What a waste of time! The acting was so bad, I thought that I was watching my old high school's bad attempts at serious drama. The story seemed to take itself WAAAY too seriously. It had no humor, bad makeup and I thought I was watching a forest because of all the wooden objects that were trying to act! Avoid this if you can (and many of you will!)!


"Boys" tells a flimsy story to which Cochran tries to add mystery by keeping information from the audience and revealing it piecemeal via flashback. Cheap shot. Ryder is found unconscious, after being thrown from horseback, by a boarding school student (Haas) who takes her to his room (yeah, right), instead of the obvious choice, the hospital. You know, HOSPITAL...where you take injured people for professional medical care. Duh. Anyway, this dumbassed flick has a list of negatives too long to go into here. File "Boys" in the boys room and don't forget to flush. (D)


A young prep school teen(Lukas Haas, quite good)gets involved with a mysterious young woman(Winona Ryder, who doesn't register or emote..not one of her better performances)who has a secret she is hiding. During the film snippets of a past acquaintance(Skeet Ulrich)may answer that very secret. Chris Cooper has a thankless, clichéd role as profane, short-fused father of Haas. Jessica Harper has the thankless role as Haas' mother, the typical hush-hush-wife afraid of her hot-tempered husband. John C Reilly also has a minor role as a kindly officer trying to locate Ryder over the whereabouts of baseball star Ulrich.

The oh-so-big mystery isn't anything to write home about and Ryder is merely a confused dame. The supposed fireworks between Haas and Ryder is non-existent & the film is really unfocused. We get a lot of story on Haas' life in a school for rich annoying kids and with little chemistry between the leads(not to mention a plot which doesn't provide us much in why either would prefer to have such a relationship), there is very little to get excited about. I'd say see the film for Haas' performance, because the rest of this mediocre effort isn't worth your time.


i started watching this film late one night. i was immediately interested. the music and the tension between the characters was mesmerizing. although some of the characters actions did seem unrealistic. i did not watch the rest of the film until the next evening. all day long, i happily anticipated getting back to this movie. watching the rest of the film was less than satisfying. relationships developed and/or pre-existed without explanation. i was amazed when the credits rolled. i felt a whole chunk of movie had gone missing. i really wanted more from this film. and the potential for being great was there. ryder and haas were intense and had chemistry together. peripheral characters had charisma, others were detestable. then, others seemed pointless. the "problem" in the story did not match the intensity of the mystery in the beginning of the movie. i do not recommend watching this film. there just isn't enough "meat" to make it worthwhile.


This films attempts to be three things: a mystery (wherein it wastes actor Skeet Ulrich), a "first love" story, and a portrait of boys at a boarding school. Since a few of the young actors are decent, the movie almost succeeds at the portrait. But if fails at the other to stories. Ryder sleep walks through an enigmatic and poorly conceived role, and there really is not very much tension or mystery. This could have been a noirish hoot, but it ends up being uncooked scrambled eggs.


Silly, impressionable young teens will probably go for this idiotic time waster but all others should be offended. I found all those schoolboys to be irritating beyond belief and Ryder to be sluggish and phony. How convenient for the young lads to have totally empty hallways in a house full of rambunctious boys as they brought in the limp body of a woman and placed her in their room. How lucky for them that they drug her all over the place for hours without anyone but their closest buddies finding out their secret. Calmest dorm I've ever witnessed. -100 stars; a world full of thumbs all pointing down.


CONTAINS SPOILERS THROUGHOUT. 'Chicago Joe and the Showgirl' is based on the true story of Karl Hulten and Elizabeth Jones. Hulten was a Swedish-born American GI stationed in England during WW2. Jones was a Welsh-born woman who had drifted through several professions, including striptease. When Hulten and Jones met (in October 1944), they embarked on a crime spree that lasted for only a few violent days.

This is the same premise that's been told better elsewhere. Hulten and Jones had the same dynamic as Bonnie and Clyde, or Starkweather and Fugate (the couple who inspired the movie 'Badlands'). A cheap psychopath meets a girl who wants some thrills. She's aroused by the danger he represents. Her arousal emboldens him to increasingly violent acts.

'Chicago Joe and the Showgirl' opens with an unseen American narrator informing us portentously that this story is absolutely true, and that nothing has been invented nor changed. This sort of statement activates my baloney barometer, but I felt better when I saw David Yallop credited as scriptwriter. Yallop is a brilliant journalist who has authored several true-crime books, impeccably researched and scrupulously accurate. As the opening credits rolled, I recognised the voice of the narrator: he is John Lahr, an American journalist based in London, likewise noted for scrupulous accuracy in his writing. Lahr does not appear on screen in this film, perhaps because his somewhat comical facial features would remind audiences of his father Bert Lahr. (Coincidentally, the two stars of this film -- Kiefer Sutherland and Emily Lloyd -- also had actor fathers.)

I'm sure that Yallop knows far more than I do about the Hulten/Jones case, yet I spotted two inaccuracies. When Hulten and Jones first meet, he invites her to pick out a well-dressed woman whose fur coat Jones fancies, which Hulten then steals for her. Later, as they seek greater thrills, their crime spree escalates until Hulten murders a cabdriver. In real life, the coat Hulten stole off a woman's back was white ermine; in this movie, it's a darker fur. More crucially, the film reverses the order of these incidents: in real life, Hulten stole the fur *after* he murdered the cabbie, with Jones eagerly witnessing both crimes. I assume that the filmmakers deliberately reversed these incidents so that the couple's crimes would build up to the homicide that got them nicked.

Emily Lloyd (Welsh by name but not by upbringing) makes a creditable effort to copy the working-class Neath accent of Elizabeth Jones. (Ironically, the real Betty Jones was not very good-looking, even by 1940s standards; the real Karl Hulten was far more handsome than Kiefer Sutherland.) Sutherland gives an impressive performance; in early scenes, he strides through London in a lieutenant's uniform and returns the salutes of enlisted men. Later, we learn that he's actually an AWOL private.

This film's art direction is elaborate, yet wretched. Kiefer Sutherland's performance as a 1944 psychopath is compromised by his 1990 hairstyle. (U.S. Army soldiers in WW2 were not issued styling mousse.) Emily Lloyd and all the other women in this film have coiffures and make-up reflecting somebody's 1990 notion of 1940s retro, rather than actual 1940s styles. Women in wartime Britain had to improvise cosmetics or do without; it would have been nice to see some mention of that here. Yet I was impressed by a brief scene of an elaborate multi-tiered wedding cake ... made of cardboard, with a secret compartment containing the real and far less impressive (wartime) cake.

At one point, the killers duck into a cinema to watch 'Double Indemnity'. (Was this movie screened in wartime England?) I dislike movies in which the characters attend a (better) movie that conveniently reflects their own situation.

After the couple are arrested, the British authorities hand over Hulten to the U.S. Army for military trial. The film gets this detail right: Army lawyers deposed Hulten, then chose to give him back so the Home Office could try him in Crown Court. The movie's climax is utterly laughable, featuring the collision of two old-movie clichés. A line of helmeted and bewhiskered British bobbies (out of 'Dixon of Dock Green') face off against a line of trenchcoated American reporters with snap-brim trilbies and elaborate flashbulb cameras (out of 'The Front Page'). I expected the bobbies to twirl their truncheons and mumble 'Here now, what's all this, then?' while the reporters would grab candlestick telephones and shout 'Get me Rewrite!' Actually, this last scene isn't meant to be realistic: it's shown from Betty Jones's viewpoint, and she's now entertaining delusions of showbiz glamour. Still, this climax reminded me of several much better films -- the musical 'Chicago', 'King of Comedy' and especially 'Sunset Boulevard' -- in which a delusional criminal basks in imaginary stardom while Justice closes in.

At the end, Lahr's narration returns to tell us the outcome: Hulten was executed in HM Prison Pentonville a few weeks before V-E Day. Betty Jones was given a long prison sentence, and eventually paroled. The grim truth is that this 'wild' couple, often deemed the British version of Bonnie and Clyde, were two very common criminals indeed. So were the real Bonnie and Clyde -- in their entire crime career, Bonnie and Clyde never stole as much money as Jesse James grabbed in a single hold-up -- but at least Bonnie and Clyde were brilliant at self-promotion, and they'll be famous for a long time. Hulten and Jones were cheap and worthless, and they deserve to be forgotten. So does this movie, which I'll rate 3 out of 10.


David Yallop's "Let him have it" was riddled with inaccuracies and half - truths,consequently I approached "Chicago Joe" with some trepidation only to find that here he has got most of the facts right only for the entire movie to fall victim to the 1990's fad for faux 1940's retro,failing to grasp the most elementary fact that people during the second world war neither looked,spoke nor behaved anything like they would half a century in the future.Mr K.Sutherland is,brutally,nothing like a G.I deserter,rather he is a time - traveller visiting the past and trying to fit in to avoid discovery.Miss E.Lloyd, given the crutch of an accent to assume,does rather better as his moll/muse. In truth there was a good - sized community of American deserters centred around London and they would quickly have given "Chicago Joe" up to the Old Bill in order to divert interest away from themselves. Many of them were engaged in the second oldest profession with the sideline of rolling drunks and the less- hazardous "badger game" and the presence of an obvious psycho in their midst would have been bad for business. As "Joe"'s sad,pathetic sidekick,Miss Lloyd fulfills the promise shown in "Wish you were here",hiding vulnerability under a thin veneer of cynicism.Although perhaps not quite star - crossed lovers,they were certainly an ill - met couple,each egging the other on to further depravities until they take the final,irrevocable,step. As film makers grind their way through "Notable British Trials" they might care to study one or two of the well - known cases where subsequent investigation has given cause for concern rather than ones where the defendants richly deserved their fate.Take Dr Crippen for instance,there is absolutely no evidence that the remains found in his fireplace were those of his wife.....now that,surely,would be the starting point of an interesting movie...


I've been watching quite a few ho-hum films lately and this one doesn't quite reach even that status.

We are first assured that this movie is 100% factual, and I guess it came close. I see how the story of a criminal couple on a short crime spree sold tabloid newspapers, but it just didn't make an interesting movie. It aspires to a forties look, but is too ninetiesh for me.

The acting is okay, but no outstanding performances. Directing...well, not very good. Scrept's sorta blah.

There's maybe one good though lurid scene in this and that isn't enough to make sitting through the movie to see.


Perhaps I shouldn't be commenting on this film, as I couldn't sit through the entire showing. I rented this movie, because I am always drawn to movies of the 40's/50's era. Well, that was a mistake. Should have learned my lesson with Mulholland Falls, but this one took "bad" movie to a whole new level.

There's not much to say about this movie, except "avoid at all costs".


Saw this last night, and was looking forward to watching a film with both Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock.

As for the witchcraft aspect of the film, it looked all OK to me. Nothing was too wrong or inaccurate, after all, there are as many incarnations of witchcraft practices as there are shades of green. That is to say that any portrayal is not necessarily wrong, as there are no set teachings in what is right and what is wrong when practising the craft. So to the person who said it was totally incorrect when the bird is stabbed with the needle as Wicca doesn't do it, no. Your practice of wicca doesn't but other's might.

My main complaints about the film are script and production inaccuracies. The first is when Kidman is saying that her boyfriend is from Bulgaria: "close to Transilvania... he's got the whole Dracula-cowboy thing going on". Please. Transilvania is a region in Romania - a totally different country. Even from the border of Bulgaria and Romania to Transilvania is at least a couple of hundred miles. The 2 countries are different in language and culture. I really hate when films from the USA get such basically simple but fundamental things such as geography wrong. It's not hard to get these things right! The second thing in the film, which is more of a goof... when Sandra Bullock had to go and rescue Nicole Kidman, the aunts were going to take the kids to the Solstic Celebrations. There are solstices a year. One on 21 June. The other on 21 December. The film was supposed to be set around the December solstice. There was no mention or indication of Christmas (or anything to do with the Christmas season) in the film. OK, witches may not necessarily put up a tree, etc. But in the scenes with Kidman in Arizona, or wherever, surely the motel would have had something Christmassy - from experience in the USA, 4 days before Christmas, everything has lights and decorations.

I'm tired typing. But these were the 2 main issues which bugged me about the film since I saw it last night.


I've just watched this film, PRACTICAL MAGIC. My perspective is the following: Having not read the book, but having read a number of 'user comments' who have, there's no doubt that the script veers considerably from the thrust of the book. Perhaps this explains why there were considerable leaps from reality, hoping the viewer would not mind the 'jumps & jerks' from what was supposed to be a realistic 'peek' at the unique world of 'witches' even though they be of good heart and purpose. Just look at the conclusion (one user/viewer said it was somewhat like Disney's approach) as an example. There no doubt is a 'dark' side to witchcraft, as well as a lighter side, both of which produce their own consequences, which it seemed this story line was trying to present. The romantic side for some reason, was unconvincing, which I'm not sure was Aidan Quinn's problem; this was likely caused by the script. Stories such as this fail to bring in other religious perspectives such as, IF THERE ARE WITCHES, ISN'T IT LIKELY THAT THERE IS GOD AS WELL, supposed to be the ultimate supreme power and being? Wether you are Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other who believes in an ultimately supreme being, dealing with any form of supernatural power without including 'the supreme being' in the formula of the story, really is quite without credibility. I gave it a 4.


This movie had so much potential, but never quite found its groove. Sandra Bullock character was one she plays well, but one we've seen from her often before, most recently in "Hope Floats." Nicole Kidman's portrayal of the wild child sister bears a remarkable resemblance to Meg Ryan's portrayal of Pamela in "The Doors."


Well, I suppose we deserve this sort of thing, given all the male wish-fulfilment fantasy films going around - plot: unlikely guy scores (i.e. sex) with fahbulous fox, via a series of unlikely events. It's only fair to have a few similarly implausible numbers where women (albeit fahbulously foxy ones) score (i.e. marriage) with dreamy, strong-but-sensitive, protective guys with whom they can Live Happily Ever After. And even the dangerous bad man is Goran Visnjic, whose only flaw is that he wants desperately to marry Kidman's character - with menaces if necessary. Fair enough. The male equivalents focus on equally infeasible breasts, after all.

There are aspects that do make one think, though. I really don't believe this witch thing, for example, is healthy. A number of shows are currently pushing this particular fantasy. Perhaps it's no more dangerous than the male one in which Our Man routinely dodges surface-to-air missiles, but it seems that some gullible people really believe this stuff, and think they actually have magical abilities. Witch Power is the new Women's Intuition.

(I note with alarm another review here which speaks darkly about Belladonna's supposed 'dark' powers: lady, Belladonna is just atropine, a stimulant. It's just a chemical, like adrenalin, and nothing magical. Like most 'medicinal' plants, Deadly Nightshade is just trying to discourage animals from eating it, by dosing them with a substance that, inter alia, wrecks appetite.) I digress. In sum, this is not a very good film, but it's just wish fulfilment for those of a female persuasion and a certain age. Male viewers will probably have to derive what enjoyment they can from observing some very pretty and/or very talented actors, though in a far from ideal vehicle.


Alice Hoffman's Practical Magic isn't a very good novel. Hoffman has written about a dozen books better than that (The River King and Turtle Moon come to mind). Practical Magic -- the movie -- isn't even half as good as the disappointing novel. "What was that cr*p?" I thought after having seen the movie. They have mixed three or four different genres and the result is a mess. The movie's not funny when it wants to be funny, and it's funny when it's supposed to be 'serious'.

Practical Magic is a complete waste of time! What are actors such as Wiest, Channing and Kidman doing in this movie? This is the silliest movie I have seen since The Mummy. (2/10)


Interesting how every comment to date (and not many at that) is ridiculously positive about this movie.

What is to like? Short answer: nothing at all. A bunch of web cams installed at a boring party would produce the same as this effort.

There is a LOT of drinking in this movie. Personally I don't drink and don't admire those that do. Alcohol is the stupid drug and this movie is proof.

The movie is unedited, people -- completely without editing. The Sundancers call this innovative. You decide.

I think editing is probably the most unappreciated aspect of a movie. We all know that we need a good story, good acting, good directing, good photography and music that compliments all of these. But without editing you still end up with a steaming pile of cow dung.

This one steams. Avoid if you can.


I was blown away by Straw Weisman's Man of the Year!! This is truly an ingenious film with strong characters and great acting performances. It is very interesting and holds your attention throughout the film with a unique and creative style. The film has a very impressive editing technique that really helps to define the feel of the picture. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone!


Bananas age better than this trainwreck of a movie. You know those soft porn movies that Cinemax airs really late at night?? They're better than this.

I suppose it was audacious and cutting-edge in '74, but now it's just silly and boring. You keep waiting for it to get better but it never does. The parts that could be funny never follow through on their potential. (the green light they shine on Drac's face when he realized the blood he's just sucked out of another pathetic daughter's neck is kinda funny, tho. And the only laugh the whole movie got out of me.) The sex is even boring. The women are vague and too willowy. The studly farmhand boorish and bland.

Don't waste your time.

Total, pretentious claptrap.


This is a very difficult film to review. If you look at it from the usual perspective of acting skill, dialogue, plot etc., Blood for Dracula is probably one of the worst films you will ever watch. But you have to have a soft spot for such films, especially the sort you saw originally 25 years ago.

Andy Warhol as mentioned in other reviews had very little to do with the film, he was quoted when asked of his involvement that he went to the parties. There is some debate who the director/directors where, but that doesn't really matter.

As already mentioned the plot is actually OK, Dracula travels from Transylvania to Italy looking for virgin blood, as the stock in his own area has run out. He finds an Italian family with four daughters who he sets his sights on, gradually discovering that they have not been as virtuous as they have led on.

Firstly there is some good comedy, Draculas' coffin on top of his car is a great image. Unfortunately from that point on I doubt the laughs are intentional. Draculas' aide is probably the worst actor in film history, he seems like he has walked in from another movie. Udo Kier is actually not too bad, he looks ill enough for the role and has piercing eyes. There are some hilariously stupid parts, such as the 100 year old waitress in the hotel, the really stupid game that Polanski plays with Dracula's aide, the accents are all over the place and so varied it is like a UN meeting.

There are no special effects, apart from the ending with an hilarious dismemberment scene and dual staking. There is also a Marxist undertone from the gardener and general "hero" Mario, who is so heroic he has sex with the youngest daughter very quickly so that Dracula will not be interested in her! The sporadic nudity keeps the viewer interested throughout, as there are very long pieces of dialogue that go nowhere at all.

That's it really, not a very good film, but there are laughs to be had and it gives us all hope to become actors one day.


There are few movies in the Cinemaverse, which can top the detritus of Andy Warhol, and I mean that, in the reverse. His films were the worst kind of popular tripe, the dialog so bad that it equates unintentional camp, the sets so cheesy that most of his works were filmed in someone's garage.

And then there's Andy Warhol's Dracula. This one tops the rest as far as how BAD a movie can be. Some have called it original, creative, even a "loose" adaptation of Bram Stoker's masterpiece. I'm here to tell you that these descriptions are NOT the case.

This work is pure garbage! There is NOTHING, not ONE redeeming quality about this "movie." Don't waste your time. You'd have more enjoyment from a root canal.

It rates a 2.2/10 from...

the Fiend :.


This wasn't as bad as "Flesh for Frankenstein," which was so abysmal I couldn't bring myself to comment on it, but it's a bad, bad, terrible, horrendous movie. What makes it all the worse is that it has a terrific theme...or would have had, but the script was so atrociously written that every socialist subtext was forced screaming to the front to beat you over the head. That said, a terrible script doesn't excuse acting as bad as this. The 'actors' are about as convincing as the housewife and the delivery man in your favorite skin flick. And in a way, this is a skin flick--it's a feeble attempt to infuse promiscuous sex into a story originally focusing on the Victorian demonization of sex. In capable hands, it could have worked. These were not capable hands. In my own humble opinion, every copy of this movie should be destroyed.


Count Dracula (Udo Kier) is dying. He needs fresh human blood, the blood of a 'pure wirgin' as Dracula pronounces it. Dracula is to well known in Romania to be able to locate a virgin, so together with his servant Anton (Arno Juerging) he sets out to Italy to find one, because of the Italians strict religious upbringing they believe the chances of finding a virgin will be high. Upon arrival they question some locals and learn of a married couple who live nearby, the Marquis (Vittorio Di Sicca) and Marquise Di Fiore (Maxime McKendry) who have four unmarried daughters, Esmeralda (Milena Vukotic), Saphiria (Dominique Darel), Rubinia (Stefania Casini), and Perla (Silvia Dionisio). The Marquis has gambled the Di Fiore's family money away and by marrying one of their daughters off to a sick looking Dracula they think they will inherit his money when he dies. Dracula and Anton are invited to stay at their large, but run down house. Once there Dracula has the opportunity suck all the blood he needs, but thanks to Mario Balato (Joe Dallesandro) the Di Fiore's servant, some of the girls aren't as pure as Dracula needs. Before long Mario becomes suspicious of the Count, but will he find out the truth too late?

Written and directed by Paul Morrissey I was very disappointed by this extremely talky, overlong and rather dull excuse for a horror film. In fact it's more of a historical drama/sex film rather than horror. There's a lot of naked flesh and sex on show, the girls even go topless when gardening. There are only three gore scenes in the whole film, two scenes where Kier violently throws up impure blood and when Dracula is gorily killed at the end with an axe. After the funny black humour and over the top gore of Flesh for Frankenstein, which was made at the same time with some of the same cast and crew, I was expecting more of the same. Unfortunately I didn't get it. The film looks quite nice having being filmed in real historic locations in Europe and Kier is watchable as Count Dracula, as he always is. But the film just takes too long for anything interesting to happen and it becomes very boring to watch. There are very few characters in the film, once Dracula arrives at the Di Fiore's house the Di Fiore's themselves, their daughters, Mario, Dracula and Anton are the only characters seen on screen for the whole of the rest of the film. Apart from some nice scenery there is very little to recommend here for horror fans, disappointing.


Standard, typical tear-jerker - highly-renowned concerto artist deserts family to take off with his child's piano teacher.

They cavort around Europe until she finally throws him out and resumes her music career.

The ladies in the audience use up three handkerchiefs apiece with their weeping.

The men wonder at the idiot male who gives up the luscious Bergman to return to sleep with his wife who is stupid enough to take him back.

The plot is straight out of East Lynne and told dozens of times on stage and in screen. Two star-crossed lovers finally come to their senses when they are reminded about the lives they are ruining with their carrying-ons.

So they cry on each others shoulders and go their separate ways.

A stinker of a movie.


Leslie Howard who has been brilliant in nearly al his films (esp The Petrified Forest, Of Human Bondage, Pygmallion, Teh Scarlette Pimprenel and of course GWTW) realy gave a stiff, false performance in this 1939 movie that he himself co-produced with David o' Selznick of the Gone With The Wind (1939) -- I'm thinking that both their creative juices were at a major low --- this movie was so insincere and contrived and lacks any universal appeal that makes movies "classics". Sterotypes Galore -- and poor, souless dialogue for a supposed deep romance/drama -- poor Ingrid Bergman -- she doesn't have much to work with -- but thank god she stuck around -- bc this swedish beauty could not only act -- she could steal your heart! Anastasia and For Whom The Bell Tolls are proof of what a great range she had! So don't judge Selznick, Howard or Bergman by this piece of crap!


Even though I swore to myself I would never lay eyes again on 'Men behind the Sun' or any of its sequels, I am now reviewing part 2. Go figure! I guess the call of the extremes just was too irresistible. At least now I clearly recall why I took this pledge. These films are almost unbearable. The 'Men behind the Sun' franchise might as well be the most controversial and shocking series of films ever made (maybe a tie with the 'Guinea Pig' series, though) and handles about despicably explicit experiments performed on prisoners in a Japanese army base during WWII. These unfriendly Japs are developing germ-bombs to disable their enemies and a whole lot of other sick stuff involving nitroglycerine etc There's an ultra-thin wraparound story about a young soldier who's sent to serve in the camp against his will but that's of minor importance. This second chapter is less repulsive than the original, but still contains more than enough sequences to make your stomach turn. Luckily the make-up effects are often cheesy and unquestionably fake. The acting is weak and the directing (by Hong Kong B-movie legend Ho) is atrocious. This is a film without any values. The only reason why it is made is because the DVD looks good in a cult-collection like mine.


No no no no.

I foolishly rented this, thinking that...uhwhat was I thinking? I've seen Man Behind the Sun and while I can't exactly say I 'enjoyed' it, it was shocking, powerful, and deeply disturbing. I watched it once around 5 years ago, re-watched it recently to review it. For some reason I thought I'd read the sequel was much more disturbing. So, what do I do? Like a fool, out of morbid curiosity I have to check it out.

If you've seen the original, just quit while you're ahead. I cannot stress this strongly enough. I mean it. RUN! If you haven't seen any of the 'series' and feel the need to see any of them (whether or not that is a good idea for you to do is a whole different discussion) just see the first one. In the original, the plot centers on camp 731, where horribly inventive and vicious medical experiments are performed on prisoners under the guise of 'scientific research' for warfare. That one actually has a plot, and some characters you care about. The reason I'm going on at length about the first movie is that 90% of this movie "Laboratory of the Devil" is simply the first movie, re-staged, only done very badly.

The plot' goes something like this: a guy, who I think was supposed to have been at camp 731, goes to a house for a meeting, post WW2. A bunch of Japanese men sit stiffly around the table. Through This review contains some slight spoilers, but you'll be doing yourself a big favor if you read it before you decide to waste your money on this terrible sequel (if you can call it that). some very badly written dialogue (though to be fair, the movie is dubbed, so maybe the translation lost something) we find out that the main evil guy from the first movie wants to restart the medical experiments. Why he would want to is not that clear, other than out of sheer meanness. After more boring dialogue that I was tempted to fast forward through, the guy that came in says something to the effect of 'have you no honor? Don't you remember what happened before?' No, for some reason they don't, even though they were all there the first time. "Well let me tell you about it..."

We go into flashback mode and I optimistically figure it'll last maybe 5 minutes, summing up the first movie. Uh-oh, it seems to be going on longer. And the plot seems kind of familiar. OK, well, maybe they'll wrap it up in the next 15 minutes. After I realized the movie was half over, I resigned myself to the fact that the whole movie was going to be a re-hash of the first.

Now that's bad and lazy enough, but not only do they just blunderingly re-stage the first movie, they manage to completely f-*$% it up in every way possible. To try to add pathos, there's a lame romantic subplot. The experiments that are restaged are the most boring ones, and they only include one from the first movie that was a real shocker, but since most of us have SEEN the first movie, it's not shocking. The first movie was well paced, but in this case, it seems like the screenwriters just wrote down all the scenes from the original on index cards, put them all in a hat, and picked them out at random and filmed them in no particular order, making sure to leave out the most powerful ones and substituting incredibly stupid ones in their place. There's an autopsy at the beginning on a corpse that goes on way too long and is obviously intercut with actual autopsy footage. Not only is this lazy, but if I wanted to sit there watching endless scenes of autopsies, I would have, well, rented a video that consisted of actual autopsies

instead (yes, you can rent those now). I didn't think a movie could be disgusting and boring at the same time, but LOTD manages.

But wait! There's more. They also figured that maybe the first movie wasn't humorous enough (yeah, you really need humor in a movie about POW torture), so they stuck in some really, really unfunny "comic relief". Here is an exact quote, to give you an idea. Two guards are walking out of the lab after a frostbite experiment. Guy #1:"...they found out that women have a greater resistance to cold than men." Guy #2-"Yeah well, I guess that explains why my wife is frigid!" (rim shot) They roar with laughter. HAHAHAHAHA!

Stop, you guys, I'm laughing so hard it hurts! Whooo-hooo! I'm still holding my sides! (I was kidding about the rim shot, but there might as well have been one, it would have been an improvement).

There is, however, some unintentional humor (though NOT worth watching the movie for-if the forthcoming description of the unintentional humor amuses you at all , just LEAVE IT AT THAT. Count your blessings. I'm making it sound much more entertaining than sitting through the movie is) For instance, the English dubbing is so laughably bad it sounds like a parody of bad dubbing in an Asian film (Your Kung Fu is lousy!) It sounds like they have maybe 2, 3 guys tops doing all the characters. In one scene a bunch of scientists or commanders or whatever they're supposed to be are wearing surgical masks. One sounds completely normal while the other guy sounds like he's yelling into his cupped hands or through a saltine box. Also, the characters, both heroes and bad guys, are amazingly stupid. At one point, the hero (I think he was the hero, anyway) helps with one 'test' that consists of prisoners being lined up and shot. Why they need to research what happens when they do this, I don't know, but anyway, the hero reluctantly fires at the commander's order, naturally killing them, then looks shocked and horrified at the results. What did he think was going to happen? Oh, and this is after he watches the same thing being done 3 times in a row before this with no expression at all on his face.

In another scene, the bad guys inject a slice of watermelon with what I assume is some sort of toxic substance. Then we see a guy being dragged, struggling, into frame by the other bad guys,: "No! No! You can't make me eat it!" "You WILL eat this!!" They force feed it to him, though it looks more like they just rubbed it into his teeth, he foams at the mouth a little, and dies. Was that supposed to scare me or disturb me? Why the hell didn't they just give it to him to eat and not tell him what it was? In the first movie, during several scenes prisoners are tricked into the experiments, which is much more believable and has much more powerful and disturbing results. In the first movie, it had the effect of making you hate the villains even more. Here, you just think they're badly organized morons. Speaking of that, there's another scene where the prisoners are all in one room with huge numbers on their uniforms so large that the digits would be visible from another planet, and when they need them for experiments, a guard just walks in with a clipboard and calls out their numbers, and they call out "here!" like it's roll call in a class or something. For some reason that struck me as funny. Maybe I was just so bored I was trying to entertain myself by finding anything I could to jeer at.

Not enough reasons to skip this? OK, here's more. The makeup effects (other than the real autopsy footage) are really, really cheesy and unrealistic. Several workers are beaten and slapped for disobeying. I've seen more realistic punches thrown in Dolemite movies-seriously, we're talking the hand visibly not coming within six inches of the person's face and the person reacting like they were hit. Terrible continuity, too-in one scene, a guy bites into a small corner of a guards earlobe while fighting, then we cut (they always cut away instead of going to the trouble of showing any sort of effect) to a shot of the guy with a huge chunk of flesh in his mouth. Oh, and every once in a while, they stick in some stock war footage that is so grainy you can barely tell what's going on (I *think* that was a shot of something being blown up there...)

The characters look so much alike (I'm not saying this in a racist way -in the first movie, I had no problem, but here the screenwriting is so sloppy I didn't know who was who. OK, is that guy upset because they just killed....uh...his father?his brother? Was that his roommate? Who knows? The only positive things about this wretched excuse for an exploitation movie are that it leaves out the suspiciously realistic, unnecessary scenes of animal cruelty included in the first one, and that it has the guts to have a downbeat ending (though again, it's just a really inept rip-off of the first movie). SPOILER AHEAD:

any movie that ends with the hero suddenly being decapitated should get a tiny iota of credit, I guess. The first movie was so disturbing it made me lose sleep, this one just put me to sleep. I repeat, do NOT waste your time with this (especially if you've seen the first one). If you want to see something really shocking, upsetting, and disturbing, just rent the original. If you want to be bored, mad at yourself for wasting your money, and have your intelligence insulted, then rent this one. I heard that the third one is the worst in the series-boy, I don't even want to think about that.


Watched the original Men Behind the Sun, and then this sequel. This was English dubbed though. Cantonese version may have been way better. Anyway, from the 1st 2 minutes I felt this is some awkward attempt to ride on the "success" of the first movie.

Story about Japanese biological weapons development with some off-topic (maybe I missed something?) autopsies. Some shots are clearly ripped from the first one, like the liquid nitrogen demonstrations and when the leader dude stands in front of the japan flag & his "army". If you haven't seen the original movie, you may like this, anyway I was so much disappointed I recommend watching "Men Behind the Sun" or even "Mermaid in a Manhole" instead, and skip this one.


this movie looked interesting to me cuz i thought there would be a lot of gore. there wasn't. its about unit 731, who tortured a bunch of chinese people for experiments. its not that cool, the effects aren't that great. it has a cool story, and the plot is kinda nifty, but its slow. could have been a diamond in the ruff if they had made it better.

mat "drumladdy" (the hot carls)


I watched this on TV a couple of months of ago and then recently after the trial was over, I watched it again because a friend of mine had a tape of it. First of all, Dean Cain tries to do a good job playing Scott Peterson and even sounds a little like him. It's sort of creepy but I kind of get the impression that Dean watched a lot of Scott's interviews and listened to him over and over again, trying to imiate him. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. The movie is poorly written. It came out way too soon before too many facts were out and it's also way too favorable to Scott Peterson. It's not too often that the film casts a shadow of guilt on him. It does try to make the cops involved in the case look bad. The movie tries to convince us that they are more concerned with framing Scott than actually finding Laci Peterson. It also makes Laci's family and friends look bad. They are seen as people who turn on Scott very quickly, because of his selling of Laci's car and his affair with Amber Frey. The attempt to recreate times that Laci's family and Amber went to the press are also bad and look poorly staged. Since the conversations between Scott and Amber weren't public at the time, the writers tried to write out dialogue on what they thought Peterson might have said on his cell phone to Amber. Those scenes are pretty short,lol. There's also a fictional (guessing) couple who are supposed to be friends of Laci's and Scott's who fight over whether or not Scott did it. Typical idiot writers portray it as though it's the hysterical women (Laci's two friends) who think Scott is guilty and the cops who are after Scott. I'm really so sure that the cops and her female friends were really anxious to see Laci's husband on trial for murder instead of the who did this. I'm sure justice meant nothing to them and they were fine with the idea of the killer of the friend being on the loose as long as Laci's husband (whom they probably had to their houses dozens of times and who they knew thought they knew pretty well) getting sent to jail. That is beyond stupid. It was most likely difficult for them even beginning to think that Scott did it but they could no longer no ignore Scott's behavior or the evidence pointing to the fact that Scott most likely did it. The annoying part in the movie that I'm sure never happened in real life was everybody going around hollering "How'that going to look when you do that?" "It's going to look bad if you do this, Scott". Everybody was probably too upset about Laci to worrying about how things were looking, unless of course you've got something to hide. Why would friends advise Scott on how to behave unless they suspected he was guilty and want to help him look innocent? One of the earlier scenes where they are talking about giving a press conference and Dean goes, "The press has a victim, now they need a villain." That was really poor writing. The press conferences were about trying to get people to give tips about finding Laci, not about looking a villain, lol. Basically, this movie might have been interesting before all the facts and everything was out but now, it just makes you roll your eyes at it.


I had no idea it was based on a real story, but now that I know it I see it even worst. The worst acting ever, actors contradict their parliaments time after time. For example:

"When Scott leaves his house once her son and wife bodies are found by the sea shore he take his car to visit Amber Frey. The Detectives where at the PD checking his moves by a satellite transmitter installed on his truck, and while the Detectives where talking the older one said they must let him go into Amber's so that he confessed to her his crimes, the younger one reply him and then suddenly the older one says they must caught him before he get her, contradicting himself previous parliament. Dean Cain was not the best acting, his silly senseless smiles where completely out of tone, no dramatical differences between strongly touching parts and the normal movie rhythm. Scott's best friend acts even badly, his face seems more than a mask put on him from the very beginning of the movie till the very end, his wife is just a sea of tears.... If you really wanna waste an hour see it, dis-satisfaction guarantee. The original story it's a real tragedy, but once more Hollywood's directors and writers prove they care nothing at all people tragedies. Why putting some more sorrow on Laci Peterson's family, why abuse of people's sad stories just for money?? Let people deal with it instead of remember them how much does they suffer!!!!


This movie was total cheese. It stank. I didn't find anything that is worth mention about this movie. Bad acting, routine script, cheap production, no good dirty rotten movie in general. All it was was sadness. It could have been told telling the good things that happened in Laci Peterson's life, not one sad incident that happened in her lifetime. Also, I totally think that there could have been a lot better actors play these characters. People such as, Ben Foster, Jon Foster, Reese Witherspoon, Ryan Phillipee, Luke Wilson, Selma Blair and Holland Taylor. Good I hate that monster Scott Peterson. May he burn in hell with Satan forever. "Scott Got What He Deserved". Ron Grantski, Laci's Stepfather.


Embarrassingly bad, low-budget Italian-made war movie set in Holland in the dying days of WWII. A tedious, plodding storyline concerning a plot to steal some diamonds from a German HQ, awful acting and dreadful editing make this movie a prize turkey from the opening scene right through to the cringeworthy oh-so-60s `romantic' ending which will have you reaching for the puke bucket - that is if you haven't already reached for the `Off' button long before. The worst performances come from John Ireland as Captain O'Connor and the blonde female lead, whose name escapes me. She plays the `love interest' to our Rugged Leading Man. Perhaps it wasn't entirely her fault, as back then female romantic leads, especially in action movies, were often written as weak, wishy-washy, sobbing, super-sensitive emotional jellyfish. This one is no exception, and the second, supporting female character is just as bad. Simply nauseating to watch. Even the action scenes (which are few and far between, except towards the end) are boring and predictable. Most ludicrously, in the climatic battle, we have Rugged Leading Man and his two mates holed up in some sandbagged bunker and effortlessly gunning down endless attacking Germans right, left and centre. The Germans of course are all terrible shots and even seem to be eager cannon-fodder, as they make little or no effort to take cover, dying spectacularly in droves amid much flailing of arms and comic-book shouts of `AAAAARGH'. This is glorification of war at its very worst. Then suddenly - right in the middle of the battle - the resistance guy pulls up completely unmolested in a stolen German jeep and trots effortlessly along a convenient trench - which leads directly into the bunker and which somehow hundreds of Germans approaching from all sides have failed to spot - and calmly joins Our Heroes inside the bunker. Another scene of crass stupidity that really must be seen to be believed has Captain O'Connor flying over the German lines in a reconnaissance plane which, with the help of some clumsily-inserted old newsreel footage, is suddenly and miraculously transformed into a heavy bomber disgorging its massive payload from wide-open bomb bays and pulverising the Germans beneath, before once more instantaneously reverting to being a small reconnaissance plane again. The concept of an ongoing truce between the resistance fighters and the occupying German army also seems ludicrous to me, yet this is a central theme of the movie. The English title of the film was obviously inspired by `The Dirty Dozen' (which was made around the same time) but it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. The original Italian title of this film (Dalle Ardenne all' Inferno), the sleeve notes for the English language video release are also grossly misleading. This film has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Battle of the Ardennes. The Ardennes isn't even in Holland - it's a part of Belgium - which indicates that the film-makers' knowledge of World War II events and geography was just as limited as their ability to make even a half-decent film. Don't waste two hours of your valuable time on this rubbish. One of the worst movies I've had the misfortune to sit through - and I've sat through some garbage!!


Just watched this offering on movies4men.

I'm not sure if the first poster was watching the same film as the rest of us!

An unbelievable plot (or lack of it), dreadful script, wooden acting even from stars like Curt Jurgens, awful sets with absolutely no basis on historical reality, comic book Nazis, and so on.

This film was so embarrassingly bad it was captivating viewing. I found myself gasping in amazement at the awful cinematography, poor editing and the final clichéd romantic scene was just ....

Sorry (gulp) I can't take any more.


The Dirty Heroes Completely the worst war movie I have ever seen !!!!! talk about stereotypical,the Germans are all terrible shots and seem to be eager cannon-fodder, as they make little or no effort to take cover, dying in a hail of rounds screaming comic book "aieeeeeeeeeeee's" and thats not to mention the "ve haf vays of meking you talk" SS officer...oh my god !!! Another scene that really must be seen to be believed has Captain O'Connor flying over German lines in a reconnaissance plane which,is suddenly and miraculously transformed into a heavy bomber dropping its payload from wide-open bomb bays and pulverising the Germans beneath, before once more instantaneously reverting to being a small reconnaissance plane again. Since when did Recce planes carry bombs and what about the flagrant disregards of any orders !!!! Imagine if Monty had said " Oh Bugger Alamein, I'll attack Cairo instead...

In summary all I can say is avoid at all costs a complete waste of my time, wooden, NSF acting, terrible production costume design a blatant attempt to jump on the Dirty Dozen bandwagon and the only reason I kept watching was to see if it could get any worse !!!!...

(Talking of worse, the Italian and original title of the movie refers to the Ardennes-since when has Amsterdam, Holland, where the film is set, been anywhere near the bleedin Ardennes?...oh lord)


King's Quest II can basically be seen as King's Quest I revisited. It uses the same game engine almost exactly. King's Quest I was a revolution in adventure games for the computer. Most earlier games, like Zork and Adventure, were solely text-based. Early CGA graphics and basic computer sound combined to bring these characters to 2-D. The play of King's Quest II is quite simple. You are the King Graham of Daventry, and you are looking for your bride-to-be. You move the King around the screen with the arrow keys and have to manually type in commands like "pick up book" and "throw knife at dog" to make things happen. A fun game, but it shows just how far Sierra has come when you look at King's Quest V and up.


When I got this game I thought, 'Wow this is fun!'

...but it gets very old very fast.

For each 'Chapter' you play, you must obtain certain goals. Almost all of which are the same. There is always one unique goal for each chapter. Other than that, you go around stopping the same crimes over and over again. It gets ridiculous. Same goes for the dialog. The same BAD jokes over and over again, Sometimes twice is a row.

Example - Woman: 'Spiderman, You da man!'

Spiderman: 'Thanks ... you da woman?'

(8 Seconds Later)

Woman: 'Spiderman, You da man!'

Spiderman: 'Thanks ... you da woman?'

As for comparing it to GTA, I can see how people can think that. Yet something is off with the surroundings. You see, the GTA series has found a way to make their cities have a different look for different areas. In Spiderman 2, everything has the same 'blah' quality to it, throughout the city. It almost feels like you're web-slinging through a map of cubes rather than buildings.

Also, the graphics look like they were made for the original Playstation as opposed to PS2.

I wouldn't recommend this game, in my opinion, the original Spider-Man video game for the PS1 was much more fun than this one. At least it didn't get so old so quick. This game leaves you wanting more. But not in a good way.


Though miles better than the (awful) first game this still suffers from major bore. The free-roaming game play would be great if there were a bit more variety and things to do. The main problem is that the gaming area is absolutely immense. While this may be a good thing (a whole state is your gaming area in the upcoming GTA: San Andreas) there are very few definitive landmarks to give you some kind of orientation. It's based on the real New York, with all the famous buildings, but literally hundreds of streets look the same and it's very, very easy to get hopelessly lost. Plus the only method of travel is swinging. Yes, it's cool, but very slow considering the area you have to cover and not to easy to control unless your a genius with the control pad.

And the missions are all the same. Stop an armoured car hijack, stop a guy stealing a car, save some idiot hanging off a building, beating up nameless thugs, save some guy hanging off a building, stop some guy stealing a car, save some guy hanging off a building...boring. When you complete a mission that should be it done for the whole game, none of this again and again and again trash. The average score for completing these missions is 250 hero points...you need 1, 000, 000 to reach Doc Ock at the end of the game. Sorry I ain't sticking around long enough to 4000 tedious missions.

The only cool thing about this game is that it's narrated by Bruce Campbell. The rest seems like a rushed movie tie-in, not a real game.


Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. It is the Stone Age, 6000 years ago, and all men are forced to marry or work on the rock pile, but King Ferdinand orders all males over 13 and under 95 years must marry, or be banished, die, or both. We see an example of a marriage, in front of the law tablet, with the priest testing soul-mates, and bashing the couple's heads, literally. Arriving in the land is wizard Saxophonus (James Finlayson) with his daughter Blushing Rose (Viola Richard) and a long lasting toothache. Then along comes the Mighty Giant (Ollie) from the bogs, looking for anybody's wife, and after seeing the new law, he says he get any amount of women he wants. Trying to woo some women he gets constantly clunked on the head by a jealous man, and also a butt from a goat, so he think something doesn't want him to be with those women. Then along comes merry swain Little Twinkle Star (Stan) searching for romance, and hearing someone shout the new law, he giggles at the idea, and merrily jumping around he manages to tumble down a hill into a prickly cactus. After this Twinkle tries copying a caveman's technique for getting a girl, by picking her up and taking her away, but the girl he picks doesn't want it, and they have a kicking and tossing argument. Then Twinkle sees and chases Rose round a bush, and when he gets to her father, he will only allow a marriage if he proves himself as a provider of fish. While Twinkle goes to catch fish harpooning and using flies, Rose tries to ease her father's pain by pulling out the aching tooth with string tied to a rock. The father can't throw it, so the Giant comes along and does instead, but ends up throwing him over the cliff as well, but after tumbling, it seems it worked. Both Twinkle and Giant meet each other, and only one can have Rose with her father's permission, so they start squabbling, but Twinkle manages to send Giant off the near cliff with the help of goat's butt. After returning to Rose, Twinkle and she sit on what they think is a rock, but it turns out to be a brown bear that they wake, and running away in the cow and cart, they flip it upside down, and the film ends with the father and the couple with the bear joining them under the cart. Filled with some small slapstick and not too bad classic comedy, it isn't great, but it's a silent black and white film worth looking at. Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay!


I pray that I am never subject to a film as bad as this one. It had a little potential, but all of it was wasted. It is described by some as a screwball comedy, unfortunately every time they had an opportunity to do the screwball bit, the movie stopped and went in a different direction. I did not laugh during the entire 90 minutes (Thank God it only wasted that much of my life). One is constantly watching the film thinking: "Is the writer, or possibly the director, the dumbest person who ever lived? or Did they ever have to watch it?". After watching 75 minutes of a film that never went anywhere, we were now subject to the worst musical and dance sequences that celluloid has ever been wasted on.

We suffer through 15 minutes of choreography that would annoy an 8th grade dance instructor. It has been described as brilliant and unique, it is neither. I imagine many of the practice sessions were better done. I saw that it was the last of the pre-code big budget films, other than being the worst film ever made that is the only thing for which this film will ever be known

While watching through the interminably long end sequence, we are supposed to believe that this is a Broadway production, but there are so many inane camera gimmicks, that you know you are not watching something resembling a Broadway production, but something that comes across as a High School production which received a grade of D.

The acting in the movie is absolutely horrible. After watching the film, I was tempted to look up all the movies I had given 1's and 2's on before and elevate those votes to 3. This movie is really that HORRIBLE. I had noticed that for a big budget production it received ZERO Oscar nominations when they pretty much nominated every film that was released. I should have saw that as a sign. I caution anyone who has the fortune to read this before they are subjected to this film to watch or rent

anything else, even something like Police Academy 8 or Friday the 13th Part X.


A little too ridiculous for me, rival hit men discover they are long lost friends and team up to do a big score which they plan to donate to African children in order to make up for bad karma. It's just overwrought with non developed ideas and cliché's which the direction no matter how novel, as Takashi Miike always is, could not redeem. The stock home video footage of the lead characters as children was an overused device, eliciting feelings of boredom as opposed to the sentiment it is intended to evoke. There's not enough action or character analysis here to make this film anything but an exercise from Miike, which while I'm sure was a good workout for him, leaves the viewer with little else to say, except it was kinda neat when the character's sprouted wings, a non too subtle metaphor for their rebirth as "heroes". I've sat patiently through many of Miike's ingenious works, and this is so far my least favorite.


I watched this movie on Sundance with increasing annoyance at the pomposity & pretentiousness of the characters & their vapid pseudo-"thoughts". The movie seems to be the embodiment of every negative quality Francophobes love to throw (unfairly for the most part) at most French movies.

Then I discovered that it was directed by none other than Claude Lelouch, the director of A Man and a Woman, the only movie I ever slept through almost entirely (in the theater). Well, at least he's consistent.


A film about a woman losing her son and her boyfriend. OK. I don't mind a little sentimentality and art-movies. I also like good drama movies f.ex. Midnight cowboy, The last picture show and Peggy Sue got married. This film, however, centers around a woman feeling very for herself. And that is definitaly not entertaining on ANY level. It is just plain boring. 1 out of 10.


The story behind the movie is good, although some of the special effects could be better. The acting is better than anything I could do but, its not Bruce Willis or Whoopi Goldberg quality. Some points in the story just aren't that believable. Who would ever think that power would still be connected to an old abandoned hotel, yet they try the breakers and presto, they have lights!! It must be so easy to maintain an indoor pool, after so many years the water is clear and the pool is still full to boot, I have a hard enough time keeping mine clean on a weekly basis!! And the knife at end, what are the odds you would find one just when you need one?

If you can over look all these little things and others like them then its a watchable flick. If you're going to watch this movie with someone who constantly points things like this out, don't. You're better off watching this movie without them.


Pray for Morning starts as a few teen friends decide to spend the night in the Royal Crescent Hotel, a large rundown long abandoned hotel that was the scene of five gruesome murders back in 1984. Jesse (Jonathon Trent) has always been interested in the hotel & drawn to the mystery surrounding the still unsolved murders, he has convinced some of his high school mates to accompany him, during the middle of the night of course because going there during the day when it was light would just be silly. Once there they decide to check out the rooms in which the five bodies were found, before anyone know's it an evil ghostly spirit has been awakened & is killing the teens off one-by-one & unless they can stop it none of them will live to see the morning...

Written & directed by Cartney Wearn I watched Pray for Morning last night without knowing a thing about it, the title is rather vague & could have referred to anything so I didn't go into it with any great expectation yet I still found myself disappointed & not particularly having a good time. What we have here is a cross between The Shining (1980) with it's hotel style setting & The Amityville Horror (1979) with the now standard haunted house scenario (spooky property has a dark past, you know the sort of thing) along with a few boring mystery elements thrown in there for good measure. The film spends far too much time showing annoying American teens wondering around this old hotel in the dark, it just doesn't make for particularly entertaining viewing & gets very boring very quickly. The script is predictable & is nothing more than a teen slasher with some tenuous supernatural elements along with an obligatory twist ending which didn't do much for me at all to be honest as I thought it was pretty ineffectual. There is one amazing scene I just couldn't work out, in it one of the annoying American high school teens examines a twenty year old blood stain & determines that whoever left the stain was trying to hide something! How on Earth do you work that out? Also it turns out that whatever the victim was trying to hide they hid inside an nearby air vent so when they were killed how could they have been trying to hide something when they had clearly already hidden it? Also why didn't the police find that severed hand in the vent only a few feet away? According to earlier exposition the police had 'torn the place apart' looking for clues so why not find that severed hand only a few feet away from a murder victim? The police obviously didn't do a very good job, did they? There's no explanation as to how or why there's a ghost in the hotel or how it manages to alter reality or how it can transport people back in time &, of course, the annoying American teens mobile phones don't work for no apparent reason either so they get isolated from the outside world in a now obligatory plot device for low budget horror films. The story doesn't engage or entertain, that character's are both poor & annoying, the plot is forgettable & not that much actually happens.

The hotel sets or locations (not sure if they filmed in a real hotel or in a studio) are quite nice but why are some of the lights on? Wouldn't the electricity have been turned off? Horror wise there's not much to get excited about here, there's a few bloody corpses & what looks like a bamboo stick stuck through someone but not much else & there's not much in the way of scares since the less than impressive CGI computer effects have the opposite effect & make things almost laughable. There are one or two bits with a decent atmosphere but it's never sustained for any period of time. The film seems to take itself very seriously & there's no humour or fun to be seen anywhere which doesn't help when the plot feels so stale & lethargic. To give it some credit there are a few period flashbacks at the end which are quite nicely done I suppose.

With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 this has better production values than a lot of recent low budget horror but that's hardly any sort of recommendation on it's own. Filmed in Los Angeles. The only real cast member of note is cult German born actor Udo Kier who doesn't look interested at all & to my eyes seems to put on more weight in every subsequent film he makes (the Steven Seagal of the low budget horror world!).

Pray for Morning is a dull supernatural teen horror slasher that doesn't satisfy on any level really, never mind pray for morning I would suggest that most audiences will be praying for it to finish not too long after it has started.


I never thought I'd feel so robbed of time.

I rarely see really bad movies... because no matter how bad a movie is, I always try to overlook the flaws and focus on the merits instead, then it becomes a not so bad movie. And I do that to convince my wife that I didn't waste her time making her watch the movies that I like her to watch with me.

But on this one, I failed.

Actually, it was my wife who tried to help herself enjoy the film, while most I could do was delay my judgment and not ruin it for her. Throughout the movie all that I could think of was hitting the eject button. In the end, the only thing positive with the experience was that we both enjoyed hating the film.

We hated it that when a character, inside a haunted building, sees a kid with blood trickling down his forehead, extends his arm to the kid and says "It's okay!" instead of running like hell. I know, people in horror movies are supposed to do stupid things, that's the way it is, but this one is just way too dumb!

We hated it that the characters get teleported during climactic scenes, but never beyond it. They didn't even have problems searching for the clues in every nook and cranny of the hotel.

We hated it that there was so much detective work done you'd think they're with Scoobie Doo. Seriously.

We hated the clichés of stumbling on the floor while running, rivals fighting over a girl at a really bad time, and a teen couple leaving all the others to have sex while inside a ghost-inhabited hotel. Clichés are forgivable, but clichés that are badly used and looked just plastered on the script is a crime.

The monster in this movie, or the element that's supposed to make this scary, is lame, funny at best. The title, while interesting, turned out to be irrelevant to the story. The actors' acting, while not in a drama, can make you cry. Save for the camera, it's really easy to mistake this for a high school project.

To each his own, but Pray For Morning for us turned out to be Pray For The Ending.

3 out of 10. Is it that bad? Yes. But I'm not giving it the lowest because there were still some elements that could've been worse.


I personally thought that I would be in for a pleasant surprise but low and behold I was mistaken. I don't have any preconceptions about B movies I like to watch all kinds of quality work. This movie however, was not fun to watch. The plot is OK, it isn't written especially well but it's not that hard to listen to. The acting on the other hand was dreadful. I mean painful to watch. It wasn't the horror that had me cringing in my seat, it was the acting. I was looking for a hopeful for a glimpse of an up and coming actor in this movie, surely you won't find any one of the actors in upcoming A movies. They might be seen in one of those late night infomercials instead.

For this one I say Thanks but No Thanks.


What we call in Spanish NACA! AKA stupid vulgar and cheap. NACA! the acting is stupid. the plot is pointless. the cinematography was almost vomit inducing. the title is cheesy and unoriginal. the editing was disastrous, the lighting was completely reprehensible. the pace was slow. the set looked like the tower of terror at Walt Disney world. (disny's tower of terror was more frightening than this). The opening credits were that of a cheap porn film after-party. Bottomline is that for someone who is studying film (and even those who are not) This movie is a complete waste of time and money. one out of ten stars. I would truly give zero if I could.


I have tried for weeks to sit and enjoy the show, but each time it falls short. Each show I am astounded at how reality is left behind.

I have boiled the problem down to one thing that creates so many other problem. The show is basically a vehicle for the main star, Vincent D'Onofrio. The problem is how they go about promoting him. Normally on crime shows there is a team of people working to solve a case; CSI, detectives, forensic pathologist, patrolmen etc. On this show Vincent does it all. Oh there are other people but anything important he has to do himself. Send a body to the morgue to be examined, not good enough. Run Vincent to the morgue, there will be something the forensic examiner missed and you can use your superhuman powers to find it! Going to a crime scene covered in cops, no problem for super Vincent! All the cops will miss any important evidence and Vinny will find it! So in an attempt to make him the focus and solver of all crimes they make the show laughable. Below are some actual things I have seen on this show.

1) In the episode Want starring Neal Patrick Harris, the forensic pathologist does her thing but missing something very small. The main character uses his supervision to see two tiny cuts on her bone that the pathologist then needs a microscope to see! I did not know Det. Robert Goren had super powers, if he has super vision maybe he can use heat rays and fly too! 2) In the episode Stray, the police officers question the suspects at the end of the show without the presence of council. When did this become part of the law? In fact I believe it is quite illegal and any information uncovered in this manor is inadmissible.

3) When lawyers are present, rarely do they say anything. One episode (Gemini) the lawyers pipes up 'wait we need to talk' to his client, but then says nothing and allows his client to speak. This is not at all rare on the program, in fact it is a running joke I love. How much will the lawyer actually help his client, usually it is nothing unless it lends itself to the implausible story line. One lawyer in the Gemini episode even told his client and I quote "It's all good". Where did he get his law degree? From Rasko's Chicken and Waffles? Is "All Good" a legal term, why didn't he just use the street term and tell his client "It's A to the G baby"? Sad indeed. The lawyers and their involvement in their clients case is minimal, it makes the story quite amusing.

4) How is that the main detective states his opinions as facts, which conveniently they end up being, and more conveniently his superiors issue warrants based on his opinions? One episode (Provada) the detective has an unnecessary warrant issued to lure the suspect into confessing. Does that really happen? Is that even legal? I'm sure busy New York judges have time to issue dummy warrants, maybe that's why the court systems are so clogged up. On the episode Want, they issued a warrant they knew was fake, even the DA knew. Perhaps they are taking advantage of the Patriot Act.

5) How does the detective get the suspects to distrust their friends and family based on his opinions? In the Gemini episode, a man turns on his own father, simply on the rantings of the detective. Would this ever happen? Why do the suspects continue to entertain the detective instead of telling him to 'go to hell and leave them alone'? If it was me and my dad I'd push that detective down a flight of stairs then take a steaming dump on his head.

6) How does one detective know every place in NYC? It's a big city, I live there, and I don't even know all the minute details that the detective knows. 'Remember the Chinese store with the golden sun on the outside; I remember how it was set up on the interior, with mirrors. Yes I also remember it closed down 12 years ago' (Reference to Stray episode). People remember the things on the walls from when they were 12? 7) How are major capital crimes solved in about 48 hours? Oh I know the convenient things that happen to let the detective know what's going on. The pillow on the couch for the father with sciatica (Provada) let him know the father was the suspect (my own mother has sciatica, why didn't he take an Advil before he went over, why didn't the pillow get moved back, why all of a sudden did he not want to kill his son), the girl her twisted her ankle (Stray) so she could easily be seen in Times Square (Not only that but the fact that a NYC subway attendant remember 2 people. First people in the booth never look up and second you don't even go to them for tokens, you get a metro-card from the machine.

The show is laughable at best. Every week he waves his hand at the accused and says, "These are not the droids you are looking for." Then the accused admits the crime!!!! Jedi mind trick to solve cases. This show is plagued by lazy writing, I guess that's why it's heading for basic cable (all premier episodes will air on the USA network)


After a while, I finally got annoyed with "Criminal Intent". The main character, Detective Robert Goren, is all-wise, all-knowing, can give a psychiatric diagnosis in an instant, finds clues right away, regularly breaks suspects when there is no evidence available, etc. All this with his "stuttering" approach that just looks like bad acting.

You can make one or two episodes as described above, but you just can't make all of them that way. Makes me feel I'm watching the same episode all over again.

The original Law & Order, and even SVU series always gave me impression of real events being behind the episodes. Not CI series. Stopped watching it.


If it were possible I would give this television series a negative number out of ten- alas I cant. I can just save someone else from being put through the awful ordeal of watching this stupid, unrealistic, repetitive, pretentious, obnoxious show. It seems this show is a home to all of the bad actors in Hollywood who cant get any other jobs. The plots are always boring, and to complicated to be portrayed in an hour properly. Vincent Denoffrio is abysmal (however is Oscar worthy compared to that thing playing his partner. I cant believe people actually enjoy these two actors. They're just annoying and phony and unwatchable. just stay away, and hopefully this show will be taken off the air forever.


Characters evolve and Goren's character is just going through a change. It's unnatural for a person to remain the same throughout their life so Goren's character changing is great! Makes the whole thing more realistic. You make a good point but without change the character that is Robert Goren would become stale and boring.

I wish people would stop judging and get on with watching the show as they would have done in the beginning. Yes, Goren has changed quite considerably but change is good and in his case it's especially so! Looking forward to the season to come. And looking forward to seeing how things develop further with all the LOCI characters.


This show actually sucks. And it sucks because of the premise, because of the exploitation of the lower instincts left in the human body and mostly because of the all knowing detective genius Vincent D'Onofrio. In the real life, no one from the law enforcement agency has any possible right to abuse, yell and rant at the suspect without any proves. In the real world the cases are not so easily solved. In the real world, perverts and criminals are all around us but unfortunately, undeservedly, they do not acknowledge crimes as soon as someone wise ass from the police begins yelling at them. Not all suspects are psychologically abused maniacs who are on the edge of their nerves just as to allow some wise ass to smash them at the interrogation room. It is not real. After a few episodes it becomes perfectly clear that it is mr Wolf who has won (the money), not the audience. Cope with that.


I like watching Law and Order with my parents. We like Special Victims Unit and the original Law and Order. But we just can't watch this one. 1 reason; Vincent D'Onofrio. He is just bad. Not just him, but his character too. He is a cocky little crap and is a stink bag police officer.

The acting is another thing. Whenever Mr. D'Onofrio is working on a case, he sucks at acting. He always says his lines really boringly and acts awful. Me, my dad, my mom, my sister, my brother, my aunt all hate him. Whenever, we see him, my mom says, "Aww, I hate that guy!"

Could be a better show if Vince wasn't on it. 4.4/10


I have watched several episodes but every time I am totally amazed that they gave Vincent D'Onofrio a lead role. Watching him work a case is just painful, especially when he does the big reveal at the end. I have seen better acting in Jr. High School Plays.

Otherwise this show leaves a lot to be desired, it's nothing special or different from any other cop show on today or in the last 30 years. Cop shows have all been the same, when one ends there's a new one in a season or two that does the same thing the same way with no imagination or originality.

I find the more unlikely cop shows, like Castle and The Mentalist, more enjoyable simply because they are different. Maybe this show and the other L&O and CSI shows should pay attention and find something new.


This is probably the worst TV-show I have ever seen. I saw two or three of it's episodes and I felt terrible. Sometimes I really like criminal shows - especially "Without a Trace" which was great. But not this one. I saw its episodes dubbed in Bulgarian so I can not tell anything about the acting but I really hated D'Onofrio after I saw his character. He is the main reason for me not to like the show. I mean... Robert Goren knows everything, speaks every language, can do everything...

But despite his knowledge about everything Goren was actually so dumb so it hurts to watch him. I guess the screenwriters thought they would show him as a great psychologist but if anyone speaks to me like he speaks to the suspects I would die laughing at his face. Come on, do you really think this is good? We have seen better shows. We can see better psychology even in "Power Rangers". "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" is a trash. If you want a good show watch something else.


This is one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. We know how "opinions" are....and I cannot see how anyone could find any- thing worthwhile in this film. I like B.B. Thornton and love Lisa Blount (see her work in the "Profit" series if you want to see her light up the screen), but they are wasted here. As for "Snake", in the real backwood culture...well, "Snake" would disappear and the world would be a much better place. I'm sure too many people will read the same reviews that I did and waste a couple of hours of their lives watching this quasi-mystical piece of trash, but I can hope that anyone that reads far enough will pause and then pass on this horrible, pointless movie.


Somehow, I guess I just don't "get" Chrystal. What is the purpose of its existence? The story was not nearly so compelling as, let's say, Slingblade, nor the characters especially endearing. Individual acting performances were outstanding and rose far above the story. Why did Chrystal need to be written? What was gained from it? Who learned from it? If I had come away with a lesson learned or a moral, Chrystal would have made more sense. Instead, I came away feeling, undone. Shouldn't a film make a statement or ask a question? Chrystal makes me ask" "Why?" Maybe I should write a screenplay. It can be just anything, as long as it has some kind of music, bluegrass maybe, and some good fight scenes, with more slapping and kicking than punching, as a change of pace. Oh, yes, someone will get shot, too.


I actually had high hopes for this movie when watching it in the cinema at a film festival in Copenhagen, the director Amirkulov was also present at the viewing, so it felt like a special occasion. And it surely isnt every day one is given the opportunity to shake a director from Kasakhstan in the hand. The movie itself revolved around some historical battles and politics which are really unknown for me, and even though mr Amirkulov pointed out before the film began that we in the audience could expect some obscure historical talk in the film, i was surprised about the lack of many things in the movie. A lot of ideas are tested in the movie, but everything feels like the movie tried so hard to be great, that it fell apart. Bad editing, and often dull cinematography made the interest fall apart. I would suggest finding some reading material about the historical facts about the fall of Otrar, than wasting 3 hours watching this overlong film.


I mean it wasn't that horrible, but it was pretty bad. I didn't care for the plot. Actually it was pretty funny--this and Nutty Professor are both remakes, both star Eddie Murphy, and both were funny. But more to it, both had pretty mediocre sequels, and both sequels had a very sexually driven plot. But that's not why I hate this movie. There's way too much pop culture, the jokes weren't really funny, and I just couldn't believe how annoying everything about it was. I really wish I could be more in depth, but sorry, I just don't care about this film. It's more like a repressed memory now, and I only commented here because I was trying to find out what the Spanish Orangutan in the first movie was saying. The original Dr Dolittle with the white guy in it was OK, the first Dr Dolittle with Eddie Murphy was hilarious and a very underrated film, but this movie sucks.


SPOILER's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I loved the first movie. It's one of my favourite movies. So when I heard about the sequel I couldn't wait for the DVD. I shoulda waited even longer. There is so many things wrong with this movie that I'm amazed anyone would say this is better than the first. Only one thing saved this movie from total destruction. And that's the character of Charisse. Who we learn is beginning to have this thing called Dr. Dolittle's talent. It saved it from being a total waste of time. I'll probably go buy it now. (Thank God for online rentals!!) Some of the humor I liked of course, but.....

The bad is really bad. First..continuity. Okay.. Dr. Dolittle has ended and number 2 starts. Did I miss something here? They don't explain what happened to Rodney (the Guinea Pig) or how bout the baby Gator. Hmmm perhaps the Gator ate Rodney and they deemed it not to the liking of family entertainment. Two... they shift the focus off the fact that Dolittle is a doctor. There's a time for an environmental movie and there's not a time for it. This wasn't the time. Imagine ER suddenly became a tv show about what George Clooney does in his spare time. Eddie shoulda been doing what he does best. Doctoring. At least have it so the bear needed physical help, instead of the instructional video on bear mating.

Finally.. at the end of the first movie we are left knowing that it doesn't take riches to get places in one's life. Great moral feeling here. The bad guys were rich. So guess what... The second movie Dr. Dolittle is now a rather rich doctor. Lives in a mansion with a push button gate.

This movie doesn't even try to be a family movie. It's doesn't try anything. It takes the old lets do an environmental movie to save face trick.

PS: We really needed to rely on the fact that Charisse has bigger (ahem) than Britney Spears. Which reminds me. they cared more about bringing the old actors in for continuity. But I think they forgot this movie is about animals first and foremost and totally forgot about the first movie. If the first movie didn't exist maybe I'd like this more, but it does and so I really don't like this movie all that much

4/10 Quality: 5/10 Entertainment: 4/10 Replayable: 5/10


Seeing a sequel is not always the best option. When you see a movie for the first time, it is usually good, but when a part two is released I become a skeptic about weather or not the sequel will be any good. After all the first movie was good, why wouldn't the sequel be? Since I am a big Eddie Murphy fan I like to see all of the movies that he plays a role in, and I recently saw the sequel to Dr. Dolittle 2, directed by Steve Carr (III). A great comedy focused on animals, and a Dr. played by Eddie Murphy who can hear what they are thinking to themselves. A great big bear who is a circus bear, but would like to be free, and find love. Dolittle and his family take a vacation to a cabin in the woods where the bear would be set free; however the bear begins to realize that the wilderness is not "his cup of tea", and wants to be back at the circus. The plot of the movie is all about this bear, and his daughter played by Kristen Wilson finds out that she too has a special gift like that of her father.(Eddie Murphy) It is a great sequel, just as good as the first. Eddie Murphy is a great actor in yet another great movie.


When one considers Hollywood stars whose careers have gone down the tubes, Eddie Murphy is one of the first names that pops to mind. Dr Dolittle 2 is a sequel to Dr Dolittle which is a film very loosely based on the Rex Harrison musical (only in the whole "talking to animals" aspect, there is nothing else that is in any way even remotely similar). Recently, Murphy made another "unfunny sequel to an unfunny remake" with Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps. Eddie Murphy simply isn't funny any more. It's a shame since I loved Beverly Hills Cop, Trading Places, and Coming to America. But since the 80s, Murphy has offered only bad B movie comedies that will go down with such stinkers as Police Academy 4. Don't waste your money on this one. 1/10


Well, the first one did work pretty good, didn't it? This outing of base instinct "cuteness" just did not seem to get rolling. Kids and animals are always pleasant, but there has to be a reason to root/hate for at least someone. I did not find myself in love or angry at any of the characters, or even the situations in DR2. Even EM did not seem to have his heart in this one. At least it is not an offensive movie and does provide a few laughs. But Pleeeease....no more! SteveL99


Yes, it's full of jokes based on body fluids (both gaseous and liquid), but even those can be funny. Not here. This movie delivered almost no laughs.

The unfunny script offers no relief from the other irritations in "Dr. Doolittle 2": the obnoxious older daughter character and the preponderance of closeups. Seeing what appears to be the cast from "The Cosby Show" on screen so tight that the image cuts off just above the eyebrows and below the chin is not fun and not entertaining.

The script comes off like a sixth grade class's presentation on ecology. Disappointing.


Eddie Murphy movies for kids seem to find their core humor in flatulence and elimination or sexual suggestiveness. Since all of his follow the same pattern it must be Eddie that chooses. And he was so good when he started. Trading Places, BH Cop, even SNL which he probably wrote showed his originality and flair and character. Long gone now.


I honestly went into this movie with an open. I am admittedly not a big fan of Murphy, but even I was surprised by the lame storyline and awful plot . I saw Evolution this weekend too and all I can say is that this film made it look like Citizen Kane.


Last time I ever walked out of movie disgusted and ashamed of being an American was after watching "Freddy Got Fingered", but at least that movie was trying to be a bottom of the barrel movie. First off, I don't know about you all, but I'm tired of seeing this tired format of "Girl growing up crap". Going out on a date on your birthday. Oh but honey we always have dinner together on your birthday. Puuuleeease. Maybe the rest of the movie became better afterwards, but I'm sorry, not even a "Schindler's List" plot could make up for the rest of the movie. This is one of those type of movies you watch, and when you leave you get pissed at the movie theater employees, even though they relatively had nothing to do with why you're mad. Trust me, save your money and rent a movie.


"Dr. Dolittle 2" continues the story of Dr. Dolittle (Eddie Murphy), a doctor-gone-veterinarian who can talk to animals. The sequel begins with a raccoon gangster trying to recruit Dr. Dolittle into saving a forest that is going to be taken over by a lumber company. Dr. Doolittle takes the lumber company to court and an agreement is made: if Dr. Dolittle can get the lone Western Pacific bear, Ava, to mate, the forest will be saved under the Endangered Species Act. Comedy and action ensues as Dolittle tries to introduce a circus bear, Archie, into the wild in order to save the forest.

Director Steve Carr's intentions of this movie seems to prove anything can be possible if one puts effort into it. This is shown by Dolittle's attempts to reintroduce a bear which has been raised by humans back into the forest. Another example is when the animals perform various comic scenes of stopping forest destruction (both inside and outside forest), but with the more serious intentions of saving their home in mind. A different perspective from the director is the underlying idea explaining it is important to preserve the forests and their inhabitants. As seen in this movie, many animals, such as the Western Pacific Bear, are becoming extinct.

While this movie had good intentions, in reality it was just a bad movie. The animals were cute, but many of the "comedy" scenes were trying a little too hard to be funny. This movie was supposed to be for kids, but there was a large amount of adult situations in this film. Excluding Eddie Murphy, most of the actors were extremely annoying thanks to corny dialogue and poor character expressions. The only positive about this movie were the themes; a little effort can go a long way and the importance of forest preservation. "Dr. Dolittle 2" is a poor sequel and I would only recommend this movie to someone with a "cheep" sense of humor.


Dr Dollitle 2 was a fairly good movie with a strong cast but it just didn't do it for me. I found it pretty boring because what to like about. Not much because it's been done before. It was very distasteful but the voice actors were alright. I guess i expected too much from this movie as i do for a few movies. I bought this movie for Australian $15 a few years ago, most like it's $10 now because it wasn't that good or popular. I Just wish this movie could have a better storyline because "saving the forest" has been done before and it's common to viewers. They need to have a great idea that's never been done before and really wild.


Life is short. You only have so much time on this earth. So don't waste 90 minutes of your precious life, watching this HORRIBLE film.

I don't know where to start. The non-stop screaming and ranting. The fact that every character is supposed to be different, yet they're all screaming the same S*** "I hate my parents! I hate you!"

What is this film trying to say?

I wanted to see this for one reason. Charlie Talbert from the movie Angus. I think he's a great actor, and he gives a decent performance, given what he's got to work with. Still not even close to his performance in Angus, still it's interesting to see him older.

Elizabeth Huett, the little girl who believe she can fly, was good as well. She stood out among the surrounding S***. But then you have to ask "What is a 9 year old girl doing locked in a cell with a bunch of 18 year old crackheads?"

I bought this for 1.99 at Hollywood Video. Needless to say, it will never enter my VCR again.


Quite poor. It had potential but fell short with completely false dialogue and horrible acting. I felt like I was watching a cable access attempt at a movie. It was pretty funny, but I don't think the meant it to be. The ending was like a slap in the face after a punch in the stomach.


This is the worst drivel I've ever seen come to the screen. The so-called actors appeared to be reciting from scripts. The stereotypical teenagers were utterly unsympathetic - no, not unsympathetic, but just so cardboard that I could care less about any of them. (Spoiler Alert, if it's even feasible to 'spoil' a movie like this.) Then of course there's the little girl who looks up with her innocent praying eyes all but jumping up and down in front of the screen "I'm the Christ Figure!!! The sacrificial lamb, that's me!" Oh, but it gets worse. They've decided to throw in possibly the most cliched and outright groan-worthy pseudo plot-twist ever invented. The 'then she woke up twist' where you find none of it was really real. It was all in his head. Oh my gosh! How deep! Well that just makes the whole movie then! It just says so much about misunderstood teens in an oppressive adult society littered with sex, drugs, and violence. (dripping sarcasm, if you hadn't noticed). The only conceivable way to enjoy this movie is with a lot of alcohol, because really it's so ridiculous and bad it's just downright funny. You'll find yourself laughing so hard that tears will stream down your face as you contemplate that there were people that actually read this script and thought it was such a good movie they actually FUNDED it!


I first saw 'Social Misfits' under the recommendation of a friend. I was expecting your usual independent film, filled with plot holes, script errors, and cheesy cliches, but I am glad to say that I was pleasantly surprised. One of the best things about the movie was that it took a piece of society that usually isn't dealt with in Hollywood, and presented it honestly and realistically, without any icing on top. It is the story of a group of problematic teenagers, sent to a non-governmental, privately-funded rehabilitation camp. It is the camp's intention to bring the teens face to face with their problems, although in a rather unorthodox manner. This is done by forcing them to spend 48 hours together in one room. Straightaway, it is obvious that there will be clashes and tension between the characters, all with their own ethnic backgrounds and beliefs. The film presents a good mix of races, classes, and behavioural problems, all of which come to light with a self-confession from but one character. Certain events bring them together and help them to put their differences aside for the sake of moral decency.

The young actors all did a good job of representing their parts in a manner that is both believable and well-fitted. The movie was well cast in the fact that they actually look like they're teenagers, without glamourous effects to gloss it over. To say the very least, the movie is to the point, runs almost at times like a real-life documentary, and it neither repetitive nor boring. The plot has a bit of a twist at the end with one of the character's revelation of his problem, which adds a sting. I definitely recommend if you want a piece of true life youth in America, without the sugar coating. The movie's tagline said it well, "A wake up call for America."


Pretentious plot. Okay acting. Shallow characters The verdict? So-so.

What first turned me off was Calista, or Cindy, or whatever her name is, the character had about the same IQ as your average eggplant. She changed her name to Calista because it sounded "hot" like a porn star name? It just shows why the rest of the world hate America, ha. And as the story progresses, some cute basketball player moves into the trailer park that both Audrey and "Calista" were drooling over, but you know, since Calista was dying and everything, Audrey as her best friend backed off of the guy (not spoiling anything, it's made fairly obvious what's going on from the beginning). And the two start dating and whatever while Audrey watches from the side and she realizes that she's in love with him or something. Ha, ha, little girls, we'll talk when you can tell the difference between love and infatuation. It's just stupid teenage melodramatic bull, aren't you supposed to go through that stuff when you're like 14? Okay enough ranting, now for the good parts of the film, the cinematography, absolutely gorgeous, I cannot even imagine how many hours and days someone would have to film at that same spot to get those stunning shots of the sky. Conclusion? The plot and the characters aren't so great but it is quite something to look at.


Who cast this movie? First off, Justin Long seems like a nice enough fellow, but a college basketball prospect? He's about 30 years old, 5'6'' and 125 pounds. And how come a trailer park has so many nice looking residents around? I'd move there! I don't mean to trash trailer parks, but statistically speaking, over 50% of the residents could not be that attractive in just about any place. It's a shame the casting is so poor because the film had potential. I love how John Corbett suddenly overcomes his "ailment" at the end of the film without a hitch. I wonder why the actors did not tell the director about altering some of these scenes, but then, if you're going to have Justin Long cast as basketball stud, I suppose no one either cared or was paying attention. Still, if you can get by all of the setbacks (maybe a miraculous intervention or drunken flurry?), Dreamland just might be entertaining enough for you.


Saw the premiere at GenArt festival in NYC on 4/5. The audience couldn't stop laughing. Unfortunately, "Dreamland" is not a comedy. It IS the biggest ego trip I've seen a filmmaker go on in years. "Let's extend this shot for another fifteen seconds so they can really FEEL the emotion. No, THIRTY seconds!" I'd blame the casting director for the hilarious choices, but I have a feeling final calls were made by Mr. Matzner. As ridiculous as it is to have us believe that four of the most beautiful humans on the planet (Gershon, Corbett, Garner, Bruckner) live next door to each other in a trailer park, the casting of Justin Long takes the cake. Even my sports-hating PR girlfriends have heard of UNLV -- we're supposed to believe a 5'8" 130-lb weakling plays basketball for an elite program? Now THAT's comedy! SKIP THIS MOVIE