Appalling, amateurish and entirely laugh free, this almost unbearable adventure has the unfunny duo meeting  you guessed it  Captain Kidd, played by Charles Laughton in a manner which makes it clear he's wishing a painful death upon himself. The 'story', for what it's worth (nothing), concerns a treasure map and whatever and so on. It doesn't matter. There are many, many pratfalls and headbangs in this lame lump of inept crud, and none of it, not one solitary second, is funny. The slapstick is poorly staged and looks as though it was made up on the spot. It's the polar opposite of slick. What more can I say? It's just. Not. Funny.


One of the least funny "comedies" I've ever seen. I can't believe the IMDb rating for this is so close to that of the original "Captain Kidd" (1945). I like Charles Laughton but this is just beneath him. If you want to see him in a truly funny, witty comedy, check out "Ruggles Of Red Gap" (1935).

Fran Warren's singing is just about the only highlight here. I was quite annoyed when one of her songs was interrupted for more stupid gags. Her romantic subplot and "characterization" (haha) is practically non-existent, but at least her musical numbers (as forgettable as the songs are) provide a respite from the rest of the idiocy.

I'm not big on Abbott and Costello, but I assume this is near the end of their career, and they've done better work? They'd never be so famous if "Meet Captain Kidd" was typical for them, right?

Recommended if you enjoy obvious physical "humour", childish slapstick, lame running gags (more like, tired limping gags), just plain bad writing, amateurish directing/editing, and what seems like a constant background noise of pirates yelling along with a clunky musical score which seems to desperately implore, "laugh here! please? are we having fun yet?" I almost feel sorry for this movie. But I feel sorrier for myself and anyone else who tries to get through it.

I've read that Warner's done some grand restoration which they're planning to release on DVD. Although I normally hate to see films deteriorate like this one has, not taken care of over the years ...this is SUCH a bad movie, I can't help feeling it's not worth the time and expense! So many better movies deserve rescuing more than this piece of crap. But I suppose A&C are bankable names and even their weakest (to put it kindly) stuff will sell... which is all Warner Bros. cares about. I hope my review encourages some people to save their money. Arrggh, mateys! Hide your loot from those cutthroats who would rob you! And remember, my "clever" pirate reference just now, is more hilarious than all the jokes in "Meet Captain Kidd", put together. Yes, it's THAT BAD.


This movie absolutely blows, In every aspect of the film-making process, from directing to the music, it's just horrible. According to this film, the End Days are actually happening, Satan comes out as being REAL. If this were true, most of the globe would be all "damn, I better get on the right path here or SUFFER FOR ALL ETERNITY IN A PIT OF FIRE". Not a whole lot of people would be stupid enough, out-right BRAINLESS to accept Satan as their master just to buy water and food bars for a few years. It seems that no one has a problem accepting the mark of the beast, "ho hum, I guess I'll just suffer for all eternity" I mean am I going crazy here? I give humanity more credit than that. I believe when it comes down to it, when faced with tangible evidence that the bible was in fact real, humanity will GET IT and UNDERSTAND THE STAKES. This film talks to you as if you are a silly little child who just doesn't understand the difference between good and bad. The characters spend their time ANGRY at God that their loved ones went to heaven, they curse Jesus and scream "I hate you" when they find Grandma has gone to Gods Kingdom, how stupid is that? Our lead characters know more about Jesus and talk more about Jesus than Tammy Faye EVER did, but somehow they aren't worthy because some dude didn't touch their for-head and go "you are saved"? God is really that petty? And even though they are supposed to be hiding in the country they spend a lot of time driving around in a fire engine red mustang, going to the park and stuff. You will find yourself laughing out loud a lot, but not because of the awesome writing, but because the writing is so bad you can't believe people actually talk this way. If SEARS mannequins could have conversations, they would speak like this to each other. It's just that bad. They could have saved money by just passing out pamphlets at the mall saying "only born again Christians are going to heaven, the rest of you aren't good enough", it would have saved everyone from having to view such a train wreck.

Patty Dunning is the worst actress of our times YET she WON AN AWARD for acting in this film. The new DVD version even advertises this as having "award winning actress Patty Dunning", the award was given to her by The Christian Filmmakers Association or something like that, her competition? no one. There is even a part in the CD where you can listen to Patty Dunning talking about how honored she was to have won the award and what it's like to be an amazing actress. Go on IMDb and pull her credits and you'll see how amazing she isn't. The best scene though, in any film PERIOD and the scene that is worth renting the film for is where Patty and her retarded gal pals are in that awesome mustang headed back to grandmas house in the country and her friend is reading a letter from her husband who is a soldier. It goes "honey, today a pastor came to the base and talked to us guys about accepting Jesus as our lord and savior" she pauses for dramatic effect and finishes with "and I did it sweetheart, I HAVE...ACCEPTED...Jesus Christ AS MY LORD AND PERSONAL SAVIOR!!!! NNNNOOOOOOOOOOO!!" It's SO good and she screams so bloody loud when she finds out her husband is with Jesus that I need to record it and have it as my outgoing message. It's such a wrong reaction but our leading ladies aren't credited with having any smarts so you just learn to let it go. There is a great part where the barn burns down and our 3 ladies run out in front of the barn for 5 minutes not really doing anything but running back and forth. You can almost hear the director yelling "ok run 20 feet to your left, now stand there and cower, now run back to your right about 20 feet and cower, now look around and run back to your left and cower some more". You'll especially love the earthquake scene. Our Patty the award winning actress, who got her acting skills from the Wide Eyed Screamers Acting School, keeps her eyes wide like saucers and lays there under a table screaming bloody murder while bits and pieces land next to her. I've been in an earthquake, you close your eyes so stuff, like debris for instance, doesn't get into them. She lays out the Welcome mat on all falling bits and pieces into her eyes because, there isn't anything falling, props forgot to drop stuff from the ceiling, except for an air duct and some lumber but those are too big to fall into your eyes, so Patty opens them up for all the world to see, go Patty GO!. It's just bad acting, bad choices. And the director doesn't shake the camera, it stays stationary as stage hands shake different parts of the set at different intervals, "shake the lamp and the curtains, now someone shake the wall and shake the chair, now shake the chandelier and drop the ceiling". Bad directing. Bad camera work. Bad Bad Bad. I think people should call this film what it is, a total failure, and then demand a better product. Someone WILL step up to the plate eventually. The only good thing about this movie is the cool silver laundry basket they use to catch heads in at the end of the film AND the fact they filmed this in Iowa. I am from Iowa and it's about time someone shined a light on how everyone in Iowa is going to hell.


A poor movie. It's a bad Batman copy. Everything is going wrong. Not very exciting, not fascinating, not ... . Three Points. For Elfman's score, the nice directing but nothing more. As it is was over, I was happy that I hadn't seen it in the cinema, just only on TV. Raimi, Neeson and Mc Dormand can do their job much better. They have proved it. Please, not such a failure again.


Sometimes something sounds good, but the bare truth of it all leaks out when you have a crappy director leading the helm. Once again, Sam Raimi proved he is about as incompetent as most PR-video directors, displaying a real lack of vision and insight. Sure, the concept was good, the idea seemed to be there, but it was simply executed with such campiness that the coolness of the film could never overcome the crap. Sometimes having a known director doesn't always work, and in regards to Sam Raimi, it rarely does.


A genuine bad movie. I had some higher expectations, since this was on the Sci-fi top 100 on IMDb. But I have never been so disappointed. Really bad acting. What a waste from such superb actors as Liam Neeson and Frances McDorman. And the whole movie is plain ugly. Everything is about killing or molesting people in a cruel manner. Both the bad guys and the "good" guy does that. There is no point in this, and there is nothing realistic going on. The story sucks and the moral of the story? I don't know.

I have voted for more than a thousand movies an this is only the third that I find so bad, that I have to give it a 1 of 10.


This is based on a comic book, and such movies tend to be stupid. Still, I thought that the plot seemed interesting. And it is. But that doesn't mean this film is good. The whole thing looks a bit cheap, and it was a surprise for me finding out that it went to theatres in 1990. It really looks a bit low-budget, that's for sure. When a helicopter crashes, for example, you only see the the tail after the explosion. Where's the rest of the wreck?? I usually think that Liam Neeson is a good and interesting actor, but in this one he acts like he's on his first audition ever. I guess he portrayed Darkman the way he should, but I would have liked it better if he was even more vicious against his enemies. Overall: An interesting movie poorly made.


The story concerns a family of extremely fat Hong Kong pork butchers, father and two sons, a young pimp who is trying to set up an internet call girl service and a beautiful young prostitute who blackmails the first two for a rich man we never meet. Along the way we are treated to escaped pigs being chased through narrow alleys, people being chased through narrow alleys, pigs being chopped up, people's hands being chopped off (and stitched back on to the wrong arms, sex, blackmail and general confusion.

This is not an art house movie. There is no pretence at art. The film is not character driven because none of the characters are on screen long enough for their personalities to be developed and consequently we can feel no sympathy for their plight. The social commentary is crude and obvious, the poor people do over the pigs while the rich people do over the poor people and take their money to boot and just to emphasise the point there are lots of shots contrasting the corrugated iron hovels of shanty town with posh apartment buildings soaring towards the sky.

This is the first Fruit Chan movie I've seen and it will almost certainly be the last. Unfortunately it is not quite bad enough to be one of those movies like 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' that keep you watching in awed fascination just to see what new depths it can plumb, this movie is just common or garden bad; bad with no distinguishing features.


the most pathetic, embarrasing and overrated director in DK. People do not dare to say anything else about Dreyers films than "they are SOOOO FANTASTIC". It is so called "Directed good taste", and I loathe it!!!! Wake up - and see what it is! It is not about faith, it is about delution.So many directors have made far better films about faith, and they are not pathetic!!!!


I wonder how Jane's HUSBAND BRADLEY WHITFORD felt about her nude scene in this one? She did this in 1999 and they have been married since 1992. If my wife did that I'd have had to fire her and set her stupid butt out on the curb and told her to wait there for the weekly trash pickup. That's what I'd do if MY wife showed her naked self to the whole world in a movie of which people will be viewing over and over for generations! I feel so sorry for her husband and her kids. How would any of you like it if that was YOUR wife or your mom whom uncounted perverts are (and will continue to be) viewing her naked and whacking off? They should feel mortified. This is something that a GOOD wife and mother would never have done. An unmarried woman would have been bad enough, but when it s a married woman, that IS in fact an act of adultery and so is lusting after a married woman too.

IMDb solicited my comment so I gave it. Too bad if you choke on it.


The person who wrote that this is a fairy tale was right.

This is basically a beautifully crafted movie. I think the story would have worked better if Moises had been a shyer introverted kid instead of a semi street smart hooker-hiring Ferris Bueler's day off type making dance moves. This film is obviously a fairy tale primarily aimed at 50 something men who might have been about 14 in 1960 creating a nostalgic fantasy for them. Why are the French so into that? I lived in French North Africa during the first half of the 1960s...and I was 8 to 14 at the time....I identified with the vintage cars a lot more than with the not too smart would be hood who was the hero.

One script flaw...Albania was a rigid closed Maoist society in those days...they could not possibly have driven through it on the way to Turkey.

Still I enjoyed the movie despite having my jaw semi clenched through a lot of it--I generally hate coming of age movies--personal choice. Everyone wishes they had a mentor like Shariff. However his litany of little clichés of wisdom reminded me of ones you see in B grade oriental movies. They were only bearable because Shariff is a great actor in the hands of anyone else they would have been a lightening rod for ire. "You lose everything you keep" "If you want to know something talk to someone don't read a book". Yawn...

Yes go ahead and rent the movie overlook the pearls of wisdom by looking at Shariffs face or tweak them a little.... there are so many worse films out there.


This film manifests all that is degenerate about the "coming of age" genre: saccharine sentimentality, numbing cliché, jarringly unsubtle plot devices. Don't be fooled by apparent spiciness of a movie about a sixteen-year-old boy's experimentation with prostitutes. This movie is entirely conventional. And you won't be able to redeem your one-and-a-half hours by just listening to the soundtrack. It's crap too. All of the dramatic tension is relieved after forty minutes, which means that the film wanders aimlessly and pointlessly for another forty. Omar Sharif's commentary on the DVD is similarly inane. There is really nothing to be said in favour of this movie along any dimension.


I first became aware of this movie back in 1971 when Rich Little plugged it on Dick Cavett's show. A clip showed 3 minutes worth of Nixon & Agnew doing Laurel & Hardy's dance steps from "Way Out West." Not only that, Rich Little as Nixon and Herb Voland as Agnew were dead-ringers. The uncanny part is the President and Vice-President spoke and even moved like Stan & Ollie. Sounds like a riot right? Well...if playing golf with Hitler, and getting duped into eating Alice B. Toklas brownies where they go into a "Blotto" laughing fit and hallucinate seeing white robed Ku Kluk Klan members playing hardball in slow motion, doesn't discount you, then this may be your movie of all time for political incorrectness. You won't find it in the credits but Steve Martin makes his feature film debut as a long haired hippie. Steve was writing for the Smothers Brothers back them. In short, the L&H stuff is fun. The padding, i.e. Secret Service (Bob Einsein) is painful. They'll never release this, but I hope they do.


I have nightmares about this film! For years I thought I had made it up because I could not locate information about it anywhere. If you look up Rich Little's official website and his filmography, he will not admit to making this film. Little plays Richard Nixon as if he were Oliver Hardy and Herb Voland plays Spiro Agnew as if he were Stan Laurel. Sounds like a kick? It isn't. It is truly, truly awful. I have been a film buff since I paid $.25 to get into the Ritz theater as a little girl. I believe this may be the only movie in my life that I walked out on. And, I was a very politically aware teenager in the 70's, very anti-Nixon and his administration. I still found no redeeming value in this "spoof". No one should be forced to sit through this film and I am pleased to see that it has never made it to video or DVD.


It's rare when I am THIS out of sync with a film. "Member of the Wedding" has a very respectable overall score of 7.7 and the acting of Julie Harris was nominated for an Oscar. However, I really, really disliked the film and think a lot of the reason is that this style of acting and writing just seem very old fashioned and very inappropriate today.

The film is mostly a one-lady show where Julie Harris plays a 12 year-old even though she was in her mid-late 20s when she did this. Additionally, the 12 year-old in question seems NOTHING like a a child from this planet! Harris is very, very, very petulant, irrational and whiny--like she is having the world's longest temper tantrum. In a 3 year-old this might be believable, but in a supposed 12 year-old it's not. It's really a lot like a very, very young child who insists on walking into a room full of adults to perform--and it gets tiresome very, very quickly. It's supposed to be a coming of age tale but instead comes off as very fake.

As for the rest of the staff, Brandon De Wilde does very well for a young --mostly because he really is a young boy. And the film does manage to get a few points because Ethel Waters is, not surprisingly, wonderful. But they just aren't enough to save the film from the over-the-top and incredibly dated central character. Folks, this is pretty tough going--I really wanted to like this film but couldn't.


I will admit that viewing a 1952 film from a 2007 perspective might be clouding my opinion. Julie Harris' "Frankie" is overplayed and ruins the entire piece. I attempted to look past the fact that she is supposed to be only 12. C'mon, even in 1951/52 Julie could never pass for a 12-year-old, maybe 18. Directors often ask the audience to suspend their beliefs and imaginations - but this is too much to ask regarding Ms. Harris. Yes, the dialog is effective. It is interesting considering certain episodes within the film. For instance, 10-year-old John Henry's proclivities toward cross-dressing. Daring I must say for the time? Ms. Walter's presentation (considering she had to buffer the over-dramatic Harris) is excellent. Little Brandon also holds his own. Maybe as a stage presentation it worked - but as "one of the great films" in cinema history - forget it.


If you like screechy, overacted, talky, go nowhere movies, you'll like this one. Unfortunately, I don't like them. That's not to criticize anyone who likes this movie. There are different tastes and different movies to accommodate them.

Sure, 27 year old Julie Harris looks silly playing a 12 year old. Actors are often older than their parts.

And sure, suspension of belief can be seen as the basis of all art. That's not a mountain, that's a painting of one, etc, etc.

Sure, this is a play made into a movie with the original cast, so the play could be preserved for all time. That's certainly good.

Sure, Ethel Waters is a strong presence and wonderful to see and hear.

But, The movie itself is a piece of drek. Don't know what that means? Look it up.

Some people have pulled off this method acting quite well. Marlon Brando in his early movies. Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke. There, Paul has spurts of talky, preachy, stagy one man shows. But he, the great actor he is, pulled it off. In Member of the Wedding, Julie Harris is endless with it and it's very offensive.

If this part had a 12 year old in it, why didn't they find a 12 year old to play it? I don't know what Carson McCullers was thinking, but the part she produced was a 20 something psychotic mental patient. As others observed, having a real 12 year old utter those lines and throw those tantrums would have been laughable. Even those tantrums are more like a 3 year old.

When she went out into the "cruel world": All it seems she did was go to a downtown at night. Similar to where she went to visit her father. Yet it was a big surprise that men wanted sex. Do men in downtowns only want sex at night?

I can suspend belief. I can accept middle-aged people playing kids, I can stand talky, preachy monologues. But I can't stand something going nowhere. Like I don't like music without melody. I didn't see any plot to this thing. The 12 year old didn't seem different to me at the end. Just as psychotic.

I would have preferred a Twilight Zone sort of thing, playing on the audiences' gullibility at suspending belief. At the end, it's revealed that she really is a psychotic 20 something escapee from a mental hospital, and every one else is playing along, because she's a serial killer or something. At least it would have made sense then .

In a way, this movie is contemporary. Remember the show "13 going on 30". About the social phenomenon of today's 13 year old girls looking and acting like they are 30? These days, no one would have the guts to actually cast a 30 year old as the 13 year old one. But back then, in Member of the Wedding, they actually did! Oh well, I've had more fun writing this than I did watching the movie. My apologies to those who like it. If it wasn't for diverse tastes, there wouldn't be any movies that I do like, like Howard the Duck. And talk about a talky movie going nowhere!


I wish I could give this film a higher score because of the lovely portrayals given by Ethel Waters & Brandon de Wilde. However, Julie Harris ruined this film for me. I've seen this movie before, a long time ago, and thought is was really good. However, I watched it again last night and had forgotten how truly over the top Harris' performance was. I've been 12 years old and I can't imagine that any 12 year old would get away with behaving like that in any circumstance. She was just a little too smart and a little too angry for my taste. Like someone else stated, it was the intensity that got to me (I don't really like Brando either--thank you Michael Bo.) The thing that saves the movie for me is Waters performance--probably the best she ever had in the movies. Too bad it was overshadowed by Harris' histrionics. I just don't think that most 12 year old girls would be that outwardly angry. Plus, it was a little creepy to me the obsession she had with her brother & sister in law. Was she in love with both of them or just in love with love, even though she commented, continuously, about not believing in love. Gah!!! It just bugged me to no end. However, I do give credit to the makers of the film for capturing a little bit of what the South was like in the 1950's.


I'm quite a big fan of Stephen Chow's newer work, from King of Comedy to Kung Fu Hustle. But God of Cookery just didn't work for me. Of course there was some good fun in it, but there was also far too much vulgarity and other tasteless forms of humor that I happen not to appreciate.

The worst, though, was that the story was so messy. There was hardly any structure to it (and of course the absolutely abysmal subtitles ruined even more of it), and it wasn't clearly told at all.

Quite simply, not a very good movie. I can understand why Chow's movies didn't get popular outside of Asia until the brilliant Shaolin Soccer.

My rating: 4 out of 10.


I saw this film because I was studying the book and hoped it would give me another perspective. Sadly, I was disappointed, as this film is awful.

I know it is an old film but, even making allowances for that, the special effects look truly awful. The back of the video claimed that it was shot on-location, this was obviously untrue; White borders are visible around some of the characters and the backgrounds look like they were painted on canvas.

It's not just the special affects, either, the majority of the story is told for narration. The acting is nonexistent because the narrator frequently reports character speech in third person rather than the actors speaking. This is a film, so why do we need a running audio description of what's being shown on this screen? In summary: If you want to listen to a reading of The Old Man and The Sea with some pretty pictures to look at then this is the film for you. Otherwise, just read the book.


By the time I read Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea in high school, I'd already read A Farewell to Arms and The Sun Also Rises. Good thing, too, because The Old Man and the Sea is Hemingway's tersest statement about what it means for a male to live a worthwhile life: live vigorously, test yourself, fight what threatens to destroy you (within and without), and emerged bloodied, but unbowed. If I hadn't been steeped in the author's themes already, I never would have gotten this message from his last, great, but very thin book. As it was, I still had to rely on Cliffs Notes to alert me to the mythic and Christ allusions.

This book would have been a daunting adaptation for any movie maker, since most of the important stuff going on is unseen and unspoken. It didn't help that the beefy Spencer Tracy was cast as a near-starving Cuban fisherman. His bulk and vigor contradicts Hemingway's desire to show the depth of character and spiritual strength that can lie within physical frailty. Tracy projects a certain amount of wisdom, but the problem is that he comes across as knowing he's wise, doling out gems from an his life vein of experiences. The power of Hemingway's fisherman was that he was un-self-consciously wise. The combined effect these two incongruities drove me the online Cliffs Notes, 16 years after the first time, to remind me of the mythic and Christ allusions again.

If you want to know Hemingway, read his books.


I saw "The Old Man and the Sea" for the first time last night and I cannot say I really admired it. In 2009 we are perhaps more sensitive to the suffering of our fellow inhabitants of the planet and although I suppose the film is a masterpiece, I cannot enjoy seeing an animal given a slow and tortured death anymore than I can bear Hemingway's favourite sport, bullfighting. I realize it was shot with a false looking fish but it is not a good example for the young. There are so many wonderful sports for them to learn about. Teaching children to kill any creature that is doing no harm is, to me, immoral. I realize I am going against the grain somewhat, but I hope opinions are changing about what is acceptable on film. I know animals are better looked after nowadays when in a film and there are stricter rules to protect them. So much the better !


Can a creative team overcome the obvious technical and narrative difficulties inherent in the prospect of filming the Hemingway novella 'The Old Man and the Sea?' Well... no! But if you like your allegories inert, obvious and oh-so-serious, this might be for you. This is a movie-as-literature clunker, in the same vein as John Huston's 'Moby Dick.' The narrative is an allegorical sermon so thuddingly unsubtle that it's impossible to view it at anything but the symbolic level.

This movie fails in the same way as 'The Spirit of St. Louis' because solo protagonists require an intrusive amount of narration and soliloquies to advance the narrative. In tOMatS, to preserve Hemingway's language, we get voice-over as omniscient narration (Spencer Tracy). We get voice-over in place of the old man's thoughts (Tracy again). And we get the old man talking to himself (ditto), saying things aloud that no one would ever actually speak. Tracy continually refers to himself in the third person, like he's Bob Dole. And he injects way too much sanctimony into what could have only worked (maybe) with a soft-sell. All these clumsy devices are like looking at plumbing; functional? certainly, but decidedly not art. It's also full of eye-rolling schlock; like a bird that lands on Tracy's finger to listen to one of countless sermons.

The movie fails technically too. Rear projection is the overused gimmick decided on for the whole sea portion of this movie; but they cop out, and use it in land-based moments too, out of sheer laziness. Yeah, it's easier to get the footage in the can that way, but it looks like garbage. Why does everyone have an eerie blue tinge? Not once does the light that falls on Tracy match the coloring of sky he's sitting under. Also, if you want to rear-project most of your settings, and the only background is clouds, the cloud types needs to match in continuous moments, because viewers are going to notice that. The production is so sure of its own pure, righteous concept, that it can't be bothered with quality anywhere else.


Possible Spoilers I wanted to give this stinker a 1 but the dialogue was so bad that I laughed until I had tears running down face. "I killed you fish, my brother". "They fed the negro rum". "Come on hand, come on hand". Jeez this movie is worth it just to get a few solid belly laughs. I just couldn't take this movie seriously, it was way too cheezy. "He said". "He thought". Yes, even the narration was so bad it was funny.


Accomplishing what I had thought impossible, this film moves from intriguing/thriller-worthy premise to absolute schlock within 5 minutes of the opening credits. No story. No characters. No acting. Dubious cinematography (I guess it's just a Blue, Blue World). All this matched by an ending which establishes a new standard for 'lousy'. Given that it was a free rental....I want my money back.


In Rotterdam, when Kevin Burke (Skeet Ulrich) is promoted to chief of security of a multinational investment bank, he goes to a hotel with his girlfriend, the executive of the bank Rosalind Bremmond (Katherine Lang), to celebrate and propose her to marry him. However, Rosalind is murdered in the room, and blind of rage, Kevin looks for revenge following the guidance of his chief and mentor Karl Jorgensen (Derek de Lint).

"Soul Assassin" is a horrible movie, indeed a festival of clichés. The story is totally unbelievable and amazingly ridiculous; the characters are not well-developed and the viewer does not know who they are and their motives; the camera seems to be shooting a MTV video-clip; the choreography of the fights is awful, with many closes and cuts. I have seen few Dutch movies, but this one is certainly the worst. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Alma Assassina" ("Assassin Soul")


"Soul Assassin" tries to cover up the absence of substance and bucks with hyperkinetics and effects; nice try but no cigar. Shallow, transparent, contrived, and just plain stupid. Let's hope Malkin gets a real job. Pass. (D-)


This might have been watchable if it hadn't been for the director's experiments in photography-gives you a headache at times. Same crap I saw in the GET CARTER remake, and I can't stand it. All it does is make the story more muddled than it needs to be. The woman who played Karrina (Rena something or other)is sexy and fascinating, and I would've liked to see more of her, but-no(a few sexy hookers, too 8^D). Kristy Swanson and Skeet Ulrich are wasted here. Here's a newsflash-if you're going to do a film, and want to make it 'gritty'-why not just film it in black and white, instead of blue w/ one object in the screen in color? That way it might actually add something to the movie. Everything this director does has been seen before, and besides that, what he does merely serves to detract from the story. A confusing and muddled script only further contributes to disaster. I knew before I read it here that the director had done music videos, because that was what this movie feels like in spots.


This movie never should have been made...maybe thats why it literally burned through the projector at its first screening at Cannes. The whole idea of timing a movie to be cold and lonely is fine...just don't follow this film's color timing by cranking the wheel all the way to the blue side. Definitely don't time the ENTIRE movie blue either. What ever happened to making movies that made you FEEL the film instead just watching it. Well thats how this one FEELS...like having your hand held by your babysitter as she tells you exact whats happening on the screen (or maybe that would be a blind interpreter). The story was boring, already been done, and unrealistic. Perfect formula for films that go straight to video.


The Name Soul Assassin has little and to obscure relevance for the actual plotline in the film, the actors have been given nondeveloped characters with a hollowfeeling to them. THe plot and storyline is waterd out by an abundant reuse of fottage in annoying flashbacks that does noting to further develop the story, and has been spiced up with exessive gunfighting. The so called "bad guys" are to the brink of total lack of grey brain matter. The Director of Photography and the Director of the movie seems to occasionally forget that it is a thriller they are shooting, and not an MTV musicvideo, by exessive use of stroboscopic effects and fottage that has no relevance for the movie. The only good thing is the end, where thy desided to throw out all rules of "good vs bad guys" classic movies. Thats the only good point.

Skeet Ulrich did a better jop in Chill Factor. It is by far the wors film I have ever seen. No film that I have seen in the conspiracy genre has even been this bad, I thought that X-files the movie was bad. I now know better.


Some where in this thing called a movie is a plot. A lot like the movie "The Candidate" but with an Italian shoot 'em up twist. I watched this one because I'm a Skeet Ulrich fan, almost turned it off it was so bad but managed to hang in till the end. Beware of this one, it has continuous flash backs which add nothing and only take up time. Cut out all the manure and the movie would of only run about 30 minutes.


One of the worst filmed movies i've ever seen. The camerawork was lousy, the screen was tilted to the left _All_the_time_. the colours were awful, there are only one or two scenes that aren't filmed with a blue filter. Even if you can get used to the blue screens, the stroboscopic effects that turn up every action scene (my guess is; lack of budget) _will_ turn your stomach.

Obviously there was _no_ budget for any special effects other than the effects you get if you buy the $100 el-cheapo-fastforward/slomo-mixer.

The fight scenes lack any sense of choreography, i.e. you only see full-scene shots when the 2 "fighters" are walking around each other slowly, the only "contact" shots are extreme close-ups. The same applies for nearly all the stunts/shooting scenes.

At least the story made some sense, in the way that most b-rated action/thriller flics have a story-line. Too bad though that the actors didn't really get a chance to show what they can do (see above.)

In conclusion: If I were you i'd leave this "direct to video production" right down there on the videostore's shelves and rent Jackie Chan's "Who Am I" instead.


I saw this movie at a screening in LA recently and really enjoyed it: the stylish shots, fast pace, cool editing, funky soundtrack and the whole story engulfs you. This movie gives such a strong sense of how small the world has become. Set in a corporate multinational world with the backdrop of old, beautiful cities and local raw industries of Holland, Kevin, the hardworking and confident American is in the battle of his life to keep his soul alive. A great fusion of Hollywood action and independent filmmaking.


This effort is unfortunately is betrayed by its execution. It is a very pretty movie, beautifully shot, but with no real point outside of its most obvious one (that the Chinese coming was a disaster for Tibet and the Dalai Lama (kundun), and that that Dalai Lama guy, hey, he's pretty cool). It fails to engage the viewer, making do with empty symbolism, and some wooden acting from what I assume are probably real Tibetans. This movie has an important story to tell, but fails in the telling.


You wait your whole life for a film on Tibet, and then bang, two come along in the same year. Just what have we done to deserve it?

Unfortunately this is at the same mediocre level of Brad Pitt's offering. It's slow and laboured pace does it no favours at all and we are asked, like children, to stare in spiritual wonderment at things that are not worth the time or the effort. Martin Scorsese finds himself well and truly outside of his usual territory here and instead of the stunning personal storytelling we're used to from him, we are bogged down with all sorts of ridiculous mumbo-jumbo and a somewhat confined take on the history of China and Tibet. I can't imagine he enjoyed this experience much.

Not to say the direction and cinematography isn't great, Scorsese is a born filmmaker and knows what to do with a camera, just that the choice of project does him no justice whatsoever.

The first of the 17 Scorsese films I've seen that I'll be avoiding like the plague from now on.


In an early episode of The Sopranos two of the younger gangsters are forced to wait for entry into a nightclub when Scorcese pulls up and is ushered into the club as a VIP.

"*I* liked Kundun!" shouts one of the gangsters, irony oozing out of the screenplay.

I had received that episode of The Sopranos through my rental queue and Kundun was due to arrive as the next disc. Spooky. That comment made me think it was not going to be a good film. And it isn't a good film The first 30 minutes are greatly hampered by some very stilted performances from a cast clearly struggling in an English language project. They manage to convey less emotion and commitment than the puppets in Parker & Stone's Team America.

As the film goes on the central performances improve but the pace of the thing never really picks up. The plot manages to be both epic (nations collide) and small (boy grows up) at the same time, but it is ultimately the smallness that you are left with : the story simply never takes off.

The Dalai Lama is, rightly, played with a stillness and spirituality but there are not enough moments where this stillness is played off against more fiery elements or where any wit shines through - we're simply expected to look at the unblinking face and think "aaaah. Such wisdom!" Well, sorry, I need a bit more than that.

Finally, there are some arty shots that look reasonably attractive but are not made transcendental as they seem not to add anything to the surrounding (in)action. They appear to be put in just for their own pretty sake.

A very disappointing film from the man who directed Goodfellas (one of my top 5 favourite films in history).


Actually the age factor in the show wasn't a problem--the gut-wrenchingly bad writing was the problem. This is hideously unfunny material.

I couldn't tell by listening to the laugh track if it was automated-- as laugh tracks often were in the era from which this show evolved--or if they just had a really easily amused audience. I heard the audience laughing, of all things, at Dick dancing around in a baggy red sweater while a 3D animated caricature of him cavorted on a monitor screen. This mystified me, since the show was created in 2004. Where did they locate an audience that would find a 3D cartoon dancing funny? Or even interesting? Perhaps the audience was made up of Sun City retirees like the cast, and they had never heard of "Shrek" before.

I haven't figured out if most of the writing team has watched episodes of the original show--I caught no clue of this one way or the other. The skyscraper-glitz penthouse suite the Petries were living in---in place of their previously normal suburban home--was pointless, and actually called so much attention to itself that it undermined the show. "Look! we have money and we're still alive and kicking!"-apparently was the message.

Unfortunately, the same could not be said for the writing. Supposedly Carl Reiner was responsible for this mess, but I find that rather incredible.

Hope Dick gets more work. Like Sean Connery, Bill Shatner, and Paul Newman, the aging actor still has more to offer the audience than do the clueless folk running today's film and TV studios. Age is a transient state. Stupid is forever.


I'm usually the guy telling other reviewers they're being too harsh. But I found myself grimly forcing myself to sit through this travesty to the bitter end, for no better reason than I'm a stupid, masochistic completist anent this series. What a bitter caricature of a capstone; I wish I hadn't noticed it was on.

First of all, the age difference in the cast, while not readily apparent in the show, burns like a lighthouse beacon FORTY YEARS later. DVD is eleven years older than MTM, and he looks about twenty years older. Ann Morgan Guilbert ("Millie Helper") looks like a female Orville Reddenbacher without the energy; she should be on the Golden Girls (or maybe the One Foot In the Grave Girls).

Now, to be fair, they never made any secret about the relative ages of the characters on the show: the birthyears given for the characters (when possible to deduce) pretty much matched up with those of the actors (within a year or so). Still, there is nothing to prepare us for Mary Tyler Moore looking fairly young -- though awfully skeletal, probably due to the actress's (type 1) diabetes -- and her "best friend" Millie looking like a fossil from the pre-Cambrian era.

Dick Van Dyke still looks reasonably good (for a man of nearly eighty). Others haven't aged well at all: "Baby" Rose Marie ("Sally Rogers"), who began her career as a singing tot in 1926, bloated up terribly in her old age, possibly due to illness; I kept expecting her to keel over at any moment. And of course, Morey Amsterdam ("Buddy Sorrell"), Jerry Paris ("Jerry Helper"), and Richard Deacon ("Mel Cooley") had aged themselves to death... a fact that they kept banging us over the head with repeatedly throughout this reunion, talking about all the eulogies that Rob Petrie had to give.

(Carl Reiner -- "Alan Lester Brady" -- is actually just slightly older than Dick Van Dyke but looks much older; this is fine, though, considering the work relationship in the show.)

I could forgive the incredible aging if the plot were clever and the characters clearly the same people; alas, neither is true: the story is uncompelling and dull, and the characters act nothing like their forty-year younger counterparts. The absurd marriages and other relationships that are supposed to have occurred in the intervening time don't help, seeming contrived for the sole purpose of bringing back old characters (such as Jerry Van Dyke, Dick's younger brother).

The scenes from the original show jarred terribly because they were so much better written, acted, and directed... and because they cut them at odd places, even editing out sections from the middle of a skit! With hamfisted chopping, they managed to terminate most flashbacks just BEFORE the punchline. Yeesh.

And although they seemingly tried to duplicate the original set for the opening scene -- which was utterly gratuitous, the only purpose being to let us see that Larry Matthews ("Ritchie Petrie") grew up to be a fat, balding old man -- they completely screwed up the most important piece of furniture in the living room... the famous ottoman is replaced by a small chair, as if the set designers actually forgot what it was supposed to be! When Ray Romano ("Everybody Loves Raymond") pretends (badly) to almost trip over it, it actually annoyed me no end: for Pete's sake, couldn't they even get such a simple thing right? Romano, incidentally, seems utterly talentless in this show; I've never seen Everybody Loves Raymond, so I don't know if he's capable of better.

There is absolutely nothing about this reunion show that gives even the faintest pleasure; even the nostalgia is turned sour by the relentless march of the years. They should have done this in 1984, not 2004: all of the actors would have been alive still (except perhaps Richard Deacon, depending when they filmed), unsedated, and not all that old; and maybe Carl Reiner would have been fresher as a writer.

A sad coda to the greatest sitcom ever on TV.


I had no idea this movie was rated "R" until I got on this page to rate (lowly) this movie. You know you're in for a heap of trouble when a movie starts out with a man driving a Jetta drinking out of a bottle of Jack Daniels just after being paroled. Charley Taylor gets paroled on the understanding that he'll take employment with a wealthy woman who works in the area of rehabilitating freed felons. Once he meets this woman, he finds out that she has another use for him than just legitimate employment - and he spends the rest of the movie trying to figure out what's really going on.

This movie was nothing except a serious attempt to make a porno movie into a decent film. I'll admit the plot had SOME merit, and the only reason I kept watching was to see how it ended, but cheesy acting and the concept of every character sleeping with each other (9 separate sex scenes) made it mostly unbelievable - as well as some plot loopholes.

If you're up late on a weeknight with nothing else to watch, or you're with your woman (or man) looking to set the mood, then this is a decent movie for you. Otherwise, this isn't worth your time unless you watch for the skin - cause that's exactly what you'll get, but don't expect to get any entertainment out of it other than laughing at its unrealistic qualities.


Being from Maine, I sure wanted to love this movie..but I didn't! The plot was contrived and in several ways, quite silly. The first half of the film dragged mercilessly, while at the same time facets of the plot were not fully developed, making the story line weak and non-sensical and the characters shallow. It makes no sense that this young woman who so loved and missed her grandmother would not have returned to see her as soon as she was old enough to be independent from her controlling mother, especially with the level of animosity she felt toward her mother. The film touts Amanda as being "an ambitious young executive" who has a "busy career," yet all we see of her at her job gives the impression that she is nothing but a receptionist with nothing on her mind but her birthday and her boyfriend. The false memory idea fails miserably, its "moment of revelation" totally lacking in energy and focus.

What should have been a good plot, fertile ground for a poignant and meaningful film, was sadly wasted. What a disappointment!


Cheesy Eurotrash horror movie that makes Jesus Franco look like Hitchcock. Paul Naschy plays a man who turns into a werewolf when the full moon is out. While hiding out in a small French village, he welcomes two students (Gaby Fuchs and Barbara Capell) doing research on local vampire legends into his home. They awake the vampire woman (Patty Shepard) in a scene that rips off Bava's Mask of Satan very badly. As with all of these movies, there's gratuitous nudity, but not nearly enough, as well as hints at lesbian erotica - but only the most teasing of hints. I saw this in a theater (which was cool, despite the terribleness of the film) and the biggest crowd reaction came when one of the reels ended right in the middle of one of the lesbian scenes. Someone in the front row shrieked "NO!" and then a moment later, before the next reel started, "WHY?" Of course, when it reappeared, the lesbianism ended abruptly. Doesn't it always in these movies? It's like Europeans of the 1970s liked the idea of two women together, but weren't entirely sure if two women could have sex. Instead, they must just unbutton one another's shirts and rub the back of their hands across each other's breasts for a few seconds before the director yells "CUT!" As with the erotica, the promised werewolf vs. vampire woman action was pathetically short and unsatisfying. The print had faded terribly - it was as pink as undercooked chicken.


but unfortunately anyone else would find this to be what is it, a really quite boring and stupid horror wanna-be that is full of really bad writing and stupid coincidences. Now I didn't see this in it's original Spanish but I wouldn't go out of my way to now I've seen it. The werewolf make up looks like it came from 'fake beards and boot polish r us' and has acting to match. The worst bit of dialogue in the whole movie I thought was 'I love you with all my heart' WHAT?! you met the bloke about a day ago and thought he was lying to you before. Don't bother to go near this unless you have a real hunger for a Vampire Vs Werewolf movie with a really unclimactic climax. Oh look the devil is rising tonight, oh wait no he's not, oh well let's have a bit of a wrestle instead. Really, Really bad! 3/10 (Cause it's not the MOST boring film I've ever seen, and there's a little bit of flesh about but not nearly enough to make it worthwhile)


Waldemar Deminski,the famous half-man half-wolf(in theory) finds himself dead in what may or may not be a hospital.Okay it's not,it's some guy's home.Two very necrophiliac-looking doctors make the stupid mistake of taking silver bullets out of his heart and that makes the big W revive again.If you didn't expect that,professional help is on the way.A very promising prologue,and stuff keeps looking this crummy throughout the movie.This thing delivers.

So,with the hairier-than-average man back on the loose,we're going to need victims.And behold,two women get stuck in the middle of nowhere.After a suggestion by the more beautiful woman that they will probably be attacked by Frankenstein(in Spanish,you can say that in two words),Waldemar finally shows up,in the slightly more human form of garbage legend Paul Naschy or Jacinto Molina or whatever you like to call him,call him Harry Pubes,see if I care.In two shades of a lamb's tale,they end up in a very crappy house owned by Waldemar and his sister who hangs out there too,and who speaks three languages,la-di-da.

There's a certain charm to what Naschy does, and I'd still pick it over some Jess Franco projects, but on the other hand it sucks pretty bad.He just can't really make movies.But I do respect how me made it fairly big with little talent.


Paul Naschy plays Waldemar Daninsky  handsome, heroic and more than a little hairy during the full moon. Yes, Daninsky is a werewolf and, once again, the curse can only be broken by the one who truly loves him.

Enter two Euro-hotties  Elvira and Genevieve  searching for the fabled tomb of a powerful witch/vampire, Countess Wandessa. Daninsky offers them refuge when they become lost, and it is not long before he becomes romantically involved with Elvira (convenient, eh?). They find the tomb and stupidly remove the cross embedded in Wandessa's rotting corpse. Before long, the vampire arises and attacks Genevieve, who becomes one of the undead herself.

With a full moon on the way, bloodsuckers on the loose, and a werewolf for a boyfriend, can Elvira save the day? The Werewolf Shadow lacks the gore and gratuitous nudity that usually make these affairs bearable, and despite some unintentionally chuckle-worthy moments, the film is rather slow and uneventful. There are some nice atmospheric scenes and the ladies are pretty easy on the eye, but this is still not reason enough to recommend this lacklustre effort.

Definitely one for Paul Naschy completists only.


First, be forewarned the makers of this film are ballot-stuffing. There's a good reason why you can buy it for less than $1 on Amazon - because it's really BAD.

How to describe this film? Put the word "bad" in front of any component of a film, and you've got it. Bad Tarantino/Lock Stock/Get Shorty knock-off. Bad writing. Bad directing. Bad acting. Bad cinematography. Bad continuity. Bad decision for Keitel and Depardieu. Bad rental choice. I made it through about 20 minutes before I reached for the Pepto Bismol anti-depressants. If you want a really great obscure crime comedy, try "Big Deal on Madonna Street."


contrary to some of the comments here-- this movie is not hilarious.

the plot was great, but many of the jokes were wasted by some horrific dialogue and awkward english. the better talents like Gerard Dep. and Renaud's character Zero are largely unused in favor of some bumbling fat guy who was torture to watch....

good direction-- just bad, bad, baaaad acting/dialog and a waste of some good characters


This movie is awful. It tries to be funny and fails every time. You can see where you're supposed to laugh, you know the intention is humor, but it's just not funny. The characters are terribly written. They start off as complete fools and by the end they're devising intricate schemes that come together in entirely ridiculous fashion. But the most painful part of watching this movie has to be sitting through these pathetic attempts at humor.

The next point is this split-screen editing. Some here are raving about it. First of all, it's terrible. Second of all, why even use it to begin with? Brian De Palma used it to tell a story, Norman Jewison used to perfection in the first Thomas Crown Affair. In Crime Spree it just pops up an hour into the movie and then disappears. It's like the editor discovered a new trick on the Avid and then got sick of it before he knew how to use it. Only one of the three splits moved at any given time, the other two were static. What's the point? If you want to direct our attention to the only one of the three splits that's moving, then don't use a split screen.

The director desecrates the masters time and time again. Remember the baby carriage on the staircase scene from De Palma's The Untouchables, Crime Spree has the little girl in the hallway scene, without one iota of the suspense. How about the great Leone showdowns with Clint, Lee Van, Fonda, and Bronson- the close ups of the eyes, the tension before the first man goes for his gun. That's here in Crime Spree too. Not the tension or the beauty, or the sheer power Leone had of capturing the moment and making it last forever, but the close ups of the eyes that say, "Look at me, I've seen The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," that's there. Then we move to Tarantino, right out of Pulp Fiction, remember when Jules and Vince escape a barrage of bullets miraculously and Jules is changed forever? Well, Crime Spree has that too, without the revelation of course.

And though not a master, Crime Spree also steals liberally from Guy Ritchie as well, right down to the bridge scene in Lock Stock. Not to mention the hole in the door shot.

This director has seen good movies, that's obvious, he's tried to copy them. But he has no idea what makes them good. It's like when these bozos in Hollywood decide to remake the old Twilight Zone series. They give you the shell of the old show with some weird premise, but with none of the depth, with none of the soul of Rod Serling.

There is nothing good about Crime Spree. It's bad on every level, from the script to the editing to the lighting to the directing, and everything in between. I can't believe that of the 260 people who have thus far voted on this movie, that 60 have given it a 10. If I could vote from one to and hundred, I'd give this a zero. It's truly awful.

I just can't believe these other reviews. I think someone's stuffing the ballot box. Anyone who rates this movie anything higher than garbage is suspect.

I rented this and Dirty Deeds on the same night, and although I didn't think much of Dirty Deeds, it's looking Oscar-worthy after seeing Crime Spree.


I caught this in a movie theatre back in 1986 and I remember being less than thrilled. Pierce Brosnan plays Jean Charles Pommier (with the worst French accent you ever heard) who is tracked down and killed by some tribe he uncovered. Before he dies he whispers their name to doctor Flex (Lesley-Anne Downe) who is in turn hunted down by the tribe.

The movie is boring and pointless with no scares and a stupid plot. Also just try to imagine Brosnan trying to play a French guy! Brosnan is a great actor but his French accent is downright hilarious. Downe does what she can with a seriously under written role. However it was fun seeing Adam Ant and Mary Woronov as part of the tribe (even though they have no dialogue). I will admit that this film had one scare--when you find out who is riding the motorcycle at the end. Still, that one scene doesn't make watching this any easier. Mostly forgotten--for good reason!


This movie was simply crappy. First off I was expecting something else entirely, some one told me this movie was like The Road Warrior or something along the lines of post-apocalyptic future. Pierce plays a french anthropologist who is being harassed by metalhead/punk bikers who may or may not be some kind of ghostly creatures. Its a pretty stupid concept which is not scary at all and also can be a little confusing at times. I really don't find the concept scary at all, so If I hang out with these ghostly metalheads (like I would hang out with metalheads in the first place) I will go crazy? Lame dude. Nothing about this movie was scary at the least, and it never properly explained how this so called nomads, came to be. You've got better stuff to do, trust me.


If Brosnan somehow transferred his memories to Lesley-Anne Down, then why do we mostly get a third-person's point-of-view of his life in the flashbacks, with only brief and random intervals of his own point-of-view? It may sound like a small quibble, but think about it and you'll see that the device simply doesn't make any sense. McTiernan fails to bring out the supernatural elements of the Nomads (who come off looking more like your standard street punks - "they don't live anywhere, they don't work anywhere, they resort to violence at the slightest provocation"), and the movie drags. The ultimate point seems to be that Brosnan's character should never have bothered thinking about The Nomads, just as you shouldn't bother watching this film. (*1/2)


LONG LIFE, HAPPINESS AND PROSPERITY shares some qualities with some of its north of the border Reel 13 Canadian Indie counterparts. It is a slice of life multi-protagonist piece akin to the awful, but highly-rated WILBY WONDERFUL with the misguided mystical elements that were woven throughout A PROBLEM WITH FEAR. LLHP does a much better job in developing its characters than WILBY did and the mysticism in question is based on ancient Chinese culture and therefore, somehow seems less contrived and more elegant than the inexplicable technology-based type from FEAR.

So, the script, on the whole, is decent. While there are several comedic moments that fall flat, there are many others that are genuinely funny in almost a Shakespearean way (one character's rendition of "Sometimes When We Touch" remains my fave). There are some structural deficiencies (neighbors' gossip as a form of exposition is never a good move), screenwriters Mina Shum and Dennis Foon paint their characters honestly and not a one of the three story lines seems to be favored over the others. Unfortunately, the performances in the film don't help to elevate the script in any way.

In the blog for WILBY WONDERFUL, I alluded to my general distaste for Sandra Oh's work. In LONG LIFE, HAPPINESS AND PROSPERITY, however, she towers over the other actors in the film, but that's not saying much. Almost every other actor (the main kid Mindy is okay  appropriately precocious) in the piece seems new to film acting. They all seem extremely uncomfortable, delivering their lines as if they didn't really believe them. While Oh is significantly stronger than the rest of the cast, she's not fabulous either. She has several good comic moments and a few good serious ones, but she really pushes during the very emotional moments and that's never fun to watch.

There is plenty of charm in LONG LIFE, HAPPINESS AND PROSPERITY, enough that I found myself wanting to like it more than I ultimately did. Overall, the premise of the film  that a little girl playing with ancient Chinese charms changes the fortunes of all the people around her  is a little hard to buy, but it's not dissimilar to the kind of farce you might find in more classical fare like Moliere or even ancient Greek comedies. At the end of the day, however, the performances sunk this ship. If you can't believe the characters whose story you're watching, it makes for a pretty rough journey. All the charm(s) in the world can't save you there.

(Find out more about this film or other Reel 13 films on www.reel13.org)


Why... that's my only question, why this horrible soundtrack of a garage band with no talent , this cast ( i'm sure in some scenes reading off cards ).... why all the clichees ever seen are all in this flick ALL of them, can you one second fall for any of these caracters or actually believe in this cheezy romance. Plain horrible .. stay very very far from this movie please I beg you. There's so much excellent indie film out there. why


With the exception of Sam Bottoms and Essence Atkins the acting was horrible (who is the Jade Person and this Robert Glen Keith? Were they simply reading off of cards?) and the writing was sophomoric, the photography was actually good in places, but not good enough to save this flop.


I recently rented this film having been a fan of Sam Bottoms ever since Apocalypse Now but what terrible mistake I made. This film about a worn-out hooker trying to go straight (very original, right?) is so poorly made, it's definitely one of the worst independent films I have ever seen. The acting, especially by the lead actress Jade Henham, is atrocious, and it looks like the director (if there was one) just pointed a camera on her and followed what they thought was some kind of interesting life of this character. What they didn't realize is that her character is simply BORING! There's not even any eroticism in this film as the box would have you believe. Stay far, far away from this film!


and just as interesting. A non-writer writes a "screenplay" starring herself, the non-actress, and gets a non-director to say action and cut. Did she really think people would be interested in watching her sleep, get dressed, smoke, drive around, and ride in an elevator? With a real writer, director and actors this might have had a chance, but this is nothing more than a home movie made by amateurs. The director even has the audacity to take the possessory "a film by" credit above the title, perhaps in recognition of his many years of inexperience. There's a reason he and the "star" and most of the others have no other credits--they have utterly no talent or even the slightest ability to make movies. Not only is this movie a crushing bore, but it's incompetent in every respect.


The short films of Kenneth Anger are certainly NOT for the casual film goer! The best way to describe them is avant-garde--and often make little sense, as they are not meant to be shown to the masses. Some are incredibly artistic--like filmed work of art. Some are really cheaply made and definitely look it. Regardless, they are a challenge to watch and I very strongly recommend you see them with his commentary activated. So why would I see these shorts? Well, in a recent interview I noticed that John Waters credits Anger for much of his inspiration. And, since I have seen all the films of Waters that are available (a couple very early ones aren't), it seems natural I'd give Anger's films a try. This and four other reviews are best on the DVD "Films of Kenneth Anger: Volume 1".

Watching and rating PUCE MOMENT was very difficult. While it was not an unpleasant short film, it really only was a snippet--part of a longer film that either no longer exists or which wasn't completed. As such, there really isn't a coherent story, just some nicely filmed footage of a 20s-inspired actress dressing and leaving her home. While not particularly interesting on its own, Anger's commentary is interesting--especially regarding what happened to this actress later in life.

Overall, not a bad film but too short and disjoint.


OK. "American Ninja 3 - Blood Hunt". Starring David Bradley as the lead. I don't know why Dudikoff quit, but I wish that it hadn't happened. Not that I dislike David Bradley, but Dudikoff is just a better actor, without doubt. On the contrary, Bradley is better in the fighting scenes, which (as always) makes up an important part in the movie. The problem is that Michael Dudikoff and Steve James had a special chemistry between themselves that now is gone. But it was a relief finding out that James was in this movie. Without him, it had been much worse. "American Ninja 3" has much of the same as in the two first movies, but with lower quality.


David Bradley takes over for Michael Dudikoff as Sean Davidson a martial artist who must take on bionic ninjas who are developing a chemical virus to sell to terrorists in this incompetent sequel. Michael Dudikoff is a poor actor, but when compared to David Bradley he almost seems like the next Laurence Olivier, Steve James returns but ultimately this sequel is far too awful to dig up any entertainment value in this garbage.


David Bradley slides into the role once occupied by Dudikoff as Sean who, as a boy, saw his father shot by The Cobra's(Marjoe Gortner)henchman Andreas(Yehuda Efroni). The Cobra needed the money at the karate tournament to fund his ongoing germ warfare experiments for sale to terrorists, and ten years later has the disease ready. He needs a strong lab animal and David Bradley is that very animal. They use Sean's master(Chan Lee, played by Michele B Chan, impersonating him)to persuade him into considering drawing near East Bay Labs where the Cobra is waiting with bated breath for him. Steve James returns as Curtis Jackson, out of the Army, and attending the same karate tournament as Sean..except he's in the sword competition. But, when danger threatens Sean, Curtis is only willing to help out a friend(how they are friends is never elaborated upon). Dexter(Evan J Klisser, the supposed comic support/lackey)joins up with them to find out what The Cobra and East Bay Labs are up to. Though, soon Sean will find himself in the clutches of The Cobra and the deadly virus within his system. He'll not only need his friends to help rescue him, but the antidote as well. Chan Lee will see the error of her ways(she thought The Cobra was behind solving the world's disease with cures)and assist the team in trying to stop the mad man.

Not very good, with lots of plot problems and stupid behavior by the bad guys who go out of their way to be taken down by Sean and Curtis. The ninjas are merely wimps in costumes(even Dex is able to beat the crap out of them). The fight choreography is not very good as ninjas pop out for certain beat-downs. The good guys seem to rarely suffer the effects of blows to the face, but the ninjas drop pretty quickly. It's fun seeing James kicking ass, but even that can not save a dire, lame plot. The sequence towards the end where Sean tries to battle the virus within him through meditation is a howler. Even worse is Marjoe as Cobra who seems to have peed in his pants at the end as he tries to fight Bradley. The film ultimately is about watching Bradley and company mowing down men dressed up because real ninja would have finished them off rather quickly. Still, Bradley at least has a physical presence and seems to do most of his own martial arts work which helps at least add a hint of realism to his part, but watching these ninjas come out of the woodwork only to be thrown around and their limbs snapped with ease doesn't help the film any.


STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

When he was very young, Sean Davidson (David Bradley) watched his karate champion father get brutally gunned down by a bullion thief. Years later, under the guidance of a typically Japanese master, he himself has become a martial arts master. He finds himself invited over to a Caribbean island to compete in a martial arts tournament where he meets series veteran Curtis Jackson (Steve James). Together, they must team up to battle an evil drug lord into genetic engineering-and ninjas.

Dudikoff's out, Bradley's in, only for the last time in the final part of the AN series. But, if the last two films weren't really much to write home about, this is the dampest squib out the lot of them.

The plot is just an unimaginative, apathetic rip-off of the last film. James, in sadly one of the last roles I ever saw him in, applies a fairly charismatic presence to the proceedings, but Bradley isn't up to much as the main hero. A cool 80s soundtrack and some good fight scenes makes things a little better, but really not much. *


This time we are introduced to a new hero, who was trained as a ninja when his father was killed by an armed robber. Through learning the ways of the ninja he uses it to make the inside cover of karate and compete in championships. However the tournament is a cover for "The cobra" to find the strongest man to use his virus on. Suffice to say our new hero ninja is the man. David Bradley took over for Michael Dudikoff for reasons unknown, however American Ninja 3 is a lifeless bore which features a hero so blank that it's almost quite humorous. If it wasn't so boring. Bradley really registers utterly zero rapport with the audience and it's really only Steve James and the campy antics of televangelist turned actor Marjoe Gortner. Also a big let down was that Dudikoff actually fought a ninja master but here Bradley's one on one is with Marjoe Gortner. Talk about a cheat. The action sequences are badly staged and it's fairly easy to see why people noticed Dudikoff's absence.

* out of 4-(Bad)


Never in my life have I just for one second think, seeing such crap is possible. It's important to stay cool right after killing fifty weird-funny looking men in pidzamas. Of course one cannot abide the fact that movie is nothing more than the lecture for kids that studying in school is more important than training for NINJA status. That lesson comes in as the last quote of the film: 'you can find me in the school any time.' Putting grade on such disaster-piece would be degrading, so my opinion of it is none other than awful. Cedric has really outdone himself this time and only one thing comes to my mind in time of writing this review, SOMEBODY STOP HIM! PS: Three days after seeing it, I still couldn't stop laughing...


Don't worry, reading this won't actually spoil anything.

I give this movie a one only because laughability isn't a metric for movies. Since this is IMDb, I guess story structure, believability, continuity, production values and special effects are paramount. In each of these areas, American Ninja 3:Blood Hunt, fails. Speaking of Blood Hunt, let's start there.

The title of a movie generally focuses on some aspect of the film. While the Ninja is American, I saw no Hunts that were bloody and no blood that was hunted. I guess the title was suppose to make me go...ooooo, a Blood Hunt! I gotta see this.

Here's the idea. The American Ninja comes into town and wins some contest for world class ninjas. Then, in broad daylight, someone is kidnapped by fully clothed ninjas in front of at least a few dozen people. From about two blocks away, The American Ninja sees it and decides to chase them.

The ninjas scamper, still in full ninja attire, across an open field. Then there's the fighting. (I can't actually find the right words to describe the fight scenes. I think I'll just call it "The Bad") The biggest flaws of the movie, if you can call it a movie, are the ending and special effects. The whole movie, our protagonist, THE American NINJA, is looking for his missing sensei. THE American NINJA discovers that he's probably hidden in some factory. He gets in, kicks everyone's tail and then leaves the place...

Did anyone catch that...

no one...

The plot is completely dropped in the final climax. No one even cares about the sensei. Not to mention after murdering about 2 dozen people, he doesn't even kill the archvillian, just kicks him in the chest. That's it.

During his little rampage at the factory, he gets an arrow shot at him, catches it and throws it back at the guy who shot it, killing him instantly.

Did anyone catch that...

no one...

That's what this movie is about. Laughing at it is actually worth seeing it. If you have 80 minutes to kill and this is on, it's worth the laugh. You'll love American ninja in the same way you love a cheesy horror movie. Ninjas running through crowded streets, terrible stunts, even worse acting and an even more miserable plot, this movie fails so terribly on every level, it's difficult not to look at it like the small kid who gets picked last in Kickball. You can't help but think "how cute, they tried to make a movie. Better luck next time."


This movie has warped my fragile little mind! Seriously besides Lawnmower Man II and I assume American Ninja 4 this has to be one of the worst movies ever to appear out of Hollywood. The stunts are more than poor, the plot is horrid, the acting worse and the cinematography of it is a joke. Spare yourself: Don't watch it. If you're a movie-lover this production will make you sad.


This is an absolutely dismal sequel, with annoying performance from David Bradley, and dull action scenes!. All the characters are boring,and while it does have some action, none of it is that exciting, plus Steve James looked very bored in this, and i don't blame him!. David Bradley bored me to tears, as he has no charisma what so ever, and him and James had no chemistry , plus you will be wishing Dudikoff was in this !. The plot feels very stale, and the main villain was extremely weak, plus the finale was extremely lame. The fight scenes are very bland and boring, and the only good thing about this movie was the opening, and after watching that, i was thinking to myself "hey" this might not be so bad, was i ever wrong. The only reason i watched this is because it was a double feature with American Ninja 2, and as i expected American Ninja 3 is crap plain and simple!. This is an absolutely dismal sequel, with annoying performance from David Bradley, and dull action scenes, avoid like the plague!. The Direction is extremely bland. Cedric Sundstrom does a very bad job here, creating dull action scenes, very dull camera work, and keeping the film at a boring pace!. The Acting is terrible!. David Bradley is awful here, he annoyed me, and had no charisma what so ever, and while he has lots of skill he just isn't that exciting,and he had no chemistry with Steve James!. Steve James is not his usual fantastic self, he looked very bored here, and gave a mediocre performance (Not his fault), and had no chemistry with David Bradley!, still he was able to keep this movie barely bearable with his presence. (James rules! though). Marjoe Gortner is laughable as the villain, he was much too hammy and boring to be menacing, i didn't like him at all. Michele B. Chan does okay here, and did what she had to adequately. Rest of the cast are terrible. Overall avoid like the plague!. * out of 5


*** SPOILERS. EVERYTHING YOU READ HERE IS TRUE AND REALLY HAPPENS IN THIS FILM ***

So, a badly acting kid's badly acting dad gets killed by some badly acting bad guys. For no apparent reason, badly acting kid teams up with Yoda or something, and learns one move badly from each of 87 different martial arts, while aging 25 years in about 6 years of movie time, becoming a badly acting short guy with a hypnotically Big Head.

After that, things go downhill rapidly. For no apparent reason, badly acting masked ninjas jump out of nowhere and attack people, badly, to the accompaniment of four piano notes played up-up-up-up,down-down-down-down over and over and over. Yoda is kidnapped, probably, it's kind of hard to tell, he was acting so badly.

Badly acting Big Head Guy is joined by the ubiquitous badly acting Strong Guy and badly acting Red Shirt Guy. More ninjas attack them badly, or it could be the same five identically dressed ninjas taking turns to crawl off screen and then leap out of elevators, outhouses, fridges etc. Strong Guy takes his shirt off a lot. Some badly acting people unwisely try to introduce a plot about something, I dunno what, there's flashing lights and needles and Fourth Reich kinda guys, then some woman pulls off a mask and WOW! she's really old Mr Jones from the abandoned amusement park, and some more ninjas attack people very badly indeed, and make "whoosh-SMACK!" noises, and then aliens attack and Will Smith blows them up KA-BOOM! but then Darth cuts off Luke's hand, and he's all like "Aargh, I have no hand!", and old Mr Jones uses the Force to heal Big Head guy's soul and Will Smith pulls off his mask and he's really Joan Cusack but with Yoda's beard, and at that point I woke up and thought "MAN, that was a wierd dream", but then back in the movie, Big Head guy turned into the hulk or something, and I realised that my fevered imagination really has nothing on the guy who wrote "American Ninja 3: Blood Hunt".


I remember buying American Ninja 2/3 on the same DVD and I heard bad reviews about 3 so I looked at the box and decided for a second. Do I dare attempt to see this bad movie. So as time went on I finally decided to see it. And I gotta tell. I was let down. I saw the first 2 films and compared to this one, 1 and 2 blow this movie out of the water.

David Bradley looked really lost during this movie. Steven James did OK as Curtis Jackson but if you look very carfully he looked really reluctant to be in this movie and he looked very pale at times from his cancer. And what can you say about the ninjas. Geez. These guys have gotta be the stupid ninjas around. The ninjas in the first 2 films put up more of a fight. For example. In the scene where Bradley is watching the female fight the ninjas from the top of the building. And these guys just walked right into it. The women just lightly swung the sords and these guys went flying. I mean come on.

And finally. I didn't like seeing a American movie with Michael Dudikoff. This guy was awesome in the first 2 films but he wss smart to turn down this movie. The Joe Armstrong character is more tougher and believable then Sean Davidson character played by Bradley.

Skip this movie.


Not as good as it starts out. The initial idea is fine, the plane, off course is forced down due to ice. The early scenes in the aircraft are good. But from there on, just like the plane the movie crash-lands. It starts sinking when the plane is forced down; none of the crew except the pilots bother with belts, let alone sitting down. A forced landing in the snow and the crew is standing up in the cockpit door? It then "bursts into flames" when the overeager rescuing pilots have to be restrained from going searching for the Duke without any idea of what to do or where to go. The hokey comedy scene with the hotel? clerk is just misguided. The music score in the hotel scenes totally detracted from what might have been a great movie. Previous reviewers cover the rest. Bit disappointed, it could have been a really entertaining movie, rather than the cringe it turned out to be.


During World War II, in an ice storm, Captain John Wayne (as Dooley) and his small crew crash land their airplane over unpopulated, freezing North America. Can friends and colleagues like Walter Abel (as Fuller), Lloyd Nolan (as Stutz), James Arness (as McMullen), and Andy Devine (as Willie Moon) locate the downed crew before they succumb to the cold winter's wrath?

"Island in the Sky" is a survival story which spends far too much of its time concentrating on the various rescuers, and not enough time on the struggling crew. Moreover, the time spent on the downed crew isn't satisfying. Although the temperature is said to be forty or seventy degrees below zero (at Fahrenheit, no less), the crash survivors seldom look really cold or uncomfortable. At times, it's painfully obvious they are "acting cold" while a wind machine blows "snow" at the camera. Mr. Wayne performs some William A. Wellman-directed scenes very well, however; especially during a missed rescue attempt. Mike Connors, Darryl Hickman, Fess Parker, and Alfalfa Switzer lend some occasional support. Also look for Mr. Devine in a poolside bathing suit, with what must be Wellman's children, Michael and Tim.


I first saw this movie when I was 13 and thought it was the most suspenseful, exciting movie I had ever seen.

I'm watching it now on AMCTV and am thinking, god, how could any adult have made this or believe it.

For example, one of the searchers, says, "It's 70 below down there." OK, if it's 70 below why are these guys hanging around OUTSIDE the plane, shivering while wrapped in one thin blanket, with a fire consisting of two tiny sticks that wouldn't warm an insect. If I was out there at 70 below (which is ridiculous in the first place), I would have a forest fire going.

This movie is so overly dramatic it is just not believable on any level. I don't generally care for remakes, but maybe this is a good candidate. Maybe not -- the crash site is probably a strip mall today.

Another childhood memory shattered.


I'm not one of those sci-fi fans who believe science fiction should be all action and no drama. I think good science fiction should be character driven, and besides, this was one of the very few sci-fi dramas the UK has produced. I thought it'd be good. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The script is clichéd and awkward. It felt like someone copying American sci-fi, instead of coming up with an original idea of their own. Surprisingly, given the standard of actors in it, the acting was awful, and the direction dire. The whole thing made me wince all the way through the first episode, and I never got round to watching the rest. If you want really good, British, character driven sci-fi, go for Dr Who. Don't bother with this. You won't be able to get through the first hour.


This starts out with an alien spaceship being found during the blizt , a homage to QUATERMASS AND THE PIT no doubt but as the series progresses it comes more as an insult than a homage. I rate Nigel Kneale as television`s greatest ever writer and QUATERMASS AND THE PIT as the greatest drama ever to have been transmitted under the telefantasy banner and to have INVASION EARTH pay homage in this way is an obscenity . INVASION EARTH is possibly the worst telefantasy series ever made by the BBC . It is truly awful

The script is responsible , the opening episode features so many coincidences in order to bring the characters together it looses all credibility , but after the first episode it gets worse , concepts like the NDs ( They`re the bad guys from another dimension I think ) polluting the water supply and kidnapping humans in order to carry out experiments on them are underdeveloped and badly explained while entire episodes are padded out with the subplot of a Second world war army officer`s journey through the galaxy with a race of good aliens . All this is unnecessary to the plot , at least I think it is because I`m not sure what the plot is , describing the plot of INVASION EARTH is like describing the plot of a James Bond film , lots of things happen but none of it adds up to much. In which case I`ll say in INVASION EARTH not much happens and none of it makes much sense. Truly awful


The Flintstones with real actors - hey, that sounds cool. Great special effects, good casting(John is SO much like Fred), and Steven Spielberg - how could it go wrong? Well, somehow, it did. Probably because of the script, this movie that starts off nicely, soon turns into a bore for grown ups and hardly a blast for the kids. The story is dull, and all the cliches are there - nagging mother-in-law, sexy secretary, rich ppl becoming arrogant, you name it! The question is, why did they bring these "grown up" elements into the movie? This is marketed as a kiddies' film, and I doubt they understand the story very much; for grown ups, it's simply boring to see the old cliches used once again, just in a funny setting. There are few truly funny moments, and though the actors do their best, they can't save the movie from being dull, silly, and in parts very sappy. It's a disgrace, as the original cartoon was funny, cool, and the family scenes were simply endearing.

One of the things I liked was Rosie O'Donnell doing Betty's role. In the original cartoon, Betty is as slender as Wilma. It was nice to see a big girl cast in a positive role, her weight never being an issue. And Rosie does it so great - listen to her laugh. Go Rosie!

All in all, I give this movie a 3 out of 10. That's for the special effects and casting. Too bad they didn't bother to write an actual storyline.


The movie just doesn't translate from the original cartoon series. It's like trying to reheat pizza. It just isn't as good as when it was hot the first time. And I can do without seeing Rosie O'Donnell in a one piece bareback skin tight outfit- yuk. What was with Fred Flintone wearing what looks like a rolex watch. It's like he forgot to take the watch off before the shot, and the director said, "Oh, well, shoot it anyway." I know kids are going to enjoy this movie, but for many of us adults who accompany our kids to the movie, it was a challenge to sit through this. I've never seen Barney look so goofy in my life. I'll take the cartoon every single time.


This is the live action film of the popular Hanna Barbera cartoon about the stone age family. There is not that much good comedy, it is more emotion and family based, but it is quite good for some reasons. John Goodman plays Fred Flintstone, husband and father of the famous stone age family. He is exactly as ignorant and fat as the the cartoon version. Elizabeth Perkins plays Wilma Flintstone, she is quite pretty, but she is not as worrying as the cartoon version. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids' Rick Moranis plays the cartoon's best character Barney Rubble. He is giggly and a bit dumb, not quite as good as the cartoon though. And Rosie O'Donnell as Betty Rubble is just not right, she is meant to be thin and attractive, not fat and quite loud. Also starring Kyle MacLachlan as Cliff Vandercave, Halle Berry as Sharon Stone (probably meant to be irony, but they did originally want the actress of the same name), Elizabeth Taylor as Pearl Slaghoople and Richard Moll as Hoagie. Not all people who loved the cartoon show would bother with this, but it is still quite fun for the family. Halle Berry was number 99, and Dame Elizabeth Taylor number 77 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, Taylor was also number 11 on The 50 Greatest British Actresses, and she was number 7 on Britain's Finest Actresses. Okay!


The Flintstones cartoon series is in essence a dumbing-down of the Honeymooners TV series of the 1950s. Change suburbia to caves, add dinosaurs and sabertooth cats, and cut the IQs of every character from the 90's to the 80's and you have the Flintstones. Fred and Barney can dream big, but they are too dumb to realize the folly of their dreams.

So here's the big story -- Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble compete to become executives. They are the only ones to not know that they are being set up. Duh-uh!

Costumes and scenery are tacky. The plot is weak (white-collar crime isn't good for a plot). Characters are stereotypes. Technically this live-action film qualifies as science fiction due to anachronisms, but it's the fiction of pseudo-science.

The dinosaurs-and-humans stuff is utter nonsense. Large mammals (anything larger than Yorkshire Terriers) could never have survived around T. Rex. If your children like dinosaurs, then stick to Barney (the dinosaur, not Barney Rubble) or the animated Land Before Time series. When they get older, then introduce them to the documentary (animated, but as realistic as it can be) Walking With Dinosaurs. Don't let your children get any idea that Man and dinosaurs ever coexisted!


I was not barely able to sit and watch this version.I tried to find something good till the end of the film and I didn't get it,but something upset.The production should be better than of what I had seen.Liz Taylor was a special cast but the weak script and production pulled everything down.Watch the original has been enough! The episodes were good stories.Some of them couldn't be forgotten with tears in my eyes during watching a friendship between Fred and Barney,,,,Great!!!


Movie remakes of TV shows have been notoriously failing miserably for some time (but they keep getting made anyway, for whatever reason), so it was inevitable that somebody would start churning out these remakes based on classic cartoons. An early victim was "The Flintstones," a failed experiment that should have told them not to do any more of these.

Quite simply, this movie stinks like a pile of dinosaur droppings.

The original cartoon poked innocent fun at mainstream America, creatively clothing it with prehistoric costumes and primitive "technology," focusing on an everyday family and putting them in wild situations. Fred, Wilma, Barney, and Betty were all likable, and we laughed at Fred's ridiculous schemes and the chaotic outcomes.

The spirit of the cartoon is non-existent here. The characters just argue, screw up, argue some more, screw up some more. People lie, cheat, and back stab. Everyone is boorish and mean; and just make you angry. The script goes nowhere, in story or comedy. Jokes don't work--come to think of it, were there any jokes even in this thing? Or any comedy at all? Wait: One (and only one) thing was funny--Rosie O'Donnell had the Betty Rubble snicker down. That's it.

John Goodman, Rick Moranis, and Elizabeth Perkins (all normally good comic actors) seem lost in this primeval slop. As for some other actors in the cast, they were so obnoxious I was hoping a pterodactyl would sweep them up and toss them into a tar pit somewhere.

If Early Man was like this, no wonder Neanderthals went extinct.


I remember seeing this way back when I was 9 years old. My mother and her sister were going to go watch When A Man Loves A Woman while my father, my sister, and I were going to watch The Flintstones. I remember struggling to stay awake through this film. The story was so boring I just didn't care for it. The sets looked hideously bad. Everything looked terrible. Some of the objects in Bedrock had bright colors. Why? So the little kids could gawk at it.

When this came out on video cassette, I never watched it again. Neither did my sister. I don't know why all these great actors got involved with this movie. Just cause you think that making a live-action movie based off of a cartoon doesn't mean it will make you a lot of money. I remember seeing a brief glimpse of The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas. I was shocked how they could make a sequel to one of the worst movie adaptations to a cartoon series ever!

Overall, it's garbage! Watch the cartoon instead.

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. I hate this movie!


It would seem that no popular cartoon or comic book hero is safe now. Nothing is sacred! Brian Levant's "The Flinstones" follows a plethora of animated features cum screen sensations from "Batman" to the other recent Hanna and Barbera production, "The Jetsons".

Though that well loved space age family did maintain its animated status, "the modern stone age family" was not as fortunate. John Goodman, reputedly at the insistence of Steven Spielberg, got the choice role of Fred, the great big lovable oaf who has a heart that's every bit as soft as his head. Elizabeth Perkins plays stern wife Wilma, Rick Moranis is old pal Barney Rubble, and comedienne Rosie O'Donnell ("A League of Their Own") is Barney's wife Betty.

While everybody looks the part, and no expense has been spared in re-creating Bedrock, none of the characters are ever interesting enough to hold your attention for more than ten minutes. The cartoon-esqe plot, with villains Cliff Van der Cave (Kyle MacLachlan) and sidekick secretary Stone (Halle Berry) framing Fred for embezzling, is painfully stretched out for ninety or so minutes with the assistance of a subplot involving the Rubbles' adoption of a darling little Neanderthal named "Bamm-Bamm". In fact the only interesting and genuinely entertaining character is Fred's talkative piece of office equipment, the "Dictabird" (voiced by Harvey Korman).

All this is not to say that Brian Levant has let us down, as he has been very true to the original 60's cartoon series, and both Jim Henson's creature creations and William Sandell's production design are a credit to their collective geniuses. However there is very little one can do with a show that was never really meant to leave the T.V. set.

I guess the novelty wears off all too quickly, unless you're a "Flinstones" freak or a minor. Look out for cult rock group the B-52's, appearing as the BC52's. Also an enjoyable guest appearance from Liz Taylor.

Thursday, September 22, 1994 - Balwyn Cinema


This film has a great soundtrack. My Life With The Thrill Kill Kult was an excellent choice for this film.

I wish there was a way to post a comment without rambling on and on about how great or terrible the movie is. If it was a mediocre movie it deserves a mediocre comment. Goodman is great, as he usually is. He always reminded me of Fred Flintstone, so yeah, he was well cast. Rosie O'Donnell sucks, but I can't think of a better Betty Rubble. The cartoons are much better than this movie though. Its just not the same without the cartoon voices, it just isn't the same. If you were or still are a fan of the Hanna-Barbera cartoon, this movie probably isn't for you. It's a lot like how Hollywood ruined Scooby-Doo for me, although that didn't happen for another 10 years. Meh, yabba dabba doo! its the Flintstones.


I still love the Flintstones cartoon. A reminder of a younger, some would say simpler time in my life. This movie, on the other hand, is a reminder of a younger, some might say less intelligent time in my life. I watched this movie tonight for the first time in about six or seven years. First of all, I don't know how Halle Berry went from this movie to an Oscar winning actress. As far as the story goes, there are not really any complaints. Its expected to be simple, and I can respect that. The problem with this movie, which is essentially eye candy(well it was back then), is the acting. John Goodman, who has made some fine turns in films like "Fallen" and "The Big Lebowski", is just bad. It seems to me that he is doing his best Jackie Gleason impression, and its really not all that good. Rosie O'Donnell gives a stiff, and yet somehow melodramatic performance. Don't ask me how thats possible. Rick Moranis is just annoying as Barnie. Elizabeth Perkins is extremely one dimensional and fails to capture the fire of a cartoon character. In all fairness, this is also the fault of bad direction. All in all, I'm glad I'm older now because I can see the errors of my ways, and the errors of others ways as well. If you're over six, avoid this movie like the plague because its just bad. 4 out of 10.


Insipid and listless remake of the Saturday morning cartoon show of the 1960's. Obviously made to cash in on Baby Boomer sentiments. Lacks all the fun and humor of the cartoon, and goes on way too long. This sitcom format is rarely sustainable for more than standard 30 or 60 minutes shows. THE FLINSTONES wears out its welcome after the beginning musical score. The script is unfunny, predictable and dull. John Goodman is an exceptional actor, yet he can't save this turkey. Kids will be bored, and those who remember the original with any fondness, will likely get depressed.


I know that it takes a lot of people and a lot of work to make a film, but this film is absolutely horrendous. Only thing good is the costumes. This is the only film to date where I have actually walked out of the theatre in the middle of it.

Bottom line...big pile o' pooey. PLEASE don't waste your time.


Ok John Goodman does a good job playing Fred and the rest of the cast maybe weren't born to be some of their characters but maybe those persons haven't even been born so they do a good job. Bedrock looks OK you can easily see that they've spent a lot of time working on it trying to make it look just like the cartoon but the story compared to the one the cartoon has is a definite insult just look at the ratings that this movie has here at IMDB 4.4 right now (March 7th 2000) those guys at Universal should have back in 1993 (when they were writing the script) well the story is really bad let's make a movie combining 4 of the most popular episodes in one story that would have been a very good idea I'm sure that it would have had made much more money than the 358.5 million it made worldwide even though that is a lot I know that if they had a better story it would have like 500M or more. Maybe lots of those 358.5M are because people couldn't believe that they had made a bad movie about a family that generations have grown with. I expect something better with the prequel that is coming out this summer even though I don't think the people they chose to be the new Flintstones look like them as the first cast did.


The worst movie I have ever seen - simple as that. It went plunging past the "so bad it's funny" stage and descended into the deepest bowels of bad movies. The only time I have ever really felt that I wasted my money to watch a movie. I would rather have a Tang® colonic than be forced to watch this movie again. If you want Flintstones, stick with the cartoon!


Well, what else can you say about this movie other than it sucked royally. I don't normally use such mediocre words to describe a movie but nothing else could come to mind. The acting was bad, the script was bad, the story was bad, the gore was disgusting (but still bad), and the cannibals take the cake as being the worst looking I have ever seen. It looks like a bunch of French guys got together and decided to put on make up and pretend to be cannibals... wait a second!

Anyway, the story is about 3 crooks who kidnap a little girl and demand a ransom. When the heist fall apart they escape out to the jungle (which looks like a forest) and take refuge with a Spanish couple. When one of the crooks rapes the Spanish wife, the husband leads the crooks to the cannibals and now there is Hell to pay... yeah, right.

I can't help my sarcasm with this movie. It was just dreadful. I read other reviews that say something about Jess Franco having something to do with this movie. Man, if that's true he must have come to a real low point in his career.

This movie is strictly for people that have to see all of the cannibal films. If you aren't into that sort of thing, stay far FAR away from this train wreck. Even I who love the genre struggled to sit through this. 2/10