Laurel to Philip Kaufman for being true to the great book by Tom Wolfe. One of the best conversions from a book into a movie I've ever seen. Excellent, both exciting, entertaining and educative. Among my top five of all time.


The movie, The Right Stuff, like the book is more about male behavior among other men such as constant competitiveness, earning respect among peers, showing who's more competent, who "maintains an even strain" in the face of adversity, who has "The Right Stuff". It also shows that among these male traits there is also a bond, a willingness and need to work together for the common goal, to push your competition to achieve more than he may realize he is capable.


This movie is terrific! I loved it when I first saw it and I still enjoy it. The history presented in The Right Stuff is rather accurate by Hollywood standards, and almost every minute is entertaining. This movie should be viewed by students to give them some appreciation of the bravery, technology and political BS that had to be overcome to explore space.

The Mercury Astronauts are presented as "hot shots" and "dare-devils". This is probably accurate. Normal people don't sit on top of several tons of highly explosive propellant and get launched into space. {Thank Goodness} It took a special breed of men to risk it all and start the journey to the moon.

I enjoyed Sam Shepard's portrayal of Chuck Yeager. Yeager is one of the best and most capable pilots of all time. Breaking the sound barrier took skill and incredible bravery. Many men paid the ultimate price trying to break the sound barrier.

Fred Ward portrays a gritty Guss Grissom. Dennis Quaid also stands out as Scott Carpenter. However, Ed Harris plays John Glenn to perfection. Harris' character comes across as almost naive and honest to a fault. This seems to track with what I've read about John Glenn.

The Right Stuff and Apollo 13 are the best {historically based} space movies of all time.


In my opinion, one of the best movies of the last 20 years. Very well-made, entertaining, & educational as well. A must for anyone who enjoys a good, intelligent movie, whether you have an interest in space, politics, modern history, or whatever!! I have seen it several times (I teach American History & show in class every year), and am always entertained, never bored. I give it a 10!


This is my all time favorite movie. I am never disappointed in the acting, the writing (from the brilliant Tom Wolfe novel), or technology. The film is basically historically accurate, with some interesting interpretive film making involving John Glenn and his first flight and other tidbits. If I happen across this film on a movie channel, from whatever point it is at, I watch it until the end.


This movie is simply great. The cast is superb.

The docu-drama of the challenges faced by the United States in breaking the sound barrier and then the astronaut selection process.

If you like 'flying' movies this one is a must see movie.


I enjoyed Raging Bull, dubbed by many as "best of the 80s," but sorry Marty, this is the best. Creative and impressive in virtually every scene, capturing a time and a place as thoroughly as Kubrick could in ersatz documentary style. The film is simply huge (though not done on a huge budget) and I bemoan Philip Kaufman's film-making choices since. The only major flaw is Kaufman's obvious adoration of his temp (music) score. Bill Conti's heroic theme is virtually note-for-note from a Tchaikovsky violin concerto, but at least he was allowed to "try" a theme. There's also the over-used music from Holst's The Planets and Handel's Messiah (hey, Phil, it was funny the first 600 times someone used it back in the 30s).


This film made me look at cinema in a whole new way. It was something I have never seen before, from the various scenes, to the scenes that made me say wow. Some of the ideas in this film were brilliant, such as when they all sit down at the dining room except they are all toilets instead of normal chairs. This is quite comical. The part where the naked women appears to be really old, then her naked body reveals a young beautiful women said a lot to me. Emotionally, it showed me that we can't all be biased towards older women, and that they too have genuine things about them. The sniper rifle scene was also very humorous to me and scary at the same time. It made me wonder what if something like this actually happened, then the court room scene really made me laugh. It is a great film, interesting at that.


What a great film. Contradiction is the king and nothing is what it seems. Yet, if we analyze the reality of life The Phantom of Liberty does not seem so crazy. I will not describe what happens in the film because you need to see for yourself, but I would like to say why I like it. I love surrealism and Bunuel is the king of surrealism. He would put things together, twist them, run them through a wash machine and come out with elements that one might think would never work together, yet they make perfect sense. He would analyze ones desires, urges, thoughts, social behavior, and when we go deep to ourselves, we discover that, yes, we do have thoughts similar to what we see in his film but, most of us, we keep them to ourselves because we are afraid to voice them loud out. We are afraid that others will perceive us as crazy. Well, not Bunuel, he is not afraid of anything. He wants to go deep, and why not. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we followed Bunuel or at list we can watch his film and forget our own life for the duration of his film.


Le fantôme de la liberté is truly a unique film. That, of course, is one of Buñuel's many gifts to the development of film grammar. Because of his innovations, he has often been copied. However, a copy is rarely, if ever, as striking as the original. In this film, he plays with more boundaries and tests our perceptions and assumptions about what is and is not proper, including the way stories are told. By linking many different scenes, characters, and short episodes together in different ways, he pokes fun at our traditions, culture, and taboos. He weaves situations together through dream-logic. Sometimes one story will be within another, and other times a character from one story meets one from another, and the camera abandons the previous story for the next. There is, to be sure, a larger story and message presented. For example, the first episode shows an execution in 1808, and the last shows a present-day riot where people are shot. There is a question being asked by comparing these two episodes. How much progress have we made over the centuries? Beyond the important points being made in this film, it is highly entertaining, funny, and aesthetic. Part of what is amusing about it is that I found myself laughing at myself after expecting something specific and finding that I was making assumptions based on my stereotypical thinking. Also, the way he strips characters down, making them all too human, is hilarious. One example of this is the scene in which the monks are gambling, smoking, and drinking. This also points out the hypocrisy of religion. I recommend this film to everyone because in it Buñuel and Carrière break up the routine film formula and simultaneously entertain the audience.


In what is sure to be one of the most intriguing yet bizarre pictures to come about since the work of Fellini, Luis Bunuel directs this dramedy picture about the random incidents and moments that come about in the thought of the mind, yet somehow reflect on the hypocrisies of society and man. Told in a surreal mindset with objects and even animals that somehow come into scene, it is one of those pictures that has many meanings in one. For example, Bunuel directs a sequence in which a young girl, whom her parents are searching for and has been thought to have been kidnapped, is actually right in front of the parents. It makes absolutely no sense, but that is what is so striking about this scene as well as many in that, the girl, who is right in front of their eyes speaking with them, can't be found, thus sending these parents to act on their toes to try and find her.

The film regards itself on random episodes that somehow have no connection with each other what so ever. From one scene to the next, the stories are never quite fully developed until the end, kind of like a soap opera. It is one of those types of pictures in which many different characters, with their own dilemmas, are left till the next time around to pick up where they left off in their sequence. The main quest for Bunuel is to question the morality of the characters. Why is it that society considers the idea of going to the restroom as something that has to be done in private. Who created these rules? Who created the rules that man has to be clothed in public, but can do whatever he pleases in private? Is this a moral question as to what is moral or not moral to do, or is this something that society has created as something moral? Bunuel leaves that up to his viewer to identity and question. Shot in a similar fashion as many of the Monty Python pictures, Bunuel's film is definitely more subtle, yet adventurous and hilarious at all means. It shows how surrealism doesn't always have to be dramatic, and he strays away from his start in drama, but achieves a perfect wisdom and understanding through it.


"I'm sick of Symmetry" a character says in this film, and here we have one of the last works of Luis Bunuel's surrealistic fantasies that brings a story after another with a never ending that mocks the ignorance in which societies live in; It's just amazing how Bunuel exposures the conventionalism to which we are so accustomed and makes of any place a more decadent and irrational angle of the world. Comedy is just the perfect condiment that guides you and distracts you through a series of events that never have sense for the first time. Bunuel's humor is always taken to the profane as many judge, but indeed is just another evidence of how reality often times makes us uncomfortable even in our own privacy. A must see film without a doubt, it mirrors your emotions, it drives you mad, drives you sad, and challenges your morality.


Phantom of Liberty challenges our notion of civilized society. Luis Bunuel gives us a series of connected yet individual little movies in one that asks questions like "why not?" or "says who?". He pokes at the little taboos we have, all the formal walls we have put up. Bunuel asks the question of why do we follow traditional social norms when we aren't even sure why they were created? Why can't a man wear butt-less chaps and have his wife whip him in front of complete strangers? Why can't we get some friends together and all defecate around a table? Why can't we love and lust after our elder aunt? Can you give a reason other than saying "because it crazy, weird, disgusting"? Those are all responses to social norms being broken, but their not real answers. This movie takes those ideas and other just as crazy, weird, and disgusting and asks "so?". He takes social norms like the social formalities, sexual taboos, religious authority, and the western justice system and turns them upside-down, just to see what happens. He even plays to audiences expectations and ideas of right and wrong. He makes us all think about our own judgments about aspects of our own life. The result is funny, confusing, and thought provoking; but over all it's crazy, weird, and disgusting. Just the way Bunuel would have wanted it.


There is no doubt that Buñuel is a pro in intriguing and subjective thoughts embedded in the apparently senseless stories. Only a person that is thoughtful enough can do such thing with such grace and yet be so aggressive about it. Morals, expectations and the so called "rights" determined by society are well approached in an unconventional way. Plus, he is also brilliant in criticizing some past tragic events in a humorous yet effective way.

The movie happens in pieces of stories that are linked through some irrelevant fact that gives it the flow to escalate with one another. How would you feel if monks smoked and plaid cards? How would you feel if you saw a relationship between a teenager and an older woman? The whole aspect of playing with expectations is somewhat disturbing because everything we see in the movie could happen. Those events would not affect anyone's life negatively, and yet, it would not have been our first thought. That only happens because we are judging sons of the Earth and we love to point fingers and name rights and wrongs.

On the other hand, you can only take Buñuel's criticism seriously to a certain level, which is exactly why I think the movie is so geniously put together. The fact that every tableaux (the little stories in the movie) give us just a hint of what's going on, for then move to a new story explains that the director does not mean to agreed people nor to judge subjects being approached, necessarily. He does though, play with our expectations on what would be the natural course of thoughts in our head and he flips them over.

Looking at things from different points of view can never be harmful but it can open your eyes and brighten up some shades on our general concepts. Unless your thoughts can not go as far, then you will just think it was a waste of time maybe. The beauty of it is to watch it with no judgment whatsoever. You may think of stuff you never thought before, or you might laugh about some past memories the movie have brought up in your mind.

Ultimately Phantom of Liberty really relates to the so called freedom we have. We are supposedly able to think about whatever we want, say whatever we want and act however way we want (as long as it does not interfere with the others', obviously). But how do we really feel when we face that real freedom in real life shaped around the society's morals and values? The concept of freedom just fades away behind those curtains even though they are bragged about all the time.


So what if it's pure Soviet propaganda...Salt of Svanetia is an amazing looking piece of work that chronicles the hardness of life in the post-Revolutionary expanses of the USSR. There are images in this film you will never see anywhere else...of birth, of work, and of death...all presented bluntly, yet with exquisite artistry .


Extraordinary documentary filmed in the late twenties of the last century in a remote region of the former Soviet Union, anticipates Buñuel´s Las hurdes in showing the poverty and hard lives of people with a mastery work of cinematography and edition. Mijail Kalatozov exhibits here very early why he could do I am Cuba more than thirty years later. Virtually unknown by young movie critics, it´s undoubtly a must for all movie critics fans.


Just happened to catch this on TCM and my jaw dropped. This movie was made

in 1929, folks... The imagery, the editing... both superb. This is one of the most visually inventive films I have ever seen, and any film buff or artist will, I think, agree with me wholeheartedly.

Prepare for some Soviet propagandist themes in this "documentary." I wasn't

sure that there weren't in fact a few professional actors in the cast -- there were some moments when the content came across as more drama than

documentary; several scenes felt staged. No matter, I was fascinated by the

people whose lives in the remote Svanetia village form the center of the story. And, it bears repeating, the cinematography is gorgeous, surprising at every

turn and just plain mesmerizing at times.

Definitely worth a look if you can find it.


Sol Svanetij (Salt for Svanetia) was made in 1929 about a remote Ukraine primitive Northern isolated area of the Ukraine where the people are poor, preyed upon and severely lack salt (animals lick blood, urine to find the precious commodity). Religion is one of the people's curses ... they donate their few coins to the Church that doesn't do much to relieve the populace suffering. Wonderful photography in the highly edited Russian style. Highly recommended


Darkwing Duck is the most hilarious cartoon done by Disney! Darkwing Duck is a show that spoofs famous superheroes! Plus in this cartoon Launchpad McQuack from Ducktales is in this cartoon as Darkwing's sidekick and Gizmoduck is in it also who Darkwing is very jealous of for stealing his fame in St. Conard! My favorite villains on Darkwing Duck are Negaduck (my #1 favorite DWD villain), Megavolt, Bushroot, Liquidator and Steelbeak! I don't like Quackerjack because he is so annoying because he uses toys as weapons and his plans are not clever! Plus I liked a lot of Darkwing's gadgets he uses like his gas gun and other things. Darkwing Duck brings back a lot of my childhood memories, not to mention I dressed liked him once for halloween. It sucks how Disney now airs terrible cartoons that are just unoriginal and just crap, 1990's Disney Afternoon cartoons are the best and they're will never be a replacement for that! Overall awesome cartoon and hilarious!


Of all the Disney franchises my favorite has to be Duck Tales. Many people think that Duck Tales was merely an 80s TV show and never went further than Saturday morning but in reality it has a very rich history going back decades and if you think that it spoofs Indiana Jones you'd be wrong because it's actually the other way around.

Darkwing Duck was a spin-off of Duck Tales, taking place in the same universe but transplanting the action from Duckburg to St. Canard. The only regular returning character was bumbling pilot Launchpad McQuack but he was my favorite, though Gizmoduck does make a couple of appearances.

Darkwing himself, ordinary Drake Mallard by day, is a sort of cross between Batman, The Scarlet Pimpernel and The Shadow. He's a crime-fighter with absolutely no abilities other than his determination to beat the bad guys though his is utterly confident in himself and craves media attention. With Launchpad as his sidekick and the occasional help from his daughter Goslyn he tackles a variety of strange villains, winning usually by chance.

I've often thought that a hero can only be measured by his nemesis and unfortunately none of the Darkwing Duck bad guys are up to much, but that's fine since Darkwing himself is sort of incompetent. Episodes set during the daytime contradict the noirish nature of the show and the best episodes are the ones set in the shadows and dark alleyways. I know that this is a kids show and is not necessarily in the same league as the Batman animated series but it does seem to be selling itself short in this regard. Duck Tales frequently had very dynamic and imaginative stories while Darkwing Duck is sort of hit-and-miss. That's my only complaint though.

Darkwing Duck still has loads going for it, including a brilliant theme song and his memorable signature catchphrase 'Let's get dangerous' (or 'It's gonna get scary big-time' as they say in France). There still life in this bird yet and with the Scrooge McDuck universe still popular to this day then we might just see him return some time.


Every day from school, from 1991-1993, I would always run home from school to see the latest episode of Darkwing Duck. This action-adventure-comedy was the highlight of my youth. Back then, I loved the characters (especially Steelbeak and Darkwing himself), the majority of the story lines and the good IL' classic Disney feel that somehow lacks in today's Disney shows. The villains were always interesting, and the shows humor wasn't centered on bathroom humour, unlike a number of new animated shows.

Twelve years later, after finding some taped episodes, I am still in love with this wonderful show and glad to see there are lots of devoted fans out and about. I hope to see it returned to its former glory in some form or another.


Back in the day when the Disney brand was a force to be dealt with and not just another brand name, there was a cartoon called "Darkwing Duck", chronicling the adventures of the title Batman wannabe, his adopted daughter Gosalyn, and his crash-prone partner, Launchpad. The wit was rapier, the plots were funny and quite redeemable, and even over 10 years later, the show's material isn't dated.

I remember that I was on cloud nine when I'd rush (run) home from school and catch this on the tail end of the Disney Afternoon. Though "Gargoyles" did have its moments, DD is, in my opinion, the last great cartoon out of Disney's arsenal, mostly of bombs they churn out like so many second-rate straight to video sequels.

Along with "Ducktales", "Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers", and "TaleSpin", this cartoon was the backbone of the Disney Afternoon. The moment that the DD DVD box set comes out (don't worry, I'm not holding my breath), I'm so there.

Darkwing Duck: 4.5 / 5 stars


Disney added on to the Disney Afternoon lineup with "Darkwing Duck" in 1991. It is about a duck who is an action hero, fighting danger, saving the world!!!!! His headquarters is on top of a bridge, if I remember correctly.

Although I have seen the show as a little kid, I can't remember everything about it exactly. Yes, this is another one of those "GOOD" things to come from Disney! That I agree. I'm sure kids everywhere loved this too!!!!!

So, for a great cartoon that is never dull and full of thrills, look no further than "Darkwing Duck!" It'll have you saying "Great!"

10 stars!

Oh, and one more thing: Good Job Disney!!!!!


I would reminisce like most people I know and ask "where have all the good cartoons gone?", and I do, but regardless, the good cartoons were made, and this was one of them! For one thing, it was an original idea. It did use characters from previous Disney endeavors (Launchpad) which I think enhanced it. The villains were a riot! They were in a class by themselves! I remember having a Megavolt action figure, I don't remember what happened to him, but when I found out he was voiced by Dan Castellanetta (Homer Simpson), I really, really wanted that action figure back! Bushroot is cool, the Liquidator rocks!! Splatter Phoenix was an inspiration for a character in my animation series I'm developing, Taurus Bulba was a jerk (and a great one), but my favorite (and probably yours too) was Negaduck! Negaduck is the only Disney villain (or character, for that matter) to ever wield a chainsaw. Everyone needs to see this cartoon. I can't continue to write about it without spoiling anything or reminiscing about how I used to get yelled at in first grade for telling my teacher that I invited these characters to school to join us for lunch. Ah...those were the days!


This and Talespin are absolutely great, as are the Little Mermaid and Aladdin TV series, but now they are unfairly cancelled. This is one of the few shows with wit, great detailed animation, memorable characters, and truly diabolical villains in a good sense. The pilot episodes were among the best, with the devious and calculating Taurus Bulba (none other than the god of voice acting Tim Curry) but there are other great villains like NegaDuck and Megavolt. If I had a personal favourite villain, I'd go for NegaDuck. The title characters are wonderful, especially Darkwing(brilliantly voiced by Jim Cummings) and his silly catchphrases. Launchpad is hilarious in every episode, and you have got to love Gossalyn. Along with Peter Pan and the Pirates, there should be a petition to bring these shows back!Find this show on YouTube and watch it! 9/10. Bethany Cox PS. The theme tune is amongst the catchiest theme tunes in any show I have seen.


During the early 1990s we had this serial going every Sunday on our TV and we were breathless. Such a wild escapade of jokes was, is, and will always be a rare treat.

When speaking about super-hero serials, nothing more ridiculous, zany, mocking, and over-the-top lovely stupid has been created, in my humble opinion. Every time I watch any part of it, I lose the number of puns and jokes delivered (when I try to count) - they just go on and stumble one onto another. I don't know if the English-speaking version of this serial is funny but the Russian one is brilliant. I guess it is a perfect example of Disney productions, which deserves to be on DVD.

If you enjoy "Mermaid", you will hardly like this title. And if you are adult to the core of your soul, you will not like it. Otherwise: take a wild ride with the utterly obnoxious duck and rejoice.

10 out of 10. Definitely. Thank you for attention.


I think everyone has shows they look back on with nostalgia, comparing them to what's on TV today and thinking, "Cartoons were so much better when I was a kid!" For me, that show was Darkwing Duck.

I was only two years old when the show was released, but growing up I caught nearly all of the episodes in reruns on Disney. I'll admit that at one point in my life I wanted to marry Darkwing. (Along with Negaduck, Launchpad, the Liquidator, and Bushroot.) Ask me about my childhood, and if the first thing I mention isn't this show, you can bet I'll start humming the theme song as I think.

Darkwing Duck was not only a clever series with great parodies of the more serious super hero shows, it was also funny without the bathroom humor or ADHD plots you get on kid's shows these days. Darkwing Duck always got a message across, without being loud and in your face about it. Now that I'm a teenager, I've seen some of the old episodes. Much to my delight, it wasn't just nostalgia making me thing Darkwing was great-it really is. It's just as funny to me at age seventeen as it was at age five.

It's a shame Disney stopped making shows like these.


I loved Darkwing Duck when I was 5 years old and I still love it now! It's interesting how most cartoons from childhood seem lame when I watch them now but Darkwing Duck remains funny and entertaining. The witty dialog, action, diverse characters, and style made this show unique from most Disney cartoons. If they ever remade the series I would most definitely watch it!

One thing I find interesting about this series --there is a large amount of violence including knives, heavy artillery, and explosives. Some of the villains are high-class sociopaths (Negaduck) and there is subtle adult humor. As a child, these depictions of violence never had an affect on me and as an adult I find the cartoon to be more interesting due to the use of classic weapons.

The family life of Darkwing Duck is also quite interesting. Unlike most cartoons where the hero either has no children or a family of his own, Darkwing has a spunky, adopted daughter and a sidekick for his family, as well as a former criminal sorceress for a girlfriend. I found this family dynamic to be refreshing and interesting. Being raised by a single parent myself, I felt like the show was acknowledging children like me who don't come from "whole" families with a mother, father, and 2.5 children.

Overall I think Darkwing Duck was one of the most original and interesting cartoons to emerge from the early 90's and when contrasted with today's cartoons it has a very different approach that makes it unique. I await the release of the next seasons on DVD.


I loved this show from the very first episode. Darkwing Duck makes an excellent and very realistic hero, one that makes blunders and mistakes, but always does his best to overcome them. He's devoted to his chosen position as St.Canard's protector, and he has a very normal weakness: his ego. His adopted daughter Gosalyn is spunky, but sweet. She's always adding spice, humor, and unique twists to the show. I can't forget Launchpad, DW's ignorant, but devoted sidekick. Without him, Darkwing might not have been so lucky in his cases. Or maybe not... Anyway, if any of these characters were missing, the show would have been can-celled long before.


Ever since I was a little girl, I loved Darkwing Duck! I loved the way he said, "I am the terror that flaps in the night..." and the way he talked with his smooth, dark voice. I even loved his naughty, mischievous, little daughter Gosalyn, because she was spirited! I wish Disney had made a Darkwing Duck movie because I loved this series from the beginning to the end! I wish they had a fourth season or even more, and I could have seen, "Pranks for the Memories," if they hadn't canceled the good series after the end of season 3 because it was a very good series. I missed good old Darkwing Duck after they removed the show from Toon Disney and replaced it with Jetix.


This movie scared the crap out of me when I was a little boy of just 8 years. My mother had to come into my bedroom and check under the bed every night for at least a week. The plot was unique too. I mean, a gangster (where was Edward G. when they made this?) employing a crazed/mad scientist (I guess there were a lot of them left over from the Los Alamos days) to make nasty looking dead old men crawl through tunnels made of industrial plastic wrap and go kill people. The fact that the scientist could talk to the 'dead guys' and make them do his bidding was the thing that scared me most (Kinda like conglomerate broadcasting of today). These guys were real 'working stiffs' and walked like it too. Excellent blank stares, unsuspecting victims, the 50s-ish people... I guess looking at this movie now, it would seem kind of funny, but in those days, it was a horror movie!


I finally bought a copy of this movie off of eBay because I had heard the Roky Erickson song of the same name like a billion times. I expected a cheesey flick, but instead watched a good, solid feature. It's definitely a B-movie, but that didn't mean "bad" back then. It just meant unknown talent and lower budgets. This is a decent story about an exiled mobster and a German scientist who reanimate the recently deceased with atom rays, and control them to take revenge on those who once testified against the mobster. A well-done but obscure flick.


I saw Creature With The Atom Brain when I was 11 years old. To this day, no horror film has scared me more. The opening credits are shown over a view of one of the creatures lumbering through the woods with the accompanying sound of a beating heart. At the final credit we get a closeup view of the creature's face complete with the telltale stitches across his forehead. The carnage has begun I guess it was that these seemingly unstoppable creatures looked so ordinary, except for their awkward gait and gruesome stitches, that made them seem so scary. I had to walk (run) by some woods in the dark on the way home from this movie and I was quite convinced that one of these guys was going to stroll out from among the trees and break me in half just as the first creature, Karl 'Killer" Davis, did to his gangster victim in the opening scene. Nobody should enter his garage without checking to either side of the garage door to make sure one of the creatures isn't lurking there waiting to rip the steering wheel from your car before throttling you with one hand. This was not a high tech movie nor was it overly bloody, but the threat of bodies raised from the dead being able to bend the bars on a window as if they were well done noodles and take multiple gunshots without noticing was more than enough to scare the pants of of an 11 year old. Once the creature had you zeroed in, there was no hope.


Fans of late night 1950's science fiction (insert Cleveland's "Goulardi" show here) remember this not as "Creature with the Atom Brain" but as the movie with Uncle Dave. John Launer (in his first movie role) played police Capt. Dave Harr, whose niece was seven year old Penny Walker (Linda Bennett). Care is taken early to show that Penny adores her Uncle Dave and late in the story (in the most famous scene in the whole 50's sci-fi genre) he visits her on her birthday. But it is the re-animated Uncle Dave, whose changed voice Mrs. Walker credits to a cold. She leaves Penny in the living room with Dave and goes into the kitchen. Penny then gives Dave her doll Henrietta. Cut to Mrs. Edwards startled face when she hears Penny screaming in the living room. Poor Henrietta!

Launer pretty much steals the film from the rest of the cast, both before and after he is killed. As Captain Harr he cracks wise in every scene and his dialogue is actually extremely funny.

The premise, to quote Penny's father (Richard Denning): "Remote-controlled creatures, their brains powered by atomic energy, roaming the streets, directed from a central point".

The background involves the deportation of Frank Buchanan (Michael Granger), an American gangster who vows revenge and finances a not so mad German scientist (Gregory Gaye) who is developing a process (based on then trendy radioactivity) to animate dead bodies. They set up a laboratory in the lead lined walls of a LA mansion, steal a few bodies from the morgue, and begin a cottage industry of wiping out Buchanan's list of enemies.

The scientist spends most of his screen time complaining about the corruption of his noble experiment for evil means. The set design for the lab is unexpectedly elaborate and the sequences of the two men crawling around in a 1950's idea of radiation suits are especially effective.

One of their creatures in the climatic scene looks a lot like Treat Williams. This scene has a "Night of the Living Dead" flavor. Although the authorities have discovered that the bodies are controlled by electrodes surgically planted in their brains, they conveniently fail to mention this to the police and national guardsmen who are fighting the monsters; allowing the climatic scene to continue until other means are found to deactivate the creatures. Up until this scene, the movie deliberately used almost entirely wide master shots, much like the "mise en scene" (limited editing cuts within a scene) technique of some Hitchcock films. Probably done for budget reasons, it serves nicely to set up the climax, which is full of sudden cuts to extreme close-ups of the walking dead. This must have been quite frightening on the big screen, particularly after being accustomed to the more distanced style of the first sixty minutes of the film.

I suggest that potential viewers ignore the IMDb voting, this is a scary horror/sci-fi film done with a trace of self-parody. Another one of Producer Sam Katzman's money making B-movies; where he exploits the growing fear of a nation learning to deal with the atomic age, and its fascination with the concept of radioactivity.


Having just seen this for the first time, I was pleasantly surprised; this is a solid, well-acted and scripted, somewhat tongue-and-cheek but scary horror/sci-fi film with a premise simutaneously nightmarishly banal/outrageous: a petty American criminal (looking like a cheap burley thug, the kind who would "threaten" George Reeves on the cheap sets on the t.v. Superman) hooks up in Europe with a German (read: Nazi) scientist experimenting with neural stimulation, and uses the doctor to seek revenge on his enemies by having the doctor's lab subjects become zombiefied killing machines, all via t.v. screens and microphones. The scenes of the gangster and the conflicted scientist constantly standing in front of the screens is at once deliberately "boring" and yet so weirdly disturbing. Even more disturbing and nightmarish are the two of them constantly donning radiation suits to crawl through what looks like some sort of embryonic white plastic tunnel to get to the lab and work on the zombies brains. The science fiction is contrasted humorously with the white-picket fence-ish 1950's domesticity of Richard Denning and his little family. Ah, Richard Denning! Golden wavy-haired, stalwart, fine-figured, supremely handsome, serious yet light-hearted, flirting with his wife yet always ready at a moment's notice to follow up any lead as a police doctor. One of the delights of this movie is a sort of spoof of pipe-smoking! Denning and a detective constantly light up so much that the detective offers Richard to "try my special blend". We also get the much used and appreciated staple of 50's sci-fi movies, the educational film strip, although here it is a bare, er, "bones" demonstration, with just a little doggy who has electrodes on his head. (I do NOT recommend this film for children say, under 12 years old!) The climax has a very "modern" Night of the Living Dead feel to it. The plot moves along at a satisfying pace and never lags. The dialog is punchy and clever. The villains are definitely memorable in a strangely "unmemorable" way. (the genius of the movie, I think!) I highly recommend this to all sci-fi/horror film buffs.


A mafia boss returns illegally from Europe with his mad scientist friend -- to get revenge on those who betrayed him by using an army of reanimated corpses he guides by remote control. Only the police scientist (Denning) suspects the truth, but he easily convinces the army to help hunt down the villains.

Not much going on here (but it might amuse those who have never seen a lot of B films), with standard Columbia production values (looks like an episode of "Beverly Hillbillies", in other words) and merely adequate direction by pro Cahn -- the real value of this kind of B-movie has to come from the script, and in this case it's fairly standard, although there is some fun dialogue. Writer Siodmak specialized in "living brain" stories after the success of his superior "Donovan's Brain." ----------------------

additional note, 10/07

I just rewatched it in the theater again and the entire theater was convulsed in laughter at this movie. Even more amazing, most of the jokes were obviously intentional. Denning's character is just absolutely brilliantly written, BIG kudos to Siodmak here. I don't know how I missed it on my first viewing (in the same theater). I love his attitude towards his wife... well not that I love it but it's hilarious. "My wife only talks when I'm ready for bed." WOW! The audience was laughing so hard you couldn't understand half of the lines of dialog. And the best shot was courtesy of Cahn -- Denning comes home and his wife is bent completely over the doorstep, just an absolutely perfect apple shaped backside. The camera ogles that view for about 5 seconds and then cuts immediately to Denning with a HUGE smile on his face! Hilarious! Absolutely a gem that I would recommend to people in the Halloween season if they want some laughs, and it's actually a pretty disturbing movie on some levels as well.


I have seen this movie on several occasions. Mostly as a filler for the time after the local news and the start of prime time.as a kid and as an adult i have always look forward to the old movies and this is one good flick for its time.I am trying to find this on DVD and would appreciate if some one who reads will help me find it although it will probably pretty tough.When Tris movie was on the TV i would always make an effort to see it.Although seemly laughable i still think it is a worthwhile investment for what is still a good scare.When the zombies come out to do battle with the police is still a shocker even by todays standards


This one's basically an update of Boris Karloff's Mad Doctor cycle of the 1930s and 1940s, many of which were actually made at Columbia. It concerns an ex-gangster teaming up with an eminent German scientist who has fallen into disrepute of late; together, they contrive to re-animate a series of dead bodies (apparently, their second life-expectancy is very short!) in order to eliminate the people involved in convicting the mobster  unsurprisingly, some of the victims end up themselves as zombies!!

In this respect, the film is mildly entertaining  but, in view of the utter lack of novelty on display (the means of resuscitation may have changed but the result is the same as before), it tends to feel draggy even at a mere 69 minutes! A measure of the film's low-budget is the fact that the montage half-way through of the zombies' exploits is assembled from shots that would eventually form part of the film's very own climax! The lead here is played by lanky Richard Denning (from TARGET EARTH [1954] and THE BLACK SCORPION [1957]  neither of which I've watched) as a scientist/cop. By the way, director Cahn later made the similarly cheapskate IT! THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE (1958).

CREATURE WITH THE ATOM BRAIN is actually the first Sam Katzman-produced horror film I've checked out  and it's one of four that were recently packaged together in Columbia's ongoing "Icons Of Horror" series of genre Box Sets; a second, THE GIANT CLAW (1957), followed this straight awayand, even if I wasn't exactly enthused with either of them, I'd still like to catch up with the remaining two titles (namely THE WEREWOLF [1956] and ZOMBIES OF MORA TAU [1957]). Incidentally, watching this I was reminded of a couple more low-brow sci-fi outings I had rented as a double-feature DVD some years back, which I might as well add to my collection at this juncture i.e. Edgar G. Ulmer's very minor THE AMAZING TRANSPARENT MAN (1960) and the semi-interesting THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN'T DIE (1962)


Two seemingly unrelated murders have taken place; police doctor Chet Walker (Richard Denning) discovers that the killers are themselves in fact dead, and are being manipulated, using radioactivity, to commit various nefarious deeds.

An early variation on zombie movies, this is fun, likable stuff from the mind of Curt Siodmak, the legendary, prolific writer behind such memorable fright fare as "The Wolf Man". The script is intriguing, albeit full of the technically loaded exposition common to films of the era. You've certainly got to give the villain of this story credit for coming up with such an ingenious idea, and it provides for some nice touches (the villain uses a TV to see what his unwitting killers are seeing).

Director Edward L. Cahn moves it at a steady pace (one thing I love about many of these old movies is that they were often over in record time, with a refreshing lack of filler); it's breezy, humorous genre fare that benefits from its stolid cast; handsome Denning is an engaging lead, with nice supporting turns by S. John Launer as his good friend (Captain and "Uncle" Dave Harris), Michael Granger as the cold-eyed, vengeance-crazed gangster Frank Buchanan, and Gregory Gay as the brilliant scientist in Buchanans' employ.

This all leads to a fairly memorable climax where the impossible-to-kill assassins are battling the cops. It's the perfect capper on 70 minutes of straightforward B-movie entertainment.

7/10


Evil mob boss Frank Buchanan (a perfectly nasty Michael Granger) has ex-Nazi scientist Dr. Wilhelm Steigg (a nice turn by Gregory Gaye) reanimate the bodies of recently deceased criminals so Buchanan can get revenge on his enemies. Shrewd, hard-boiled police investigator Dr. Chet Walker (an excellent and engaging performance by Richard Denning) becomes determined to stop Buchanan. Capably directed by Edward L. Cahn, with a clever and compelling script by Curt Siodmak, a brisk pace, sharp, moody black and white cinematography by Fred Jackman, Jr., genuinely creepy zombies, a spooky, rousing score by Mischa Bakaleinikoff, a tight 69 minute running time, and a thrilling conclusion, this nifty little quickie provides an inspired and entertaining blend of snappy straightforward horror and gritty film noirish crime thriller. The fine supporting cast includes S. John Launer as Walker's amiable partner Captain Dave Harris, Angela Stevens as Walker's lovely, concerned wife Angela, Pierre Watkin as the irritable Mayor Bremer, Lane Chandler as the ramrod General Saunders, and Tristram Coffin as the ill-fated District Attorney MacGraw. A fun flick.


This is a classic 1950s Sci/Fi film.

I originally saw it when I was nine, and had nightmares for six weeks, thereafter.

My rating for this film is 8 out of 10, primarily because of the impact it had on me as a child. I can now look at it and smile, but also recall those dreams which invaded my sleep.

Enjoy; It is worth a viewing.


This is a very boring 50s B-zombie movie about an ex-Nazi scientist, secretly in America, experimenting with atomic energy on humans. Using recently deceased cadavers stolen from the morgue, he uses radioactivity to bring them back to life and control their movements in order to seek out revenge on enemies. The police and eventually the government are on the case, picking up traces of radio-active chemicals left behind by the zombified killers. CREATURE WITH THE ATOM BRAIN is basically nothing new and is very dull and ridiculous throughout. The zombies got the stitches across the forehead, which is very B-movie-like and dumb looking. Laughable, but otherwise don't bother...


This is a really great action movie starring the master himself, Gary Daniels. The movie has lots and lots of action scenes. The fighting scenes are GREAT. Daniels delivers, and shows us that he is one of the best martial artists actors out there. Just keep in mind that, despite this being a Daniels-movie, there aren't that many fight scenes in it. But there's much action, for example a really long car chase scene, and shooting as well. Pretty standard action-plot, but that's exactly what action fans want in a movie like this. People who think otherwise should watch a crappy drama movie instead. Verdict: 7 stars out of 10. Well deserved.


I put the "spoiler" label to try to ensure following the parameters for this site -- but I don't think anything here would ruin any element of this movie for anyone. There is absolutely no doubt as to what is going to happen next, and very, very little as to when or where.

Chan, Norris, Segal, Van Damme. It would take this guy 20 seconds to dispose of all four -- 30 seconds, tops! Stallone in full "Rambo" mode, plus Swarzegenner as the "Terminator," Harry from "True Lies," or any other of his macho personas -- another half-minute. The whole "A-Team," including Mr. T at his meanest, maybe 45 seconds, since they usually have some armored vehicles. Now to penetrate (alone) a Mafia Don's home, with more button men than the Corleone, Tattaglia and Barzini families combined, it takes a few minutes because of the numbers involved and the size of the estate. (He also has to be certain none of the lady guests are harmed, since there is a party involved.) Later, tackling the remainder of the crime boss' force in a large factory site, another few minutes.

I got into this film shortly after it had begun, surfing to the CW channel. It was during a local programming period, and the local listing of the title was erroneous, so I was able to get to this site only after seeing the credits at the end.

I had flipped-on the record button, and so was able to count the number of stunt performers in this picture -- count'em -- sixty-five (65)!!

Frankly, I had not heard of Gary Daniels until this flick. Part of the fun of doing these comments (for me it is great relaxation therapy), is sometimes reading the other comments as you are doing yours.

I see several from obvious Daniels aficionados, and some with criticism of the acting. "Sol" from Brooklyn had an enjoyable comment to read (and I'd guess someone named Sol, from Brooklyn, ought to have some degree of affinity and familiarity with this genre), and others noted Daniels' less-than-Di Nero- or -Pacino- level of acting talent -- but these do not diminish the superior action elements of the story. Daniels' obviously prodigious abilities in the martial arts make his level of activity in dispatching the bad guys very believable (even though the extent, circumstances and numbers of adversaries involved may stretch this believability a tad).

I got into the film just as the several policeman, who were involved in the bust where the Don's son was killed, were being debriefed. So I missed the initial car chase referenced by others, but there were certainly more to come, in quantity, in this presentation.

Regarding references to Daniels' acting - I have commented about Patrick Swayze, referencing Leonard Maltin's depicting Swayze's acting range as "from A to B." It's possible Daniels' range could be considered "from A to A-minus." Also, the histrionics of the Don's wife were on the "Spears" or "Madonna" level, as described elsewhere here.

Even Sollozzo, the drug dealer who had the nerve to attempt to whack Don Corleone in "The Godfather," or the always rash Bugsy Siegel, would hesitate to initiate the extreme level of carnage the crime boss revengefully ordered in this picture.

But that was what set the tone, and this still was fun to view. And the car chase scenes obviously were either bereft of a lot of computerized enhancements, or were so artfully-added as to be undetectable. They were on a level of those in big-budget films we remember, involving Gene Hackman, Steve McQueen, Clint Eastwood, etc.


Great action movie with cool car/bike/truck chases. Gary plays a cop whose family is wiped out by a drug boss. After he recuperates he sets out for revenge and some great martial arts sequences ensue. Gary seems to be going from strength to strength. Definitely check this out. As Joe Bob Briggs would say, gun fu, car fu, kung fu galore.


Gary Daniels does it again.The martial arts master and action movie maestro extraordinaire stars in another no holds barred spectacular from PM productions.Right from the outset RECOIL explodes with action and doesn't let up until the final credits roll.The makers of these movies know what their audience wants and here they deliver in spades. As usual Gary proves able to sculpt a sympathetic protagonist who is able to win over the audience into rooting for him regardless of the sometimes violent methods he uses to defeat his foes and here his vengeance against the criminal fraternity who destroyed his family and friends is nothing short of apocalyptic.As well as the superb physical skills that Gary brings to his performances he is capable of portraying strong human emotions also.He is always very effective indeed in scenes involving children and it can be no accident that he is often cast as a father in his films.Martial arts are absent from this tale until the final thirty minutes and when they finally appear in a series of brutal and superbly well choreographed fights you realise that you are watching a master at work.There are simply no current screen martial arts stars (Chinese,European or American)who could have brought what Gary Daniels brings to this role.This is a movie that should be sought by anyone who professes to enjoy action and if they enjoyed it half as much as I did then it won't be long before they seek out other Gary Daniels movies.They won't be disappointed,if anyone working in this genre delivers the kind of energy that Gary Daniels does in every role then they are being very quiet about it.Keep the British flag flying Gary for there isn't any young actor in the UK today who looks as if they even have the strength to even lift the flag up.Only the US is capable of producing a movie like RECOIL and long may they continue.


Why isn't Gary Daniels a big star yet? This movie should have been released in theaters. It sure beats anything Van Damme or Seagal have done lately. It has car chases, shootouts, and fighting galore! The car stunts were amazing! Gary Daniels fighting skills are fantastic. If Hollywood producers were smart, they would stop wasting their time on has beens like Seagal and try to make Gary Daniels the next big thing in action movies.


How do these movies get made? Asinine script, predictable plot, terrible acting, bad scenes, and awful stunts add up to one of the worst Hollywood has spewed forth. Don't waste your time. This movie was made for 12-yr old boys. I can say nothing good and not enough bad about this phlegm. That's right, it's not even a 'film'.


The budget for this film was obviously completely spent on the stunts and the explosions, leaving nothing to the writers. How can one explain this film otherwise?

Out of all the B-movies I have watched lately, this one must have been the most predictable yet inconsistent, irrational, inaccurate and downright plain dumb, making it purely an insult to the viewer's intelligence. In fact, I have found myself laughing out loud in scenes that were probably supposed to be very dramatic.

Gary Daniels is playing Ray Morgan, a police detective making the mistake of killing the son of an obviously very important man in the local underworld (Sloan). From this point on, Morgan's life turns into a living hell, as Sloan decides to wage a little war against the ones responsible for the death of his son in particular, and apparently against the rest of the world in general, namely the local police station, families, friends and other innocent people passing by. When the fog of war clears up, Morgan finds himself alone, discovering all that are close to him are either dead or affiliated with Sloan. Being left only with a vengeance, Morgan sets out to destroy the man who destroyed him.

This pretty standard setting, along with a lousy script and a lousy post-production job, created an action packed comedy (well, I've found it quite hilarious). When overlooking the flaws of the film, you get quite a good action flick: there are grand chases (quite stupid, but grand nonetheless), loads of explosions, numerous shooting scenes, a high body count and finally a naked woman (the lovely Griffin Drew) -- all of which are essential ingredients for a decent action flick. However, there are a lot of flaws to overlook. I won't even start to list the inconsistencies of this flick or explain the foolishness presented in the flick, since doing so will generate quite a long list. On the other hand, if I were to give only a few examples, the whole image would not have been perceived, and you would have probably called me a perfectionist or a snob, so I won't do that either.

So if you're looking for pure action, choosing this flick might be a good choice. However, if you fear knowing reality or having good taste will damage your satisfaction, go for another feature (True Lies is good...).


This is one of the most awful movies I have ever seen. The last time I saw a movie this bad was the 13th Warrior. This movie is like a XXX movie with all the nudity replaced by pointless fighting. The acting is bad, the fighting is unconvincing while the bad guys stand waiting to be kicked or blasted. The story is pointless and totally predictable. The first scene leads you into thinking that it may be a good movie, but after that it rolls out all the old clichés.

You actually start feeling sorry for the bad guys after a while, which could have made for an interesting turn-around, but this movie unfortunately has nothing new to add.

If you've enjoyed anything Steven Seagal has made since Under Seige, here's another no-brainer for you.

Don't waste your time with this: your time would be better spent watching Lethal Weapon or Die Hard for the 20th time.


This is one of the worst movies EVER! I can't explain clearly how bad this movie is! I know I said to myself that I would never write a comment on a bad movie, but people should know NOT to see this movie. If it is ever on STARz, or Showtime(which isn't a big surprise why it's on Showtime), trust me. DON'T WATCH IT! Unless you want to see guns going off without discharges flying out, bad acting, stunt doubles of a different color then the main star, or just how cool Gary Daniels is. Uh-hem, sorry I have a cold. Anyway, this movie would be better if there were some type of recoils from the guns. Sorry bad action lovers!(0 out 10 stars)


I love The Firesign Theater, so the other night when I was browsing through the On Demand sections on TV and saw this movie listed and featuring two of the troupe, plus other guys I generally like like Harry Shearer and Fred Willard, I thought I'd check it out. After all, it was free, so nothing would be lost monetary-wise.

I could only stand about 15 minutes of it, and then hurried up to fast-forward to the part with Shearer, which was bad as well. Definitely one of those lame late '70s curios that could have stood a lot better writing and laughs all around. It was just too weak to even be so bad it was still funny. Ah well.


I was very pleasantly surprised by this low budget comedy. The story centres around a homeless writer, Lee Plenty (Christopher Scott Cherot - who did everything on this movie to prove his up-coming talent) who joins a friend and her family for New Year, and the trials and tribulations which befall him during his stay. These trials mainly involve getting into various unwanted and unplanned situations with several women. The movie tells a story of love through modern day class barriers and the will Lee Plenty had to achieve his aim (publishing a book). As it turned out everything that happened to him gave him all the material he needed.

I found the film light and easy to watch, although not so much the romantic comedy which it was advertised as. The entertainment was in wondering what was going to happen to Lee next to prevent him leaving as he was constantly planning. I must admit though that the ending was pretty predictable. I'm looking forward to what Cherot will treat us to next.


I saw Hav Plenty when it was first released back in 1997 and i still feel about it today the same as i did when i left out of the theater back in '97. I left the theater feeling uplifted about love. And not only was this a very likable little love story, but it was an incredible character study on how opposites can come to attract and how best friends may sometimes make the best lovers. The performances were flawed at times but what the film lacked in the strongest of performances it more than made up for by the overall chemistry of characters and the general likability of them as well. It's a good love story. It certainly didn't reinvent the wheel but it certainly is worth a viewing.


I truly enjoyed the movie "Hav Plenty". It was very refreshing to see a romantic and well-written Black love story, which is so rare these days. The cast were all outstanding actors for a low budget movie. The movie was very realistic and it made you feel that you could truly relate. I especially loved Christopher Scott Cherot's role. Although Ms. Havelin was playing "hard-to-get", I loved the way Mr. Plenty stood his grounds and did not give in.

My daughter turned me on to this movie and now every time I learned that it is airing I watch it religiously. I surely hope that Mr. Cherot will be bringing us more movies and especially with him as a character. I fall more in love with him each time I see the movie. I plan to purchase it and add it to my collection of all-time favorites.


remember when you would hear a song & try to claim it before anyone else saying "that's my jam"? well "this my movie".

not too many people know of this one which in a strange way is a good thing. we don't want it to be spoiled by mainstream biters.

i myself just happened to stumble across this one when doing the typical back and forth at the blockbuster a few years back. i saw the cover and it looked appealing - let's see, a romantic comedy without meg ryan? black peeps who are professionals with upper mobility? a story that's actually not about the stereotypical thug?

it's an original, creative story made by very talented actors, producers, and music biggies. soundtrack is on-point, characters are likable, even the cameos are well-chosen! overall it's a funny feel-good flick smoothed out on the r&b tip wit a pop appeal, appeal, to it.


Chris Cherot's first feature is an indication of good things to come. While lacking what most independent films lack--namely money--Cherot manages to offer a witty and somewhat unconventional look at romance and the often ambiguous values of the Black middle class. You will inevitably want to see this film again. With each viewing you will notice another nuance of the intense passion between the unassuming Lee Plenty (Christopher Cherot) and the pretentious Havilland Savage (Chenoa Maxwell). You will find yourself refreshed by this film's honesty, good humor, and the ultimate triumph of true love.


I saw Hav Plenty on cable one night. I thought the movie was good. The characters were interesting and Lee was a very likable person to me. He had an off-wit charm yet caring demeanor that I could see different types of women falling for. I appreciated the fact the movie was different and introduced more middle-class African-Americans, which are often neglected.

The plot was a bit fuzzy and had the makings of a first time director but overall entertaining.


While it is not a perfect 10 on my scale it is high up on my list. I really like this story and is a good story. I don't know why there are all these bad commands like this movie is Gigi or Camp Fever. Those of some terrible movies, like on a negative side, really really bad. This actually a good movie and here we have people who just hated it. If I hated a movie that much i don't watch more than 20 minutes of the movie. I love that it showed for once that the woman can mess a good thing up and its not always the man. It gets on my nerves that everything are so one sided sometimes. I liked the one year later thing because if they had gotten together at the end of what happen it would have been too cheesy. Chris i loved your movie and much love my brotha.


Whats the name of the song (tune) that plays when Havilland enters Lee's room and starts going through his things. The song later plays when she returns to her home and reads Lee's letter and goes through the flashbacks of New Years. In typical R&B soundtrack fashion the song failed to appear on the soundtrack. I have looked for this song for a month and I cant find anyone who can tell me who composed the song whatsoever. This may not be the place to ask for a "music" question but I am desperate and it was the only song that I liked. I have watched the end credits to this movie over and over again only to find that the song was left uncredited. Please end my struggle.


I thought it was a good movie. It was intimate (as in warm and familiar) and sort of a comedy of errors. I thought it was a cast of some of the most beautiful Black folks I'd ever seen! Lee Plenty was scruffy, but what I liked about this character is that he had a full sense of himself. That was attractive! He was aware of his shortcomings and he also had confidence and and a great sense of humor about himself. I especially liked the way that the character Hav thought she could wrap Lee around her finger, I get the impression that she thought she was a little better than he, but she couldn't deny the attraction she felt. It was interesting to watch her simultaneously be attracted and repelled. The other characters, the friend and the sister who wanted to have her way with Lee made for an interesting and funny (not as in side splittingly hilarious, but as in sweet mixed with smart) weekend. I think it's a smart movie.


Hav Plenty is a clever romantic comedy that is appealing because of its unique cast. Seldom do American audiences get the opportunity to view intelligent comedy starring African Americans.

Hav Plenty demonstrates that the Black community is not limited.

Hav Plenty was a pleasure to watch. I own the DVD... It's a cute and witty film that confirms what I have known all along. Black people are diverse. They have class and sophistication. They are attractive, intelligent and extremely talented.


I really was pleasantly surprised seeing this film. Never heard of it - just popped up on tv here and I was blown away with the REALNESS of it all. Guess it helped I lived in NY and DC and back in da day, I was a pretty pretentious black chick. I dug this flick and look forward to "G".


Although I use the words Real World, this movie is more realistically a fantasy of what real love is often dreamed about. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie as I watched it late night on cable. And Although I had seen it before a few other times , I really never paid much attention to it. I just knew that every other time I had it on, that somehow I was forced to stay tuned. And it finally paid off. The acting of the principals was superb. Chenoa Maxwell is a fox. Christopher Cherot is a multitalented up and coming young Black Filmmaker. And although I had to tone down the sound because I didn't want the neighbors to hear all the profanity, in spite of this, I thought they did an excellent job. It was warming to see this movie where two people finally admit to themselves that they were hopelessly in Love with each other. It ended up just the way real people "dream" of. Unfortunately in the real World it seldom happens that way. Shucks...I felt like falling in love with Hav myself.


I thought this film was very cleverly put together and had a nice feel and pace. The storyline, built around the New Years holiday, adds the right feel for the film. I felt it was a unique love story with just the right touch of humor and it gets better every time I see it. I liked the fact that the players were "normal" Black folk (ok there are a few rappers). Overall its just nice to see a film by Blacks where the focus is not on being Black, but just being human and telling a story.


I liked it. I actually watched it many times I like it so much. At times it did seem that some of the actors were searching their memory for the next line to say, but in all, it was a very good movie. "Hey, love 40 baby". :-)


I saw this movie on cable today because there was nothing else on and actually enjoyed it. The promos did not make the movie seem interesting, nor did the reviews, which is why I was in no rush to see it. I found Hav Plenty to be a very entertaining and charming romantic comedy (I'm not sure if I would feel the same way if I actually drove to the movie theatre and paid $7). All of the characters were likable and Cherot as Lee was endearing. Even Hav, played by Maxwell, who comes off as a superbitch in the beginning of the movie, grows on you. Cherot is a natural actor and has lots of talent. The performances were very down-to-earth with no frills. I hope to see more of Cherot's work.


Hav Plenty is one of the most under-rated, under-exposed movies I have ever had the pleasure of seeing. It was entertaining from beginning to end. The laughs were 'Plenty'-ful. (Lots of critics use puns, why should I be different.) If you just want to have a good time watching a movie, invite over a few friends and pop 'Hav Plenty' in the VCR. P.S. They should have hired me to promote this movie maybe more than 12 people would have seen it.


Hav Plenty is immediately engaging and funny. Without the marketing power of a major distributor, and lacking a catchy name (Hav is short for Havolin, and Plenty is the last name of the main character)this film must be recommended through the backyard fence network.

The dialog is smart and REAL, and the acting is superb. Lost in a sea of movies, this one is worth the search.


I must say, for a first time director/actor/writer...Mr. Cherot has many skills. He acts without pretension, the dialogue is snappy and realistic, and the plot revolves around the characters, instead of some contrived formula. My only question is with some of the acting, but damn...for a low budget, first time debut--- this movie impressed the hell out of me.

This movie happens like real life, like a seinfeld episode...it's quirky and blunt. And I give mad props for the ending, which playfully satirized the movie and genre itself... and it confirms the courage and honesty I liked so much from the beginning... Enjoy this one without your ego, just watch it and be absorbed!


This movie is extremely horrible except for one line that Hav says. The line is said while she is talking on the phone to someone. She says: "Do I look like a biscuit? Do I look like a biscuit to you? Do I look like a french fry? Then why you treatin me like a side order!"

Oh good lord this line is hilarious.


I enjoyed hav plenty very much. This is probably the best comedy I have in my movie collection. The characters are very hilarious and entertaining.


Ok, so it's difficult to make a film with very little money. And with all of the straight to video films by this and that rap star, it's probably near impossible to make a film that doesn't showcase ghetto issues.

But that's no excuse for such a bad film. When you don't Hav Plenty of money, the one thing you can still do is write a good story. This one is terrible.

Hav Plenty lacks a coherent story; the actors, while hype about their screen debut, are uninspired and apathetic; the characters make gross judgments despite being undeveloped; the main character, while apathetic in a curiously nihlistic way, is both passive and unemotional.

The dialogue is bad. (I didn't know we talked that way.)Further, while the movie is deemed 'positive'--I guess because nobody gets killed--the dialogue actually reveals the writer's disturbing assumptions about Black women and their view of self.

Lastly, while props go out to Christopher Scott Cherot, for accomplishing the Van Peebles-ian task of writing, directing, editing and starring in his own film; Hav Plenty also suffered from the Van Peebles-ian lack of focus, direction and story development in a film that they write, direct and star in.

I hope that next time he decides to do just one job--either write or direct.

And I hope he does it well.

R


A random group of young adults who are some combination of roommates/friends takes time out from their busy partying schedule to play with an improvised Ouija board, when they accidentally call forth a djinn who tells them that they will all die.

Long Time Dead is quite a mess, made all the more frustrating by occasional flashes of competence. It couldn't have helped that that a veritable army of writers--seven credited in all--worked on the story and script, including director Marcus Adams.

After a brief prologue set in the late 1970s in Morocco which was far more promising than most of the film proper, we begin meeting our bloated cast of heroes. There are eight of them, maybe all living in the same building or apartment, except for Lucy (Marsha Thomason), who appears to be living on a boat near the building. If I sound unsure, it's because Adams is not able to clearly establish the characters, their relationships to one another, or the relationships of one location to another. It doesn't help that a few of the five males look alike, and they all dress alike. Neither does it help that as the film progresses, various characters arbitrarily appear and disappear for random lengths of time. That fact is indicative of the pacing problems that plague the film on many levels.

It's not often very clear why any characters are doing whatever they happen to be doing at a given moment. Most of the plot seems like an excuse to put characters in very stereotypical horror/thriller scenarios, where they slowly walk around an environment frightened, becoming startled in various ways until finally some unseen thing kills them. These scenes are often competent, and occasionally they're good, but in the context of the film, they have little dramatic impact. Much of Long Time Dead plays more like a sample reel of "scare scenes"; it has little coherency as a story.

A big problem is that the chief villain is never clearly shown, explained or given any rules to follow. For most of the film, the villain is invisible. Invisible villains are usually a problem, and often indicate deficiencies in budget and/or imagination. Oddly, by the end, there is a concrete villain and the film has devolved into a fairly stock thriller, where we have to guess whom the possessed cast member is.

Although the story has promise, and the ending is somewhat of an improvement, even though it never rises above the cliché, Long Time Dead is too burdened with severe flaws in direction, cinematography (the film is frequently far too dark) and performances to merit a recommendation. I ended up granting a 4 (equivalent to a "high F" letter grade) because of the adequacy of some of the "scare" and death scenes, the good ideas in the backstory, and the slightly more engaging climax. The film would have been much better if the prologue and the subsequent events with Becker and the one character's father who ended up in a mental institution had been the focus, but alas, it was not to be. Let's hope Adams fares better the next time around.


It was an impulse decision, I wanted a scary movie and I just grabbed this from the shelf and I am glad I did. Its been a long time since I have seen a low budget British film that I have enjoyed and this came as a pleasant surprise, it is well filmed but doesn't go down the route of trying to be too clever. It just shows you what you need to see, avoiding most of the gruesome events and instead showing you the result. It entertains, suggests and of course scares. If don't have the preconception that you are going to watch an extremely clever horror and are just looking for a back to basics horror then you should enjoy this.


After watching such teen horror movies as Cherry Falls and I know what you did last summer, I expected this to be similar: Too gory, too boring and too badly acted.

I was wrong.

Long time dead, A film in which a group of friends decide to have a night out, making out, getting high and dancing in the process, release a djinn (arabian Fire demon) accidentally while using a Ouija board. Unfortunately for them The evil demon doesn't like the idea and pays them back by killing them one at a time......

The film to me, seems much darker and more evil than "i Know what you did last summer" with scenes in places that would creep you out if you had your whole family with you, it doesn't help that they live in an old house with a "strange" landlord. This also brings a few faults into the film by more of them later.

The plot is pretty good and the way the students get killed is impressive, while many parts of the film can be quite scary.

Faults: Well the fact that they are always in scary places ruins the plot, I mean if someone's trying to kill you, would you go into dark rooms? Or go ANYWHERE alone? me nether....

The other bad part of the film is that we quite often see the characters running away from the evil demon which does get a bit annoying after a while.

All In all I think this film is very good, better than many I have seen.


Long Time Dead opens to a caption that informs us that we're in 'Morocco 1979' where a group of people are holding a séance which gets out of hand when a fire demon called a Djinn appears & supposedly kills everyone... Long Time Dead then cuts to present day London where four house-mates, Rob (Joe Absolom), Liam (Alex Newman), Webster (Lukas Haas) & Stella (Lara Belmont) are planning to go out for the night. They hook up with their soon to be new house-mate the drug dealing Joe (Mel Raido) & three friends, Lucy (Marsha Thomason), Spencer (James Hillier) & Liam's girlfriend Annie (Melanie Gutteridge). While sitting around at a club they begin to have a discussion on what the biggest buzz in life is, from this rather innocent sounding topic the subject of séance's is brought up & for some reason they all decide to hold one. They find a suitable venue which appears to be in attic space above the club & begin, unfortunately they release the fire demon Djinn which spells the words 'ALL DIE' out on the Ouija board which freaks them all out, as it would I suppose. Shortly after Annie dies in an accident & her body has burns on it, the remaining member's of the group feel something is wrong & do some research which leads to some unexpected answers & the discovery that maybe not everyone is as they appear or who they claim. As more of the friends continue to die in accidents a way must be found to send the evil Djinn back before it completes it's mission to kill all those who summoned it...

Directed Adam Marcus I thought that this English & French co-production was a somewhat modest & undemanding way to pass 90 odd minutes. The script by Eitan Arrusi, Chris Baker, Daniel Bronzite & Andy Day really isn't anything special & I can't quite believe it took four writers to come up with this. Generally speaking Long Time Dead is rather slow & uneventful & the characters are so bland & similar with most of them looking & sounding exactly the same & the only one's I could really distinguish between are Lucy because she's black & Joe because of his hair! Everyone else barely registered with me & that made it very hard to care about anyone or anything, oh & they're an unlikeable bunch of teenage stereotypes as well which didn't help the film. The script also features various lapses of logic, at the end I just couldn't stop thinking that it was a bit of a coincidence that a bunch of kids would just happen to hold a séance & summon the exact same demon that their landlord & one of their Father's did years earlier, a fact which they only discover later on in the film. There is another scene in particular I keep thinking about that sums Long Time Dead & it's silly script up, when two people break into a police guarded house & turn the lights on only for the police officer on guard to be conveniently looking in the opposite direction & only looking back at the house literally seconds after the lights have been turned off. I also hated the scare tactic's that director Marcus employed, I mean people hearing noises only to have one of their 'friends' grab their shoulder & apologise for scaring them. What do these people think will happen exactly? Can't they just call out & say who it is that's creeping around in the shadows? Long Time Dead uses this clichéd & lazy technique on a number of increasingly annoying occasions. There are also plenty of cheap demon point-of-view shots which presumably help save money by not having to show the demon itself. On the positive side it tells it's story well enough I suppose & while it's not exceptional Long Time Dead is a well made film generally speaking. I also liked the ending where the Djinn appears to win, it's nice not to have a happy sugar coated ending for a change. Long Time Dead is one of those horror films that has nothing really wrong with it & entertains to a certain extent but suffers by being just so average a few script problems that should have been ironed out especially since four people worked on the thing. The gore quotient is sadly lacking with nothing more graphic than a few splashes of blood & someone being burnt. As for the Djinn itself the best the filmmakers could come up with are some CGI demon eyes on an ordinary actor. There's no sex or nudity either but there is some swearing & drug usage which the film treats lightly & doesn't say is right but neither does it say it is wrong just that it's a normal teenage thing to do. Overall I thought Long Time Dead was a slightly below average horror that didn't do much for me but at the same time I have seen much worse & at least it kept me watching until the end. Don't spend any sort of money on it but if you can catch it on TV for free & there's nothing else on then it's probably just about worth an hour & a half of your time, but only just.


Me and a mate were going to watch Black Hawk Down - sold out. So we decided to go and watch this film. I had NO idea what this film was about. I read no reviews, saw no trailers, none of my mates have seen it, but the poster kinda (just a bit!!) gives away the genre - horror!!! But I went in as cold as a turkey!!

O.k. we went in and from the opening sequence to the final reel, this one delivered on many levels!! It's a very surprisingly good film!!

As I said, I had no idea what this film would be like - my first shock was with the opening Voice-Over - it was a Liverpudlian accent! "What??!!" I thought, "this CAN'T be a British film!! British HORROR??!!" Sure enough, it was, and a damn good one too!

I like my horror films, I really do, and I'm not scared that easily, and I have a strong stomach, so as I was sitting with a very open mind, this film scared the hell outta me!!! It made me jump more than 12 times!! a sign of a good horror.

We've all tried it - the quija board. After watching this film, you'll be glad you locked the doors to the spiritual world!!!

The actual seance scene is disturbing. It was very well conceived and my own personal flashbacks came back to haunt me - NEVER EVER AGAIN!!!

This film delivers enough shocks to keep you on the edge of your seat for a while. But, it does drag in the middle, and this spoils the pace of the film.

This being a horror, the deaths must be unique, we've seen Scream, Urban Legend etc, we want people to die in new gruesome ways - look somewhere else. This film does not absolutely lend itself to that style. Death is mainly through excessive burning. The evil spirit is a fire demon or something like that!

PLOT SPOILERS IN NEXT PARAGRAPH!!!!!

The plot is credible, and for once, an ending that I LOVED!!! Oh yes, it takes a lot of guts to end a film like this, and I enjoyed the ending only because it ISN'T a Hollywood ending!! Oh I love it when the bad guys win!!!!

And on that note I shall complete my review with -

"Now listen kids...DON'T do the quija board - it's just not healthy! Go and watch a film about a bunch of people doing it, and you'll see what I mean!"

8/10

Have fun and sleep tight!!!


A group of friends are out partying one night, when they decide to try out an Oujia board and contact some spirits. Whilst doing it, they do get in contact with someone, a demon who is back from the dead and has gotten into there world. The only way for the demon to go back to where it came from is if he kills whole group friends who let him out in the first place. A strange old man who happens to be the landlord of there house claims that one of them has the demon inside of them, but no one believes him. It is true though......

Long Time Dead a good British horror/thriller movie, with some creepy moments in it, like the flashback scenes. There are also some little twists along the way as well. The acting from everyone is good too. If you enjoy movies like this, then I'm sure you will enjoy Long Time Dead. I give Long Time Dead a 8-9/10.


I didn't think I'd like this movie at all. The over the top advertising and awful trailers didn't help. I rented it because it was all that was left (that I hadn't seen) at the Video Shop. Lucky for me!

This is an excellent (an underrated) horror film. More subtle than most; the power of suggestion is very apparent, and used with intelligence. The performances are all excellent, including memorable performances by Lucas Haas and Joe Absolom. The movie is paced brilliantly, and thus creates moments of genuine tension. I can only admire this film, and considering it's comparativly low budget and it being Marcus Adam's first; they've done an excellent job. The photography and lighting are also used with expertise which greatly add to the experience.

I'm surprised that the story works so well too, considering that there are seven writing credits, combined with the fact that it's about the biggest cliche: The Ouija Board.

8/10 : The best British horror film since the brilliant 'An American Werewolf In London'

Now comes the wait for 'Dog Soldiers'!


I wasn't expecting much from this after a majority of reviewers thought poorly of it, though I was pleasantly surprised. Long Time Dead isn't without fault though, I found parts clunky and badly written. Also, they relied too heavily on scenes where the victim is trying to avoid being seized and they eventually become slightly tiresome as a result.

However, I think this is on par with the likes of I Know What You Did Last Summer and Scream, and does live up to it's reputation of making "Jeepers Creepers look like The Tweenies". The poor reviews are likely to be down to it's release date, and the lack of originality - though I wouldn't worry about that too much. I recommend this to all fans of the horror genre, otherwise wait until television.


The idea was interesting and the movie was OK at the beginning, then it goes downhill. I mean, it turns boring because it is the same we have seen a million times: A group of people where an unknown entity kills the others one by one.

Also the characters are not particularly likable so you don't care if they are killed or not. Characters development is very important but the writer did not pay too much attention to this so each person means the same to you.

The movie has some good chilling moments, but it is that kind of flick only enjoyable by teenagers. By the way, there are some cheap SFX at the end that makes you laugh.


As I left the cinema I turned to my friend and said, "I'm glad I saw that film. Finally Batman and Robin isn't 'worst movie ever.'" And it's true, this film is really bad. That's not to say that it's boring, it's not, but it just reeks of 'bad'.

The basic story is simple. Some teenagers (typical clubbers, armed with cigarettes and drugs) play with a ouija board one night, and unlock some evil spirits. These spirits then hunt all the kiddies down and kill them one by one. Sounds like standard horror fare, but what actually makes the film bad?

For a start, the scriptwriters appear to have forgotten the cardinal rules of teen horror flicks. You don't kill the most attractive cast members first. That's the only reason why 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' was any good, the cute girls lasted to the end.

Not only that, but the scriptwriter appears to have written the script in a single sitting. Characters are often not where they're supposed to be and also have severe amnesia problems, forgetting what they did in previous scenes or information they have been given.

'Final Destination' used the element of surprise very effectively, despite being a trashy teen horror movie itself. Long Time Dead tries to copy its predecessor and fails. Any surprises in the film are simply marked by a loud Psycho-style hit from the orchestra.. If the team who made this film really believe that sudden loud noises are all you need to scare people, they should get back to film-making school.

The characters are also undeveloped. You really couldn't care less who's going to die next, and I was hoping they'd all die soon so we could reach the finale of this cinematic calamity. And yes, the ending is bad too! Typically cliché and you can see it coming a mile off.

I love cinema, and I've never slated a film like this before, but this film deserves it. Go and see it with some mates so you can laugh at the hideously poor acting and directing. It's almost as if this was the single film that the Scream series parodies. In that way, it's actually fairly entertaining, so I give it 2 out of 10.


What an utterly incompetent piece of absolute garbage, can someone please tell me how movies like this get made? On my Episode 1 rating (You know how bad Episode 1 is? Well I now rate movies as to how long they take me to get restless, bored and angry as that George Lucas trash did) this rates a 7. That's 7 minutes it took me to realise I was watching a stinker; even Rancid Aluminium scored a 10!

The plot, such as it is, is that a group of teens decide to have some fun with a ouija board but inadvertently raise an evil Djinn, who then sets about killing them all in gruesome ways. So OK, we're in comfortable teen horror movie territory here, but wait, there's been so many of these movies recently, we need to find a new spin on it, right? So what can we do? I know, great idea, let's just do the same old crap, but let's make it British! Yep, instead of annoying American high-school kids getting gutted instead we get annoying Brits. And that's it. Acting is appalling, direction sub-standard, writing woeful, even the production values are on the shoddy side. At least the 'enjoyment' in these movies is seeing people murdered in gory ways, but here the killings happen off screen. And every bad horror-movie cliché is relentlessly churned out, then used again for good measure, and again, and again.

Example, the old staple of young guy (let's call him Chad), unwisely exploring shadowy lit basement hears loud thump, so nervously calls out name of his buddy, `Chris? Chris, is that you? Hey man, quit screwing around!' But Chris doesn't reply. So, tentatively, Chad walks down the corridor, slowly at first, then building up a little as he nears the door. And as the sweat breaks out on his revered brow and he strains to hear every sound, he tentatively reaches out an outstretched hand to the door knob, yanking it open in terrified despair only for Chris to jump out at him and shout `Got you Chad!'

Yahhhhh!

How many times have we seen this fake tension builder before, I ask you? Well obviously not enough, because director Marcus Adams uses it five times in this movie; I know, because I counted! I mean, what gives? Does Marcus Adams want to be the next Danny Cannon? They even had a spooky old man, straight out of Scooby Doo, who pops up at appropriate times saying things like, `You kids don't know what you're dealing with here!' And this took four people to write?!

Ahh! I refuse to write any more and waste my time on such junk.

THE HORROR!


No offence to British film-makers, hey I'm British, but they are usually very, very bad at creating horror films, so I didn't really know what to expect when I went to see this film, but it got into the cinema so it must be worth it, with the exception of, 'Jay and Silent Bob strike back!' and 'Dog Soldiers' (that was a bit unoriginal and had some pretty pathetic lines in it), I mean. But actually it was quite good, lots of jumps and I liked the characters, at times it was quite scary and I thought the ouji (don't know how to spell it) board idea was good, people say its unoriginal but hey, how many movies about ouji boards have you seen? Anyway I found this quite a good film and the acting was quite good, I thought the way it was shot was really cool and gave a great effect to the movie, overall I give it ******** out of ********** for a horror flick

Good Movie!

Top_Movie_Fan-Fave-Film_Powder_4eva!


although Long Time Dead has nothing new to offer to the diserning horror fan it isnt at all bad. When you think about it there arent that many films that involve Ouiji boards which is quite suprising when this activity is one of the most terrifyingly mysterious known. It is also nice to see another good British horror. If you like this then be sure to get hold of Dog Soldiers which is even better. There is some nice ( that is not really the apt word!)moments and even a good twist or two that for a change the viewer does not see coming. Not a cheerleader or token dork in sight. Long live british horror. 7 out of 10.


This movie seems to owe a huge debt to Final Destination, in that the film is primarily about horrible fate hunting down a group of teens one-by-one.

I found the characters even more cardboard-cutout than those in F.D. Main difference is that here the threat is personified, but the boogity stays so undeveloped that this is a weakness. The father should have been developed quite a bit more, and the landlord could have been a very interesting pivot point for the story, instead of serving merely as a red herring or distraction.

The fact that the ending was actually an ending, rather than a Hollywood sequel-tease was nice, however.

Watchable, but only just. If, however, you go all weak-kneed over mush-moufed British accents, you might like it more than I did.


scared me a lot, good story line, the only horror to date that scared me,

acting was good, some well know actors i will be buying on DVD,

will watch again, music build up was good but to much blood,

had us holding to on to our teddys tightley i was to too scared to go downstairs too get a drink on my own,

had a to watch another film before i could go to sleep, surprise to see to was make in 2002 because i have never heard of it before,

10 out of 10 it a must see movie but watch it alone if you dare if not watch with a friend


There was a point - as the film was starting - that I felt that maybe I had had low and unjustified expectations of this film over the last couple of years: forget the bad reviews and box-office sales at the time of its release, and instead concentrate on the actual film itself. After pressing play on the VHS, this rather confused and quite frankly stupid reason of thought was quickly diminished after the first ten minutes or so had passed by.

I won't go into the story much (it does exactly what it says on the tin, except it doesn't scare or entertain) as there isn't that much of a story, and what there is of it feels like a contrived mess that looks like it was thought up by an arrogant 15 year-old who thinks they're a genius (but they're NOT). Most of the film seems to consist of each character walking about in the dark for a bit, and then getting killed. No real scares to speak of, although the crap-looking student nightclub was a bit of a fright I can tell you.


I was really looking forward to this film and huddled up on the sofa with a glass of wine last night to watch it. As a horror movie fan, I was expecting something different from a British film and I certainly got my wish. While watching this steaming pile of horsesh*it, my mind wandered off to the point that I actually thought I'd fallen asleep. Suffice to say that I hadn't dropped off but suffered some temporary memory loss induced by this celluloid form of sedative. I couldn't care less who'd been killed, who was going to be killed or who the damn Djinn was. There was no continuity, the acting was truly abysmal and the plot had more holes than a slice of emmental cheese. If you're suffering from insomnia try this movie.


I vaguely remember the trailers for LONG TIME DEAD and recall it did fairly poorly in cinema tickets and rental sales . I thought because it was released in the same year as two other very well regarded British horror movies , one featuring a squad of British soldiers as good guys fighting a bunch of werewolves and the other featuring a squad of British soldiers as bad guys battling against crypto zombies , that LONG TIME DEAD may have got lost in the market place but after finally seeing it I doubt if the merits of DOG SOLDIERS and 28 DAYS LATER had anything to do with its failure - The reason it bombed is that it's a rather poor horror movie

First of all can we please stop seeing movies where horny , drug taking teenagers get stalked and slashed . I had become very fed up by this plot by the early 1980s and it stopped being a good premise 20 years ago . Okay SCREAM and FINAL DESTINATION used the same plot but the producers at least tried to do something a little bit different with the plot where as in this movie it's just well worn cliché as is the set up with a ouija board

Okay I'm in a generous mood so I won't put the boot into director because it's a debut and I imagine Marcus Adams had a lot of enjoyment shooting the picture and it is fairly stylish . I should also point out that there is a not unimpressive sequence where two characters enter a house only for them to come to a sticky end . Unfortunately Mr Adams also wrote the screenplay and it's this that is the film's undoing

I'm not much of a horror fan and though I enjoyed the 2002 releases where the British Army let off a few shots at monsters in abandoned houses there's little in this movie to recommend unless you're a horror movie addict


"Long Time Dead" represents one of the best horror movies to come out of England in recent years. Joe Absolom of "Eastenders" fame is outstanding in his role throughout, proving that he can act!

The direction I believe is of a high standard and features some truely scary scenes along the way as we are taken along a journey watching some teens foolishly tamper with the undead. It is a clever and unique narrative, which does the acting great justice. It truely is a really under rated teen movie, that if it was produced in America would be hailed as a classic and would rest alongside the likes of "Scream", to name just one of the overused american teen horror genre.

The film deserves a watch, I rate it 8/10.


Being a Catholic I was very apprehensive about seeing this film as it deals with the occult and Ouija boards. It has an on-the-edge-of your-seat feel. The young cast plays out amazingly well. English viewers will recognise Joe Absolom and Marsha Thompson. Lukas Haas adds to the international mix. If you've seen this and Thir13en Ghosts, you will know that this is the better of the two - That's my opinion anyway. This is simply an amazing film, you won't believe that it's a Brit-flick. It gives a new meaning to the words 'Scary Movie' A few words of advice if you see this at night, you won't wanna go to sleep for hours!!


I saw the review for this late one night on TV and i have to say, i was quite surprised to see Matthew from Eastenders doing a Ouija Board! It was a British film and I knew then immediately that I had to see it for that reason alone. I was one of the many people who were fed up of American horrors that are not even scary. It was 2/3 weeks before I actually i did get to see it at the cinema late one night with my friend and it was a good thing I did. It was an excellent film. I have never been so scared out of my life whilst watching a film! For the first time in my life it actually made me jump back in my seat- and that was pretty embarassing seen as there was a whole row of girls a couple of rows back!

The plot itself is good and the scenes in which the djinn chases its victims down long flights of stairs and dark warehouse corridors were simply brilliant. The director had used all the resources to the limit and had used them well. I did feel that the film itself was very short and if they had more characters bring killed of, like in Scream, it would have been better but nevertheless it lives truly up to being called a 'horror film' and definitely makes Jeepers Creepers look like the tweenies. Americans should stop making horrors now and let the British take over as it clearly obvious that we are better at it!

For a low-budget British horror, this is truly more than brilliant with a superb ending, superb actors and superb scare factor! And for a low budget film, this is wayy better than any American Hollywood blockbuster that I have ever seen this year. 'Signs' was a pure disappointment and it couldnt even scare my little 12 year old brother let alone me and it was labelled really scary and someone even wrote that 'you shouldn't see it alone'. HAHA, yes, you should take your friends with you to have a great laugh! Because it AINT SCARY! If you want scares, LONG TIME DEAD IS DEFINITELY THE FILM TO SEE.

A brilliant 9/10. Maybe the film could have been longer.