I made the mistake of going to see this movie, first show, first day, in the theater, in 1997 when it was released. The first movie wasn't bad. It wasn't great, but it was fun. I expected more with the 2nd. The only thing I knew about it going in was that James Remar was replacing Christopher Lambert as Rayden, which I was upset about, but I thought Remar would do a good job.

Boy, was I wrong. The whole cast, even Robin Shou, who was decent in the 1st, and great in Beverly Hills Ninja, can't seem to act his way out of a paper bag in this one.

*** Mega Spoilers, Cause You Shouldn't See This Movie Anyway ***

The big mistake the writers made with this movie, was trying to incorporate all of the characters, even the hidden ones, from not just Mortal Kombat 2, but Mortal Kombat 3 as well. (The plot is taken from the MK3 video game). MK1 survived multiple heroes because there were only 3, a trio, a team, and their "teacher" Raiden. And only 2 bad guys (Goro, Shang Tsung). In MK2, we have a virtual plethora of heroes and baddies.

Heroes (8): Liu Kang/Rayden/Kitana/Sonya/Jax/Johnny Cage/Nightwolf/Sub Zero

Baddies (14): Shao Kahn, Shinnok, Sindel, Motaro, Jade, Sheeva, Cyrax, Scorpion, Noob Saibot, Ermac, Rain, Baraka, Smoke, and Mileena.

Yeah, I thought that was a lot too. All of these characters have lines and/or fight scenes too. This doesn't even include the characters from the games that are mentioned, but not shown. A bunch of these baddies (and even some heroes) die or just leave, never to return, in about a minute after they appear. For instance, here's the plot of some of the sub characters:

Rain: Says hi, gets thrown into a fiery pit.

Sub Zero: Shows up, says hi, fights and kills botty Smoke, tells Liu Kang "you are not ready", then disappears, never to be heard from again. Smoke: Killed within a 2 minutes by aforementioned Sub Zero.

Baraka: er.. I think you see him.. once.

Mileena: Shows up, attacks Sonya, somehow dies from a bonk on the head.

Scorpion: Shows up, fights Sub-Zero, kidnaps Kitana, disappears.

Johnny Cage: Shows up, says hi, Shao Kahn breaks his neck a good minute into the movie. Sheeva: Has a few lines early, Liu Kang kills her in under 10 seconds in her first fight.

Those are just some examples. On top of these character issues, the entire movie seems to have been filmed on the first take. There are literally *tons* of continuity and placement errors. A few quick examples, all from the same 10 minute stretch:

Rayden leaves Sonya, and tells her to find her buddy Jaz, then to head to "The Temple of the Elder Gods". Of course, after she finds Jax, she immediately knows where it is.

When we first meet His Jaxness himself, he punches into a wall trying to kill Cyrax. We pan away with his fist somehow stuck in a wall with a good inch of space around it. We pan back a few seconds later, and his entire arm is stuck in the wall.

Sonya gets into a muddy fan-service fight with Mileena. After a muddy battle, and a split scene later, all her clothes have somehow been drycleaned.

During aforementioned Muddy Fan-Service fight, Sonya gets thrown into a rock. This big rock, about 10 times the size of her, waggles and moves a bit with her weight falling on it. Again, those are just some examples, but they're *rampant* in the movie. As for the plot, well, the idea and premise is interesting, but they delve way too deep into it. It would have been better if they kept it superficial, the way they did in the first movie. But, no, they had to try to explain everything: life, existence, the tournament, and why the toast always lands butter side down.

The result of all this atrocity is a corny, poorly directed, aterribly written, underbudgeted (looks like most of the stuff *I* could have pulled off with my home computer) nightmare that's worth buying solely to laugh at. 0/10


If i could give this movie a Zero , i would.. this sequel was TOTALLY unnessasary ...

First of all , Christopher Lambert wasnt in it as "Lord Rayden" and i dont even know who the heck the actor was that portrayed Him..

>>>>>SPOILER AHEAD>>>>>>> then secondly, "Johnny Cage" was a different actor too, not Linden Ashby.. and i didnt know who that actor was either.. and then right near the start of the movie, "Johhny" gets killed .. im sorry i ever rented this stinker in the first place.. i was expecting it to be similar to the first one.. Oh was I ever Wrong!!

so just pass this turkey by in the video store and rent the first "Mortal Kombat" its Way better than the second one.. i DONT recommend this trashy movie at all ...


For those interested in martial arts -skip it. You will hate this.For the rest of us this is a hilarious bad film that everyone should have a good laugh at.This film has so little to offer in terms of film but it could show a lot of bad expensive films how to reach a level of drivel that you just have to watch it.This film could never be accused of being an average film because it stands out so much.Exceptionally Bad is all I can say.


I shan't start off by saying "I used to be an MK fan", because whenever I read those I want to fetch my violin and start playing. I enjoyed playing the games but was never "that" into them. Suffice to say I found the first Mortal Kombat, to be fairly entertaining. Mild stuff really, verging on "almost could be cool if..." A real four stars out of ten fiasco, but one that wouldn't offend.

MKA however became a pastime for us at University, when we were in that frame of mind, to throw it on and laugh ourselves silly with the absolute shambles that is this film. It is tragic. Enough said. This film has nothing going for it. Everything has taken a step backwards.

The special effects are woeful. Instead of three characters with mild in-depth studies, they jetisoned that for seven main characters, each with their own personal demons to overcome. Riveting. The script is what I have the most problem with. Pour example:

1) A new Raiden. Lambert, gave the role some credibility in the original and was responsible for giving MK a moderate turn over. Inevitably he wasn't going to do a second. So inevitably they had to bring in someone else. The audience knows this. The actors know this. The writers know this. But please don't have the character you created know this. He's supposed to be the same person, so to have him say "i've had a haircut rar rar" is a tragic way of saying "i know i'm not lambert so I did something different". 2) Robin Shao...Oh Robin. Many nights have been wiled away laughing at his demise from ewokian heights. A tragic actor, only in for his mild kung-fu knowledge, on the premise he could "act". Carried in the first film by Lambert and the chap who played Shang Tsung (don't remember his name but he was in Rising Sun). In this one, he's supposed to hold it all together...and fails miserably. To be fair, again however he has no script with which to work. At one moment, before the "final confrontation", it is claimed Lui Kang is the only one left who can defeat Shao Khan. So your characters mantra is "i want to do it, but i'm not ready", and you layer over that with dialogue, meanings, symbolism, action etc etc...you don't have your character say those words!!! Talk about a mickey mouse operation. The writers obviously fed up at this point that their obvious talents were wasted on this low budget tripe, so just had the character say it, so they could invariably fit in more "action" sequences. 3) Far too many to go into. The fact that everything is figured out so matter of factly. Raiden figures out the "prophecy" (don't ask) was a lie. Surely not??? So to explain this travesty of events he claims "they must of lied to me". Bravo. Many nights burning the midnight oil for that one huh? It is all too, "it is so because it is so"

The special effects truly are tragic. The only ones in the original were Sub Zero's Ice Blast, which in fairness was quite tastefully done if you are a hardcore fan. Scorpions "get over here", which is always a crowd favourite. Reptile, and Lui Kangs dragon punch (goro was Plasticine). But here they've wanted to go over the top with not nearly enough money. Sindels spinning to escape is woeful. Scorpions "get over here" is a pitiful remake (which also reminds me, Sub and Scorp are back, the two greatest characters ever, and yet they're midgets. About half the size from the original, looks as if they've been on three simultaneous atkins diets), and everything else is shambolic.

The action skips from one scene to the next, but nothing grabs the eye. Raidens fight against three reptile is the closest thing to stylish or anyway near the premise of "cool". But it is still a long way away.

To dispense with the formalities. This film sucks Donkey Balls...and yet I know so much about it...oh the pain..


Oh man... and people thought Mortal Kombat 1 was bad. Annihilation makes MK1 look like Schindler's List. This movie is a courageous foray into the nightmarish underworld of utter mindlessness. I only suspend my disbelief so much - then I start becoming frustrated and asking questions like: How the heck does somebody travel through the molten core of the earth in a sailing American Gladiators ball? There is no wind underground. Not even in Raiden's magical tunnels, dude. Sorry. I understand how lots of movies are only capsules for their fight scenes, and I'm okay with that, but the stipulation is that the fight scenes have to be at least kind of cool.

I think that this movie may have hurt my physical body. I'm going to the doctor tomorrow.


Well, let me tell you...it's a real let down. Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. I watched the original Mortal Kombat when I was about 10 years old, and it was bloody brilliant to me back then, it's still "ok" not absolute garbage, unlike its sequel.

Mortal Kombat: Annihilation has no substance, form, direction or anything remotely resembling a competent cast of actors. The director must have been a coffee machine or something, I really can't see why they decided to make a sequel. The first movie beats it easily.I quickly hit IMDb to check the scores of both the original and MK: Annihilation...

A dismal score of 5.0/10 for MK, and an even lower 3.0/10 for MK:Annihilation. So I was like..."Damn, this is a glorified power rangers..." I could see from the start it was, when Raiden fires lighting at the beginning, it looks as though someone has put a giant bitmap overlaid onto the movie and moved it around a bit. RAIDEN btw, is now a less-hardcore version of the original kick ass Christopher Lambert Raiden, if you're gonna remove Lambert, then you need someone fairly bad ass, so what do they do? They give us a Doogie Howser lookalike who is in need of orthodontic work. Every time we see him he's through a brick wall or falling off something high. He's like a piece of ham, but with less acting ability. All his words of 'wisdom' are like "We have to work as a team, courage...courage...look within yourself at your...courage." Jax is just a token black guy, Sonya is admittedly hot, but not as hot and/or as kick ass as the original Sonya. Johnny Cage gets instantly killed by some 'thug' in a skull (the final 'boss') at the very beginning. Kitana and Liu Kang are just like the 'sexually' tense element of the film. They have the funniest (not meant to be funny) part of the movie, where the "hardcore" Sheeva, with 4 arms, having spent the entire movie looking fearsome and generally like a big, brutal beast...runs in and says "The date is over." In 5 seconds she gets killed by a falling cage, now that is comedy folks. 10 seconds of pure "Why was she even in the movie?" goodness.

There isn't a semblance of a decent camera angle, all the scenes are "misty" and "firey/smokey" and really don't add well to the overall ambiance of the movie, they make it seem more like an 8th Grade production of some bad Shakespeare play no one cares about.

OK, the first movie wasn't THAT good, but it was a 'heapload' better than the sequel, which IMHO should never have been made, I mean...they can't even use "We needed to make money" as an excuse, because I'm sure even the caterers who worked on this film have never been able to find work since.

Ah well, this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, it's like the biggest disappointment to me, as for years I was like "I have to see MK annihilation" because the first one in my mind was embedded there as something "good". Thanks a lot John R. Leonetti I know now that you can't direct. At least not anything past Power Rangers or something? Anyhow, thats just how I felt about this movie. T_T


Probably the worst film i have ever seen. On the other hand, it was quite funny because of it. I thought it was amazing that they could make all those bricks look so much like polystyrene. It's a shame because i really enjoyed the first Mortal Kombat film. Line that sums up the film, plot-wise at least. - Sub-Zero? But i killed you in first tournament - No, that was my brother, Sub-Zero. I am Sub-Zero! (Something like that anyway)


This movie obviously had more money than the first but it was no where near as good. The plot-line was dodgy to say the least and it was as if they wanted to get as many of the characters (and their moves) in as possible. Unfortunately this meant that characters from the game were added purely for the sake of it. They weren't given any development or good fights.

The fighting in general was very poor. Raiden had the only average fight, the others were sub-standard. The fight at the end between...well, I don't want to spoil it; let's just say the 'the fight' at the end had awful FX and was impossible to follow.

Even the soundtrack was not as good as the first movie even though KMFDM were involved in both.

All-in-all not a very good movie on its own...put up against the original MK it's a terrible movie.


Hey! I got an idea, let's make a movie with no plot, mediocore fight scenes, horrible acting and crappy special effects! Oh wait... someone already did it. It's called Mortal Kombat Annihilation. A bunch of random fight scenes strung together with an invisible plot, or was it even there at all? Special FX weren't THAT bad for most of the movie but the end fight scene graphics were the worst I've seen in a while. Fight scenes were crappy. The only good one was when Raiden was fighting all the Reptiles, that was actually pretty cool. Thanks to the Martial Arts genius of Ray Park. He is a god. This movie was crap. Don't even waste your time watching it on network television. I made the mistake of seeing this movie in a theater. *Shudder*


This sequel to Mortal Kombat involves a bunch of video-game heroes trying to save the Earth from the clutches of bad guy Shao Khan. Special effects are downright terrible,the acting is,well,I wouldn't even call it acting,and it's as if the film is trying to throw too much at you at one time. If you must watch this movie,make sure it's on television,where you won't waste your money on a rental. This movie is just abysmal.

1/2 of a star out of **** (I think I'm being too nice there)


This is hands down the WORST movie that I've ever seen, and being a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I've seen a LOT of bad movies.

There are absolutely no redeeming qualities in this steaming pile of crap. I've seen porno movies with better plots than this. As far as I can tell, our heros just wander around blindly for the entire movie going from one fight scene to another. Infact, some characters in this movie appear out of nowhere, fight some other character that has appeared out of nowhere, and then neither are seen again for the rest of the film. This MIGHT be excusable if the fight scenes were in some way entertaining or exciting. Sadly, that isn't the case. Every fight scene is exactly the same and always seems to involve our hero being launched backwards about 10 meters from a single hit.

It takes some of the worst acting in the world to take a script THIS bad and make a movie that's even worse, but Mortal Kombat: Annihilation does it with ease.

Believe me when I say ANYTHING is better than watching this garbage! Avoid it at ALL costs! I'm sure being forced to watch this movie is considered torture in some parts of the world!


I really liked the first movie. I thought it was an entertaining film with a decent cast, sharp action scenes and special effects, and the movie paid respectful attention to its source material.

MK Annihilation is anything but a good film.

It comes off like a bad Power Rangers episode, with most of the original actors gone, goofy camera angles and zoom shots, no story and pathetic special effects. "Animality"? Please. I've seen better stuff out of old "Gamera" movies. This movie introduced almost every character from Mortal Kombat Trilogy only to kill them off five seconds after their debut. What's the point of that other than to say that "this character" was in the movie? All it accomplished was bogging down what little plot there is. The story itself (based off MK3 and MK4), was shaky, the techno music was nowhere near as good as the first film, and the whole movie seemed uneven and a waste of film. It lacked the feel of a movie, and earned the second 1997 award of a "film that I almost walked out of in the first fifteen minutes."

I've talked to more than a fair share of people who have said this movie is "wonderful". Of course, all of these people were die-hard MK fans who feel that anything with the famous dragon logo can do no wrong.

Want a Mortal Kombat movie to watch? Watch the first film. At least that one is a fun movie to sit through and enjoy. Too bad MK:A didn't live up to the first one. The line "Pretty cool, huh? That's my Animality" made me absolutely groan in agony that I actually spent money to see this. Avoid this movie.


I've seen some bad movies. I've seen some REALLY bad movies.

But I wouldn't want to offend the 'Bad' and 'Really Bad' movies by calling MK2 one of them. This movie was truly the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Hollywood.

Right off the bat, I knew things were going to suck. The actors had changed into wussy shadows of their MK1 selves. Christopher Lambert, while not being an excellent actor, was still VERY cool in the first Mortal Kombat. I had a bad feeling in the back of my brain when they replaced him with a...well...character that not only looked wimpy, but acted like a fly-swatter.

The special defects...uh...special 'effects' in this movie were horrible! I'm not asking for fully rendered, super-resolution 3D "Star Wars Ep 1" environments...just enough technological know-how to make the movie look okay.

The poor bastards couldn't even get close to those fairly forgiving expectations.

The plot? None. Bad guy suddenly comes back, even though MK1 stated it was over and done with. Characters go and show up like it was a frat party. NOTHING in the movie is worth latching onto for a fun ride.

All in all, the only good that came of my watching this movie was the fact I got to see the cool, spooky "Dark City" trailer at the beginning.

Don't waste your time. Trust me like you've never trusted anyone else in your life on this.


This is about as bad as they get. Right now if I hadn't actually paid to see this in theater I would be laughing my head off about how bad it was. But the fact is a paid money for this garbage. I like good movies. And like the rest of us I dont like to lower my standerds once a a while for pop-corn movies that arent very good but still have some entertainment value. I atempted doing that with this movie, but instead of eating my pop-corn and making sarcastic comments about how bad the acting was I was puking my pop-corn in the aisles just thinking that I paid for this. This is another one of those movies I wanted to walk out on, but I paid for it so I cant bring myself to do it. It is just so bad, it would take to long to explain all of the things that went wrong on this movie, but I will try: EVERTHING. Avoid this movie at all costs.


Many didn't like the original, but I thought it was pretty good. I'm a fan of the game, and was excited when hearing of the movie coming out, and then a sequel, right on! Didn't get a chance to see in the theater - am I ever thankful. It was horrid. Everything was bad, the story problems are probably what bothered me most. Little was accurate to what any MK fan would know. Then there was the fact that most of the characters (excluding main) got all of 5 minutes (if that) of screen time. I am generally pretty open and like movies a lot - especially action - but this just stunk on sooo many levels


A friend and I made a horrible mistake once, we rented Mortal Kombat Annihilation. This movie is by far one of the worst pieces of crap ever to have been produced for the screen. I'd rather sit through an entire season of "Days of our lives" than even touching MKA again.

The first movie was quite fun to watch. The action sequences and the special effects were OK for it's time, Christopher Lambert starred (that's right, I DO like Lambert!), and it had a killer soundtrack. Annihilation on the other hand is set place in the worst digitally made world possible, ALL the time! Lambert is replaced by some stupid looking guy who thinks he's cool but looks like my grandfather. The plot is, besides non-existing, stupid stupid and stupid, and the fighting scenes were already made in the first movie (except when the only two female characters of any significance fight in a pool of mud). On top of all this, the actors could easily be replaced by monkeys, no one would know.

You can sum Mortal Kombat Annihilation up with only two letters: N O !


Watching this movie is like watching everything that was good drained from it predecessor.

The martial arts scenes are unimpressive, lacking the speed and energy of the original. If the actors had much martial arts skill, they certainly don't show it. The editing in these scenes is workmanlike at best. Admittedly Peck Prior didn't have much to work with but there are several points during the fight scenes where you can't even tell what's going on.

While the sets of the original had a cool expressionist look, these had the look of a Power Rangers movie. Leonetti certainly does a lot with special effects but they just don't look very good (Motaro was pretty well done though).

Meanwhile the music track had little merit. Most of the notable musical themes were taken from the first movie.


I cannot believe that I went to the cinema to watch this load of of old pants. The lessons of the first film, which was actually rather good, seem to have been forgotten with great fight scenes, pumping music and a sense of humour curious only by their absence. No wonder Bridgette Wilson and Christopher Lambert decided not to appear.


That pretty much sums up MK: A. There are the bones of a decent plot here, and they had enough to work with just from sequeling off of the original movie. So what went wrong?

First of all, they lost Lambert, Ashby, and Tagawa from the first movie. That was a big shot in the foot. James Remar (who seems to have no idea why he's here, and that Raiden is supposed to be comic relief ala Raiden in the first movie) is no Chris Lambert. Chris Conrad (very briefly) is no Linden Ashby. And Brian Thompson, even though a credible screen bad guy, is no Tagawa.

Robin Shou, as charismatic as he may be, just can't carry the load. Talisa Soto, another carryover, just has nothing to do. In new roles, Sandra Hess at least does no harm stepping in for Bridgette Wilson. Lynn Williams as Jax doesn't do bad, but then he's thwarted by the plot...

Ouch, the plot. What is it, exactly? They played fast and easy with the "rules" in the first movie, but any sense of coherency is totally lost with this one. The fate of Earth is in the balance, but they're fighting it out in caves and quarries like something out of Doctor Who. There are three tests, but what's the third? If the bad guys don't give a damn about the Elder Gods, why the heck did they play by the Gods' rules in the first movie. Undercutting your first movie's basic concept just doesn't help you.

And the plot is just too full. Apparently Boon and Tobias, buoyed by the success of the first movie, said to themselves, "Cool, now we can throw in all the faceless villains the marketing guys they told us would be too much for the audience in the first movie." Whoops - this inundation of characters is too much for the audience in the second movie as well. Why is Sub-Zero a good guy, and where does he go? Who the heck is Nightwolf, and why doesn't he help save Earth other than to give Liu Kang the test(s)? What purpose do characters like Jade, Sheeva, and Montaro serve other than to provide some kung fu cannon fodder? It's like we had one good human villain (Shang Tsung) and one good F/X villain (Prince Goro) in the first movie, so they decided, "Hey, lets put in two human villains and two F/X villains in this one."

Which brings us to the F/X. Arrgh. There is none of the care that obviously went into the first movie, which whatever its deficiencies, at least gave you something good to look at. In the rush to kick out a sequel (barely two years), they obviously spent neither time or money.

So MK: A is mildly viewable in a martial arts/fantasy kind of way. The fight sequences are still good to look at. But the animated series, or the subsequent prequel of the TV series, is probably better to watch if you're looking for something entertaining.


This non-masterpiece follows in the footsteps of several other pathetic attempts at turning a successful videogame franchise into a successful movie franchise. This one pales in comparison to the original Mortal Kombat(which was actually pretty good....surprisingly enough). It seems as though the filmmakers were too busy adding as many special effects shot and characters as possible from the videogame, rather than worrying about any type of story or character development. The characters came off as overly stereotypical and two-dimensional. This movie might have been more enjoyable sans dialogue, as at least the action sequences were intense and well choreographed. I really wish that the producers of this stinker would have put a little bit more thought into the actual plot rather than just money into the special effects budget. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you liked the first movie....... then steer clear of this one..... I mean.... why bother?


This is a film from Chaplin's first year in films. During this VERY hectic year, he churned out film after film after film for Keystone Studios and the quality of the films are, in general, quite poor. That's because the character of "the Little Tramp" was far from perfected and the films really had no script--just the barest of story ideas. While some Chaplin lovers might think this is sacrilege, all these movies I have seen are pretty lousy. Yes, there are some cute slapstick moments but barely any plot--absolutely NOTHING like the Chaplin we all came to love in his full-length films of the 20s and 30s.

As stated above, Charlie does not sport his usual mustache. The movie is about jealousy and consists of lots of people pushing and punching each other--that's pretty much it!


This film is exploitive and really raunchy at times. Many of the story lines don't make sense and the characters act in unbelievable ways. It really is bad storytelling at a low budget - the worst of both worlds. I suppose a couple of moments work in the film, but I am guessing that is by accident when compared to so much else that didn't work.

On a good note, the cinematography was decent. The city looks awful which, I guess, is what the makers were going for with this film. Yes, Detroit is a tough town with its share of problems, but do we need a Detroit cast to get together to make the city look even worse? (thanks guys).

The exploitive scenes of drug use, rape, and prostitution don't help much. Just more nudity and sexual situations added in for kicks - which will only appeal to those with the most puerile of interests.

I could give a litany of problems with this film, but heed my warning and stay away.


I was kinda forced into watching this film having started reading through 'American Silent Film' by William Everson (a very good book, I hasten to add on, er, well the title says it all) and encountering an entire chapter on, first, 'Birth of a Nation' (which I duly watched) and, then, 'Intolerance'.

I was already a fan of the Silent Screen so I approached it with a great amount of expectation, especially as Mae Marsh and Lillian Gish were in it whose performances in 'Birth' I thought were two of the finest I'd seen in silent movies.

However, in my opinion, the film is as poor as 'Birth' is brilliant.

Sure, there are a great amount of high spots when you look at film technique (such as the moving camera in part two that zooms in over the heads of the crowds - and the grand sets of Babylon are stunning to say the least) but the film is a mishmash of ideas that are forced into employment as examples of 'Intolerance' when you could view alternate characters as equally displaying the trait.

The film started life as the 'Modern Story only' prior to 1916 which was then used as the basis to have the other two main and one rather sketchy story cut into it (the Jesus narrative is, to be honest, not a story but a series of excerpts from the life which support the other three stories at certain points). To me, it shows - it's just *too* chaotic a film to be enjoyable (even by 1916 standards).

A couple of other points - Mae Marsh's performance is semi-decent although there appears to be a bit too much over-dramatisation at points while Constance Talmadge's character (the Babylonian Mountain Girl) although sometimes implausible is a nice humorous insertion (I used to know a girl like that!).

Why Griffith gave Lillian Gish the sole acting role of rocking a cradle throughout the film with no other input, I can't imagine (there must've been some good reason for it) as her acting ability was, for me, the highlight of 'Birth'.

If you're a movie-buff, this film is a must-see. Don't miss it! But, like me, you may wonder 'Why?'.

One lighter point - did anyone notice that where the train stops is the same place that Keaton used in 'The Goat' for the shot of him riding the train?


I was greatly disappointed in this film after being greatly impressed by the powerful and moving "Way Down East" and the groundbreaking (though shockingly racist) "Birth of a Nation." Griffith felt that he needed to follow the epic "Birth" with something "important," but the result is an over-produced and pretentious mess. The only sequence which carries any dramatic weight is the modern sequence (which Griffith had originally planned to make up the entire movie, originally titled "The Mother and the Law"), but associates convinced him that such a modest project shouldn't follow "Birth of a Nation" so Griffith padded the project with three other episodes which are frankly nonsensical and boring.

Griffith's reputation as one of the most important figures in the evolution of film is well deserved based on such works as "Judith of Bethulia," "Birth of a Nation," "Broken Blossoms" and "Way Down East," but "Intolerance" is clearly an example of a man desperate to top a spectacular success without a cohesive idea of how to go about it.


I appreciate that D.W. Griffith established the grammar of film. I appreciate that Intolerance audaciously cross-cuts between 4 milieus in quite an experiment... but the context for this is so long gone no one can call it a triumph (even those who do). I've yet to see a silent film that makes it across the sound barrier. The longer the film, the worse the chances. All of Griffith's endless narrative embroidering here makes the stories less interesting, not more refined. The silent technique itself biases the material, by privileging the visual over the audible, where ideas lie. A very small range of the ideological can be conveyed silently.

What we're left with is 4 time periods, and 3 hours of prancing. Whenever a crisis occurs, or a mood is heightened, we get more prancing. Need more emotion? More prancing! More passion? More prancing! They shouldn't call them silent films, they should call them prancing films. The frame-rate also contributes to the problem. No one remembers Metropolis (Lang), Scarlet Letter (Sjostrom), Caligari, Nosferatu for the dramatic arc, just the techniques and visuals, another enormous barrier to enjoying silent film.

Recent news that the lost portions of Lang's Metropolis, have been found in South America offer only the hope the movie offers a few more strong visuals, not any hope for the dated, overextended story of Fredor and Maria. And of course we're sure to get more prancing.


There is not a single redeeming feature for this misguided effort. I don't even want to give it the credit of calling it a movie.

The story centres around a plot that would have been turned down by the makers of Knight Rider, and that's saying a lot.

The acting is appalling, although perhaps some of them could be forgiven as English is apparently not a language they understand. It looks as if they have just learned their lines phonetically without actually understanding how bad the dialogue they are partaking in is.

The special effects are definitely not special and only barely qualify as effects.

My only saving grace is that it wasn't me who chose this at the video store. Apparently the girl who chose it was impressed by the cover. I haven't yet seen the cover, but looking at it for 90 minutes would be infinitely preferable to having to sit through this loathsome tosh.

I only hope that the people rating it 10 out of 10 here are either being ironic or are multiple votes from Judge Reinhold trying desperately to keep this off its deserved place at the bottom of the IMDB charts.

Please, for the sake of your own sanity, do not ever give into the temptation to watch this movie. It makes Porky's 3 look like a masterpiece. Yes, it is that bad.


OK, here are the two biggest problems with this movie: Judge Reinhold and the sibling sub-plot. Nothing against Judge Reinhold, he's a decent enough actor when it comes to lighter fare like fathers inhabiting their sons bodies or flinging coffee into a robbers face but in this film we're expected to believe that Judge Reinhold is an ex-Black Ops Officer? Sorry, no. Knowing that Judge took this role to pay the rent and get a free trip to Bulgaria makes it a bit more forgivable from his point of view, but the casting director really should have gone for a younger, more athletic B-movie actor, like Antonio Sabato Jr. Sorry Mr. Reinhold, no hard feelings.

Also, what was with the sister?! Her accent was waaayyyy too thick (to the point that I couldn't understand what she was saying and with the lack of subtitles written into the DVD...) and her character was useless save for the fact that she provides a way to end the movie. Why not make Jerry an only child and develop a love interest. Same actress (dubbed over of course), different character name, and an extra ten minutes spent on explaining how/why they hook up. The ten minutes could easily have been lost from the "map" chase scene.

Even the fact that most of the aircraft featured in the film were CGI didn't bother me as they did a decent job on their surely shoe-string budget.

All in all, I'd have to say that this movie wasn't so bad. If USA still ran their "Up All Night" showcase of B-Movies I would have watched it and enjoyed it thoroughly.


Whilst Rob Pratten has to be commended for making a truly independent british horror film, the end result, like most British independent horror films is a mixed bag in which the film makers undeniable talent and ambition is compromised by a lack of resources and self restraint. Lifting several cliched ideas from The Omen and Amityville Horror, London Voodoo tells the tale of an unlikely American couple who move to London in an attempt to salvage their relationship, but whose fortunes take a turn for the worse when they discover that their new home is haunted by a voodoo spirit. Whilst you can see the commercial logic in writing american characters into the lead roles, the unknown, ex-pat actors that Pratten cast, both deliver uncharismatic leaden performances and their characters are written in such a heavy handed, unsympathetic way that unfortunately this debut effort falls at the first hurdle. Once you get over this initial disappointment, there are moments and contributions that suggest what could have been, particularly Trisha Mortimer as the 'love-keeper' who manages to breath life into Prattens inconsistant dialogue and Voda Barnes who although over-written is suitably sexy as the Au-Pair. Comic relief is provided by the two decorators and supporting afro-carribean cast add flavour to otherwise dull proceedings. Also worthy of note are the businessmen in the office scenes, which demonstrate that when Pratten is not trying to make a load of spookery convince, he's actually quite a good writer/director. Shot hand held on 16mm with basic lighting the film has the look of a television special, the locations are functional as opposed to aesthetic and the synthesised score home-spun and cliched. The best production values can be found in the voodoo paraphanalia which suggest authenticity and a great deal of research. At 98 minutes the film is too long and would benefit tremendously from a ten minute trim, particularly the scenes where various voodoo practioners stop the narrative dead to deliver pages of expository mumbo jumbo in an attempt to give some kind of spiritual context to the proceedings. I gave this film 4 out of 10, shows promise but must try harder.


hello - what makes this film get any awards? Sorry, it's just that, at the very least, I'd like a movie to be believable. But right from the start this fails in the most basic ways. Firstly, the wife finds a body or bodies. Gee, the husband seems okay that the police not be called - afterall the wife reckons the bodies are 'old'. Gee, that's enough for the husband to want to let wifey keep her bodies in the cellar, and to keep her happy. Unbelievable. And then, as if this weren't enough to swallow, suddenly there's a knock on the door with a guy warning the hubbie the wifey's been possessed. Luckily I did not see it in some trendy art film festival - i would have burst out laughing.

I turned this awful movie off after that - enough is enough. Clichés galore in the first few minutes.


One of the worst films I've seen (but not the worst so I'll give it that.)

It's clear that someone spent a lot of time and effort making this film but I must admit it just didn't do it for me. The various camera experiments didn't really pay off, it's still got that kind of daytime drama feel to it, (great for daytime dramas, not so good for films) and the less said about the painful slow motion scene the better.

A couple of the plot lines were more than a little ridiculous and generally the story was fairly poor. The script was only rescued by the comedy builders with their refreshingly bawdy banter. (There were other parts of this film that amused me but I don't think they were meant to.)

If you want a good Voodoo film then try Skeleton Key, it's a bit glossy Hollywood but it's better than this.


'London Voodoo' is a story about a corporate New Yorker who moves to London with his wife and child. The wife discovers the remains of a voodoo shrine in the cellar of their London apartment with very predictable consequences. While voodoo is normally associated with creole culture in the southern United States, London's vibrant Afro-Caribbean culture also maintains some remnants of voodoo practices. The minimal cultural differences between Britain and the US begs the question as to why US actors were needed in this film in the first place. The acting is amateur and wholly unconvincing. Movie fans will be sympathetic to what the movie is trying to achieve. However, this movie is destined for the bargain basement.


Well, I make it short: Don't watch the German version of the movie... the people who did the dubbing should rather be doing other things in their sparetime. The whole audio part seems to be messed up... non-credible voices, and unintentional strange noises and sound.

Besides that the plot seems to be very much constructed and you never really get to know the characters, everything seems to be very superficial.

The only thing I liked about the movie are the significant pictures and some weird disturbing images.

Sorry, that's not enough to make it a good movie. :o(


Wow this was the best acting in a film that i have seen in ages, best actor award definitely goes to the 2 year old girl. She was awesome. I have to say the best part of the

film was definitely the credits! well done and congrats on the

DVD cover, it sucked me into watching this comedic film! I recommend a viewing audience of no one. i also recommend acting lessons for the cast except for the little girl she will be a star in no time.

Please do not make a movie again like this. Sometimes i wish that i had a genie, so that i could wish that i had never seen this film. Or i could wish that i had made this film with the 20 dollars in my wallet and made a better film than this. Then again i don't have 20 dollars! or i could also wish that a voodoo doll came with the film, so that i could play with it and not watch the film.


London Voodoo is plainly the worst low budget horror I have ever seen... and I've seen almost all of 'em!

I can't even think of enough bad words to describe it. Whoever made this film should be ashamed of themselves. Why would you put as much effort, time and money into producing such a pointless and boring piece of cinema? The film has nothing to hold the attention of fans of *any* genre let alone horror.

I've seen more interesting things crawling along the baseboards in camp restrooms. Good grief... I'm simply lost for words at how bad this is. Choose anything but this to fill up your time... anything!


Superficial "clippings" of a life. Attempts to provide credibility to the story that is acted out by adding "eye witness" statements of some "friends", fellow actors and even Nathalie's sister Lana cannot take away the aftertaste that this is just another "movie of the week". Nobody in the movie, not even the leads, has the chance to go very deep in their performances as the script is too poor and the scenes are too short. What we're left with is caricatures of what the people and situations really must have been like. The title role is best cast, with the role of Wagner as a good second. The small roles in the rest of the cast (Nathalie's co-stars), however, and of actor-friends and directors, are painfully inadequately filled in. Beatty, short and rather stocky compared to the real thing, is laughable, as are Dean and Joan Collins, whose physical resemblance is so bad that the viewers would never know who they are supposed to be if they weren't addressed by their character's names. None of the actors for these parts resemble their real life counterparts anywhere near. Verdict: disappointingly average, unconvincing and lacking warmth, especially if one considers that "those who were there" were involved in the making of this production.


A hacked off bit of goofiness. More interested in impersonations than actual acting, for all the supporting roles. No time invested in developing any parts but the immediate family, yet time wasted in mentioning each star who ever crossed Natalie's path. Hard to believe Bogdanovich directed this rather than some high school kids. Natalie Wood was an interesting actress and lived an interesting life. I look forward to someday seeing a film of that, rather than this simplistic media gossip version of what was important about it. I guess I should have expected that from the title. The mystery is why we accept stuff like this. (Yes, I DID watch it after all.)


I don't know what the first few reviewers were watching, but this program is dreadful. The acting is pathetic, the plot lines are implausible, and the writing is so sophomoric, horny teenage middle school children could put two words together that made more sense. I fully understand that black, gay culture is a mythical creature, not unlike lesbian culture, that needs to be shared and expressed with the homophobic world we live in, but I find it hard to believe that any of these people could ever exist in real life. Mostly due to the fact they are such blatant stereotypes. One's a twink, one's a sex fiend, one's a repressed nerd, and the last is a drag queen waiting to happen.

Beyond the hot guys and the deleted "sex" scenes, there is absolutely no reason to watch this show. My partner and I forced ourselves to suffer the first season just to mock the characters.

Please, if this is your first foray into gay culture, run away! Fast!


Oh honestly. The dialog is terrible, I couldn't care less for the characters and the acting is... so bad. SO bad. Calling it stale, flat and cheesy would be letting it down easy.

I watched the first four episodes, because I wanted to like it, especially since Queer as Folk has yet to find a worthy replacement at the gay drama throne. Well, I'll just have to keep on looking. QAF gave us interesting characters and exciting twists and turns in the storyline. During these few episodes of Noah's Arc I fast-forwarded several times because I wasn't intrigued with what was happening.

Darryl Stephens is very cute, I'll give you that. But this show is just too painful to watch.


What a stupid pretense for a show. Set in the present in Los Angeles, we're supposed to believe that four gay men who are very secure with their sexuality and have a strong support structure of friends and family, are too cowardly to ask a man who is obviously comfortable around gay men, "Are you gay?" Please...in the real world, of course they would ask that very question, to hell with all the juvenile shenanigans portrayed in this show. But then, you'd have nothing left to make a television show about.

This show is hardly the progressive step it pretends to be. It's a step backward, and the core audience to whom this show is intended will see it for what it is in just one episode.


The deranged military and former CIA agent Dean Cage (Wesley Snipes) is in a rehab program, trying to forget the traumatic loss of his best friend Scott in Bosnia. When he dates with his girl-friend and Scott's sister, Detective Amy knight (Jacqueline Obradors), in a dinning restaurant, he is mistakenly taken as being the CIA agent that is investigating the robbery of the military experiment EX by a man called Sullivan (Stuart Wilson). He is injected with the drug and abducted by the thieves. Amy has six hours to find the also stolen antidote and save Dean's life.

"Unstoppable" is a movie with an absurd and awful screenplay. The story has so many flaws and ridiculous situations that become amazing how an actor like Wesley Snipes accepts to participate of such a crap. The "hero" jumps through a window in an asylum, in front of the police cars, and nobody cares. There are lots of shots inside the hospital and nobody hears. The drugged "hero", with cloudy vision, kills the men in the helicopter with precise shoots, while the place is surrounded by FBI agents that do nothing. I could spend the afternoon listing holes in this flick. The cast is also awful and miscast: for example, the Caucasian Jacqueline Obradors, with her horrible tone of voice, has no chemistry with Wesley Snipes. I believe that even in a rainy and cold Saturday afternoon this movie does not work. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Fugindo do Passado" ("Escaping from the Past")


...then see this movie. It is typical, B-action movie. Overacted, with the wide range of teen-aged sarcasm to deer-in-the-headlights serious-face. Wesley spends most of the movie looking like he's drugged and regretting something - like signing up for this flick. He does get to do some karate kicks and yelling, though. For Obradors, this is a big step-up. Unfortunately, she is made for T.V. and certain magazines. Her role begs to be taken seriously and such is impossible. Premise device has promise: hallucinations on command. Certainly gave the editor something to do. I pity those who shelled out money for this. They must have been ticked-off.


This had to be the worst Wesley Snipes flick of all time. Truly a waste of money. It hurts me to say this, because I'm a hardcore Wesley Snipes fan. I think the plot of this movie was trash. The park scene was the funniest; watch out for that scene other than that it was garbage. Wesley Snipes used a stunt man to perform a kick, since when does he use a stunt man to kick, I know Wesley isn't that old. True disappointment. Oh and by the way did I mention this movie was garbage? Wesley Snipes barely threw a punch in the whole movie, he mostly was on the run, using guns, but barely any hand to hand combat. I didn't see the The Detonator yet, but I'm kind of scared to after seeing this movie. I guess Wesley Snipes really needs the money. I hope Snipes can start making movies that actually hits the theaters, but for now, he's a straight to DVD actor. He is coming out with a movie this year, a horror/western called Gallowwalker. It's about a gunman being cursed, now he has to fight all of his enemies that died by his hands, only this time they're already dead. Sounds better than Unstoppable, I really hope it is. Wesley needs to step up his career; I'm fighting this fight with Wesley Snipes though, but I don't know how long this fight is going to last. I advise you to watch this movie only if you have nothing else better to watch on T.V.


Yeah, so that was a lame above criticism, but it doesn't matter because this movie hits the pits pretty hard. I could honestly care less if it was low-budget or not and/or original.

All I wanted was a decent Action flick and I was disappointed once again by Snipes's choices in film ( the last flick he was in was the DTV "The Marksman" ). He's never been that great throughout his career, but he has every once in awhile he's had a pretty, good leading/ supporting role and this was, unfortunately, one of his duds.

Anyway, this movie started getting campy, then got corny, then hit the mediocre level to where it was boring and just too stupid for words. I then turned it off and have USA network to thank for letting me watch it free on cable so I can save my money.


One has to wonder what in the world was going on in Wesley Snipes's head when he accepted this stinker. The story is simple. The CIA develops a drug that makes people follow someone's commands offering no resistance. A dirty agent escapes with the drug. But there's a leak in his operation. A guy speaks to the CIA and now the bad guys need to know if it's safe to sell the drug. So they inject the drug in what they suppose is the CIA agent to make him talk. Unfortunately they inject the wrong guy (Snipes). Now not only does Snipes, who by the way is an ex military that carries a guilt (now that's original) has to escape from them but he also has to get the antidote or his brain will pretty much fry. The acting is awful. The script is filled with stupid situations just for the sake of blowing something up. There's no logic or even an attempt to make things slightly realistic or interesting. If you're into 'B Action' then maybe you'll get some enjoyment out of this. I like silly movies but this was too dull, too tedious and just too dumb.

Plot holes, clichés, there's so much wrong with this it's a wonder how someone approved the script.


Wesley Snipes play the part of an ex-soldier that is going to marry his girlfriend, but, in a bar, he is confused with another person and a group of traitors to CIA inject him a powerful drug that mixes reality and memory. He and his girlfriend have to fight in order to find an antidote and to crush the organization that has attacked Wesley. A typical bad action film, with all the clichés that can be found in this kind of films. Directed poorly, with scenes not very well-done and a lot of unbelievable moments of mastery in aiming. Neither the actors nor the plot are very good so the film is quite bad. On the other hand it has any moment of breathe and the action does not bore the spectator, (unexpected) which is a (little) good point. Ideal for TVfilm (it was originally thought as one), for seeing and forgot, but a little enjoyable if you like action films


Unstoppable is without doubt a blotch in Snipe's career. Here is a problem at the moment for Snipes. He has firmly established himself as an action star. Action films were dying a death throughout the mid-90's to the turn of the millennium but there has been a comeback with some good action films. There has not been a comeback for the action star though. We have the likes of Matt Damon, his less talented buddy Ben, Will Smith and young pretty boys like Paul Walker in trashy teen action films where the soundtrack and vehicles are the main draw. All the quote 'Action Men' are not pulling in the punters like they used to, they need a hook. Arnold needed to don his best leathers and cyborg strut to make money and Wesley has only smelt box office sweetness in his action man status with the Blade series. Snipes was at one point the black mans action hero, a seminal cult symbol amongst black cinema goers and good too. Hollywood although as multicultural as ever still would seem to orientate towards white audiences and also of course towards men, hence there are few interesting roles written for men of non-Caucasian heritage and also women, but importantly the figures are better. Still, however the films of Spike Lee and co although important are still essentially cult movies. But what I believe is that Snipe's draw as an action hero will subside even more now that big Willy grabs his pistol fairly regularly and now of course the Rock is laying the Smackdown on cinema goers. The Blade series has done good business but it's because it is blockbuster, comic book stuff. The audience figures come more from the marketing than who is in it. This is proved really by the fact that outside of the Blade series Wesley has not had exceptional box office receipts in his action vehicles, a mixture of mainly an African-American audience and the fact that the films were inferior to the ones Sly and Arnold were doing.

I'm a fan of Snipes, he's a great actor given the right roles and I truly believe he cursed his career all those years ago by saying yes to doing Passenger 57. Action films tend to waste him and since then the good roles have somewhat dried up compared to his golden period in his Spike Lee collaborations, in White Men Can't Jump, New Jack City and King Of New York. Initially he balanced his action movies by doing independent and TV movies as well, to have more challenging roles but looking at his next lot of movies, all action based, it seems he may have made his bed for good and is now content to lye in it. Not only is Unstoppable a bad action movie but it represents a real decline in financial backing and faith in Snipes ability to pull in an audience on his own. At a meagre $15million budget this is cheaper than the latest Van Damme and Seagal efforts and the film, although getting a limited release on Oct 30th, is basically straight to video and in quality it's not even one of the better. I have seen more enjoyable efforts this year form Seagal, Van Damme and Lundgren all who lack the undisputed talent that Snipes has. Directed by Television maestro David Carson whose only previous big screen gig was directing the fairly enjoyable Star Trek: Generations, although that was only enjoyable for seeing Picard and Kirk team up and for laughing every time Shatner opened his mouth to say a line. The film looks cheap, sounds cheap and suffers from the restraints heaped upon those DTV action gods. You sit and watch and feel this shouldn't happen to Snipes, who is going through the motions.

The plot has more holes than the holiest Swiss-cheese on earth and involves government conspiracies and comes across in some respects as a low grade Bourne movie (Snipes plays a guy hunted down by spooks while his mind is fried to s**t) it even has a supporting role in it for Adewale Agbaje who was in Bourne Identity. Also co-starring is Kim Coates. I won't go into the in's and out's of the plot because my head would start to hurt, but it involves a drug that cause the recipient to have strange visions that seem real and which allow for someone to control their mind by manipulating them in their visions, they will also die after a certain period of time. Snipes is mistaken for someone else and injected with this stuff in order for Coates and his fellow disbanded CIA men to retrieve important information about a deal for a whole big batch of the stuff. They don't realize they have the wrong man and it is left to Snipes girlfriend (Jacqueline Obradors) to work out what is going on and help her bloke.

So the plot is all over the place but this is an action movie, does it have enough well choreographed carnage to save it? Not really. The film in truth is boring. The action is flat and the direction, merely serviceable. There's some martial arts stuff but is all to brief. Those expecting Bladesque batterings of the baddies can think again. All in all this is a film that is a let down on so many levels. The main thing is that Snipes should have said no when someone put the script on his lap, I imagine it had grubby fingerprints and jam stains on it or something, or came in an X-files folder with scribblings all over the front.

I expect we have all heard the rumours that Snipes is a pain to work with, often turning up late, going missing and treating co-stars disrespectfully and how much of these rumours are true, we won't know for sure. You have to wonder though just whether his recent career track record shows that big name directors no longer want to work with him. He has worked with greats over the years who seem to have forgotten about him over the years and few directors work with him more than once anymore. David Goyer did, Blade 3 being his second time directing Snipes and he himself admits difficulties but the talent of Snipes won him over. I'm sure the likes of Scorsese and Spike Lee, who do films that would suit Snipes down to a tee, would hire him on the spot if it were merely a question of talent. For many years he hasn't has a significant role in a big production outside the action genre. His better roles are in smaller independent movies and TV movies suggesting that the big studios don't want to risk it with him. Truly this is a shame, I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks Snipes has failed in his potential to be an Oscar winning actor.

Overall a disappointingly routine thriller that has a B-movie whiff surrounding it that Snipes should not have his name associated with. Tis' his own doing methinks! **


Wesley Snipes stars as Dean Gage, an ex soldier who has emotional baggage, however when he is injected with a truth serum, Gage finds himself vulnerable and the bad guys on his trail, but who can he trust? I caught Unstoppable on USA a couple of months ago and it is easily one of the worst movies i've seen from Wesley Snipes. I know this don't go to theaters but the quality and the overall final result is substandard even for a straight to video action flick. The action sequences are filmed with little interest and the movie just lacks an originality or life to make this for anyone but Wesley Snipes enthusiasts.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)


This is the worst movie I have seen in recent memory. Apparently "Unstoppable" was written by a couple dozen drunken monkeys in different parts of the world with no connection at all to one another. I believe the name unstoppable is a description of the migraine one gets after watching this mind numbing stinking pile of trash. Wes- what were you thinking? Wesley Snipes is a far more accomplished actor than to be in this. This must have been a favor to someone or maybe he lost a bet. There was no measurable good quality to the screenplay. One could make out the pauses in the middle of sentences as the cue cards were switched. The special effects were pathetic at best. The acting, even by Snipes, was horrible. There were obvious sections where the film maker wanted to pad the film. I am actually shocked I didn't see a boom in any of the shots. Instead of renting this movie buy some rusty nails and pound them into your noggin. Trust me, it would be much less painful.

I just realized what this movie reminded me of. This would have been the perfect role for Gary Busey!!


The problem about censorship is that inevitably it dates. D.H.Lawrence, James Joyce, Gustave Flaubert, Leo Tolstoi were all censored for "Lady Chatterly's Lover", "Ulysses", "Madame Bovary", and "The Kruezer Sonata" when they came out, but today these books seems very run-of-the-mill in terms of their steaminess. The same happens with movies. "The Moon Is Blue" is typical. The hubbub in 1953 was the use of the word "virgin" in the film. Maggie McNamara's seeming willingness to experiment with sex is another reason (although it turns out she is more talk than action). Nowadays this seems to be relatively nothing.

Censorship also breeds publicity, and in show business most publicity is good for the sale of tickets to the public. "The Moon Is Blue" had good box office. So much for the efficacy of censorship.

Despite some of the favorable comments, most people are bored watching this film now. It was not terrifically funny. Holden and Niven are chums who are rivals for McNamara. Their actions in competition over McNamara now seem witless.

One final point. This film was the subject of a plot in an episode of the television series, "M.A.S.H." Hawkeye and B.J. hear about how the censors are against this film, and they have a chance (by trading favors) of seeing it. When they get the film at the 4077th they are both appalled at how unfunny and tame it is. Enough said.


The Black Marble was adapted from Wambaugh's novel, which was clever, fresh, funny and compelling. The movie contained none of the above. Harry Dean Stanton's acting was the only saving grace to this movie that went absolutely nowhere from start to finish. Poor acting and painfully slow dialog made this "B movie" appear to last six hours. A true yawn-fest from start to finish. No need to add spoilers to this review as everything that took place was both corny and predictable. Considering Wambaugh was responsible for classics such as the Onion Field and The New Centurions, The Black Marble will be remembered as Wambaugh's Black Plague.


Pure rubbish, ridden through with stereotypical Anglo-Saxon anti-Catholic and anti-Continental bigotries and biases. Having said that, some nice scenery but that was about it. I can't believe Michael Caine made something this poor at this point in his career.

And now adding more content to satisfy IMDb's requirements: Michael Caine plays an ex-Nazi French collaborator; he "acts" exceedingly nervous throughout the film helped no doubt by the liberal application of some oil-based lubricant to his face; Church officials are of course portrayed as deeply corrupt and dishonest, protecting their pro-fascist sympathies until the heat gets turned on them when naturally they sell out their own man, and so on. Again, the only reason to watch are some nice scenes of the French countryside, one could even let it run with the sound off as a kind of background living-room panoramic.


On the cover of the DVD it says Michael Caine produces a great performance, 'one of our greatest character actors' (Nuts magazine, no less). Are they joking? He was rubbish.

Caine is awful and shows just how wooden an actor he really is. He can't even do a French accent. The film is full of some fairly decent British actors  Frank Finlay, Alan Bates, Tilda Swinton, Charlotte Rampling (the only French-speaking one, presumably)  yet it comes over like a shoddy made-for-TV daytime movie. Statement is surely the Howard's Way of 'political thrillers'. Perhaps Norman Jewison is Peter Mayle (A Year in Provence) to the Emile Zola that is Frederick Forsyth.

The entire cast seem to be simply enjoying making a film in France (each different part of the country amateurishly captioned) and let down by a dreadful script. Presumably, Norman Jewison never studied The Day of the Jackal, where Frederick Forsyth and Kenneth Ross (screenwriter) show how it is done, and all on a small budget.

Indeed, you could have done a lot more with this film, Mitterrand playing the de Gaulle character, as a powerful leader hiding a hidden Vichy past. This is something touch on in the excellent recent film Le Promeneur du champ de Mars (2005).

The funny thing is, you actually start empathasing for Pierre Brossard (Michael Caine), the Klaus Barbie-style war criminal of southern, Vichy France, and hope that he escapes whenever he nearly gets caught. Even his killing of the assassin at the beginning of the film is genuinely self-defence, and Brossard seems genuinely full of remorse and religious guilt for his war-time crimes.

The other factor is the amateurish political corruption plotting, where we never know who the real people are chasing Brossard  are they Mossad-style vengers or agents of powerful political figures, successful but tainted by their war-time activities in Vichy France.


Aside from the ponderousness, I was especially dissappointed to see an icon, Michael Caine, play a sniveling, groveling religious fantatic, alternately crying and kissing his St. Christopher's medal, in hopes of gaining absolution. Well, he'll never get it for this performance. And what were Charlotte Rampling and Alan Bates doing in this heavy handed message movie? Did they arrange a private screening for the Pope?


While this is an interesting thrill ride (and Caine is a marvelous actor), the problems associated with the movie detract too much to make it worth watching.

The basic story involves a former Nazi affiliate being hunted down after avoiding execution for over 40 years. In short, the Catholic Church has been hiding and supporting the fugitive, because they have also been guilty of anti-semitism, and they believe that he just obeyed orders when he killed 7 Jews and later repented. He now has constant nightmares about the whole thing, and they sympathize, having granted him absolution. They turn out to be as corrupt as mafia.

The half-Jewish now agnostic judge who pursues Caine is a moderately interesting character, but the audience never can truly sympathize with her because she's rude, arrogant and impulsive most of the time - a young, annoying idealist. The Caine character is interesting because he has touching moments (like when he leaves money and a penitant, caring, thankful note for his estranged wife) and seems genuinely emotional, open and desperate at times. Clearly, he's not simply a hard-hearted man, yet he does despicable things like kick an innocent dog. Perhaps this is meant to mimic the Sopranos? Although the movie may be trying to say something about justice and corruption, it's hard to engage, because there is no real protagonist [it's not Caine simply because he's a fugitive although the audience roots for Caine at times because the camera follows him]. The viewer needs a little more affinity with the young female judge or one of the people pursuing the murderer for his crimes against humanity if we are to engage this film beyond its action-adventure.

Secondly, the story is set entirely in France with all French characters, yet NO ONE speaks French! Personne. No restaurant owners, no one conversing on the bus with friends, aucun. It makes the dialog about Caine's character receiving his passport to Canada especially humorous: "Oh good - They speak French there, don't they?" Do they speak French in France too? [see by way of contrast "Last Samurai" where Cruise's character learns Japanese, and most of the movie is subtitled, as Cruise actually speaks Japanese!] To be fair, there is a little nod to France with the occasional French accent, when pronouncing French names. [no I'm not French but how about a touch of cultural sensitivity]

There are a number of similar shortcomings with the writing/directing, but perhaps the most serious detraction in my opinion is that, in an interview, the writer spoke a great deal about conservative Catholicism, saying that it's an important time to expose the history of their anti-semitism. He explained their opposition to Vatican II, their practices and their retention of the Latin mass.... Is this another cheap "guilty by association" slam against Mel Gibson? Wow. The media and entertainment community have stooped to some low levels before, but an entire high-budget movie? Why didn't they just cast Gibson in the Caine role as scary religious hypocrite and anti-semite? I actually liked Norman Jewison (and loved Ronald Harwood's "Piano Player"), but now that I realize the ironic persecution of the Church (or Mel) that drove them to make this movie, I'm repulsed. [and no, I'm not Catholic or a particular Gibson fan!] This movie is loosely based on historical events and yes the truth should be told. But will people conclude that all conservative Catholics - or all Christians - are hateful, anti-semitic liars, hypocrites and moblike villians? Such ridiculous conclusions are the sort that seem to be in the air. The whole hateful idea - the hypocritical motivation behind this movie - should be avoided. Stand clear.


"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" had a certain charm to it. A wit if you will. It chronicled the lives of deep, yet shallow-acting characters. They were entertaining to see on screen; the situations they got into even more so. But alas, there is none of this obvious humor in the most heinous rip-off of Bill and Ted to this day, "Meet the Deedles."

"Meet the Deedles" was a movie made for one reason, and one reason only: To cash in on a once-was film franchise. Bill and Ted's two adventures were time-pieces; a look into the eighties. But one can see why this technique failed in the sequel, "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey," because by then (1991) audiences had grown weary of eighties teenagers in heinous situations. Film companies should have learned then that while Bill and Ted were once good, and always will be, MORE of the same kind is tiring. They tried a lot of films in the same tradition, but they all flopped. ("Bio Dome".)

The original is the only thing worth seeing again; not sequels or rip-offs, because their time has passed. But "Meet the Deedles" ignores this and gives the audience something about ten years too late for its own good. The movie's only true ambition is to create mindless slapstick and generate a series in the tradition of the ``Bill & Ted'' movies. It really does neither.

 The story involves twin brothers Stew and Phil Deedle (Steve Van Wormer and Paul Walker), slackers from Hawaii who find themselves in the middle of a fiendish plot to sabotage Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park.

One day Stew and Phil are hanging beneath a balloon being towed above the Hawaiian surf, while being pursued by a truant officer on a Jet Ski. When they reach ground, their millionaire father (Eric Braeden) realizes he must put a plan of his own into action: Send the two surf-bums to Camp Broken Spirit, a monthlong experience in outdoor living that will turn them into men. Through a series of truly mind-numbing and brain-tumbling actions, the Twin Deedle Dudes, who may as well be referred to as Bill and Ted, are mistaken for park ranger recruits upon their arrival at camp. They come under the command of Ranger Pine (John Ashton), and stumble onto the solution to a mysterious infestation of prairie dogs.

Prairie dogs. My, oh my. Praire dogs. Where do I start? Perhaps I'll tell you why millions of them are scurrying about. It's quite simple, really. Too simple.

An evil former ranger named Slater (Dennis Hopper) has trained them to burrow out a cavern around Old Faithful, allowing him to redirect the geyser's boiling waters in the direction of New Faithful, to which he plans to sell tickets. A whole lot of work when he could just use some machinery to re-route the water. But that would be too basic for a film as stupid and mindless as this. No, Slater as to have prairie dogs chew around the geyser. Truly awful.

Hopper lives in his underground cavern, along with his sidekick Nemo, played by Robert Englund, Freddy of the ``Nightmare on Elm Street'' pictures. At one point he explains how he trained the prairie dogs, and I quote, ``Inject kibble into the dirt, and a-tunneling they would go.'' I never thought I would ever hear Dennis Hopper say such a thing. But he did, and I am forever scarred. While he schemes, the Deedles fumble and bumble their way through ranger training. None of these scenes are remotely funny, nor hilarious as they should have been.

Yet with all this criticism, "Meet the Deedles" is also kind of fun to watch. It's so lousy that it almost comes off as original. It's worth seeing alone just for Dennis Hopper's crazy line I mentioned above. But I would not recommend you go out and rent the film; rather, wait until it is on TV.

I am split between my outlook on "Meet the Deedles." It is certainly one of the worst films I have ever seen, but it is not unwatchably bad like other bad children's flicks. I saw a TV-film two years ago named "P.U.N.K.S.", and while the lousiness of it is much on the same level as "Meet the Deedles," its watchability (yes, I made up that word) differs. "Meet the Deedles" is just awful. "P.U.N.K.S." is even worse.

Only watch "Meet the Deedles" if there's nothing on TV. But I don't recommend it to you as a good film, but rather an awful one. See it and witness pure stinkiness on film.

Whatever it tried to steal from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" is not apparent. Whatever was stolen was not stolen properly. .5/5 stars (half a star).

John Ulmer


I am heartened to see that, for a change, most others agree with me on the dopiness of this flick. Therefore I shall simply add that this has nothing to do with Yellowstone National Park. The "filmmakers" knew nothing about it but that Old Faithful is there and knew nothing about national parks but that rangers wear uniforms. I watched this to see how goofily unrealistic the geysers and hotsprings would look. Surprise, there aren't any, besides a spout of water in the background (Old Faithful) and a love scene in a hot-tub (the hidden hotspring). Disney couldn't even be bothered to make some plastic scenery! Yes, along with each other Hollywood film, they simply set everything in the studio's grassy fields with California's generic mountains in the background. The park's geology and animal-life are joyfully manipulated by the HEROES as the SOLUTIONS to the villain's evil actions. To the filmmakers, the only difference between commercial tourist attractions and national parks is that national park employees wear ranger uniforms. And these are the same people getting worked up over global warming? For sure. But any film with A J Langer is worth at least 3 stars.


Don't waste time seeing this movie! It's not funny, the actors are bad, and there is absolutely no moral in the story! It's a waste of money and time. I'm really disappointed to see Dennis Hopper starring in this movie. I hope he donated the salary to poor people, because otherwise he shouldn't have a reason to be there! I don't understand why they made such a brainless movie! The circus animals were the best actors there! And what a bad commercial for Yellowstone national park. They should sue the producers of this movie. Who said yes to this project in the first place? They must have known this movie didn't sell... Do yourself a favour. Buy all copies of this movie and recycle it. It doesn't belong anywhere.


This movie blew my mind. Seriously. I was watching it and about every 5 minutes Paul Walker would say something that would make my head feel like I was about to have an aneurysm. Do not watch this if you have any congenital heart defects. Or you will die. Or have diarrhea. Paul Walker is such a bad actor. Did you see that movie with Steve Zahn and that semi-truck? That semi-truck was the best actor in that movie and if he had been in this movie he would have been the best actor in this movie too. Only watch this movie if you have an IQ under 60. If you watch this movie with an IQ over 60, you will watch the credits with an IQ under 60. I can't do math anymore.


I was a kid when I first saw it, but when it was on TV a couple years ago I realized how confusing it was because they're twins and you think both of them are equally hot, but Stew has the best hair, but Phil is better because the ranger girl wants to go out to the forest to eat worms (like the gross white maggot kinds!), but Phil put gummy worms out instead so he doesn't have to kiss a girl with worm-breath.That was the nicest thing ever!

It's pretty wild how Phil Deedle grew up to become Paul Walker and the other guy was in Bubble Boy or something. Paul Walker is pretty hot and you can tell he's smart cuz he helped figure out about the P-Dogs. Petey the P-Dog was cute, but not the same way Paul Walker is!


There are many kinds of bad movies. Some are just lame (the recent 'Star Wars' movies), others are so bad they're actually good ('Xanadu'), and there's that rare abomination that's just too horrid for words. Folks, this is 'Meet the Deedles'.

This movie isn't even worth a lengthy review, except that it truly must be seen to believe. I sat through it ONCE when it was on TV, never again.

Oh it made me laugh all right, but not in the way it was supposed to. I just couldn't believe this movie was actually MADE. Let me put it to you this way: Take the most horrible thing that's ever happened to you, and keep on multiplying it by a thousand. 'Meet the Deedles' is even worse than that.

...This movie just plain terrified me. It's not even worth renting, unless you just love self torture.


Man this wasn't even a decent kids movie! The only funny part was the cross dressing. Don't even rent this one, at the risk of stinking up your house.


1st watched 2/17/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mrs. Wallace Reid & Melville Shyer): Interesting yet slow moving movie displaying many taboo subjects for back then including pre-marital sex, smoking and drinking in high school, nude swimming, an abortion, and older men with younger under-aged women and all being done under the radar of the well-meaning parents in the story. The movie is fairly well done as far as not over sensationalizing the situations and portrays it as a young victim kind of walks into trouble unexpectedly with an obvious innocence. This I'm sure is more how things like this happen instead of how it's usually portrayed. The downward path happens fairly slowly for the main character but it quickly comes to it's end on a very negative note after a badly done abortion. This is the best of these exploitation movies from the 30's that I've seen because it's not thrown in your face but instead builds slowly. Despite this, the slow pace doesn't help the movie be a very powerful story and is it's only real drawback.


This is one of many so-called "educational films" of the 1930s that were really sad excuses for sleazy low-budget producers to make films that could slip nudity and banned material past the censor boards. Starting in late 1933 and early 1934, the Hays Production Code was dramatically strengthened to eliminate nudity, extreme violence and decidedly adult far from movies. Believe it or not, before this time, all kinds of taboos were relatively common in films coming from reputable Hollywood studios. However, after the Code was strengthened, perverts and the curious went looking for seedy material and found it in educational films that were really just excuses to show boobs and talk about sex and drugs. As educational material, some states DID allow these films to be seen, though I seriously doubt that parents went to them to learn how to better raise their children!

In this film, a nice but extremely stupid young lady moves to a new town and gets caught up with the wrong crowd. Every time she is offered temptation, she always refuses but then tries EVERYTHING she is offered--making me wonder why they didn't call this film THE GIRL WHO COULDN'T SAY "NO"! As a result, it's obvious she's a total idiot and she graduates from trying smoking to drinking to kissing to doing "the nasty" to ultimately getting an abortion and dying!!! All this is told in a very heavy-handed and moralistic manner that MIGHT have worked had they also not shoved a few gratuitous scenes of ladies with no clothes on or in their underwear! All in all, this is a very bad film but it is a bit more watchable than the standard sleazy exploitation film. Worth a look and worth a laugh!!


Although she was past being a teenager when the original silent version of "The Road to Ruin" (1928) was made, beautiful Helen Foster (as Ann Dixon) is still an innocent young thing. After hanging out with bad girl Nell O'Day (as Eve Monroe), Ms. Foster begins to smoke, drink, and have sex - nothing too unusual, when you consider the characters routinely being played by the likes of Bette Davis, Greta Garbo, and Mae West. But, things are worse for Foster; she hasn't an abortionist worth his salt...

Filmmaker Dorothy Davenport, aka the widow of Wallace Reid, might have considered casting the beloved couple's real life son Wally Jr. in the film. It might have been exploitive, but that, obviously, was too late a consideration. Despite the material, Glen Boles (as Tommy), Bobby Quirk (as Ed), and their gals are a swell bunch to follow before degradation takes its toll.

**** The Road to Ruin (3/21/34) Dorothy Davenport ~ Helen Foster, Glen Boles, Nell O'Day


Simon Templar (George Sanders), known as "The Saint", whom everyone believed to be in Egypt, suddenly turns up back in Philadelphia, at the home of his friend, Professor Bitts (Thomas W. Ross). Although the reasons aren't given in the film, apparently there is some disagreement over Simon's moral character. When bodies start turning up with incriminating evidence pointing to The Saint, the police try to track him down. However, it turns out that there is more to the story than meets the eye.

I probably shouldn't be reviewing this film until I watch it again (if I do), but I'll just revise my review then if appropriate. As it stands, I have to give this film a generous 4 out of 10.

While The Saint's Double Trouble has promise--nice black and white photography, some good performances (especially by Sanders and Jonathan Hale as inspector Fernack), one of my favorite actors/character actors, Bela Lugosi, has an odd part in it, and the story seems like it should be interesting--the script was a disaster. Part of the problem may have been that this is apparently an entry in a long-running series, and there's no way it's going to make sense out of the context of the series. I haven't seen any of the other films yet, so I have to review this one in isolation.

The script ends up being largely loose threads. Important parts of the backstory are neither shown nor explained. There is a mummy (the presence of which got me very interested in the beginning) that ends up being meaningless to the plot (the little use it had could have been much more easily accomplished by another means). At one point, half of a knife makes an appearance as a token of a mystery, but it is never mentioned again. Characters completely drop out of the film.

Worst of all, the plot hinges on the appearance of Boss Duke Bates, a look-alike for Simon Templar, also played by George Sanders. As can be expected, there are a number of points that rest on confused identities (that's the bulk of the film, actually). The problem is that by the end, I was also so confused that I had no idea which appearance of George Sanders was supposed to be which character, and confusion on this didn't seem to be the point of the conclusion.

Again, maybe this is a fine chapter in a longer story when viewed with the other Saint films, in order. But to start here, I can't recommend The Saint's Double Trouble. It doesn't work as a stand-alone film.


This really is the worst Saint film starring George Sanders. The whole idea of the Saint having an exact double is not too credible but the filmmakers milk it for all it is worth. This results in a confusing film that is short on mystery and long on ridiculous coincidences. The crooks are a very stupid lot in this film. Even the presence of Bela Lugosi does nothing to help the film. He just turns out to be as stupid as the others. George Sanders does what he can with the limited script. He is as suave as ever as Simon Templar but flat as the head of the criminal gang. The scenes pairing Simon with Inspector Fernack(Jonathan Hale) are easily the best in the film. Sanders and Hale click well together as they did in their previous Saint films together. Too bad the story is such a let-down. Only worth seeing for Sanders and Hale. I give it 3 halos out of 10.


Almost nothing about this story agrees with the facts.

The most pertinent of those are public knowledge and the cabinet minutes are posted at

http://www.international.gc.ca/ department/history-histoire/dcer/ details-en.asp?intRefid=8169

Diefenbaker's government was told the cost of the aircraft would be nearly $10 million each,"The R.C.A.F. now had nine all-weather squadrons and the present programme called for their re-equipment with the CF-105, requiring a production order of 169 in number. These, together with aircraft recovered from the development and pre-production order for 37, would provide sufficient aircraft for nine squadrons. The total cost would be $2 billion spread from 1959-60 to 1963-64." (This compared to $2 million for a Voodoo or $3.75 million for a Delta Dart.)

The military recommended cancelling the program,"Finally, the cost of the CF-105 programme as a whole was now of such a magnitude that the Chiefs of Staff felt that, to meet the modest requirement of manned aircraft presently considered advisable, it would be more economical to procure a fully developed interceptor of comparable performance in the U.S." Note that the government was told the Arrow was "comparable" to other aircraft and not that it could fly higher, faster, or further than anything else.

The film is a little piece of political propaganda and deserves a negative score for being less than useless but the choices are limited to positive values. It actually deserves something closer to -7 out of 10.


I found this movie interesting not so much for the story, but for the unique look at the Canadian inferiority complex laid bare. Every country has it's myths but rarely is a country so invested in a fantasy surrounding obsolete hardware. That said, the movie is chock-full of inaccuracies that feed this strange need to proclaim the Avro Arrow the most amazing machine ever conceived by humanity. Anybody could make a machine, destroy it, blame his neighbor for making him destroy it and then go into a 40 year rage about how it was the best invention since the beginning of time and they were robbed...but people would think he's a fool. This movie makes Canada look foolish. Message to my Northern neighbors: CANADA IS A GREAT COUNTRY! ANY country would pale next to the US at this point in history. We're bigger than Rome at their height for glory. Take heart! What goes up must come down, we won't be this way forever. My suggestion would be to just sit back and enjoy the ride, incredible market access and free defense.


This program first aired in the Uk about April last year (2006) and i sat down with a few friends, one of which was a major in the British army another is a TA officer (Uk equivalent of the national guard) who served in Iraq during the initial invasion. All three of us had high hopes for the series having been impressed by the adverts we had seen on TV however the first action scene which takes place behind a large mound was so comical all three of us couldn't help laughing, they where only getting shot at from one direction and where barely outnumbered and not even out gunned yet they are behaving like they are all about to die! The acting is over the top and frankly awful, neither one of my friends with combined army experience of over 20 years who experienced both gulf wars had ever experienced moments when their troops had lost their heads at all during combat, no where near as much as the characters in this show where! These are meant to be professional soldiers and if this is something to judge the whole of the U.S. army on its no wonder we're getting no-where in Iraq! So in conclusion this show is cringe-worthy at best so if you want a decent war drama steer well clear of this one!


Why is this movie considered controversial? Its so Pro-US its scary - is that the controversial part?

The sober black man persuading the thug that "im a believer!" crap. The backstabbing broadcasting company twisting the story to make the troops look bad for there own gain. The wounded soldier who refuses to give up -"i just want to get back to my unit!". The strong woman supporting the wounded soldier "just give him something to fight!" The compassionate intelligence officer. Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, cliché, yadda, yadda, mtv-cutting, yadda, yadda, yadda, rock music. Generation Kill pwns this crap any day.


Well what can I say ....

The basis of this melodrama surrounds the individual soldiers, the hazards they face and the decisions they must make. On this level I suppose it's almost bearable.

It seems every action is in favour of the military .. from the initial shoot to kill policy at the road block. Luckily enough the plot clears up this mess by showing it was all a set up by the insurgents and they would sacrifice several innocents to get their man through to the twist where the embedded journalists images were misrepresented to make a US soldier the scapegoat in the eyes of the world and the media for the death of two innocents. Could this be any further from the truth when we consider the Media blanket placed during the conflict. So was it Al-Jezeera that aired this ... I think not as CNN, FOX and the like essentially prevented any critical view from any angle as did the so called embedded independent journalists.

I certainly not saying these things didn't happen but we seem to be missing a large part of the overall picture. Collateral damage! I feel for the soldiers deployed to Iraq and my heart goes out to the families for their loss but lets not forget the 100,000 Iraqis that have died or around 500,000 due to sanctions prior to the war.

It's unrealistic, biased and wholly unconvincing trite. Turning a humanitarian catastrophe into soul-less light entertainment.

I hope one day Dubya and Blair pay for their crimes against humanity.


I'm so sorry to write a totally negative critique on this film, but I have to be honest about it: the whoooooole story is foreseeable, there is not the tiniest surprise or change of plan. the acting is more or less 2nd class; you wouldn't believe one of the "criminals" are more than "want-to-be-good" actors in cheap clothing (I know: the cheap clothing is part of their characters.. you know what I mean!).

At least occasionally it was a liiiittle bit funny, but most of the jokes were just too flat.

Do you know the feeling, when you'd like to turn the clock back to the moment you came home from work and decide what to do with your "rare" sparetime?

Sorry, again. I tried.

love & peace


I thought this was so bad I had to watch it in pieces because it was so cringeworthy. I taped it and had high hopes because I very much like Marsters' work on Buffy. But in this movie he was wooden and seemed uncharacteristically and woefully unprepared. The plot could have been a slick little heist movie but the scriptwriters managed to take something intrinsically exciting and make it yawnable. The pacing was terrible and that may be the worst flaw-farce has to stay on its toes to stay alive. However, it took Margot Kidder to supply the cringe. Not the very talented Margot of old. Marsters needed a job and a success but he only got one of those with this drek.


I was eager to watch Cool Money as the idea for the heist was conceived in my home town of Rochester. The robbery of the Pierre Hotel in New York City actually took place in 1972 but the film is made to look like it could have taken place in the present. It seems to me that if you are going to make a film about a historic event (the largest robbery in New York City history), then you should make the effort to create it for the correct time period. The only hint of the period was Sammy's wardrobe. I know all about creative license but even most of the scenes that supposedly took place around Rochester were wrong. There is no "Rochester Downs" race track, the Rochester Police Department is not broken down by precincts and there has never been a Rochester Examiner newspaper. Perhaps the production company would have been better off coming to Rochester to film rather than go across Lake Ontario to Toronto. In my opinion, things like this only cheapen a film. The acting was pretty good (loved Margot Kidder's portrayal of Bobby's mother) though some of the characters were rather transparent. If you're looking for a film that gives some idea of the events that lead up to the heist, then this film is fine, otherwise, don't waste your time.


well...that was an afternoon of my life that could have been much better occupied by almost anything. Root canal work springs to mind. At first I half expected to see Leslie Nielsen appear, then it gradually dawned on me that this was supposed to be taken seriously. Half an hour in my eyes began to wander towards our bookshelves and books that hitherto had little appeal suddenly looked tempting (fly fishing for beginners, advanced motor mechanics and so on). The writing on this film is incredibly poor. The key character (Bobby? I had to stop and think about it) has the topography of a millpond. The actors are visibly bemused and are clearly struggling to make anything worthy at all - didn't they READ this script? I can usually pretty much work out what is going to happen in a film and get a kind of perverse thrill out of that - knowing I can't be shocked or surprised (ennui is my middle name) - but with this offering the plot was so easy to read that there wasn't even a thrill to be gained in this sense. The part where the 'cops' (shock surprise) are FOLLOWING THE WRONG CAR made me groan. There are also obvious lifts from other films. The post heist scene is ripped and mangled from (the very good) Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels which unfortunately stimulated a momentary direct comparison of the two films - oh dear. Much other plagiarism is evident which is OK if well done - and after all this is a film in a retro style so should be expected - but this is the sub pass rate night before deadline desperately downloading student of film plagiarism - it grates so much that there was blood running out of the DVD player. James Marsters who plays the central character seems very uncomfortable and out of place. He has 'this is cr*p' written all over his face and it shows. Strangely for someone who had quite a good English accent in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, his native accent is all over the place. In Buffy, his English accent was convincing, although it veered between Olivier's Henry V and Eastender's Peggy Mitchell at times, it was still very good, in this film he paradoxically sounds like an Englishman doing an incredibly bad US accent. JM is a good actor, if a little overdone, but in this movie he gives a poor performance. He doesn't seem convinced by the character and therefore doesn't engage the audience. The plot and actors creak and groan along like a 1970's charabanc to Morecambe (but not as jolly) and come to a shuddering close which is all too predictable. At the end (praise the lord) I felt the need to go and watch something good to get the taste of bad film out of my mouth. Luckily for me almost anything in my collection would suffice in this regard. I would imagine, given the other reviews, that the main actor's substantial fan base will enjoy this film, and fair enough - but try not to overdo the hyperbole, chucks.


This confused attempt to replicate the success of Turkish Delight does have some oddball moments that make it slightly entertaining and of mild interest to Rutger Hauer fans. Mainly I'm referring to the bizarro band scene where Rutger hops on stage to fake-play a guitar. Crazy dancing ensues. The whole thing is reminiscent of some of those wild partying moments in Reefer Madness.

The ending comes about in a perfunctory manner and leaves you giggling rather than feeling introspective. "Yeah, right," was the first thought that came to mind. I wouldn't put this on a must-watch list for anybody, even big Rutger fans. Instead, pick up the Verhoeven box set which contains Turkish Delight, Katie Tippel and Soldier of Orange. You'll feel much better about yourself in the morning.


Haha, that's easily the only good thing I remember about this piece of trash! I remember when I first saw this and thought "Whoa, Rutger must be pretty embarrassed to have done this", well, he did get to do a pretty hot chick in this one, and it's surprisingly graphic, with only penetration the only part of the act not directly shown!