Would not recommend letting children watch a movie that, despite it's unbelievable Harlequin plot line, still could implicitly condone maladaptive behavior. Note the lead character has not only actively stolen from others over a long period of time (how many other children's' Christmases were ruined by this character's thievery?), but used an orphan to assist her. The rewards? A lovely apartment, gorgeous clothes, a cozy family Christmas and a blossoming romance. I didn't see any consequences that would lead one to think that this character was apt to change or make any retribution to her victims. All I saw was a selfish user portrayed as a "cool" smooth talking role model. She is so self-righteous that she will not relent to forgiving her male accomplice for crimes identical to hers! Besides stealing, gender prejudice, coercion of minors and a gross manipulation of justice, I can't see how this Christmas story could inspire any better moral qualities. Sorry, not my idea of a heart warming story.


This is one of the most illogical TV movies ever made -- and that is saying a lot.

(1) Some of the actors play their parts straight, and some play their parts like baffoonish clowns. (2) Pick-pocketing is ethical. (3) Our hero sees a bike stolen and sold for cash. The bike is gone, but he catches the thief with cash in hand, but he does not attempt to claim the money. (4) Closet light bulbs remain switched-on 24 hours a day. (5) City people leave their apartment without locking their apartment door which has many deadbolt locks begging to be used. (6) An income is needed to live in an apartment, but it is assumed that no income is needed to buy and run a house. (7) Decorations are purchased for a Christmas tree that does not exist. Later, at the drop of a hat, a police officer-wanna be steals a Christmas tree. No one in the world would know this would ever happen except for the writer of the movie. (8) Throughout the period the lead female characters desire to escape, they do not do so. For example, at one point the police guard wanna-be guy has both of his hands handcuffed to a handrail inside a bus. He is locked up and has no key, but no one escapes from him. (9) A violent child snatcher is released only because the movie needs him to snatch the child a second time later in the movie. (10) A silly man wearing a cast and a thick Santa's suit spends most of the movie outrunning assorted adults only two or three feet behind him.

The only good part of "On the 2nd Day of Christmas" is the vigilant perfume sales lady on duty in the department store.


This would seem to be a twisted social statement disguised as a holiday movie. That statement being that women who commit serious crimes, especially if those women are pretty, are somehow not responsible for those crimes. There is always an "evil man" who is the "true criminal" behind it. I have seen this same set up in countless movies.

We really need to rid ourselves of this notion. Women are capable and guilty of every single crime that a man could commit and some they couldn't.

In the first fifteen minutes, our main character is guilty of theft, lying to the police, reckless endangerment of a child, using a child to perform a crime and the biggest one, assault. She should receive at least ten years in prison for those crimes.

I won't go into the rest of the story of the film, because it only seeks to disarm you into thinking she is a good person who had good reason for what she did. She isn't and she didn't.

The ending though is something pretty incredible. She is given a massive second chance which she doesn't deserve, but she says the "real bad guy" (who is arrested thanks to a planted wallet) doesn't deserve one and actually has the the gall have him charged for burglarising her house! Let's put things into context here. She is guilty of hundreds, probably thousands of thefts. Everything she bought in that house, was bought with money stolen off innocent, hard working people. She is in turn robbed, and thinks she is entitled to justice for that robbery? That is insane.

This movie may preach forgiveness, but only if you're female and blonde. The rest of us have to live by the normal rules and laws of society.

2/10


Though obviously Michael isn't totally sane, but this, in my opinion, is hugely caused by his (lack of) childhood and the abuse by his father, it isn't said that he is a pedophile. I for certain do not think that he is one. I think that since he missed his youth, he's trying to catch up with that now, and if you see it from that point, have you never had a slumberparty with a friend when you were young? Or climbed a tree for that matter?

Martin asked questions in this documentary that were (for the majority) only intended to get Michael to look guilty and bad instead of giving a honest view of Jackson. Also he took the answers, twisted them around, and turned them into the answers he wanted to hear...

Anyway, it's a good documentary if you are sane and intelligent enough not to follow Bashir, but just to actually listen to what Michael has to say. For the majority of the people in the world, well, they'll probably go with Martin's profile of MJ, so therefor I've given it a 4


This adventurous tale spends most of its time showing the hardships endured by the Rangers. Major Rogers and "Harvard" are the main characters, and they have an interesting relationship as comrades - Rogers is teaching Harvard how to be a "real man." It's almost a father/son thing they have going. Anyway, the acting isn't particularly impressive from any of the cast, but it's not terrible either, especially considering the time in which it was made.

Speaking of which, the main problem I saw in this film is that it is quite dated in its views of morality and life. It was made during World War II, during a time you went to war and became a man through the test of battle. It shouldn't be surprising then that it glorifies war by subjugating and dehumanizing the enemies - in this case primarily Indians (Native Americans). It is a testament to the attitudes of the time that the Indians are treated mostly like slaves (good Indians) or rabid dogs (bad Indians). They really are less than human. The racism is difficult to ignore, and detracts heavily from the film.

Overall, it was a fine movie in its time, but that time has passed, and the movie does not hold up under the scrutiny of modern values.


This has to be one of the worst films ever made. Plenty of Spencer Tracy shouts of "Men..do this" and "Men... do that". You can understand why there's a load of "pull together for King (Vidor) and Country" patriotic gibberish cos it was made during the war. But it doesn't excuse it anymore than you could excuse John Wayne's cringe fest that was The Green Berets - made during the Vietnam war. In essence, gung ho nonsense that could only ever appeal to white American males running about the New Jersey countryside playing at toy soldiers.


This is truly one of the worst films I've seen in a very long time. It is not just the historical inaccuracy, it's the fact that accuracy is eschewed in favour of a very run of the mill story line. Waylon Jennings performing the soundtrack and Jagger in the lead role suggests a cheap and weak attempt to recreate Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, with Jennings' music not holding a candle to Dylan's and Jagger's acting not just being poorer than Kris Kristofferson's, but actually being some of the poorest I've ever seen.

Who on earth thought it was a good plan to cast Mick Jagger in this film? He can't deliver lines, his accent is hopeless, during the fight scene, the supposed "hard man" stands like a wimp, something that the editor has attempted to deflect attention from but failed dismally. The supporting cast are basically insignificant, none of them being given enough screen time for us to develop much of a relationship with them, all frame space reserved for the "star."

This film marks a low point in cinema that it would be hard to recreate, thank god.


This potted history of the infamous Australian outlaw benefits tremendously from Gerry Fisher's frequently ravishing photography but is ultimately doomed by its paint by numbers screenplay and the star turn by Mick Jagger (who reportedly dismissed the film as a "load of s**t"). Frankly, a bearded Jagger speaking in a weak brogue reminded me more of Warwick Davis in the Leprechaun series than it did of a legendary Robin Hood style badman. Shel Silverstein's faux-folk songs haven't aged well either.


Only being passingly familiar with the story of Ned Kelly, I can say that, on a cinematic basis, this is a pretty good movie. The locations, cinematography and supporting actors are all grittily realistic, in the way that only '60s-'70s- era movies could be. Of course, that still leaves the woefully miscast Jagger. As the larger-than-life rough- hewn bushman Kelly, Mick doesn't come close to cutting it. As an actor, he doesn't cut it. The scene in which he fights off five gaol guards (with a hangover) is silly. And yeah, his beard's silly. The Waylon Jennings soundtrack (and, in response to a previous poster, this was before Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid) is interesting, but inappropriate.


What most of the comments here are missing is the simple fact that 'Ned Kelly' is boring, and not just a little boring. I mean, sleep-inducing, prop-your-eyelids-open-with-toothpicks-to-stay-awake boring. It's a curiosity, nothing more. "Hey, Mick Jagger starred in a western, wonder what it's like?" And like most curiosities that weren't popular in their initial release, it hasn't improved with age. As wonderful as he is in stage performances, Jagger just doesn't have much screen presence. Certainly not enough to overcome his celebrity; you don't for one moment forget you're watching Mick Jagger. He had the same problem in 'Freejack' as I recall. I haven't seen his last film, 'The Man from Elysian Fields,' but I would imagine he's gotten at least somewhat better with age.


This is a cult movie alright, although I'm pretty alone being a cultist here, this movie has all the elements of an ugly movie of the 70s (though i hear its huge in Australia).

First of, trying to learn about Ned Kelly from watching this movie is just impossible, the story trail is as lose as the one in Dune and it jumps so fast from scene to scene that is unbelievable. In one scene a police officer swears not to tell the authorities that the he had an accident with the Kellys in which he was wounded, he was pretty happy and swearers not to tell, 1 second into the next scene Ma Kelly is standing for trial. What??, so he told them?, he what??. No one knows.

the movie does those jump cuts a lot. and not only that, but you get to see some really weird scenes on the movie (such in the ending when both Kelly's brothers kill themselves in a rather artistic way). It all in the end gets explained if we consider that probably the entire cast and crew was on drugs, and not only them, but the caterers and the cleaning guys also.

But that of course is not the main strenght of the movie, the main thing that this movie's got going-on is of course the horrible performance of Mick Jagger, who doesn't really act whatsoever if we consider it, but rather just stands around being the lead singer of the Rolling Stones than Ned Kelly.

We get to see Mick: -as a drinker. -as a singer. -as a ladies man. -as a street fighting man.

so we pretty much just see him being him, not one line is delivered correctly, but always as if Kelly was really angry because he ordered a latte and not a cappuccino or with a huge hangover from partying all night.

The movie ends with Ned on his armor getting shot by the Brits, which is one of the memorable scenes of the movie, mainly because it actually seems to had been taken from a serious movie instead of a generic 70s movie.

See this movie, its the funky version of Ned Kelly, but of course as all of them are Brits you just get to see a white cast. Kinda like the Stones music if we think about it.


When I saw this film in Sydney when it first came out I thought it was a mini-masterpiece. Always a big fan of Tony Richardson and surprised by Jagger's brilliant interpretation of an Aussie legend. It came across as very 'real', almost a Gothic riff on an enigmatic criminal who created his own metal armor to ward off bullets.

The soundtrack was quiet, haunting. but when I rented it in NYC to turn some friends on to it, I found that the film was spoiled by a dopey country and western soundtrack, (ned was from Ireland not the Midwest United States) awful garbage by Waylon Jennings.

Dear Mr Jennings, I'll pay you twice what the U.S. distributors paid you to take your hideous noise off this (originally superb) film.


This one kind of clops along like an average B movie is expected to. This may be a cult classic in Australia, but I just don't dig it. Exploitation of Mick Jagger? Your guess is good as mine. Jagger plays Ned Kelley Australia's most notorious outlaw. Director Tony Richardson dramatizes the life of this bad man and his family of horse thieves. The meat of the movie is the big man hunt that results in a lot of gun fire and death and the eventual capture and execution of the legendary 19th-century outlaw. Jagger is as sluggish as the movie itself and his attempt to sound Australian comes out sounding more Irish. Good to watch if you are a follower of the Rock 'n' Roll bad boy. Also in the cast are Geoff Gilmour, Allen Bickford and Clarissa Kaye-Mason.


Deadly dull junk, poorly made, with Jagger seemingly on heavy quaaludes during the entire production. Ugly to look at to make matters worse, and the actors all seem to affect Irish accents, rather than Australian as the real Ned Kelly was.

If a Heath Ledger/Orlando Bloom remake can only improve things, then you know the original is awful.

Postscript: if you loved "21 grams," then you're just the sort of pompous yuppie who goes for this sort of thing. In that case, by all means rent "Ned Kelly". "Six Feet Under" & "The West Wing" are bound to be a re-run once in a while, right?


How bad is this film? VERY! I don't know where to start... well I do. Expectations were low from the opening credits listing (no not just because Dolph Lundgren was top billing) but a guy with one of the worst names in the business - Randolph Mantooth - was SECOND billing, obviously I wasn't expecting much. The love interest role fell to a woman who looked like she would be more comfortable in a porn film, add to that:

1) Some very bad acting (mostly from big Dolph) 2) A totally rubbish villain 3) Offensive Russian accents 4) straight-to-TV plot 5) Some cheesy sex-related one-liners that are disgusting and offensive

then you have one really, really bad movie. Just when you thought Dolph couldn't stoop any lower he does. In fact Dolph sums it up himself with a line from the film - asked if he knew what Agent Red was he replies "sounds like a bad action movie", boy was he ever right!


Wow... where to start... I'm still reeling from the experience of watching this piece of garbage and I think I'm permanently brain damaged after being exposed to it. Words cannot express how terrible this movie is. I don't care how bad that J. Lo movie "Gigli" is, it will not hold a candle to this waste of matter for pure crappiness. Dolph Lundgren is a marine -(who apparently is the only member of the entire US armed forces who can fly a stealth fighter in footage lifted from another crappy Dolph movie)- that must go board a sub in Russia so that some chemical weapon that the Russians stole from the Americans during the cold war can come back to the US. On board is Dolph's "ex-fiance", who aside from looking like a reject from a Ron Jeremy movie, is also possibly the worst actress to ever set foot on the planet. I had to look up this "actress" to see what other suckers have hired her for movies and found out two things.... 1. thankfully, she's not "in demand" and 2. Her shoddy acting is eclipsed only by her amazing spelling; I think her name is "Melanie" but it looks like some sort of indecipherable mumbo jumbo the way it is spelled. Anyway, I'm off track... this movie is pure crap.. not even one of those "watch with your friends after some herbal refreshment" movies... Everything from the recycled (and butchered) storyline of terrorists on a sub, where every possible cliche is used (and screwed up) to the awful performances, to the terrifyingly bad dialogue. This is the kind of movie that I think can be used as a torture device. There is one saving grace though, after watching the performances in this stinker, you'll be appreciating the master thespianism that is one Jean Claude Van Damme.


This is one of the worst action movies i have ever seen, even Lundgren is mediocre in it!. It's not Lundgren's fault he tires his best with the very crappy material and manages to come out of this looking somewhat decent!. The dialog is laughable,and the action scenes are very tame and awfully uninteresting, plus the characters all sucked!. I was expecting this to be bad, but not this bad, as this is unquestionably the worst Lundgren film i have ever seen, and i LOVE Lundgren!,plus what was footage of Storm Catcher doing in here?. The main villains are laughably weak, and there is hardly anything interesting going on at all, plus this has got to be one of the worst Die Hard clone ever!. Dolph does not even have that much screen time, and he's supposed to be the hero?, and Meilani Paul is extremely annoying as the love interest, plus, this will have you snoozing. Avoid this one like the plague, there is absolutely no reason to see this, i suggest even Die Hard Lundgren fans(like me) avoid this as well. The Direction is god awful!. Damian Lee, does a god awful job here, with really bad camera work, bad shots during the tame action scenes, and did a great job at keeping it bland and boring throughout!. The Acting is terrible!. Dolph Lundgren does what he can with the very crappy material he is given here, however his chemistry with Meilani Paul is way off, and while he was likable, he just seemed to be going through the motions, however i still Love Lundgren , and he deserves better movies then this lousy crap!(Lundgren Rules!). Meilani Paul is terrible as the love interest,she was annoying and very unconvincing!. Alexander Kuznetsov is laughable as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all. Natalie Radford is just as bad, i didn't buy her performance at all. Rest of the cast is equally as bad. Overall Please avoid this at all costs, no one should go through this torture!. BOMB out of 5


The only enjoyable thing about watching this movie is making fun of it. The plot makes no sense at all. The movie making problems are numerous. The opening scene has Lundgren involved in a mission stealing what would appear to be a US Stealth aircraft, but from whom? Some of them wear US uniforms and some wear a hodge podge of various other uniforms. It is not explained. The "submarine" set looks nothing like a sub including concrete pillars and cinder block walls in some shots.

THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES PLOT SPOILERS but since the movie is very predictable they don't spoil much.

Here are just a few of the problems: It is not explained how the terrorist get on to the sub in such great numbers. The virus incapacitates and kills most of the crew within seconds but the terrorists continue to operate fine for a long time when exposed very directly to the virus. Dolph Lundgren's actions directly result in the destruction of a US submarine and crew but is portrayed in the movie as heroic. A US fighter plane changes into a Swedish fighter and is then shot down by the terrorists in the sub using a missile designed to sink surface ships. The US Navy then launches fighter aircraft who launch air-to-air missiles which miraculously turn into torpedos. The many torpedoes fail to hit the sub in spite of no one being in the control room to launch counter measures or take any evasive action. The two remaining characters at the end of the movie have about a zero percent chance of knowing how to surface a submarine but don't seem worried.

I could list many more.


This is probably Dolphs worst film besides Stormcatcher, and although i was expecting something bad i was pleasantly surprised, in that it had some good moments. I am not a fan of Damien Lee he is not a director who is likely to produce anything above the average, but this film was better than i thought, they do take that old action film cliché of the bad pun to new heights where every sentence by one person is replied sarcastically by another and some times to funny effect but the dialogue is an exaggerated version of an Arnie script. Damien Lee's direction of the action scenes is annoying at times with shots so close up it ruins the fights, but there is an attempt at some Woo'esque action but it must be pointed out that the best action scene was borrowed from Stormcatcher, they actually took out a whole scene and in Stormcatcher the bloke in the scene was not Dolph but it is supposed to be him in Agent red (all of a sudden Dolph is about 5ft 11 instead of 6,5.), and it must be pointed out that Tony Hickox is a much better director. Basically this film is a very cliché action film that is not in anyway stylish or well scripted but it is funny, notably the bad Russian accents and the puns, one of which had me in stitches when Dolphs sergeant is briefing him on his mission saying "have you ever heard of agent red" and Dolph replies " it sounds like a bad action movie", so at least the makers of this new they were not making a classic, overall this is not horrendous but is still pretty bad,you could quite easily stomach the full ninety minutes on a good day, if only for the hilariously cheesy dialogue but if you have a choice between this and an earlier Dolph flick theplace this nicely back on the shelf. This is a tragic low point in Dolph's career. *


Dolph Lundgren has lots of bad movies under his belt. This is one of his worst. Generally speaking, I love submarine movies. I've watched a huge amount of movies of this genre. Very few of them, if any, are worse than this. It's as bas as Octopus. First of all, there's a lack of action, like in most other ultra low budget DTV action flicks. The (very few) action scenes which made it all the way into the movie just aren't anywhere near the quality I would rate as acceptable. Lundgren isn't exactly a great actor (which shouldn't matter, because he's an action star), and when he has nothing to work with action-wise a project is doomed from the start. Agent Red proves this. I suffered heavily for more than 90 minutes. Don't make the same mistake as me.


WARNING: THIS COMMENT CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNING: THIS COMMENT CONTAINS Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, number one, there were a lot of mistakes and goofs, such as the concrete floors in the sub others talk about, and also, the "villain", the terrorist plotting to destroy New York and Moscow, doesn't seem threatening at all and could almost be on a comedy show. He's a terrible villain. Then, the aircraft fire missiles, and lo and behold, they turn into torpedoes! None of the torpedoes hit the sub, even though no decoys are fired, and yet the sub still takes hits. The same scene is shown underwater with the sub multiple times. And, the crew seems to die rather quickly from the virus, though the villain, Kretz has a vile of it crammed in his mouth and survives for a very long time. And Nadia (Natalie Radford)'s performance was not convincing at all. She seems almost pathetic. Overall, it was OK, as I've always been a sucker for submarine movies, but if you want a good submarine movie, get U-571 or K-19: The Widowmaker, as this one is quite poor, and the goofs are all too obvious.


I almost turned this movie off. I kept it on though so I could get a good laugh. It was very predictable all the way through the movie. Even the end. I kept it on just to see if I could keep guessing what was going to happen next, I was usually right.


Wow! I didn't think they made movies this bad anymore. This movie looked like it was made for cheap network TV. Every aspect of this movie was bad. If you have time to see a movie please see something else. Time is precious, use yours to see something better - shouldn't be a challenge.


This is probably the stupidest movie I have seen in a long long time. Just the fact that at one point the dialog went, "Have you ever heard of Agent Red?", "Sounds like the name of a bad action movie."

The first complaint is the glaring inconsistencies. Having American's flying MIG's, having air-to-air missiles turning into torpedos when they hit the water. The fact that the submarine looked like an oil refinery rather than something where space is of a premium. Or maybe the lack of any attempt at military accuracy. The fact that the whole fleet couldn't destroy one measily sub! Or just the way the virus behaves. They say starts with headaches, then vomiting and then bleeding everywhere. Well guess what, people just started choking and then dying, no vomit, and only occasional blood. Oh and they said that the reason this virus was so terrible is that it has a 100% fatality rate and it kills within 12 minutes. Guess what, that is called a dead virus since in 12 minutes it can't get very far. The dangerous ones are when you are contagious for a long time before showing symptoms and then you die.

Then there is the horrible characters. Every Russian shown was either a terrorist or drinking vodka. All the Americans were caricatures of real people, and they kept saying "God help us." The American admiral had to ask the president to make every decision. Then there was Dolph Lundgren. Special forces marine so naturally he is sent to protect a virus on a Navy ship. And they send him via commercial transportation to boot.

Other bad things? So much of the footage was stolen from other movies it is laughable. They included a female terrorist basically so she could have a cat-fight with Dolph's fiancee. And then imagine every cliched action movie moment (that is even vaguely appropriate for a submarine or even airplane). Basically imagine giving a group of 4th graders the plot and have them fill in the story, write characters, etc. and you will have this movie.


We all realise that Mr Lundgren and lousy movies are synonymous, and this certainly lives down to that reputation! The "action" scenes are mostly laughable, Dolph is tossed from a gantry and lands some 15 feet below only to recover later. Similarly he is hit with a full fire extinguisher once on the head and twice on the back which downs him only to spring to life shortly after. The gun fights are pitiful, low rent John Woo double pistol action with opponents facing off at 10 feet, blazing away and not hitting anything... The interior sets for both the sub and aircraft carrier are like left over Star Trek units, a few blank walls with banks of flashing lights and video screens. Silent Trigger at least has a big gun to look at, this is a waste of time.


This film does not enlighten viewers to the conflict... it is generic anti-Isreali drivel. The house is an obvious metaphor for the region and the Israelis, of course, are played as the brutish unsympathetic occupiers pushing the poor Palestinians out of their home. The Palestinian family members, with their differing views, are obviously meant to represent the various Palestinian viewpoints. We get it. The metaphor is as subtle as a hammer blow to the head.

This is just more pro Palestinian revisionist history propaganda. Most pro Palestinians either just hate Israel or got their history from the internet. Thinking you are informed on an issue is a lot easier that taking the time and effort to really be informed, as in researching all sides.

It's funny in a sad way that most films that claim to show an even handed view of a conflict always seem to be biased in one way or another.


When I saw this movie I could not believe that it could be such a bad movie. After seeing the first movie of the director, a very interesting movie,I expected a better movie. I think the story is unbelievable and the movie is made only for the two main characters. I can not say anything good about the movie then I am going to finish my comment


I had pretty high expectations for this film, mainly owing to the interesting cast. But seeing the movie.. man, have I ever been so disappointed!

Sin noticias de Dios is a very pointless, pretentious showcase of previous achievements of popular cinema. There's everything from modern reading of Christian religion (Dogma did this much better and even that flick sucked) to lesbian love (Bound, anyone?), but still it is missing its own point of view and especially any coherence. I can very well imagine how this movie gets five stars in women's magazines and trendy periodicals.

So, if goofy shallowness turns you on, this is your movie, but if you have any respect for yourself and movies with actual content, there are a whole better films to see.


Heaven and hell are fighting over a soul once again, and of course they send their representatives over to Earth to try and make the soul go in the "right" direction. The soul in question is a has-been boxer Many, who for much of the movie is uninteresting and unappealing. The agents from Heaven and Hell happen to be women, and the two otherworldly planes and their agents have been modernized, using cell phones and operating like modern businesses. No, it is not at any point for, new or imaginative.

There is only one interesting turn of the plot the movie, and it's more of a sidenote, not elaborated on in the least. The majority of the movie is spent on absolutely nothing. The angels never get a good fight going, there never seems to be any actual battle for the soul which is supposed to be ultimately important. No, I'm not referring to actual physical battles, rather to battles of wills. Instead, there is an absolutely needless and gratuitous bloodbath near the end of the movie.

Add in a highly questionable note that women are of a lesser value than men, and you have Sin noticias de Dios: an absolutely uninspiring and boring movie without pretty much any content at all. Agustín Díaz Yanes as the director and writer is completely lost on what makes an interesting and appealing movie, and as a result of his ineptitude, the actors are fumbling on screen as well without any personality to show. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities in the film at all. If Hell existed, this movie would be going to the lowest levels.


Hi, Everyone, One way to make a movie build as it progresses, is to start with a very boring scene. Leslie Neilsen begins his role here by narrating a training film. We can instantly see he ain't the swiftest. The problem is, it is not a comedy. It's funny sometimes but never a comedy.

The director must be given most of the blame. The cast is OK. Gary Lockwood and Leslie Neilsen should change their roles. Leslie would make a better pursuer. Maybe Nancy Kwan and Gary should change roles. Nancy would be more believable in the fight scenes than Gary.

The actors appear to be doing their own stunt fighting. They look confused. They seem to be trying to remember their choreography while the opponents wait to be punched.

The acting borders on awful. Sometimes it crosses that border. The writing is conventional. You have a super secret agency of the government that is made up of well armed men. They are all very stupid. They have $300,000 to play with that they had hidden somewhere. They film some of their exploits for training purposes, but the films are all too dark to see what is going on.

My guess is that Leslie Neilsen and Gary Lockwood and Nancy Kwan have never got together to celebrate the release of this stinker.

I almost forgot. There is a song in the movie. The girl who sang it was the one who should have been chased and Karate chopped. Actually maybe the song writer should have been the villain.

Compare the beginning speech of George C. Scott in Patton with Leslie Neilsen's speech at the beginning of this movie. George C. Scott had a passion and the words to fit that passion. Leslie Neilsen sounds like a boxer being interviewed after a bout where he was unable to find a neutral corner.

If you want a turkey for Thanksgiving, this might be it. This is the bird that didn't quite make it over the cuckoo's nest.

Tom Willett


I have seen many movies throughout my life just like the next guy. This was something special. Project Kill is the worst movie I have ever seen. I actually bought this movie because of the comments made on this website and thought to myself that it can't be THAT bad. Boy was I wrong about that. This movie was rated R back in 1977 and after viewing it, I have yet to find out why. Just a few things that made this film horrible include: The dialogue has inflections that don't make sense where they are placed, the "fight" scenes are so fake I almost started throwing things at the TV, and Nancy Kwan's role in this gem is absolutely pointless. This movie is so bad, I just had to force myself to laugh during some parts to avoid an aneurysm. Godspeed to those who want to subject themselves to this torture.


... and not just because my copy looked like someone held their cell phone camera up to a 16mm projector.

A young, spry (all of 55 years old!) Leslie Nielsen stars opposite Gary Lockwood with a vintage Pete Rose haircut in this attempt at a psychological thriller that, frankly, left me more confused than anything else. I'm amazed to learn that this film even saw a theatrical release.

"Project: Kill" borrows a theme successfully used in other films (like "The Manchurian Candidate"): government-bred, mind-controlled assassins. Nielsen's John Trevor, longing for the peaceful life he gave up the chance for long ago, decides he's had enough- he wants out, and escapes to Manila suffering withdrawal from The Program's brain-altering chemicals all the while. Lockwood's Frank Lassiter is charged with retrieving Trevor, as drugged-out brainwashed assassins aren't allowed to up and retire to Boca Raton. The two characters are apparently friends with a history together- which would indeed add an interesting dimension to the story- but their relationship is never really elaborated upon. As Lassiter tracks Trevor around the Phillipines, they each find themselves a romantic interest, some allies... some random gangsters get involved for some reason... and the movie climaxes with a fight at the always exciting location of "the docks."

Now, the climax is what convinced me to spend the $1 on this DVD. The synopsis on the package boasts that "Neilson (yes, it's misspelled) and Lockwood collide in an epic climax filled with exciting martial arts sequences." I know what you're thinking: battle of the Franks! Drebin vs. Poole! This is going to be amazing! Alas, no. Lockwood beating up William Shatner with his mind in the second pilot of Star Trek is more convincing. Nielsen's fight with the world's terrorists at the beginning of The Naked Gun was choreographed with more effort. The one redeeming feature of Project: Kill's climax was the "kill shot" Lockwood executes on Nielsen, in wondrous slow-motion against a setting sun- pretty darn funny. Unfortunately, the movie dribbles on for a few more unnecessary minutes after that.

So was it worth watching? Probably not the whole thing. Fast-forward to the "martial arts" scenes for a few chuckles. Leslie Nielsen and Gary Lockwood are both good actors, with 11 decades of film and television work between them. But this barely qualifies as film.


There's a vaguely interesting storyline with a tragic overtone in this little film - if you were generous, you could even call it "Ludlum-esque" - and the two lead actors have done good work elsewhere, but any promise "Project Kill" might have is buried from the opening credits under laughable execution and cheap, shoddy direction and production values.

I don't have the problem some viewers do with Leslie Nielsen as an dramatic hero, because I remember him from "Forbidden Planet". And Gary Lockwood was good in "2001" and even played the dashing lead in a light-weight fantasy film called "The Magic Sword". But this film proves that these two actors are really only as good as their screen-play and director let them be - they're badly miscast as secret agent "killing machines". Lockwood, in particular, just can't seem to get with the program - half of the time, he doesn't seem to know what to do with his arms. Nancy Kwan is OK - although she is so skinny and frail looking that it's kind of hard to see her as a sex object, and the other female "lead" is annoying, shrill and unappealing. (I admit that the lines her character has to speak don't help her cause.)

Oddly, the acting in some of the minor parts is a lot better, or at least more suitable for the story. Victor Diaz hams it up nicely as the chief gangster, and the guy playing Inspector Cruz is actually a pleasure to watch - here's a character actor who knows what he's doing on camera. And some of the extras and gangster thugs mug pretty well for the camera. Also, when they get shot, they really get into the whole "death throes" thing.

As for the fight scenes - it's as if someone associated with this movie watched the action sequences from "Mannix" and "Star Trek" and took notes...but they then lost their notes and tried to reproduce every thing from memory five years later. Nielsen and Lockwood are actually in pretty good shape for older male actors from that era, and Nielsen in particular is pretty buff with his shirt off - but they aren't fighters and they look silly and stiff trying to mix it up with the bad guys and with each other. There are a couple takes that don't completely such; for instance - there's a scene where Nielsen charges a door and shoots a bad guy through the door and back-fists another one out the window - that one was decent. Lockwood sucker punches a couple of thugs in a bar and hits one with piece of furniture, and that's decently done. But that's about it.

There are some nice, pretty shots of scenery, and one or two decent shots of Nielsen looking forlorn and lost, but for the most part, the movie is completely static and boring; even the sound and vocals are muddy and muffled. Sound design is one of the most underrated, but important, aspects to a quality film, and this one was obviously recorded on the cheap, which costs it another star.

Did I mention that the plot makes no sense? That there are holes in it you could drive a truck through? That most of the dialog completely misfires?

I only paid a buck to see this (it's a reissue from Digiview Productions) and I watched with a couple of glasses of nice wine late one night after everyone else had gone to bed, but I wasn't sleepy...I was looking for a time-killer, and that's what I got.

Poor Gary Lockwood. I hope he recovered from this.


These poorly done films from the Seventies always bum me out, often not because of the stories, but because they remind me once again of the seriously hideous fashion sense and hair styles the era produced. Which is to say that I was part of that decade and probably looked just as goofy as the characters depicted here, allowing myself some measure of relief for having grown out of it.

This flick however combined the fashion faux-pas with lame execution and the result was a tortuous hour and a half to make it to the end of the picture. I was surprised to see how old Leslie Nielsen looked in a film from just over thirty years ago, and got the shock of the day to find out he's a couple weeks shy of eighty four as I write this. Glad to see he's still working after turning out a clunker like this.

But it wasn't all his fault. Though the film attempts to be an action adventure, it finds itself misfiring on any number of fronts. The martial arts scenes are agonizingly orchestrated, note I didn't use the word choreographed. Most of what occurs on screen is unintentionally funny; as an example, check out how Gary Lockwood throws his hair back after any scene in which it might have gotten mussed up a bit. Other reviewers have commented on Nancy Kwan's dubious need to be in the picture, but if that's the case, it goes double for Pamela Parsons as the intrepid Lynn Walker. Why was she here? She stands around watching the other players in most scenes she's in, and once was even asked by Lockwood's character to go watch the fish in the aquarium while he hooked up with the Filipinos. Very strange.

Listen, don't get hoodwinked by the video jacket proclaiming exciting martial arts displays or an adventure of pressure cooker intensity. If there's a Priority One for this film, it's to be warned in advance of what you're getting yourself into.


This was obviously put together by Phillipino financiers hoping to sneak into the US TV movie market by stuffing American actors and crewmembers into and shooting it in English. They failed, miserably.

Long, drawn out story of 'rogue' agent getting hunted by top secret assassination group.

Although the acting is wet cardboard, and the direction and camera-work basically phoned-in, the worst parts of the films are its supposed action sequences - especially the martial arts choreography which is the phoniest I've ever seen.

Nielson had four more years to wait before having his career saved by his appearance in Airplane! - this is the film his career had to be saved from.

Not worth the buck it costs on cheapie DVD.


It's a pretty heinous film that features a man in a wicker wheelchair, Leslie Neilson's scarred chest, plenty of very ugly Filipinos, horribly set up karate sequences, and people who look like they are waiting for others to finish their lines so they can begin.

I think the plot is like this. Two guys, one being Leslie Neilson, are at odds since one wants out of this Project Control. Basically people are shooting up to become superstrong? Well Leslie Neilson gets mixed up with some Filipino gangs who don't like either one of the Americans. There is a side romance too. Makes little sense really.

I'm sure Leslie would love for you to forget that he was in this one, but sadly like the movie says: "The only way out is DEATH."

Watchability: 2 out of 10 MST3K quality: 7 out of 10


Petrified is about an artifact that turns out to be an alien who comes back to life and turns some people to stone while draining others of blood. Then there's the hand from the Adams Family that creeps around strangling people. The movie is meant to be full of puns and wacky, as it takes place in a nymph hospital with a weird doctor trying to cure death using hormone therapy. A few drinks will make this film much better. Some continuity and dialog breaks made on the cheapest of budgets. If you're looking for a good film with a serious plot and screenplay, skip this one. If you're looking for a C film that's corny as hell, this is for you.


I rented "Petrified" from my local RedBox. As soon as I saw the Full Moon logo, I had a bad feeling that I just wasted a buck. Hey, it could've been worse--renting from Block Buster for four and change. That hurts more. Thank god I no longer go to any Block Busters! But I have to say that Petrified has been added to my "worst list." I had some pretty good picks at RedBox (The Host, Abandoned)but after seeing this stink bomb, I began to have my doubts that someone was a sleep at the wheel. This was by far, the dumbest movie of all time. Special effects? Ha ha ha! Some guy standing in the bushes wrapped in toilet tissue, supposed to be an alien mummy. I was so annoyed for renting this direct to DVD piece of junk that I called RedBox to complain. That was the first time I asked for my money back based on a poorly made movie. How did this even get into RedBox? Someone at Full Moon (maybe one of the dopey actresses in Petrified) must be sleeping with the purchaser at RedBox. That's all I can think of. Stay away from this mess of a movie with 7th grade production values.


I have to start keeping a log of movies watched. If I've ever seen a worse film, I can't remember it.

Utter ordure from beginning to end. I won't dignify it with with any analysis or description beyond that, except to say that there's a brief, hopeful moment when we learn that the setting is a "clinic for the treatment of nymphomania," but alas...

I don't know what the other reviewer is drinking - I like bourbon, and the only way I can imagine liquor making this "film" any better is during that brief, fleeting moment of vivid hallucination (that we're watching some other movie, perhaps?) that comes right after hepatic shutdown, and just before irreversible coma.


charles band is indeed the ed wood of our era..this movie was done and over in 65min.full moon is robbing us in the redbox for a buck.iam a true monster fan but this one was the worst of all of the full moon madness DVD .band's puppets are even better to watch then this guy wrap with toilet paper and turning people into stone.more time were spend on some kind of a lesbo scene,which was the best highlight of the movie.charles band should be banned from stealing other people's money.no plots,no acting,no screenplay,no gore,no f/x and band as the director was sleeping doing this piece of junk..ed woods is laughing from his grave..please don't make a part two..a junk is a junk and a movie is a movie..watch it for free instead.


This movie was pretty awful...

Besides stealing names from Star Trek episodes for their one-dimensional characters (I have to wonder, did the writers actually WATCH those Trek episodes, and understand how good characters are developed?) this is your typical screaming half-naked women being picked off by clichéd one-dimensional monster in big dark house movie.

Set in a clinic for treating nymphomaniacs (snicker, snicker) A government agent is on the trail of an ALIEN mummy. That's right, he's not just a mummy, he's an ALIEN mummy, who apparently sucks the life force out of people or claws them to death. Not sure why he does both, but he does.

And I've always wondered, why do monsters in movies like this always kill people while they are engaged in carnal relations? I mean, do these monsters have something against sex?


It seems quite churlish to excuse a novice director's first feature-length outing (especially when you have not yet made one), and since this director, Marfield, was introduced at "Deepwater's" SIFF screening this past June, his direct and humble appearance made it a film you wanted to like. Unfortunately, "Deepwater" is fraught with the flagrant over-eagerness and lack of restraint that can plague younger director's first outings (which is forgivable), as "Deepwater" doesn't so much resemble a movie as a does a really long movie trailer, vigorously painting the lily when you're already working with a pretty narrow flower.

Set in an anonymous rural America (though it's swamp setting seems to illuminate that this is either in or nearby southern Louisiana), we first meet it's sort-of hero Nat (Lucas Black) as he's just being released from a mental institution, headed towards Wyoming to become a sheep farmer (or something like that). That night, however, he's involved in a violent barroom brawl with some pinhead regulars, though by the end of the altercation he is able to swipe the keys from one of their swanky new vehicles.

After the car dies down on a sheep-infested road, he meets a local hotel owner Finch (Peter Coyote) who's car has just been flipped over, though leaving nary a physical scratch or a speck of dust on his slick, white-bullet of a suit (which precisely sums up his personality). After they have the obligatory introduction, he invites Black to come work on his old, somewhat corroded hotel, for which he seasonally operates as well as doing unexplained "business" with various, shifty-eyed local merchants.

Of course, not everything is quite what it initially seems, as Nat begins to realize perhaps something more sinister and deadly in Finch's rather clandestine way of bringing home the bacon. From locals turning up dead, to law enforcements repeated intrusions on Finch's hotel property and large sums of money arriving from an unexplained origin, something is seriously (and perhaps dangerously) awry. And when Coyote's young and lovely new wife Iris (Mia Maestro), initially resistant at first, vigorously seduces Nat and then hatches up a scheme to pilfer Coyote's "reward" money and escape, everything seems to be set. However, Nat unfortunately never realized it's often his own perception that can turn against him.

At it's heart, "Deepwater" is a very conventional neo-noir exercise in style, and yet it's so luridly over embellished and so relentlessly over plotted (none of it's excess with any plausible purpose or destination) that it just becomes one ridiculously defiled, incoherent mess. We get (for a brief example) endless fast-forwards and clamorous musical cues, a prolonged and visually peppered-up boxing training sequence that looks like "Rocky" on acid, a zoom in on a man's intestines getting pecked at by vultures; none of it mattering (or bearable) in the slightest. You almost wish they would've told the predictable story of self-delusion in a straight, lucid manner, rather than an all-out assault on our eyes and cerebral digestion. Stale, perhaps, but at least a modestly indulgent distraction.

"Deepwater" occasionally shows some visual promise (though the deafening score and hazy rapid-zoom through a supposedly drugged-out forest during the starting credits instantly concludes that this is going to be quite unwatchable), as the moss-green and vibrant navy blue color schemes occasionally create a vivid, believable atmosphere of swampside congestion and fear. And Lesley Ann Warren, as a somber waitress forever confined in small-town despair, hints at a potentially affecting performance if the script ultimately didn't eventually turn her character into a nondescript plot device.

Hopefully we can pardon David S. Marfield's first feature as a well-intentioned but completely turgid would-be potboiler, and perhaps if he finds time to relax and cannily craft a film with a decisive identity, he could very well find his own voice in popular modern noir. Until then, "Deepwater" is a serious no-no.


brian aldiss once wrote that images from science fiction stories can stay with you for years. but that going back and re-reading the story will often lead to disappointment. this movie is not science fiction, but it will stay with you. and you don't have to watch it twice to be bored by it! what a twist!

there are a number of movies like this. boring, but worth watching for images they leave with you. it's just a shame that they can't be enjoyed while viewing them.

a better structured movie could also leave images with you AND entertain at the same time.

but where does the blame lie? was the original novel at fault? or has the screenwriter done a bad thing?

i for one can't be bothered to find out.


There wasn't a single positive minded person working on this movie! The entire movie is utterly depressing with everyone telling this poor Jeep that he can't fly in different derogatory ways. My son watches it three times a day and it gets more painful every time, I think I'm gonna hide it. The negativity isn't worth the 3 minute happy ending! Parents who try to instill positive thinking in their children should avoid this movie. The makers were attempting to show the end as victorious, but it goes way over a young child's head and leads to toddlers running around saying "Lock it up Shorty". Fun Fun! You get used to the not so hot animation after the first few minutes.


The art work was not bad but it could have been much better. The sound was poor. There really was no story line that made any sense. It looked like the cartoon was rushed into production. I think this group has a chance to make top grade productions in the future, but this first attempted was tossed together. They need better writers and more people who can rework the sound. It will be interesting to see what their second production is like. One area they have got to improve on is their public relations. They seemed to expect that word of mouth would bring out a huge crowed to see the movie and buy the DVD. It doesn't work that way.


This is the type of movie that's just barely involving enough for one viewing, but I don't think I could stand to watch it again. It looks and plays like a mid-Seventies TV movie, only with some gratuitous sex and violence thrown in.

I agree with several previous posters -- Herve Villechaize is NOT very menacing, and at times even comes off as unintended comedy. At least the other two villains make up for that. Also, it was jolting to see Jonathan Frid is such a pedestrian role, which definitely under-utilized his enormous talents.

But I think the basic problem with "Seizure" is in the storyline. The evil trio that are conjured up from Frid's mind are seen too early and too often. They appear to everyone at once, and announce their (murky) plans too early in the picture. In fact, Stone takes this idea and literally shoves it in the viewer's face, with a series of challenges for the guests; challenges that it doesn't seem like they have any chance of winning, anyway. How much more effective would have been keeping the evil ones in the shadows, preying on each house guest in turn, sowing confusion and doubt among the remaining house guests, who don't know who or what is causing the carnage. By having the trio appear early on, to all the "assembled guests", and announcing their plan (confusing as that plan is), much potential for tension and suspense are lost.

Also, a more gradual appearance of the evil ones would indicate Frid is slowing losing control of his subconscious. To have Frid subconsciously conjure up these baddies, because he's got hidden grudges against his wife and friends, would have been a far more logical plot device. Instead of having Frid play an intended victim from the get-go, it would have worked better to have him slowing becoming helpless to control the menace he's created, with mixed feelings of guilt and satisfaction as his shallow, superficial friends are killed off. The plot Stone offers up is confusing as to the origins and, most importantly, the motivations of the evil trio, and never gives any explanation why Frid, from whose mind they came from, can exercise absolutely no control over them. Confusing is the word that best sums up the whole picture, and the end feels like a total cheat. Better to have some great showdown in which Frid is finally able to banish the creations of his own tormented mind.

Oliver Stone has done some notable work in his career, but sadly "Seizure" is not among them.


OK, this was Oliver Stone's first movie, so I'll cut him some slack (although Satyajit Ray and George Lucas didn't need any pity points for their stellar debuts, "Pather Panchali" and "THX 1138", respectively). Though attempting to make a low-budget horror film with serious undertones about the dark recesses of the unconscious mind, he has instead put a group of very capable actors into a series of macabre scenes - some of which are quite good - but that don't add up to much. And as for serious subtext, the movie ends up with about as much depth as a young adult horror novel. In addition, I didn't like the twist ending, as this same twist was used in literature over a hundred years previous.

The true strength of the movie comes from the casting of several iconic actors and actresses from various places ("Night Shadows" and elsewhere). Though I had not seen any of these actors elsewhere, I give complements to the performances of both the dwarf actor Herve Villachaize and Martine Beswicke as the Queen of Evil. Beswicke, in particular, is the most darkly beautiful actress I have ever seen, and I could not keep my eyes off her whenever she was in a scene. Casting her as the ultimate villainess was a stroke of genius. I'm even tempted to say that her performance is the one best reason for seeing this movie (which is surprising, because Stone has never been very good at creating compelling female characters). Otherwise, there is little here to predict Stone's master craftsmanship on virtually all his films from the late '80s through early '90s.


Henry B. Walthall (as Charles Randolph) goes off to fight for the Confederacy, during the Civil War. Also joining the ranks are his sister (Agnes Randolph)'s suitors - Joseph Graybill and Charles West. Later, in General Robert E. Lee's tent, soldier Walthall is chosen for an dangerous mission. But, the war, and drink, have turned him into a coward; unable to complete the mission, he runs home to mother (Grace Henderson). To save family honor, Ms. West puts on her brother's uniform to complete the mission. After receiving sad news from General Lee, mother Henderson demands cowardly Walthall hide in "The House with Closed Shutters", so folks will think he died honorably. Her plans are complicated when the sister's suitors return again, and again and again. The two suitors certainly do persevere! Directed by D.W. Griffith.

*** The House with Closed Shutters (8/8/10) D.W. Griffith ~ Henry B. Walthall, Dorothy West, Joseph Graybill


This poverty row adaptation (courtesy of Monogram) of the Charles Dickens classic has about as much finesse as a school pageant, despite the appearance of old pros like Irving Pichel (as Fagin) and Lionel Belmore (as Mr. Bumble). As a matter of fact, while the film has a couple of choice moments in its second half, any good intentions are done in by some serious miscasting: an overage Artful Dodger (Sonny Ray) and Nancy (Doris Lloyd) and, worst of all, an unsympathetic Oliver (Dickie Moore). Rather than proving an asset, its short running time (70 minutes) gives a careless, rushed air to the proceedings and ensures a total absence of the visual poetry which marked David Lean's definitive 1948 version.


Dickie Moore (of Little Rascals fame) stars as Dicken's most famous orphan in one of Monogram studios attempts at turning out the classics of literature. Compressing the story down to 70 minutes this is a real mixed bag that doesn't really work. The problem is in the casting which is a mess. Dickie Moore looks too good as Oliver (His hair is way too neat for a start) and unfortunately he can't act. His performance consists mainly of looking where ever he's directed not reacting to whats happening around him. It may have worked in the Little Rascals but here is awful. The Artful Dodger and his band of kids are now a band of college age reprobates trying to be much younger. William Stage Boyd as Bill Sykes is mostly over the top thanks to a script that makes him a bit too manic and menacing. Irving Pitchell as Fagin is okay to start but he slides into wide-eyed silliness at the end. Its watchable, but its far from good. If you want to see a film version of the story I'd go with one of the other versions.


I bought a 4 DVD set of "Great Novels" through Amazon - and this 1933 version of OLIVER TWIST was included. It's a truly awful movie - risible in execution, and not in any way memorable - except for it's bad acting etc.....but it appeared to start a trend in Hollywood at the time for cheap Dickens rip-offs. Has to be seen to be believed! But the box did contain a quite good copy of BECKY SHARP which will be remembered as the first feature in 3-strip Technicolor. It stands the test of time really well.....also in the box (by mistake) was a copy of Hitchcock's SABOTAGE which might not be one of this best, but is worth watching for it's atmosphere of London at that time (1936).


A sincere,but atrociously acted and flatly staged film version of the book, with no authentic period flavor whatsoever. Dickie Moore is so syrupy sweet you want to slap him; Irving Pichel tries very hard but is just adequate as Fagin, as is Doris Lloyd as Nancy, but William (Stage) Boyd acts as if he thought he were doing one of those corny silent melodramas. Lionel Belmore (not to be confused with Lionel Barrymore) gives a very stereotypical performance as Mr. Bumble, and nobody else makes any kind of an impression whatever.

An embarrassment to the memory of a great author, and especially so when compared with so many other Dickens films.


I was pleasantly surprised to spot my friend Joe Rock in a supporting role in this Larry Semon movie. Joe Rock kindly permitted me to interview him in his home a few years before his death. Rock was a real utility man in the early days of American films. With time out for combat service in the Great War, he put his extremely comical features to use as an actor in comedy shorts, and had even more success as a writer, producer and director. He deserves some sort of prize as the Academy Award winner who had to wait the longest to receive his Oscar. Joe Rock won a Short Subject Oscar for his documentary film 'Krakatoa', but was in Europe when the award was announced. When he returned Stateside, poor record-keeping left him unable to prove that he was the film's producer, so the Academy refused to release the Oscar trophy. More than thirty years later, while moving an old filing cabinet, Rock discovered some business documents which enabled him to prove that 'Krakatoa' was his film ... and to claim his Oscar several decades late.

Unfortunately, this movie 'Golf' isn't nearly as interesting as Joe Rock's career. Off the screen, comedian Larry Semon was an excellent amateur golfer, even introducing Oliver Hardy (his second banana in this film) to the sport. It would have been nice if Semon had taken advantage of this movie's theme to show off his prowess on the links. Instead, we get a dumb racist sequence featuring a black man frightened of a ground squirrel in a bag. There's also a very Semonesque sequence featuring an enormous vase teetering on a too-small stand. Larry Semon's universe is full of items stacked precariously high, teetering dangerously ... but (predictably enough) always falling and smashing eventually.

Semon often gave himself a love interest in his films, but here the leading lady is cast as his sister. She's Lucille Carlisle, a pert flirt. Carlisle does a neat bit of physical comedy involving a door. Later, Oliver Hardy has one nice piece of volte-face acting when he barges into a room, all bombast and bluster, then he instantaneously morphs into a courtly gent (resembling the 'Ollie' of Hal Roach films yet to come) when he sees there's a lady in the room.

Normally, I'm very glad to see Vernon Dent, a prolific and talented but sadly under-rated supporting comedian who came to a tragic end. (Dent, a victim of diabetic retinopathy, spent his last years in poverty and total blindness.) Unfortunately, at this point in their respective careers, Dent and Oliver Hardy are almost exactly the same size and shape ... and they're cast in similar roles in 'Golf', so this movie has one big blusterer too many. The film ends with Hardy getting kicked in the face by a mule ... an image which left me wincing rather than laughing. 'Golf' had a lot of potential, but it ultimately takes a mulligan. My rating: just 4 out of 10.


As far as acting go, this movie was the pits. HOWEVER, the story is slightly original because the characters get around on snowmobiles and are stuck in blizzard-like weather. I am always happy to see snow and freezing, bundled up actors instead of bright sun and greased up, bikini clad actors. There is too much California weather in movies, I must say, so this is a nice change. And you could tell that the snow and northern woods were real and not made up on some California ski slope.

It was also pretty creepy how they added the Christian memorabilia into the plot. A giant statue of Jesus on the cross or a crying face of Jesus are both really creepy. Much more creepy than a made up Satanic demon or something, which most movies usually use when dealing with the occult. Although, I don't understand what Jesus has to do with the occult, but it still added a lot of overall insanity/craziness. When people have Jesus things all over the place, sometimes you feel like they will act without thinking because Jesus told them to or something. This is the feeling I got from the old camp in the woods.

However, the "devil eye" ouiji board thing didn't seem to fit. They should have kept with the Jesus theme instead of entering Haitian voodoo into it. That seemed to come out of nowhere.

Tom, the character that gets in the snowmobile accident, had a funky look about him. When he has sex with the ladies and they show his snarly face, I thought it was pretty gross and hard to watch. Good job with the ugly faces.

Did anyone notice that nearly every person in this movie has giant, oversized front teeth like rabbits?

The waitress at the bar in the beginning was really life-like and typical. I thought she was a neat character, though a bit over-acted.

I could have done without the old lady voice narrating it. That was too much unneeded cheese. It would have been better without it.

Overall, terrible acting but a good story that keeps you wondering what is going to happen and succeeds in using effective props/sets. And they get an extra point for using real snow.


The Late Show with David Letterman is a show that has been on TV for way too long.

It would be OK it was funny but I just can't find any good humor in this show.

I find my self watching this show just staring whit out a smile on my mouth for way most of the time, thinking ohh was I suppose laugh there.

I rarely laugh or even smile when I watch this show, which is very seldom , but I keep hearing certain people not all, saying what a great show it is. Even when there is nothing at all on TV it is still better than The Late Show.

Little good to say about this show, and the top 10 list is not at all funny.

People keep saying that the Late Show with David Letterman is so much better than Jay Leno, NOT. I will take Headlines over top 10 any day

I give only 2 stars but I wonder why I give so many.


Wow. I really don't like this show at all. Letterman is funny once or twice and that band leader is ugly and annoying. Leno is much better and tonight I just swapped to see how stupid this show was and I know its a joke and all, but he made fun of president Gerald Ford's death. That was very mean and very unnecessary. Letterman should not be making fun of someone else's death for his show. I don't see Leno doing that. Also, that band leader, whatever his name is, my god so annoying. I can not stand him nor him and his band singing. It sounds like a whole bunch of cats fighting. They really should not sing every title, it is very irritating. Well, my final rating. 3/10


As a UK citizen, I had never had the misfortune to see an episode of this 'talk show' as it was on digital and I haven't upgraded yet. However, for reasons I won't go into it is now part of my job to watch the show for research purposes. I don't think I can last much longer.

It is almost impossible to verbalise how irritating this show is. The 'jokes' are non-existent, with each punchline scuppered with, erm-ah, the-ah timing of David's delivery. Every time the audience laughs I wonder what kind of funny-gas has been pumped into the studio.

Things are made worse by the visually stagnant way in which the show is filmed. Nearly the entire show is locked into one mid-shot of David at his desk. Even when he's talking to his house band we are rarely afforded a glance at who he is talking to, with a sinister high-pitched voice off camera underlining every sentence spoken by David: 'Oh! Uh-huh. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaah.' When I first saw this show I thought I was hearing David's self-congratulatory inner thoughts through the mic he has on his desk. Instead, its a bald guy with sunglasses (is he blind? I'm afraid to ask) who pats David on the back at every opportunity.

The smugness of this show is suffocating, especially to new viewers such as myself who haven't witnessed anything to warrant their inflated opinion of themselves. I was hoping against hope that perhaps Letterman's interview technique was second to none, but yet again I was disappointed: they are as vapid and un-illuminating as the rest of the show. At no time are the guests asked anything more searching than what they had for lunch earlier. It may be just a cultural difference, but I prefer the cheekiness of UK talk-show hosts like Johnathan Ross etc. who manage to get under the skin of his guest through humour so that we get to know more about them than another well-rehearsed anecdote.

Unfortunately, there seems no way to make it stop. Its my job to keep watching this forever. I am in hell.


I don't see how CBS pays Letterman $30 million a year. This guy's jokes are so boring and redundant. Every show has the stupid Will-It-Float, George Bush making a speech scene, and the Rupert deli owner interview. And I always wondered who writes the Top Ten list - they are so damn lame. I also heard that the audience is told beforehand to laugh, whether the jokes are funny or not. That's ridiculous!

I know that most celebrities are leftest but Letterman makes it is so damn apparent. I'm no fan of George W, but his constant bashing of him is so obvious. On every show, Letterman shows the "great" speeches made by JFK and FDR and then all of a sudden shows Bush stumbling or saying something stupid during his speech. And him "inviting" Bill O'Reilly for an interview and making a mockery of him in front of a national audience. Absolutely classless.

Ten years ago, I remembered watching a couple episodes of the Late Show thinking this guy's jokes were getting old. Today, I'm even more shocked that he's still on.


I don't agree 100% with what jnaradsay says about this movie, but that reviewer is on to something that likewise irritated me about it. In this era, a mainstream movie for kids should be beyond having a villain with a physical disability, for one example of all the weird stereotypes, prejudices, and symbolism in this movie. (You Californians may not realize how offensive the barroom couple would be to southerners in a humorless movie like this.) As for technical, I can assure you Europeans that the English dub is equally as bad, though one can tell that indeed the characters' mouths were animated for English. I thought Atlanta was cute, too, but given to cartoonish gestures that were jarring in a movie like this. Though they sat through the movie last night (we rented it), neither of my kids (3 and 7) liked it enough to want to watch again this morning. Enough said.


Bad 08/15 story.

They made the same failures like made in Final Fantasy(Spirits within).

It's an standard, I would call it "american story". Not funny. And to technically without spirit.

Probably I have watched to many Ghibli movies. And there is not one character I like. They are all stupid and to "designed".

watch an good German made (animation-)movie watch "Obelix and Asterix in Amerika".

Another tip: Watch this movie without sound, it's a really nice CG Animation without story.


I'm left incredulous that anyone could see this film as anything but insulting. My 12 year old thought it was moronic. That's fine. Maybe he's too old for it. My 9 year old thought the story was stupid and the characters annoying. Maybe she was too old. My six year old left the room and asked to be told when the movie was over. These kids love films. The worst thing that a film maker can do in making a kids film is to assume that kids are stupid. This is not worth a rental, this is not worth borrowing from a friend, this is a film to use as punishment. If you still insist on watching it after reading this, make sure you take a gravol!


Let me start by saying that the animated movie Snurks. Back to Gaya should not be watched by children. Unless you want to explain why the mean little snurk calls people a "putz". Or why the movie is dark and dreary like a new Batman movie. In order to enjoy this movie you must understand that this is a religious allegory with a some very bad ethnic references, the requisite "a female can be a hero too" story line, and a cookie cutter plot.

As far as a CG movie it is good. Not very good, but it has some terrific details. If you like to see pimples, pores, a stray nose hair, and blemishes then you will be impressed by the graphics. The bonus feature is kind of neat because you can watch how they build a skeleton, add "skin", texture, muscle movement, and facial features.

Did I already state that this is not a movie for kids? The story involves a "creator" (Patrick "Jean Luc Picard"), a mythical land where good battles evil (Eden, er, Goya), the good guys need "the light", ("dalamite"). The dalamite gets stolen by an evil genius with a limp and (don't be shocked) a big, bald head!! Lemme explain: evil will take away the light and you have to find the creator to get it back. If you don't get it back then you will be a putz (they said it, not me). Explain that to your kids.

Whose bright idea was it to give the poor little Snurks a shot glass filled with a Mickey? That's right, the Snurks get drugged by a tank-top wearing bar owner. I'm no censor but I know for a fact that cleavage does not belong in a kids movie.

Just to keep adults interested, the artists have decided to show you lot of the barmaid's cartoon cleavage and sagging you-know-whats. I know for another fact that sagging you-know-whats do not belong in a kids movie. And the barmaid's male lackey gets yelled at, scolded, called a putz, then kicked in the head. Way too much violence.

And they didn't miss a chance to make fun of fat people, short people, and anyone that looked different than heros. Sure, they had to cooperate to get back to Eden, er, Goya, but the snurk leader still had to bribe the "creator" to get equal treatment.

And why does "666" keep popping up in the background? Did I like it? Not really. I wish I didn't see it with my kids. What a putz (their words, not mine) I am.


I went to see this movie in Amsterdam with a friend and her 2 children in Dutch. We were also the only people in the cinema. It took only 5 minutes to convince me: this is the worst movie I have ever seen. What father would tell his daughter to kiss the first bozo that comes along, just because he can drive a race car....

I think something must have gone wrong in the translation because throughout the movie I had the feeling we were back in the fifties teaching the children that the women's place is in the kitchen or otherwise just look pretty and shut up. Fine role model aye.... OK I'm exaggerating; in English it can't have been that bad: otherwise Patrick Stewart would not have taken part in it! So much for the dialog.

Although I must say that the creators have really tried to make a decent movie, I think the dialog is the downfall of this flick. I voted 1 out of 10. Better luck next time.


I think this movie was really bad, but I liked seeing it because it was shot in a house I owned in Ocean City New Jersey. The whole thing was done in six weeks during the summer when the town was very crowded. They blocked off the street and shot all day and through the evening. It was a great process to watch. The original title "Down the Shore" was considered but changed because that is an expression that is used only by the people in the Philadelphia area. Other locations were used that showed amusements and rides that are not in Ocean City. Some were done in Wildwood New Jersey about 25 miles away. It also looked like three different houses were used. My house had two small apartments and one large unit above. All the interior shots were done in my house and some of the outside shots were done using the fronts of other houses in town. I thought that was done very well and it looked convincing. PJ Smith


"Beach House" is a fairly weak and derivative teen comedy. It strives to be like "Animal House" and "American Graffiti", and it largely fails. The script is inept, and the direction is so loosely plotted and ill conceived that it is tough to follow what exactly is going on throughout the film. The story seems secondary to musical interludes and drinking games. What is even more puzzling is the attempted rape scene near the end of the film. It is quite dark and does not suit the film at all. It is as if they tried to rip off "Halloween" momentarily too, just to rack in a quick buck.

It is somewhat of a shame that this movie is so poorly made. There are a few decent things going for it. The music is in the same vein as The Ramones's music in "Rock 'n' Roll High School", and evokes some feelings of nostalgia. The best part of the film though, are a few of the female leads. Ileana Seidel as the spunky Brooklyn broad, Cecile, is really cute and has some screen presence. It is a shame that this film is the only one to bare her name. Kate McNeil achieved slightly more success than Seidel, and she too was good in "Beach House".

As a film, "Beach House" is just excess. It offers no story or even characters to connect with, and it just plays out like a plodding music video. Proof of the film's inability to create character is the fact that it does not even offer a resolution. Do the boys from Philly end up getting along with the Brooklyn greasers? Apparently nobody making the film cares. If you love teen comedies then give this a look, but it ain't no "Porky's", that's for sure!


A young, upperclass woman named Thymian is excised from her family when a combination of incidents including her father's affair with the housekeeper, the death of the governess, and her rape by her father's business partner resulting in impregnation causes the family as a whole to send her away (for various reasons, some of which are unknown) to a reformatory. The draconian actions of the reformatory cause her to run away with a young Count, but unfortunately he is penniless and they have nowhere to go, so she gets stuck in a brothel of sorts where she lives until circumstances bring her back to her family and eventually lead her to a new life and new identity, from which she learns compassion for the other "lost girls" of the world.

Technically, that's what it's about.

At least, that's what happens. The problem with this film is that Thymian is the only character with any motivation, and it's a slight and unfocused one at that. For the first half of the film, indeed, one at least can be forgiving to the film because the characters inherent (and physical) beauty at least provides some sort of motion to the storyline. Unfortunately, since the characters have no motivation, and since the director seems entirely unwilling to let anything tragic have its due in the world, the movie skips past what could possibly be a beautiful and tragic ending and continues for another hour or so on tangents without importance or design.

At first this discursiveness seems rather stunning and unexpected, but a quick look back over a few points of the first half of the film start revealing that indeed, it seems Pabst really didn't have a clear understanding of overaching tones, themes, motifs. He has a storyline and names for characters, but no personalities or plot. For instance, the name of this movie: DIARY of a Lost Girl. The beginning is quite clear and obvious the importance of the diary to the character of Thymian, but not only does it not sustain its direct duty to bring her some form of closure, revelation, or salvation, it also simply disappears after a certain point and is never heard of again.

Furthermore, the movie strives to close up all threads with an opportunistic idea that everything can work out, but it closes up threads that needn't be included or are even merely incidental in the story arch. I repeat: the characters lack motivation. Since the characters lack motivation, what are they supposed to do to win, or lose, or react to events? They have nowhere to go or expand, and thus the ending keeps getting further and further away.

Most distressing about watching this film is it's complete lack of understanding about tone. It goes to extremes that seem at first to show the incredible level of conformity, decadence, ignorance, or whatever, but eventually go to far and fail to make an organized statement. Little nods to lesbianism are included for no real reason whatsoever. And what about Thymian's tendency to pass out before being taken advantage of? If it's meant to show her lack of control over the situation, it's a very maudlin and over-indulgent attempt.

In fact, why does Thymian want to hide the identity of the father of her baby when she was quite clearly raped? Some rape victims tend to victimize themselves by claiming that they deserved it, but there's no hint, nod, or involvement of that dysfunction. Why does the mistress of the reformatory derive such pleasure at the exercise of the girls? There's no clear evidence to support that she's sadistic, lesbian, or any has any form of motivation besides the fact that showing her wild grinning face seems a good way to get a reaction from the audience. Why is the housekeeper turned stepmother so stern, and furthermore, why can't she seem to make any face other than her one stern one? Sometimes this film goes to lengths, also, to go further into depth about things that don't deserve such treatment. Most of the ending seems to be an attempt by the filmmakers to take control of the theme (which they don't have) by reintroducing arbitrary characters and involving them in entirely new plot lines that don't have any coherent or enthused meaning on the overall storyarch. Basically, as soon as the Count's son inexplicably kills himself, the movie becomes saturated with false pretensions towards positivity, endurance, and "love" without taking the time to admit that the entire movie has already ended.

From there, the whole thing begins to fall entirely out of control and gets worse and worse until roughly about the beach scene and beyond, which if by that point you're still paying attention and caring about where the characters are going, you're just going to be lead to one of the most antithetical climaxes in film history. Yes, the Count actually said that line, and yes, that's all you're left with.

--PolarisDiB


This slow-paced film is beautifully shot, and enhanced by the luminous presence of Louise Brooks (as Thymian), who makes a perfect cinematic illustration of innocence under attack. But the direction is so heavyhanded that much of the message is dulled.

The chemist who preys upon Thymian is shown to be an evil lout from his first closeup, so it's hard to understand why she would ever talk to him. The reformatory directors are sadistic caricatures, and Thymian's father and stepmother are exaggerated hypocrites.

The father's acting doesn't help, as it consists mainly of standing in symbolic poses. (Irritatingly, Thymian never blames her father for his awful actions, only her stepmother.) These choices make it hard to take much of the story seriously, although probably many of the events related are based on truth.

Thymian herself can be frustrating to watch. Unluckily, and a bit absurdly, she tends to faint whenever she's confronted with a sexual situation. I assume this was the director's way of making sure viewers didn't blame her for her "fall," but perhaps there's a more interesting Freudian explanation. Twenties-fashion fans will enjoy the scenes in the surprisingly benign whorehouse. But unless you're a Louise Brooks fan or a cinematography student, I can't recommend this melodramatic film.


I checked out this German silent film early in my film collecting days to get another look at the intriguing Louise Brooks, a controversial actress of her day whom I had read a lot of glowing tributes to her by critics. However, like the other movie I watched her in, "Pandora's Box," this, too, I found boring. It was way too soap opera-ish. Hey, everybody here isn't a drama queen.

The clincher for turning me off on this film was the anti-Christian bias, something prevalent since film began. Here, we see a gym instructor with a big cross around her neck, in which the camera showed in closeups twice to make sure we got their point, and the woman was a sick sadist. This is ploy filmmakers have been doing for years, right to this day.

Too much talk in here was not translated, either. That gets frustrating to watch. Brooks gets an inordinate amount of attention and praise simply because she was a big feminist before her time, so Liberals gush over anything she did, even it stinks. Case in point.


With Jackie Earle Haley having an Oscar nomination this year for Little Children, I decided to check out what there was of one of his earliest works that I had watched 30 years ago, Valley of the Dinosaurs.

Haley did the voice of the small Butler child.

Valley of the Dinosaurs was the cartoon story about the nuclear Butler family (father, mother, sister, brother and a dog) who rafted their way down a whirlpool to the afore-mentioned valley, where they met their equivalent cave versions, father, mother, brother, sister and a pet stegosaurus.

They were all paired up accordingly for the fathers to work in the garage, the mothers to tend to kitchen work, the teen-aged daughter to have adventures with the strapping bohemian surfer dude teen-aged cave son (interesting that there never was an episode with Lok on some makeshift surfboard) and the young son (voiced by Haley) to wander off with the blonde cave daughter.

Ironically, the cave daughter, Tana, did bear an animated resemblance to Kathy Coleman, who played daughter Holly on rival Land of the Lost.

It really wasn't that much of a coincidence that Valley of the Dinosaurs and Land of the Lost both premiered the same year. Cartoon themes were very common.

An even better one was Speed Buggy and Wheelie & The Chopper Bunch, both Hanna Barbera cartoons.

But I digress.

My brothers were fans of LotL, and they even said LotL wasn't so much a dinosaur show, but was more fantasy.

VotD, on the other hand, was straight rugged, outdoor camping stories.

There was criticism that children weren't learning anything from Saturday morning fare and the like, so we were given Schoolhouse Rock, and, having seen the old primetime Planet of the Apes show with Ron Harper and James Naughton, I've been surprised at how instructional in gardening and the like that show was.

VotD does the same thing, perhaps a bit too much. We learn about wind conditions, how pulleys and levers work, siphoning water and various other helpful boyscout techniques.

To kids, . . . . . it was annoying.

Made worse would be the father, sporting that Race Bannon voice, telling kids not to do something, then the kids, usually Haley's character, would do it anyway, chaos ensues, who did it, the kid would confess and we would get a stern parental lecture.

A very stern parental lecture.

There would be other episodes where a rock was sacred to the cave people and it was sitting on top of a volcano, fish were put out for a crazy werewolf creature (with Scooby Doo's howl I might add) and the cave family would insist 'it is our tradition' and Father Butler would have to display a little scientific know-how to dealing with the volcano or the animal creature.

I guess about the worst one I have seen thus far was when the fathers and Lok used a giant turtle shell to maneuver underwater and (ready for this?) they polished up one side of the shell with sand to make it see-thru.

Each episode seems to end with the cave daughter, or sometimes the American daughter, observing one of the animals in some little situation and saying "Looks like Digger yadda yadda yadda . . . " and they all laugh.

Jayna of the Wonder Twins would repeat this finale on the Superfriends years later with ending each episode with 'Looks Like Gleep.' In the end, it doesn't compare to Land of the Lost. It is a different show, hardly a cheaper version to Land of the Lost's superiority or anything like that.

Now, over thirty years later, Jackie Earle Haley is nominated for an Oscar, against Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls.

Good luck, little Butler.

Strangely enough, there is an episode that deals with a windmill or something being used to signal planes that are flying over, which gives a hint that this was how the family got out of the valley.


Herb Meadows wrote the original story "The Calico Pony" that this movie was based on, and this was its shooting title.

Van Heflin was great as Luke Fargo, Joanne Woodward in her film debut is okay, but a bit tiresome and "Methody" in her performance. She does a nice job but is not as appealing as a Debbie Reynolds-Tammy backwoods type.

The supporting cast including Raymond Burr, Jean Willes, and Kathryn Givney are terrific. Best of all is Allison Hayes as the rich girl gone bad. Her performance is amazing and seems slightly truncated so that she could get NO audience sympathy. Some of her dialog is delivered over closeups of Woodward. No other female character is allowed to be sympathetic at all, even Nancy Kulp as made shrewish and mean to Woodward's benefit.

This makes the story suffer - but Heflin, Burr, and Hayes make it a very interesting nearly-forgotten movie.


Awful, miserable film probably remembered as it was Joanne Woodward's first motion picture.

This colossal bomb deals with a post-Civil war gentleman returning home to the south. He finds utter contempt from the people living there as he fought on the side of the north. What else should he expect- a ticker-tape parade?

Van Heflin is our turncoat and along the way, having survived Vicksburg, he has gotten religion and plans to be a preacher.

The heavy in the film is none other than Raymond Burr who does everything in his power to thwart the goals of Luke Fargo (Heflin) even if it means burning down the church or spreading horrendous gossip about Heflin and his sudden 18 year old charge, Lissy, played nicely by Woodward. Throughout the film,she appeared to be a tom-boy like character, who Heflin tries to tame.

The problem with the film is that every time Burr strikes at Heflin, there is really no excitement. Even at the end, Burr just drives his horse and buggy away. A Gunfight At The OK Corral like ending was needed here.


Horribly bad direction by Mr Grönros. Is he a joke or what? No sense for timing, storytelling and psychology. Even if this film was meant for dumb kids, or is that the problem? Maybe Mr Grönros thinks kids are stupid in general? The logic of this film is questionable at the least. I can't even bare to watch the whole film. It`s actually playing now on the TV. I get so mad. The film is obviously an expensive one and the cinematography is good. The cast is some of the best actors available in Scandinavia. (Stellan Skarsgård, Pernilla August etc) How that happened is amazing! I think that the problem of this project, apart from the director, is that he himself (more or less) has made an adaption of the Maria Gripe book. Indeed it's a fairy tale, but that doesn't mean one can throw away logic or have completely meaningless scenes in the film. Ever heard of dramatic storytelling? As in moving the plot along? The special effects with the birds are ridiculously badly done in a film like this from -98. Again, how the hell could Mr Grönros approve? The final scene is also a display of bad filmmaking. A scene that could have been powerful goes limp due to very bad choices in editing/ direction. (Just read that Leon Flamholc is the editor so there you go - Mr Quality stirkes again) And again logic is forgotten. Memory loss anyone? Now I feel a little bit bad for Mr. Grönros as he sure as hell will read this. (IMDB is BIG) But the guy needs some critisism after spending all that money in this Swedish/ Danish/ Norweigian co-production. Shame on you! This must be one film danish co-producer Peter Albeck-Jensen regrets ever getting involved with.


"L'ora di religione" (The religion class) is an awful third rate movie whose main purpose is to ridicule the acts of canonization in an apodictic tone, even with a blasphemous curse uttered in the name of the art of cinema. Aiming at showing the evidence of huge turnovers hidden behind the canonization projects with the connivance of Vatican, the movie supports the thesis of religious conversions due to mere spirit of opportunism to open new prospects of eternal life insurance. In other words, we are in the presence of a religious choice made on grounds of expediency and not intended as a profession of faith renewed day by day without listening to bewitching sirens echoing secular songs of existential desolation.

This movie desecrates and tramples upon all the true and good ideals of life professed by the Catholic Church, laying the blame on the religion, accusing it to disturb the peace of the families, to upset the conscience of children, as if the religion class were responsible of a series of existential damages in our time. As if one could find behind the facade of the Catholicism a good deal of hidden hypocrisy. And if Ettore, Ernesto's son, in his childish obsession manages to talk directly with GOD against his own will, there he his, the "deus ex machina", his omniscient father in his capacity as a fictitious but miraculous therapist, ready to obviate the drawback with the clear and strict enunciation of a suggestive cause-effect relation about the desire for eternal life: believing in SCIENCE is tantamount to believing in IMMORTALITY (thank to the power of face lifting!), ignoring that only a wholesome family education in conformity with the spirit of Catholicism can constitute the basis of an adequate comprehension of the religious doctrine. On the other hand, how can a child not to take too literally the (unhealthy?!) catechism lessons from a necessarily ugly and frigid religion teacher (because a religion teacher can't be a nice woman, in accordance with the script) if his parents are unable to give him a right support to make him understand that six billion human beings can be easily controlled by GOD thank to His almightiness? It's obvious that Ernesto, the father, anxious to formulate hypothesis and thesis to reach the truth one way only, namely in accordance with his personal idea of basic beliefs of atheism, can't even dream of pondering about his inability to enable his son to understand this simple truth. He never looks at himself, examining his own conscience to look into the matter of his own infallibility. He hasn't any doubts about the INADEQUACY of the religion teacher and about the ADEQUACY of his twopenny halfpenny dialectics because what really matters, according to the script, is to strike blindly at everything concerning the religious element, especially at the issue of sainthood, without any pause for breath, without any alternative voice, profiting by every occasion to deny the existence of life after death.

It's really remarkable how the truth can be misrepresented here. There isn't any will to direct the attention to those mischievous aspects of the modern society that have smoothed the way for cynical and opportunist people ready to profit from every occasion to reach their own purposes, taking advantage of the good faith of the Ecclesiastic Authority (an hypothesis never contemplated in the movie) to acquire dignity, prestige and perpetuate privilege positions, especially through the safest way, that is to say the sanctification of a frail, poor wretch with the only fault of having given birth to five heartless sons. On the other hand, "the eternity is a sure investment, an absolute value that outlives every changes for the worse, like the banks" as states cynically Filippo Argenti (not that frenzied Florentine spirit among the wrathful in the river Styx that turned on himself his own biting teeth, as written in Alighieri's Divine Comedy), as if to give value to the religious conversions may suffice a simple formal act of obedience to the Church and to the Pope, described as an "absolute monarch who reigns over the consciences of all Italian people." And according to the thesis of the movie, a human being converted to Christ can enjoy his life a little more and find a lover for himself without playing the moralist and without caring about breaking up his family. A miracle of the so-called authorial cinema!!!


This may be the worst Women in prison flick i've ever seen. The movie is wall to wall sex and after a while it stops being a Women in prison movie and just becomes a softcore (slightly hardcore) porno.

Now i don't necessarily object to softcore films, but when i watch a WIP movie, i have certain expectations. There are certain genre conventions that should probably be followed. Most of these films have a slightly teasing nature about the sex and most have much denser stories than this one. This is not a genre where plot is all that important, but the story here is weak even when you keep that in mind. There is no story at all. It's just a series of scenes with lots of nudity. The acting is terrible, the characters are all weak and predictable. There is very little humor... The film tries to be funny, but fails utterly. There is very little action, it just meanders from one sex scene to another. It's just pure drudgery once you get bored with all the sex and their's so much of it, that won't take very long.

The director of this film is one of the blandest i have ever seen. There is no sense of visual style, no atmosphere. All the lighting is flat, all the editing utterly conventional. There is nothing interesting about the camera work and most scenes play out in a boring, predictable fashion. The pacing is horrid... It's basically shot with less artistry than most porno films. It's lacks any sense of style at all.

As a softcore film, I suppose it succeeds to some degree but it's almost too mean spirited to be erotic.. As a WIP film, it lacks any pretension of underlying substance or plot, and the film doesn't benefit from the absence.

Watch "The Big Bird Cage" instead to see how these movies are supposed to be made. It's full of fun and interesting characters, has a much more substantial story and while there are fewer sex scenes and less nudity, what's there has a greater impact than anything "Bare behind bars" has to offer. Even a film like "Emmanuelle in prison" which is only a middling effort in the WIP genre, is still ten times better than this one.