I was young when I hired this movie classic and admit I was scared out of my wits! But many years on, I have grown to love what it is all about. In fact, I now laugh at what I guess I was so scared off. Gremlins are creatures that are meant to scare and humour the audience at the same time.

Don't ever get it wet. Keep it away from bright light. And no matter how much it cries, no matter how much it begs...never, ever feed it after midnight. With these instructions, young Billy Peltzer takes possession of his new cuddly pet, a gift from his father. But Billy will get a whole lot more than he bargained for and the small quite town of Kingston Falls is in for a Christmas they will never forget!

The first point I want to discuss about this movie is that of the great story behind it. It was very original and one that I liked. I enjoyed the idea of little menacing creatures causing havoc in an innocent little town, and the way that the Gremlins just take over. At the start of this film, the audience is aware that with the cute pet Gizmo (a Mogwai), comes much responsibility. I love the fact that there are three rules attached. If you break them, then all hell will break lose. It is an interesting concept and one I must say that worked. I feel that there has been some movies which have tried to copy the Gremlins concept which don't even come close. The Critters (and there sequels) for example, were a poor attempt in trying to follow on from the Gremlins.

The human cast of Gremlins was a pretty good one. The well known person from the Gremlins for me is the gorgeous Phoebe Cates. Her character in this film is full of hurt and regret, which the audience I am sure feel sorry for, plus she also helps save the day. I recently saw her very first movie, Fast times at Ridgemont High. That was a one hell of a teenage film. Cates looked stunning in it as well. Playing the lead role of Billy Peltzer was Zach Galligan. Zach has hardly been heard of since the role of Billy in Gremlins (and the sequel). Yet I seem to ask myself the question, why? He was excellent in Gremlins and a good choice as the main character. I guess he has done some other movie which have been flops. This includes the 1994 comedy All Tied Up, starring the stunning Terri Hatcher.

It's now time to talk about the real stars' of this show. Yes, those little green monsters. All credit needs to go to puppet makers in the Gremlins. These things' looked so real. Special comment needs to go to the creator of the Stripe' Gremlin. He was an amazing character. I want to say that the character of Gizmo was very restricted. We hardly ever see the whole animal. I liked him much more the second time around. The Gremlins is a movie that has so much happen in a little time. While these creatures remain Mogwais', they are quite harmless, but once they turn into the gruesome Gremlins they cause disaster after disaster. The scene in the school was quite satirical, with the Gremlin having his revenge on the school teacher. The only criticism of this scene is that we never actually find out what happens to that Gremlin. I guess he eventually meets up with whole group, but how does the viewing audience know this?

Then we have the hilarious scene at the Peltzer household. The mother was quite game tackling those gruesome creatures. I love it when she blends one in the mixer and then fries one in the microwave. When Stripe escapes, he hurts the small town of Kingston Falls. The scene at the YMCA swimming pool was clever. Then when you see all the Gremlins walking into town you appreciate that they are not real. Then you have the pub scene where Kate is trapped serving all these mischievous characters, it was totally wild. Also the scene with the snow plough going through the Futterman's house was crazy and suits the Gremlins totally. By the end we see one of the great pieces of directing, seeing all the Gremlins in the cinema watching quite a tame film in Snow White. Plus the final battle between Billy and Stripe in the Supermarket. It is so clever to see the little Gremlin tackle Billy with a chainsaw and a bow and arrow. Plus we see the best scene with Gizmo here. He is driving a Barbie-doll car, which was cute. I wont describe the end, but I will say that it was quite gut wrenching.

Credit must go to the director and producer of Gremlins. Steven Spielberg is a genius and one of the best producers in the business. His other movies which I have loved include E.T., The Goonies, and Jurassic Park. I also enjoyed the directing of Joe Dante. He was very inventive and takes us on a wild roller-coaster ride with the Gremlins.

To say that the original Gremlins film is a favourite of mine is an understatement. This movie is full of cuteness, cleverness, mischievousness and intelligence, all rolled into one. I also remember the posters advertising the Gremlins in this country (Australia). It was a Gremlin peeking out of a toilet. When I saw that I just had to see it, even though I did get nightmares after doing so. So, if you're air conditioner goes on the fritz, or washing machine blows up, or your video recorder konks out, before you call the repairman, turn on all the lights and check under all the beds, cos you never can tell, there just might be a Gremlin in your house!

Rating: 4 Stars or 9/10.


"Gremlins" is a strange, disgusting, twisted, demented, bizarre, funny, and violence-packed comedy. See what they can fit into an hour and a half? "Gremlins" is a down-right genuine classic. It's all about an inventor dad who buys a fuzzy-wuzzy creature for his son that will make you say, "Can I have one?". But after the first half-hour, you say, "I never want one of those things!" Why? (WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER!) Because the three rules that were supposed to be followed are accidentally broken, and more fuzzy creatures pop up and then later turn into despicable and gruesome monsters.

You'll get more laughs than you expected were in such a violent movie. I hope that you love this movie as much as I did and still do. 10/10


Many great films have a half a dozen (or more) copy-cats. This is one of the films that borrows, yet still stands alone in creating a revolution of beastie pictures. Gremlins, along with it's sequal are part of the "Greats", like "Jaws", "Star Wars", "Ghostbusters", among many many others. Some people don't get this dark comedy, and that's understandable. It is a mean spirited, fantasy film at times, but sometimes you laugh harder after you've been scared nearly to death. It would be wrong to deny this film it's just do. It showed, along with "Jaws", that thrillers can be fun and profitable, if you do it right. A loveable Creature named Gizmo, is brought home to Billy Peltzer, by his father, Rand. The new gift came with 3 rules. All of which Billy must abide by,and was forwarned. Billy does his best, but fails as he brakes the most important rule and lets loose hundreds of green monsters, that love to break things, and hurt people. It is a zany film, and if you haven't seen it, I don't want to give to much away. Enjoy the film, and it's sequel, which is one of the few arguably worthy sequels in film history. So check out "Gremlins."


This is one of the best films ever made, in my option. A must see film. Some of my favorite scenes: The movie theater, the toy shop,and the kid in the tree suit. This is OK for the kiddies, though it is rather violent. Funny, check out the reference to Forbidden Planet!


A firm favourite of mine during my nursery school years, 'Button Moon' had a large following of fans in those who were tots in the early Eighties. It was a very low-budget show with the characters were put together using wooden spoons and tin cans but it worked when complimented with simple story-telling and a solid musical score.

There was something very surreal about 'Button Moon' that I loved as a child (although I could see why people now link it to a drugs' trip!) but it was a show that proves you don't need high-quality CGI to keep small children (and adults!) entertained. Upon viewing it recently, after a friend bought the DVD, it certainly brought back memories and would no doubt be equally as popular with today's toddlers as it was with kids in the Eighties.


In my childhood days of course, this used to be one of my favourite kids shows that I'd ever seen. In a distant galaxy or something, there was a planet with a moon circling around it. This moon was Button Moon. Basically everything around the planet was similar to normal everyday little things, like a button, making the scenery and characters. For example, there was Mr Spoon with spoons for arms, and there was also broom sticks for trees. On this planet or on Button Moon itself these characters had many weird so called adventures or short stories. One of my favourite episodes that I remember was the talent show. This was a quality show. It was number 86 on The 100 Greatest Kids' TV Shows. Very good!


Dolph Lundgren made his directorial debut with the Defender. A great little action movie that was really what his fans could have hoped for, a triumphant return to his best. Now his second film shows that it wasn't merely a flash in the pan, or a fluke. Yes people Dolph Lundgren, never considered much kop in the acting department has now proved he is a more than capable director, even suggesting that his new role deserves him a shot at the big time.

The Mechanik's plot is thus: Nick Cherenko (Lundgren) is an ex-spetznaz, parachutist, who served in Afghanistan. He now lives in his homeland of Russia, with his wife and son working as a mechanic (hence the title.). During a drug deal involving Russian mobster Sasha, his wife and child are killed in the crossfire, Sasha gunning down Nick's wife. Nick later hunts down Sasha and his men, wiping them out and leaving Sasha assumed dead, with a nasty bullet hole in the face. Seven years later Nick is working in LA, illegally, as a mechanic when he is approached to do a job. He is to retrieve the kidnapped Julia, daughter of a wealthy businesswoman. Nick refuse until he discovers who kidnapped her, Sasha. He travels to Russia and meets with Burton (Ben Cross) who will supply him with weapon's and assembles a team of mercs to help Nick get back Julia, while at the same time finishing what he did 7 years previously, killing Sasha. The plot is simple yet writer Bryan Hill allows more focus on characters, clearly in the style of directors like Michael Mann. There are great character moments here, and some superbly played out scenes in amongst the action scenes focusing on character. it's the sort of quiet moments never seen in DTV action films, including a great dinner sequence where Nick and his men relax and unwind, a kind of calm before the storm. The dialogue is also engaging.

The film looks fantastic. The washed out colours, make this reminiscent of brutal 70's revenge flicks like Death Wish and Get Carter. Cinematographer Ross Clarkson has made sure this looks far beyond it's small budget. Similarly Dolph's visual style has developed even more since his exciting debut. He shoots the film with conviction, stylistically picking little apples from different orchards, not simply, as many directors do, picking from merely John Woo's orchard (that guy has no apples left on his trees I can tell you), but Dolph gives reference to a varied group, from Woo, to Mann, to Peter Yates and to modern indie directors like the Bourne films' Doug Liman and Peter Greengrass.

The action is excellent, a step up from the Defender. Again it's plentiful, yet the action is different in style. This time as opposed to a siege movie, this is an ass battering revenge flick so the action consists of bloody and violent shootouts, where like so rarely in his previous movies, every bullet has it's own bullet hole. Windows shatter, splinters fly, chest cavities burst open and things blow up. The fights scenes are brilliantly paced and use martial arts realistically. it's all done in one or two moves. No flashy Van Damme kicks, it's arm breaks, shoulder tosses and neck breaks. Also the film has some vehicular chases that impress too.

The music from Elia Cmirel is atmospheric, and delightfully reminiscent of his work in Ronin, simple, low key and effective. He doesn't go through the motions here, he creates a score, as if proud to be scoring this movie. This is possibly Dolph's best score, particularly in the context of it being a genuinely good little film. In terms of the sound mix, this, like Defender, is pure class. The use of sound is excellent, while the general editing of the film is slick, well paced and never goes overboard.

The cast are good. Dolph Lundgren gives probably his best performance. He doesn't over-stretch himself as many action stars have been prone too, yet he raises his level of performance and does well. Olivia Lee is a rising up and comer who does well as Julia. The remainder of the cast are also excellent. Real class is also added by Ben Cross. He is given a good role as drunk Brit, Burton. Burton is in love with a hooker, who helps get them into Sasha's club to retrieve Julia. Cross is excellent in a role more significant than I thought it would be. He is comical and shows conviction in the dramatic scenes and his presence is a real bonus to an already quality piece.

This film really does show the future to be bright for Lundgren, should he carry on directing his own movies. His cash cow power allows him to get his way on how he wants to film his action, meaning every last penny is spent, and time is taken for more elaborate set-ups. Lundgren shows himself worthy of another shot at the big time in a film Van Damme and Seagal could only dream of having on their CV's. In a generally great year for films, Dolph has produced that rare thing, a decent, well made, DTV movie. Not only that but he has done it twice! This is Lundgren's best by some way! ****


I saw this film for rent and although it's not the sort of film I'd usually go for, being a Dolph Lundgren movie, I was intrigued by the cool looking front cover. I read up some reviews, courtesy of IMDb, the only ones I could find. It did seem a popular movie.

Anyways I hired it and I must say the IMDb rating doesn't do this film justice. It is really a surprise because it has some great little moments in it. Also it packs a punch in the more violent scenes and doesn't hold back, and I mean I was really wincing in some moments.

It didn't occur to me until the film opened and credited Lundgren himself as director. He did a fantastic job and his portrayal of violence really hits home like my favorite director Mr Paul Verhoeven. Lundgren I know is someone critics always mock, like Schwarzenegger, but Lundgren really shows talent as a director. I will have to watch his other film the Defender. In regards to the acting, Lundgren also did a good job. Ben Cross is a good actor too and he does well in this film.

This is overall a quality piece, well worth watching.


The Mechanik is a solid bare-bones action movie. If amazing special effects and an all-star cast are required to enjoy a movie, look elsewhere.

Nick Cherenko (Lundgren) previously of the Russian special forces, has his family brutally killed by Russian Mobsters. Now he is offered a reward to recover the daughter of a millionaire, forced into prostitution by the same men. The plot is a no-brainer, its a simple revenge story which has been done a thousand times. While the acting varies, the locations give a real presence in the film. Wide soviet countryside and wartorn villages help thicken the atmosphere.

Action is paced, with some nicely executed shootouts. The violence is depicted as gritty - bricks chip and windows shatter as mercenaries fall. Deaths come with an abundance of blood and gore.

Overall, an entertaining flick with nice camera work and solid action. One of the better Dolph movies.


I've never been much of a Lundgren fan, with my preferred viewing being Norris and Seagal, with also Van Damme too. But to my surprise, during a DTV rampage of these guys (The Hard Corps, Shadow Man and also the Cutter too) Dolph's film the Mechanik was by a long, long, way the best of the bunch. I've fallen by the wayside a little in recent years, and haven't kept up to much with the action boys, but when your in the mood, your in the mood. Anyway The Mechanik was fantastic. It's a simple storyline, and a simply delivered film, but it promises something, and delivers. The result is a violent, dirty and damn fun action movie. It's a great little regression to 70's and 80's action films. I also understand it was shot on a fraciton of the budgets of Chuck's, Stevens and Jean Claudes, movies and still manages to look the most expensive too.

Lundgren too gives a solid performance and looks in great shape. In fact dare I say it the other guys like either old, tired or overweight (all three in Seagal's case). Lundgren looks fresh and in great shape. Ben Cross was really good. That guy should have been a bigger star, a really good actor if anyone's seen his earlier work.

On the negative side, the girl in the movie seems little more than a pointless inclusion to aid the bloodshed, and the bad guy is a little too "hey look at me I'm the bad guy!" After all though, it's expected from this sort of film so it's not a big problem. I also wasn't too sure what was with all the dissolves either, but on the most part this film is directed with assurance and a great sense of pace, and of course directed by Dolph himself! This film really acts as a showcase for Dolph Lundgren. It's the Dolph show, and it's a good show. It brought back fond memories of cool Peckinpah movies. Good work Dolph!


Dolph Lundgren stars as Nick Cherinko, a former Russian super soldier (I think it is the same character in Red Scorpion!) who this time uses his special skills for vengeance when his family is wiped out by Russian mobsters however this is just the first fifteen minutes as Lundgren wastes literally no time in delivering payback and it is when he finds out that the mobster lived that it becomes apparent that he must return back to Russia and even the score. Rescuing a girl in the process is just secondary to satisfying his blood thirsty rage. I must admit that I enjoy a certain style of actioner, mainly the type in which the action is big, brutal and solid. Of course I was mildly surprised by Lundgren's last movie The Defender due to it's good action and solid story however I generally don't rent straight to video movies because I got burned way too many times, however when this came on TV I saw it and was VERY impressed with it. The Russian Specialist is a throw back to the Charles Bronson days when the heroes dispensed ruthless justice and walked away with an ending that was happy for everyone but them. Certainly there are some minor flaws and the main one being that Lundgren has softened his accent so much he no longer can pull off that great of a Russian accent. Also Ben Cross (Best known from Chariots Of Fire) is somewhat out of place in this movie but i'd be lying if I didn't enjoy this brutal throwback to the classic revenge actioner. So this one is worthy of a rental. In fact I may go onto Amazon and see if I can find a cheap DVD of this to add in my collection. (The last Lundgren movie I bought on DVD was Bridge Of Dragons)

* * * out of 4-(Good)


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

In his native Russia, Nick Cherenko (Dolph Lundgren- is this a sequel/prelude to Red Scorpion?) was a Special Forces Soldier with a wife and son until they were brutally murdered by Russian gangsters. After taking revenge on those responsible, with too many bad memories floating around he flees his homeland and goes to work in Los Angeles as a humble car mechanic. Until one day he is approached by a wealthy woman who's daughter has been kidnapped. She wants him to go in and rescue her. At first he is uninterested...until he learns the identity of the kidnapper, the head gangster he didn't manage to kill.

As a director, Dolph seems keen to tell his stories from a more human, realistic angle than from a sensationalist, fantastical Hollywood sort of way. It's a gambit that will work with some and not with others, but I think both sides can agree he certainly has a flair for directing action scenes, and giving them a hard-edged, blood-soaked feel, which this film clearly shows.

If you're looking for an undemanding, blood-thirsty action thriller, Lundgren-style, you've certainly got what you payed for with The Russian Specialist. ****


Dolph's first directing effort, The Defender, was a nice little action piece. Granted, the movie was low budget, but there was enough enthusiasm and excitement to make it worthwhile.

The Russian Specialist,aka The Mechanik, as it should be called; is a distinct step UP for Dolph. His direction is incredibly assured for someone who's only directed one other movie.

I won't go into story specifics here because everybody already knows what this about. However, I will go into the production and performances.

Dolph has changed as an actor. He's matured, he's confident in his skin. That is half the battle, and he wins bigtime.

Ben Cross is the comedy relief/dramatic Brit. He's one of the film's better assets.

The rest of the performers are more than adequate. The villains in particular, are slimy and nasty. It's a good thing they're slaughtered in such a brutal fashion!!! The script for this film, while hardly original, is pretty good for low budget fare like this. It pushes all the right buttons at the right time. The dialog is also quite good.

Dolph, the director, is in very good form. His style is loose and fluid. Think Tony Scott meets John Woo and you're on the right track.

The score by Elia Cmiral is haunting when it needs to be and tense when the crap hits the fan. Which brings us to the action set pieces.

Although they're not numerous, the action scenes are well done and VIOLENT! Dolph pulls no punches with this flick. The deaths come fast, hard and furious! Overall, this little film is quite good. I eagerly await the next Dolph film. To those who have not checked out this film and The Defender, I recommend you do so.


I have just seen this movie, and so thought that I should comment on it.

It's been a while since I have seen an action movie of 'this type'. You know, where the 'hero' gets wronged and has go after the bad guys, regardless of the fact that he is one man, and he is going up against a well connected organisation. But this movie was very different, as the hero uses his brain as much as his brawn, accepts help albeit a bit reluctantly, and has a second reason for his quest.

The direction is very tight and classy - I commend Dolph as I can't even remember the name of the last film I saw him in - I just seem to remember that it was fairly awful.

The characters build well in this film - not just a bunch of bullet fodder, and although there are quite a few deaths you actually feel for some of the characters.

There is a lot of violence - the fighting scenes are well orchestrated and look very realistic -it's definitely not one for the kids, and being a fan of gore and splatter effects, I was pleasantly surprised to see that when people got shot, there was a real bloody impact in each scene, that didn't seem at all over the top like some squibs end up looking.

The acting was superb from all involved, although I do think that one scene where the rescued girl has a grizzle was a tad hammy, but it lasted seconds and didn't spoil my enjoyment or the flow of the film.

For what it was I would say this is one of the best films of its genre I have seen.

If, when you think of Dolph Lundgren, you only get a picture of him saying "I must break you" from the Rocky film, think again and check this movie out.

You'll be glad you did !


My review gonna be long . [ spoiler] Nick Cherenko is an ancient spetnatz . He lives in a small village with his wife and his son . But one day , a local "godfather" come in the town . A massarce begin . His wife and his son are killed . Nick want a vengeance . He (thinks ) he has killed the godfather . [] 7 years later , Nick lives illegally in Los Angeles , as a Mechanik . A woman want him to come back in Russia to bring her daughter back . Nick refuse first , but change his mind when he discover that the girl has been kidnapped by the "godather". Second film as director , first masterpiece , after a very good first movie .

Even if "The Mechanik" is an action movie, it has its drama side . This movie mixes different genre . Drama , action , thriller ....

As in "the defender " , violent scenes are really violent . People bleeds violently , and action scenes are really strong . Actors give a real great interpretation . Ben Cross is absolutely incredible . When his favorite hooker is killed , he give us a great drama scene . Dolph is a great director . The photography is really great , the direction is as good . This movie is very good . Very 70's style . One hour and a half of pure entertaining dramatic action .

Some directors should learn from him . I hope ( and I'm sure) he will give us other masterpieces like this one .


Dolph has really done it. The Mechanik is an action movie at it best. It has everything an action flick needs. A good guy, a bad guy, shooting, close combat, blood and broken bones and a huge death count at the (happy) end. The story is very simple. Nikolai Cherenko (Lundgren) is a former spetznas (Russian special forces) who, after his family was killed by a mafia boss, went to the US to work as a mechanic. After 7 years a lady comes to him and wants to hire him to save here daughter which was kidnapped by the same gangster. Nick finally takes the job but of course it is not about the money but all about vengeance. He gets a backup team and from here on the story and the end is quite predictable. But it is not the story that makes this movie a must see. It is the details, and mostly it is what the movie leaves out. You won't find long dialogs about morale and ethics, heroism in terms of "leave me behind I'm just slowing you down!" and then the obligatory "never I'd rather die!". There are also no long man on man fights. What do you do if a black belt attacks you? Well if it would bee any other movie, such a situation would develop into a 1 hour bare hands fight. But not here. Take your gun and shoot him. It is that simple. A very similar situation, the bad guy falls to the ground and loses his gun. Wait till he gets up? Continue the fight without weapons? Bah! You are standing, he is on the ground, you've got a gun, he hasn't. Shoot him! Not very honorable, but very fast and effective. After all he is there to get the girl not to win a karate tournament. At the end, The Mechanik is not your typical action flick. The hero is not as heroic as you would perhaps like to have him. He is not doing all this because it is the right thing, but because he wants to see blood. The Mechanik is a great action movie, just like in the good old times when action didn't try to bee anything else, but simply action. It is simple, violent, direct and pure as the best Russian vodka! A must see!


As for my "Catching Up With Dolph" initiative I started last week, THE MECHANIK was my third pick. I ended up enjoying/appreciating this one the most, surprisingly also a film directed by Dolph himself. And he does a good job, honestly. Now I am by far not an expert on all things Dolph, but I can appreciate a decent effort when I see one. THE MECHANIK has a bare-bones story - fairly big on the clichés, I might add, though thankfully not including a tired re-found love angle - but it's put together with a consistent style (you'll have to dig the contemporary look & editing, though) and the cinematography looks fine, using faded, stained colors with hard contrasts. It's all about Dolph being on a mission (again) and getting revenge (again) while at it. But it's executed in a proper fashion. What really made the film pay off, was it promising a decent shout-out climax and even coming through on that promise. Western fans might even dig this film. Lots of violent kills and bloodshed, and it all looks pretty damn good & realistic on screen. A job well done, Dolph. I applaud you, and I will be checking out MISSIONARY MAN next and I hope it'll score as high on the Dolph-scale. Either way, nice to see you're doing well!


Action superstar Dolph Lundgren directs and stars in this explosive and fast-paced action-thriller as a retired Special Forces soldier on a mission of revenge.

The Russian Specialist is terrific and surprisingly intense, it makes you wonder, how did Dolph managed to make such a low budget movie look like a high class movie with a big budget.

Dolph makes the violence in this movie realistic, you will hear bones crack, necks snap and bullets fly causing damage to whatever it hits. Dolph as a great vision as a director and captures the scenes very well in the movie. The locations are very well chosen for the movie and the scenery is breathtaking, especially the overhead shoots throughout the movie.

The cast for this movie is the best i have ever seen in a low budget movie, everyone plays out their role nicely done, Ben Cross does an amazing job with his character and Dolph does a great performance as a very well believable Russian character. This movies belongs on the A-list of movies and deserved a chance in a theatrical release.


I like when Dolph Lundgren direct Movies. I have seen several of Movies he directed and it shows his talent as an Actor and Director. The only problem with this Movie, the bad guy: Why do the Bad Guys always look so ugly? However, rather then Schwarznegger, Dolph Lundgren hasn't lost that touch of a Cool Action Dud He gets better the older he gets. Its funny, every time I see Lundgren on Screen its like reminds me, oh there must be something about Russia or so. Rather then Retrograde this Movie was a lot better. Retrograde was waste of his Talent. Its really cool to watch Lundgrens Movies and I know that there are some moments I think no this is not acting. This is himself.


yes i really said that, i ain't into all that cgi superhero bull, i like all out action flicks like the mechanik, a brutal revenge movie with some of the best action iv'e seen for years. Dolph lundgren is a badaass in this and made me remember how much i love him sure he was never as big a star as most of the action hero's of the 80's but as he proves here, he's the one who's ruling the genre now cus he plays one mean mofo here, the story has Dolph's wife and kid murdered by the Russian mafia, he moves to los angelos and seven years later he is asked to go back to Russia to bring back somebody's daughter back, he refuses to do it at first until he realises it is the same gangster that killed his family seven years ago, so he goes to get his bloody revenge, the mechanik is violent and dark but its great entertainment and delivers the goods, sure the story has been done many times before but the way it is made and its style just make the mechanik an action classic, Dolph lundgren also directed it and does a brilliant job crafting one of the best action/thriller's for the past ten years. Dolph lundgren is back and he's bigger and better than ever


I was an exchange student in London a year ago and had the great opportunity of meeting Dolph in person, and he gave me an autograph. He was very gracious and kind. I don't watch a lot of his movie usually but I decided to watch this one earlier today (my boyfriend works in a video store and got me it a day early!).

I really enjoyed the movie it was very good. Dolph looks good too (I didn't say this to my boyfriend, I'm so bad!) and of course there is lots of fights and things too so he was happy. I liked the scenes with Dolph and Ben Cross, they were engaging and Ben is a really top actor (not that Dolph isn't a good one).

Anyways this was a good film and although it was a bit overly violent at times, a little sadistic it was well made.


This to me is one of the better Dolph films to come out of the 2000's. I appreciate the simplicity of it but what makes it stand above the rest id the quality in the acting. Dolph is very good as Niko the mechanic. Ben Cross as well as the other guys are very good. The climax in the film makes it for me. The fact that Dolph directed this makes me wonder why doesn't he direct all the films he stars in. The Defender was good too but I like this one better. This is not your typical wall to wall action film, but the action scenes here as well as the shootouts are very good. Nothing new with the story, but it's crafted in a way that looks as if it was new.


His family killed dead by the Mafia in a drug deal gone bad, Dolph returns to Russia from a stateside sabbatical to finish the job he failed six years earlier. With the added goal of rescuing a pimped Americenne as moral ammunition.

The acting leaves you expecting a sudden plot twist where it's revealed you were duped and you are watching a cheap porno. While the whole time you're wondering what kind of sicko gives a bunch of Russian kids guns and tells them to watch Dolph's back. Naturally they pass the Mechanik's pop sweep test, but as time passes and bullets bounce through him into his comrades it's apparent they won't last the journey.

Fortunately for progression's sake the Mafioso had the sense to read the script the night before. While the good guys favour plenty of pit stops to slow their escape in a clapped-out van the bad guys take a laid-back approach arriving comfortably in stylish executive saloons. Interrogating discarded support actors until the general direction of the next set is revealed.

The showdown redefines the term 'tactical weapons' with bullet-strider Dolph picking an over and under shotgun to irritate the opposition into submission while his rag-tag troupe make every attempt to get themselves shot. In a moment of climactic tension the drop off driver reverses a front-wheel drive into a shallow ditch and is righteously executed for his lack of skills. Giddy from the acquisition of a suitcase full of dollars the boss trips headfirst into hostage soup. Dolph fishes him out only to put him back with both barrels.

Thankfully, after a brief tear-jerking mother daughter reunion you can switch off, go to sleep and repress all that trauma.


It's fair to say that this is an improvement from Uwe Boll's previous movies, but then again that's not saying much at all really.

Not only did this movie lack balance in its portrayal of the Vietnam conflict (the Viet Cong are portrayed as misunderstood freedom fighters), but it completely lacked any real plot ark or character development.

As a result it plays out like a long snuff movie with one violent death scene after another, until it all comes to a rather dull and sudden ending.

The movie doesn't actually give the viewer any real background or important factual information about the US or Viet Cong tunnel rat soldiers, and as a result it starts by alienating the majority of its viewers who would know very little about this aspect of the Viet Cong war.

The movie starts by introducing us to a series of characters - the US soldiers - and we are given some interesting background to these men's personal histories, but then this comes to a rather sudden dead end as soon as the fighting begins - at which point the development of these characters completely stops.

We are also introduced to three main characters from the Viet Cong, but their development is even worse - with one character who has been given a very clichéd story about why he is so angry at the US, and another female character who obviously has reservations about the war, but this is never really developed any further.

Once the war violence starts the movie spirals into a drawn out series of violent death scenes, with a poorly constructed and confused Viet Cong raid on the US camp - It actually appears to feature the same action sequences repeated several times, each time with different characters involved - basically it looks like Uwe Boll tried to make a very small base camp look huge with B-grade cinema tricks. (also, many of the actors don't appear to have been trained how to engage the enemy, or how to hold and shoot their weapons as soldiers of the Vietnam war era would have been).

This movie was a real disappointment, and once the war scenes began it started to feel a little bit like a slasher flick or a Vietnam version of Predator (except without the Predator).

In the end it never actually informs the viewer about the history or complicated issues of the Vietnam war, and it doesn't work as an anti-war film either - if Uwe was really trying to promote an anti-war message then it gets lost in a never ending haze of graphic violence.

If you want to watch a movie that gives a more balanced portrayal of both sides, along with some important insights into the Vietnam conflict, and at the same time portrays the true horror of the Vietnam war without dishonoring the men who were forced to fight in it, then give Tunnel Rats a miss and watch We Were Soldiers instead.


I used to hate Uwe Boll. Like really despise. His films were some of the worst I have ever paid to see with BloodRayne, Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead couldn't even have all their score combined to get a full star out of this reviewer.

As a person, Uwe Boll also repulsed me. In 2006 he challenged critics of his films to 'put up or shut up' and get into the boxing ring with him to defend their critiques.

But then, I had a revelation. Why was it that I adored the offerings of one Roger Corman all these years when his films and Boll's are very similar in their results. Both filmmakers do their best with limited budgets and produce films that are so laughable that you can't help but look beyond the production values to find the entertainment in their product. In short, Corman and Boll both produce films that are un-watchable alone, but when enjoyed with friends, while having beers and yelling Mystery Science Theatre type comments at the screen, they can be fairly amusing. Tunnel Rats fits right into his resume along with Postal and In the Name of the King.

Tunnel Rats is set during the Vietnam War and puts a bunch of expendable US soldiers in a position where they have to hunt the Viet Cong by exploring and hunting them in the various underground tunnels they have built under the forest battlefield.

The tunnels are tight and dark, which does give a sense of claustrophobia, but doesn't give you a lot to look at on the screen. The lighting is so dense with nothing more than a flashlight to illuminate a scene that you find yourself straining at the screen. Let's face it, Uwe Boll films can give anyone a headache without having to squint for 90 minutes.

So the film is pretty straight forward. One by one they go into the tunnel when the ones that went in prior don't come back out. And one by one they all face various deaths thanks to the assorted weapons at the hands of the Viet Cong which include knives, guns and a sharpened bamboo poll.

Unlike most other Uwe Boll films, Tunnel Rats tries too hard to develop character amongst the actors in the platoon. Countless (endless!) minutes are spent learning about their backgrounds and their hopes and ambitions if they survive the craziness of the war.

Unfortunately, character building is not Boll's strongpoint. Not that I know what his strongpoint is, but just having a group of soldiers sit around and jibber jabber about the things we have heard in any and all other Vietnam films produced since Oliver Stone's platoon induced yawns that were larger than the holes these soldiers were climbing down.

There is some half descent violence. The bamboo stick through the neck was good and when the enemy circles in around the platoon in a wave of explosions and gunfire, there are some good dismemberments to keep you interested.

But not enough.

When it is over, if you watched it with others, I am sure that the comments uttered aloud during the screening will allow for some value. If you watched it alone, Boll owes you 90 minutes of your life back. Or at least a chance to take a swing at him in the boxing ring.

www.killerreviews.com


This film was based on true events and if the US soldiers were as badly trained and stupid as this outfit are portrayed, then it's a wonder they didn't lose the war sooner.

For example,we see two soldiers standing over a hole while comrades are below and these two soldiers see the VC coming. Do they find cover from which to fight behind? Nope one stands up swinging a big machine gun one handed arnie style shouting at them. They have a camp in the middle of the jungle and the VC attack, right from the first tent. How on earth would they have gotten that close to a base camp? No fences or guards on duty that day? Please. Then the CO calls for immediate air support as they are being over-run, been over-run would have been more like it. The immediate air support didn't turn up until later when everybody had gone home, had they flown all the way from America? You felt absolutely no sympathy with the characters, we had just about every clichéd character you could think of except the chirpy cockney and the scouse scallywag. They tried to build backgrounds and personalities to the characters but failed miserably, maybe because it was done very lazily, ie having two actors discuss all the characters for our benefit while they eat. The conversation just doesn't seem real.

It is a shame because the film started well and the scene in the tunnels involving the mother and kids was genuinely tense but it seemed so out of place with the rest of the film which was, badly acted to say the least. I seem to remember the excellent Tour of Duty TV series covering this subject in one episode and they managed to fit in more tension and understanding of these terrifying tunnels in a fifty minute programme than this film managed.

I just kept thinking that 1968 Tunnel Rats was like a bad horror film where the goodies (in this case the tunnel rats)were being picked off one by one by the evil monster (the VC) in different and more nasty ways and the only mystery was who is the one that is going to survive? Is it the guy that believes God will protect him? The CO that is nasty to his men as a way of protecting them and preparing them for the nasties of war etc?


I realize that, being an American, I may not be the most objective about this... but really! This movie made the American troops look like bumbling, cruel, calloused idiots vs. the gentile, peace-loving, well trained VC. I am a veteran, and having been to war and understand the reality of the fact that both sides are human. I also understand that America is not always right. Even allowing for those things I cant give any credit here for an attempt at accuracy. There was nothing objective about the clear anti-American bias in this movie. If you enjoy watching American soldiers die then you may like this movie...

This is a horrible movie about a horrible war...


This movie is a squandered opportunity.

Uwe Boll apparently thought the best way to make a statement about the pointlessness of war was by making a pointlessly long, wound-inducing, brutally ugly and disturbingly unoriginal genre film.

Here, the director had a chance to redeem himself after a series of flops and turds. In Postal, at least, he showed some promise of not taking himself too seriously, and while the end result there wasn't exactly a good film, at least it was entertaining.

But don't believe the hype.

In Tunnel Rats, Boll is aiming for a serious, realistic movie. The film is marketed as being "for the fans of Apocalypse Now and Platoon", which by itself is a patently ridiculous and preposterous thing to say, coming from a film maker who has built his career on lowering the bar on genre films, from horror (Seed) and action (Bloodrayne) to comedy (Postal). By making a "war film", Boll has proved himself yet again as a completely derivative and wannabe director who is not concerned with either originality, artistic impact or entertainment value. What is good in this movie is stolen from other directors. What is bad in this movie is the result of bad imitation or skewed interpretation of the masters, combined with a lot of self-indulgent, amateurish drivel. To compare his works to those of Oliver Stone or Francis Coppola is an insult to the craft.

Nor am I trying to be unduly harsh on the man. I don't care that he is a popular subject of internet ridicule. I only care about the fact that he makes bad movies, with the sort of inane persistence that is mind boggling. And to stay true to his vision, the last 50 minutes of this film are some of his worst yet. Bravo, Herr Boll: job well done.

But let's start at the beginning. The movie opens up with some nice open angle shots, followed by scenes at and around the camp. The characters are introduced, some chatter is spewed back and forth, the setting is laid out in order to be upset by events to come. The characters are clichés, the dialogue is completely unoriginal. There are at least four or five variations of the theme of "I want to go home but we can't 'cos we're stuck here and war is hell." The movie is ridiculously excessive in its repetition of the message of "we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto". Emotions are shown without preparation or care, and we are left without any means of relating to these cardboard figures - shadows, as they are, of American stereotypes.

From the first action scene on, and all the way through the laborious tunnel sequences throughout the film to the final scene, the movie shows signs of some of the worst pacing and cohesion in recent memory. The movie is about as chaotic as war, but that is not cinema verité: Uwe Boll simply happens to be the cinematic equivalent of a shell shock treatment. Maybe that's why this movie is seen by some to be authentic in its demented convolutions, because they think that Boll has created some postmodern masterpiece here. But what they mistake for craft is simply Boll's inability to make a coherent narrative last more than 10 minutes. And because war is all about brutal ugliness, Uwe Boll just naturally happens to have the inherent lack of vision, honesty and skills to drive that point home involuntarily. Boll IS war.

Uwe Boll is the worst enemy to his own movies. He is like the Viet Cong digging tunnels underneath the movie crew's feet, or more like a saboteur within. After he is done, little remains of a salvageable movie. He snips out all developments, abandons all his characters, fails to release tension that he builds up unnecessarily, meanders like a schizophrenic tunnel rat in a maze, throws random scenes at the viewer in a barrage of images that might as well have been edited together using an aleatory computer program or an astrological chart... and finally, he repeats and repeats and repeats the same stupid mistakes of his earlier movies as if self-criticism and self-learning were signs of weakness. The latter half of the movie is an irredeemable catastrophe, as if even the editor gave up on this movie after the midpoint. There is such a lack of love here that one wonders if it's not done on purpose in some cruel, twisted joke.

This is certainly not Uwe Boll's worst movie. At least Seed, Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead are even more disturbingly amateurish. But what makes Tunnel Rats perhaps more distressing than those previous stinkers is its subject matter: war. The film is so dark, gray, boring, claustrophobic and ugly that it's perhaps his least entertaining movie yet. And it certainly fails as a message movie, because it has no intellectual honesty or artistic merit to speak of. So who is it for? What's the point? I really don't know... The film is a completely dishonest hack job, a failure in its own terms, and a complete humour failure to boot.

This movie is ugly, meandering, brutal, pointless and painfully long.

Yes, in that regard, it is an apt representation of Vietnam.

Thank god we're not in Vietnam anymore, Toto.


This is probably one of the worst films on Nam I've ever seen. So unorganized and unprofessional that is the guys I served with acted that way none of us would have came home.

I like Michael Pare's acting but not in this movie. The writer should have gotten his facts straight or at least talked to some real tunnel rats. Even a unit in the Army that served in Nam didn't act that way in Nam. Not that I ever saw, but my time was in the Marines and not a chance did a Marine unit ever act like this movie portrayed.

zadziks from Antarctica gave it a 10, he has no clue or is getting royalties from the DVD sells.

Pure waste of time.


As an avid war movies fan, I was stunned by this down-to-earth story. I would recommend this one instead of watching boring documentaries. It is a great lesson in story-telling as well...the simple truth is the ultimate scenario. The title itself does prepare us for this journey from human to animal. Never in the movie does the animal part become surreal, just plain realistic, which sets is apart. I would go so far as to say it took the opposite road from "Apocalypse Now", no lyricism and theatrics. Isn't that the ultimate "tour de force" in movie-making ? To be able to tell a story, so visually that you feel the action, but even in black & white picture and stereo sound, it would be as powerful... The director is definitely to be reckoned with, I am now quite intrigued by his filmography.


This is one of the worst films ever done by the already talentless Dr. Boll. Now if this had some tongue-in-cheek humor or was meant to be a joke, well that would be one thing. Instead you are tortured w/ 90+ minutes of cliché ridden, over the top "action," absurd dialog, and one of the most pathetic endings ever put on film. Hopefully now that all of this tax breaks in Germany have been taken away from him, we won't have to put up w/any more of his drivel. However although he has no idea how to make a film, he sure does know how to get them made. How that is possible, I have no idea. This is as bad if not worse than anything he has ever done because it's supposed to be serious which makes it all the more laughable and embarrassing. Please do not waste your time w/this even though you can watch it free online if you have a Netflix membership, please don't let that fool you. This is bad in every part of the word especially the god-awful "ACTING" & the 3rd grade script which is about as nonexistent & filled w/nothingness as it can possibly be. Skip, Skip, Skip, at all costs please.


This has got to be one of the worst movies ever made. I'm not being prejudiced against the director. this movie just plain sucks. I know some of you like it because it has a lot of blood and gore and mangled bodies and lots of stuff gets blown up. If that's your cup of tea, go for it. But in this movie, this is what is missing: any kind of acting, any possible directing, anything resembling realistic jungle battle, intelligent dialog, story line and plot without holes galore, intelligent soldiers, and I could go on and on. This is not how war is. This is not how it was in Vietnam. This does not show any side of humanity. It's a jumbled up mess. A complete waste of time and money. Do not see this film. Time for the director to retire.


A gentle and moving production, this film takes itself much less seriously than Topsy-Turvy. Blending both well-timed comedy and the "human drama" which Sullivan himself so longed for in the libretti of his partner, the film takes us through the majority of the duo's career. Only the most pedantic G&S historian will not forgive the mild omissions and distortions which are used to move the plot along, and the film manages to work in references to all but Patience, Ida, Utopia, and Grand Duke, often in quite clever and entertaining ways. The soaring music of Yeomen, used so poignantly near the end, never fails to bring a tear to my eye. All in all, I would call this one of my favorite films, for its subtle humor, charm, and artistry.


Much was made of "Topsy Turvy" when it came out, but if it's G&S music you're interested in, there's no comparison. The Great G&S wins hands down. Wonderful Maurice Evans, even better Robert Morley, and plenty of operetta excerpts. Wish the film's color quality had held up better with time, and of course today's sound would be better, but this is still a joy to watch and listen to. Wish they had included Princess Ida and Utopia, Ltd., but you can't have everything.


I have a poor copy that was probably made off the air. Despite the technical shortcomings, the film is a delight to watch. The staging of the various operetta's was done with taste and love. I watch it at least once a year and enjoy it each time. I only wish I could find a reasonable copy. It seems to have vanished.


Every scene propels the film through the collaboration of Gilbert and Sullivan, hitting most of the high points and portraying the lows with the sympathy and understanding that creative geniuses deserve. I was predisposed to liking it, because I was a fanatical G&S enthusiast first, but it was a relief to discover that this film was a worthy tribute to their legacy. Providence deserves the credit for forcing friends to acquaint me with the operas of Gilbert and Sullivan, when I was dead set against them (for no apparent reason). Later, Providence rewarded my open mind by delivering into my hands (from out of the blue) a 35mm Technicolor print of the film. My reason for mentioning it is that the print had an intermission at about the one hour point. It seemed silly at first, but I later discovered that the print had been shown "double system," with separate hour-long reels of 35mm magnetic sound tracks. This was confirmed by an article in the Journal of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, which stated that The Story of Gilbert and Sullivan had been one of the earliest films presented with magnetic stereo sound (before the composite magnetic prints of Cinemascope). I never found the magnetic stereo tracks, but the print also had the usual monaural optical track, of very good quality. My print eventually decomposed from vinegar syndrome, but I was able to buy a VHS tape from a G&S society in England, which apparently owns the rights. I wonder whether they own the stereo tracks, or will ever release a DVD. Are there not enough G&S fans in the world to make it hugely profitable?


CAVITE is an example of ultimate independent film, with a very short budget, a very simple concept, an exotic locale, a minimal cast, and a hand-held camera.

The story is simple: Adam (Ian Gamazon) is called home to the Phillipines because of a family crisis. Instead of his family picking him up, he finds himself forced to follow instructions of a man claiming to have his family. There's no clear reason for the abduction, or what makes Adam a target; all Adam really knows is that his every move is watched, and the kidnappers have no regard for their victims.

As Adam follows the obscure instructions, and the obstacles in his way, the audience can't help but be caught up in his plight. The hand held camera and jumpy editing style enhances the sense of desperation and time. The scenes of urban Phillipines, particular the markets and the squatter holdings are a vivid cacophony.

Co-directors and Co-writers Neill Dela Llana and Ian Gamazon have done an outstanding job of making the most out of limited means. The economy of the film makes it both intimate and discomfiting, as Adam is an everyman who only wants his family safe and instead is completely at the whim of an omniscient tormentor.

CAVITE is an absolute must for anyone who has an interest in film, as storytelling, in it's structure, and as an art form.


"Cavite" proves that if the story is good enough, technical excellence is unimportant. Filmed on video with a crew of two, and no budget whatsoever, Cavite is a gripping, roller coaster of a ride. Called to the Philippines, a completely Americanized, young Filipino-American discovers that his mother and sister have been kidnapped. A cellphone planted in his backpack rings and he learns they are held by terrorists and he must follow every direction he is given or they will be killed. Guided by the terrorist's voice on a cellphone, what follows is a tense voyage through the underbelly of Cavite, a city in the Philippines. Although this is at its soul a thriller, by focusing on stark images of third-world poverty, the film cleverly illustrates why terrorist acts have appeal for many. Like all classic thrillers the stakes get higher and higher and the tension grows as the story moves on to its inevitable climax. Although some critics have indicated that they thought the lead actor was lacking in ability I found exactly the opposite -- he is the perfect "everyman," trapped in a situation not of his making. This is great storytelling. I saw this movie twice and recommend it highly.


Adam, a 32-year-old Filipino security guard from San Diego, must fly home to the Philippines after learning that his father is died. He lands at the Manila airport and waits for his mother to pick him up. She never does. He hears a ringing in his bag. It's a mysterious package with a ringing cell phone (think of The Matrix when Morpheus contacts Neo for the first time). Adam picks it up, and for the next hour, an Islamic extremist (who has kidnapped his mother and sister) threatens to kill Adam's family if he doesn't follow every single order he's given. Now that's suspense.

I love that Cavite truly takes you down the streets of the Philippines, where people drink soda from a plastic bag and bet on cockfights (reminds me a lot of Mexico). Everything about this film is original and surprising. The only problems were technical (and hardly worth mentioning). One problem was the discontinuity of the sweaty shirt. Adam wears the same shirt throughout the film, and the shirt is sweatier at some points than at others. The other problem was believing that two cell phones batteries could last an entire day. Adam is constantly on the phone with his family's kidnapper, and he only runs out of battery once? I don't buy it. But I bought everything else.

Equally as original as the plot of Cavite is the story about how this indie film found it's distribution. A U.T. class on advanced film producing promoted Cavite through the 2005 SXSW Film Festival and the 2005 Los Angeles Film Festival, and thanks to a deal with Mark Cuban's "Truly Indie" distribution initiative, Cavite is now showing at a theater near you, so check it out.


Whatever superlative film-making skills co-director Ian Gamazon has attained over the years are quickly diminished by his average acting ability portraying 'Adam', the lead role of "Cavite." It also makes one wonder just how shallow the Filipino-American acting pool is in this country.

That said, this story is basically an extension of the Hollywood movie "Phone Booth" where a voice on the telephone forces the person on the other end to capitulate to their demands. Of course, "Cavite" takes it one step further by allowing the caller to be a well-known terrorist who not only has Adam's cellphone number but his victim's mother and sister too (after having already executed the father).

The cellphone also allows the action to travel which is technically more visually interesting than watching Colin Farrell sweat it out in one spot (a la "Phone Booth"). Although the voice on the phone purports to be Muslim terrorist leader, the political thriller elements are muted for the most part with the primary action revolving around the making audience watching Adam saunter his way through the city of Cavite (near Manila) on foot until he reaches the point of no return.

The terrorist's final request is the ultimate decision of the Adam's life: be a suicide bomber for the Abu Sayyaf and complete the mission or listen to the sound of your family being killed over the cellphone.

Of course, it'll cost you the price of admission to find out which choice he opted for, but for those not used to cinema verite this may be a hard film to watch. Almost all of the action is shot from either the Adam's POV (self-held camera) or the POV of the cameraman (also hand-held) gamely following behind him. Not for all tastes, but this low-budgeter shows you don't have to have millions of dollars to create suspense, but a better lead actor would have been worth a fortune.


I just return from watching this movie at SXSW Festival here in Austin and I just gotta say that this is a perfect example of what you can accomplish just by having a good idea and lots of creativity to take it to the next level.

Besides from being filmed entirely in digital video, the camera work (no steady-cam, just primitive hand-held) allows you to experience the whole movie in a way that you almost feel part of it. It's like you're the one controlling the main character.

To summarize the story, I can tell you that Adam (who lives in San Diego) is not having the best time of his life. His girlfriend is breaking up with him while his father dies back home in Philippines. So he go back there but realizes that the situation has been terribly complicated. His mother and sister has been kidnapped so now, Adam is forced to face the reality that he choose to forget: the hard reality of his poverty stricken nation.

Will he risk everything to save the lives of his remaining family? For every fellow aspiring filmmaker, this is the kind of movie that should inspire you to pursue your dream. If you don't find it that great at all, at least you'll feel inspire to go out and start shooting.


Cavite, in its simplicity, is a provocative and insightful gem. This movie adeptly presents the complexities of culture and nationalism using parallels and metaphors interwoven in a culture few will encounter. The story's plot is simple enough- an Americanized Filipino American (Adam) whose life is in chaos returns to the Philippines to attend his fathers funeral, but instead, embarks on a horrific rescue mission to get his ransomed mother and sister back from the Abu Sayyaf, an extremist Muslim group. The violent tension in this movie is subtle and below the radar, but keeps the viewer watching. But it is the emotional tension- the play with expectations that breaks from being predictable; the killer who loves love songs, has a reassuring voice; Adam, the victim, is a non-violent Muslim; the grinding poverty and Adam's naivete; the kid who steals for the Abu Sayyaf steals to eat McDonalds. The backdrop of the plot is the forced education of Adam to a culture he has had no connections to. While for many Filipinos, this can be tedious, the depth of the movie begins to beg the question- who are the real hostages, and what will we do to save them.

That the movie has a circular plot- it ends where it begins but with a twist- leaves the viewer forced to contemplate the significance, which can be profound, "dangerous" as some have described, but open to interpretation. This can be troubling to some who want to see movies that require no thought.

Cinematically, the movie is remarkable, low budget or not. The shots are insightful and capture the reality of everyday life in a town greatly affected by poverty. One can almost smell the diesel fumes, the odors in the market and feel the tension of desperation. Because this is the personal story of Adam, a home-video feel to the footage adds to the credibility that this is his story.

Most mainstream thrillers have something in their plot that is implausible, and this one is no exception- the everpresent killer, and that there is a Filipino who doesn't know what balut is.

It is unfortunate the cover and sub-title imply Cavite is a Sylvester Stallone no-brainer which makes me wonder whether the brilliance of this movie was a result of the directors' intention. In any case, this movie is worth viewing for its creative display of a complex subject- but with a caveat- this movie presents a picture that is not characteristic of all life in the Philippines- something few viewers will take into account. This isn't the responsibility of the directors, however. It speaks to the fact that there are too few Filipino filmmakers.


This film, with a shoestring budget and a few cast members, unexpectedly satisfied my longing for brilliant Filipino film-making. Although, at times the movie was annoying, all the minor slights were forgiven in the end. I can't help but cringe on the voice over that they used for the terrorist and the shaky camera handling which almost induced vertigo among the viewers. Certain parts of the dialogue were unnecessary and were probably added to the film just to trigger shock from the audience. Nevertheless, the movie's sum is definitely greater than its parts. The depiction of the slums, streets and people of the Philippines was very realistic. The scenes were so vivid that the audience would actually feel like being transported to where the shots were taken. Cinematography and editing were fantastic - I like how the same frames, i.e. face of the lead actor, were illustrated from various angles. Very cutting-edge for novice film makers! The plot they tried to tackle was very touchy, but they delivered it in a straight-forward, in your face manner. Overall, this is a film that I would recommend for anyone who enjoys watching Filipino films! Good Job on this one!


Despite my big surprise when I saw that this film got a low IMDb score (only 6/10) I decided to see the film because the preview looked promising. I was not wrong. I found it to be one of the very best of its kind. Fascinating in every aspect. Very well written scenario, real life story, exciting camera, strong acting, very talented direction without anything superfluous, and very real and interesting scenes of the life and people in the Philipinnes. The images will remain in my mind for a long time.

Some reviewers complain about the continuous hand held camera, but although it makes you a little dizzy I think that it has its purpose. It wouldn't be as convincing otherwise.

Some Philipinno reviewers got offended because they consider that the film misrepresents the Philipinnes because it shows the miserable aspect of the country. However, having lived in various third world countries it seems to me that what is portrayed is a very real part of the Philipinnes, Also it does not matter because in a film we should be looking for art rather than for advertising a country.

Other reviewers seem to consider it an amateur/experimental film but I found it to be a very complete film. The directors managed with limited means, not only money but also cinematic, i.e. with one actor, with a minimal plot, etc. managed to make a very full film second by second, image by image, word by word.

Congratulations to the directors, the main actor and the cameraman. I strongly recommend this film to all the non-Hollywood film lovers, and all the Philipinnos.


All too often, budding filmmakers who undertake this particular kind of film end up making themselves look bad- as filmmakers. (Even seasoned professionals are fully capable of biting off more than they can chew, sometimes.) Rarely do beginners risk adding insult to injury by putting themselves at risk in front of- as well as behind- the camera. It's been done, of course (and will no doubt be done again... and again and again...), but it's seldom been done as well as it has here. CAVITE, while technically not a one-man show, is just about as close as one can get these days- and it's an impressive piece of work. Minimalist movie-making at its best. Even seasoned professionals could learn something from this one.


Writing, directing, and starring in this independent film, Neill Dela Llana and Ian Gamazon are definitely two people to watch.

This is an exciting movie about an American who is brought back to the Philippines to do something for terrorist in order that he might save his mother and sister. The pace is face as we wait to see what he will be required to do.

The film is not just about terrorism, but also blends in the grinding poverty in the Phillipines, where Adam (Gamazon) is introduced to the underside of this society children sell their bodies for prostitution, and the odor of a polluted swamp forces him to cover his nose; and the government's campaign against Muslims. It is more than a thriller. It is also an education to those who don't often focus on the plight of others in the world.


In a movie that's just 10 days to make and with just roughly $7,000 budget, one would think there's not much to anticipate. But with creativity and an inventive idea, this movie takes micro financed film-making to the next level. Only Blair Witch Project (1999) thus far, pulled off a feat to beat under similar circumstances. With the advent of digital technology, film-making becomes more and more accessible even to dropouts Ian Gamazon and Neill dela Llana. A perfect blueprint to filmmaker hopefuls who haven't the means but the idea, "Cavite" is bold, cunning and still thrills.

A movie that will keep foreign tourists off Cavite or worse, the Philippines as a whole, "Cavite" is more than just a political thriller exposing as well the dreadful scenario in the outskirts of Metro Manila, which can also be the case in most parts of the country, projecting an image ten times worthy of what Claire Danes had to say about Manila. Though some shocking claims in the movie about the country are exaggerated and inaccurate, disturbing scenes captured reveal realities that can never be denied exist. Either Filipinos are unaware of all these or apathetic already.

Adam (Gamazon) is working at a San Diego Harbor as a Security Guard, which allows plenty of time for him to play video games and watch his belly balloon. His mother calls from the Philippines informing him his father has been killed in a bus bombing. His girlfriend in the meantime has decided to have an abortion informing him eventually. His spirits dampened, Adam takes on a flight to the Philippines via Taipei. Deciding to attend his father's funeral, Adam arrives at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport now waiting to be picked up when a cell phone rings, which he promptly realizes to be inside his backpack enveloped along with some pictures of his mother and sister who an Abu Sayyaf member on the other line says have been kidnapped by their group. Now Adam is coerced to follow his instructions or his family will be killed.

Riding a jeepney as instructed, Adam is led down the streets of Cavite City. He is introduced to the populated city slums where the toilet is just mostly anywhere, solid wastes float alongside children swimming on swamps, children ready to sell themselves for prostitution abound, and extreme poverty is sweeping. On foot traversing the lengths of the sunny city, Adam is tested in ways both silly and horrendous as to how far he can go to save his family. He later finds out the whole misfortune is to a certain extent linked to a vendetta for an act his father committed years back. In the end, Adam is made to do something he'll never forget.

The movie illustrates how severe extremist rebels can be and how far they can go just to see their plans carried out. But more than that, the movie both rationalizes and criticizes terrorism in the country. The decades old rationale communicated to support terrorism is that Mindanao belongs to Muslims and people like the terrorist caller are doing everything just to get it back to them even if it means Jihad. A lapsed Muslim himself, Adam counters with an interesting definition of Jihad: "I struggle everyday of my life to better myself. That's Jihad, not the way you do it." The filmmakers maintain some interest with the terrorist caller detailing accounts of the many atrocities to the Muslim people in Mindanao to further the rationalization of terrorism. Not really taking sides, the movie in the end shows Adam's girlfriend Dana (Dominique Gonzalez) explaining why she had to abort the baby: "I panicked when I found out I was pregnant. You know, I'm ashamed for saying this and I'm even ashamed for thinking this, but I can't have a baby that's Muslim. I never thought I'd have to say that but I can't help the way I feel" Unpolished, the film is no way perfect. The terrorist caller has a number of minor Tagalog grammar lapses, not to mention his accent not distinctly native, thus a bit unpersuasive to those who really speak the language. The yellow subtitles (English translations of the terrorist caller's lines) show a few errors. One is on a line in a Parokya ni Edgar song Mr. Suave, which says: "habulin ng babae" Translation shows: "I chase all the ladies." But all these are barely discernible to foreign viewers and can even be dismissed if one thinks about what this movie has accomplished.

Though already seen in various horror films, its edgy camera-work with no known focus is fitting, thus notable, enhancing the distress suggested by the situation. And though with the script still a bit amateurish, Gamazon somehow scores an almost convincing portrayal. Add to that the raw third world setting, which compliments the dread, presented in depressingly and dismally expository way. Above all, the message is channeled tactfully, thus swaying, going far beyond the bounds of being preachy.

"Cavite" may not be a favorite of everyone, but it's an affirmation that one doesn't need to have millions of dollars to create suspense. And it sure has actuated someone into becoming a fan. That happens to be me. (toyski.com)


This is not a film for those who think movies should be completely literal. This is not a film for those who want to be told what to think. This is not a film for those who want a nice neat ending resolving all the issues of the world. It is a film for those who seek out truth and are willing to face it regardless of what it may be.

This is a journey into the mind of a terrorist. It's a chance to ask yourself, "How would I act were I forced to live in that world?" I can imagine this movie will get many violent responses in the negative as it forces you to look in the mirror. The movie is not meant to represent Manilla per se, but all places of unbearable poverty and the harsh attitudes such cruel reality breeds. The goal of this movie is to make you think and in that it works wonderfully and brilliantly, changing your perspective and leaving you with questions you never knew needed to be answered.

The closest film I can think of to this one is "Men with guns", another piece of brilliant film-making that paints a point of view. Commentary films will never have mass appeal but there is a fine meal to devour here if you have an appetite for the truth.


Gripping movie surrounding a world of religious beliefs, generational betrayals, and blackmail.Throughout, the movie chimes a powerful message as voiced by the main character Adam: "how many people have to die for you to make your point?" Follow Adam as he is guided through the darker sides of human nature while he tries to save his family, his unborn child, and his conviction.

The writers were outstanding in the backdrop motivations for the characters  even down to a little boy thief. They do a good job of helping the viewer wrap realism around the "why". The "voice" on the phone of the terrorist was mesmerizing as he instructed Adam on his journey through the Philippine squatter camps and towns. It was a good choice to not put a face with the voice of Adam's nemesis. The only real problem with the story is the "girlfriend" back story. The conversation between Adam and the girl about her not wanting a "Muslim" baby made no sense and was out of place considering their first conversation on the phone. It should have been left at that.

Over all, it was worth the watch so don't say I didn't tell ya!


Cavite is about Adam, an American Muslim Filipino traveling back to the Philippines to attend his father's funeral and visit his mother and sister. He finds his mother and sister are kidnapped by a Muslim terrorist faction to force Adam to do something. Adam is forced to travel around the Philippines to various places while his family is abused. Adam picks up a bomb and is told to take it to a church and leave it there as revenge for American crimes against Muslims. Adam tries to refuse, but the slime balls cut out his mother's tongue. Adam finds out his father was killed by the same terrorists in a similar bombing. As a back drop, Adam's American Christian girl friend calls him and tells him she's pregnant and having an abortion. Adam does what he's told, his family is released, and Adam goes back to America where his girl friend tells him she couldn't have a Muslim baby. As if a baby is born favoring one religion over another. While the dialog lacked some emotion, the acting made up for it to some degree. The cinematography was pretty good and you got to see some low income parts of the Philippines during Adam's travels and understand how the poor can be taken advantage of by sooth saying organizations that hand our money for cooperation. I liked the movie more for its raw surreal nature. Adam walking around in shock trying to comply with lunatics while also trying to think of a way out that doesn't kill his family.


The concept for "Cavite" is not exactly new, as the storyline has been worked up before in at least one recent mainstream Hollywood movie.

The concept is simple and exciting: an adult man who is from the Philippines has been living and working in the U.S. He gets a call to inform him that he's needed, urgently, at home. On the way out of town he's beset by an emotional crisis with his Stateside girlfriend, which he tries to resolve from a telephone in the airport.

Right there I knew I was in trouble. The audio recording in this movie, at least as presented on DVD, is spotted with incomprehensible moments. The "trouble with his girl" sub-text is an important one, or it would not have been included in this briskly paced, and well-photographed story. It reoccurs at the end of the movie but only as an afterthought. There's a scene with the girlfriend talking, being very cold and cruel, and the main character is a wearing a mask of disgust because he is so emotionally spent. He cannot tell her what has happened to him, and she's an airhead, practically speaking.

The main character is Adam, and a stranger on a cell phone is his Nemesis, his constant antagonist.

Adam is a Muslim man in his mid-30s. The Philippines are overwhelmingly Christian and mostly Roman Catholic, but the substantial Muslim minority there has been raising hell on Mindanao ( and on other islands ), for a century or more. Recently, post-9/11, both domestic anti-terrorist units and U.S. forces have been employed against these Muslim guerrillas and many of them were killed.

So, after flying across the Pacific, stopping over in Taipei and then landing in the Philippines, Adam is perplexed when his mother does not meet him at the airport. He soon learns that she cannot because she has been kidnapped by Muslim fanatics. They are threatening to kill her and Adam's sister if he does not cooperate fully.

At first he thinks that all they really want is money, because they use him to loot a savings account left behind by his father -- one that holds $ 75,000, a most princely sum -- but eventually he figures out that they want him to be a mule for a terrorist bomb attack.

More than half of the film is presented in moving sequences: he's riding in a Jeepney, on a bus, walking, running, taking a tricycle cab and walking some more. The nasty, bitchy fellow on the other end of the cell phone ( that was cleverly inserted into his luggage just before he left the airport on arrival ), alternately harangues him about being a good Muslim and then threatens to murder his mother.

The good Muslim is extorting the slacker Muslim into delivering a bomb ... into a Christian church ... by threatening his family. The poor sap has no choice but to comply.

The film's author and leading man showed great courage in even wanting to tackle this thorny subject. There are some clever moments in "Cavite". It could have been one of the truly great low-budget independents -- think "Mariachi," here -- if the hectic pace of the film had been reduced at certain points, to allow the viewer to see the size of the dilemma and the pain it causes Adam, and to see him feeling strange in the poverty-stricken neighborhoods of Cavite.

Most of the time the cell phone tormentor is speaking Tagalog, or a mixture of Tagalog and English, and the subtitles for that seem to fly by ... meaning, once again, that it is impossible to grasp the size of the problem facing Adam ... because we know after the first four times that the caller says he is going to kill the mother and the sister that this is a bad hombre.

Truly, I hate to discourage a young independent from using his many talents and gifts, and there is evidence of them in "Cavite." But then again, I took the time to screen this film on DVD twice, because I wanted to be sure that it wasn't just the herky-jerky camera work which was upsetting me. "Cavite" invites and involves, but it doesn't deliver 'the goods,' at the end, which is really a false ending and then the viewer is forced to endure a flat-out dead end.

I think it was Chekov who once wrote, "a gun hung on the wall in Act One must be fired by Act Three". This is the advice the makers of "Cavite" should have heard before they labored so lovingly on it.

Great effort and great ideas cannot succeed unless the film has a plot which illustrates the conflict, gives it context, and a resolution. It's only human nature to want an interesting story to have an interesting and meaningful ending. "Cavite" fails in that regard and so all the double-quick camera work and the hectic, panicky pace, goes for naught.

One can only hope the principals of this picture will learn something from this, and do two things with their next film -- slow it down to a brisk walk, so that the plot can develop, and hire an actor who can express nuances, and something emotional, besides disgust.


The base story features Adam, a security guard, who travels from California to the Philippines to attend his father's funeral. Shortly after his arrival in Manilla, a phone rings in his backpack. He answers it. A male voice tells him that his mother and sister are captives and will be killed if he (Adam) doesn't cooperate. The voice proceeds to send Adam by bus, taxi, motorized tricycle, and on foot through an urban landscape of busy streets, cramped apartments, a squatters' camp, a bank, a cockfighting arena, and a church. Adam's conversations with the voice cover murder, Islam, jihad, rebellion in Mindanao, and his family.

Adam is commanded by the voice to engage in terrorist acts against innocent civilians in order to save his mother and sister. Moreover, the voice extorts Adam of money his deceased father had saved for him, his mother and sister. Like most persons in Adam's situation, Adam is compelled by fear to save his mother and sister, and comply with the voice's command. The movie is based on a TRUE story.

Based on the story of the movie and common perceptions about current events, you may come to the conclusion that this movie deals with terrorism sponsored by Islamic extremists. The disturbing reality is that governments and, in particular, intelligence agencies, e.g. CIA, are the ONLY organizations so well-financed, methodical, callous and evil as to perpetrate such criminal acts. Ask yourself - How is the voice aware of Adam's whereabouts at every juncture in the movie? How is the voice aware of the money left by Adam's father to Adam? Why would the voice go ahead and torture Adam's mother and sister? The answer is that organizations such as the CIA are terrorizing innocent individuals and families to foment division among people, to induce individuals (fearing harm to their own family members, and indeed fearing God) to commit crimes on behalf of these organizations even as they fully believe that it is an Islamic extremist group. More disturbing than this fact alone, they can actually cause an individual to hear voices within their own mind (even though the movie depicted the use of cell phones). Indeed, they have the technology to see from the eyes and hear from the ears of nearly every individual in the world born in a hospital.

Let's be clear about it: God is about LOVE, not HATE. Wake up to the reality - seek the truth!


Filipino film-making was once exemplified by the ubiquitous presence of Vic Diaz, who snarled his way through countless Roger Corman-produced action flicks shot in the archipelago, usually clad in a really ugly floral shirt and wielding a machete. The now-very ill Diaz is nowhere to be seen in Cavite, but fans of those low-budget Corman flicks might still enjoy this film. Produced, written, and directed by Ian Gamazon, Cavite stars - who else? - Ian Gamazon as Adam, the American-born son of Filipino parents on his way back to the islands to attend his father's funeral. Once there, he learns that his mother and sister have been kidnapped (presumably by Abu Sayyaf guerrillas), and that in order to save them he must follow a very precise series of demands. The perp seems just as interested in educating Adam in the ways, means and motives of Islamic revolution as in reclaiming the money his father apparently stole (or hid) from the insurgency. This isn't a horror or exploitation film; it's a serious and exemplary political thriller about a man being forced to come to terms with his cultural and religious heritage. Shot verite style in and around some of the worst slums on Earth, Cavite offers rich rewards on many levels.


Is this the most widely theatrically distributed Filipino film in the history of cinema in the U.S. I believe so.

This film will be an inspiration to independent filmmakers, showing what you can do with a gripping story, great originality, great field locations, a decent digital cam, no special effects, and (almost) no money, and (almost) no crew.

The shaky camera was annoying because it was prominent for the ENTIRE film, except the final scene, where we are back in the States. I was shooting documentary footage for several weeks last October in the Philippines, and this is what your footage looks like when you are shooting from a moving jeepney. I can't stand my footage shot this way and it will end up on the cutting room floor. Here is a whole film shot this way, and it is a bit much. Many independent films have selective scenes shot this way and there is a point to them. I can only figure that they were in too much of a hurry to use a tripod, because the constant blur does't add anything to the dramatic impact of the film after the first few minutes. Too much "AUTHENTICITY" Mahhhhnnnn.

Without the terrorism aspect, this is like a travelogue of the Philippines, unfortunately in the case of the squatter areas. I stayed in a barrio outside of Manila with poor people and it was more like the 'hood back in the States, with water rationing and no hot water, but a pile of garbage was not holding up the walls of the home where I stayed, something I noticed in the squatter areas near the Manila Airport. But EVERYWHERE you go in the Philippines, you will travel by tricycles(motorbikes/motorcycles with side cars), jeepneys, and no air con buses. Everywhere you go, if you are male, you will be invited to cockfights held in arenas the size of huge high school gymnasiums as found Stateside. Everywhere you go, there will be vendors wanting to sell you eggs with warm chickens inside waiting to have their heads bit off.

I traveled extensively several hours to the North of Manila on Luzon Island, in areas of astonishing scenic beauty, not seen in the film. The terrorists/Muslim extremists are holed up in known spots to the South of Manila. Be careful if you go to those areas. In your first day in the Philippines you will effortlessly be able to experience all of the above, except you will not be dealing with kidnappers.

The Philippines is a fantastic place to make a film. I will be back.


I saw Cavite recently here in L.A., in the only theater it is being released, the Nuart at West LA. I've been hearing the buzz on this film so it was curiosity that drove me from Long Beach to L.A to watch it. OK, as a prospective filmmaker, I laud and commend the efforts of the filmmaker for just doing the film. With very limited budget, equipment and actors, they were able to pull it through despite the meager means they have. I can understand the sloppy camera work and even the not-so-great acting of the actor/director, but it makes me uncomfortable not to mention that the filmmakers left some important detail in the movie - logic. First, Cavite is, a conservative estimate, 40 miles from Quiapo church in Manila. In the Philippines, were traffic is part of the daily commute, we measure the distance between two locations not by miles but by travel time. And Cavite is more or less a 2 hr drive from Manila. How the hell did Adam get back in forth from Cavite to Quiapo and vice versa in such quick time? And using public transport no less? And how did his cellphone battery last that long? I mean, they should've considered people who are familiar with the location that are going to see this movie. Its like insulting them, I should know, I grew up in Quiapo. Anyways, like I said, I still admire them for their mere guts in doing this film. And please stop using scenes of poverty as a depiction of the Philippines! Scenes like these get manipulated so much in movies like these.


The directors should be commended for doing this film with such scanty resources. A camera, a couple of airline tickets, and one of the directors as actor. Unfortunately, the result shows. The camera is excessively shaky, to the point where a freeze frame is needed so we can read a road sign. The shakiness wore me down. The story is far-fetched. The improbable omnipresent, all-knowing terrorist leader eventually becomes tedious. The sound design used in the middle of the film is obnoxiously loud and abrasive. The only worthy content is the travelogue, an inside view of life in a poor neighborhood in the Philippines.


While I applaud the film makers for their effort and terrific use of the camera and very little funds, I can't say that I enjoyed this film a great deal. I feel bad saying anything negative about what is clearly such a labor of love, but the story didn't move me or involve me very much. Yes, it's a scrappy tale boldly told, but the tale itself was weak. All the other elements were fine, but if I'm not engaged by the story then I stop caring, and eventually lose interest, which is what happened when I saw this at the festival.

The acting is all fine, particularly the lead man and the voice on the phone (you'll know what I mean when you see it, it really is a lead role even though you never meet him) but there are so many wholes in the story that it never came together for me.

I look forward to these film makers next film, and hope they have a bigger budget, but mostly I urge them to find a better script.


This could have been a very good film, but it wasn't. Although the plot wasn't very plausible, it was complex, fairly original, and provided suspense. The scenes of urban Manila/Cavite, the abject poverty, the sense of seeing life as it really is for the masses in the urban Philippines, made the film a proponent of sorts for the poor and unprivileged, this was powerful. However, virtually everything of value in this film was obviated by very, very sloppy hand-held camera work. The hand held cameras, while ostensibly adding to the authenticity of the film, were operated so sloppily that viewers experienced discomfort or outright nausea. This was absolutely unnecessary and significantly detracted from both the plot and the quality of the film. Many viewers exited the theater in the early minutes of the film.


While the entire movie was o.k. the major premise of the need to use bomber whose family have no interests in the bombing or terrorist act is an overkill. The whole charade can be simplified, if the terrorist take the money from him after closing the bank account. What the terrorist should do is just simply place the bombs themselves. I don't see any complexity in that do you? Because the plausibility of the whole movie is in question, it throws into question that the movie is somewhat contrived. Another movie of Paradise Now is much more straightforward and simple as well as low budget and was much better done.


I'm a Filipino American and I have tried to watch Filipino movies but all have failed to entertain me. Filipino movies are terrible; terrible acting, script, directing, filming, etc. I was hoping that this movie would prove me wrong. Just like every other Filipino film, this movie is very unrealistic for a movie trying to be realistic. The dialogue is horrible and I was hoping that there would be a Filipino movie that uses Tagalog all the way through without any English words or any long English dialogue. The filming looks like it was done by a HD video camera that you can buy at Best Buy and the director was trying to hard to be 'artistic'. That's hard to explain, you'd have to watch it to know what I mean. This movie looks like a homemade movie/a documentary of the Philippines. The story is so lousy. I can't stress this enough that Filipino movies are horrible at story telling. They thought it would be clever that the antagonist knows every movement of the protagonist at every second. Now you'd say, "...What's wrong with that?" Again, you're gonna have to see how unrealistic they show this in the film. This movie isn't worth your time. You probably wouldn't even want to finish watching the movie but I forced myself hoping it would turn out to be a great movie.


The DVD box made it look like a watchable flick, but it was terribly misleading. It was a piece of crap. We get to watch some dope get led around by the nose for an hour or so by some terrorist wannabe on a cellphone. They want his money, they want him to blow up a building, and they will cut off pieces of his mother and sister to make it happen. The guy is told to close his bank account and give the bad guys the money. They couldn't get into the bank to film, so we get to watch a little kid eating a happy meal. How creative. The explosion at the church/mosque/whatever was equally impressive. Fast forward though a few phone calls and long walks and we get to the end. Same kid, same happy meal, sharing with grandma. How sweet. They couldn't bother to have an explosion sound effect and shake the camera a little? Then he goes home, talks to his cheating girlfriend, and curls up in bed crying....the end. What a waste of time. I got it as a freebie from Blockbuster, and I still feel cheated.


I am watching the DVD while writing this comment. It's almost at the end of it, and I will be glad when it will be over. I imagine myself to be trapped inside a cinema to watch this crap. It would be simple torture.

Some Philippino is testing his new videocam, and he sells it as a movie. The main 'actor' is so bad that I think he never had one lesson of acting in his life. The camera follows him through the dirty streets of Manila, and it will do the job to prevent you ever to go to that country. That's the good side effect of the movie.

It says on the DVD cover that it won some prices. I wonder if was shown to a deaf and blind jury. Sorry for being so harsh, but I read many times on this website: This was the worst movie etc. But this one really wins the price.


This movie really is, as some of the commentators have said, a tour de force of mise en scene - it is shot with a distinctive hand-held camera style, features some powerful performances (most notably by Ian Gamazon as Adam, a secular Muslim American born in the Phillipines), and makes exceptional use of its gritty noir setting of Philippino urban slums.

Yet, the movie is ultimately extremely disappointing. Cavite ultimately fails in two interconnected ways. First, as a dramatic story, chiefly because its main character is irredeemably weak (and the vicious, stereotyped anti-gay viewpoint portrayed tacitly builds strength on this weakness). Adam not only fails as a protagonist - he is unable to affect the action in any way throughout the entire film - but as a moral being. He shirks responsibility for his stark moral choices: Ultimately, he is willing to take decisive action to murder a large crowd of innocent people to save his own loved ones - and this miserable character is the only potentially oppositional voice that might at least rhetorically counter the unseen but omniscient and omnipotent "Abu Sayaf" spokesman. As a result, that terrorist mastermind directs every aspect of the film, and the erstwhile protagonist is utterly impotent and, indeed, evil.

If Adam fails completely to present an alternative or corrective to the (alleged) Abu Sayaf propaganda, the cinematography seems equally complicit in its support for the terrorist's vague and self-satisfied critique of western society (with its documentary footage of privation and social exclusion). So, the deck is stacked from deuce to ace, and that is why the film so completely fails as a work of drama.

But, secondly, this is also why the film fails morally as well. Cavite goes beyond consciousness raising in its vivid presentation of poverty and moves toward a subtle, but deeply corrupt sympathy for "revolutionary" terrorism in the name of "the people". The kindest reading is that, with no effective counterweight to the faceless voice of the Abu Sayaf terrorist, the film falls victim to a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, crossing over completely into the terrorist's view of the world. In fact, at the end, the film really lays its cards on the table in a terrible, facile scene back in the USA, where Adam is shown to be victim of blatant American prejudice because of his religion.

Despite its technical achievements, this is an evil movie. It is wrong and it is destructive. By failing to offer an effective alternative to mass murder in the name of social revolution, this movie leaves us with nothing beyond the vague but malicious terrorist viewpoint, without any dramatic or rhetorical attempt at rebuttal. The result is not only bad storytelling, but the nasty suspicion that one has watched an extremely well-shot propaganda video for an hour and twenty minutes.

Jeremiah B.C. Axelrod