Nemesis 4 follows in the footsteps of the previous two sequels to the original Nemesis. It follows the adventures of female hardbody / warrior Alex (played by Sue Price). This time she is given one final assignment (kill yet another victim) before ending her career as a professional assassin. Very little happens in this extremely talky, apparently near-zero budget film, except for almost-constant nudity on the part of Alex, and some slimy "android" gore. Something happened here. All three sequels were shot at the same time, from what I have heard, yet it took nearly four years for this installment to get released to video. I could swear that a male double was used for much of the full-body views of the nearly-naked Alex, and Alex's voice was always dubbed in, even when it should not have been necessary. The actual running time is barely over an hour. Did something happen to Sue Price, making it necessary for extensive reshooting or re-editing? Watch this movie, and see if YOU can figure out what went wrong. One can only hope this is the last film in this series.


My God !!!!!!! It's the worst film I've ever seen in ages !!! Sue Price was sooooo bad !!!!!! She just showed us a naked body. Please do not see this one !!!!!!!!!! No plot,bad actors,bad blackground & terrible series !!!!!! We don't need a Nemesis 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Watch this one just to see a bizarre collection of the deluded, the braindead, and the plain old put-ons. The 2 most noticeable of all the weirdos in this documentary were the muscle bound she-man {Bev Francis, I think}, and unbelievably phony Rachel McLish. Miss Francis, who at least saw the competition for what it was, was a ghastly example of what a distorted mind coupled with dangerous steroids can become. As freaky as this woman was I must say that Miss McLish topped her for an outright eccentric, perhaps grotesque, mindset. I heard nothing, I insist...nothing, come out of this woman's mouth that was even remotely real. This has to be the most devious, deceitful person I've seen anywhere. I wonder if her whole life isn't one big hallucination. I have seldom seen a group of people more to be pitied than I did in this expose of womens' bodybuilding. Not a well done film, but worth seeing how odd we humans can act when our minds take us down the wrong path. Strange.


It's "Jackass" meets "The Awful Truth"--the Michael Moore television show, not the Cary Grant/Irene Dunn farce. Two pranksters who want to make the WTO look foolish, go around the world speaking at small engagements--a CPA conference in Australia, a college classroom--pretending to be reps of the WTO. They present outlandish presentations that are meant to shine light on the injustice of the trade organization.

The documentary, unfortunately, does not really tell us why the WTO is evil so the pranks never feel justified. The pranksters are reluctant and soft-spoken and make themselves look more foolish than the WTO. For instance, when speaking to the college students, the pranksters present a WTO-endorsed plan to recycle human waste and turn it into to hamburgers. This is supposed to make the WTO look bad, but really just invites ridicule toward the speakers.

Has the WTO actually planned on feeding reconstituted human waste to people? Of course not, so the satire does not work. Satire is truth caricatured in order to critique, but the object of ridicule in the film--the WTO--is never really explained or defined. As a result, the pranks are aimless and fail completely as satire.

Skip this one. The good blurbs on the cover are inexplicable. It reminds me of the critical praise given to "Bulworth" and "Dogma," both poorly directed, but praised because critics supported the message of the films.

Read more at http://solipsisticblog.blogspot.com/.


Follows the exploits of man-boys who think impersonation in boring and irrelevant conferences, penis, and potty humor is political activism. Their bugaboo is the WTO, which they appear not to understand in the slightest and to which they ascribe a global conspiracy. The "Yes men" are kin to the creationists and global warming skeptics. All are ignorant amateurs who reject the scientific consensus (in this case, of professional economists regardless of political leanings) because it conflicts with their ideologically created world view. There is nothing approaching a serious treatment of "globalization" in this movie. This movie is even more anti-intellectual than a Micheal Moore movie.


Going to see this movie, I expected to disagree with its message, but I wanted to know how easily one can fool top trade negotiators, and hoped to laugh at some funny pranks. I was wrong on all three counts.

First of all, there is nothing to disagree with, because the movie contains a single claim of any political relevance: apparently, trade agreements have reduced the power of governments (but how could an international agreement fail to restrain governments?). Actually, this claim is of interest for what it says about the anti-globalization movement: they take to the streets to increase the power of the State. We have come a long way since 1968!

There is also a guest appearance by Michael Moore, but he does not have anything relevant to contribute, apart from a self-satisfied smirk. Not surprisingly, there is no mention of the intellectual father of anti-globalization: Benito Mussolini.

Second, the Yes Men did not go anywhere near top trade negotiators. In fact, I am not sure that they went anywhere near anybody who knows what the WTO is supposed to do (not that it manages to do much, but that's another issue). More on this later.

So the only thing to discuss is the entertainment value. Part of the movie is reality TV: we watch the Yes Men as they get up late, get a costume manufactured, change clothes in a toilet, etc. Eventually, we get to see the first prank at a conference in Finland. Here, the Yes Men deliver a lecture, pretending to be from the WTO. The lecture starts by addressing an academic question about slavery (note to those who never heard the question before: Adam Smith addressed it in 1776); and ends with a pathetic attempt at a visual gag. The pained expressions of members of the audience suggest that they, like me, were just hoping that it would be over as soon as possible. The Yes Men take the silence of the audience as a sign of stupidity. It does not occur to them that maybe the prank is just not funny.

We are not told who were those people in Finland, but one thing is clear: they were not top trade negotiators. If they were, they would not go to a conference whose organizers confuse the Yes Men with the WTO.

But there is a deeper problem: according to the Yes Men's lecture, the WTO is devoted to developing gadgets. Now here is the Catch-22: if the audience were taken in, then they do not know anything about the WTO; if they were not taken in, then the Yes Men made fools of themselves.

There are a couple of other pranks. One is at the expense of a college class. This prank managed to make me smile, but I do not recommend watching it on a full stomach. This time we know for a fact that the students were taken in. They, too, believe that the WTO is devoted to technical development. Not a good advertisement for the college.

Finally, the Yes Men persuade an Australian chamber of commerce (or was it a news conference in Australia? I can't remember, and the movie web site doesn't say) that the WTO is closing down. The concept is pretty bold, actually it should have been the best prank in the movie, but it falls short because we do not get to see the targets of the prank when they realize that they have been taken in.

Members of the chamber of commerce (or whatever) were interviewed while still under the impression that the WTO was really closing down, and they seem to think that it is a good idea to do so. This is surprising enough for me to give an extra star to this movie. But what do they think is wrong with the WTO? Their answers do not go beyond banalities, which is a pity. So much more of a pity, since there will never be another chance to ask them.

In conclusion: If you want to know more about "globalization", do not waste time on this movie. If you just want to see some funny pranks, then see "Amici Miei" (1975): too cynical for some people, but at least there is something to laugh about, and even the toilet humor manages to be funny.


I was impressed with the elaborate pranks and that they were able to at least look like they were giving competent presentations. That was it. The rest of it was fairly stupid.

One of the first big jokes centers around a presentation made in Finland about a ridiculous phallic employee monitoring device. I suppose we were supposed to find humor in the fact that the Finns failed to react. I think it showed more about the ignorance and stupidity of the Yes Men than the audience.

Even if they hadn't pulled out the giant penis thing, I'm sure the audience wouldn't have asked any questions about the WTO's plan to monitor employees. No doubt the audience knew that the WTO would never become involved in something like that, and I can imagine it would be fairly typical for a group of Europeans to remain quiet about an American making an ass of himself in public. The most frustrating thing I found was that all the pranks that were meant to satire the WTO missed the mark completely.

The Yes Men seemed to be completely uninformed about what the WTO does. I'm not sure how you can satirize something if you don't understand it. It would be sort of like making "Spinal Tap" based upon lives of circus performers. The WTO simply doesn't become involved in individual corporations, like McDonald's. So, while the idea of reconstituted feces being sold as food may be slightly amusing, it's irrelevant to the operations of the WTO, which is problematic if you're trying to poke fun at the them.

In general, it's pretty much run-of-the-mill uninformed arguments you usually hear from people that denounce organizations like the World Bank or IMF with some pranks thrown in to entertain. Knee jerk liberalism with a twist, in other words. Which in my book, is equally as asinine as those that buy whatever FOX News or W is selling. On the plus side, if you don't know anything about the WTO or other cultures, you might find this amusing.


I saw the Yes men recently, a documentary about guys who essentially pretend to be from the World Trade Organisation and then pull funny stunts in order to prove that the World Trade Organisation is an evil empire.

Shame it's a really tedious documentary, I mean you had all the elements of a great documentary, guys with inflatable wands, telling a bunch of uni students they are planning to feed third world countries with first world feces. I mean come on, how could you make a documentary like that boring.

Well firstly, you would show the two main protagonists in various apartments for most of the movie. Also you could make sure that you end on a really slow note, taking as much enjoyment out of the inflatable wand as possible. And maybe, just maybe, you could show an amazing amount of people in lifts and walking.

Nick Broomfield and Michael Moore this isn't.


I think the CONTENT of the documentary was probably valid but the QUALITY of the video was less than that of a home-made one. It was so poor that I could not continue to watch the video which I tried to do twice. And that really disappoints me because I'm very much interested in anything that blows the whistle on the arrogance of international organizations whose self-interested gains appear to be the only reason for their existence.

Interestingly, this documentary appeared to be inspired by Michael Moore's work. I think the makers of this one need to be mentored by Moore for awhile yet.


It's a shame the filmmakers do not have the same talents as the yes men. WHile the pranks are supreme -- intelligent, insightful and clever -- the same cannot be said for this movie.

Instead of giving us insight into what makes these pranksters tick, the film dilly dallies for what seems like hours over the fact the fact that the yes men miscalculated the time zone (!) in Finland. In a word: Who cares about the time zone?!

But, alas, the film treads water for ages.

But worse than that is the fact that the movie has no sense of irony, no joie de vivre and no fun. It's just a badly made doc about an interesting subject.

For people who want to see a film that makes a great uber-prank on pranksters big and small, my recommendation is the Anarchist Cookbook.


Oh boy! If this 'documentary' was made by a schoolchild, there's an outside chance I would have found their methods of stirring the pot funny.

But, come on! What the hell do these nuts take the viewers for? Did they make it for school children? Hang on...yeah, that's it! They made it for school children. I get it now. Sure, what they are trying to do is question power...but it only just dawned on me how clever these guys really are.

They have stooped to school child levels so that they can secure the attention of the young. That's good thinking. By getting young people thinking critically a seed is planted.

Anyway, that's the only way this film can be praised.

Overall, it's pretty childish.

But hang on a minute...I heard someone say the other day that 95% of the world's population don't think...that they are infants...that the world has not progressed to adulthood.

Maybe this whole documentary is extremely well targeted. Maybe 95 out of 100 people who see it will get the message.

I got the message.

But I thought the 'Yes' men were a bit self indulgent.

They flew all over the world, they giggled like schoolgirls and they loved the camera.

They hammered the nail into the wood, but at the end of the day it was a little bent.

If you guys really want to stir the pot, and make us dumb viewers think...then do it better. You're the stars, you're the talent, you're intelligent and witty...make a 'The Yes Men 2' and really get your hands dirty.

And for the love of everything...stop giggling and carrying on like kids in a candy store.

Don't you remember anything Yoda said?

"An agitator must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind...Hmph...Adventure...Heh...Excitement...Heh. An agitator craves not these things. You are reckless."

Or something like that.


I could hardly make it past the two of them patting each other on the back at length over their phony Bush website. The funniest thing about this movie is that these two were probably sobbing and crying over the 2004 election results. Have a little Wolfowitz for desert.

It would seem that the jacket of the CD ought to have warned us that this wasn't really a comedy "with humor and outrageous antics" so much as a smug political statement of moral superiority by immature reprobates toadying up to the international left. Maybe they should have started with a protest of the mislabeling of their own film by the video outlet I rented it at (a major corporation).

Not recommended. Anyone putting a dime into a rental fee on this one is probably supporting some group sacrificing American lives and jobs to preserve the habitat of a colony of slime mold somewhere in the ANWR.


absolute drivel. sadly this amateurish 'documentary' (for it is nothing more than a couple of middle class American boys jetting around Europe acting like teenagers) opened the Glasgow world film festival. the two makers were present to answer questions on the film, not after the screening as one would expect but before it saying that they couldn't make it after the film. i wonder why? the part in the film where they arrived in Finland an hour late due to their americanised thinking (or is that an oxymoron?) that all of Europe works on the one time zone sums them up in terms of intellectual capacity. complete idiots who have jumped on the Michael Moore polemic bandwagon and managed to record with the help of camcorder guerrillas (or is that gorillas?) a mere eighty minutes of mostly this pair of muppets cutting their hair, touching their balls, and drinking coffee. it is people like these who instead of offering a solution to the corporate ills of the world actually contribute towards them. the film has as much substance and integrity as a string vest, and as much coherence as the back room at oxfam. makes that fat guzzler Moore look good. should be renamed the muppet show.


This is a film that has not much going for it. The main actors are to old to play students. That is why they are totally unbelievable.

Antonie is a good actor, but here he is wasted. Chantal Janzen should give it up, just like that Beau van Erven Dorens guy. The film has similar story lines from other dutch films. Nothing is new, and the jokes are nothing special.

Only Daphne Bunskoek is fresh in this stale film.

This film was a disaster at the box office, cause it was produced for a rather large amount of money. On DVD it is worth a look , if you can watch it for free that is.


Feestje! has all the characteristics of a bad Dutch movie: it's main actor is a 38 year old playing a student, there's meaningless, unfunctional sex in it and the story doesn't make any sense. You can have worse times though...

Ruud van Hemert brought his dynamic duo from his previous flop, 'Ik Ook Van Jou' back into this one, and I must say that Van Erven Dorens is likable in his role, although one can tell it's not acting which he does for a living. Kamerling meanwhile isn't the actor a lot of people once thought he would be, and picking roles like this one won't help either.

The story: Ben (Van Erven Dorens) is about to marry Talita (Chantal Janzen), and is been bragging to her parents about his best friend and best man Thijs (Kamerling). He does this so well they want him to plan the weddingparty. While Thijs really is a sloppy student only believing in one night stands and hating couples and marriage...

Things complicate when social worker Susan (Daphne Bunskoek) steps into his life and he wants to start off his own bar/restaurant...

The movie at times is extremely messy (watch the scene where Thijs and Susan are in the kitchen at night, talking. It seems that in every shot they are standing in another part of the kitchen) and the acting, as said before, is only so and so. Still, I had an OK time with it what couldn't be said about Ik Ook Van Jou.

PS If you're a big Chantal Janzen fan, you can skip this one as she has about 1 line in it.

4/10.


The story keeps bumping from one storyline to a completely other and back again. The movie seriously lacks continuity and all of the story lines feel incoherent and pointless.

The movie has a disgusting forcing moral message and theme and of course a predictable happy ending. Oh and of course pointless sex and homosexual couples are included in this Dutch movie, almost if like its a MUST for a Dutch movie to have all those elements.

I admit, Ruud van Hemert is a great actor director. He really makes the actors give all they got. There is nothing wrong with the acting, it was really good as a matter of fact but van Hemert is an awful story director. The movie never really flows because it features some pointless and unneeded plot lines. Also his sense of humor is extremely awkward and I find it highly unfunny.

It's a shame really, because the movie started of actually quite good and I expected to be entertained.

Antonie Kamerling and Beau van Erven Dorens are good as leading characters and so is Daphne Bunskoek in her movie debut. Chantal Janzen's character is for some odd reason extremely underused, even though her character plays an important role in the story. Antonie Kamerling went to Hollywood after this movie but the only person who cast him there is Renny Harlin...ha-ha not exactly a good sign!

Unfortunately this is a movie filled with some ridicules moments that don't make an awful lot of sense story wise. The story itself is ridicules because it lacks a solid main plot line. All of this combined is what makes this movie an unpleasant one to watch.

4/10


When going to this movie we didn't know what to expect anything, and thats exactely what we got. Horrible acting (reading lines from an autocue would be the same as this acting), reasonable actors but the whole thing was a bad mix of a dutch try on 'American Pie' meets dutch B-film. I bet this movie won't make it through a second week of showing in the theaters, and the DVD will go directly to the 50%-off section. Too bad, it could have been a nice movie.


CONTAINS SPOILERS! Okay, all you people who know the director or work for the distributor, stop giving reviews. Because that's the only reason I can see for calling this film visionary.

Someone here lauds the mystery. Mystery? What mystery? This is the first time I have ever seen a serial killer film in which you don't find out who did it, and it doesn't really matter anyway (and really, guys, the first thing I thought of when the body had something cut out of its skin wasn't "covering up bite marks," it was a tattoo)...

The film is really about Emmett and his situation. Fair enough. But that means a good portion of the film is superfluous. Which means we wasted our time.

Huh. I'm even bored giving a review of this film. Suffice it to say if I start reading car magazines and my husband starts playing games on his iPhone, the film has missed its mark.


I bet on paper this movie is way better. The story is somehow intelligent and has a lot of clever twists and turns but, on screen, it has some failures and basically in the overall acting zone. I think maybe it's because the main role doesn't reflect the hard conflicts he's living in and with the exception of Byrne and Roth -both giving strong performances-, the rest of the cast is halfway through the intensity I assume was really needed to make us live the plot.

On the other hand, I think the camera does a fine job trying to capture the best angles in order to show the deep core in the story and the settings helps a lot to the looks and mood, full of dark nights, gray skies and very cold buildings. Nevertheless, if on script this idea sounds pretty interesting, the way it is developed by the characters leaves a sensation of underplaying which is something sad due to the somehow edgy material written. You realize how clever the screenplay was once the film is finish, when you reconstruct all the matters and personal motivations in your head.

Emmett's mark it's not a despicable thriller but is not a go-see-it-now either. I give it 6/10


This movie had some twists in it that kept you on your toes but other than that...it was a boring movie in my opinion. The main character Emmett, played by Scott Wolf was new to me. He didn't seem to act well and seemed like he just got out of college into acting school.

What would you do if you were dying? Would you even go to all that trouble...? At least the DVD has some deleted footage. Besides that, I would only rent the movie if you want some unrealistic drama with little action and poor acting.

Even the DVD & Movie Guide book rates the movie 3 out of 5 stars. No wonder why everyone is selling this movie cheap...it is because it doesn't capture your attention in a way you would remember it and make your jaw drop.


1st watched 3/28/2004 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Keith Snyder): Unique but slow moving drama about a detective who is only given one week to live and hires someone to kill him so that he won't go out slowly. Another story within this central theme, is the serial killer that he's tracking down but we really don't get shown much of this side of the story. Scott Wolf does a good job in his role as the detective but when a twist in the story occurs and he decides he doesn't want to be killed, the movie just doesn't go anywhere. A very flat performance by Tim Roth in the role of the assassin doesn't help the story much, and Gabriel Byrne really doesn't do much with his role as the person Wolf works thru to get the killing done. All in all this was a good try at a different kind of thriller but there's not enough heart going into the making of this. There were some obvious small things like editing mistakes that made it clear that not a lot work was put into finishing this but instead it was just put on the movie shelves as soon as it could.


As I said in the summary line, in the end of the movie when the screen went black, had I not paid so much for my TV and if I knew it would have done good, I would have thrown something at it. Instead I'm left yelling, "Aaaaaaarrrrrhhhhh, no way are they going to leave it like that!!!!" Not that the movie was great, but it should have been, so sometimes I have a feeling of hope that a movie like this could at some point take a turn for the better, and really get to the level it should have been. Instead they leave you feeling empty about so many different things in the movie, yes a lot did tie together but there could have been so much more.


Boring boring boring,

I was very happy when it was over... The storyline really sucks. There is nothing entertaining about it


It was made in Philly, my hometown, and having Gabriel Byrne plus Tim Roth probably assured some decent acting, but as luck had it, Pam figured out the mistaken diagnosis before the film was 15 minutes old. Thus as I watched the rest of the film develop, I kept thinking in the back of my mind, 'does the Police Health & Welfare Plan rule out second opinions?' Man is told he is going to die soon from an illness, and he doesn't see if the doctor could be mistaken.

I read the other reviews where some praise and some damn the film's open end style. In this case I think the writer(s) may simply have run out of inspiration or ideas. Do we want Emmett to go back to his girlfriend, or get involved with his co-worker? Who knows? We will let the viewers decide. What does it mean when Roth can't pull the trigger? Is this some sort of comment on his whole sexual life, or is he granting life in place of the one he took previously? The pose seems almost out of Michaelangelo's Creation on the ceiling at the Sistine. Is failed detective Roth giving the spark of life to the man he just wounded? The questions keep piling up. The serial rapist drives an SUV; so does Emmett? Coincidence? I have played solve the crime board games that were more enlightened than this series of questions.

Pam, and another reviewer, commented on the phone conversation between Emmett and Roth. I'd driven past this intersection on April 4th of this year. The camera actually dresses up the area, and while there is a union hiring hall nearby, and the area is less than a mile from police headquarters, the site of two white men standing on that corner meant that it was either just after daylight or an optical illusion. In fact, I found the views of neighborhoods during foot chases eliminated any of the demographics of Philadelphia. The only Black people we see seem to be policemen.


Jawbreaker is *no* Heathers.

If you watch Heathers, even for the dozenth time, it's amazing how easy the movie looks. Daniel Waters's dialogue was a wonderful rhythm that he could never repeat. Michael Lehmann's direction captured a mixture of black comedy and drama that he's never been able to repeat. It could be argued that nobody in the cast (with the possible exception of Winona Ryder) has ever been better. Watching Darren Stein's Jawbreaker makes you realize just how difficult it was for Waters and Lehmann to make their film, because in every way Heathers succeeds, Jawbreaker fails.

Jawbreaker has nothing new to say about high school, nor about popularity, nor about violence in society. So if you eliminate any hope of subtext, you can also wonder why exactly it doesn't seem funny. Or why the finale seems random an unsatisfying. Or why there's no character development at all. The dialogue isn't neither as smart or as barbed as writer/director Darren Stein seems to think it is, nor is the colorful and sometimes appealingly campy direction really a redeeming feature.

The characters are all one dimensional. Rose McGowan, as Courney Alice Shayne, was given more to do in the crappy "B" movie Devil in the Flesh. She's always watchable, but she's usually more interesting. Rebecca Gayheart is supposed to be the character the audience can identify with, but her "I remember when the dorky kids were my friends, back in fourth grade" story arc is just ripped off poorly from Heathers. Everybody's easy to look at, but none of the young actors is going to put this one prominantly on their resumes.

A string of amusing faces from the past pop up to remind you of a litany of movies that this is not. William Katt makes you yearn for Carrie. Pam Grier makes you year for a campier film like Sheba, Baby or a better film like Jackie Brown. Hell, Carol Kane even makes you yearn for the relative pleasures of a mediocre movie like The Pallbearer.

Jawbreaker isn't funny. It isn't original. And it isn't very good. But darned if it doesn't invite another viewing of Heathers. And that's never bad.


This is a morbid comedy with a fabulous performance by Rose McGawon. No, it's not as good as Clueless or Heathers, but the film abounds with wickedly funny one liners. At times over the top, you will like this film if you remember not to take it too seriously.


A group of ultra-hip teenage schoolgirls (from Reagan High!) accidentally kill one of their own in a birthday prank gone awry; they struggle to keep their deed a secret even after a nerdy student discovers the truth. Darkly comic tale, brightly-produced yet full of cynicism, has brief moments that go out on a limb, but is ultimately a rather formulaic "Heathers" knock-off. Holds interest nearly half the way, however the wrap-up is right off the assembly-line. It certainly benefits from a good cast, with the central performances by Rose McGowan and Rebecca Gayheart spot-on, however prominently-billed P.J. Soles, William Katt and Marilyn Manson hardly appear at all. ** from ****


I'll be perfectly blunt, here. The only reasonable excuse to even consider watching this Heathers/Carrie rip-off is Rose McGowan's aka Courtney Shane's tits! THAT'S IT!! That and staring at a cute Rebecca Gayheart aka "The Noxema Girl" aka the "The Worst Driver on Earth".

Ahem, anyway, he acting is absolutely hideous and as deeply intellectual as a listening to a gossipy bimbo cheerleader gabbing on her cellphone in the BMW convertible daddy bought her. As far as the dialog goes, Are you kidding me? Who wrote this movie? Seriously. Who? A group of drunk perverted frat boys on spring break. If the directors, producers, and writers were more serious in their work and had more in the way of detectable I.Q. level, Jawbreaker would've been a little more funny and witty...like Heathers! It would've been a little more satirical...like Heathers! And It would've been a little more of cult classic...like Heathers! But, Alas this movie isn't Heathers it's another poorly planned teen movie with a big budget with an ego to match that does little but annoy the crap out of everyone. It's only good to watch if nothing else is on and seeing Courtney receiving her faux-Carrie comeuppance in the end. The only other redeeming qualities Jawbreaker has besides the obvious symbolism of sex appeal is the scenery with it's avant-garde neo-60's style.

I don't like this movie since it marked the beginning of the millennium in which all women on a screen look, dress, and act like the skanks in this pathetic teen crap fest! You can say this started a trend. Now if this had quality instead of an excuse to rush sex appeal to the market, "Jawbreaker" would've been a better movie than it was. Don't get me wrong. I don't hate this movie...it could've been a little funnier and satirical instead of just a bunch of beautiful people backstabbing each other sans modus operandi.


Ew. This movie is horrible. It's either a bad homage or straight out rip-off of the film "Heathers", which is worlds better than this, plus it features Rose McGowen reprising that same role she does in just about every film she's in: heartless bitch that never shows any emotions (the only other character she ever portrays is ditzy girl that never shows any emotions. She has range...). Plus, as if the lame script, thin satire and horrible acting wasn't enough - you get to see Rose and her real life boyfriend, Marilyn Manson, have sex. It's charming.

Yes, High School sucks, but so does this movie. Two wrongs don't make a right.


This is just another one in a long line of teenage/ high school films we saw last few years. It tries to be funny and cool, but it fails everywhere.

First of all: I didn't care Liz died in the beginning. Why? I didn't know her. Wouldn't it be better if the writer/ director put a few scenes with her in it in the beginning of the film. (Not just that walking through the hallway stuff?).

Second: Didn't anybody on that school notice Fern was gone? Wasn't there a teacher who would check this?

Third: Pam Grier deserved a bigger part in this one.

Fourth: Rose McGowan's character is so unbelievable it's almost laughable!

Fifth: Advice: look another film!


Well, it starts off fast, with death and lots of color, but then it goes blah. The ending can be predicting within a couple scenes. The dialog goes from crispy to that stale "I'm a bitch with attitude *snap snap*" we've all grown sick of. It just gets boring. Because, really, we've all seen this type of movie before, except this time someone dies. Fortunately, to save it from getting a 2/10 as opposed to the 3 I gave it, it remains colorful and purdy throughout, and Marilyn Manson's cameo boosted it as well. Oh and Pam Grier is cool. Speaking of Pam Grier, Jackie Brown is a good movie. If you're going to see Jawbreaker, I recommend seeing Jackie Brown instead.

-Al


An unfortunate movie for all concerned. Only the eye candy is good. The plot, ambience, etc. seem to be an 'hommage' to _Heathers_ in what must be the worst possible way. One must give kudos to Vickie Brinkford (Costume Designer) in this movie, as indeed, the wardrobe was the true star.


Now this was a bad, bad, bad movie. The script was bad. The direction was bad. The plot was bad. The beginning was bad. The ending was bad. In fact, all of that was so bad it doesn't even matter that much of the acting was good. The insanely gorgeous and curvaceous Rose McGowan is great in one of her by-the-numbers bitch roles, and nearly every decent line of dialogue is hers. I was also moderately impressed by Judy Greer as Fern/Vylette. Rebecca Gayheart is very pretty, and decent as the good girl. "Marcie" is totally one-note, but she was fairly amusing. Carol Kane was her usual neurotic self, but that's what she does well. I think my favorite part was Marilyn Manson's cameo, and it's just because of the back story. They needed to find an extra to play a skangy barfly, and well, since he was hanging around the set and making out with Rose anyway. . . It's pretty funny, and he doesn't even have a single line. Most of the other cameos seemed kind of pointless. What was up with Pam Grier's cop? At any rate, there are a *few* laughs to be had, and if you have an embarrassing fondness for bad movies or just want to oggle Rose, you might want to rent it on a down night. . .but at least wait 'til it hits the dollar rack, 'kay?


For a while, I had (blessedly) forgotten this movie, and then for some reason, I was reminded of it. And then I remembered that I couldn't stand this movie. When I went to see this movie, it was a "nothing good is playing right now, so let's just watch this" kind of decision. Well, the point still stood at the conclusion of the film.

I think it could have been funny in a twisted, morbid, sort of way, but a bunch of prissy, "evil", dingy Valley Girl stereotypes, plus the one girl who "is really a good girl and has a conscience" didn't add to a creative or interesting story. It was campy in a way that just made me groan over the fact that I was wasting time in seeing this, and I just kept staring at my watch, hoping to this film would mercifully end.

Honestly, it felt like a bad "Saved By the Bell" episode, and I would have probably welcomed some commercial breaks to give me a breather from the monotony. I couldn't even enjoy the cliched silliness of this, and I love(d) Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Here's the best way to sum this film experience up for me: Marilyn Manson with a moustache. I think that says more than enough.


The ONLY reason i could think of to watch this terrible mess is the presence of beautiful Rebecca Gayheart. what a gorgeous woman. why does she keep winding up in horrible films like this and Urban Legend (she was also in Scream 2 but that film was decent.)

this is one of those movies that thinks being really meanspirited translates into being hip and funny. another film Very Bad Things had this same problem.

it's not that i have a problem with material such as this (i've got a REALLY SICK SENSE OF HUMOR!) but it just doesn't work. this film tries to be Heathers meets Clueless but completely lacks the charm and quality (not to mention acting) that made these films work.

also, Rose McGowan believe it or not, doesn't get naked in this movie. not that i care (she has great breasts and nothing else) but a lot of her fans will probably rent this thinking that she does.

STAY AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rating:2 (barely avoids a 1 just due to Rebecca Gayheart)


"Jawbreaker" is a very boring film. Don't be fooled by the premise, a cheerleader chokes on a jawbreaker or something. Instead, the first 10 minutes are pretty much the only thing the movie has to do with the girl. The rest is our lovely Hollywood stereotype teenage movie. You know, nerdy girl gets makeover and becomes homecoming queen, everyone listens to most popular tunes, etc. It is all like that. Don't waste your time.


I hated this movie. It was reminiscent of films such as CLueless and Heathers. The cast was foolishly pointless, as was the script and the cameo by rocker Marilyn Manson. But what makes this film is Ms. McGowan as the evil diabolical protagonist. Other than that, don't waste your time on this film.


My hat is truly off to anyone who has the commitment to get off of the couch and actually make a movie. It is an enormous undertaking. But the gushing reviews listed elsewhere were so contrary to my own experience that I felt compelled to offer another point of view. This film seemed to appear in the newspaper listings with no publicity so I researched it in advance on IMDb. The background information pointed clearly toward "Mormon cinema". The problem with the genre is that it leans on the inside joke and preaches to the choir to the exclusion of the broader audience. The LDS references were frequent and heavy-handed. To my ear, the main character's accent sounds more like Alabama than Montana. And how could anyone not know after even the most superficial first-date small talk that he was getting involved with his boss's grand-daughter? On the technical side there was enjoyable urban and rural photography of Britain but there were also several very over-exposed sun-bleached shots. The soundtrack reminded me too much of a soap opera Wurlitzer.


I'm from Texas. I've lived all but about two years of my life in Texas or New Mexico. That guy on the screen isn't a cowboy and can't play a cowboy. That horse just don't buck! The plot is formulaic and you can see everything coming at you five minutes in advance. In fact, you could probably guess the ending just by reading a short synopsis. Nothing new here, it's all been done before.

While this is not as bad as "Out of Step", it is as bad as the LDS version of "Pride and Prejudice" and does have some of the feel of an extended, two hour seminary video.

I had hoped the quality made LDS cinema like "The Best Two Years" might start leading to other good stuff. I got really happy when "Saints and Soldiers" came out and begin to see it happening. Work like this, and other recent movies in the genre, have moved us back to square one again.


If you like to see a strange old man messing around with innocent young girls - which are even working for him - you're right! And you'll also see a lot of strange "games" with food - befor and after having been eaten...I know i didn't understand the deeper sense of this movie, but it just was to strange for me...Don't!


To be honest I cannot elaborate on this one, as I only saw the first half hour of the movie. Comédia de Deus for me is the only movie that I ever ran away from, after some short debating with my two companions, leaving the other two spectators the cinema to themselves (I still sometimes wonder whether they managed to sit it out). The first half hour (fair is fair) is the most bewildering piece of fiction I ever saw, combining the utter idiocy of, say, the Police Academy series with the astounding 'la-di-dah, oh, what great art I'm making'-attitude of films as "Ulysses's Gaze".

Worst first half hour ever, but hey, maybe the rest was good. Go check yourself, though, because I've seen the last of this one.


After 1981 the knock off's of the Road Warrior -- Mad Max 2 kept a cumin'. This one is set in New Zealand! It has a cameo from everyones fav mail man from Cheers Cliff Clavin. A little post nuke grubby of course. I remember Cliff builds some sort of road warrrior like dune buggy for the hero that goes up against a fortified 18-wheeler truck. I think 98% of the budget went to that truck. Give or take a dollar. Worth my time? Not really. Yeah, this one sucks. What did you expect? I like the start thou, it has this burning tire smoky start that is so a direct rip off of Ole' Max which is hard not to laugh. I've seen worse. Very small cast, in fact I think it re-uses actors if you watch carefully. I forgot about this one but who can you blame there? Not sure if this is even on DVD but not worth the effort unless it has director commentary offering explanations and apologies!


Well, what can I say about this movie? It's basically a New-Zealand cheap version of Australian Mad Max.

You won't believe this plot, yet again there is no oil and the chaotic future is desert like, but at least Mel Gibson rides a car, instead Michael Beck rides a (much cheaper I guess) motorbike.

Actually for such a B-version the special effects are not that bad at all, and I've seen a lot worse perfomances in my life.

The action in this movie (let's not compare to Mad Max 1 or 2 then) is centered in warlord Straker who drives Battletruck to steal oil from villages. Battletruck is this mean and powerful truck with all kinds of stuff to smash and destroy any resistance. Well anyway Hunter (Michael Beck), our hero gets involved in the plot because of a girl, that is no less then Straker's daughter. After Hunter, an ex-commando, and his kind-of-futuristic motorbike are on the case the world will never be the same.

In conclusion, don't watch it, but if you have nothing better to do with your life and you don't feel like renting Mad Max, you might watch this, if it will ever pass on tv.


I had to see if I could remember the name of this movie, and I'm perversely thrilled to find it. I haven't actually seen this film in years, but it became something of a benchmark that I measure all other crap movies I've ever seen against. When I was only about 14 I rented this movie with my best friend, when we had the brilliant notion that maybe all those movies we'd never heard of really were worth watching, so we picked one that seemed to have a cool cover. It was the most perfect piece of evidence that our theory was flawed in the extreme. Everything about this movie, from the acting, to the sets, to the effects, were laughably awful. The climax of the film was when the protagonist built what was supposed to be some sort of unstoppable war machine, but looked more like an errector set experiment gone horribly wrong, and nailed to a $50 junk-yard reject of a vehicle. Anyway, if you want an example of awful film making, rent this movie; otherwise, run far and fast towards the other side of the store.


My brother and I had never heard of this movie and had no intention of seeing it or any other movie the day we saw it. Just after having lunch, we walked by the theater and they had big signs announcing that Warlords of the 21st Century was only $1! Wow--a first-run movie for only a buck?! So we took the bait and saw the movie with absolutely no preconceptions--we didn't know who was in it, what it was about--in fact, we had never heard of it before.

So, my final verdict?! It was overpriced--I want my dollar back! In fact, they should have PAID US to see this claptrap. The movie had lousy acting, writing, directing, etc. etc etc. It was a cheap, quickly assembled and uninteresting knockoff of the Road Warrior flicks. So bad that Troma films would be ashamed to release it!


Well, I think just about everyone agrees Rachel McLish had a much better bodybuilding career than an acting one. In this Class B action film, she's the female equivalent of Arnold in his first action movie, "Conan The Barbarian." Of course, Arnold made an incredible career out of his acting and has gone on to bigger and better things. This was it for Rachel, acting- wise. Oh, well, at least she was a two-time Ms. Olympia winner.

To McLish's credit, she looked good in the film which was made when she was about 40 years of age. How many 40-year-olds do you know are in the shape this woman was here? And, in her defense, the person who wrote the dialog for this film didn't help her out much. The screenplay is really lame. Not many actresses would look good with dialog this dumb.

Basically, what we have here is another simple revenge tale, and not one that is well done. Not recommended.


Beautiful southwestern scenery is the only redeeming virtue of this by-the-numbers revenge film. The ecological, pro-Native American theme seems more exploitive veneer than imaginative twist, and the direction lacks suspense or even much of a climax. Acting is dull and unconvincing, though William Atherton is on board to lend his trademarked sneer to the chief villain. There is little more to the plot than "heroine framed for parents murder; heroine kills the real murderers." None of the characters are developed at all, even to the limited extent of an action film. That's too bad, because I was prepared to like this movie, and yes, the scenery was nice.


For the first half of the movie I thought McLish wouldn't talk, for the second half I wished she hadn't. Not since Bolo has a lead character had so few lines, both with merit.

First of all, what is with the naked woman at the beginning? No joke, just sitting in the background being naked, basically a part of the set.

I realize this was a movie about the horrible ways that people take advantage of the Native Americans, but that ended up being such a subplot, that it was almost insulting. Basically this movie was about revenge, plain and simple, oh and if the toxic chemical plant happens to suffer to, all the better.

There is also the "professional" bounty hunters, who suffer from all the classic problems. They are really good at luring the hapless hero in, and/or tracking him/her. Then they can't shoot their victim, who is able to get away and hunt them. Only in this case it worse than most.

And I will end with the question, how the heck can she run around and climb and stuff with a bullet through her thigh? I mean most heroes at least attempt to limp or have a pained/stoic look on their face.

And this is from a fan of the "you killed my ____ prepare to die" genre.


As the folks at "Fametracker.com" would put it, the tag-line to "Ravenhawk" should be:

'Rachel MacLish has an ass! Would you like to see it???"

There is always JUST ENOUGH good stuff in Albert Pyun movies to keep you watching, but the good stuff is always mixed in with a bunch of hokey, crappy, clichéd storytelling and camera work that make it hard to KEEP watching. So you can't just turn it off, because something good, or cool, or at least picturesque might come along, but you can't pay attention because you have to wade through endless stupid clichés to do it.

Case in point: Rachel MacLish in "Ravenhawk".

MacLish (the first Ms. Olympia) runs around in front of the camera in spectacularly "cut" condition, and she's not wearing a whole lot of clothing to hide her muscle definition. She's got killer cheekbones; huge, dark eyes; and hair to die for. So we are talking major eye candy here.

However, we are NOT talking about dramatic range. As striking as MacLish is, she isn't an actress in any sense of the word. She has two expressions - furious intensity and angry confusion - and she alternates between them almost at random. Rachel, honey, you look fabulous and I love you, but you can't carry a feature movie, anymore than Cory Everson could.

So Pyun's response to this problem is to exploit MacLish's body far more than even the biggest MacLish fan could ever want. There really is no need for this - MacLish (or her stunt double) can actually move fairly well, and she is reasonably convincing in the mid-shot action scenes. But every chance he gets, Pyun zooms the camera in for close-up shots of various parts of the lady's anatomy, held for many more seconds (and some times in slow motion zooms) than anyone but a bodybuilding fetishist would desire. It's actually pretty distracting and ludicrous after the fourth or fifth time. It's as if Pyun is simply admitting to the viewer, "OK, we really don't have a single bloody idea for something new, so here is a shot of Rachel's heaving, sweaty muscles to pass the time."

Pyun also tries to justify the use of MacLish's exotic looks and stone-cut physique by mixing in plot elements involving tribal Indian traditions, shamanistic mysticism and and obsessed revenge against the men who killed her parents...but the results are ham-handed and cliché ridden.The 'bad guys' are so slimy and one-dimensional that no one could possibly swallow it. (One exception: poor William Atherton, who tries to salvage a modicum of dignity as the front-man for the bad-guys). The tribal folks are cardboard cutouts who suffer mutely and have the moral high ground because they are victims.

One especially egregious example is the young man who plays the character of the reservation police guy. The actor playing the part is like Lorenzo Lamas without the sense of humor. Someone needed to sit down with him and talk to him about acting being more than projecting an attitude on camera, but it's obvious that no one did. Nothing personal against the young man, who is obviously some kind of clothes model in real life, and who was undoubtedly cast for his ability to wear slim cut jeans and to grow attractive beard stubble - he just sucks as an actor and needs acting lessons even more than MacLish.

So in summary, "Ravenhawk" is typical Pyun - 2nd rate movie making based on third rate screen writing, with just enough flash here and there (including a good chase sequence among the mountain cliffs and some spectacular scenery) to keep the viewer from turning it off in irritation.

I hope MacLish gets her agent to sign her up for some real acting lessons, and holds out for parts that show her as a woman and an actress, not just a Body.


Legend of the Wolf Chinese Action Donnie Yen

The poor-quality of this film can be adequately summarized by the following statement made by a proponent of this movie on IMDb:

"Donnie Yen puts in what seems to be a new type of choreographic brilliance. This involves some quite close in shots of the two opponents arms flailing as they block and parry. So blurred are the movements that only the sound effects give us clues as to the blocking and hitting. It works very well."

This is perhaps the most absurd movie-related comment I have ever seen, but it very succinctly explains the warped perspective of many who hold the opinion that films such as this (as well as Storm Riders, A Man Called Hero, and Ashes of Time ) offer high-quality action set pieces. The illogic goes something like this: A blurry set of camera frames that are impossible to follow qualifies as a great action scene. The problem with this perspective is that ANYONE  even the most inept movie-maker on the planet  can make such a scene fairly easily. The million dollar question now arises: How can one claim the greatness of action that requires virtually no effort whatsoever to create?

Why, then, do I give this film a 4 out of 10 instead of a 1 or 2? Simple. There are pieces of action scenes that show promise. In those rare instances when I could follow what was actually happening, the choreography was good. Unfortunately, these bits of promise were interrupted by inept camera-work that is usually invoked when the movie-maker is too lazy to painstakingly map out fight scenes or brainstorm over fresh combinations of moves and maneuvers. In other words, it's a cheap, pathetic method of film-making that covers up the low quality nature of the action at hand. Therefore, Donnie Yen made it easy on himself by lowering the bar to such an extent that fighting sequences will only require a marginal amount of choreography.

The camera-work in this film is simply one of the worst I have ever seen. While watching the opening action sequence, for instance, I literally felt like vomiting when exposed to back-and-forth rapid-fire framing that necessitates a warning on the front of the DVD that this film may induce epileptic seizures.

Finally, the plot line was horrible and the cinematography sub par for a movie made in the late 90s.

Not recommended.


"New Big Boss" / "Legend Of The Wolf" is certainly an ambitious film. With its flashbacks-within-flashbacks, occasionally philosophical dialogue, a passionate love scene, a constant "poetic" music score, etc., it's obvious that Donnie Yen was trying to make something more than a simple martial-arts film. Unfortunately, he bit off more than he could chew, and the result is awful. You know something is wrong when a movie is 3/4 of the way over and you still haven't got a clue what's going on! I could easily put up with all this arty crap if there was at least some good action. But most of the fight scenes in this movie are laughably excessive (Yen runs through entire armies of villains like the Tazmanian Devil, punching people left and right), and even those that could potentially be good (like one where the opponent has chains wrapped around his right arm, or the final showdown) are spoiled by the cartoon-like, hokey sound effects. To say that this is "the greatest martial-arts movie of all time" is downright preposterous.


This movie is terrible. Not the kind of terrible that's charming and funny.. its the kind of terrible in where you throw your copy of the DVD away.

The story is incomprehensible, and seems as though it were 2 movies spliced together. The emotional soul searching that our hero goes on, takes up 2/3s of the movie and is painfully uninteresting to watch.

And the fight scenes. I dont know what the other people on here are thinking (they liked this?)but when you have a scene of 20+ people fighting.. you dont zoom in!! In all of the fights, they use close ups, and shake the camera to create drama? All you see is fists flying past the lens, and terrible sound effects to go along with it.

I give this movie a 1/10 and declare it UNWATCHABLE.


My husband & I watched a couple episodes of Blade: The Series. We just kept hoping that it would get better, but it just seems to get worse each week. Absolute rubbish from start to finish. This series had vampires roaring like lions! It was so unrealistic, that it utterly diminished the authenticity of the original story line. Plus the actor they replaced Snipes with, lacked Wesley's sophistication ...if you get my drift.

We don't know about other people, but when we watch a movie/ series, we want to be lost in the moment. We want to find ourselves wondering if what we just watched was real or not. However, the script writing, directing, and producing of this series all negate any remote possibility of getting lost in the moment. The Blade series has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a real disappointment. Watch it is you like, but be prepared for a real disappointment.


Wow...I'm in amazement that there are people comparing Sticky to Snipes, that's like comparing the best 5 star hotel to sleeping in a dumpster. Sticky couldn't act, he couldn't fight, he showed no emotions, the guys not an actor, he's horrible, and the worst choice I can think of to play Blade and take over that role from Snipes.

As for the show, why was it called Blade, it should have been called the Jill Wagner show as her storyline was the main theme, not Blades. Bad call number 2 for the show.

And lets not forget how they took everything from the movies, tossed them aside, and just did whatever they wanted to with the stories and such. You don't base a TV series on a very well liked movie franchise and then crap all over what the movies have done and shown.

I'm very happy this show was axed, maybe if this happened more often instead of people just accepting crap Hollywood would get the message and put out some decent stuff.


Who the hell was Jill Wagner screwing behind the scenes? That's all I want to know. Because that is the ONLY conceivable reason than this series focused so entirely on her character instead of Blade who had absolutely no airtime by comparison.

Every time they created a long term villain for Blade, they got rid of it within an episode or two with a combined time of around 10 minutes so they could have more time telling us how confused Krista's character was. When they made vampire ash a drug that gave users a short burst of vampiric powers, the dealer was caught and beaten within the first 5 minutes. How dramatic. They went from acknowledging the drug in the previous episode and with no backstory or character development, they simply demolished the creator and sole pusher of the drug before the opening credits finished rolling on the next episode.

PA. THE. TIC.

Let's face it, this series was about a morally confused and charismatic vampire with perky tits who was great at throwing the look of worry and confusion around a lot so that she could suck in the Buffy and Angel fans. There were a lot of rumors that said Sticky Fingers couldn't act. Well we can't honestly know, we never got a chance to see the character in action. The only other character that was remotely interesting was Agent Ray Collins who was slowly coming to grips with the reality of vampires when they decided to kill the character needlessly and ultimately granted him no more relevance than an extra.

The producers of this series should be embarrassed. Better yet, they should have stakes driven through their hearts. If you can find them. I'm not yet willing to blame the directors of the writers because I can't imagine how or why any writer would intentionally ignore the title character so completely like that for 12 solid episodes.


Ettore Scola has made at least two great films, C'eravamo tanto amati and Une giornata particolare. But this time he got carried away. It's not enough to put 20 great actors in a room to end up with a masterpiece. Call it self- indulgent, call it intellectual masturbation, I call it boring. Sorry, Ettore.


this PBS series is very BIAS and contains a lot of lies and false information. It sounds like it presents the war from both sides but really it just conforms to much of the media bias about the war and even adds to it.

**NOTE** A 1985 video was produced by ACCURACY IN MEDIA to directly correct many of the inaccuracies and false information that were contained within this video series.

One example is the massacre of Hue where around 5,000 people were murdered 1968. On this issue "Vietnam: A Television History" uses a communist spokesmen, Hoang Phu Ngoc Tuong, (who is believed to may have been the one who ordered the killings) to explain the deaths as 'the people of Hue so hated those that had tortured them for so long that when the revolution came to Hue the people took actions into their own hands, there was little we could do'. This just shows how completely irresponsible the PBS was as expressed by Pham Ngoc Bich "Hoang Phu Ngoc Tuong may have been the one to order the killings...now years later he is allowed to explain about what happened in Hue, it's equivalent to Himmler talking about the concentration camps." --Anyone who watches this video should definitely also watch Television's Vietnam: The Real Story, and The Media's Impact because that video would break so many of the lies contained in the PBS series.


The screenwriter for "The White Sister," Donald Ogden Stewart, has an uncredited bit playing the hind end of a horse; that pretty well sums up this picture. It's an insipid, implausible, and uncompelling film that wastes a lot of prime MGM talent.

***SPOILER ALERT*** The story concerns the ill-fated love between a sheltered, aristocratic Italian girl, Angela Chiaromonte, and a dashing soldier, Giovanni Severi. He pursues her despite the strenuous objections of her father and thwarts her marriage to a wealthy bankeran alliance that apparently was meant to save the girl's family from financial ruin. Their romance leads indirectly to the death of Angela's father in a car crash. The affair goes downhill from there. Throughout the film, Angela and Giovanni keep getting together only to be torn apartfirst by her father, then by the war, and then by God himself. Their rotten luck and bad timing are almost comical. Sent off to battle, Giovanni implausibly survives a horrific plane crash, then makes a daring escape from a German prisoner-of-war camp, only to find that Angela, believing him dead, has become a nun. At this point, there's nothing left for him to do but die an anticlimactic death with his white-habited fiancée at his bedside.

The two leads, Helen Hayes (Angela) and Clark Gable (Giovanni), give it their best, but they can't overcome being both miscast and mismatched. Coming into his own just as films learned to talk, Gable exemplified the "new" American male: confident, brash, and openly sexual. The old-fashioned pieties of this movie fit him like a straight jacket. Hayes is more plausible in the role of the spirited/spiritual young girl. While you can see how she'd be carried away by Gable's charisma and animal magnetism, it's hard to understand why he'd be so attracted to this mousy little innocent. The whole enterprise might just have worked with someone like Leslie Howard as Giovanni; his restrained classical style would have been better suited to this dated material.

Other welcome and familiar faces include Edward Arnold as a sympathetic priest (like Gable, though, he's seen to better advantage in earthy or roguish parts); Louise Closser Hale as Angela's duenna/companion, and May Robson as the Mother Superior. Uncredited but recognizable are Gino Corrado as a chauffeur, Nat Pendleton as Giovanni's soldier buddy, and Greta Meyer as the Italian-German woman who nurses Giovanni back to health after his plane crash.

A minor quibble, but I found it hugely annoyingnone of the characters can agree on how to pronounce "Giovanni." Hayes, as Angela, seems to say it differently (and wrong) every time, which is odd considering her character is supposed to be madly in love with him.

Worth watching mainly as an opportunity to catch Helen Hayes in one of her infrequent film roles (her reputation was primarily as a stage actress) and for Gable's characteristically charming performance (not to mention beefcake appeal!) in an uncharacteristic role.


I admire the stars of this film, and they give great performances, as expected. The acting strikes all the right emotional chords, but unfortunately the material is weak - one of those Doomed Romances where the plot contrives to keep the lovers apart through one calamity after another, and some stupid, unnecessary sacrifices made by the Heroine.

She believes he's been killed in the war and becomes a nun. He escapes from prison camp *just* too late to stop her from taking her final vows. Oh, fate is Cru-el! Of course you're supposed to enjoy the soapy drama without questioning it, and have a good cry, but I just roll my eyes and berate the characters on the screen.

She could've waited a bit before taking such a radical step - after all, he was only missing & presumed dead. I wouldn't be giving up on *my* True Love so soon. And after the poor guy struggles repeatedly to get back to her, how is he rewarded for being so brave, clever and loyal? He finds out she wasn't loyal to *him*, and she isn't brave enough to be with him no matter what. (I choose to interpret the "White" in this film's title as "Cowardly", thankyouverymuch).

Oh, she can't renounce her vows (even though technically she *can*). It's Too Late. She's married to Jesus now. Even though she admits she still loves Gable and wouldn't have gone through with it if she'd found out he survived. Which means her vows are a mockery anyway and she pretty much lied during the ceremony. Isn't it compelling to watch someone struggle to suppress their real feelings for the sake of a promise made because it gave her "comfort", even when the reason & need for said comfort has been removed? No, it's just infuriating.

The ending really piles on the soapsuds, as the Hero finally accepts her decision, and they have their upteenth Moving Goodbye Scene ...How many times do we have to watch these two say Goodbye Forever?! 1. when her father disapproves of him & she tries to honour her engagement to another man - 2. when she feels too guilty to be with Gable now that her father's gone, because dad died while chasing her (!) to stop her from being with Gable, you see! - 3. when Gable goes off to war - 4. when he first visits her at the convent & she sends him away - 5. when he finally stops pursuing her but promises to love her for the rest of his life ... and get ready for one more! A few seconds later the "rest of his life" is cut short (with just enough time to say Goodbye again though!) as he's killed by a bomb during a raid (which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't insisted on going back to the convent, under his escort).

Sheesh. Jesus really hates this guy for moving in on His woman, eh? Gable promises to wait for her in the afterlife, but I have a feeling the Eternal Love Triangle will never be resolved. God, the big bully, will keep tripping Gable up with banana peels in Heaven. Or maybe He'll just remove the competition and send the guy to Hell. Fate is Cru-el that way.

"The White Sister" started off promisingly, with some cute and amusing courting scenes between the would-be lovers. Too bad the film descended into contrived melodrama that only a masochist (or a repressed nun, but now I'm being redundant) could enjoy.


In XVth century church group of nuns committed a religion blasphemy. All women preformed satanic rituals and wild orgies with strangers, who later vanished in a mysterious circumstances. Of course it had an effect. One of the nuns gave birth to a child, which was immediately burn. People who lived nearby church had enough and decided to crucify wicked nuns. A few centuries later group of archeologists started to do the research nearby ruins of church. This fact made locals very suspicious and unfriendly, because of superstition of murdered nun's revenge. It's question of time when sinner's ghosts came back to get their death toll.

Fulci always goes from one extreme to another. Once his movies were full of suspense ["Murder to the Tune of the Seven Black Notes "] or gore ["Zombie Flesh Eaters"]. Demonia is a try to mix these two. But, it's failed. Fulci tries all of his suspense tricks such as eye close-up, sudden zooms and creating orinirique atmosphere. But it makes this film worse. Close-up looks really poor and zooms are very annoying. Oh, we can't forget about music. Sometimes it honestly can build atmosphere but it's only one scene. In other ones, especially in ruins where we hear drunk organist's symphony it's driving insane. Gore also lets down. There are only two scenes, of which one is typical for Lucio (eyes scratched out by a cat)but second one - tearing man apart - really satisfied me. The biggest flop is main character and strictly speaking acting. Her looks brought me a lot of fun. For example, in scene where Paul (leader of archeologists) says to her that they must leave her look is wonderful! It's similar to kid's look when they are forbidden to eat sweets/play computer games/whatever. But all of these are nothing when we compare it to the ending! I have seen many bad movies, but it's first really PA-THE-TIC ending in my life. There is nothing better than view of burning nun in company of soap opera's music! As for me, it's probably top bottom of Lucio Fulci's movies and it's a little pity, because the plot is quite good.


..But she's no Catriona Macoll. Wow.....I like "Zombie," "The Beyond," even have a special place for "The Gates of Hell." For some idea of this one's rank in the Fulci canon, "Aenigma" is better. This one makes no sense, the gore is cheap, and everyone, including Lucio must have been sleepwalking when they made this. Sure it ain't the worst thing ever, but it's pretty bad. Flatly directed with a potentially interesting storyline, Fulci missed the target big time with this.


Italian horror legend Lucio Fulci (1927-1996) did a great amount of atmospheric and wonderful Spaghetti horrors during his prolific career, his masterpieces being Zombie Flesh-Eaters (1979), The Beyond (1981), The House by the Cemetery (1982) and Don't Torture a Duckling (1972) among many other more or less interesting and noteworthy films from the horror or other genres. His masterpieces have wonderful soundtracks by composer Fabio Frizzi, great cinematography by Sergio Salvati and the kind of surreal and infernal ultra gory imagery that will stay inside the mind especially when experience for the first time. But his career has the other side, too, these ultra braindead cheapies that are so painful to watch especially if one appreciates the director at all.

Demonia is Fulci's attempt in the nunsploitation genre, at least kind of. It has a historical background as a bunch of Sicilian nuns were brutally killed in the convent as they had practised something the others judged as evil and satanic. This is shown as a flashback, just like in his The Beyond, but so much less effectively and it comes clear in this very beginning that even the gore effects are very bad and stupid in the film. Then we jump to the present day as some group of archeologists search for treasures from the historic times (if I'm correct, the mentioned nun killing took place in the sixteenth century) and naturally neither the villagers nor the raising evil spirits like this too much and soon the bloody killings begin...as well as all the possible errors and negative sides a film can have.

There are hardly any positive things to be said about this piece of cinematic garbage. None of the Fulci magic is left. Some of the dream sequences and close-ups of frightened eyes remind me distantly of Lucio Fulci but still, there's nothing in the imagery that would save the film. The ending has some nightmarish scenes and images as the nuns return from the beyond, but The Beyond shows how great that kind of scenes can be. The music is also horrible and probably taken from a commercial or something like that. It doesn't create atmosphere and terror as Frizzi did but is there in order to make the silent scenes not to look so dull, which they still are as well as the whole film. What's there is the graphic gore and very boring 80 minutes.

The film almost gives a new meaning to the phrase "dead boring" as it has some laughably long dialogue sequences which almost force to stop the viewing. The characters are uninteresting, but fortunately don't over-act too much, the plot is nothing too special (but could have been interesting if made by Fulci ten years earlier) and every single element in the piece screams in tired pain as does the viewer too. The film also looks very amateurish as if done by a bunch of amateurs and it is no wonder this didn't even have a theatrical run in Italy.

The gore scenes are also very bad and the effects don't even look real as they did in the classics, created by Gianneto de Rossi. They are quite sadistic and graphic at times, the "body splitting" and tongue impaling, being the most memorable examples, but still they are not as haunting as in the earlier films that were also effected by the soundtrack and visuals. Now there's plenty of gore but hardly any impact. They show more than Deodato did in Cut and Run, for example, but as everything around the scenes sucks, it is hard to take the horror shocks too seriously. The butcher house sequence, however, is a pretty nasty as an idea and has some interest in it, too, and that is also easily among the film's "most interesting" parts. And the guy really has a tongue that makes Gene Simmons look green in comparison.

Demonia is a very, very bad film even as a fan of Lucio Fulci. It has practically nothing to make it worth recommending, only those very few distant things mentioned above and I think it is rather impossible to watch this film again. It is so bad, as unfortunately was the state of Fulci's career when he was forced to make films like these. 2/10 and very barely so.


Dull, lifeless direction... A total lack of atmosphere... Dialogue scenes that stretch on endlessly... A story that fails to rile any tension... Gore that's on par with a home movie...

Lucio Fulci is high on my list of favorite directors (check out his early-'80's output to see what I mean), but "Demonia" is one of his worst movies, not even worth the trouble to revive on video, in my opinion.

Zero/10


I've seen most of Fulci's output (that's available in English anyway) and even I found this one in particular to be disappointing. It's dull, seems incredibly long (though isn't)and even the odd gore scene which aren't very frequent or impressive do little to relieve the boredom.

This seems to be the work of someone running low on ideas and, I'm sorry to say, motivation. It's a similar situation with a few of his later works. I'd recommend House Of Clocks, Touch Of Death or Cat in the Brain for a taste of Fulci's later works.

Go for one of his many other classics, ignore this unless you're a completist like me and have to have it all!


Well, first off I have to say i greatly respect Hunter Thompson, at least before he started getting more mainstream and writing for Rolling Stone. I'll keep this short, this did for me to Hunter Thompson what The Osbournes did for Ozzy. This movie is first and foremost very boring, if you read Fear and Loathing or Hell's Angels, Hunter Thompson was real far out, into the pudding! But this shows him hanging out with John Cusack and Johnny Depp and going around doing his daily sh*t like walking around, talking to old people, Rolling Stone mega assholes talking about this sh*t like they know what its about, thats about it. I don't give a f*ck! I was hoping for an old man doing acid and going crazy! Being Hunter Thompson! Don't see this movie if you want to hold on to your respect for Hunter.


This film is proof that by just combining two of my favorite stars with the writing of Neil Simon, is not necessarily a guarantee of success. I understand that this is a comedy and the actions of the characters may be exaggerated for comic purposes. The problem is that even though the characters actions made no sense through the movie, it wasn't funny. I honestly found myself disliking Alec's character. Sorry everyone. I would rather watch Alec and Kim in The Getaway(1994) which I thought was a lot better than the 1972 original.


A very rich toothpaste heir playboy (Baldwin) lets raging testosterone make all of his major decisions, which results in tiresomely predictable but never really fatal results. The object of most of his affection is a Las Vegas cabaret singer who is the girlfriend of Bugsy Siegel (Armand Assante in a too-brief appearance). Kim Bassinger does a lot of singing and even more shimmying, but that's about all she contributes to a script which consists mostly of a tiresome series of not very funny one-liners. Don't be misled by the Neil Simon credit. Simon has done far better plays, and should have known enough to burn the script of this disaster before letting anyone film it.


Even as a child I never really liked this show. It was extremely repetitive and gross, with lots of jokes about rotting food, etc. The child actors were very run-of-the-mill and the adults looked like they were sitting out a spell in purgatory. I think much of people's adulation of this show comes from the fact that at the time it was on the air, cable was still quite a luxury and being able to watch it was one of the bragging rights of elementary school. Perhaps this show should have been named "This Program Is Not Up To The Standards Of Network Television" to help clear up any confusion. I am not surprised that most of the actors involved (excluding the little-seen Alanis, of course) faded into obscurity.


When five strangers are mysteriously invited to a party held at a haunted asylum, strange things start to unravel.... and everyone in the audience starts to fall asleep.

This movie is everything a movie should not be. It is a horror with no real scary parts in it. It has plenty of gore, and some good special effects, but aside from that, this movie has nothing in its favor. Maybe that's all you need to scare eight year olds and idiots, but for the average viewer, that just isn't going to cut it.

The characters are completely one-dimensional and have no motivation for anything they do. They are so undeveloped and stupid, you actually find yourself happy when they are killed. The plot, too, is undeveloped. What could be a great psychological horror falls short when the writer decided to tell nothing about what is happening and why. Why are the patients revolting? Why is the doctor commiting these horrible crimes?

Chris Kattan from Saturday Night Live makes an appearance, and this brought my hopes up thinking he would provide some sound comic relief, but instead he spends the whole movie ranting about how "the house is alive," something we have known since the first five minutes.

Avoid this movie at all costs, it has enough holes in it to drive a Mack truck through. I gave it two stars instead of one because of one somewhat exciting scene at the beginning.


I saw the trailer for this film at the cinema and was impressed by the special effects. When i actually watched the film on DVD this week i soon realised that the decent special effects featured on the trailer were in fact the only special effects in the film. Though i quite like the original, i absolutely hated this movie, and if it is true that Dark Castle productions are indeed planning to remake a whole host of William Castle movies then i hope they do a better job! The script was perhaps the worst i have witnessed in a long time, the characters were all so instantly annoying that i found my self wishing them dead with in the first fifteen minutes. It actually took me two sittings to watch the movie, it was either that or i would have found myself fast forwarding through it. The plot, what there is of it, doesn't make much sense and the film doesn't explain why certain things are happening, Price's wifes relationship with one of the guests for example. This movie was so bad i ended up feeling frustrated and cheated, it actually made me so angry. Avoid this like the plague.


PWT! Poor White Trash! the must ridiculous movie i have ever watched. It was so unbelievably pathetic, inadequate, and so lame! the story line was stupid, the characters were DUFF! Geoffrey Rush did not to well. The ONLY thing i liked in this movie was his quote: "So much for a Ph.D in engineering!" but that could not save such horribly boring ridiculous stupid lame material. And how did the patients come out of their "cells" to attack Vaancut or whatever his name is. And how did they manage to stab 3 (three) 18.9 mm long pencils THROUGH his neck in ONE drive? And then again, the pencils aren't long enough to get all the way through still being able to have a grip on it! By the way, how come there were tv monitors everywehere? Nothing had been changed in it! Why didn't they use the guns? Why didn't they stick together? Don't watch! Bad stuff for kids! (I'm one..) 13 years old. I love Kubrick and Spielberg!


Before I can begin to review the "remake" of House on Haunted Hill, we must first throw the plot, effects, and script out the window, because the movie does a pretty good job of that by itself. The only reason (and there really isn't ANY) that you should see this film is for the performances by three lovely and talented actresses: Ali Larter, Famke Janssen, and especially Bridgette Wilson. They make the film worthwhile, or at least the scenes that they're in. [SPOILER ALERT!!] The main reason I wanted to see this movie was because one of my favorite actresses, Bridgette Wilson, was in it and I was excited about seeing her camping it up in a horror movie like she did a few years ago in I Know What You Did Last Summer. And sure enough, there she is, with video camera in hand as pseudo-celebrity Melissa Margaret Marr, the best dressed and biggest ego of the group. Just when I think the movie might not be so bad with her in it, what happens? She dies! That's right. Within the first forty-five minutes, Bridgette Wilson is already gone and there's nothing left but Famke Janssen, who does all she can as Geoffrey Rush's psychotic wife before she herself too, dies, and Ali Larter, who deserves so much better than this movie and can be seen in a much better movie right now, Final Destination. As for the scares, puh-leese. The only frightening thing is that people still pay to see movies like this. The cheesy original was scarier, anyway, and had more fun with its cast. Nothing is truly scary at all, although it is a little gruesome at times. So while I wait for Bridgette Wilson to do another horror film, I'll have to say that HOHH is one of the worst movies I have EVER seen.


There are no real thrills in this movie and the missing storyline leaves you kind of empty and disappointed at the end of the movie. The plot is so weak, that it is not worth calling a horrormovie and the fact there are no boundaries makes it even more lousy. There where so many unexplained things happening (e.g. why is all the "souls" locked in one room?). It seemed like an okay movie at first, when they showed the black/white clips, but after that it went downhill and hit the bottom hard. My overall rating of this movie is lower than "Scream 1+2" and "I know what you did last summer" (and believe me, they rated really low!).


This film had very little to offer anyone that appreciates good movies. It might seem silly to say, this being a remake of a haunted house movie, but there was no plot to be found, nor were there any worthy likable characters. It is just another bad remake. Hopefully producers will start actually trying to find new scripts to shoot.


I wanted to give this movie a 2 out of 10 rating for some interesting special effects, but I just can't. The fact that it was even made while other scripts (any other scripts) were passed over is a crime. None of the characters interested me, the story was boring, and the movie seemed to end abruptly. It started out bad and went downhill from there!


This is one of the worst films of the year. There is no screenplay to speak of. There was not enough scares. They didn't need all the gore that they put in this film. The characters are so paper thin that they could float away. G. Rush overacts big time in this film. This was a complete waste of my time. Even the "surprises" in the film aren't clever or they are completely wasted in the next scene. This was a poorly done film with scenes just thrown together to make a movie. AVOID THIS!!!!!!!!!!


From the beginning, you think that maybe this movie will develop into something really scary and frightening, hopefully breaking free of the rash of boring horror movies released over the last few months. Nope. It's got alot of goth-horror goriness for shock value, but it pretty much falls flat on its face two thirds of the way through.

The plot isn't too bad to begin with, but then it is neither explained nor developed... In general, the movie was lame, stupid, dumb, idiotic, ridiculous, pointless... what else can I say? I don't even want to type anymore because it isn't worth my time. I want a refund.


What is this, after all? A remake in color of a schlock 45-year-old Vincent Price horror movie (not very good to begin with) featuring a cavalcade of special effects.

A rich amusement park owner (Geoffrey Rush) and his cynical -- and very tall -- wife (Famke Jannsen) invite half a dozen friends to spend the night in a deserted mansion. The survivors will get a millions bucks apiece. It's particularly spooky because the building is an ex psychiatric hospital in which the owner years ago went mad and slaughtered staff and patients alike. "He out-Mansoned Manson," Peter Graves gravely intones on television.

At first it all seems like a kind of practical joke perpetrated by Rush, who is given to scary stunts. But then the house evidently locks itself up and nobody can get out or communicate with the outside, not even Rush. Most of the lights go out and the guests are stuck with the task of poking around with flashlights in the crumbling rooms filled with electronic torture devices.

It all gets pretty routine. One of the guests is a black guy and I figured him for an early victim. It's that kind of movie. There is a vat of what looks like boiling blood and someone gets pulled into it. There is a fake death. Falling skylights. Two pistols are produced, one supposedly loaded with blanks. And all kinds of mysterious goings on, go on. And -- and -- zzzzzzz.

I can see where someone might enjoy this. It's all formulaic, and it's a remake to begin with. But it's creepy, scary, and bloody enough to satisfy the kinds of desires generated in a mind whose cinematic faculty is as empty as a ping pong ball.

Want some spooky movies that embody some originality? If you haven't seen any of Val Lewton's tiny masterpieces -- "The Cat People" or "I Walked With a Zombie" -- or, say, "The Haunting" or "Carnival of Souls," try them instead.


To be quite frank with you, I'm not really into horror movies at all. Though I wasn't held at gunpoint to see this movie, but I was persuaded by my friends instead. Let's get straight to the point by saying, that "The House on Haunted Hill" isn't remotely scary at all. In fact it is less scary than entering a haunted mansion at an amusement park. In fact if anyone wishes for me to see this movie again, you better pay me $1 million, because I just won't do it.

Now that I got that out of the way, let me break it down by examining the plot. Five guests have to spend one night in a burned down, condemned mental hospital in order to earn a quick million. If anything should happen to the guests, the money would be split among the survivors. The sole aspect that freaked me out was that it was set in a condemned sanitarium.And even that was not entirely convincing. I wasn't expecting Oscar-winning performances here, but the acting was purely banal, with the exception of Geoffrey Rush, who always cashes in terrific performances. Even though Chris Kattan was right up there with the other moving mannequins, he at least had some humorous lines. Scary doesn't describe my feelings about the movie, uncomfortable is the right word.

Many elements of the movie that I found distracting is that since the house brings all the mental patients together under one leader, why are they not inflicting pain on each other as well? Also why does the ghostly monster has to break down doors and floors in order to get to the heroes and yet the mortals get thrown through walls. It also bugs me that they must walk into a person's office when they're lost, especially since they know where it is and in spite of a few of them being killed along the way. And finally, with only a little time left to collect their cash winning prizes, the guests decide to make up their own quest by attempting to escape the house instead.

With these nuances I am convinced that those who have not seen it, are actually doing themselves a favor. I wanted at least the phantom-like monster to be scary as well, but that didn't happen either. In the end I was utterly exhausted and very frustrated by the whole, movie. Those who've seen it, tell those who never saw "House on Haunted Hill" to avoid it all costs. It wasn't scary or satisfying.


When I first saw this I wasn't much of a fan, and that wasn't due to comparing it to the original, as I hadn't seen Castle's 1958 version. Again while it isn't boring, due mainly to Geoffrey Rush's effectively diverting Vincent Price send up, and a saucy Famke Janssen. What we get is something of pretty sub-standard quality that heavily relies on glossy special effects, nasty blood spatter and contrived shocks of the tiresome kind. Dick Beebe's screenplay of Robb White's original story ups the twists, and unpleasant nature in a straight laced supernatural story. Even with its constant twists, it felt like they were there to cover how slight the premise was. The angle is more so serious and dark, though at times with a somewhat mock attitude compared with the plain outlandish, and overly campy style of the original. Which did make that one far more enjoyable, even with the usual haunted house devices. Here director William Malone goes about things in a conventionally slick, ultra-kinetic manner where it was just too streamlined (this being the art direction of the sombre looking house) and packed with many unconvincingly elaborated twists, and heavy handed jump scares that lacked any sort of unsettling punch. The basic "let's go for something that sounds really scary" music score, couldn't escape its generic notes of telegraphed predictability. At least the deaths are fairly twisted, and the morbid flair of Rush and Janssen's interplay is an unpredictable delight. The special effects weren't terrible and there a few well pulled off moments (like the jittery ghost doctors), but overall it didn't enhance or cook up much of a lasting atmosphere when they finally pile it on far too much. The final 15 minutes is a fine example. Ali Carter aggregately fluffs around, and Taye Riggs pretty much has that concerned face throughout. Peter Gallagher, Bridgette Wilson and Max Perlich make up the numbers. Jeffery Combs also appears in a spooky cameo part, that called out for more screen time.


By definition, I'd really refer to this as a shocker film rather than as a scary movie. This film prefers special effects and disturbing, bloody scenes to say suspense or good writing. The acting was sub-par at best, though I would say it may be Chris Kattan's best job yet. Average cut between shots has to be in the milli-seconds. The shot selection bounced so much I began having a headache. The only movie with more cuts was probably Domino. The ending was sub-par. The movie seemed to want to incorporate too many themes for one horror movie: killer husband/wife, haunted house, deranged surgeons, ancient evil, etc. The best part of the movie was that at very least they had the decency to set the tone early to let you know what was going to be coming at you. That being said, I did watch it all the way through, so it clearly wasn't as bad as it could have been.


But the ending? What the hell was that about? A load of swirly black shadows and faces never scared anyone, and doesn't explain anything either!

Although I did find it quite scary (I cope better with films like Saw than films involving ghosts/zombies/mutants/mental patients), it left me un-satisfied and a little ticked off that a film that started out quite well ended up so crappily.

As well as that, I watched the film knowing nothing about it. I thought it would be a proper haunted house (not a mental institution) so the fact that it was a scary place where the criminally insane had rebelled against their psychotic, mental patient butchering doctor was quite a nice surprise.

But apart from that, I didn't enjoy it much at all.


There were so many goofs in this movie. I only watched it once, and I still ask myself why I did. For starters, Jordan never had an afro in college. In the pros, he did not go bald until about 1989, but they had him bald as a rookie. Also as a rookie, which was 1984, I know those shoes were from the 1995 or 1996 season. I also did not understand the locations of certain scenes. I know that the scenes of the Bulls home games were filmed in what looked like the L.A. Sports Arena, where the Clippers used to play. And what's with the zero for players with single digit numbers. For example, John Paxson was number 05. And the actors could not look less like the real people. Robin Givens as Juanita? Juanita is not that dark, and Debbie Allen does not look like his mom. Also, Phil Jackson is about 6-8 and Michael Jace was taller than the guy that played Jackson. There were so many things wrong with this movie, I'm glad the only evidence it was ever made is this website.


Being a basketball fan, I started to tape this movie when I saw that it was coming on the Family Channel. The mere fact that it was coming on the Family Channel should have tipped me off.

About ten minutes after this "movie" began...I stopped taping and turned off the television. It was THAT bad. The actor they got to play Michael Jordan looked nothing like him. It must've been made for $350. They even took liberties with Michael Jordan's life story itself, pretending that the shot he hit in the 1982(4?) NCAA Championship won the game outright when in fact there was still time on the clock and the other team failed to score.

Everything was so simplistic, it appeared as if it was written for an infant chimpanzee instead of even a teenage human audience. They didn't bother to get the license to use the Chicago Bulls logo and equipment so they made up some awful looking orange-red type jersey for their faux-Jordan to wear.

All in all, so awful that it embarrasses the viewer.

1.5/10...among the lowest ratings I've ever given out for a movie. In fairness, I'm giving it a few extra fractions of a point because I didn't watch the whole thing.


An over dramatized and partially fictional account of the life of his airness. This is one of those cheesy, before it's time, yarns that could've waited a few years until it was picked up by a director with the expertise and resources to sign believable and talented actors and to treat the story with the reverence and dignity that it will deserve in time.( see The Greatest). the fast food type environment in which this film is presented, complete with cheesy, fake NBA uniforms, Stadiums that look like your local high school gym, and just a general appearance of lookalikeness that borders on condescending, just adds to the tedious nature of the proceedings. I'll admit that the storyline, all the familiar Jordanesque tales, and following this "Michael" mimic the life of the real MJ, will hold your attention. But as you watch, you keep shaking your head at the overall quality and cheesiness of the whole affair. Don't fool with this one unless you're an MJ junkie, and even then, only if you can stand sports themed flicks with actors with little to no athletic skill.