This movie is a perfect example of when what could have been one of the most brilliant movies ever is made, through the incompetence of only one man, into one of the worst. I cannot list in detail the number of ways this movie could have been made better, and they are all mind-bogglingly simple and all George Lucas's fault. Even so, I will try to condense them into a short list.

1. Actors/Casting - I have to give all of the actors credit for this because I know they tried their best, even Jake Lloyd. The movie did not give me a single reason why I should have cared for any of the characters and I can't explain why I did anyway.

I can't count how many times people have told me how much better Haley Joel Osment would have been in the role, and I am almost inclined to agree with them. Supposedly there's something dark and ominous about the Anakin character that all of the Jedi council can see, after all, he's gonna be Darth Vader, right? Osment projects that fear which leads to anger which leads to etc., and Lloyd just looks like your run-of-the-mill blond California Cabbage Patch kid. I'd call Jake Lloyd a terrible actor if it weren't for what the great sci-fi writer Orson Scott Card, who personally knows Lloyd, observed: "Jake Lloyd's a good actor, and it's a pity you didn't get to see that on-screen, since he had no direction or screenplay. In the same way, Liam Neeson is a great actor, but you didn't see that onscreen because he had no direction or screenplay."

Which brings me to my second fault:

2. Direction - Let's face it, George Lucas has lost it. He has gone from the great actors' director he was when he made American Graffiti to a special effects artist gone wildly out of control. I do give him some credit: It takes a lot of deliberate effort to sap all of the energy and life out of Ewan McGregor.

3. Screenplay/Plot - This is the section that really makes me wince, and proves that there is nobody left in Hollywood with the courage to tell George Lucas that he can't write. I mean, logical inconsistencies aside, this dialogue is simply ridiculous. If a first-grader were called in as a script consultant, he could most likely have improved this movie.

There are a thousand instances of questionable logic in this movie like, why did Queen Amidala reveal herself when she did? Why did she want to go back to Naboo so badly if it would do no good whatsoever and she would probably just get killed? Are we supposed to believe that a ten year old is going to have twins with her eventually? Why is she called a Queen anyway, if Naboo is supposed to be a democracy? Do the natives of Naboo share one collective brain cell to elect a teenager to run their planet? And what kind of name is Naboo anyway?

Beyond that, it doesn't even make sense in terms of the rest of the established Star Wars universe. For example, the shields that repelled blaster fire, obviously added so the death count would be lower and they could appeal to the 'family' market. Why do we not see them in the later episodes, when they seem to be of immeasurable tactical value?

As for the so-called 'Phantom Menace' conspiracy, does the initiation into the Jedi knighthood include an IQ curtailment? Why didn't those clods figure out at once that Palpatine was behind it all along? In the end, I found myself rooting for Palpatine/Sidious, simply because he was geometrically more intelligent than any of the other characters and would probably do a pretty good job of ruling the universe. At least he would be a better emperor than George Lucas is a screenwriter.

Well, it seems that I didn't do a very good job at condensing, but oh well.

I am ashamed to say that I saw this movie three times and hated it more each time. That it has grossed over $400 million makes me wonder that the entire American society doesn't grind to a halt as soon as someone sees a bright shiny object. Did I mention that the special effects were too amazing for their own good?


This movie was crap, and I really mean crap. What was Lucas thinking having Anakin as a little boy? I remember the stories that Obi-wan told about how he first met Anakin to Luke during the original trilogy.

"When I first knew him, your father was already a great pilot, but I was amazed at how strongly the force was with him. I took it upon myself to train him as a Jedi." To me, I imagined a young man, probably an army officer in some sort of air force, meeting a 40-50 year old Obi-wan, who is a proper Jedi NOT A LEARNER. Obi-wan befriends then offers to teach the young man about the force, much like he did with Luke, only the young man is much more aggressive than Luke was. Why have such an obvious plot contradiction? Then there is my biggest beef, remember the line that Obi-wan gives Luke in A New Hope? When he sees Luke with R2D2 and C3P0, what does he say? "I don't remember ever owning a droid." Yet R2D2 saved his life in this film and C3P0 was supposedly built by Anakin skywalker! WTF!!! Do you not think that Obi-wan would remember that? Maybe he's getting senile in his old age? Another thing in Empire Strikes Back Obi-wan clearly states that Yoda was his master. Remember how he persuades Yoda to teach Luke all about the Force? "Was I any different when you taught me?" Of course it's perfectly conceivable that Obi-wan had more than one master, but it's made perfectly obvious in this film that Qui-Gonn was his ONLY master. Jesus, George didn't you watch the first three films? I've explored the plot contradictions that destroyed what could have been an amazing series of films, but that isn't the only thing that destroyed it. The acting was wooden and rubbish, Yoda saying everything backwards, (which he didn't do in either Empire Strikes back or ROTJ), gets horribly boring and annoying after a while. However the lightsaber fight at the end was reasonable, which is why this film gets 2 stars instead of 1.

This film is unforgivably bad, what's worse is that nobody can sense the force within Palpatine (even though he is a Sith Lord). God I could go on and on, but please just save yourself and the memories of one of the greatest film trilogies ever made, I mean the unmolested, unraped, untouched, virgin original trilogy.


I'm sure everyone has heard all their friends, relatives, and random passerbys gripe over the immense waste of computer generated imagery known as Jar-Jar Binks, but I just can't help it. No movie character has ever driven me to the brink of tongue chomping, teeth gnashing psychosis like that floppy eared moron. I cannot understand why this creature (which appears to be the combination of a four-year-old, Carribbean native, a mutated guppy, and that weird dragon/dog thing from Neverending Story with bigger lip implants) is even included. All he manages to do is p*** people off while at the same time manage to avoid death every moment due to some undeserved luck. So many times I found myself praying that one of the Jedis would just draw their saber and silence the fish-man forever. Unfortunately, the Jedi code restricts such action, proving that the dark side is much more agreeable.

Jar-Jar, as horribly evil as he may be, is not the only thing to dislike about this movie. Who knows why, but Lucas must have decided that people who go to movies only go to movies because they wish to escape a world full of text images, and thus most of the different alien races in Episode 1 speak english, limiting the use of subtitles. Hey, that's not too bad right? Well, wait till you hear the Trade Federation honchos that sound like over-exaggerated Japanese-Americans. Oh, and don't forget the Gungans that remind me of, no offense, a Jamaican with a brain defect. Since today's illiterate audiences can't muster the mind power to read basic lines to begin with, let's make the characters speak english in horribly offensive accents. It's just more immense annoyances that make me want to microwave my brain until I drool myself to death.

Speaking of annoying, how about that kid who plays Anakin Skywalker, the focus of the three prequels? Here we have a nine-year-old child who can build things that NASA could only fantasize about, and who tackles such massive sociological issues such as world peace (except multiplied by 100 billion to equal galaxy peace). In case you were unaware, Anakin is destined to be Darth Vader, so I understand that Lucas wanted Anakin to appear as a good-hearted soul, but boy does he lay it on thick. Thank you George, I get it, he's sweeter than one of those gigantic lolipops you find at Disneyland, and we should all weep at this boy's impending peril. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to slap that kid. It is far too difficult to make a pre-teen appear to be 35. I just see a spoiled little runt that rocket scientists would envy, yet for some reason we are supposed to care that this adorable little sandy haired genius is doomed to the dark side (which I determined earlier is much more agreeable than all that good Jedi stuff). Think of all the trouble that would have been saved if Obi-Wan had just smote him on sight.

Episode 1 is so ridiculously annoying that I couldn't even pay attention to the highly ornate special effects. I could care less how seamless Jar-Jar looks. Why can't he just shut up? And Anakin, you can stop bragging any time about your wonderful science projects and immeasurable I.Q. If only you could see into the future. You might weep as much as I did after suffering through this sci-fi fantasy turned horrendous pile of steaming poo. Sorry George, maybe next time.


More or less everything worthwhile in The Phantom Menace can be attributed to the cinematographer. In addition, the computer effects are clearly impressive, and whoever choreographed the fight scenes gets some props too. However, don't let its staunch defenders fool you -- nothing else is any good at all. The characters are trite and undeveloped, the acting is unremarkable to poor, and the dramatic arc is nonexistent. It felt to me like the movie was still just beginning until half way through the final sequence -- nothing that felt like a plot had happened yet, so I had assumed that the real action was yet to begin. In addition, many plot and character decisions are totally disloyal to the original series. I will elaborate below, but DO NOT READ FURTHER if you don't want anything given away.

Jar Jar is more or less the most insulting character I have ever seen on screen. He only exists to be laughed at. Children can appreciate a substantive comic relief character, as C3PO and R2, not to mention Sebastian (from The Little Mermaid) and any of several other Disney characters, demonstrate. However, Jar Jar was not one. His only personality was of a "look how stupid I am" variety; the only way to relate to him is "look how stupid he is". I certainly don't need my little sister thinking that's a useful way to relate to people.

Just about every invocation of the powerful, resonant images from the original series is compromised. The force is changed from a mystical, magical idea that captivated my entire generation, to a kind of microbe. Anakin is given a virgin birth, making his fated status absurdly heavy-handed. Yoda, full of real wisdom in The Empire Strikes Back ("No. Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."), is reduced to canned and vaguely fascist sloganeering ("Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."). The movie's publicity would have us believe that it foreshadows Anakin's descent to the dark side and eventual transformation into Darth Vader, but except for some Vader- breathing at the end of the credits, this is completely absent. Nothing in Anakin's character foreshadows Darth Vader in any way: the boy is headstrong, but so was Luke; the Jedi council says he's full of fear, but nowhere in the original trilogy do we find indication that Darth Vader's fall was through fear.

Darth Maul may be cool-looking, but he's completely substanceless. He's on screen for two seconds, says a total of about twenty words, and generally has nothing that puts him in the same league with Vader. He fights with a cool double light-saber, but that is all.

The movie has no story. It wasn't until Qui-Gonn died that I realized that the final battle was in progress. This is because the movie is entirely lacking a dramatic structure. There is some meandering action as the Jedis escape the trade federation and pick up Jar Jar on Naboo before heading to Tatooine; then there is meandering action on Tatooine as the Jedis find Anakin and watch him win a pod race; then there is a cool-looking but contextless scene in the Imperial senate; then there is a final battle. I was still waiting for the story to get started when the final battle began. It wasn't until a main character died that it occurred to me that the film might be nearing its end.

The film is also politically objectionable on several counts. As has been noted frequently, several characters (especially the representatives of the trade federation and Jar Jar Binks) fit problematic racial and ethnic stereotypes. More importantly, I think, is the way that the film portrays entire alien races as having a species-specific character, as though they were created with racial personality cookie-cutters; hence, the Hutts are gangsters, while the Gungans are clownish, petty and stupid. The scene in which the Gungan leader is bought off by the false deference of Queen Amidala and her (almost all-white) entourage smacks of the European colonialists's scorn for the peoples they colonized.


I remember when this film came out, I kept putting off seeing it. And putting it off, and off. Then it came out on video, and I finally rented it. I think I was putting it off because I instinctively knew it was going to be awful, and I was right. It is one of the dullest, most atrociously acted films I've ever seen. The acting was stody and boring, and considering the acting talent involved (Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, and Samuel L. Jackson), you'd think Lucas could have done something spectacular with them. Alas, no. Lucas has said numerous times that he detests directing (this was the first film he's directed in over 20 years since the original Star Wars film), and his contempt for directing shows. It feels like a sonambulistic exercise, intent on putting us to sleep, and it has an overall lackadaisical feel that really irks the viewer. Many who saw this were extremely disappointed because they loved the originals so much (the original 3 are far superior than this tripe). They more than likely felt a sense of obligation and loyalty to see this film and the progressively worse prequels. They grew up with the original Star Wars films, and they went away disappointed and angry at the fact the prequels were inferior in every way to the originals... Lucas's dialogue is wretched, his pacing is totally off, and he seems to be killing time here. There's no real enthusiasm here, in front of the camera or in back of it. Perhaps the actors picked up on the fact that Lucas didn't give a damn about his own film, so why should they? I sometimes think Lucas purposely made bad prequels so he wouldn't have to film the final 3 chapters. And why did he decide to make the prequels? If he made the 3 films that were supposed to take place after Return of the Jedi, he would have had no real creative restraints. Who knows why George Lucas does what he does? I haven't a clue, other than I really disliked this film.


Well, everyone expected a great film, with a killer story, amazing special effects, and great performances. What we got was drivel.

Yes, I saw and enjoyed the original "Star Wars" films, but did not see the need to buy sheets or toys or models or otherwise alter my lifestyle to suit Lucas' marketing machine. Unfortunately, when reading other reviews, one finds that many have bought into this "saga", and have been suckered into this TERRIBLE excuse for a film from a much older George Lucas.

What the "Great Director" (of five films, no less!) hath wrought is a 2-hour video commercial for his real business, toy and junk merchandising. There isn't a great moment in this film, and most of it is annoying (Jar Jar Binks, Jake Lloyd) or stupid (the ridiculous underwater city and its inhabitants). Was that really Oscar-nominated Liam Neeson talking to a flying blue insect, an unintelligible thing with a long tongue and Labrador ears, and a guy with a cool head tattoo and horns? Wow. It was amusing to see Samuel Jackson in a film where he didn't swear, but that's it. Oh, and the pod race with those ridiculous alien characters meant to recall the great chariot race in the second "Ben Hur"? I dozed. As I would expect any adult would, when an annoying eight year old kid is the center of the story, doing ridiculous things ("Gee, I don't know how I just blew up this space station and saved the world, but I better get outta here!").

All in, this film is an insult. One reviewer even said that he/she didn't really LIKE the characters, but had to see the film again to really understand it (as if multiple viewings will reveal more of WHAT ISN'T THERE). What a scam. I'm afraid to ask what films or influences are affecting those who wrote and said this was a good film. I found it embarrassing and insulting, and a poor example of craft from a guy who's had 20 YEARS to think up a better film that appeals more broadly to ADULTS and kids, as the original films did. All of the alien characters are ridiculous and highly unoriginal. A friend who saw "Phantom Menace" also noted that the special effects aren't that much better than the original films, either, and ILM is Lucas' real legacy to filmmaking. Sorry, but the reviewers are right. This film is MEDIOCRE AT BEST, and is really a subliminal message to buy junk. Save your money and see "The Mummy" or "Austin Powers", both of which are a hell of a lot more fun.

Rating: 1 out of 10.


I feel taken. There is no kinder way to put that. Preparing to see the prequel to some of the most epic films that have been made, I, along with most of the world, became excited at the prospect of a new chapter in the saga. A new chapter that promised to have both the charm and aura of the old while incorporating the new technology of the day. However, instead of the addition of new digital techniques to the epic story, we have the REPLACEMENT thereof.

Take, for instance, the idea of a completely digital character. In the words of Ian Malcolm, Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park, "Your scientists were so concerned with whether they could do it that they didn't stop to think if they should do it." Granted, Jar Jar ButtMonkey would have been far less intrusive (say, only as much as a proctological exam) were he not so abrasive and his voice less like the experience of simultaneously chewing aluminum foil and scraping your nails across a blackboard while a band of dwarven accordionists march in clockwise fashion around you playing an atonal interpretational montage of Bette Midler's greatest hits.

As far as the rest of the story goes, yes, the Pod Racing and the Light Sabre fight scenes are impressive, but they are not the story. They are simply moments. What we are left with after that is a weak attempt to recapture the audience that IV, V, and VI enthralled. On point, Lucas dialogue has always been ponderous, at best (revisit some of Princess Leah's lines from the originals if you disagree). In truth, he doesn't fail to return on that promise, but the lines do not come off with the same charm that the first movies held; indeed, how could they when the lines themselves are delivered with two-by-four accuracy? I submit the first scene between Amidala and Anakin in the shop of the slave-keeper. The scene is contrived, and the dialogue hollow. The characters are not talking to each other, they are making speeches at one another. Similarly, the scene that should make even the most ardent supporter of Lucas nod a tired nod of acceptance that, yes, this scene needed work: "I care for you." Any who have seen the movie know the scene I refer to and can hardly deny the malcontrusion of character and story that forced that line from Anakin prematurely in his relationship with Amidala.

I could go on: why try to scientifically explain the ability to use the Force; why demystify what had once been referred to as an "ancient RELIGION"? I don't mind the allegorical reference to the Christ story (anyone who could not see the parallels in the original movies was asleep), but I do not need the thinly vieled reference to mitochondria that serves as the basis for the most potent power in the universe. Just let it be. Let it be felt rather than explained.

My only hope, this film's only saving grace is that it is just a setup for II and III. However, maybe I have already seen II and III and don't know it. Maybe if I use the Lucas Plot-Planner 2000 I can come up with what is going to happen in those films before they are released...

Opening: Sinister scene showing ultimate evil-doers planning their ultimately evil things. Spice With: Chase scene (speeders, pod racers, etc.) Include: Yoda Climax: Light sabre duel (Vader and Obi Wan, Vader and Luke, Obi Wan and Darth Maul) or Death Star of some reincarnation.


I remember seeing this film in theatres the day it came out. I am a huge Star Wars fan, not some weirdo who dresses up in SW costumes, but someone who truly holds a special place in their heart for the original three films. After seeing this movie back when it was released, I remember being utterly disappointed by it. I also couldn't think of another film that was single-handly ruined by one single character like this movie is. Yes, Jar Jar Binks has to be the worst character, not only in the Star Wars universe, but in any film ever! Trust me, he's that bad. He ruins the movie completely. And he's not even a minor character, he has more screen time than Obi-Wan and Darth Maul! Give me a break Lucas. This is really a kids movie, very childish in so many ways. I just bought the DVD's of the all three prequels the other day. They were on sale. I watched Phantom Menace last night and my thoughts are still the same. Every time a scene would become interesting it was quickly ruined by horrible dialogue or acting, or Jar Jar would walk in. Perhaps the most intense scene of the movie, the Darth Maul/Jedi fight, if absolutely ruined by cutting the scene back to Jar Jar stumbling around. This movie was the biggest letdown. Yes, I was expecting a lot, but this is a really bad movie on its own, not connected to the other three films. The SFX were the only thing worth noting with this horror show. George Lucas should be ashamed of himself. This movie has a terrible plot, horrible acting, even worse dialogue, and almost NO character development. Don't waste your time.


The main line of defence seems to be: lighten up, it's just entertainment / just a kid's movie / just a special effects flick. Pausing awhile to note that people who run this line of defence have all but conceded that the film is, in fact, bad, let's take these points one by one - shall we?

As entertainment it's poor. Dialogue is flat and perfunctory (don't expect to be dazzled by repartee); the story lacks the beauty of the first Star Wars film and the tension of the second ... and then there's the magical `character development' everyone complains about. We must distinguish character development from character delineation. The former is nice, but the latter is absolutely essential, and it's the latter that's missing from `The Phantom Menace'. Jar Jar, the young Obi Wan, Darth Maul, Armidala, Annakin - all are scarcely characters at all, and are very difficult to get enthused about. Jar Jar in particular is a collection of mannerisms, nothing more. This lack of character doesn't just prevent the film from becoming the darling of the intellectuals - it makes it dull. There are hundreds more entertaining films. Only those people who entered the cinema carrying plastic light sabers, grimly determined to enjoy themselves, failed to notice this.

It's a kid's movie. Well, yes, in a sense - but not a good sense. Good children's movies form a proper subset of good movies - simply because adults have access to all childhood emotions and desires, but not vice versa. So in one sense a `kid's movie' is just a movie that can be understood and apperaciated by children (as well as adults). Is this a kid's movie in that sense? Maybe. But it's also a kid's movie in the bad sense: it's deeply witless, and inexperienced children might - I say, MIGHT - fail to notice just how witless it is. Children may - I say, MAY - ignore the fact that Jar Jar Binks is a deeply irritating non-character because he is all colour and movement and he speaks funny. Is this really all we want?

Special effects. These aren't so hot, either. George Lucas has fallen in love with computers and failed to notice that his digital animals don't move at all in the way that real animals move - worse still, they don't move like any kind of physical object at all. Nor do most of the alleged physical objects. Compare the trundling white juggernaut at the start of `Star Wars' - a convincingly solid model - with the insubstantial collection of pixels that darts past us at the start of `The Phantom Menace'. The special effects have actually deteriorated, and to make matters worse, there are more of them.

So the defence that `The Phantom Menace' is allowed to be a poor movie because it really wasn't trying to be something great in the first place, just won't wash. Especially so, given the ludicrous claims George Lucas has arrogantly made, again and again. So Jar Jar Binks is the first digitally created main character? Rubbish - the dragon in `Dragonheart' predates it (and, one might add, is at the very least a genuine character). So George Lucas is pioneering a new kind of filming-making, more like painting and less like photography, than the old? Absolute twaddle - Walt Disney did THAT in the 1930s. I'll tell you what IS new. Never before has there been so much sizzle, and so little sausage.


This film is but a feeble reflection of the vision and execution of the original Star Wars trilogy. In the company of Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor, two truly excellent trained actors, Natalie Portman sounds as if she's reading her lines off the side of a cereal box. Also, I think the only correct application of computer-generated effects in movies is as inconspicuous set elements, or perhaps to simulate something passing by which doesn't require the viewer to pay attention. Having a prominent supporting role filled by a being which only exists in a circuit board is an insult to the viewer. Each of the original 3 films made me want to see the next one in the series; this film made me NOT want to see the next one.


I will keep this short as I am sure there have been heaps of comments so I will break into things I did and didn't like about the film.

Things I liked

It was good to see some full Jedi in action not just a half trained Luke Skywalker

Darth Maul was cool but criminally underused

The light sabre duel at the end was awsome, however I do have a problem about the two Jedi ganging up on Maul it does not seem very noble

The planet effects were breath taking

Things I didn,t like

Wooden actors no emotion at all

Poor story

Special effects should be reserved for planet shots and space shots.They simply do not work on characters.Jar Jar and co looked like cartoon characters with no depth or weight to them at all.

Jar Jar Binks, say no more he sucks big time

I also discovered having read many comments from others on this page that many who liked this film were very offensive to those who did not,saying that they were not true Star Wars fans or did not get it. I am a long time Star Wars fan but I am not willing to say that anything George Lucas cranks out is the best thing since sliced bread. To wrap up on the whole most people liked the first three films, but with this one a great deal did, a great deal didn't, and some were indifferent and that I thinks tells the whole story.


... not much of a movie, really.

The good parts first: The special effects are great, and they really help you feel like you are in that galaxy far far away. Some of the actors are doing a good job, and the music is as good as always.

But, there really are too many flaws with this movie. Besides my personal preferences, such as finding jar-jar a major downside (is it just me, or did anyone else find his portrayal somewhat racist?), and it being too much of childrens movie, there are several unbiased (I hope) downsides with the movie.

Directing: Well, lets face it. Lucas is a great producer, and a good screenwriter, but he is a fairly crappy director. Compare for example the acting in Star Wars - a new hope, with The empire strikes back. While the first provides fairly flat characters, the same characters (and actors) really shine in Empire strikes back. Lucas should have stayed as producer, and not destroyed the acting with his mediocer directing skills.

Story: While delivering the main objective, flesh out the background of the trilogy we all have come to love, there are flaws in it. For example, Darth Maul would have been better left out. As it is now, we get to know _nothing_ about him. Who is he? Where does he come from? What is his motives (what does he want revenge for)? I also found the political system described majorly oversimplified (why did they need the queen to cast a vote of disconfidence) and, really, doesnt starting a war on a planet sound like a somewhat risky plan for a smart person like Palpatine? If all he needed was someone to request a vote of disconfidence, there really should be easier ways.

All in all, I think its an ok introduction to Star Wars, but on a scale from one to five, this movie doesnt deserve more then three.


When I first watched it, I thought it was one of the best movies I've ever seen. I mean, the story is great. I absolutely love the storyline. I still think so today. But as for the movie, that's another story.

I've read the mangas. I'm not exactly a big fan of CLAMP's work, but this one is the first that I got into with the mangas. I fell in love with one of the characters in the story name Subaru Sumeragi. Favorite character for obvious reason, but if you like any character other than Kamui or Fuuma, then you're in for the biggest disappointment if you watch this movie. OK, to get to the point, this is basically stuffing all the series of the manga into one movie. You won't have time to get to know the characters if you didn't know them already. You just won't get to. Well, they at least explain a bit of their purpose in life for a few seconds. Also, they failed to explain a lot of things about the movie, so that's another big disappointment. Er, and another big disappointment is that, they change some of the character's personality! ANOTHER big disappointment is that they didn't put some of the good story lines in the mangas into the movie. I know that doesn't seem like a big deal and I would like to give an example. There's this one character who loves another character from the other angel (they're enemies angels), but in the movie, they hate each other. So that's what I mean.

But wait, there's a good! The good is that the animation is great. Beautiful and artistic like all of CLAMP's work. It's realistic in animation, and the way it was done was just, wow. even though they lack everything else, but it was still nicely done in animation wise. Now if only the series was done the same way. Oh yeah, the music is great also.

Even though I like the story and how it was animated, I just didn't want to sit through it anymore. Once was enough. So I gave it a 4/10


When you find yourself skipping through large segments of a film just to arrive at something vaguely interesting, you know it doesn't have the longevity you want it to. X is decidedly niche which I believe to be a positive, but in its attempts to constrict a manga series down into the constraints of a mere ninety minutes, you know you're not going to create the desired effect, and you're more than likely going to end up with an equivalent to Evangelion Death&Rebirth without the extra something which makes you not skip forward large chunks.

I will state (and prepare for the negative backlash) that I have not seen, but would very much like to, the accompanying mangas and series, because there is something about X that lurks in the background amidst all the faults that is desperately trying to get out, and desperately trying to impress itself upon you as the viewer, but just doesn't quite make it. But is that enough? Given that the directors new of these time constraints, could they not have created a film which did not cater to those like myself that hadn't known anything about it, and just plunged you straight into the world? Too much time in X is wasted on idle dialogue which is disguised as plot development but is as tedious as reading an instruction manual on how to work your DVD player. Yes the explanation of the dragons (I will come to this shortly) is necessary but in the films opening five minutes two characters wage an all out mystical battle and eventually both fall. Now during this sequence they have unnecessary banter, I know this can be common place in manga but if you wish to produce a slick opening, trying to set these characters up as long time enemies who we should feel a connection for (because many reviewers have claimed theirs to be an epic rivalry) only to have them killed two seconds later is madness. There is no logic behind it. This leads me to think that perhaps this was a film specifically designed for those which have a great knowledge over the "X" saga, but I would have thought the directors would wish to be inclusive rather than exclusive (I refrained from using the inane 'X' pun).

There are positives however, one being the creepy Gothic animation which apart from being utterly unique in my experience lends itself to a creation of a sinister and severely dark overtone inevitably benefiting the film.The notion of the opposing forces of "good" and "different good" (I hesitate from saying 'evil') using the connotations of dragons, i.e. the good are the dragons of heaven who wish the world to continue seeing as it was "He" from Heaven that put them there versus the dragons of the earth who wish Mother Earth to regain her rule, is clever and again is unique. The means by which the dragons of heaven defend the planet through the usage of "shields" and the construct in which they work is also an absorbing premise as these sequences provide the high points but, unfortunately, it's not enough.

The trouble with films like X is the content they must squeeze into a shorter time span, it therefore is inevitable that chances are it will not succeed at being able to tell its story fully (try compressing Broken Saints into 90 minutes), and here is the issue. I'm privy to that the directors wanted to create this film regardless, but they needed to make a choice, either completely forgo the notion of trying to be exclusive and create a film entirely for fans of the saga disregarding all outsiders thereby pleasing the contingency of fans that have done the hard work, or the alternative. The second choice is that the directors must create a film which explains everything to everyone and be completely inclusive, they must lay the construct of their world bare on the table and let people try and come to comprehend their universe; and unfortunately they did a little of both, to no great success. I wanted this film to give me more, and if I now want it to I have to put in the hard work which after having viewed the film I don't particularly want to do, and to do it this way around isn't as much fun either. No puns about missing the mark, X not being where the treasure is or 'wordplay' about the film being Xtremely disappointing, it's simply a shame.


I am a huge admirer of the graphic novel series this adaption is built upon and really can recommend X-1999 by CLAMP to everyone for it truly is a masterpiece.

This film, however, was a complete waste of time and I cannot believe that CLAMP actually agreed on summing up the immense plot of the comic books in to one film that is not even two hours long. Because in my eyes it is not the apocalypse aspect which makes the series so absolutely amazing but the detailed characterization of each of the characters, which was here left out completely.

Even the artwork is unable to compete with the visual beauty of the original work.

This film left me completely unsatisfied!


Very boring and stupid. I fell asleep several times (but kept on being awoke by my constant nightmares). Summed up in one word, this film is crap! Why is it crap? Because they're is too much talking, and often just say the same kind of stuff that's already been said. Characters are seen to have amazing powers, but never even use them. The whole film is just about one event that is supposed to happen, when it does, its crap and lasts about 10 seconds. There is also a lot of pointless killing, and characters die before you even get to know them. If you want to watch a manga, watch Akira, and if you've seen it, watch it again.

Rating: 4/10


This movie is painfully bad. One presumes the authors are trying to make a statement about fate; instead they reduce their characters to automatons who behave meaninglessly.

This makes the movie, frankly, boring, and removes any reason to care about what happens to the characters. Furthermore, the fate that befalls the characters manages to be simultaneously hackneyed and absurd (a modest accomplishment, I suppose). If you are compelled to watch this, try to watch a version in a language you don't speak, so you can ignore the "story" and focus on the pictures. Better still, find some stills on the net and use those two hours of your life to do something interesting like cleaning the grout in your shower stall.


There's a lot of terrible anime, but I thought only good anime made it to North American theatres. Wrong.

I know nothing of the manga series, so I know nothing of what this was SUPPOSED to be about and am speaking on the movie as it stands on its own.

The film is a poorly-paced muddled mess. The english dubbing obviously took some liberties and chose to do a LOT of exposition. But only on the obvious stuff, not on the complicated themes. "The power-shield is crumbling!" as we watch a power shield crumble. The art was typical "big-eye" design, and the animation was typical pan-and-zoom limited stuff. Thoroughly unimpressive.

The characters were non-existent, and they spend the brunt of the film either talking terrible exposition at eachother or doing abstract battle with their non-descript mystic powers. They fly around in one shot, then worry about falling in the next. They hit eachother with waves of energy and bounce back, then hit each other with waves of energy and die. All done without any dynamic to the scenes or interesting FX.

The themes were almost interesting here and there, if they weren't so muddled and unconnected. The only interesting bit was the empathetic bad guys; they were fighting for the well-being of the earth at the expense of human-kind. But it was done without any grace, subtlety, or style. Do yourself a favour and watch Mononoke, which breaches the same subject with infinitely more texture and intelligence.


This movie is a typical example of something I see a lot in anime; a succession of fights strung together by some vague story. Some of the fights are pretty entertaining, what with the various characters interesting powers, but I saw it two days ago and I can barely even remember what happened, because the plot was so dull. No indication of any sort of intelligence or depth behind the really silly story, but more or less watchable.


X (Live Action) ---------------

 The idea behind 'X' is rather good. It is about the clashes of powers of Earth and heavens. Each of these are represented by Dragons of some sort, each dragon has a unique skill. The Dragons fight in Tokyo, as the earth dragons want to destroy humanity and let nature take over Earth as it once were. That pretty much sums it up. The animation of "X" is okay as well - the backgrounds are well done, and the characters are ... artistic. But unfortunately, these two elements combine into a horrible film. The characters lack character, the plot lacks story. Actually what kept me going was the question: "what am I watching this for, anyway?!".

 When you actually get to the end (yes, there is one!), you get very disappointed - the last and most important fight (that will determine the fate of Earth) lasts about 20 seconds. The dubbing (sorry, we had some subtitles issues) is awful. Everybody's yelling like they're half - conscious, there's no feel or a touch to it. Actually, the best thing about this title is that it ends and that I DON'T OWN IT. As this is based on a series, even the most fanatic fans should boycott this terrible motion picture... Total waste of time.


This movie has one of the worst dubs I have ever heard! The dialog reminded me of a poorly translated kung fu movie! The animation is not very good compared to other anime from the same time period. If you are a fan of the manga and haven't seen the TV series, do yourself a favor and check it out instead of this. Watching is movie, is just a waste of time!


I usually enjoy anime, but could make no sense out of this confused, muddled mess of a film. Things explode, characters are hacked to pieces, blood flies everywhere, buildings collapse, the scenario switches from reality to a dream state and back again with no clear delineation. The English dubbing is terrible to the point of distraction, with many "huh?" exclamations eminating from the characters, interspersed with a lot of yelling and grunting. I was strongly tempted to switch it off after the first 15 minutes, but hung on until the end in the hope that it would get better. My mistake. By the time the end credits rolled, I was numb to the whole thing and did not have any idea what I had just watched. "X" is a terrible film, and a gross waste of time.


This was some pseudo-intellectual director's lame attempt at putting to celluloid a pseudo-intellectual playwright's lame attempt at a shocking and controversial play. In the end what you get is a snorefest that easily affords the viewer a lovely two-hour nap. When Miss Julie began I thought to myself, "Thank goodness the WHOLE movie couldn't possibly be THIS boring. If it were, I'd be very angry at the loss of three bucks it took to rent it!" An hour and a half later, I was indeed irate at the loss of my three bucks; I could have put better use to the money by plunking twelve quarters into an arcade machine or a stuffed animal crane. At least if I had wasted that money on the crane I might have taken away something warm and fuzzy with me. There is NOTHING warm and fuzzy about this movie. Mind you, a movie doesn't have to be happy to be good, but in the world of movies worth watching it DOES have to be entertaining! Entertainment is the LAST word you can use to describe this movie! I have been greatly entertained by Miss Burrows in the past. I cannot say this was one of those times. Her acting was passable at most. She seemed to be high on marijuana, not drunk on homemade hooch. Mr. Mullan was melodramatic in his role of an ambitious footman, and to make him the "romantic" lead in the process was just hysterical! A serious bit of miscasting took place when they filled the role of Jean. He was too enthusiastic in areas where he should have been subdued and he was FAR TOO SUBDUED in areas where he should have shown fire and passion. I know the script is horrible, but if you're going to commit to a bad screenplay, commit to it! I'd comment on the other characters, especially the role of Christine (played by Maria Doyle Kennedy) but what's the point? They all just added to the horror that was MY WASTED THREE BUCKS!!!! In short, consider this my public service announcement to you. Do NOT let go of your hard-earned cash to rent this movie! There are simply no redeeming qualities to it! It's depressing for the sake of being depressing, not for the sake of the storytelling. It's not artsy, it's not independent, it's just CRAP!


MISS JULIE is a film based on a play written by August Strindberg and directed by Mike Figgis . Strindberg was of course a Swedish dramatist who was famous for his unconscious predictions . One of his plays featured a Japanese character called Hiroshima who wanted to be burned alive and watching MISS JULIE any self respecting audience member will notice that the plot predates DH Lawrance's LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER . This may make the story groundbreaking but it doesn't make it entertaining , erotic or interesting . In fact Figgis seems to have made a pig's ear of the whole thing by casting Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan as the two protagonists of the story . Burrows is tall , slim and elegant while Mullan is a wee middle aged Scottish guy and the two of them make one of the most unlikely screen couples ever committed to celluloid and their lust filled relationship is very difficult to believe in . Figgis also fails to make the movie cinematic with most of the (in )action taking place inside a kitchen save for a few scenes in a studio exterior . It should also be pointed out that because it's a stage play the dialogue is very important but due to some very poor sound mixing it's almost impossible to hear what the actors are saying . Not that is unforgivable


Movies from unreadable books for unwatchable movies was said during the movie True Romance. This hits the mark! It is more of a play then a movie. In this respect, it sould never had been made into a movie. A short play made into a long movie. At least in the moive we know they had sex, but in the play you have to guess. It is hard watching Jean act like a jurk for that long of a time. 3 out of 10


This was a play that was turned into a really lousy movie. There was no plot, the camera work was horrible, and it was horribly boring. None of the actors had the least bit of appeal. I wasted my money by renting this, so don't waste yours too.


some nice bodies, cars as well as females. writing is horrible. the acting is even worse. if you want a soft core porn, then this movie might work for you. tried to copy the "Fast And The Furious" car racing style, but writing doesn't pull it off. the characters don't make you believe them. without the sex, this movie would have been a one. horrible, utterly horrible. whoever put up the cash to make this movie is definitely visiting a shrink daily! The writing is horrific, thank god they had a few pretty females that get naked often! the ins and outs of the racer and the team owners conflict opponent show that when bad writing hits, not even a tried and true money maker can make money. A total waste of time. The director needs to go back to film school and learn more techniques.


I didn't know what the movie was all about, I thought it was just some plain racing like The Fast and the Furious, and if I am not mistaken, this was released by Universal or something. The movie starts with some one liners, but you don't really see any action pertaining to street racing. The only action you are going to see is the action between a male and a female character. I wish they categorized this more clearly. Having had watched porn before (who hasn't?) I can easily notice that the settings weren't exactly "cheap" but porn settings nonetheless. The lighting was good and the acting wasn't all that bad. There are no close up s of the genital areas and no "cum shots". Kind of annoying really, but at the same time, it is also entertaining.


I watched this movie not so much for Rosalind Russel, but for Regis Toomey ("The Big Sleep" and "Guys and Dolls"). I barely made my way through this film. It was painful to watch. And like a train wreck, I could not stop watching, hoping it would get better.

Jo McBain is an incredibly stuck-up blue-blood aristocratic ..um.. twit. She spends most of the movie with her nose high in the air, all but sh*tting on her black servants. I so wanted to smack her hard several times in the film.

I would think that if a recruit showed that much insolence and insubordination that she showed the WAC NCOs and officers, she'd be thrown in the brig until her attitude got adjusted.

And don't get me started on Clara Schneiderman and Sgt. Norbert Jackson! She was insufferable, and he desperately needed a knee in the groin every time he said or did something patently offensive.

Yes, I know the movie is a product of its time and reflects the then-mainstream sensibilities. I've seen other old (read: black and white) films that were not nearly as offensive and painful to watch. This film needs to be watched with more than just a grain of salt, you need an entire container of Morton's.


Blue Car is an interesting movie for our times. I left the movie with much to think about. Initially, I thought better for it. However, in the end I could not get over the fact that the lead character does illegal acts voluntarily and without any regrets later. Somehow the audience is expected to forget such bad choices and feel empathy or sympathy. The movie does portray a world that is now so very complicated in the raising of children, but the writer needs to move beyond mere events and situations. Young people growing up in even the worst conditions have made heroic efforts that are more deserving to have their stories told.


Blue Car is a political film disguised as a character study. It reaffirms our prejudices without clarifying the characters' underlying motivations. (Spoilers) Why are we not surprised at Auster's lack of restraint? Do we assume that any man given the opportunity will use it to full advantage? This is actually the theme of a film made in 1962, Term of Trial, staring Laurence Olivier as the teacher. Term of Trial does not explore the indiscretion, rather it examines our expectation of it. There are thousands of teachers in close proximity of young nubile teens, yet indiscretion is not rampant. You might argue that this is a portrait of just one teacher, but why are we not provided any examination of Auster's motives or character flaws? Auster is not a predator. There is no indication that he has "ruined" other students. Other than helping Meghan gain the opportunity to compete he makes no other arrangements to seduce her, their encounter is by chance. Then what is it that motivates Auster to make the wrong choice? I would suggest that it is not Auster's choice, rather it's the Moncrieff's choice (and Ebert's bias). In the commentary, Moncrieff discusses how uncomfortable the actors felt with the scene and the location. Given what we know about Auster, I believe that he would have felt the same. Realist films should strive for psychological consistency, not moralistic formalism. I love allegories like the Piano, in which the characters are abstractions, but I don't appreciate Realist presentations that provide us with false or underdeveloped characters who simply reinforce our existing prejudices. Not to mention the film's cover photo, which promotes the same type of sexual exploitation we are expected to find abhorrent. If you are interested in Feminist films with complex characters that are more than mere moral contrivances try Lizzie Borden's Love Crimes, but be forewarned that it's more likely to offend your social values than Blue Car.


this movie was horrible. Or *is* horrible, I should say, as I'm sure it is still playing at a theatre near you.

Basically--and yes I need a new paragraph for this--I simply can't stand it when a movie is not a movie, but instead a stock car race of plot vehicles vrooming around a track, racing to get to the great, meaningful, dramatic, thematic finish. To wit: the mother of the poetess, whom we see only rarely in the first thirty-five minutes, comes off as a mostly absent entity whose only purpose is to arrive home waaay late every night and give our long-suffering hero a hard time for not taking proper care of her little sister (read: yet another obstacle for our poet hero to overcome on her way to heartfelt expository writing). Vroom. And as for that little sister, let me tell you what *she* does: she looks forlorn, cuts herself, starves herself, looks forlorn and hungry, acts like an angel on the altar in the middle of church, passes out during said performance, dot dot dot, and finally jumps out her psych ward window to her death (and if you think I'm being callous then that's because you didn't see the film's eleven second treatment of her death). Vroom, as we race on towards the making of a real teen poet.

And then the teacher.... Okay, at one point he puts a gold star on her forehead. Which is all I'll say, except for: vroom goes the confusing adult world car.

And the poetry? And the excerpts from the brave teacher's leather bound novel? Hai ram--if you appreciate literature or poetry, if you have any respect for the craft of writing, then you will most likely wince at the trickling treacle that is served to us as (presumably) exemplary writing.

Is it too much to ask for real characters? Too much to ask for characters that do more than emotively mope, but tell us *why* they are so sullen? Is it really so bothersome to spend the extra fifty hours writing good dialogue, to actually reach down within yourself--as this movie, by the way, pedantically tells us to do--to come up with real feelings and real people and not just their sit-com approximations? Because please, all I'm asking for are two true hours, a darkened interstice of theatrical time when I don't for once have to slap my knee with a rolled up paper, clap my palm to my forehead in an exclamatory wince because I've just been suckered again.


This movie features two of my favorite actors in Kilmer and Downey. It also boasts the always enjoyable Larry Miller in a too-small part. Despite this I found it to be nearly unwatchable. Michelle Monaghan may be pretty but she is nearly charisma free and the reasons for Downey's character's obsession with her character is not at all understandable in terms of the information the film presents or the way it's portrayed. The ending seems pretentious and though the intention seems to be that the audience should join in the nod and wink the film, having failed to bring us in on the side of its protagonists leaves us unwilling or unable to do so.

Fans of the film say that those who disagree simply "don't get it". I don't think this is so. The plot was not complicated or beyond understanding. It was simply uninvolving and clumsily and obviously manufactured. I "got it". I just didn't like it. Paddy Breathnach's "I Went Down" and Guy Ritchie's "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" are much better realized examples of the kind of film-making that director Shane Black fails to achieve.

I share a birthday with Shane Black but a look at his credits (mostly as a screenwriter)makes me want to dissociate myself from any other connection.


Like in many of their previous movies twins again failed at their latest attempt to portray themselves as serious actors.

Like many of their past movies only true twins fans can really enjoy this movie that lacks a decent plot line. Jaycee Chan (son of Jackie Chan) makes his first and only appearance to date in a film and after seeing his poor performance I recommend that he stick with music.

The only bright part to this poorly made movie is the small appearance of Jackie Chan to add some flavour to this movie.

To all the twins fans out their you would probably enjoy this but to all the other serious movie goers I would not really recommend it.


This film reminded me of Halloween 3. Remember? The third film that had nothing to do with the continuing storyline of Michael Myers. Thats pretty much what this film does... takes the same title from an entertaining first film and slaps it onto a film with a completely different story.

Apparently, the Twins Effect films are not supposed to have any continuity because it's just a franchise vehicle to market these popular HK twin celebrities. Which is sad, because the first film was entertaining. This film is just strange and more so comedic. In laymens terms, women have taken over the world and an evil woman sorcerer wants to change all the remaining men in the world into women as well. I honestly found myself fast forwarding a lot in this film because I kept getting so disinterested with the plot. Which upsets me because I love HK films and rarely do that. I even bought this film based on the fact I loved the first one... but I'm sadly selling it off. It's not that much of a keeper. This film has only one good scene, the cameo fight scene with Jackie Chan. Which you can find that entire fight online somewhere without having to watch this film.


I am a pretty big martial arts fan. Unfortunately I usually don't buy any movies without seeing them or doing a little research on them. I'm embarrassed to say that I bought it based on the cool box....I saw Donnie Yen and Jackie Chan on the cool cover so I thought there was no loosing with this DVD. Boy was I wrong. This must be the lamest and most boring movie I have seen in the past years. The plot sucks, the action sucks, the scenery sucks...its just SUCKS! If you see this movie thinking that you're going to see Donnie Yen and Jackie Chan you're mistaken...they have minimal roles in this film. About 5 minutes combined.....4 for Donnie and 1 for Jackie. BUUUUUUUUUUU


What a terrible film, i think Jackie Chan's sons career has ended before it even began. He's just retarded in comparison to his father, uglier, has no style, has no ability, is more sickening rather than cute... Storyline was awful. The twins although looking good, just don't make up for the poor movie, unfunny comedy scenes, strange characters for the given actors. I dunno whether the storyline was supposed to be funny or serious in that fact that the evil queen was turning men to women... a wasted all start cast in a flop of a movie. Worth watching just to see how bad it is. The movie looked fun to make, but it sure was no fun to watch.


When I saw the trailer of "Fa Dou Daai Jin", I found it very attractive, with many special effects, wonderful landscapes and a nice cast and I decided to watch this movie on video. Unfortunately the screenplay is very silly and confused, never working as a comedy or an action movie. The acting is awful, especially Charlene Choi and her constant smile and Jaycee Chan. The name of Jackie Chan in the credits is only to attract his fans and sell the movie, since he has a very short participation of a few minutes. In the end, I found this boring movie a complete mess and waste of time. Directors Patrick Leung and Corey Yuen should know that a great budget and special effects alone do not make a good movie. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "A Dinastia da Espada" ("The Dynasty of the Sword")


This movie tried really hard to be a good little gay themed movie and coming of age film in general but it was done in by its flaws. The actors were all excellent, especially the two brothers, but I never believed they were in High School. And that's where the problems with this started. They seemed more like college frat brothers. It was as though the screenwriter/director forced everything to fit what was written, which causes the viewer to go, "Huh?"...When the viewer starts going "Huh?" you've got problems. And by the end, the "Huhs?" started coming fast and furious. The film started reaching for emotional moments it hadn't really earned because they'd never been established during the story and then it tried to cover way too much ground following Dorian from High School to college (in Greenwhich Village yet, where he manages to keep away from men for two years! Please!). The other major problem was the characterizations of the parents. The father was such an unrelenting asshole and the mother was such a zombie you just couldn't become emotionally involved in the family plot lines. Seriously, these boys could've given the Menendez brothers a run for their money with parents like that. Actually, the guy who played the dad used to be on the soap "One Life To Live". He played Brad the tennis pro who raped his sister-in-law, the ex-prostitute, played by Judith Light...which is weird, since she's so involved in the Gay Rights Movement. Interesting.


This film doesn't even deserve one star.

The writing is horrendous, the plot is directionless and the story has been done and done much much better. Visually it's hideous.

Basically it's the old case of "the original stuff wasn't good and the good stuff wasn't original" except there really wasn't anything good at all about this film.

The character of Dorian must be one of the most painful protagonists ever. He's not endearingly weird or even dorkily cute, he's just hopeless and the brother isn't much better, he just has better social skills. There's no character arc at all. You just hope Dorian dies alone and his brother has a drug overdose. Maybe he did actually, I don't even remember.

It's not comedy-drama because it's not funny and it's not a drama because it's laughable. Tragic tragic tragic and completely cringeworthy.


I saw the premier for this movie in Dallas. I love Tim Reid, but I was disappointed in this movie. I thought that the romance between him and a teen was disgusting and took what could have been a really nice movie to an all time low.


I was not expecting much of this movie. Unfortunately, I was not disappointed. This movie started out with a bad script. And the direction was very poor. I have read the English adaptation of the original play by Giradoux and I have seen the musical "Dear World" based on the stage play. Too many characters were added to the screenplay, and too much dialog was removed. The director wasn't sure whether it was a drama or a comedy or a tragedy or a farce. Or maybe he thought it was all of the above. I watched it with someone who did not know the story and she was totally lost. Hopefully this will not make it onto DVD. I can't imagine any company wasting the money on such a project.


... it's difficult to conceive of a way in which this film doesn't fail, be it the writing, the acting, the direction, the lead girl's lisp and eyebrows or the music. My God, especially the music.

Strangely banned in the UK until 2002, I picked this up in a bargain bin for £1 after thinking it looked dreadful and fancied a night of junk viewing. I wasn't disappointed, the only remaining mystery being why it was banned in the first place. Far from being shocking or distressing, it's merely flaccid and irrelevant.

In many ways Curfew is like a "Funny Games" with all the wit, talent and inspiration taken out. However, the exploitative elements lack any real meaning and are showcased in a generic, derivative plot. This very 80s movie really is the bottom of the heap and completely devoid of any merit, other than the fact that it ends.


Pretty stupid and totally insignificant no-budget thriller that looks an awful lot like a typical late 80's slasher... but isn't one! Oh sure, high-school jocks and slutty girls are getting killed but that's just pointless padding to increase the body count and sleaze-level. The actual story handles about two criminal brothers that travel towards a little community with the intention to kill everybody that was jointly responsible for their prison sentence: the judge who spoke the verdict, the psychiatrist who declared them mentally sane and  of course  the prosecutor who said all those nasty things about them being evil and such. The prosecutor, along with his wife and yummy Demi Moore look-alike daughter are held hostage and their only chance to survive is for the young girl to set the murdering siblings against each other. The script contains one or two creative ideas, but "Curfew" is overall tedious and without suspense. Actors John Putch and especially Wendell Wellman try incredibly hard to look like genuine bad boys, but they really don't convince and they often evoke unintentional laughs. There's a lot of killing going on, but we're only served a glimpse of the action and all the rest happens off screen. Lame! In my humble opinion, there are much better horror gems from the 80's waiting to get discovered properly, so I have absolutely no idea why this turkey received a DVD-release before any of them. Feel free to skip this one


One of Adult Swims bumpers called TGTTM, "...the most polarizing s@% of a b!#*$^ we've ever aired", and they weren't just trying to polish a turd by labeling it controversial. I simultaneously love and hate this show. While it was on, I couldn't wait for them to cancel it because I somehow knew that I'd like it more in hindsight. I didn't like it as a straight-up comedy, but it grew on me once I learned to see it as partly horror. The show follows the Tom Peters, the nicest, most normal guy on earth. He's just moved to Jefferton to try and make a living while making the world a better place, in spite of the town being populated mostly by degenerate mutants bent on torturing him to death, his new wife and 3 stepsons chief among them. Other viewers will call "mutants" an exaggeration, but the fact that only Tom was concerned about the town being completely submerged from a broken dam in "Bass Fishin'" makes me think Jefferton was a mid-western Innsmouth. As much as I hated the first season, I respected it for its uniqueness and took in every episode. And since seeing it, I've seen more and more things in everyday life that bring the show to mind, convincing me that it really has captured the zeitgeist, from the nightmare of finding a decent job in suburban America, to the stupidity and pretentiousness of local news programming and advertising in general. It also captures awkward moments without fixating on it like Seinfeld. The funniest parts are little commercials and visual gags, like trough-style breakfast-flavored instant meals, satirizing how fat we're allowing ourselves to get in the States. The basic pattern of each episode involves something terrible happening to Tom, usually the entire town turning on him because he was the only one sane enough to foresee and try to prevent something terrible from happening. The Mayor normally tries to help Tom, either accidentally of intentionally worsening the catastrophe of the week. So the recurring theme of the show's humor is misanthropy. Now, this next statement might only convey that I've been spoiled by living a nice, sheltered life in a first world country, but the reason this doesn't work is that misanthropy is only funny when people are randomly slaughtered left and right (Robot Chicken). The stuff that happens to Tom on the other hand seems so plausible that it's more horrifying than anything. The Porcelean Birds episode in particular put the entire 18-35 demographic on suicide watch for a half hour after it first aired. The show gets the viewer to empathize with Tom so strongly, that in the second season, when several stories see Tom accidentally kill and maim much of Jefferton, it became truly cathartic and hilarious, partly because Tom is the last guy on earth who'd hurt a fly, yet he truly deserves to eviscerate every last Jeffertonian. I actually laughed aloud at "Jeffy" when Tom, piloting a fake sea serpent, crushed several boatloads of people, and later (though not the last episode), we get our happiest moment as Tom is finally granted the sweet release of death, and takes half the town with him. Sure it implies he goes to Hell, but at this point it's been made clear to us that any Hell would be a step up from his life in Jefferton. Since cancellation, "Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job" has shown that their sense of humor is more suited to A.D.D. sketch comedy (Robot Chicken again), though I'm still sometimes at a loss as to whether I want to laugh of just smack them. Still, Tom is so adept at messing with your emotions while mocking our society that it's worth watching once. And if nothing else, it makes other unpleasant but good entertainment more enjoyable. Try watching "New York Ripper" right after an episode.


I have seen this show three times, the first time was because I was flicking through channels and I thought it was a really stupid commercial. I soon realized that it was in fact a TV show, and I could not believe that it was possible to have a show this awful on television. The second time I watched the show was again out of disbelief because I still thought it was an animated short whipped up by the network during a commercial break. The jokes are not funny, too much live acting, and no story makes this show the perfect recipe for failure that any creator/producer would have nightmares about being part of. The third time was because I knew that it was an actual show by now, and I realized that there must be an audience. So, I sat through it to see what was great about it. I didn't laugh once; there was no story, no plot, nothing! Not even any animation! It's like someone just took pictures of each page in a children's book with illustrations, and recorded themselves reading it, and then called it an animated production. However, a children's book has a plot, and effort.

I am not exaggerating the slightest bit here, if you don't believe me, watch it for yourself. It was obviously bad enough that I went out of my way to make an account on this website, just so I could comment on how appalling this show is. Watch it for yourself, and if you have any appreciation for animation, you'll make an account on here too.

Someone please start a petition to get this show canceled so that real animated productions can take its place!


I've heard from a lot of people that this show is hilarious. But every time I watch it, it's not funny. Sure, there's some chuckles here and there, but for the most part it's slow, boring, and too weird and silly for my tastes. And I like some crazy stuff (like most of the stuff on Adult Swim), too. So am I missing the point of this show? Is it too high brow for me? Is it too funny to be good? Is it too good to be funny? Is it meant to be weird, but not funny? Is it not meant to be "ha-ha" funny, but satire? I don't know, but I do know that it's not funny when I watch, not funny afterward, and not funny before. So if I'm missing the point of this show, sorry. But it's just not humorous at all. Every time I watch it, I just end up asking myself "What the hell is wrong with this show?"


This show is appalling. It features sub par animation, as well as sub par writing. Now I know this show probably equates its self to a modern day Pythagorean Z, but at least Pythagorean held the audience in thrall with Rick Bakers stunning dialogue. This show is a disfigurement on the cartoon network as a whole, not just Adult Swim. The chance of seeing an advertisement for "Tom goes to the Mayor" was a risk I was willing to take to view other programs, but eventually I was forced to change the channel every time the show came on. Unfortunately it has gotten so bad now I do not even bother to watch Adult Swim on Sundays anymore so there is no chance of me being subjected to the travesty.


And that was funnier than any single moment on this show. I mean the nail came back and all but for like four months it was exposed. I wish this show would go he way of my original toenail -- thrown away in a dirty tube sock.

This certainly can;t be considered funny by anyone -- can it? I mean it's like the kid in your 7th grade class who sings songs into his dad's tape recorder, then he brings them to school and he laughs while the rest of the class just sits there feeling pity and shame for hating someone so much, knowing he's trying to bring laughter to the world, but to spend so much time on something so inconsequential feels karmonically wrong.


can't give it a zero, bad acting, no plot and too much subversive homosexuality,CANCEL THIS CRAP..........other shows on as are funny but I think that this is one of those where you have this friend on the inside and he gets your show on.There promos are not funny and the show is dumb and choppy. Too much junk like 12oz mouse with no plot, adult swim is good for some laughs but only when the show actually spends some money on production and writing. Tim and eric? who cares about you and jefferton, cross dressing isn't funny anymore, HINT HINT SNL. there's a message in this show, I hope there is no third season, Bill Cosby did better with a roller.


Although this movie undoubtedly is not of any great quality it has stuck with me more than most movies. In the fifteen years since I saw it I have retained not only the broad plot, but some incidentals as well. So what was it that made it all stick with me? Quite simply the heroine Kathleen Quinlan, and not really her per say but the fact that she "saves the day" not her male counter lead. I had never seen a movie, and don't remember many since, that have strong male and female leads where it is the female that gets the glory moment at the end of taking down the protagonist. Sure there are movies with strong female leads that save the day but more often than not if there is a strong male lead beside them, the man gets that honor - not the woman, regardless of her characters strengths, and opportunities to do so. This is probably a sad way to remember a movie, by what so many other movies lack, but despite Trapped's obvious flaws this is something in its credit


This movie Is bad. In the movie they never explained why the killer was killing. I mean, granted he was a psycho but even psychos need reasons, rational or not. and i think that they had john doe and her boss act too creepy. I never trusted their motives. Throughout the movie i am trying to figure out the plot, I was reading too much into it. This movie is way shallow but it has potential if they ever re-did it. it seems like the editors, in haste, cut the plot to fit the time slot. but it is very edgy. i think someone should re-do it.


I hate this movie. It is a blatant attempt to rip off "Die Hard", and fails miserably. Some guy is in a building killing everyone. We don't know anything about him, we don't know his motivation, he just apparently wants to kill people. So we have a woman trapped in a building with a killer and MONKEYS. And all this has to fill a couple of hours. The plot has serious credibility problems, and the ending is stupid and pointless. Avoid this movie unless you have seen all the other movies about people trapped in a building. Even Anna Nicole Smith's "Skyscraper" is better.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


A movie this dumb should never see the light of day. The acting is lame, the violence is just all over the place, the sneaking ending is just plain stupid.

It's all about a lawyer who saw a murder done by the R.I.C.C.O. squad. No one has never seen him, not even the hit men themselves. So he and a beautiful lady are on the run trying to find the leader of this R.I.C.C.O. squad, before they find them.

Then the movie goes on to a romance, gun shooting, and voodoo. Now how in the hell did voodoo come in this. Never see this film if your life depends on it. Trust Me!!!!!!!!


R.I.C.C.O. is the STUPIDEST film ever made. I can't believe my father bought this crap. This film should da never got made. If this film was wide known, trust me it will be on the #1 spot for IMDB's worst.The acting is horrible it's scary,which it is why it's horror. This piece of s*** had no horror in at at all. It's an urban action,which is funny, because I could of swore it was a comedy. When people got shot I couldn't help but laugh. I am the only person who reviewed this and I hope that I am the last. With this vote only I hope it make it to the #1 spot at the worst!!!!!!!


There is nothing worse than a presumptuous movie that tries to be what it is not, in this case something smart, profound, intense and thrilling. This movie is exactly the opposite.

Roth, an actor I truly like, seems to go along with the sleepy mood and not even when he kicks the bad guys on the balls he seems to wake up. Ormond drags herself along the screed with an expression on her face as if she had been born preoccupied.

I seldom saw a so bad editing, precipitated and hurriedly. The plot line stays horizontal throughout the entire film and you are carried from mood to mood without any reasonable connection. For half a hour nothing happens and suddenly they are on a bathroom floor making intense love (very pathetic) like Rourke and Basinger in Nine 1/2 Weeks. 15 minutes later the relationship is assaulted by doubt and drama. If this was not enough, in the last third of the movie they inject under pressure some parallel story inside the prison that undermines and overshadows the already undermined relationship between Roth and Ormond, which focus on nothing really and ends with some pathetic shooting scene at the end.

C'mon, give me David Cronenberg and his smooth story telling, where suspense and mood reach the climax so slowly and so perfectly. Perhaps in his hands, this move could have lived to be something decent.

Well, a very very bad movie. To be avoided at all costs, unless of course, you need desperately to get some sleep.


Invasion from Inner Earth - I know it's slow moving but it does have a certain charm I attribute it to ITO's eerie synthesizer score. early seventies style, bad acting, desolate location make it worth checking out on a snowy winters night.College students on some sort of field trip are trapped in their guides cabin try and figure out why they can'receive any outside communication,after much speculation they figure it must be an alien invasion.after two attempts to get help (one gets blown up in a plane the other just disappears on his snowmobile ) the rest brave the elements and try and make it to safety.In a confusing ending the remaining two make it to a town see a flying saucer and turn back into children . Beware of the red light!


in that the ending makes no sense whatsoever.

This film is parsecs away better than, say, Highlander 2 or UFO: Target Earth, but it doesn't have the naive charm of Rebane's Monster A Go-Go. It was just a mediocre SF film until the ending ... very seventies in characterization ... but with no real hints as to the real motivations of the "invaders", the ending makes no sense. If an invading force is killing everyone, why create (and I assume the invaders created them) a new Adam & Eve from the last two survivors from the lodge? I liked the claustrophobic feel of the lodge, and the presentation of the story came close to having the same feel of something like Night of the Living Dead or Invisible Invaders. But on the theme and story as a whole, it really wasn't pulled off right ... we the audience just didn't get the information we needed to figure things out either before or with the characters.


Want a movie with no action at all? Here it is, another Bill Rebane (Monster-a-go-go, Giant Spider Invasion), schlock-fest, boring beyond the limits of human tolerance. I'm a big fan of "so-bad-they're good" movies, since they are at least enjoyable on the level of invoking laughter from the unintentional humor; however, this one does not even achieve enjoyable camp status. It just annoys you.

Any "action" in this movie occurs off screen, and is conveyed through non-stop dialog throughout this tedious sleep-inducing dud. People blab on radios, aliens (with booming voices) chit-chat on radios, characters drone on endlessly to each other (without saying much), and on and on it goes. The most "exciting" sequence involved some colorful smoke bombs, with people screaming and running (away from the smoke?). Also, there's a plague (again, we only are told this through the babbling characters). Oh, and there's some irritating, synthesized noises in the soundtrack to tell you that something happens (since it doesn't happen on the screen, like it would in other movies).

There's plenty of ridiculous dialog; here's a sample: when a know-it-all guy theorizes (ready?) that Mars and the Earth were once closer to each other than the Earth and the moon are. The planets were aligned this way for over two thousand years, he lectures. How the five planetary bodies (Earth, its moon, Mars, and its two moons) did not crash into one another due to the immense, mutual gravitation, was not explained in the lecture.

That's about all there is to this, except a bizarre ending reminiscent of another Rebane fiasco, Monster-a-go-go. I don't know if MST3K ever slammed this one; they certainly should have. Even their best salvos might not have saved it, however. This mess deserves a negative rating, but, as you know, IMDb's rules prohibit that; which, in the case of this movie, is a pity.


About 10 minutes in to this movie, I actually thought it might be a bit of fun. I was expecting a low-budget version of THE THING (1951), as an unseen (due to budget restrictions) alien menace stalks and offs the stupid people in the snowbound cabin, starting with the annoying rich guy. (They are killed eventually, but it takes FAR TOO LONG.) Or maybe a killer virus flick like THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN or the made for TV flick WHERE HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE GONE? Oh, how naive I am.

First of all, the alien IS seen, but is a red flashlight beam shined on the wall. As another commentator said, ow. Better that NOTHING at all were seen; just ask anyone who saw THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. The disease IS represented by smoke bombs going off. So what's going on? Aliens or a killer virus? They decide after FAR too much sitting around and talking that aliens have launched the virus. Then more pseudo scientific theorizing and discussion about what they should do, with occasional acid flashback inserts.

The most crazed part that no one else seemed to comment upon were the interludes at the local radio stations, where the announcers seem FAR TOO LAID BACK. "Oh well, hey a disease is killing thousands of people at once, oh well, back to the music..." Then the TV news segment which, unbelievably, offers what I believe to be intentional comic relief as two dopplegangers for Ma and Pa Kettle are interviewed on TV at 2 o'clock in the morning about their sighting of a UFO and subsequent abduction. Then the comic relief scene with the drunk guy at the bar?? Save me, please.

As I said, I judged MANOS: THE HANDS OF FATE far too harshly. This sucker makes MANOS seem like a masterwork. And for that matter, director Bill Rebane's subsequent foray into Wisconsin film artistry, THE GIANT SPIDER INVASION, is a work of Eisenstein or Kurosawa compared to this lummage. At least GSI had real actors in it.

Oh, yeah, the music: BLOWS HARD. Really awful analog synthesizer music. Now, I like early synthesizer music. Give me a Perrey and Kingsley record and I'm a happy man. But this was awful stuff. Really piercing. And I recognized some of the music recycled to/from Giant Spider Invasion.

One more note: this plot could not be written today. "Oh my God, we're isolated and cut off from the world! What's going on? Are thousands of people really dying? We have no possible way of knowing!" "No problem, I'll just look on the CNN web site..."

I can't give INVASION FROM INNER EARTH a 1 because I actually watched the whole movie. Like watching the aftermath of a brutal traffic accident, I JUST COULDN'T LOOK AWAY. But you may require the use of various liquid refreshments just to get through it. I warned ya.


How can one write a script and produce a movie without one entertaining moment. Film is supposed to be visual in nature and this has people sitting around talking the whole time. And it's no "My Dinner with Andre." Something is killing the people of earth. It's spreading. Some people, trapped in some pretty cold environs (Canada?) are left to try to figure it out. That's all they ever do. Try to figure it out. They have no plan. They have no vitality. The aliens never confront them, to speak of, and so we don't even know what's going on. The outdoorsy scientist has a theory, but it could just be a bunch of hooey. The conclusion is about as stupid as anything I've seen in years. How could someone get the money to put together such a snoozer. If you can't compete with the big boys, at least tell a decent story. As with so many of these, there are long treks through the snow and a snowmobile trip that goes for about ten minutes with nothing happening.


Strange gas erupts from the earth and mysterious red lights appear out of nowhere, causing the world's population to slowly die off as this unknown menace moves from the North & South Poles toward the equator. The main part of the story focuses on 5 folks in the woods and how they deal with the situation. How? By talking...and talking...and talllllllking. Somehow one guy into UFOs lets everyone else know it is UFOs because, well, he is into UFOs and knows aliens from Mars moved into Earth's core 8,000 years ago. Good lord Rebane, what are you thinking? Even if this has a germ of a good idea, the execution is so terrible that nothing can be forgiven. Not even the cool, snowbound setting. I can take cheap any ol' day, but not cheap and boring. The only thing that kept me amused was that this uses the same theme from James Bryan's LADY STREET FIGHTER. Well, I was amused until I remembered that theme was stuck in my head for weeks after LSF and now it will be stuck again.


Or, I should say, the first Bill Rebane film I can make it through without being bored to tears. I got this film on one of those 50 movie packs called "Nightmare Worlds", so you know I couldn't have wasted too much money on it. I don't know why, but I really like this film. Maybe it's the goofy music that sometimes sounds like an off key version of the theme from "The Good, the Bad,and the Ugly". Maybe it's the attention grabbing beginning. Maybe it's the original characters that I actually started to like about a third of the way through the movie. There's the drab but somehow attractive female protagonist, her brother who cares so much about the group that he actually leaves the cabin for help, the rich snob who is slightly reminiscent of Charles Winchester from M*A*S*H, the guy the female protagonist is infatuated with, and the brainy, slightly crazy nerd who looks somewhat like a walrus, and is actually more important to the story than you think he is at first. The atmosphere and cinematography were also above average. Now, I'm not saying this is a great movie. Heck, I'm not even saying it's a GOOD movie... it's slow paced, has bad acting, and the quality of the DVD transfer is god-awful... but you might like it if you have a very distinct taste in cinema... a BAD taste.


Collosal bore from Wisconsin filmmaker Bill Rebane with hilariously awful "special" (ill)effects and a talky script whose ridiculous story plods along at a languishing pace that demands the most amount of patience ever conceived from any unfortunate viewer who happens to sit down to watch it. It features an ending so unbelievably corny, you'll be left in silence wondering if it was possible to conclude an invasion story any more ineptly. Five characters are holding up in a cabin as their country falls prey to Martian invaders from "inner Earth"..just wait to you hear the theory of goofball Stan(Paul Bentzen)regarding Mars being right near Earth centuries ago, having to leave, deciding to make their new home within the center of our world. Anyway, a pilot, Jake(Nick Holt)runs a service where he treats campers to his lodge for a vacation in the snowy wilderness. He looks after orphaned teenager Sarah(Debbi Pick)as a fatherly figure. Stan, along with Sarah's love-interest Eric(Karl Wallace)and prick Andy(Robert Arkens)were preparing to return home when Jake encountered a warning from a sickened airstrip operator who insisted he not land due to a mysterious plague spreading across rural America. As they remain in the cabin, away from civilization, tempers flare and the search for food has been difficult. What makes matters worse is when Andy takes off in Jake's plane, feeling the effects of a ray used by the Martians with the result being a crash. Left in the middle of nowhere, without food, running out of gas, Jake will make the decision to use a snowmobile, hoping to find help for them.

Rebane juxtaposes certain happenings outside of the plot regarding the log cabin characters, colored steam and red balls of light which cause people to act strangely, even disappearing. The flying saucers are of the Ed Wood school, quite an embarrassment, removing even the slightest bit of credibility Rebane attempted to establish with the development of his characters.

I like a good isolation story, and the setting of a log cabin, cut off from civilization, within the wintry wilderness certainly provides a good backdrop. I think a competent director, with even a decent(..nothing extravagant)budget, can utilize the framework Rebane has to work with, characters effected by the threat of invasion, attempting to uncover what is occurring outside their radius to the rest of the country, but he doesn't know how to produce even a hint of suspense and the terrible use of inappropriate, loud, obnoxious musical arrangements produces even worse an experience. I simply wanted it to end, because the film doesn't capitalize on a premise that could work in a more talented director's hands. I'm sure the script was too ambitious, considering the monetary means for this movie was obviously limited(..if you are to make an invasion movie, then you have to produce more than colorful steam and red balls of light to convince us of the terror that threatens mankind).


Six people are doing some research in a Canadian cabin. On the flight back they try to land at an airstrip, only to be shooed away by the one person left at the airport. The characters of the movie go back to the cabin to speculate what it all means. Is it a virus? An alien invasion? Both? They don't know. Unfortunately, because of lousy storytelling and incompetent directing the viewer isn't sure either. One thing is for sure. The next part of the movie will bore you to tears as uninteresting people mull around a boring cabin for the rest of the film.

Again, a movie with good premise is horribly botched by Rebane. The sheer isolation and lack of information that the characters have could make for a very psychological thriller. Personality types could be explored in this setting. Tension could build leading to a dramatic climax. It doesn't happen. In all fairness to Rebane, his film the Alpha Incident does a nice job of this.

So, what we are left with is a dwindling population of protagonists as they are, for some reason, disappearing. Finally, three are left. They hike to some town(Rhinelander, WI). Figure that out. I'm no Lewis and Clark but I think there's something closer to Canada. One more guy vanishes and we are left with Stan and Sara. And that's when the movie gets worse, if that's possible. For some reason they are turned into naked children and transported to a springtime meadow. I don't get it. Rebane probably didn't either, but hey, we need an ending.

I usually enjoy the Bill Rebane films in spite of the their shortcomings, but this one was very hard to get through. The alien effects were terrible, even for 1974. The characters weren't bad but they were badly acted. The scenery was nice, so I guess there's that.

Even if you like Rebane(I'm sure there's more crazy people like me), this one just doesn't hold up.


I have seen a lot of bad movies in my life, ranging from "Glen or Glenda", to "Manos, the Hands of Fate", to "Wild Women of Wongo", but I have never encountered a movie that horrible. That is, and until someone makes a movie consisting entirely of scraping chalk on a fingernail, my least favorite movie ever. Why, you ask? Prepare to know. Mainly, it's because the people who made this film have no sense of pacing. For each important scene that actually advances the plot, there are two scenes that are completely random, freakishly annoying, and utterly irrelevant to anything. Many of these scenes focus on character development of characters who then proceed to do nothing with their newfound character traits, but others include boring walking and snowmobiling and random cuts to other people doing other things that relate at best tangentially to our friends back at the cabin. Add to this the acting, the budget, and the general plotting, and you've got yourself a physically painful little piece of cinema. Incidentally, what the deuce was up with the ending? Everyone disappears except for two people who turn into half naked children in a random meadow in soft focus? That's right down there with "Monster a Go-Go". Don't watch this.


"A group of campers in the Canadian wilderness begins (sic) to hear strange reports over their radio. Tales of a plague spreading across the Earth, sightings of bizarre beings as well as planes and cars malfunctioning fills the airwaves. Terrified by what they've been listening to, the campers decide to barricade themselves at their cabin in order to face the danger," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Aka "They", this is a very difficult movie to sit through. Hardly anything ever happens to the five main characters. They seem to be isolated in snowy Wisconsin, for reasons severely lacking in clarity, as the Earth is invaded from within. The "leader" finally emerges as "Stan" (Paul Bentzen); he is the blonde guy with the beard. "Sarah" (Debbi Pick) and "Jake" (Nick Holt) are brother and sister. "Eric" (Karl Wallace) seems to be the early "leader"; and, "Andy" (Robert Arkens) quintuples the group.

The startling ending (a pair of loin-clothed young children are tastefully shown) would have worked; however, the preceding 90 minutes don't lead you there. The very derivative soundtrack jumps the shark when "Jake" goes for help in his snowmobile, to the tune of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"!