something imaginative, but no, he just disappears from the movie, most likely getting out while he could to save his acting career. After their friend drew doesn't come back, the rest of the group goes to look for him. for twenty whole minutes. oh boy. they barge into the house, search it, comment on the old toilet and rooms, the two lovebirds have fake taunting sex, the usual. the main girl and jock talk about something that i didn't even listen to, something about dreaming about playing in hay, i don't remember, i didn't care by this point.

But wait! at that point we get the first and most exhilarating kill of the movie! after having good ol' fashioned tease loving, the lovebirds see the lights of a car turn on and think it's their good ol' friend drew. to prove that it is drew, the lovebird male (sighs) i'm not making this up, puts his hand in an inactive thresher and says "hey drew, if that's you, turn it on." seriously. does the killer even HAVE to TRY? leave them alone long enough and they'll just kill themselves. but the killer turns the thresher on and cuts off the kid's hand. and the kid dies instantly. cause you know, when you get your hand cut off, you die right away. medicine 101. after this starts lover girl's first of fifty million unbearable screams throughout the film. she finds the other girl who's boyfriend eventually gets stabbed with a screwdriver. the only other kill of the movie. yes this movie has a body count of a whopping 2. awesome. (drew doesn't count because he just left the movie)

the girls meet up, run away, scream, run away, see him again, run away, and eventually have a final showdown where the killer, a mixture of the girl from the ring, Michael myers, and the butcher, who walks literally 1/4 of a mile an hour, gets nail-gunned to the head, not defending himself in the least. the cops then come and save the girls as the movie ends. and we still never see drew.

This movie is so terrible, i'd rather see Halloween 3. It's excruciatingly boring, the characters are tired stereotypes that i'd rather just die than get to know them, the production quality is nonexistent, the killer is as appealing as a sack of wet newspaper, and the movie has no resolution of who the killer is or why. the closest thing we get is a girl who finds a newspaper clipping in the house that tells how a boy's parents were killed by robbers who tried to steal gas. how convenient. only DREW PAID FOR THE GAS! this movie has so many plot holes, it puts Sparta's pit of death to shame. it's so boring, drywall's ain't got nothing on this, thank god i only spent 2.30 on this movie. i still want it back though. after 15 minutes, you don't even care. you just want everyone to die and the movie to be over. and the icing on the cake? THERE'S NEVER ANY FIELDS. the entire movie takes place in a house and barn. not only that, the cover (which by the way is the best part of the movie) clearly depicts a man with a fish hook,which you never see. i can't get over how bad this movie was. Everything about this movie was just plain crap-fest. This movie should have never seen the light of day. This movie, without a doubt, gets a 1, out of 10.


What a hell. Nothing can be worst than watching this movie.I never knew that these creatures from hell who made this movie roams the earth. I think they are thrown out of hell by God after seeing this movie. A donkey can make a better movie.

Awlfully made. pathetic, senseless,insane,useless - a horror for the audience.

Some correction is required

Beware !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good thing about this movie is it forced me to register with IMDb , this is my first review comment in life


If you are looking for a movie that is excruciatingly stupid, pick this one up.

The story is, a group of teenagers are heading to a concert. They realize that their truck is low on gas before they leave and they don't even bother fill it up. So, they head to the concert and the truck runs out of gas. They are stranded out in the middle of nowhere and for some ridiculous reason, all 5 of their cell phones won't work. Don't ask me why because it isn't explained.

When one of them goes for gas, he is killed and never seen again. So, the remaining teens decide to go look for him and get killed off one by one. The men get killed off but you never see their bodies again! The problem is the women. The killer killed the men but he won't kill the women. Why? There were 4 scenes that I have seen where the killer had the PERFECT opportunity to kill them.

Here they are:

Opportunity 1: Both women are stuck in a meat packing plant in a room and the killer is in there. When they open the door, one of the women just slowly backs away and screams continuously. Oh, did I mention that she is armed with a meat hook that she could have used to kill him? Instead, she doesn't do anything! The killer doesn't do anything to her either. The other girl hits him and he falls to the floor unconscious. They both walk out of the room. Literally! They walk! They don't run!

That's one opportunity wasted!

Opportunity 2: The girls stop a man who just happens to be driving his truck. They stop him and ask for a ride. After a few minutes of driving, they demand he stops the truck after seeing blood on his boots. He calms them down and explains the situation. They believe him 100% and just as he is about to continue driving, the killer comes out of nowhere and attacks the man and kills him except the women. When the women get out of the truck to look for the guy's body, the killer is nowhere to be found!

There goes his second opportunity!

Opportunity 3: The two girls stop in a glass office. There are two doors into this place. One in front and to the left, another door. One of the girls sees the killer standing in the doorway to the left and screams for the other girl to look at the killer. She doesn't look. The camera pans away for a few seconds then goes back and the killer is gone. There are no camera angles. The camera literally pans away for about 2 seconds and then goes back!

There goes his third opportunity!

Opportunity 4: The girls are finally at another meat plant and the killer is there. He knocks out the girls and walks away. When one of them gains consciousness, she runs over to him and shoves him on a sharp object which pins him to it. After he gets free, he knocks one of the girls down to the ground AGAIN!

His fourth opportunity is gone too!

Here is the worst death I have ever seen for a villain. You ready for it? When the girl is on the ground, she manages to grab a nail gun or something and hides it behind her back. As the killer slowly leans forward, she slowly aims the nail gun at his face. I'm not even kidding! It's like he all of a sudden went blind and can't see her aiming this thing at him. He also has his forehead pressed up against it. I'm not even kidding when I tell you that. Finally, she shoots him a few times with it. He doesn't scream or groan or anything! He just slowly sits back and dies.

What is the point of making a film about a psychotic killer if he's not going to do anything? The majority of the movie is just two teenage girls running away from this killer. There were so many opportunities that the killer had to kill these women and they were wasted.

I even had to pop two pills of Ibuprofen because of the massive headache I had obtained from listening to these two girls screaming nonstop.

This is perhaps one of the WORST horror films I have ever seen!

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. How stupid can a movie get?


If you're interested in seeing this movie, don't. The only thing it does well is bore you half to death. There is no plot and no acting. I could forgive such grievances for a lot of slasher films, but you have to at least attempt to make it up some other way. This movie could have at least salvaged itself as a mediocre slasher if there was some gore and nudity. Unfortunately, there was neither. The vast majority of this movie is spent watching these silly kinds wander around and say dumb stuff to each other, with only one even remotely gory incident (and I use the term 'gore' lightly). There were also plenty of chances for both of the actresses to show their boobs on screen, but somehow they managed to pass it up. Boring, boring, and even more boring. And I'm not even going to get into the ridiculous plot holes or how incredibly lame the killer is, or how anticlimactic and contrived the climax is...


I'm a huge fan of z-grade horror flicks. I can definitely appreciate some pretty low budget trash. Ghost Lake, Aquanoids, Evil Cult, The Day The Darkened Arise--that's some quality bad cinema. Dark Fields falls into the category of sub-bad cinema. This movie is so bad (and in a totally unwatchable way) that I won't let any of my horror trash loving friends borrow it. Terrible story, acting, no memorable lines. Just plain bad. Seems like there wasn't any effort put into any portion of the movie.

The concert must be 500 miles away from how dark it gets during their pointless drive. Quite the major trip for them not to have bought tickets in advance or gotten their rides all figured out. Just one small example of the lack of thought put into the movie. It starts bad, and just gets worse from there on out.

Don't waste your time on this movie. Don't watch it thinking it could be so bad that it's fun to watch. It isn't. Stay back, back I say.


So what happens when you gather together a group of troubled teen undesirables (jocks, geeks, punks, cheerleaders, and dead-beats),a bumbling janitor, and a psychopathic homeroom teacher? You have the Canadian version of the Breakfast Club meets manically depressed Jason Voorhees.

Basically, you have a group of troubled teens who have all been sentenced, for one reason or another, to an evening of detention... for an entire evening... at night... overnight, in fact... with no other guidance than from a manically depressed Vietnam veteran turned homeroom teacher. Now, first of all, who serves detention at night? That's just completely ridiculous. Second of all, before assigning the teacher with the task of being responsible for these kids, she lectures him for being such an awful teacher, stating that most of the other teachers and parents are fighting for his suspension. So, why would you give such a teacher the responsibility of taking care of these teenage hoodlums for an overnight detention period?!

But that (sadly) is just about all the plot there is in this movie. The rest is just a lot of pointless banter among the students with a little mid-massacre romance thrown in just for kicks. The homeroom teacher simply goes berserk for no apparent reason and starts hacking away on the students, who seem to respond to his unprovoked homicidal nature with an incredible sense of disinterest. Just another day in the life of a Canadian high schooler, I suppose. The students are aided, albeit for an incredibly short period of time, by the school janitor (who really could pass for Star Trek's James Dahoon without the accent). The janitor, however, is killed early on after making no serious advancements in the plot. Eventually, after killing everyone except for the school's punk rock version of MacGyver (who just so happens to have an impromptu love affair with the school nerd while in hiding from their deranged professor), the homeroom teacher takes his own life with very little fanfare, slitting his own throat with a utility knife.

The writing, I've decided, is nowhere near as poor as it's execution. The cast is entirely comprised of no-named actors and appear to be compiled of actual students of the high school in which they were shooting. Some of the actors were obviously being fed lines from behind the camera and it looked like some of them were reading from prompters through most of the entire movie. One girl in particular seemed incredibly disinterested through the whole thing and delivered such a lack-luster performance it was almost funny.

That said, there really were no redeeming qualities about this movie and I even felt compelled to revive my unused account for this site just to explain how bad it really was! If you have considered watching this movie, I strongly suggest you don't. If you have considered spending money on this movie, I strongly suggest psychiatric help. And if you were one of the ones who helped to produce this movie, I would suggest you acquire legal guidance to have your names removed from the credits list.

Other than that, it was great!


Very amateurish film-making that goes absolutely nowhere. Nothing redeemable at all. This film could have been good if even so much as a single individual involved in the film had a clue how to make movies.

I often wonder how much these movies cost to make. I wonder.. could this film costs like maybe $50,000 or more? If so, what dingbats are giving these people such amounts of money? I can't understand how many filmmakers there are out there who have no real understanding of any part of this wonderful medium yet they get money to make films all the same. Gotta give them points for that at least.

Aaaaanyway....


Time of the Wolf may be the most unrelievedly bleak 2 hours available. Other than a few horrific scenes of animal cruelty (is there no French equivalent of the ASPCA?), Wolf's pain in relentless, but relentlessly muted. After all, unbridled pain would suggest the possibility of cartharsis or resolution, and there is none of either to be found here.

In the first scene, a man is murdered in cold blood, and his family seems hardly ruffled by this inconvenience, instead carrying on with the same grim determination that has gripped this film since the beginning of time (or, at least, the opening credits). A litany of misfortune follows -- overwrought nose bleeds, a perishing parakeet, accidental torching of the barn the blighted family takes shelter in, the liaison with a deranged youth (to whom the teenage daughter is inexplicably attracted, despite his physical, emotional and psychological repulsiveness), make-believe self-immolation.

Perhaps intended as a 21st Century ode to Camus's "The Plague," Wolf tells us nothing we don't already know. People's most evil inner nature emerges in the time of great crisis --- duh! Wolf is probably closer to Lord of the Flies, but absent all elements of surprise and drama.

Incongruously, there is much footage of verdant fields and forests, including a wheat field rustling somewhere near the little train station of horrors, where the benighted survivors of some unexplained eco-disaster seem to accumulate by accident. Perhaps this scenery is intended as irony, but irony suggests, in some small way, a sense of humor at work, and there is surely no such sense at work in this film.

Or maybe there is? When the film ends, more or less, with the utterance of "everything could still work out, maybe even tomorrow," the viewer is left wondering if Woody Allen was asked to provide the closing dialog. But to little avail -- the viewer is likely to have slit his wrists well before tomorrow.


If you want to believe that you are a superior form of humanity, watch this film and then tell everyone you know that they must see it, that it will move them deeply, and that they will never be the same thereafter. When those who do watch it tell you how bored they were, act shocked and say, "oh my goodness, how is that possible?" This is a great example of what I'd call an "anti-film." Imagine going to a contemporary art gallery for a reception, and you are the first one to arrive. You come upon a construction that features a small catapult. As you get close to it, the catapult is set off, and a small pile of feces is flung in your face. Wasn't that great "art?" If you think so, this film is for you, no doubt. I enjoy dark, disturbing films, but it still must be a good film. To provide examples of my tastes, I'll cite "The Beloved," "A Clockwork Orange," "Dogville" and "Stalker," (though not nearly as good as these, I'd much rather watch "American Psycho" than TotW).

Perhaps the idea was to create a didactic experience. Does this film teach us anything? Not if you've ever seen a documentary on Nazi atrocities. For me, there must be something intriguing. The characters can all be detestable, for instance, but then something else has to "step up." There could be humor ("black"), for example. In "The Rapture," there was a sociological element that was effective (though I'm not suggesting this film was excellent - again, at least it was a "film"!). I really like the idea of an "anti-horror film," actually. Rather than having "zombies" pop up every so often and chase the leading characters around, why not show the quiet desperation people feel when they know that there are forces about to destroy them, but they don't understand those forces, and don't know exactly how (or when) they will be destroyed (which could mean actual death or a psychological "meltdown").

I was hoping this would be the case for the film "Blindness" (which I saw before this one), but instead experienced a bland, rather conventional construction that was not compelling on any level. However, at least "Blindness" was a film, and not an insult to the audience. As I was watching it, I could hope that it would develop into something interesting. When it was over, I could imagine a better ending that might have made it work. In contrast, "Time of the Wolf" has so many flaws that it is simply not worth the mental effort to consider in depth. As some of the ancient Greeks realized, a "work of art" requires a central focus. Otherwise, it is decorative ornament, at best. Basically, this is an anti-hero version of "The Omega Man." Again, this is a good idea, but it's essential to execute it well, instead of creating a snide, sophomoric, pointless mess.


The film is allegorical, and the themes are complex, but if I had to state the theme in a simple sentence it would be something like this: "to keep society together we have to have people who are willing to do unselfish things instead of selfish things." There is more to it, but it is more or less comes to that. This is a laudable effort at sending a positive message, and many people will give the film high marks just because of the attempt. However, it could have been done much more skillfully.

We don't really know what is going on through most of the film, and the whole idea does not become apparent until the end. Because of this the majority of the film is confusing, and drags. Even an art film has to maintain your interest and this one does so only in a very minimal way. While watching it on video, more than once I wanted to simply end off, but the people I was watching with felt they had invested enough in the film to want to see how and if it resolved. Even so, everyone was getting up a lot, looking for food in the fridge and checking their cell phones while the film was going.

The concept is also not fully developed. They are in a bad part of the country where civilization has broken down. They are waiting for a train (salvation). But where is this train going to take them exactly? Why did they suddenly end up in this situation? A good allegory would answer these questions within the structure of the allegory, yet in this film we have to ignore these and other questions in order for the film to work. Isabelle Huppert, as usual, does a terrific job. The other actors do well also but Isabelle stands out. The last 5 min of the film are the best and are probably worth suffering through the first 108, at least I thought so. But that is a matter of opinion and different people will have more or less patience with the film than I did. The consensus of the group I watched it with was it wasn't worth it. I gave the film 4 stars, mainly for making the effort.


For me, the most disturbing thing about this film was the zombie-like family at its centre. Isabelle Huppert's deadpan performance is matched by the two children, who react to their father's murder with no more concern than if their car had broken down.

Although a number of scenessuch as extended shots of the three walking and walking and walkingare slow and seemingly pointless, the film nonetheless jerks erratically from one scene to another as if footage has been accidentally lost. Plot twists are ridiculously contrived, as when the son disappears in the middle of a pitch-black night for no reason, and the daughter then does likewise, simply to allow an untended fire to get out of control.

Given a better script, a more competent director, and characters capable of enlisting the viewer's sympathy, this might have been worth watching.


Following an unnamed disaster, a mother and her two kids joins a group of people hoping for a train to come by at a station. That's the extent of the plot in this film.

I was bored out of my skull.

I've seen some indulgent "art" films, but this is one of the best examples I've seen. Five minute shot of family chewing on cookies, five minute single take of the family walking along the road and five minute shot of a burning building...on and on.

One can make a point about seeing beauty in everyday "things"...yes, but after an hour and forty minutes of it, all I saw was gray. Performances were good, but everything was so stripped down and bare that I just couldn't connect with any of the characters.

Ending was sort of an interesting one, but it is basically a slight escalation in the continuously desolate situation the characters are faced with. Nothing is resolved, and the desolation and despair will continue on.

It has some interesting views on society and human nature, but again, so few and far between that whatever message this film tries to make falls to pieces.


I rented this in the hope of seeing an original take on the post-apocalypse genre. What I got was something more boring and pointless than I could have possibly imagined. Okay, lets be fair. Not everything is going to be the Road Warrior. However, this movie promises to showcase the "terrifying...danger" of the new world, and last time i checked, overlong shots of nothing happening coupled with occasional histrionic shrieking do not a good film make. Nothing of interest happens in the film. The post apocalypse genre is horribly underused, and almost limitless in its potential. To make a movie like this is tantamount to being offered one million dollars to spend on any car of your choice and choosing a 1987 Chevy Nova with no muffler. Speaking of money, its not like they were particularly constrained by budget. There are real actors in the movie, who probably got more than a little compensation for appearing, not to mention countless extras. Besides this, however, there is nothing original or dynamic to be had. The "society" that is formed in the train depot is about as generic and lame as anyone could ask. I ask you, what threatens these people? Being bored to death? this pushes the boundaries of avant-garde filmaking over into the realm of crap. The acting is unremarkable and perhaps even irrelevant to the story. The cinematography is appealing, but NOTHING IS DONE WITH IT. There is no sense of imminent danger. I didn't feel for the characters at all. I would recommend this film to snooty intellectuals who think that a ten minute long shot of a french child burying a parakeet is the apex of modern cinema. To everyone else, I would recommend a six pack of beer and a double feature of Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog. It would be infinitely more enjoyable.


Drab, pointless, humorless, dreary, are some words that come to mind quickly. The first ten minutes are shock cinema at its finest, but after that it's a more realistic-than-thou, account of an end of the world scenario. What conclusions does it come to? People are mean, racist, xenophobic, and greedy, without social structures to guide them, but maybe, just maybe, if they cling to their humanity and mercy, things could get better, the world can be reborn, etc.

The little boy character was trite, running away, at just the right moment when the paced lagged, cus thats what traumatized little boys in these kinds of movies do. There's some nice cinematography, of darkness, with some fires burning, not very subtle symbolism, but nothing in this was. It's less pedantic than "Funny Games", but not as clever. It's bleak, and desperate, and dismal. A live horse is killed on screen, for our viewing pleasure! At least John Waters had his animals f*&$ed before he slaughtered them.

Does just being the opposite of the way, Hollywood would film something, make it automatically artful and meaningful? Sure it's more realistic than Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, but it's themes of desperation, human redemption, and survival, are the same. Just less entertaining. A real life disaster, would indeed probably go down with people crowded in barns, hating each other trying to make due, but so what? That's just a premise, not a story. The final scene of the train in motion, suggests, things get better, but as to why is just as mysterious as what caused the catastrophe in the first place. And ultimately, just as purposeful, to begin and end the movie, that's all.

This wasn't very original, provocative, or challenging. It's intense at times but mostly lethargic, and begs by its somberness to be taken seriously, without anything at all serious to contribute.


Perhaps the Wagner clan found making it cathartic, but for the viewer it is merely punishment.

Not rising to the truly repulsive, the infantile self-absorption of the cast would drive most any non-Wagner to claw his or her way out of the speeding van even at the risk of life and limb.

The quirky annoyance factor of the cast (particulary of the straw-chewing patriarch) is not matched by an emotional pay-off. The (spoiler alert! z-z-z-z-z...) reconciliation is utterly toothless. These people SHOULD be separated.

This indie movie is scary in that it shows how little money and little talent are required to get drek produced nowadays.


I am more and more disappointed by the quality of 'independent films' that appear ever more often on Sundance Channel (where I saw this film), and IFC, and with the honesty of reviews found on this website.

As far as Sundance and IFC go - I simply have to assume that ever since the 'independent' genre made it big, finding quality programming that draws an audience without having to pay great sums must be becoming increasingly difficult.

As far as the reviews on this website go I feel that films, especially small films like this, are reviewed favorably primarily because of shills. Maybe they are friends of the filmmaker, and family members, etc. And you know, if I were a filmmaker, I would certainly enlist those I know to do the same.

The truth is this film is pretty bad, and pretty unwatchable, and if I cast my mom and dad in a movie (and they are in many ways like the couple in the film), my film would undoubtedly be pretty bad too. But you see - I would never take my home movies to Sundance, and pitch them shamelessly to further my career (or lack thereof).

I feel sorry for Andrew's parents - who probably just want to see their son succeed in this business - but their acting was awful - although 'realistic', to be sure.

In fact the 'professional actors (there are very few people in reality who are)' in this film, oddly, seemed 'more real' than the director/writer's real parents. But somehow at some level I think that the director may have chosen his parents as his 'human shield' against criticism of this film.

But it's not just bad acting, it's bad editing, and I guess, my inability to suspend disbelief at everything happening in this film that ruins this film.

The bottom line - a bad film that ends up, inexplicably on Sundance, because it probably cost them little to nothing to get it, and well, the director gets the visibility.

Someone needs to set this film straight for other users.


Watching this collection of people both fascinated and disgusted me. The odd interchanges between the two "adults" were embarrassing, disjointed, truly horrible. The few scenes of kindness toward one another were almost worse than their mutual spitefulness. Watching the father with his multiple mouth fixations nearly made me gag. Usually I enjoy independent films; I can't see the reasoning behind any aspect of plot, character development (or lack thereof), or conflict. The only thing I felt was understandable was why the son had moved so far away from these self-centered, thoroughly unredeeming characters making up his creepy twisted family tree. If I really had it in for someone, I would force him to watch this inaccurately titled movie.


Like fascination with a train wreck, this movie leaves one a bit shameful for any interest and wishing the time had been spent better elsewhere.

Only a step above the Borat flick in its believability and likability of the main characters, it is just one long definition of "The Ugly American". There may be a good deal of fiction, but there seems to be enough reality behind and among it all to find it much more creepy than appealing. Or even amusing.

I sincerely hope these people can manage to find some value in themselves and their lives, as that appears to be their primary ambition in life. Yet, it is truly painful watching so many people making themselves, and anyone else unfortunate enough to cross their path, so abjectly miserable. Particularly the mother. Eeeesssh!

Not to be taken internally!


I remember when this show was announced several years ago, and all of the stops on the tour were laid out, I was wondering why any one would try to do a show like this when similar shows, Ben Hur and even Elton John's Aida met with mixed results. I also couldn't understand why they would have cast Val Kilmer in the lead. Then the tour collapsed and the show came out on DVD, and out of pure curiosity I got the disc and popped it in.

This large budgeted stage version of the biblical tale has Val Kilmer (who isn't bad) as Moses. You can tell they spent a chunk of change on the show with its fancy sets, nice costumes and lots of dancers. I wish I could report that other than looking good the show worked, but I can't. The music is mostly strung together power ballads which seem to have been delivered on a huge stage with just one or two people belting to the back wall. The songs are at best passable but the real sin is they all sound the same. Well most of them do. Its awful because it sounds like you're listening to the same song for two hours. It doesn't help that most of the cast seems to be trying to hard and seem to be trying to win over the American Idol judges, nor does it help that the game dancers are thwarted by a choreographer with no sense of style which making watching the action during the songs painful. Its an over sized production of what might have been a small scale show. I can't really recommend the show, but at the same time I don't think you'll pluck your eyes out of you see it. I've seen worse, which maybe why I don't completely dislike the show. I think the best I can say is if you must see it, don't pay for the "privilege"


We saw it at the Kodak with a friend in the show. HORRIBLE! Val was reading "telepromters" at the back of the house. He didn't know his lyrics! Staging was awkward and weird! We only stayed for Act II because we had a friend in the show and there were others who would have "ratted us out" if we had left. I'm SO surprised it made it to DVD!! It was a mediocre piece of theater. So boring that the magnitude of the story was lost in the special effects and Val's lack-luster performance. I wanted it to be good and engaging, it was not. Our friend was fine in her small role - she should have had a larger role as she is super talented!


This could very well be the worst piece of musical theater ever preserved on film. "Highlights" include the Egyptian who Moses stabs coming out to the scene with the knife visibly already in his belly, all the closeups of Kilmer's gut, a Hebrew apparently having a seizure as Miriam sings "Horns of Jericho", the song Horns of Jericho itself, as that story doesn't even happen until after Moses' death, and the fact that outside of Moses, Ramses, Joshua and Aaron no character's name is ever mentioned, leaving you to guess who is who. If you are looking for something genuinely terrible for a laugh definitely pick this one up.


This film/musical is absolutely atrocious. It's nothing but a long collection of drawn-out, uncreative, boring, canned songs with pretty much every cliché lyric in the book. Is it supposed to be a Jesus Christ Superstar wannabe, without the writing talent? The cheesy MIDI drums and Windows 95ish video transitions especially add to its "bad church production" feel. I wasn't expecting much going in, but I was completely stunned by the tremendous void of artistic or entertainment value. I swear I've seen class presentations by high-school kids with more creativity. Could this possibly be a serious effort? By professionals? And how in the world does someone with as big a name as Val Kilmer get wrapped into something so awful? Perhaps he owed somebody a favor? I don't get it. Absolutely disgusting.


This is the WORST musical ever made, for film or stage. First off it's COMPLETELY biblically inaccurate. The best voice is a random slave, who looks like he's actually Native American. THere is NO age progression on the queen of Egypt, or Moses' mother, in acting or in make- up save for her horrible wig that becomes gray. The choreography is atrocious, as is the set. Most of the interesting effects are done for the DVD, therefore i'm not sure what the audience even got to see at the Kodak theater.

It seems as though a bunch of people who meant well and really liked musicals ( MAC makeup, Max Azairi(costumes), Travis Payne(choreography)) got together and attempted to make one of their own without even trying to learn how beforehand.

Lastly, every time the original Ramses king is on stage, he glows gold in a really odd way, especially from his crotch. whenever he came on stage my friend would scream "I LOVE GOOOLLDD" a la Austin Powers. Honestly i wanted to shoot myself the whole time. I collect horrible movies for entertainment value and this is definitely the crown jewel


If you're the sort of person who enjoys being depressed, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith is the film for you. A short summary of the film is as follows. Young half aboriginal/half white boy is raised by a white Christian family. As he goes off to find a job, he discovers that every white person in the world is actually a racist. He tries to get over this fact by trying to lose his 'black soul', and become more like a white man. He is constantly cheated and laughed at by his white employers. Of course there is only one thing a decent person can possibly do when faced with this. He goes and chops up a couple of women and young girls with an axe. Sound fun so far? Well it gets better anyway, but I won't give away the whole plot in case you actually want to watch the movie. Of course one might say, but isn't the message important? Well, no. It is true that Aborigines were generally considered inferior at the time, and that there was some racism going on. But this film ruthlessly exaggerates it to prove a point, which appears to be that white society is a corrupter of black people. Leaving aside the negative storyline and the political point-scoring, however, the acting is fairly decent, and score is alright too. Apart from that, don't bother watching this.


I want you to understand that I watch a lot of movies, and I do toss the phrase "worst movie ever" around, but mostly in a joking way. But, in the case of 'Little Black Book' I am serious when I say that it is by far the worst movie I have ever had the horror of witnessing. Lets start with the screenplay itself. Its really an intriguing idea, an innocent young woman descends into a lying, malicious person out of self-doubt and the fear that her man is cheating. It's not your typical regurgitated summer romance. It tries to be a character study, a commentary about the self-doubt that plagues women in our society, and a warning to women in the same situation as Stacy (Murphy).

Unfortunately, the movie is none of the above listed things. Stacy narrates the movie and instead of accepting herself for what she is, she ends up pleading with the audience, trying to convince herself, and the audience that she is not a completely horrible person, which really undermines the whole story. Murphy is not fit for this part, she comes off as shallow and delivers most of the poorly written dialogue as a stupid school girl. Really, the only bright spot in this movie is when Stacy gets what is coming to her (I laughed actually) and Holly Hunter. Hunter plays Stacy's co-worker Barb, who is always the devil on her shoulder, egging her on to worse and worse deeds. She is simply perfect for the role and is thoroughly evil.

All in all, this was a complete waste of time and money, I would encourage all to not only avoid this movie but to run the other way.


This movie was libeled and advertised as a "romantic comedy." In reality, it was anything but that! If you take your boyfriend or husband to see this dark tale, you are sure to be free and single again! The movie is centered on a Jerry Springer-type live television show, not exactly the place for nurturing love and peace. The whole movie seemed to be based on crying, paranoid, scheming, emotionally-erratic women. My wife and I considered that a big put down to women in general. The film spent a lot of time on how flawed the female lead character (Brittany Murphy) was and seemed to have an endless number of scenes of her terrible deeds. Incredibly, the character, despite walking off her job and doing terrible things to almost very character, gets rewarded by a new job with major network news and a chance meeting with her favorite singer. This is so far-fetched, only Hollywood-types could dream it up. What major network news organization would hire a associate producer, of a local market Springer-type show, who walked off the job after demonstrating her treacherous nature on the air? If you want a better film to watch check out Working Girl with Harrison Ford.


Formulaic, lightweight comedy

-- so lightweight it almost floats off into thin air -- about an insecure chick (pop-eyed, pencil-thin Brittany Murphy) who sneaks a peek in her boyfriend's (somber Ron Livingston) Palm and definitely doesn't like what she finds there. Before she is done, she has managed to corral three of his former gal pals and they along with the boyfriend appear as unwitting guests on a Sally Jesse Raphael (Kathy Bates) -type TV talk show

where much dirty laundry is exposed, thanks to the machinations of an evil show producer (steely-jawed Holly Hunter). It's a paycheck, I suppose, but what in the hell

is Oscar winner Kathy Bates doing in 'tween' crap like this?


If i wasn't in the middle of a blizzard and had nothing else to do, Id demand the last 2 hrs of my life back.

Since you people generally like reasons for why stuff was crap: No plot line, pseudo-self discovery in what was supposed to be a romantic comedy, the self-discovery fell on its face hard, and in one scene stacy and barb start dancing around a room for NO reason. This was BAD. I wouldn't have finished it but i always see a movie through to its (in the case) incredibly craptacular end.

What I'm guessing was the point of the movie: Buy a palm and get Carly Simon cds.


I found this nearly unwatchable, indeed, I'm not sure I have paused a movie in Tivo so many times to go do other stuff. If you're a fan of cringe-inducing embarrassing moments this may well be a fantastic movie for you. If you're like me and find these kind of things not so much funny as sad or painful, probably not.

I watched it largely on the strength of Holly Hunter and Kathy Bates, two of my favorite actresses. Kathy is fine, but is not really a main character. Holly gets a lot of screen time and gets to play an interesting range.

If anything, what I'm calling the fourth act makes it all (possibly) worth the wait. It's an exciting, nasty turn, and for me it was the payoff for what would otherwise be unmemorable. The fifth act is a pretty standard wrap-up.


Is it a parody of reality shows? Is it a love story? Is it a satire on media and new technology? Is it a prolonged music video of Carly Simon's songs? Is it about man's relationship with cosmic forces? I don't know. Forty minutes into the film and I still don't know where this film is heading. Hackneyed editing and dull voice overs, didn't do much to save the film. The movie wants to be brisk but it ended up losing the first forty minutes to nothing. The conflict started only at the 40 minute mark! Actually, this is the only commendable part in the movie--when the lead star was asking her friend about truth and lies in a relationship! After the famous verbal-hit-all-spill-all battle royale in the K-show, it's a downward spiral again when cosmic forces are called in to give a romantic twist in the movie.

There were thought-provoking questions though like, "if you're totally fulfilled in a relationship and found out that (the guy) cheated on you, would everything be a lie?" (sic) That's something noteworthy to ponder about. But after all your musings, this film fails to deliver what it aims to give.

What is the 'little black book'? Maybe the director and screenwriter left the answer in their own little black books. Won't recommend you see this.


This was a terrible waste of money and time. There was only one likable character (Derek's girlfriend Joyce). Everyone else was either evil or juvenile. I was wanting all of these people, except one, to fall over dead and end this horrible film. Brittany Murphy overacts beyond description and is completely irritating. Holly Hunter's tough, world-wise character was repulsive...she looked awful and tired throughout. Kathy Bates cashed the paycheck she received and ran...she looked like she hated this film as much as I did. Hollywood shows by this movie how much contempt they have for the moviegoer...they put out this garbage and know at least some will fall for it (shame on me). To sum up...read a book, call a friend, do anything but see this movie!


After viewing this movie, I'd have to say that it was probably the worst decision of my recent past to spend money on it. This movie is just god-awful. Brittany Murphy portrays a girlfriend who is crafty and intuitive but at the same time clueless. Suspecting hidden motives and doubting everything, which gives us the answer to the rhetorical question posed in the beginning (the answer to which, by the way, is exactly what you would expect). This movie it seems cannot decide whether it wants to be another pointless fun movie or try and get something serious and philosophical across. It fails miserably at both. The acting is dull, and there is no interest in trying to understand the characters (the poor writing makes the viewer give the extra effort to figure them out for themselves which frankly is not worth it). Recycled cheap laughs (singing in the bathroom) are just stupid and the whole movie seems like a commercial for a certain musician who in my opinion is just as good at creating moving songs as this movie is at getting good reviews. Basically I warn you very strongly not to see this: the characters go on a journey but seem intent on leaving you in the dust as they do, lackluster performances and lame jokes accentuate the diverse plot in a way that takes whatever potential this movie had to be decent and throws it down the drain.


I saw this movie when I attended a free screening of it a couple weeks before it was released, and while I am no big fan of chick flicks, I had hopes for this film. The premise, a woman mining her boyfriend's black book and getting know his exes in order to get to know the real him, sounded interesting enough. And the following quote from Shakespeare (The Tempest) appeared on the screen before the titles came up:

Hell is empty; All the devils are here.

Ah, I thought to myself, this HAS to be a well-thought out movie, since the last movie I saw with a Shakespearean quote in it (Runaway Train) had been very very good. But I was wrong. This movie was to be a runaway train of a different sort.

In Little Black Book Brittney Murphy plays Stacy, an aspiring associate producer on a female version of the Jerry Springer Show, hosted by Kathy Bates as an aging and worn out trash TV hostess. Stacy's boyfriend (Ron Livingston of Office Space) goes on a two week business trip and, if you can believe this, forgets his handheld device and calls her to tell her he needs a couple of numbers from it. She sees a name in the address list and starts to get curious about his former girlfriends.

At this point, her bizarre chain-smoking overworked former bus driver and former something else (I can't recall at the moment) coworker played by Holly Hunter--who smokes everywhere indoors, which I haven't seen happen in real life since the late 70s--suggests she call one of the names from the handheld, a woman who just happens to be a supermodel (of course) who was on the show a while back, and stage a fake interview. But this fake interview is so that Murphy's character can actually gain info about her boyfriend's exes so that she can find more out about him while also doing the background for a potential show about little black books, but then it turns out later she isn't going to do the story about the black books, but then we aren't really sure.

Are you with me so far?

From this point, any semblance of a coherent story falls apart as she meets the other girlfriends but never really spends any time actually talking to them. Isn't she supposed to be talking to them about her ex? But no, she is only really interviewing them to come on the show for a different reason, so she really can't talk to them about her boyfriend, at least not directly. Instead, she has to lie and pretend to be doing something different and much time and steam is spent on side trips and watching the shocked look on her face. There is an undeveloped subplot involving the show's personnel as well as a nebbishy male coworker played by Kevin Sussman. The poor coworker's story seems to serve no other purpose than to use screen time, since the subplot involving him comes from nowhere and then goes nowhere.

As a result of Stacy not being able to talk openly to the exes that she meets become even more flat and one-dimensional than they already are. On top of that, Holly Hunter's character is given more weight than it should be for such a poorly drawn character, but that is perhaps due to Holly Hunter's starpower.

There are moments throughout the movie that drag on, and on, and on, and too many moments that were supposed to be funny just aren't. In the middle of a nice moment between the two main characters before he goes on his trip his dog passes gas. Not once, but twice. Har har. Sadly, the third act has a riveting climax that ties up a couple of loose ends but leaves us feeling cheated. By the time the movie finally finds a rhythm it is too late.

If you want to see a relationship movie that is thoughtful, witty, and charming, see High Fidelity with John Cusak. The difference between the two is so great it calls up the comparison Mark Twain made between the right word and the almost right word: If High Fidelity is lightning, then Little Black Book is the lightning bug.

1 Star


After all of the hype for this movie, I really thought that it would be good, but the first time I tried watching it I made it through about 15 minutes before realizing I wasn't paying attention to a word they said. I tried to watch it again to give it the benefit of the doubt and I was truly disappointed. Usually I like Brittany Murphey's movies, but I just didn't care for the story in this one. The previews definitely made it look better than I thought it would, and while some parts were OK, for the most part the movie was not good. I would not recommend spending money to rent it, if it comes on a movie channel, then maybe give it the time, who knows, some might like it.


There's not much I can add to what others have said about this load of garbage, but I'll add some serious plot holes that you can drive a cement truck through:

- Derek calls home asking Stacy to get a "couple of phone numbers" from his PDA, which he inadvertently (and conveniently) left home. Why did she feel the need to snoop through the PDA? He gave her PERMISSION - in fact, ASKED her to!!!!!

- Only extremely stupid (which Derek was not) or psychotic (which he also wasn't) guys would store their ex-girlfriend's pictures in various states of undress on an easily accessible item like a PDA. Why was he carrying around such pictures?! A guy who got away with what he did would certainly have taken better precautions.

- Joyce calls back immediately after seeing Derek's number on caller ID when Stacy and Barb accidentally call her with the computer, then proceeds to leave a message that makes it sound like she calls all the time. Yet Stacy lives there and conveniently has never answered a call from this woman (or any of the others for that matter). Also, Joyce never bothers to call him on his cell phone or mention this odd occurrence during any subsequent conversations.

- Also very conveniently, Joyce and Rachel have no knowledge of Stacy either, a fact that seems quite unlikely considering Stacy lives with Derek and these women apparently see/speak to him regularly. This guy could give lessons on juggling women!

- Derek has a cell phone (obviously, since he used it to call Stacy a number of times) and neither Rachel or Joyce called him about all the silly goings-on around his (Derek's) life, particularly the fact that the dog, Bob, has superhuman powers. The conversation may have gone something like this: "Hi, Derek? It's me, Rachel. Our dog just showed up on my doorstep, alone, rang my bell, barked in response to my calling his name, and when I went down he was suddenly under the stairs near the apartment below. What? No, of course I didn't look to see if anyone else was there. Why not? Bob has always had a great sense of humor and a fondness for juvenile stunts like ringing doorbells and running away, you know that. Besides, he ran up to greet me. The funniest thing happened next: a strange woman who didn't even know her own name or the dog's showed up a couple of minutes later and I just let her right in! Talk to you soon!"

- This is nitpicking, but the game between the Devils and the Tampa Bay Lightning was billed as "the Stanley Cup", yet the Stanley Cup cannot be played for between those two teams as they are in the same conference.

There's more, but I think this is sufficient to stop you from wasting your money. View at your own risk.


This movie is terrible. It is a toe-squirming example of the pointless sludge Hollywood is so keen on  there is no message, no edge, no beauty in it. It's not even funny.

I don't understand how they insist on blowing perfectly good money away on a terrible sugary film like this one. This story could have been pretty good in the hands of the right people, but here it's told just so smoothly and dishonest. I hate these kinds of movies that play with your emotions, actually succeeding in making you well up, but leaving you feeling hollow and sick.

One of the major lows is the girl that plays the main character: she is just obnoxious overacting (is she on speed?), showing no real emotion (the way she was standing there with her face covered in snot and tears without wiping it off  I felt like slapping her in the face, I actually shouted at the screen. And then there was that terrible dog and the way she talked to it  I want to shoot it dead), awful! You don't for one moment believe that she even loves her boyfriend.

The rest of the cast was actually rather good (did I detect hints of fear in some eyes sometimes?), especially the girl with the freckles, though Holly Hunter was fairly annoying.

To each his own I suppose, but i cannot see the value of this vehicle.


The original "Basket Case" is a pretty cherished favorite of mine that, you could say, really 'rocked my world' when I inattentively rented it as a kid. I don't think I have since received so many late-fees from a single rental as I did with that movie, from keeping it for weeks on end... As I got older and learned of other Frank Hennenlotter titles, I sought out other gems like "Frankenhooker", "Brain Damage" and, of course, the "Basket Case" sequels. I vaguely recall having also seen the two follow-ups as a youngster and, of course, they never really stuck with me since...

Unlike a lot of people, I actually enjoyed "part 2" as a wacky continuation with all of the over-the-top "freak" effects and hokey storyline. It was a fun watch, though it didn't quite hold up to the grimy urban 'horror' feel of the first movie. "Part 3" was even more genuinely needless which didn't seem possible after the first sequel! I found this one's just far too dumb and fatuous to get "into"... It picks up where the second movie left off with Duane and Belial being separated once again and hitting the road on their freak-bus, along with all of the other non-normals, to the house of a doctor who is going to assist in the 'birthing' of Belial's pregnant girlfriend. Duane still wants out of the whole situation and is retained in a straight jacket while the litter of small Belials are born. The small town cops end up catching wind of the freak-house and decide to capture the deformed babies...

Hennenlotter, himself, has expressed distaste for this particular movie - stating that it was simply "a paycheck". Granted, his 'sellout' streak lead to a 15 year hiatus, though I doubt that it was "Basket Case 3", entirely, which signaled this halt in his career. The problem with the flick is just that it was really just the EXACT same movie as 2, with the comedic elements wearing incredibly thin this time around. Again, 2 was fine for what it was, as sort of a parody - in the same sense Tobe Hooper conducted his "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" - but "Basket Case 3"; I did not find funny or that entertaining. In fact, I was just plain bored through the majority. Frank's heart and the full extent of his creativity was just not in this one and it shows... In my opinion, all of Hennenlotter's other films are great and for all of those who have been hoping for his return probably have, and if not, should check out his latest, "Bad Biology"...


The original BASKET CASE is one of my all-time favorite B-movies, and has been ever since I first saw it as a kid on cable over 20 years ago. It's grimy, low-budget style, the completely off-the-wall storyline, the cheezy but effective splatter FX- everything about the original screams underground classic. And luckily director Frank Henenlotter proved to not just be a one-trick-pony, by proving he had the skills to be a truly noteworthy cult-horror director-with other classics like BRAIN DAMAGE and FRANKENHOOKER. But unfortunately, the beloved Mr. H had to go and f!ck up his streak with retarded nonsense like the BASKET CASE sequels. I hadn't seen either of the sequels in many years- and I recall not liking either of them-but I had this one laying around and figured I'd give it another chance to see if my opinion had changed over the years. No such luck.

In this third and (thank Christ) final installment in the trilogy-the action picks up directly after the events of the equally stupid second film-with Duane spending some time in a rubber-room after trying to sew him and his deformed Siamese twin brother Belial back together. The brothers are re- disconnected during Duane's incarceration-and he is eventually released. Granny Ruth (from part 2) takes Duane to a friend's house with the rest of the freak-show brood to await the birth of the spawn resulting from the union of Belial and his girlfriend Eve. When a duo of bumbling cops kill Belial's girlfriend and kidnap his 'kids'-he doesn't take it too kindly, and exacts some splattery revenge...

Granted-there are a (very) few scenes in this entry that are mildly amusing-but not enough to call BASKET CASE 3 enjoyable on any level. Honestly-I found both sequels to be retarded, un-funny, and frankly, unnecessary. When the series moved into straight slap-stick territory-I completely lost interest. I still respect Henenlotter a great deal for his early contributions to the B-movie horror world-but both of these sequels just straight-up suck in my book...3/10


What can I say, they really overdid it this time. The previous Basket Case movie was still a fun self aware silly movie but this movie really crosses the line. It's just plain bad and embarrassingly forced silly, without the fun and entertainment level of the first sequel.

And then there is the story. Well, there really is hardly any story this time. It's just a lame excuse for Frank Henenlotter to show more of the evil Bradley twins and more of their freaky looking friends. It's definitely a simple story. It's like they didn't even really tried, though I do admit some of the dialog was highly amusing.

The first movie "Basket Case" was still a horror movie, while "Basket Case 2" was more like a horror comedy. "Basket Case 3: The Progeny" on the other hand is a full-blood comedy and simply for most part has abandoned the tension and gore the previous two movies still had. There are still some gory moments but they mostly are part of the humor and camp of the movie.

But still because of the reason that this movie is a completely silly one, the movie remains still far more entertaining and watchable than just the average B-horror movie. Therefor you just can't really regard this as one of the worst movies ever made. Still I'm glad that this is the last (as of yet) Basket Case movie.

4/10


Basket case 3, I'm sorry if you found the title rude or anything it was not funny at all. The characters portrayed in the movie made me feel very less intelligent indeed. I don't know about you, but try seeing this film over and over again and you'll see what I mean


Quite seriously, I wanted to commit suicide after I saw this miserable peice of crud. I genuinly felt that an hour of my existence had been stripped from my soul. Avoid this one at all costs, and for heavens sake, do not rent it because the guy on the back of the cover looks so funny. Thats what my friends and I did, and we almost vomited at how horrible this movie was. The "extreme sci-fi showdown" in the finale really shows how a bunch of drunken inbreds can create truly worthwhile props and costumes. I think they got all of their materials from a shriners garage sale, and superglued them togther. This truly is a festering wound in the anus of cinema.


Lana and Darko are a brother and sister who escape war torn Bosnia by hiding in a metal storage container on a cargo ship headed for the United States. Lana is a sweet, innocent young woman who has witnessed a great deal of personal tragedy in her life, while Darko is a well known mobster who is basically running for his life from forces who are out to get him. After an arduous trip across the Atlantic, the two settle down in Chicago to start a new life in America. When they fall on hard times, Darko decides to pimp his sister out for money while his dark past begins slowly but surely to catch up with him.

Although it aspires to be a gritty film about real people struggling to survive in a harsh environment, "Lana's Rain" comes across as an overwrought melodrama, poorly acted and even more poorly directed. The story is so filled with theatrical flourishes that little of what we see actually rings true. Just a minor case in point: towards the beginning of the film, as the unloaded crate in which they are hiding is speeding its way from the east coast to Chicago, Lana and Darko look through a hole in the side, and lo and behold what do they happen to see passing by but the capitol building in Washington D.C.! I'm surprised director Michael S. Ojeda was able to resist throwing in shots of the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore and the Grand Canyon as well. Unfortunately, this relatively insignificant gaffe becomes symptomatic of the film as a whole which is all too often willing to sacrifice plausibility for the sake of dramatic effect.

"Lana's Rain" is a serious missed opportunity, for what could have been a meaningful and sensitive film on an important subject turns into a series of hokey dime-store novel vignettes instead.


There was an interesting idea for a film and a great film could have come out of it. It involves a young woman who has fled the violence in Bosnia with her gangster brother to find paradise in Chicago. Once here, they are both disappointed and soon the thuggish brother convinces his sister to prostitute for him to earn a living. There was potential for great tragedy here, and after I saw the film, there were news reports of such slave-prostitution rings involving Eastern European girls run by the mob, being uncovered here and and in New York, so it was a timely subject. However, the director doesn't trust that he has a great story. He resorts to typical shootouts and violence which would be more at home in an Andrew Davis Chicago action picture. Also the film is stylized to a riddiculous MTV/Miami Vice degree, and the horrible soap opera music at every minute of the running time doesn't help. The director seems torn between making a serious 70's style drama like Taxi Driver, and typical action-exploitation pictures. Few directors can pull this off successfully (Walter Hill comes to mind) There's also a romance between Lana and a Chinese American that goes nowhere and could have easily been left on the cutting room floor. It's a shame because the leads hold up their ends and are terrific, particularly the actor who played the brother. He has a bright future in acting.


Filmed largely on location in Chicago and helmed by Columbia College graduates Michael Ojeda and Joel Goodman, Lana's Rain is supposedly about two refugees from the Bosnia war moving to Chicago and trying to make their way in this strange new world. Instead, it is simply every late-night cable movie you have seen in your whole life chucked into a blender, drank, and explosively shat down your throat. Its sole novelty is the replacement of faux-hick accents (the norm when Hollywood films shitstorms like this) with broken English with eastern European accents and Croatian (with English subtitles).

Oksana Orlenko, in the title role, does a decent job in either language, but burdened by a simply awful script and generally not-very-good co-stars, I'm not certain how much I'm just trying to find one redeeming facet of this production in order to justify the disappearance of $6 from my wallet and 107 minutes from my life. If there is one, it certainly is not the direction, the cinematography, the script, the editing, or the lame, heavy-handed (but digitally mastered!) score. God knows it's definitely not the script. Lana's Rain runs through so many laugh-out-loud bad movie clichés that it's hard to believe it was ever made. Speech about how America is where dreams come true? Check. Inept, slow-motion "action" scenes? Check. Shoehorned-in romantic subplot that serves no purpose other than providing the obligatory sex scene? Check. Flashback images at the end to remind you of everything that you already saw in the previous hour and a half? Check. Completely unnecessary "happily ever after" final scene? Check.

No bearing on reality whatsoever? Check.


The Curse (1987) was a film that was loosely based upon the short story "The Colour from Outer Space". This seminal horror/science fiction prose was written by the master of horror H.P. Lovecraft. The problem with adapting his original material is that the film makers tinker with success. Whilst a few directors such as Stuart Gordon and Dan O'Bannon have been successful in translating his stories for the silver screen, most of them are pure nonsensical tripe that's best avoided (except for John Carpenter's trilogy of the apocalypse that captures the aura of Lovecraft perfectly).

The Curse had all the makings of being a decent film. But the director and writers just don't fully understand the works of H.P. Lovecraft. Dumbingt down the man's work for a pedestrian horror film just doesn't cut it. Whilst it get's an A for effort it get's an F minus in execution. Bad acting, sloppy direction and lousy dialog dooms this movie from the get go. Better luck next time.

Not recommended, unless you're a H.P. Lovecraft completist.


At first, Zach (Wil Wheaton sadly of Star Trek: The Next Generation fame) and his sister are the only two people in a very religious family that suspect that the meteor that recently fall from the sky is affecting the water in detrimental ways. However when the animals start acting crazy and the humans shortly following suit, the devout father begins to think it's God's curse for his wife cheating. As if that wasn't enough the family also must deal with a real-estate developer who wants to buy their land.

Any Star Trek fan who wants to see Wheaton get a beat down (most likely all of them) will enjoy this film in parts (I must admit those parts were a bit cathartic for me. Other than that slight recommendation, this is just a sub-par B-horror film with laughable special effects. Maybe good enough for a rainy Saturday afternoon, MAYBE.

My Grade: D+

MGM DVD Extras: no real extras, but it comes with "The Curse 2" on Side B


A struggling farmer believes God has blessed him when his crops begin to grow substantially after a large meteor lands in his field, dissolving into his soil and water supply after the local doc, Forbes(Cooper Huckabee), pokes a hole in it. The infected water(it's molecular structure altered by the introduced alien substance from the glowing meteor) causes people and livestock to act irrationally, soon turning violent. Hysteria, dementia, violent mood swings, and skin mutations all result from the infected water.The fruit is worthless internally despite looking ripe and healthy externally. The local realtor and city councilman, Charlie Davidson(Steve Carlisle) woos a TVA water employee, Willis(John Schneider)hoping to get a contract for building a dam in their community.

Poor Zack(Wil Wheaton) has to rough it on his own once his mother, Francis(Kathleen Jordon Gregory) becomes "under the weather" and his sister(Amy, Wil's sis) is assaulted by manic chickens, as Nathan(Akins) and his antagonistic jerk son, Cyrus(Malcolm Danare), both even worse after being infected, torment him through insults and harsh treatment..you see he's not their blood(..his mother married Nathan, it seems, because they needed support he could give) which means they feel little pity or affection towards him. Nathan is a hard, strict, bible-quoting fanatic who doesn't want anyone "butting in" to matters he considers private, even if disease and death spread because of the infected water, or what's evident before him, the fact that his family are afflicted with a plague.

Tolerating Claude Akins for the duration of this film proves to be difficult because he's such a loud and repugnant creature you just want to see suffer in the worst possible way for the problems he causes. And, Wheaton is certainly easy to sympathize with because he's caught between a rock and hard place, little wiggle room to remove himself as madness evolves all around him. Of course, those involved in attempting to cover up something which could prove harmful regarding future prosperity will get their just desserts. Some really spine-tingling make-up effects showing what the mutations and disease cause to humans(and particularly the fruit and cattle)such as opening wounds bursting forth maggots, slimy puss, and beetles! The climax, as the house literally begins imploding while sinking into the earth, is a bit too much. The hideous nature for which causes mother Francis to deform into a ghastly monstrosity is really potent stuff. I'm sure Akins and Danare's fate will be met with applause. I do consider The Curse a success in regards to how it can effectively make your skin crawl, but other than that, I find this rather foul in all respects. It seems to suffer post-production problems, in script particularly, as characters vanish, while others make such preposterous choices which could cause irreversible results(..not to mention a ridiculous ending which leads us to believe that nothing was done in regards to the crisis of the film, written off as no threat or danger to the communities surrounding the farm whose soil and water could cause a national outbreak).

This is part of a series of films unrelated to each other.


This being director David Keith's first directorial effort I was willing to be a little forgiving in it's production. After viewing the film I now understand while he has gone on to only direct one other movie, he's not very good. Even so, The Curse needs a lot of fixing up in both direction and editing just to get to mediocrity. The biggest problem is the flow of the movie, its feel is very rough as it jumps from scene to scene. This could be fixed with establishing shots.

For example when Wil Wheaton's character views the Orb on the second night. We have a shot of Wil looking out his window, cut to a shot of the Orb outside, cut to a shot of Wil outside, looking at the Orb. How did he get there so fast?? A way to fix this is to have Wil looking at the Orb, get up to leave the room (to establish that he's going to go look at the Orb) and then cut to the scene of the orb, then cut to him looking at it. Doing little things like establishing shots can make a movie look a lot more professional.

But as I said even if this was done the film would only be mediocre. Claude Akins and Wil Wheaton do as much as they can with the script they are giving. In my opinion only Cooper Huckabee performs above expectations and Kathleen Jordan Gregory gives a fine, if a bit over the top, performance as the mother, the first person to be infected. The rest of the cast ham it up way too much. This was probably done so people wouldn't take the film to seriously and therefore they wouldn't notice how bad it was, but they end up just being distracting. John Schnieder is in the movie for his name only, he has very little screen time and isn't very integral to the plot.

The movie does have a couple of good moments, mostly dealing with the mother as she slowly turns into a hideous creature. But they are too few and far between to alleviate the boredom that sets in beforehand.

It is also obvious that the movie ran out of money before it could be completed (or I hope it did) as the ending doesn't tie in very well with the prologue. Granted it doesn't have a "Hollywood type" ending and I give it credit for that but it needed to be done much better.

Overall The Curse is a pretty dull movie and rates a mere 2 out of 10.


And more importantly, who the hell cares?!?!? When a film boasts in HUGE letters on the cover that it stars somebody you've never heard of, be skeptical.

So, why do all these ultra low budget film makers have to torture poor H.P. Lovecraft stories? I mean, is there any excuse for it? I put forward that , no, there is not.

This little diamond of poop managed to rope Sheriff Lobo and Luke Duke in to it's crap-trap. And wow! They got Will Wheaton (so?!?).

Okay, it was based on the Colour out of Space (sort of), so, being an HPL fan, I had to get it. Well, I got it....I even went in skeptical, and knowing it was a lame 'un, but still was disappointed.


While the acting is not Academy Award Winning and the film is not the scariest horror movie I have ever seen, it still delivers a lot of what a horror film should have. The setting, being at a spooky farm in the country along with the mysterious meteor from the sky that brings inexplicable destruction are a classic setting for a good horror film. Some of the effects may leave something to be desired but the dark cinematography and several of the films more shocking moments give it the creepy element that we are watching a very dreadful scenario unfold.

I would say, that this is one of those films that work best when being viewed, home alone, late at night, with all the lights out, preferably on Halloween.


Lmao!!! You guys think you have it bad watching this thing, I actually spent half my life in the little hick town it was filmed in.

Now that is bad.

Oddly only a small glimpse of the town is visible in the movie, in the scene where you can see an old barbed wire fence outside of the car window as John Schneider drives down the road... well the hill just above it has contained 3 apartment complexes since around 1992 and I currently reside in one of them.

In another scene you can see out the door of the "Inn" (if you can call it that) the old historic Co-Op building which used to be a Railroad Station that was used in the Civil War (tracks have been gone since 1990 or so).

Fortunately I did spend the other half of my childhood in various other places across the country.

Unfortunately, I am currently residing in good Ole' Tellico Plains Tennessee again ..... can't seem to stay out of this place .... aaahhh... omg it is a curse!!!!


"The Curse"is a total,almost unwatchable garbage,I can't believe the positive reviews people give it here.The acting is bad,the special effects are lame,and the script is obnoxious and stupid.More boring than scary "The Curse" is one of the lamest horror movies I have seen.Why such great director like Lucio Fulci produced this one is beyond me.Watch it to make fun of it.Not recommended.


Maybe I wouldn't rather go to the dentist, but this film still isn't very good. Nothing about will shock you like it wants to, after the first victim is swallowed by the CURSE, you'll know every line, every plot point, everything that's going to happen. Whoever wrote this must have just watched about a million old cheesey horror films. Not worth the celluliod it was made on.

On a scale of ONE to TEN, THE CURSE gets a 3, because the guy from Stand by Me is in it!


This poorly made,incredibly cheap horror flick is really stupid.Not scary at all,it offers us some laughable special effects and nothing more.This is the sort of movie that keeps you thinking that they must have intended it to be bad-this couldn't just be some sort of accidental mistake.I found two reasons to watch this piece of crap:1)Wil Wheaton("Stand by Me")2)Lucio Fulci,who was an associate producer of this movie.To sum up,all I can say is,that you will laugh till it hurts with "The Curse"-you can believe me!


A meteor falls in the farm of the religious man Nathan Hayes (Claude Akins). The local Dr. Alan Forbes (Cooper Huckabee) decides to call the appropriate authorities to investigate it. However, he is convinced by a speculator, who wishes to buy the lands, and by his sexy wife Esther Forbes (Hope North), who wants to move from that place, to analyze the meteor by himself. A dam will be built In this place and the value of the lands will increase, and Esther will receive an extra bonus from the speculator, if the Hayes sell their lands. Meanwhile, the meteor releases a strange substance in the water table, contaminating the water of Hayes` farm. The young Zachary Hayes (Wil Wheaton) notes that something weird is happening with his mother, but Nathan disregard his observation. Zachary`s family is affected by the water. This movie is a trash C-movie. I bought the VHS just because of Wil Wheaton, from Star Trek, but it is only indicated to fans of trash-movies. The special effects are very poor. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): `A Maldição , Raízes do Terror' (`The Curse, Roots of Terror')


This movie HAD to have been a remake of the original film. When I saw the remake I was nauseated and upset because the later ending was completely changed.

I would like to hear from others who remembered the original ending. Here's where the spoiler comes in........the original ending

Kerr's memory gradually starts coming back, all the while Adrieanne and Kerr gradually fall in love. He reveals that he is from the future and that he and his brother had built separate time machines and agreed to meet in the past. However, Kerr's machine developed a problem and he wound up on a beach in Greece in the 1980's.

They wanted to get married and sailed to a main Greek island to make plans for the wedding at the Greek Catholic Orthidox Church. After entering the church, Kerr stops at the alter, looks up, drops his jaw in wonderment then says, "That's my Brother".....looking up Jesus on the cross!

I WAS SHOCKED......the first thing I thought, "What IF?" Then I also thought, "No way is this gonna fly with the Catholic Church"

Please tell me if someone out there remembers this......my wife does!


This movie was released in 1984 starring Keir Dullea as Glenn, Adrienne Barbeau as Andrea and Peter Hobbs as Barnaby. In this standard sci-fi romance, the widow Andrea lives on a Greek island with her son Timmy and, like the other islanders, is amazed when a stranger Keir Dullea washes up on shore during a magnetic storm. She brings the apparently injured man home to help him recuperate his health, and a relationship develops between the two of them. At first seeming to suffer from amnesia, the stranger has a mysterious quality that comes more into focus when he performs certain miracles. As he demonstrates his powers, it is slowly revealed that he is a time-traveler, and his brother, in fact, once traveled back 2,000 years further in time. Again, another Adrienne Barbeau picture that was disappointing. Outside of the scenery from the Greek Islands there wasn't much else exciting in this movie that's why I'm giving this picture just 4 weasel stars.


I rated this one a little high because of the nice scenery. At least this movie wasn't filmed on a set with painted backgrounds.

I've always enjoyed films involving time travel. Some time travel flicks are exciting. A few, like BACK TO THE FUTURE (all three) border on being comical. So eventually, somebody had to make a time travel flick that is boring, and here it is, THE NEXT ONE.

This movie has a list of cinematic giants. But in this movie, the giants take a fall.

There are a few special effects, like the electrical storm.

But this movie, at its high points, drags. Then, it's downhill.

This movie sits in my collection, waiting to be used as a door stop. A real disappointment.


I don't like putting people's hard work down, but it feels like a thirteen-year-old girl who has a fascination with gay blokes and doesn't know a thing about them wrote it. Ian is meant to be from Sydney, but can't even hold his accent for an entire sentence, let alone even hit the right Aussie accent when he does. The plot is full of holes; the editing was terrible, the script short and the direction could not have been any better. The budget may be low, but I have seen movies without budgets that use talent to pull them off and they work. It was a high school movie, not something to be proud of. My suggestion for the creator; centre on one plot, pay more attention to their acting talent than their bodies and be more assertive with your actors when it comes to direction. For the rest of us - if you can sit through the entire movie without wanting to scream, throw something or roll your eyes, I will be surprised.


OK. Where do I start? I used to spin around in a video store and rent whatever I pointed to. There were some bad movies out there; "Whore" was pretty awful, "Dirty Habits" (about spying nuns) was at least tolerable. This was simply the worst piece of cinema I've ever seen.

First it was totally predictable. I'd comment about how I bet they make a "Pretty Woman" reference and within a minute it was there! That was like number thirteen of 20 or so poorly scripted things that occurred in this film. Poorly made, poorly shot, poorly directed. Horribly acted. This isn't even a movie. It's torture. It's unbelievably bad.

Nobody is going to give a gay hooker a job in the real world. Just because you're pretty and nice? Please. And it wasn't as if the eye candy made up for the cinema excrement that made up this movie. ugh.


I read some reviews before I rented this little movie and I heard that the quality wasn't that great but i decided to try it out. BIG BIG MISTAKE. Well actually I love watching horrible movies because then at least i can laugh and wonder why anyone would ever make this. First of all it looks like someone took my video camera and decided to do a student film. You can see the camera shaking and you can hear the camera man moving the camera to get different shots. Haha, that amused me. The acting is horrible. haha and man the story itself was just bad. Being sold to white slavery...trying to be funny? Sorry you failed and made me go LAME. Haha this movie...this movie... if you want to see a good movie go see Latter Days or something! Don't SEE THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU ARE READY TO HIDE YOUR FACE IN YOUR PILLOW BECAUSE YOU FEEL SO BAD FOR THE ACTORS.


I cannot believe people feel the need to write so "passionately" about how much they love this film. How on earth could anyone watch this film and then think it was anything but a steaming pile of low budget crap.

200 American is a joke. Firstly, the storyline is nothing new and at times made me want to become bulimic.

The actors are unbelievably bad. One of the main characters is supposed to be Australian and his accent is awful - it is not Australian at all and I'm sure many Aussies would be very offended by it. Sean Matic really should take it off his CV.

The other actors are hammy at best. They look like they have just come from a local Church amateur dramatics group. Not one of them can make you believe that their character is real.

What I also found annoying and a complete waste of my life was the little scenes here and there that were totally irrelevant and added nothing to the plot or character development e.g. the scene with the models.

The budget must have been about $2. It looks like someone filmed it with a mobile phone and every now and then you see shadows of the crew. AWFUL! The best scene has to be the "elevator" scene where they're not actually in an elevator at all. When a lift comes to a sudden stop the people inside usually move a little bit.

Overall this film is an abomination, I would only advise you watch it to laugh at the lives of these pathetic actors and their lack of skill.


I went on the IMDb to look up this movie and see if a little bit of web searching could have spared me the waste of 1 hour and 20 minutes of my life that I will NEVER get back... Then I came across the other comment for this movie... "The acting is exceptional"?!?!?! I thought the acting was the WORST part of the movie, next comes the production, this editing is scratchy, the camera-work is lacking and the music is at times weird and randomly inappropriate. But the acting really was exceptional...

And the writing, oh where can I start with the writing?! Lets start with the fact that one of the characters is sold to a white slavery by a co-worker for doing her job ring and instead of her being distraught she brags about being approached for a book deal and how she gave her phone number to one of the police who rescued her...

Also, two of the random prop characters (Two stereotypical "hood" women) tells one of the main characters that she loved the Dalai Lama in the TV show Falcon Crest... her friend then says "Girl, you so stoopid, that was Lorenzo Lama. Dalai Lama his grandfather." That is the quality of this movie.

The whole thing sucked. I just wanted to cry after watching it and I still do...

BTW - I am gay, so don't start with the anti-gay movie review comments.


There's nothing wrong with low budget - the sight of boom mic shadows hovering on the actors' faces, scenes filmed in cast and crew apartments, a "supermodel" with thighs like canned hams - but honestly, there is no excuse for a script that can't make up its mind.

There are at least three different films being made here - and sadly none of them hold enough interest to keep your attention for the 80 minute running time. There is a gay remake of Pretty Woman, with the Julia Roberts part taken by an Aussie tart with a heart. There is a cynical portrait at a broken-hearted ad exec whose good looks can't conceal the control freak underneath. Competing with these are some bizarre sub-plots regarding the fashion industry, NYC gay life and even white slavery. (Incidentally, what is the difference between white slavery and, well, slavery?)

The acting is perfunctory at best and there are a few amusing moments, but by and large, after laying out 200 American, you may well be asking for your money back.


I just finished the movie and honestly can't begin to say how disappointed I am. The initial pain comes from the horrible music that they used. After that you've got a relatively bad script... after that you've got some minor league talent.

I mean-- I could go on listing the horrible aspects of this movie, but I will say that I respect the passion these people had for the project. Passion can't do enough to make the film okay.

I think the worst part of this is that reading the info for this movie on Netflix made it sound so interesting. I put this on my list with some decent excitement thinking I was going to get a low budget good indy film and after the first shot of Conrad playing mood to show how lonely he was in front of the TV-- well I knew it was going to end in pain... for me.

Please avoid this at all cost. I know saying this might actually make someone else go and rent it (I'm usually one of those people... don't want to be a sheep), but trust me on this one.