Poor dubbing, special effects, and acting- oh my! This is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Clearly made in Italy and then dubbed over in America to hopefully make more more money, this is a horribly done copy of Star Wars. The "story" is as follows: A "Brilliant" professor and his "Brilliant" assistant are kidnapped by some guys with Blonde wigs on. Some space station attempts to save them. Hilarity ensues. Every once in a while, a bunch of colors will flash across the screen for half a minute. This movies is probably best to avoid if you experience seizures. Actually, this movie is probably best to avoid no matter what.


War of the Robots is a much better film than its sickly half-sister Cosmos War of the Planets. Both feature likable actress Yanti Sommer and the same Italian directing and production team, and some of the scenes could have been freely interchanged between the two films. Both films attempted to cash in on the brief resurgence of action / sci-fi ushered in by Star Wars: A New Hope, and probably did not do particularly well. I would imagine that seeing them as a double feature at a drive-in might have made for a very entertaining though somewhat grueling night.

the plot of WOTR is much more interesting than what passes for a plot in Cosmos War. Both involve a multinational crew of earthlings attempting to combat somewhat inept, impolite and amazingly technologically underdeveloped intergalactic travelers who, of course, don't really look or behave very differently from bad humans. In this case, however, the aliens are mostly robotic, bleach-blond 20-25 year old young Italian men who all look as if they just auditioned to replace Brian Jones in the rolling stones. Jones died in the late sixties, just like the fashion sense this movie espouses. Everybody wears psychedelic clothing, despite the very uncomfortable form-fitting plastic leotards donned by the space ship crew. The ship itself is one of the more realistic ships I have seen in a space adventure. It is an awkward, odd-looking thing, resembling neither an F-15 nor a winged space-Corvette.

The war begins when the Brian Joneses kidnap a slightly megalomaniacal college professor who seems to have a singular genius for mechanical and electrical engineering, nuclear physics and genetics. One or all of these specialties have allowed the professor to create a device which now threatens to destroy a fairly large city back on earth, and the professor and his really annoying though apparently brilliant research assistant are charged with the task of creating artificial life for the Brian Joneses' masters, an aging race of paraplegic immortals. The captain of the earth ship, who has a personality which hybridizes Captain James T. kirk and Han Solo, is in love with the annoying research assistant and on a mission to save the earth from the professor's machine by bringing him back to earth to disarm it. Along the way, they free a slave race of cave-dwellers and take their leader, played by Aldo Canti (easily the most likable character in the film), as a new crew member. The plot takes a few twists before it devolves into the usual race against time. Had it been more carefully executed, and had the special effects budget equaled that of Ms. Sommer's salary, the film may have earned a rating of 6 or so from me.

The cinematography, directing and editing are all OK. The script is pretty silly most of the time (especially with the overdubbing) and the acting is all over the map. The weakest moments are, unfortunately, the ludicrous action scenes. None of the actors, with the possible exception of Ms. Sommer and Mr. Canti, are physical actors, and the fight scenes are poorly choreographed to say the least. Oh! and the much maligned soundtrack??? I LOVED IT!!!

this is a fun little film for B sci fi buffs, with little merit for anybody else.


Bad movie fans will appreciate this Italian attempt to make a quick buck on the popularity of "Star Wars." Everyone else should avoid it as they would a rabid weasel. Even Italian children, no doubt the film's target audience, must have felt insulted after the first couple reels of this low budget non-epic.

That being said, "La Guerra Dei Robot" does have a sort of cheesy charm. It's plot attempts to parallel the first "Star Wars" movie with truly hilarious results. Also the faux "Star Trek" make up of it's crew is funny in a painfully dumb sort of way.

In sum, unless you're a fan of crummy sci-fi movies, keep away from this one.


"If we maintain this velocity we'll catch up to them quite soon." "Have you notified the base?" "No, I haven't yet. Because I have a sort of strange presentment." "Is there something worrying you?" "Hmmm. I don't know, but I feel that my hands are tied." "In what way? How do you mean?" "As long as Lois is in their power, there's nothing I can do about it." "Obviously these damned aliens will take advantage of holding hostages to dictate terms." "If I were you, I wouldn't worry about that." "Let's just catch the spaceship and stop them."

Repeat these lines slowly for about 90mins with a sci-fi throbbing sound effect in the background and you'll have saved yourself time, 36p and a bit of bother...


Have you noticed that about half of these Italian sci fi movies have people sitting at their panels on the space ship, wearing helmets, and talking with their backs to us. Then there are the silly costumes and antics of the aliens. This film goes to some really low levels. It's about an intervention to save one space culture from another. There are two female leads competing for the attentions of the space hunk. There are a group of silly aliens who keep getting recycled (I'm sure there were only about five actors) and shot. There's a shirtless leader who doesn't dress the way the rest do (he looks like he may have just escaped from the gay pride parade in New York). I don't know. Do things like this make money for their producers. There is nothing here to maintain interest other than the cheese. I've seen so many of them that they don't entertain much anymore. Skip this one.


Robot Wars is the first Italian science fiction film I've ever seen. It makes their spaghetti westerns look like the best of John Ford. It's an obviously feeble attempt to cash in on the world wide popularity of Star Wars.

A couple scientists are kidnapped off a futuristic space station by a race of alien cyborgs to help preserve these artificial creatures existence. Now maybe if they'd asked instead of taken in the true spirit of the United Federation of Planets, help might have been granted. But the aliens get grabby.

The second problem is one of the scientists was doing some experiments involving the nuclear reactor and no one can shut the darn thing down. If the earthlings don't get their guy back, the whole station's going to blow up.

The special effects are laughable, the aliens are laughable, the dubbing leaves a lot to be desired and the cast looks like they're going through the motions. I can't tell who acted worse the humans or the cyborgs.

Robot Wars has a lot of unintentional laughs in it though. The Force was not with the producers of this film.


Wow! this is an awful movie. Made in the days when science fiction films were the worst film genre in the business, War of the Robots is an utter waste of time and the producer's nugget. In this story we have Antonio Sabato leading a crew of space people in an effort to rescue a professor and his knockout assistant - who Sabato lusts for - from the evil clutches of cinema's most laughable robots. If men in their thirties and forties sporting Buster Brown haircuts and silver jumpsuits is your idea of a menacing brigade of androids, then this flick is for you. Filmed in Italy, it was shipped to Hollywood and all th European actors had their names Americanized: such as Melissa Long and Lillian Lacy to cash in on the sci-fi hysteria.

VIOLENCE: $ (The worst sci-fi shootouts are presented in this film, but keep in mind, they aren't shootouts in the usual sense. The laser guns simply flash light - they do not shoot laser beams or anything other projectile for that matter. The robots, who kill only one crew member, all die with a single flashing from Sabato's light gun. We also have "light sabers" that are basically plastic swords that illuminate. Watching Antonio slap the Buster Brown bots with this toy sword - and then laughing at the method at which the robots die - makes for unintentional hilarity).

NUDITY: None. The makers knew they had to sex up the picture a bit so they chose to give random closeups to Lillian Lacy and her sizable bust. Her character, who has more screen time than the Commander, is never given a name but simply referred to as the Commander's assistant in the credits).

STORY: $ (Absolutely inane! The professor and his assistant change allegiances as often as Pamela Anderson does husbands. In a future society, with everything run on or by machines, I find it quite ridiculous that the professor is the only man in the universe who can fix a reactor that presents impending doom to civilization).

ACTING: $ (Antonio Sabato looks like he'd rather be doing anything other than taking part in this film but he grins when the script calls for it and issues the insipid lines of dialogue when asked).


Call me crazy, but I found "War of the Robots" to be a campy charmer. While the plot--involving a crazy professor and an "empress" (who looks like Zora Kerowa's evil twin), a league of blind alien beings, and a league of Aryan robots--is negligible, the film possesses a low-budget spirit that carries it quite a ways. Sure, it feels like a rip-off of "Star Wars," "Star Trek," "Dark Star," and even "Cave Dwellers" (which came a few years later), but it's low-budget fun in the same way that playing with "A-Team" action figures was fun when I was 5. That, and the atrocious special effects, lousy dubbing, chintzier sets, and sci-fi tropes (ray-guns that are really nothing but souped-up flashlights) makes "War of the Robots" especially juicy for a MST3K-style skewering with a group of friends (one wonders how this avoided the Satellite of Love).


1978?! Wow, I don't believe it - the special effects are more than a decade out of date - strings show all over the place, especially when the captain goes floating through 'outer-space.' Besides, this is the kind of movie we would use to leave the car and visit the john and buy a burger or pop-corn at a drive in, waiting for the main feature - back in the '60s; by 1978 that culture was dead. I can't imagine where they would have shown this, it is so sub-grind-house, if that were possible - perhaps they were expecting to get on Italian TV or something. There's no excuse for it.

Occasionally amusing fight scenes, a story that makes no sense whatsoever (for instance, a cave-dwelling warrior becomes a computer wiz on the space-ship's crew with no training art all), acting out of the sleep-walk school, and less-than-minimally-competent work by crew behind the camera - if it didn't lag so often it would be a MST2K hit


Wow...just wow. i have never seen a more blatant rip off of Star Wars and Star Trek in my whole life. This movie was made in 1978, right after the release of Star Wars, and a while after Star Trek. and it really shows. This movie copied everything from lightsabers to phasers, to the cardboard sets. But while Star Trek was endearing, this was not.

Now we're on to movie 15 of our 50 chilling classics and let me just say first of all that THIS IS IN THE WRONG MOVIE PACK. This OBVIOUSLY should be in the sci-fi pack. There is nothing horror movie related about this. So WHY it's in a horror pack, like "Death Rage" i have no idea. They really have to preview these movies before they put them in the pack. At least put the genres together correctly. that would be like putting "Abbott and Costello Meet the invisible man" in the Western box set. If i wanted to see sci-fi, i'd have bought the Sci-fi pack.

Another problem with this movie is how it's titled "War of the Robots". which usually entails that Robots are fighting each other. Now there are robots in this movie, but they look so pathetic it's incredibly amusing. Every robot looks exactly like a human with a blonde mullet and a silver jumpsuit. FEAR THE ROBOTS! and you don't even learn that they ARE robots until halfway into the movie. But the robots aren't even the main villains. The main villains are these old people. Yeah. terrifying. if a movie is called "War of the robots" then i better see robots BATTLING EACH OTHER! that's like me calling the movie "Clone Wars" "The Tusken Raider battle". Sure they're in there, but they're not the main concern.

This movie also runs far too long. 100 minutes for a cheap Star Wars/Trek rip off is really overkill. None of the characters are endearing, except for the alien. he's pretty cool. and Julie's actually pretty hot.

Basically a professor and his assistant are kidnapped and it's up to john (kirk ripoff) (god i hated that guy) and his crew to save them because apparently the aliens kidnapped at just the wrong time when if the professor's gone, the city will explode. Man, talk about your bad timing. Now in this film, they never really give you the alien's side of the story. They're meant to seem evil and uncaring, but their reasoning for what they're doing isn't really evil, they just want to survive. However, instead of making the villains more human (no pun intended) they cartoonishly villainify them, not to mention make the professor and the assistant (lois) switch sides so many times it incredibly confused me.

All this movie made me want to do is watch the real star trek. The special effects in this were LAUGHABLE. In star trek at least the projectile showed up on screen as a beam of light. and that was 10 years ago. Here all they did was have a plastic gun flash a light with some sound effects. and the funny thing is, in the second half in the movie, they FORGOT to put in the sound effects. That's just sad. This movie tried so hard to jump on the bandwagon, but failed so miserably. I wouldn't have even seen it if it wasn't in this box set. But i repeat. IT SHOULDN'T BE IN A HORROR BOX SET! "War of the Robots" gets 2 ripped off "Star" titles, out of 10.


This is one of the most difficult movies I have labored to get through. I'm not trying to be witty when I say that War of the Robots makes Starcrash look like Revenge of the Sith. The effects are so poorly done that it's a wonder why this was even made. Much to my surprise, this is actually the fourth of five, yes five, of these sci-fi films made with basically the same cast. A group of android aliens kidnap a scientist and his assistant Lois in order to save their race. The androids are a group of thirty year old men dressed in silver jump suits with blond bowl-cut wigs. Antonio Sabato plays Captain John Boyd who leads the mission to recover the Dr. and Lois, whom he is enamored with much to the chagrin of his fellow crew-member Julie. The Julie character is very disturbing due to the abnormally butch haircut given her. Picture a junior high boy with great boobs. Disturbing anyone? By the way, in the future bras are nonexistent.

Everything about this film stinks! Characters change allegiances then change back without any explanations whatsoever. The dialogue is about as enthralling as listening to a tax seminar. Even the name of the ship, the Trissi, sucks. I was trying to think of why they used such an odd name for the ship until I saw the ending credits. Yep, Trissi Sport supplied the costumes! The dubbing is horrendous as is most notable in one character that has the worst Texan accent ever. The music soundtrack is absolutely putrid. I've heard songs preprogrammed on an old Casio better than this. The weapons consist of flashlight guns with no lasers. At one point in the film the sound of the gun disappears making the scenes even more absurd. The final duel in space is even worse. At a mind-numbing one hour and thirty nine minutes I was reduced to a shell of my former self. This is truly the gutter of science fiction films. Avoid at all costs!


You know, it's like a Spaghetti Western, but with ray-guns.

This film was made in 1978, after Luigi and Mario figured out there was some money to be made in this Science Fiction stuff. so what you have is a ripoff of Star Wars with no budget for special effects or sets or actors. But they did have a bunch of people running around in really tight spandex. And some gal with a butch haircut who wonders why the captain doesn't notice her. Well, because you have your hair cut like a boy, you silly thing!

They even had their android soldiers wield something that looked vaguely like lightsabers.

I still think we should confiscate Italy's entire supply of blank film, just as a precaution.


"Representatives of an alien civilization on the brink of extinction arrive on Earth and kidnap two top research geneticists in the hopes they can find them a cure to their problem. Looking to stop a potential alien invasion and rescue the scientists, a group of soldiers is sent on a mission that could decide the fate of two civilizations," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Badly dubbed, from Italian to English, "War of the Robots" is about as complete a waste of resources as you can imagine. It stars handsome Antonio Sabato - if you want to see soap star Antonio Sabato Jr.'s father in an extremely cheap "Star Wars"-ripped movie. He juggles beautiful Malisa Longo and Bowie-coiffed Yanti Somer. The film's sound effects much have been recorded inside somebody's intestines.

* La guerra dei robot (1978) Alfonso Brescia ~ Antonio Sabato, Yanti Somer, Malisa Longo


If you know your Italian low-budget cinema during the seventies, you should have a pretty good idea of what this movie, WAR OF THE ROBOTS, should contain. Ripping off other movies? You bet. Lots of sound effects, costumes, and set pieces decorate this flick, all taken right out of the popular culture of the time. Sometimes it's hard for me to believe that this was the image of the future held by many Americans and Europeans at the time. I can't even imagine what function the wall-to-wall flashing lights and those over-the-top monotone robot voices could have been thought to have served.

Fans of classic science fiction cinema should get a kick out of this movie, but be warned: it's not one of the most well-made of its type. You'll notice during the opening credits; the camera work is very shaky for the first five minutes or so. The robots of the title are actually a bunch of guys wearing silver outfits and funny shoulder-length blonde wigs. Nevertheless, there are a number of interesting aspects to this movie. Kuba the Alien (Aldo Canti), for example, is an oddity that almost demands a cult following of some sort, or at least to be confused for Michael Berryman. The plot twists and turns as characters are either assimilated (or something) by the robots or just show their true colors as total sleazeballs (that Professor is one bad dude), so there is some meat mixed in with all of this cheese.

In terms of plot, the movie begins with the kidnapping of a brilliant Professor (Roberto Bianchetti, I think), who has developed an artificial means for creating life. His abductors, the aforementioned robots in silver who are called "Goldmen," run off with him and a young woman named Lois (Malisa Longo), and it is up to the local heroes, led by Captain John Boyd (Antonio Sabado) to rescue them. Nothing goes as planned, and the plot features as much betrayal and murder as any Shakespeare play, except far less bloody.

WAR OF THE ROBOTS is, for some reason, included with Mill Creek's "Chilling Classics" 50 movie boxed set, rather than the "SciFi Classics" (which makes more sense to me), so it is available fairly cheap. Chances are that this is also available online for free, so those interested might consider that as a less expensive alternative.


Santa Clause Conquers the Martians is a paragon of cinematic art compared to this, ummmm, work. The robots and one of the human crew seem to share the same wigs, which look to have been swiped from the classic "U.F.O." series. Never have soldiers with worse aim been seen, and Lois & the Professor's motivations are entirely unknowable. The dubbing is galactically bad, but even more jarring is the way that some of the hacks^H^H^H^H^Hactors speak English and some speak Italian. Must have been a fun set.

But, hey, for a whopping 40 cents as part of the Chilling Classics set-o-50, you can't go wrong. Malisa Longo is a robo-babe. She can be my empress any day 8^)


If you want to see how bad Italian science fiction can be see this film. Made in the wake of Star wars this piece of wasted celluloid is just about as bad as you can be. Worse its not even fun.

The plot, for those who care, have aliens kidnapping genetic scientists from earth to help them prevent their race from dying out. Its nothing you haven't seen before better.

This is a turkey, from the hair to the wardrobe to the special effects. I'm pretty sure the acting is the pits too, but I can't be sure since the dubbing is so bad.

Avoid


I thought this was going to be another "Skin-amax" flick that pops up late at night on cable and stars Shannon Tweed. But this is basically a low budget thriller with the emphasis on low budget. Film is about a woman named Kate (Kari Wuhrer) who is totally infatuated with Sara (Farrah Forke) but she lives in California. Kate tells her lesbian lover Zoey (Natalie Radford) to come with her to the west coast and gives her a phony reason to come. Sara is living with Dylan (Matthew Porretta) and planning on getting engaged which spoils Kate's plans on buying a flower shop with Sara in New Orleans. Kate gets Zoey to help her kill Dylan and make it look like a robbery. Kate stays with Sara to console her and creep back into her life! They decide to open a flower shop in Los Angeles and Kate blackmails a man named Jack (Joel Gretsch) so he will seduce Sara and then dump her but Jack really learns to like her instead. Kate's also been giving Sara the date rape drug to knock her out at night and take advantage of her. This film was directed by Eric DelaBarre and for his first effort its adequately made. There are about two scenes where characters are talking to one another but you cannot hear them and you only hear the background music. I thought these scenes were well filmed and it shows a spark of real creativity. Wuhrer and Forke and...oh hell, everyone in this film is good looking. Thats why this has the appearance of one of those soft porn films late night on cable. I was surprised by the small amount of nudity in certain scenes. Even in the lesbian love scene they both keep their clothes on. There are some quick shots of breasts but fans of Wuhrer might be a tad disappointed. Not a bad late night thriller and Wuhrer is always worth a look. But the overall script is silly and goes way over the top! Fans of Wuhrer have a head start.


I'll watch anything which stars the occasionally delightful Kari Wuhrer, but this is pure dreck ~ it doesn't even look like her (which is our loss).

It intrigues me when a director claims to be an auteur by leading the credits with " A Film By Eric DelaBarre," when it really should note that it's "The Film By Eric DelaBarre."

For the chance of there being another film by this poseur seems remote.

1 Niro~Star (out of 10, only because there's no ZERO, apart from the director)...


I have never walked out from a movie in my life until this movie. I was sitting there thinking it has to get better at some point but in vein. The story line is horrible (if there is one). It was changing scene every few seconds taking us into different environments and different situations. By the time you figure out what is happening the scene changes into something totally different. This is bad directing. And all this change didn't let you figure out if there is any point in this movie. It is not even artistic. I have seen many artistic movies and I love them. This one was just a waste of my time and money. Too bad right at the beginning I was thinking that British Cinema is getting better...


Breakfast on Pluto is one of those beautiful packets with not a very interesting content could have benefit the movie.

Patrick (Cillian Murphy) is an abandoned child raised by a foster family in the very catholic very conservative Ireland of the sixties. Very early in his childhood, assumed his homosexuality without any real conflict (perhaps a couple of shocks by his foster parents) and starts in a "Forrest Gay Gump" odyssey through the UK changing politics from the sixties to the eighties. The movie is a perpetual searching for his mother who left him in the door of a Catholic priest when he was a little baby.

Many things happen in the movie, but everything is taken very superficial. There are almost no dramatic conflict about Patrick homosexuality, the IRA killings and politics (just a couple of murders never clearly explained). Historic events are so over sighted that barely register in the public (unless of course you lived there or know Ireland conflictive history).

Directed by one of the most brilliant Irish directors and populated by the cream of Ireland's cinema (Neil Jordan, Liam Neeson, Stephen Rea, Brendan Gleeson and Cillian Murphy) the movie feels like a big disappointment. It is quite difficult to understand that a movie with such a subject matter could be so awfully shallow.

Even more difficult, is believe that aside for a couple of tragic dead, this is really a light comedy (never gross), but most of the jokes (and dialogue) requires a lot of familiarly with Irish English (some subtitles might be welcomed).

The length of the movie, is also too much. It could have benefited being half an hour shorter with less story lines. The Stephen Rea (excellent as always) magician feels added only to give him something to do (probably a job).

However, not everything is bad. The acting is superb (cannot expect less with such a cast) but the music will make you run to near music shop buy the CD. A piece of advice, do it in the middle of the movie, you will not loose too much.


I can't believe a film with this much talent can be a total waste, but if you can't understand the dialog for the heavy Irish accents, you can't appreciate where they are trying to take you.

I gave it over an hour and without being pulled into the story, I could only see a lot of bizarre behavior.

I walked out to avoid further pain. I wasn't the only one to leave early.

Cinematography, locations, were acceptable, but not enough to pull it out for me.

I will try to see other productions of Film Board of Ireland, but only after establishing that an educated American adult will have no difficulty recognizing the language.


This juvenile production is a dumbed-down version of "The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress". To some it may seem an homage to the original but to this viewer it comes across as a cheap way to cash in on our desire for nostalgia. The aerial scenes are as unconvincing as the cleancut actors. If you want to see how it really was, catch the original.


The plot is banale, the characters are simple stereotypes, no psychological analysis whatsoever, the themes are not well developed and the ending is awful,no war movie should end with a "all's well what ends well" morale. In one word: Disgusting.


Memphis Belle is a run-of-the-mill war film, with few surprises and very little to offer in the way of excitement. The plot is a simple one- the crew have to complete their 25th mission to earn a flight home. There is minimal reference to the story of Memphis Belle in relation to the bigger picture ie World War II. The characters, introduced as fearless cocky airmen, remain underdeveloped throughout the film and it's little surprise that they return home as American heroes. While mindful of the contribution by Americans in the war to keep this country free, this film captures none of the fear or tension of flying a bomber on WWII. The characters are cardboard cut-out and the plot twists are as obvious as a B-52. If you are looking for a clean Hollywood introduction to WW11, this is your film. If however, you are over 12 years old and are looking for a more authentic and terrifying war movie, seek out Das Boot. A U-boat yes, and a German crew, but a masterclass in war film-making.


This movie is wrong. The reason that the crew members' names are incorrect is because a Hollywood lawyer advised that they not use their real names in order to avoid being sued. That was a good idea. Take the co-pilot for example: if the real co-pilot, Jim Verinis, had really acted the way he did in the movie, he would most certainly have been charged with insubordination. As for the lax security, which allowed people to have sex in the airplane... I do not comprehend the previous reviews which included comments about "stunning acting", "brilliant", and "the best war movie". Did they happen to see the film? As for the quote "This movie will move even the most stoic of viewers", all I can say is, move the most stoic of viewers to what? Sarcastic laughter?


An inane movie, full of late 20th Century stereotypes of 'men finding themselves in war', no comprehension of the contemporary reality. Most of the action scenes are implausible, the only truly chilling moment is the out-take of a real B-17 going down out of control. You can't fake this. Plagiarised poetry familiar to any reasonably well read person, inventing 'in flight surgery', sex in operational aircraft.............oh dear!

See Wyler's 'real' documentary, at least he put his life on the line filming it.

And do as as I was fortunate enough to do, get inside a B-17. Unpressurised, thin duralumin skin that yields to finger pressure, the young men who flew these craft were true heroes.

For those of you in the States find a Veteran and ask him about the truth, while there is still time?


Living in England near where the movie was being made and seeing the rare sight of a group of B-17s/P-51s/and an ME 109 flying in formation stirred my anticipation of seeing the finished product. Hundreds of hours of aerial photography were shot and great efforts were taken to get the details right. In the end, however, the efforts were nearly all for naught. The special effects were absolutely laughable, the story line strayed far from reality, and little of the extensive aerial photography was used. The only bright spots were the actors outstanding portrayal of the interaction of bomber crew members in combat and their daily grind of life on a bomber base during WWII along with the spot on look and feel of those times. Unfortunately, the embarrassment of the rest of the movie could not be overcome.

It is truly a shame the herculean efforts to gather so many distinctive warbirds and crews from all points of the globe, the hours of meticulous model crafting, and most importantly, a rare opportunity to bring to life the heroic efforts of all those who served in the air in Europe during WWII, were squandered in a pitiful excuse for a movie. To add to the misery, a B-17 was lost in a crash during filming. I'm sure William Wyler, were he alive today, would have gotten it right!


I'm a sucker for flying films. If the flick is about airplanes or pilots or other aircrew, I'll probably have seen it before I'm finished watching movies. Honestly, if it's got an airplane in it at all, whether or not it is really an integral part of the movie, I'll watch it.

So there I am, in line at the theatre those many years ago, ready to see this new film about one of the most dramatic events of the Second World War: the return to base of the first US Army Air Force bomber crew to complete a 25-mission tour. This was a true event in a war where a new crew's life expectancy was six missions. The cast sounds first class - it is, they're great - and well, there are airplanes!

So the movie has begun and there are those typical faces that haunt you from photographs of the real war - young, energetic, so hopeful of their future - you know the type. The producers have done a great job showing that this was a war of mostly boys and very young men who, if they survive to grow up, will grow up much too quickly. And those airplanes! Yes, I know that there were only five real ones and that most were not the correct model, but let's face it; when there are so few left of the thousands built, you take what you can get and be happy for it. It is very good to see even those five flying together again.

But then there is the dialogue. I'm afraid I found it a little turgid at times and the attitudes (and language) somewhat anachronistic. I have war vets in my family and none of them admit to speaking like that! Well, they could be lying... In any case, it is a movie adaptation and one should make allowances.

The big disappointment for me, however, was that they took a very dramatic, historical story and trivialized it with some very shallow characterizations and fictitious situations pertaining to the famous last flight. Okay, again, I understand that it is a feature movie and not a documentary recreation, but really, wasn't the true story dramatic enough? Ultimately, it a silly movie that stands as a mundane bit of film making, and not a particularly good war film at that.

Enjoy this movie if you like, but if you want the real drama (not to mention the real story) of the last flight of the Memphis Belle, have a look at William Wyler's superb, riveting documentary.


It is my heartfelt belief that no clearly thinking individual who considers him- or herself to be a student of either WWII aviation history or modern cinematography could possibly find this to be a good (or even decent) movie, from ANY standpoint. The lost potential in this film is monumental - between gathering the hardware which provides an authentic backdrop (aircraft, uniforms & flight gear, restoring a former WWII base for filming, etc.) and selecting a capable cast, the entire effort was shot in the head when it came time for the script - not to mention some model sequences which, in spite of emerging technology, still just flat don't 'work.' The juvenile behavior of the crew, particularly IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MISSION, was abominable. For me, the only shining moment was the exchange between John Lithgow and David Strathairn over the letters from home, voiced over with the gun camera footage. Beyond that, the overall film was deplorable. And after that much expenditure of effort to be wasted, I wouldn't look for any other producer to undertake a similar theme. Spielberg tackled the infantry ("Saving Private Ryan"), Eastwood has done justice to the Marine Corps ("Flags of our Fathers") - but you'll have to contend with THIS monstrosity for an 8th Air Force tribute.

Want the real story of the 8th Air Force? Watch William Wyler's original "Memphis Belle" documentary - or Dana Andrews' performance in Wyler's "The Best Years of our Lives."


This is an exceedingly dull film and is an insult to the men who fought on the real Memphis Bell. If you read the trivia, you know that none of these real-life hero's are depicted in the film. They must not have been exciting enough, so Hollywood made up someone that they thought would be more interesting.

There are two moments in this film that really sum the movie up. The first comes five minutes into the film when a damaged B-17 is landing with one landing gear down. We see a long sequence of the plane scooting around, then another sequence where the footage they shot just wasn't long enough. Then the plane erupts into a massive fireball, this in spite of the fact that it is a returning plane with no fuel or bombs and probably very little remaining ammunition. This made a statement that fact and realism were not meant to be elements of this film, in spite of the idea that this is supposed to be a true story.

The other moment comes 30 minutes later. The crew is ready to go, but gets a weather delay. After we hear everyone comment on this, one of the crew makes the statement "why don't get just get on with it". I REALLY had to agree. This movie has so much filler in it and drags forever before we finally get to the only actual plot element, the final mission. Even then, the filmmakers felt a need to drag out every moment as long as possible. This is the single most boring war film I have ever seen.

They could have completely removed John Lithgow from the film, considerably improving it. The long buildup to the flight could have been cut. We would have less than an hour of film, but it would have been a bit less dull.


If you want the real version of this over blown American clown act, watch William Wylers' 1944 version - the true story of the 'Memphis Belle'. It's amazing what Hollywood will do to distort history and mock its' veterans, all for a buck. Well it must be the American way! Younger viewers will be beguiled by the nonsense, however older viewers with some sense of history will recognize this movie for what it is worth. Don't waste your time! However, if you don't want the truth, then put your mind in neutral and watch this movie.


Take some youngsters from 1980's and put them into World War two bomber and call the result as a "realistic war movie". Even if we exclude the fact that no detail presented in "Memphis Belle" movie pertain to actual events, the general level of knowledge about World War Two matters is better to be set into minimum before you proceed to watch this. This film is not about World War Two, it is how we can talk about it without caring to know anything at first.

For those who have seen other war movies it is better to give a warning about the terrible anachronisms what this film will throw at your eyes and ears. The storyline is just superficial and it is not really a World War Two story even if there shouldn't have been problems in making it look like that. The bomber crew in itself is a terrible platitude with a mentality that does not represent a veteran crew on their last bombing mission.

Once you have a change to use authentic bombers and other vintage aircraft you should have done it properly and not this strange Disney impersonation of war. For those who look for more dedicated air combat movie I'd recommend Twelve O'Clock High.


This film has virtually nothing to do with the original "Memphis Belle" of 1944, except I suppose that it involves the crew of a B-17 on their final mission. Maybe a few duplicate shots. That's about it.

Two notably good things about it. One is that it gives us the feeling of what it's really like to be aboard a bomber in combat, or at least I think it does, never having been in that situation myself. They've convinced me though. On the ground the big airplane shivers from the vibration of the four engines like a Magic Fingers mattress. Everyone and everything jiggles at high frequency. We see bombs armed in flight. We see what the target looks like through the bombardier's sight. We feel the airplane lurch upward after the couple of tons worth of bombs are released. And we catch some of the dynamics of the crew. The bombardier has posed as a doctor. One waist gunner plays grab*** with the other's religious medallion.

The other outstanding feature is the aerial photography, or the computer-generated images. Everything is so crisp, so clean, so sky blue, except for those black blotches ahead and the drab B-17s droning their way to and from hell.

It's extremely exciting too, once it gets off the ground. That's part of the problem. Everything we see happening to the Memphis Belle happened to one 8th Air Force bomber or another, but never to the same airplane on the same mission. It's as if all the very real dangers facing these fliers had been put into a duck press and slapped onto the plot. If you've seen airplane-in-jeopardy movies before, you'll find little that's innovative here. A man dangling out of a hole in the fuselage (twice). The near miss after takeoff. The sight of a buddy's ship going down. Should we throw the badly wounded radio operator out with a parachute over Germany in hopes that his life will be saved? We're running out of fuel -- throw out everything we don't need. Let's sing Danny Boy for good luck.

The whole film is derivative, from the beginning to the end, and everything is spelled out in big letters like a child's alphabet book. The opening lines from a PR officer tell us a lot. "Let's see now. We have a guy from Omaha, then an Irishman from Boston," or something like that. The PR officer (John Lithgow) turns out to be a knucklehead ("Baloney is my business") but that doesn't stop the writers from using him as the crudest tool of exposition.

The opening scene, a drunken party, is ripped off from "Das Boot," only here, in case you didn't know why the party was taking place, it's made plain for you. "I don't want to die!" one drunk screams at the sky. In "Das Boot" Wolfgang Peterson let you figure out for yourself that despair led to drunkenness. His writers thought you had enough in the way of inferential abilities to pick it up. These writers don't.

The dialog is ludicrous, right out of a 1944 funnybook.

Captain to crew: "Let's make this our best bomb run ever." Crew member: "Right down the pickle barrel!" Captain: "You bet!" Captain to crew: "Boys, nobody ever said this was gonna be all fun and games. We're here to do a job so let's do it. If we don't do it somebody else will have to come back and do it." There is virtually no swearing. It's alright for us to see a man's blood and guts splattered all over the nose, but we aren't allowed to hear a terrified or a wounded man shout **** or **** or even ****.

I think the most nauseating bit that's included in this movie, from the point of view of poetics, is the damned dog. See, as in all other bombing movies, the ground crew are waiting tensely for the return of "their" airplanes and crew. They play desultory softball to distract themselves but glance into the skies from time to time. They have a dog. The dog mirrors the anxiety of the men, skulking around and looking worried. At one point he flops onto his belly, his chin buried in his paws, and seems to be looking airward. I think this is known as the pathetic fallacy.

At least the writers left out the conflict of crew members about some mixed up love affairs back on the ground.

Well -- the film may serve its didactic purpose anyway. Kids who don't know why this war was called World War TWO may learn something from it. (A student at a well-known university once complimented Barbara Tuchman after a lecture on World War I, saying he'd always wondered why the other was called WWII.) For the rest of us, if you can stomach that dog you can get through an exciting and well-photographed war movie.


By (1976) when "Keoma" appeared on the scene, the "spaghetti western" had clearly become an exhausted genre. "Keoma" adds absolutely nothing new or unique. It is simply a failed attempt at style covering up zero substance, and little more than a patchwork of worn out clichés. The slow motion killings are derivative and redundant. There is minimal character development. The musical score is a wailing mess. Already in it's death throws, "Keoma" definitely nails the "spaghtetti western" coffin shut. If you want to see a very good non-Sergio Leone western, "The Big Gundown" would be an excellent choice. Just be sure to avoid "Keoma", because it offers nothing new, is not entertaining, and clearly is the end of the "spaghetti western" line. - MERK


I recently picked up Keoma as part of Anchor Bay's "Once Upon a Time In Italy" collection. This handy box-set also included "Texas Adios", "A Bullet For The General", "Companeros", and "Four Of The Apocalypse". After reading some pretty glowing reviews for Keoma, I had high hopes and expected it to be the best if not one of the better films included. Boy was I wrong!

While the film itself was fairly interesting and included some nice touches (especially an unexpected appearance by character actor "Woody Strode" - and some cleverly shot flashback sequences), it had an "overdone" quality to it. They were trying too hard for a "masterpiece". Mainly, this movie was plagued with the worst score I've ever had the misfortune to hear! The music itself wasn't the problem. What was however, were the annoying-as-hell female and male vocalists used to narrate the action throughout the movie. God they were AWFUL!!! They wouldn't shut up!

In the future, I plan to re-watch Keoma with the sound muted. That's the only way I feel I could sit through it again! Who knows? Maybe I'll enjoy it! I really wanted to like this movie.

I wouldn't normally recommend a movie that I gave a 4 of 10 rating for, but If you can rent this one, you need to hear the score just for laughs.


I saw this film years ago - so am a bit rusty - but since I'm reading their book at the moment I feel compelled to write: The thing that I remember most about it is this: The main characters are two despicable types so you don't care for them - I found my self not caring what happened because there was nothing about the characters to like or admire or empathise with. This totally undid any weight or consequence or plot the film had for me.

Looking at their book they knocked up a first draft in a month or so and were shooting I think two months after that. They should have got feedback/reviews and done subsequent drafts and sorted that problem out first IMHO before shooting. It's was no surprise then to me that Mirimax and others wouldn't distribute it, and the offers they got were so small.

I guess I'm not saying a film like this is wrong - just that it has extremely low appeal. That said though - I admire their independent spirit and go get it attitude - and wish them well!


I wonder why so typically French a story was transferred to Budapest. In the novel, the opera house is as much a star of the story as the characters. It makes no sense to shift the story.

The acting is OK at best and often quite silly. Overall this is a rather cheezy and lame attempt at the story, with the usual attempts to rewrite and revise the story.

I often wish that someone would attempt a version that is truer to the original book, even though it was penny-dreadful claptrap. All too often they try to make the Phantom so sympathetic that they lose sight of his psychopathic side. However, in the original novel Christine is such a stupid drip that she does get quite annoying.


It is incomprehensible to me why some "writers" feel the compulsion to totally mess up a classic story by changing everything about the original that made it worthwhile in the first place. I long ago noticed an interesting parallel between 2 classic tragic romances, both set in Paris-- THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Each has been redone multiple times. In the case of HUNCHBACK, each time it seems to have been done with minor revisions, and generally, the results have been excellent. In the case of PHANTOM, each time it gets mutated further and further from the original, and while the results may be intriguing to behold, each version is like an entirely different story! So it was that the 1943 remake used the original merely as a springboard for what was really a Nelson Eddy-Jeannete McDonald musical-comedy, pushing the "real" star almost out of his own picture, and completely changing the back-story (while ironically restoring the original ending from the book-- but almost nothing else). And so it was that the 1963 Hammer version totally ignored the original, and used the famous and popular '43 version (my Dad saw it while in the army and LOVED it) as its springboard, to do the typical "Hammer" thing of "different for the sake of different", crafting a film where every single frame screams "Hammer" (was there ever a studio where the finished product was SO uniquely recognizable?). AND, so it was that this 1983 TV version appears to haphazardly take elements from ALL 3 previous films, and mix them together in a jumble that, while some bits seem nicely-done, others are just HORRIBLE, and the overall product is just a jumbled, at times nearly-incoherent MESS.

Let's take the origin: from '43 we had a composer who was a sad, pathetic man to begin with, who mistakenly believed his compositions were being stolen from him. This led to the accident of his disfigurement. The '63 version changed this to an actual theft and called-for revenge that went terribly wrong. The '83 version changes the hero from composer to conductor-- and its his wife who's "stolen" from him rather than his music, and a critic's office rather than a print shop destroyed by fire.

While there was some mysterious figure lurking in the underworld in the '25 version (and we never found out if he had ANY connection with the Phantom or not-- a wonderfully minor detail), the '63 version had both a rat-catcher and a sewer-living derelict. The derelict wound up causing The Phantom's death in the '63 film-- but, absurdly, in this one, he not only rescues the composer from the fire, he takes him down to the underworld in the first place, gives him the mask, shows him the maps of the catacombs-- in effect, this guy who never utters a single word of dialog CREATES the Phantom! I found this so annoying, and it reminded me of the similar absurdity of Sean Connery "teaching" Kevin Costner the ways of Chicago in Brian DePalma's deliriously misguided UNTOUCHABLES remake.

I'm not sure what to make of Michael York's character in here-- he starts out likable, then turns into a heel, then winds up being the one who investigates and learns the truth about The Phantom, while the police inspector is merely a DOLT. The scene with the inspector's family merely makes all of them annoying, in a lame attempt at a comic interlude. (The inspector in the '25 film was that story's "hero"-- if you discount Erik himself, who despite his murderous antics was admirable right to the end, when justice and a murderous mob caught up with him.) The whole thing completely falls apart in the last half-hour, after The Phantom kidnaps Maria. After going to such lengths to make her the success his wife wasn't able to be, he suddenly changes his mind for no apparent reason and wants to keep her "safe" while the vicious Prima Donna he earlier drove away COMES BACK. Then, after Maria is rescued (with relatively little fanfare), and the conductor and inspector plot to trap The Phantom (HOW?), he decides to cut the chandelier loose (a bit predicted much, much earlier in the film in one of the worst and most awkward bits of foreshadowing I have ever seen). Cutting the chandelier at this point makes no sense-- and he does it so badly (in a horrible exercise of "slow-motion" to boot), that nobody gets killed except himself. This Phantom is not only insane, he's incompetent as well.

My recommendation to anyone interested in these films is, START here-- then work your way backward to 1963, then 1943, then 1925. If you do, EACH version you watch GETS BETTER. My admiration for the '25 version-- the ONLY one that even attempts to do the book-- has steadily increased over the years with every viewing. Even more so since I got my hands on the video with the Rick Wakeman score. (Some might find that bordering on blasphemy-- but I've come to love the music so much, and it managed to make what was already my #1 favorite silent film even more enjoyable.)


Robert Markowitz: THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1983) made for TV movie.

Story is set in Budapest after the First World War. The vile opera manager doesn't get the newest soprano to his bed so he arranges a critical review of her performance. Soprano drowns herself, feeling she has betrayed her conductor husband Sandor Korvin. Korvin goes mad, kills the publisher of the review but also gets burned in the face by acid. Rat catcher hides him beneath the opera house. Four years later Maria, the exact replica of Korvin's wife, comes to sing to the opera. Both Phantom and Michael, the new director, falls in love with her.

This kind of story became a great Gothic romance in Dracula (1992). Unfortunately it gets wasted here. Director seems to have no skill whatsoever. The dark opera house provides good surrounding but he doesn't use them in any part. Also cast is totally wasted. Maximilian Schell (Sandor Korvin/The Phantom) is a great actor with a deep haunting voice but he seems to be in this only for money. Jane Seymoure (Maria/Elena) I think has never had any acting talent and this isn't exception. Even Jeremy Kemp as the opera manager fails to give same kind of a slimy villain as Michael Gough in 1962 version. So it is Michael York (Michael) who steals to show and is the only enjoyable thing here.

Last word: avoid at all cost! Unless you're die hard York fan.


I have this obscure movie on VHS and the cover features Linda Blair in a revealing outfit, holding a machine gun. In the actual movie, she does hold (and fire) a machine gun, BUT: A) Her outfit is a formal dress under a fur coat, B) Her part is a 5-minute cameo (plus a few lines of narration). The rest of "Savage Island" consists of copied-and-pasted footage from TWO Italian/Spanish Women-In-Prison films, one of which I've seen ("Escape from Hell") and one I haven't ("Orinoco - Prison of Sex"). The result is, as you might expect, a complete mess. There is no continuity between the scenes, sometimes even between the shots. 2 women start fighting dressed, in the next shot they are naked (because a lesbian scene in-between has been omitted). In one shot it is night, in the next shot it is day. In one shot the prisoners are in a circle, in the next shot they have formed lines. There are TWO different prison wardens, and the SAME female guard gets killed twice. It's all quite laughable and shameless. Rating: 0 out of 4 stars, pushed up to 0.5 because Linda Blair with a machine gun is sexy.


Rightfully atrocious. "Orinoco-Prison Of Sex" (a.k.a. "Escape From Hell") was an Italian-Spanish women-as-slaves-on-a-South-American-island-who-revolt thing, brought stateside in 1985, christened with a new title and spiced with fresh footage of Linda Blair as a vengeful "ex-employee". Those looking for some hot nude scenes and/or violent confrontations between sexy women in loincloths are bound to be disappointed (the Italian footage is dark, muddy and unerotic, not to mention coy--it cuts away at the best parts). As for Blair, she's amusing packing heat, ordering her ex-captor around with a snarl, "Quit your blubbering!" But, alas, Linda is once again stuck in a turkey. NO STARS from ****


Escape From Hell??? Prison Of Sex??? Which is it???

This movie su-u-u-u-u-u-u-cked!

Take Linda Blair, put her in furs, have her cap a security guy, (A slumming Penn Jillete.) then put her face to face with a sleazy diamond merchant/slave farm owner. It must have sounded cool at one point.

Both of the early films that were ripped off, and had the Blair footage wrapped around, seemed like passable entertainment. But this horrid mess must have been made as a joke.

No coherence. Characters switching on and off at will. Seemingly endless shots of chicks in jungle gear sweating and running before dying. That does get boring when done wrong. And this was WRONG.

And who/where was that sneering voice coming from? (" Come on! You gotta WOOORRRKKK!!!!")

The late Leon Askin (Gen. Burkhalter in "Hogan's Heroes.") was the lone watchable one. His brief scenes seemed like the only serious ones.

Crap!


If you are into women-in-prison films, "Escape from Hell" in any good copy near the 89 minute Italian/Spanish original, would entitle you to watch the most erotic, and violent, nude lesbian fight - for possession of the third girl in a cell, between black Ajita Wilson and queen-bee Cintia Lodetti; and a gun duel between the same black fugitive and a Nazi female warden (Christina Lay?) to a mutual gory death. Both fights are at close quarters, and filmed in crude detail, which explains so many "director's cuts" of this film, for different markets.


If you've begun reading Derrida for the first time, there is nothing in this video for you. If you've come out on the other side of reading Derrida after a long time, there is nothing in this video for you. Then why watch it? Because it is a document of a man who remains--and will remain--one of the most important philosophers of the modern era. He is gone now, but if you've never seen him you have the opportunity in this video to look at him.

This video is not the Cliff notes to a corpus of work. It is, instead, a look into the public and private life of a man who, like everyone of us, remains a mystery to strangers. And it is a dirty look, a pornographic eye, indeed, that does the looking. The creators are like groupies at a rock show, the ones that manage to weasel back stage passes. They know not enough to ask smart questions, ones that would make Derrida think. So instead, they follow the man around like stalkers, pointing their video camera into his private life: We watch, as did they, Derrida put jam on his toast, talk about his cat, walk through his house, walk through the street. It is as though the video makers were simply in awe of the fact that the man lives!

The same video makers/groupies/stalkers made a video about/on/addressed to/following the cultural critic, Zizek. Similar result, except the latter looked an awful lot like promotional matter. And make no doubt, the co-creator of this video has said as much: "There is a market for these videos," she said at the screening of Zizek in Amherst. Pornographer indeed.

In short there is nothing in this movie that you need to see. But you do get to see everything. Derrida is gone now, but he once was alive. You can find him in his books, but if you want to gawk at him, then check out this video.


After reading the rest of the reviews by the "critics" I realized a pattern -- all of them are familiar with Derrida and would love to know more about this man who apparently is very private. The film is like "a day in the life" to a certain degree so for those who always were dying to know what this man is like, it is extremely exciting for them. I was shocked and appalled that they praised this movie which is nothing short of ludicrous and absurd. Most of the critics lost complete perspective in their zeal to learn more about Derrida, a man who they know little about personally, and fail to criticize the film which really is a whole group of missed opportunities and is done in very amateurish fashion.

There are some golden moments but they are few and far between and could easily have been summarized in a 15 minute documentary rather than a full feature that seems only to try to prove, by "deconstructing" the documentary process that it is virtually impossible to do a documentary because the subject is aware of the camera and then doesn't act completely naturally. Unfortunately, the producers ram this point home with inane, superfluous shots of life designed to illustrate a phrase that a reader read in new age monotone, thus failing to even attempt to capture much of the mystery that the man is shrouded within and focus more on vague, abstract clips. Quite frankly, I thought the film was somewhat insulting to Derrida. I wasn't sure if many moments were an attempt to provide comedy in the film to keep the audience interested at the expense of the subject.

The critics can spout abstract praise and make comments about philosophy and deconstructionism (hoping to feel a "superior" thinker to the audience) but what this comes down to, unfortunately, is a very poor film with little preparation, poor questions, no follow up, no direction at all (regardless of the mystery of deconstruction, isn't the point of most films to captivate the audience?) that will only be interesting for fans of Derrida who want to see a little bit of this man's personality -- and even that is limited. I've become interested to find out what my friend found so interesting in Derrida's philosophy and I got nothing from it in this film.


A documentary can never be anything other than a director's interpretation of the subject. Making a documentary about a philosopher is a particularly difficult proposition; with most other subjects, we welcome and enjoy varying interpretations, but, with philosophy, we tend to resist variance, because the very aim of philosophy, at least until Post-Structuralists came along, has always been to arrive at the Truth. The challenge of a filmmaker here is that either you properly understand the philosopher, or you may potentially embarrass yourself, though, for the audience, either way could be interesting.

"Derrida", a documentary by the established filmmaker, Kirby Dick, and a former student of Jacques Derrida, Amy Ziering Kofman, attempts to deconstruct the idea of biography itself, but it fails to do so. It takes only the trappings of deconstruction, stripped of its objectives, and applies it as an editorial gimmick by constantly reminding the audience of the film's own awareness of itself. It frequently steps back in an effort to show its self-awareness, but it actually deconstructs nothing. For example, we see Derrida watching himself being interviewed, and later we see him watching this very footage, thereby creating the effect of two facing mirrors with infinite reflections.

The objective of deconstruction is to de-center, that is, to identify the center of the argument--or of the proposed truth--that it relies on in order to make its case. You may argue here that I have just made a logocentric statement by defining what deconstruction is, that I have just centered the definition of deconstruction (note the appearance here of stepping back); you are right (and I'm leaving it at that, because I'm only a hack philosopher.). The film did not succeed in de-centering anything; not the philosopher, the medium, the filmmakers themselves, nor the film itself.

Throughout the film, the narrator reads excerpts from his books against the backdrop of abstract footage of Derrida's face and his surroundings. This effectively makes Derrida the chief story-teller of the film. Instead of presenting the filmmakers' interpretations, they hide behind the power of his words, taking no chances at misinterpretation. Derrida is involuntarily made to be the center that secures and stabilizes the film. Ironically, this film that supposedly tries to explore deconstructionism and apply its tools to the medium of filmmaking finds a secure center in Derrida, and he is left un-deconstructed.

We can feel the insecurity of the filmmakers in often not knowing what to ask their subject. Derrida, out of his affection for the filmmaker, tries hard to turn Kofman's dull questions into something more interesting. The camera, in effect, takes on the perspective of someone who adores him like a rock star. If the film were aware of its own insecurity, it would have been more interesting. Instead, it simply hides behind its own reverence and awe of the famous philosopher.

One way to achieve this deconstruction would have been to hire multiple filmmaking crews where each goes off in its own direction, and presents a 20 minute piece each. The chances are, each will draw a very different picture of Derrida. By presenting them in sequence, the audience will wonder who Derrida really is, and they will inevitably question the process of documentary filmmaking itself, thereby deconstructing not only the idea of Derrida, but also the idea of documentary.

Although I have always been an admirer of Ryuichi Sakamoto, his music in this movie was superfluous. The power of his music attached unnecessary, and often inappropriate, emotional values to the images of Derrida. I can't see any justification for emotionally manipulating the audience in this film, unless it was to deconstruct the use of music in film, which it did not.

Towards the end of the movie, Derrida tells Amy Ziering Kofman that this will be a good autobiography for her. It should have been, but unfortunately it isn't a biography for either Derrida or Kofman. What this movie is to Derrida's philosophy is analogous to what music video is to a piece of music; the imagery is only superficially juxtaposed to his ideas. It is no more than a pretty way to listen to his words.

One redeeming quality of this movie was that I got to see and hear him speak for the first time. After all, I'm a sucker for fame too. If I made a documentary about him, I'm sure I would have been just as nervous and insecure, if not more. In that sense, I have to praise the filmmakers for attempting.


What's the point of this movie? I didn't get it! Maybe that Derrida eats toast too or that he is interested in sex life of Hegel and Heidegger? The movie is not biographical nor philosophical nor strictly documentary .. it is bad interview and lost opportunity. If there was an 'ordinary' man in front of the camera it could be a nice try of presenting that person on different way. I admit that presenting a philosopher on film is a difficult task, but if you have right questions you can get at least some aspects of his philosophy or some aspects of his life, but you can't get all of this. Not in 90 minutes.


However much special pleading may be made for this as an act of deconstructing the documentary process, the fact remains that this is a very badly made film--poorly paced, out of focus, the foreground blitzed by backlight, the comments of Derrida himself reduced to utter vapidity. One comes away with absolutely no understanding of Derrida's philosophy, and no comprehension of his life. The filmmakers followed the guy around for weeks, and the best they could do looks like a high-school video project. There's no excuse for poor craft (something forgotten not just by filmmakers but also by tenured professors besotted with critical theory, who crank out bad prose that says nothing). A far, far better example of how a philosopher can be treated on film is "McLuhan's Wake," which in 90 minutes provides an excellent biographical overview and introduction to the key concepts in the writings of Marshall McLuhan. I'm not a fan of McLuhan's any more than I am of Derrida's, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that McLuhan has received first-class treatment from his documentarians. "Derrida," the film, on the other hand, is an amateurish waste.


Just got back from the Nuart (word up LA!) where I saw Derrida. For fairness, I must disclose that my entire family is french, I speak fluently, but I have lived here since i was 6, and everybody considers me an american. So onto the review.

What a crummy flic. The movie follows the life of Jacques Derrida, the father of Deconstructionist philosophy. Well, in good documentaries, you get to see all sides of an issue, in fact usually you have an issue presented. In The Trials of Henry Kissinger (caught that at Nuart 2 weeks ago) they have Al Haig being cut to Chris Hitchens cut to Kissinger cut to the Chilean ambassador. Now obviously, the filmaker is going to try to make you lean one way in your decicion, but you still get to make a decision, you feel that you've been informed on all sides and get to choose an appropriate belief in some idea that the movie is about.

Not so here. For a movie about a philospher, no other philospher is interviewed at all. Critics? Do they exist? If you dont know Deconstruction before you go in, you wont know a thing about it when you leave.

The director wasted Derrida's time and her backer's money. The footage seems to have been taken over many many years (I write this November 8, 2002, and Derrida is seen hearing reports of the Rwanda massacres - I believe those were in 1994) is so raw as to be terrible. I think that the director/producers thought that they could stick a camera on this guy and edit it to a documentary. There is no research whatsoever. There are no critics of deconstruction (there are many many out there). The questions she (the director) asks are pitful and stupid and what I expect a student would ask, when put on the spot.

The only interesting question (and it put derrida on the spot) was asked by some random voice offscreen (which philospher would derrida like to have had as his mom).

I had many problems with the 'comedy' of this picture. People laughed a lot, at times and things I thought wern't funny at all but the editor/director framed to be. The director's accent is so bad that derrida couldn't understand whether she was asking about l'amour or l'amort. Reading that, you can see how he would be confused and would keep asking her which one. but the english subtitles say "love and death" over and over, so people dont get his confusion. seems trivial, but they kept doing this. and people kept laughing when

The absolute worst parts of the movie are random shots with voiceovers reading from derrida's work. they are horrendous. what happened to the director's producers? How could they let her put these in? example: one of them is a zoomed in view (on dv) of hebrew tombs. but you can only see a few letters at a time and the camera shifts like crazy up and down, tombstone to tombstone. it is so distracting you have to close your eyes to focus on the v/o (which are very difficult to understand in the first place - very very very VERY difficult). This happens over and over with these voice overs. The director had to fill a lot of time. I mean, there are long shots of a fax machine, shot up close. of derrida's cat (no idea why).

And I dont want to hear how this was about him and not deconstruction. you learn nothing about the guy. He's secretive? than ask other people. doing some flippin' research.

i voted and gave it a 3


It is hard for me to imagine that there is a God after viewing a movie like this. Quite possibly the most inert thing I've seen all year.

To start, I rushed out to see 'Derrida' after reading Kenneth Turan's Los Angeles Times review praising 'Derrida'. Turan, as a reviewer, is usually quite perceptive; however, in this one I think he missed it. Upon arriving at the theater I was very excited because the two Directors, Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering Kofman were to be hosting tonight's viewing at the Nuart Theater in West Los Angeles. And from then on began the decent into maelstrom.

The movie begins with a taste of hope. Its rough textured video blurring an urban landscape all to the tune of Derrida's ramblings about something. The movie never really takes off from there. It then cuts to what turns out to be its anthem. The mundane and impersonal life of Jacques Derrida. And as I write this I would like to make clear that by all means Jacques Derrida's life is not mundane, nor does he ramble into oblivion. And it would have been nice to see a documentary that suits him, he deserves one.

But what make his life or the portrayal of his life completely soulless are directors Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering Kofman. It seems that the two went into this documentary with absolutely no agenda. The film just goes about showing the man move about the house and speak to classes and friends. Which could work in any normal documentary, but these are the most impersonal moments they could have shown. And somehow they maintained this for five years thinking that they were doing something.

In speaking with the two afterwards, which allowed one to see just how pretentious and disillusioned the two exist as, they boasted about how they edited over one hundred hours of footage into an eight-five minute 'piece' as they call it. What baffles me about this is that with all that material what they showed seemed to be such a disservice. Perhaps the only relief is went Derrida speaks freely. But even then the film is minced with cutaways of the directors smearing their signature over it. The most insulting part about the event was that when Dick and Kofman spoke to the audience answering questions, they intellectualized this all. Somehow they all thought there was artistic merit to the lifeless nature of their work; rather than an unintentional defacing and humiliation to Mr. Derrida. But what should he care? Being one of the fathers of Deconstruction, his identity does not exist within Dick and Kofman's deranged portrait.


I'm giving this 4 out of 10 because while agree with the other posters that the film lacked any sort of clarity or even a reason for being, there were a few moments in there that were sort of interesting.

The main sense I get of the man after watching this movie is that he basically didn't like being filmed and seemed uncomfortable doing the project. I don't mean that, as a philosopher, he had philosophical reasons for objecting to seeing himself as a subject, but simply that he was just the kind of person who felt a little weird being filmed. Nothing wrong with that in principle, but it does make him a poor subject for a documentary of this kind.

To me, the scene that captures the ineptitude of the movie the best is a scene in which an Australian (I think) interviewer asks Derrida whether the TV show Seinfeld got at all at deconstructionism, with its emphasis on the mundane. In theory this could be an interesting question, to see how he talks about popular culture. Except that Derrida hadn't even heard of Seinfeld and didn't really have anything interesting to say about it. I don't fault Derrida for not having heard of Seinfeld, but I do fault the filmmakers for putting such an inconsequential exchange in their movie.

As others have noted, we also get a lot of faux-deep scenes of Derrida going about his daily business (walking down the street, getting a haircut, making his breakfast, etc.). which don't add up to a whole lot.

Still, I have to admit I did find a few scenes interesting here and there. The guy does have a legion of followers, for instance, and watching him interact with them at lectures and other places was interesting.


A friend who was very influenced by Derrida asked me if I wanted to come along and see the film. I didn't know who he was and was very enthusiastic to see this film. I read the 3 preceding reviews here at the IMDB after seeing the film and I'll say that the gross mediocrity of this film is summed up with perfection by those reviewers. It was glaringly obvious that the producers were completely unprepared, had absolutely no agenda, and I could not figure out what they hoped to accomplish with this film. Was it to praise or mock Derrida? It was a 90 minute attempt to be stylish with no substance at all. I had no idea what the film was trying to accomplish except dropping in a 85 minute take of film with words spoken at certain parts in an attempt to show style (and a few other obvious superficial attempts at style.)

Not once was there a discussion or revelation as to what made Derrida such a legend (at least so I'm told), little if anything about is family life (except at in the last third of the film), and the clips that were edited in made him appear like an incorrigible Frenchman with a sense of humor, which he may be but I got the picture very early on in the film. There is an attempt to do a chronological bio by taking his books (I presume) and reading a passage from them in an asympathetic, new age monotone and attempting to show some brilliant connection between the quote and the scene in the film. But there really was no order and the scenes shown, largely, go unexplained. Sometimes they are a superficial illustration in Derrida's life of the simple quote. Nothing worthwhile, just style.

The questions asked to Derrida were general, inane questions with not a single followup. When Derrida answers (he's frequently annoyed answering such general stuff) there is an obvious follow up question each time that is NEVER asked. The best one is when Derrida rambles about how he'd love to know more about philosopers' personal lives because its so strange that they never speak about them. Funny, because this film doesn't really say much at all about Derrida's personal life and Derrida himself admits several times he has a hard time talking about it at all. Refused to, actually. Does the interviewer ever ask why he is so intensely secretive about many things, like other philosophers? NO!!!! Instead we get several clips of what a sample lecture is like with a student asking a very simple question but making it sound as obtuse, complicated, and deep as possible. Ugghh.

How stylish was this movie? The first 15 minutes are spent with a drive through Paris with constant cuts of different news clips saying that Derrida is a modern genius, thinker, etc. etc. and father of deconstructionism. Do we ever find out why? No.

The camera wobbled throughout the entire film. Things were out of focus at times. I was so surprised that out of all the hours shot (Derrida even talks about the camera crew following him for 2 weeks) they chose this stuff to put in.

Unfortunately I know very little more now about Derrida than I did when I came in. My friend enjoyed the opportunity to actually see the man and what he was like on the screen but felt the same as I did. It was as though there was a camera crew commissioned to shoot some footage and then it was thrown together in a hurry. Disappointing. Missed opportunities. I really went into this film wanting to like it and feel like someone fleeced me of $10 and dropped me off a home film that has never been edited. And I'm an optimist!!!!


The reviews are pretty bad.

The positive reviews are all written by people who have NEVER

reviewed any other movie (that is never ever a good sign) yet it has a high score? It's called creating fake accounts in order to not lose face when shopping around for financing.

I gotta believe that someone is jucing the scores. 25% of voters gave it a 9 or higher. Those are scores that are better or equal to the best movies ever created by man. ~ 62% gave it a 7 or higher which would put it near the top 250 "best" movies on imdb. yet of reviews there only 10% positive on the commentary board. please. it was bad

when i saw it in the theater 2 years ago, it is bad now.


At first I thought this show might be a more energetic approach to discussing pressing issues. Big mistake. I read a previous comment that used the word 'propaganda' and i couldn't agree more. this show is horrible, and it becomes even more horrible when you realize that some people actually think that this show has a shred of credibility.

They don't make the slightest attempt to engage in objective discussion on anything. the entire show is just their opinion on whatever the subject may be. for instance, the show on abstinence was a complete joke and took on the familiar anti-Christian spin. They constantly pull percentages out of thin air and think that they are proving something. They find the worst representatives of the other side in a transparent attempt to discredit their view. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous in my life than the nonsense in the abstinence program. They had some so-called expert on they saying that babies the womb routinely pleasure themselves. They had a rep from planned parenthood say that abstinence programs teach that touching someone's genitals will result in pregnancy. Best of all, the capped off the show by saying that you should make you own decision and not left someones religious 'fairy tales' guide you. This order coming from someone saying not to take orders.

The show is laced with so much unnecessary profanity its difficult to watch. Every other word if profanity, and it adds nothing to the show.

This show is just another wolf in sheep's clothing tool used to spew its agenda to the public. Horrible.

The most troubling part of it is that some person is actually going to go into this show with an open, unbiased mind think that this show is objective and journalistic, and because they have to fun-loving, non-confrontational goofs starring the show, they won't take this show for what it is, just a piece of propaganda.


God this is terrible journalism. I can't see the point of discrediting actual issues by mixing them up with spiritual goofs and use eccentric fanatics as front figures for let's say global warming. When you get so many hurricanes in one year that you run out of names, there's something going on. The last show I saw, they tried to wave away the dangers of passive smoking. I'm curious about who's really paying for this show. I get the feeling that there is some hidden lobbyism in this program.

I used to consider Penn & Teller two funny magicians (except for the lousy acting in "Sabrina"). Nowadays I think they are sellouts who's obviously not doing well with the magic business (cause then they wouldn't have to take part of this crap, would they?). I mean, who listens to a magician when it comes to global warming and long term problems with genetic manipulation?


I've seen quite a few episodes of Penn & Teller's show. And I have to say it's terrible. In more ways than one. It poses as an informative show and tries to show or disprove what they think is bullshit without REALLY looking at the evidence. They have the habit of bringing in 1-2 EXPERTS who are completely on their side...and then they bring in 2-3 morons who poorly represent the other side.

If you want your decisions made for you by stage magicians, this is the show for you. If not, I recommend you open up your mind and do some ACTUAL research. And if you're intellectually honest with yourself you may get some REAL answers.

Penn, Teller, keep your magic tricks on the stage pretty please.


With this program (whose name I ironically cannot write here), Penn and Teller have set out to make a no-nonsense, cut-straight-to-the-facts sort of exposé program. They make no attempt to be subtle or "nice", and anyone who they believe is full of bull gets more than their fair share of abuse. This would be all good and well, if what the hosts were presenting were actually facts. Unfortunately, what they do present are opinions, ones that are sometimes based on the truth, and sometimes aren't. Their approach to the world is a backward one - they choose a stance on a subject and then seek ways to validate it.

Though Penn and Teller seem to want to align themselves with empirical science and skeptical intellectualism, they are in fact attacking those very values with their prejudiced and opinionated approach. They ignore the accepted notion of science not being about seeking the "facts" and experts to corroborate a pre-set conclusion, but rather investigating phenomena and forming conclusions upon observations.

Take the second-hand smoking episode, in which Penn and Teller argued that second-hand smoking isn't harmful and therefore smoking should not be banned in public areas. Scientific research clearly indicates that second-hand smoking is in fact harmful - a fact that completely undermines their argument. Another episode where they choose opinion over science is the obesity episode, where they assert that obesity is not really a health problem, but a ruse by pharmaceutical companies who seek to make money off of dietary medicines. However, scientific data implicates obesity as a serious threat to public health that claims millions of lives each year through associated illnesses.

There are, of course, episodes where they hit the nail on the head, with the viewer being left with an almost guilty feeling of content as Teller's voice-over spits out insults at greedy moneymakers who are out just to exploit and make a buck off of gullible people. These are the moments where the program shines, but just aren't enough to make for the shortcomings in other episodes. The fact is that it is hard to take anything Penn and Teller propose seriously when they've let down the ideal of scientific fairness and objectivity on several occasions.


This show is so terrible it's not even worth watching after a few Episodes of it, Penn and Teller are clearly showing what Fruitcakes they are and with their shitty Biased opinions on every Paranormal Subject under the Sun proves what a totally crap show it is.

They totally ripped the Bible apart but the fact of the matter is the Bible has been written by a group of Dodgy old men anyway that just wrote the scripture to how it suited them and their Beliefs. Christians believe it all to be true though they can if they want.

I will just state this though, when it's their time to die and I hope thats soon cause their stupid asses shouldn't be shown on TV anymore they will find out that our consciousness survives bodily death everything unexplainable in this world points towards it.

Swearing constantly and carrying on the way they do proves they have pea sized brains, Total knobs is all they are. I hope they read this cause I think the lowest of low of them.


I just happened to be channel surfing and caught the show about Jesus and the Bible.

It was a joke. Any serious apologist would have torn them apart in seconds. Heck, I could have done it and I don't even know that much about apologetics.

I had to laugh when they take the stack of Bibles and start reading the damning quotes from the Bible "in context". Every one was out of context. No cultural or historical context was even mentioned.

The show seemed to be an incredibly biased piece of work by two guys with a chip on their shoulder. If the rest of the shows are like that one, (and from many of the reviews, it seems like they are), then this show is flat out drivel.


I used the hypnotherapist Kyrah Malan, when she was in Sacramento and got great results with my goals. I went back to her for other goals and it always worked for me. I know it was more than just voodoo because I had tried to loose weight for 20 years before then and nothing had ever worked. She was always really nice and professional. I know that she works on a donation basis and does a lot of charity work not charging people for her services when she feels they really need the help and couldn't otherwise get it. When I found this site and watched the clip I told my friend (who had told me about Kyrah) about this show and she said NONE of the women in the breast enlargement study had to pay a dime. Penn & Teller made it look like they had to pay money. She also said the woman who didn't notice any difference never attended any of the sessions or did the things she was supposed to. I bet they edited the program to make her look bad and so they could make fun of her. If someone is a fake their fair game, but why find a hypnotist who is good and then try to make them look bad? In my eyes that makes them (P&T) the liars and fakes.


A bigoted video full of nothing but lies and hatred.Use this video to teach your kids about how to identify a bigot,and tell them how these anti-PETA Nazis spread lies and vicious rumours about PETA.If you're a Penn & Teller fan,then you'll be horrorfied and deeply saddened to learn the ugly truth about Penn & Teller.You'll cry as you hear the vicious lies Penn & Teller spread about PETA,and you'll never want to be their fan ever again.Yes-Penn & Teller are bigoted people,jumping on the anti-PETA bandwagon to help control people with hate,lies,bullying and fear.Now that you know the ugly truth about Penn & Teller,you will quicjkly be against them. By the way,I'm now a recovering Penn & Teller fan.

PETA are terrorists?Then you anti-PETA people might as well brand all blacks as drug-using thugs,all rednecks as stupid alcoholic rapists,all oriental people as buck-tooth morons,all Native Americans as bloodthirsty murderers,all old people as senile toothless fools,all teenagers as no-good punks,etc.


After a considerable hiatus, Columbo returned to TV in 1989, and all 5 episodes from that year are very uneven. It's mostly because of the writing, but it is also because of the casting. None of these episodes has any of the fun "big" names that the Columbo character was associated with before. No Shatner. No Mickey Spillane. No Ruth Gordon. This particular episode typifies that problem. Fisher Stevens, who is so obviously supposed to be Spielberg that it hurts to watch him, just is not in the league with the type of guests starts Columbo was known for previously. He seems like he's 12 years old and gives no depth to his character. He tries to be quirky but he just can't pull it off. Peter Falk attempts to save the episode but he is saddled with a script that puts him in embarrassing situations that are uncomfortable to watch. One example is when he tells Stevens his friend is dead then asks if he can make himself an ice cream soda. I know Columbo is supposed to be disingenuous but here he seems just rude and/or dumb. Falk does his best with the rest of the teleplay but Stevens is just not strong enough an actor to make the interplay between detective and murderer either intriguing or entertaining. After a while, it is all rather tiresome and fails to satisfy as the best of the old Columbo series did.


A tv movie with Richard Crenna,playing a hard nosed cop who,supposedly,gets raped by two men and goes through all the drama of the after effects of the rape.

 Feminist wet dream of putting a tough masculine straight man in the position of a woman when handling the emotional and psycological problems brought upon them by a rape.

 You know a man can go through the same thing a woman can go through when they are met by any kind of violent crime,being shot,getting carjacked,being robbed at gun point,getting mugged,it is always hard on the victim no matter who it is.

 The Rape Of Richard Beck wants people to see men get their just deserts by having a man get raped and having this man seen as a representation of the rough masculine type who would be seen as the last person expected to suffer through a crime like this.

 Rape is seen as the female victim's violent crime and for a man to suffer through rape's humilation is the type of show liberal feminist Hollywood want to see in and want to present to the general public at large.

 Rape is hard on its'victims.Including the relatives and family members and friends of the victims,most of whom are men.The Rape Of Richard Beck is a typical example of pure tainted Hollywood liberal rot sending a terrible message to a gullible public.


Well I've read the other comments, even checked out Roger Ebert, trying to find the reason for all the praise some people give it, but I can't get it. A story of people fighting with each other, murdering each other, commiting adultery, and worst of all mistreating the dogs that are essential for their survival, among the incessant crunching of snow under boots. This has to be considered a home movie and it leaves a lousy opinion of the Inuit people, which I know can't be this bad. Ebert says it involves somes legend, what that is I don't know.


Great. Another "wunnerful" Canadian film for the cognescenti and literati to gush and chortle over as they sip their Perriers and double lattes at the latest trendy film festival. Dahling... Didn't you think the message was so, well, messagy. It's too long. What could have been done in two hours mushes and slushes on for almost three. I still don't know what it was all about despite the "helpful" explanatory subtitles on the DVD. And although creative lens flare can be a useful technique, there is so much of it here that it looks like simply slovenly photography. But weren't we daring with that full frontally nude chase across the ice for ten minutes or so. I was impressed that neither the poor actor nor his willie didn't freeze solid! As a dutiful Canadian, I forced myself to watch this eternity of people humping and hunting each other across the ice. But I hated it. Hate! Hate! Hate! Why do we insist on making movies in this country? We're much better at wine and whiskey. And if you can't be dissuaded from enduring this frozen turkey, I suggest you keep an ample supply of both on hand for your three hour ordeal.


Well, there must be a lot of pretentious people out there and several of them recommended this film to us. We simply couldn't fathom it. I am happy to accept that it is very hard to film in those frozen climbs and that this film might be deeply meaningful to Inuit people. Here in the UK, it was a hollow experience and we were unable to stick the 3 hours plus. Thank goodness we had waited for its TV viewing so we could fast forward the video.


I go to see a movie for two reasons; to laugh or to be absorbed in an adventure. This movie was both boring, disturbing and hard to understand (not even counting the subtitles). Both my wife and I had the same reaction and after 20 minutes stopped the dvd player. Basically the plot had to do with eskimos being cruel to each other in the worst crass ways. In one instance a family is given the meat from the butt of a seal by the tribe because the hunter was unsuccessful that day. While they're eating the other eskimos taunt the whole family. What a downer. Save your money and don't waste your time.


"The Fast Runner" is sometimes beautiful to look at, and in its immediacy it is at times able to transport the viewer to another time and place.

But this is a bad film.

In terms of storytelling, editing and narrative, it just doesn't make any sense. I found myself taken out of the film as much as I was immersed in it due to the poor film-making techniques.

I'm sure that there are some people who were generally moved by this film, and it has a few very compelling moments. But as a film overall, I can't imagine how it gets such universal acclaim, especially considering its sub-AV Club technique. (I hate to call anyone's motives into question, but I tend to think that more than a few people who heap praise upon this film are doing so out of a need to praise this plucky group of Inuits for making a film at all. I think it's less condescending to evaluate it out of context.)


What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.

Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.

The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!

azjazz


Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.

Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)

-Zaphoid

PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")

-Z


God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!


Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.

There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.

And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.

Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.


I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"

Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(


Dreadful film, with some of the worst acting this side of "Dynasty." I've seen Mädchen Amick before, and liked her, but this time she definitely sank to the level of the script. But give her credit--at least she had the good sense to look embarrassed and uncomfortable (constipated even) virtually every time she uttered one of her poorly-written lines. And who is Andrew W. Walker? My best guess is, he's related to the director or casting director, because how else could such an unappealing and untalented actor be cast in this part? The chemistry between the "leads" wasn't just missing--it had actually turned putrid and emitted a foul odor. Save yourself a lot of aggravation and 2 hours of your precious time. Avoid this movie!!!