Before you choose to approve or disapprove of this comment, realize that I do not claim to speak for all men on the issue of fashion. All I can safely say in my introduction is that this show is hard evidence that the two genders really do show differences in the way we think! That out of the way, let's talk about What Not to Wear.

When I first saw the show, I didn't really know what to expect. So I was rather surprised to see that virtually all of the participants were women. Figuring this just had something to do with ratings--after all, how many straight men routinely watch shows about fashion?--I decided to see just what all the hub-bub was about. And I almost liked the show, but there was one critical component that hit me very, very wrong: The $5000 gift card.

To me, giving someone five grand to spend on nothing but clothes, sends women a message that there is nothing more important that a dollar can buy than a set of clothing--not her home, not provisions for her kids, not investment portfolios, not even food on the table. Now if they would give participants five HUNDRED dollar cards and had them buy the best clothes for the lowest cost, then I might understand. Perhaps they could teach the participant how to balance the need to maintain good finance with the desire to dress in good fashion. But no, they dish out the money like it grows on trees. Great lesson there. Not!

Yes, this flaw completely does the show in. In a society that judges women almost entirely on how they look and very little on how they think, this show does nothing but enable that culture. If there are shows out there that praise the modern woman as intelligent, confident, and independent, What Not to Wear is not one of them.


I personally feel that firstly, Stacy and Clinton are way too harsh. No one deserves to be spoken to in such a demeaning and hurtful way. The point could be made with a bit more kindness. Frankly, while I would not condone it, I am surprised that there haven't been punches thrown in the direction of the hosts. Now for those clothing choices. Mostly bad. I would never want a tight little jacket that uncomfortably snug. Looks like one can't raise her arms. Slacks nearly dragging the ground is so ugly, and most of us who's upper arms have gotten a little bigger, don't want to wear sleeveless or cap-sleeves, but rather kind of loose and to the elbow at least. One more thing, most women do not spend $200 on a blouse or pants. How much better to shop with all that credit card at a more reasonable priced department store. NO, I don't mean Wal-Mart. A $50 pair of jeans can fit and look really good. A good choice would be Marshall's or TJ Maxx. So calm down a little with the harsh remarks. Shop a little more wisely. I am 4ft. 11in. and I get frightened when I think of what those two would put me in. No way I would let them near me.

Thanks, Peace to all


I have to agree with other comments that list this show as cruel and ridiculous. I've seen them dress people that live in Miami beach in the same wool clothes that someone in nyc would wear. They are not conscious of climate differences or different styles for different cities. They impose the nyc style on everyone that is forced into the show. I'm sure it's good drama, but how useful is a wool skirt in Miami on a 20 year old club kid? Fashion is not about what you wear to the office every day but utilizing a personal style and self expression. I'd love to remake their wardrobes and mock them. I'm so sick of her pointy toed shoes. It's absolutely ridiculous and suppose someone isn't working in a corporate clone setting, this makes their fashion rules silly and obsolete. I'd like to see an actual fashion designer and someone with a demographic and climatic sense dress these people. Palm Springs, Miami, LA, Charleston, SC would not be wearing nyc fashion. It makes no sense. Clinton isn't as rude as Stacy but these two twits are annoying and ridiculous. It makes me nuts to see the show.


This show is a piece of trash,I hate it when people try to tell you what to do and how you live your life.It is cloths people,wear what you want.If you like it and it fells good than power to you.Yes,there is some place where you have dress codes.There should be no rules in they why you present your self,express yourself they way you like.The one thing I hate is that women Stacy,she seams to be very uptight and make very rude comments.So,what if the cloths do not fit her shape.if the girl like it than power to her.Clinton is OK but some times he kind of sounds to posh and act like he is the cream Dee la cream.The other thing is that some of the cloths are far too darn expensive.No one is going to buy a skirt that cost a person $500 dollars.no one can afford it.A person beauty is in the inside , not because she wears the latest designer cloths.At the end of the day beauty is in the eye of the beholder.Sorry but Stacy and Clinton get faces out of TV.We need to except people for who they are and what they like.

oh bye the way Stacy Goth is not something that you can leave out of high school.There are allot of Goths who have good jobs and live their life.


I had never heard of Slavoj Zizek before I saw this film. He is a Slovenian philosophy professor. He has written many books and obviously he wouldn't keep getting published unless people were buying them. He seems to be a Marxist of some sort, and has a photograph of the only dictator arguably worse than Hitler on the wall of his apartment, Joseph Stalin. He seems more concerned with nonpolitical philosophy though, generally speaking.

This film did nothing to make me interested in reading his books or in him. It is a random mishmash of clips of Zizek talking in various places in small soundbites about a wide variety of matters. Insofar as philosophy is concerned, and I consider myself a philosopher, there was nothing of any philosophical interest to me in this film. Much of what he says in this film seemed to me to be either trivial (obviously true) or incoherent.

Perhaps one might enjoy this film if one were at all familiar with his work, but I doubt it--why not just read more of his work rather than waste time watching this hodgepodge of soundbites? But if you aren't familiar with any of his work, like I was, there doesn't seem to be any reason to watch this.


Ah yes Slavoj Zizek a man who is a household name but only in his own household . Apparently he's the most famous Slovenian in the world which is surprising since I've never heard of him and I have heard of Milan Kucan . Perhaps the hype should have said " Most famous Slovenian to have appeared in a 73 minute documentary by Astra Taylor " ?

From what I've learned from this documentary all you have to do in order to be credited as a philosopher is point out something no one has noticed before as in " Fascists don't clap while Stalinists clap themselves " Hey Zizek might actually have a point until you watch an edition of FAMILY FORTUNES . It might actually be that people who clap themselves are educationally subnormal rather than believers in one country socialist democide

The second point about being a philosopher is being able to state the painfully obvious , as in " the more coke you drink the more thirsty you feel therefore the more coke you will drink the thirstier you will become " To be fair to Zizek he does point out out that there is decaffeinated coke but no one spends a great deal of time and money drinking decaf , we drink coke because caffeine is an addictive drink and thirst has nothing to do with it . If I point out that the apple of knowledge is a euphemism for drug addiction does that make me one of the world's greatest living philosophers ?

There is some unintentional amusement to ZIZEK like for example he describes a child watching television as " narcissistic amusement " ( WTF !?)and he lies in bed waxing lyrically about the human condition . Yeah that's right he cannot go to bed without having his great thoughts recorded for posterity . In fact Mr Zizek comes across as one of those people who if he were discussing films shouts down everyone else's opinions because " The lighting makes San Francisco look like Los Angeles so that's not the Golden Gate bridge in the background " You can't disagree with his arguments because you're not sure what he's talking about

And as a footnote Mr Zizek apparently makes a considerable living on touring seminars . It might be a good idea to watch ZIZEK before you pay money to attend one of his classes because I'm sure you'll here the same things said down the pub


***Spoiler Alert***

This movie sucked. Zach Ward was terrible at times, OK at other times, but Tony Daly was just awful. He reminded me of Ben Affleck, but I think I would have rather seen Affleck than him. Let me repeat that: I would have rather seen Been Affleck in this movie than Zack Ward.

The "movie within a movie" premise has been done before and much better. LA Twister's novel approach was to have the movie they characters are making be exactly the same as the one we're watching, and both movies sucked.

The characters were ridiculously stupid and naive. Even after "Scotty Farkus" had been burned hard by a casting agent he still believed that a shady guy from "back East" was going to fund their movie and were shocked when it turned out he was just snowing them.

Did I mention this movie sucked?


This show seemed to be about a rather large, plain woman who was regarded highly for her singing but spent a lot of time trying to keep men out of her pants. Trouble is, the script calls for someone who is truly attractive. The casting of Lisa is unforgivable as Ms Tarbuck is not "sexy" and the plot therefore lacks all credibility. Did I say plot? The show meandered, talking scenes linking pointless nightclub singing spots that are designed to show off "Lisa's" talent. I am astonished that the show has received so many high votes on this site. Dare I suggest that Ms Tarbuck's famous daddy is the main reason that she got the part? No, there is no nepotism in showbiz. I expect that Ms Tarbuck does have acting talent and her character roles, such as Mrs Jellyby in Bleak House, are more suited to her persona.


My sister recommended this movie to me because she thought it was awesome but I thought otherwise. I am quite the Shakespeare junkie and I was so disappointed! It didn't follow the real MSND close enough to even be called that! There wasn't enough mistaken identity or confusion of the love triangles and that is what MSND is all about! The passion of the story was never present. Also, the rave was never rave-y enough, the music would always be soft while they were talking or they would be in the quiet room. I was going to give them the excuse of having a low budget film but apparently that isn't true! But Matt Czuchry is still really hot!


Too bad they did not release a soundtrack CD because the music is the only redeeming thing about this movie. Imagine an unlikely cross between "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Redneck Zombies". Assemble a cast too physically unappealing (and too sleazy) to get work in the porn industry even though their acting skills are on that level.

When both the director and the writer have their careers stalled for three years after a movie, it is a good indication that you will be viewing a truly staggering mess. Unfortunately the script kept only a bare outline of the Shakespeare play and replaced the rest with student film quality dialogue and plot elements. Most high school class project films are better than this-if only because they have a shorter running length.

This is slightly more dull and mind-numbing than spending two hours observing a bunch of drones and wiggers indulging themselves at an actual club. If you are determined to stay with it until the end, and are searching for a way to maintain you sanity, you can focus on trying to figure out where the $1.5 Million budget went since none of it made it onto the screen.

Obviously this movie is not for Shakespeare purists but neither is it for anyone with a few still active brain cells. The cinematography is high school MiniDV quality, the production design is accidental, and the editing supports the theory a lot of drugs made their way into the systems of the post-production staff. I am embarrassed to admit even watching it, oh the sacrifices I make for public service.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


Nothing special at all and was just an unclever movie. There were no good quotes except the 'live love' phrase but other than that nada. The only redeeming values of this movie was seeing a somewhat familiar cast and the music was exceptional. It was an interesting twist on the old Shakespeare poem but I still think it could have been A LOT better! There was a little bit too much on the topic of homosexuality that seemed unrelated to the story and I had no idea why they threw that in there (and no I'm not homophobic at all, I just thought they could've left that out as it was pointless). There were a handful of good looking girls throughout the duration and they were definitely nice to look at. It was an alright movie, just don't get your hopes up.

Final Round:

Movies : This would've never made it to theaters!

DVD Purchase : No way in hell.

Rental: Sure, why not?!


First, a word of caution. As an American, I am not familiar with Norman Wisdom. I know that he's a bit of a British institution and he was beloved behind the old Iron Curtain, but his movies and television programs were not popular here in the States--in fact, he's almost completely unknown. Because of this, I don't have the sentimental attachment to him or his work. What went over well years ago does not necessarily translate well to today--at least if you aren't already a fan. I just saw TROUBLE IN STORE and didn't particularly like it. However, I am a glutton for punishment so I decided to try his films one more time.

However, before the film began, I read through the reviews on IMDb. Unlike the universally positive ones for TROUBLE IN STORE, the reviews for JUST MY LUCK seemed strangely divergent. Either they loved the film or they disliked it strongly--with not much opinion in between. That's pretty interesting but also didn't help me decide whether or not to watch the film.

Well, my initial instincts were unfortunately correct. I didn't particularly like the film, as JUST MY LUCK seemed an awful lot like a Jerry Lewis film--with broad humor and comic bits that were overdone--with every last bit of comedy squeezed dry from the skits. For example, the movie theater scene is just dreadful--going so far overboard with its timing and pace.

My advice is that if you are British or Albanian or Russian, by all means see and enjoy this film. Otherwise, it might just be tough to take for more than about 30 minutes. And, no, this is NOT like Mr. Bean in any way, despite another review to the contrary. Mr. Bean is funny (especially the original TV show).


The poorest Wisdom vehicle I've seen so far, despite being the only one with no pauses for song and even features the star in a dual role: Norman is a jeweller's assistant who, in order to buy a gift for his sweetheart, tries his hand at gambling on horse-races; his winnings keep piling up and the book-makers decide to outwit him and run off with the money themselves!

While the plot had possibilities, there is very little going on here and none of it is terribly funny - despite the support of Edward Chapman (the first of 5 collaborations with Wisdom) and cameos by Margaret Rutherford (playing a dotty millionairess with a passion for animals) and Jerry Desmonde (his unbilled split-second appearance, though, is more of an in-joke than anything else)!


For me, a disappointing sequel to the successful, breezy "That'll Be The Day" as the bright young scallywag Jim MacLaine (David Essex) somewhat improbably tries his luck in the rock industry only to crash and burn by the end having lived the rock dream to the bitter end, along the way cramming into the narrative as many rock clichés as you can think of. So we get the inevitable "musical differences" which cause him to leave his band The Stray Cats, encounters with groupies, strained relationships with the estranged wife and son he left behind, his rise to solo mega-stardom and eventual retreat to a drug-filled existence leading to the inevitable downbeat conclusion. Rock fans might derive fun from the peripheral characters' purely coincidental resemblance to any living person, as the legend goes, with a foreign intellectual interfering girlfriend (Yoko Ono?), old-style matey, but sexually ambivalent manager (Brian Epstein?) and loudmouth, money-obsessed American manager (Allan Klein), as well as Essex's character's own career path which seems to echo Jim Morrison of the Doors (who also died in seclusion in continental Europe), but the situations are too conventional and predictable to really engage. On the acting front, Essex's limitations are exposed and he fails to draw in the viewer, unlike his lighter playing in "That'll Be The Day", although more experienced actors like Adam Faith and Larry Hagman get more to chew on in their roles. Another weak point is the original music, (a failing also of the much later "Dreamgirls") which especially when set against contemporary classic tracks by The Who, Kinks and Mamas and Papas, to name but a few, is sorely lacking in catchiness and leaves you wondering just how The Stray Cats actually got to the top of the charts. This is slightly surprising given that the musical director here is the talented Dave Edmunds, whose own solo career abounds in recreations of mid-60's pop and rock. Ironically, trivia-fans, Edmunds in the 80's successfully produced the popular rockabilly band The Stray Cats, best known for "Runaway Boys" and "Stray Cat Strut"! In the end an overlong, over-pretentious movie and evidence if it was needed, that the best way to portray rock star excess is with parody, e.g. "The Rutles" and of course "This is Spinal Tap".


The first time I watched this movie it made the life of what is emoral become heartfelt, but after a few other times the movie became mundane. An ecocentric humor of realities truth. The movie is so elaborate as to depict a fundamental flaw in nature, a fluid flow of what is to become reality in itself. Retelling what we already know. The working IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR PLIGHT AND STRUGGLE. YET THIS STRUGGLE CONTINUES. Frank a hard working son of an English born mother must face hardships with the Italian community in New York and still uphold mockery from his Polish brethren. A movie fit with hidden lies upon the stuggle in America, showcase a nonstop heartfelt sympathy for a man who strives for much more yet receives acceptance only in wish. Frank. My god, this movie should be banned by everyone and their mother. vile.


I actually watched this all the way through and I am really surprised I made it. Many times I wanted to turn it off but kept watching out of curiosity to see if it could possibly get any worse. Do not watch this for the "gore" as there is little and it's very poorly done. Do not watch it for the "plot", there is none. Whatever you do, do not watch it for the "acting" as that is far too generous a word to use for what these people were doing. This is apparently a vanity project for someone who wanted to dress up and play actor/director. There are absolutely no redeeming qualities. Do yourself a favor, Just don't watch it.


The plot is at the kindergarten level. It's just a crazy man killing people in gory methods, often doing obscene things with the corpses. His "friends" help him along the way and participating in one murder during his birthday party, of which some of his presents include an inflatable sheep!! The atmosphere is really bad. It mostly takes place in a New Jersey trucking warehouse, in and around trucks, and in the company's office building where Frank lives. If anything, there's a lack of atmosphere! It just plods along without any connection between scenes. It's just a set of scenes smashed together.

None of the cast is worth mentioning but I'll mention one, the main "cast member", as none can act in the slightest. Frank O'Brien plays...*Drum Roll* Frank!! His character is an exaggeration of his real life.

For the movie, Frank is an excessively slow and old man who was once homeless and an alcoholic. Now he does menial tasks with a trucking company.

True story is that Frank O'Brien found his wife in bed with their priest and, feeling so bad, he became homeless and alcoholic. He's now old and suffering from some type of senility and dementia. He has dentures but that does NOT account for his speech impediment. His words are so unintelligible that his words are subtitled in yellow -- only his! Aside from this, I feel sad for Frank O'Brien because it seems as if he, and his slowness, are just being used and exploited for the amusement of the crew and the viewers. But mostly I found it just sad.

The only Cast member of "some" fame is Tasim Atkinson who plays The Tease, one of Frank's personal ad women and victims. In real life, she's a "big woman" exotic dancer. She appeared on The Howard Stern Show a few times and promoted the movie -- probably the only reason that this movie was sold anywhere.

Directed and written by Steve Ballot as Escalp Don Bladé. He's obviously an amateur. His writing is terrible and without direction. He used a ridiculous pseudo name which, in itself, is amateurish.

The cinematography is terrible, like the rest of this masterpiece. It's obvious that it's shot with camcorders and edited with VCRs and other low-tech equipment. The picture is faded and the hues are awful.

The SFX, ugh!! Basically, it has a lot of fake blood, fake wounds, ripped out eyes, and several fake penises -- yes, penises!! The sound is like through a tunnel. The music is sparse. The best song is by a band called the Young and Fabulous but even that isn't great.

This is, without a doubt, THE WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN! The story is ridiculous, the cinematography is awful, terrible effects, terrible sound, I can NOT understand Frank's speech which is exploited and hurtful. The title is irrelevant unless you watch the deleted scenes/alternate ending. The festival extra bashes Frank more! Butter sound, state of the art crap! A few jokes are mildly amusing but most are just too vulgar or immature to be funny. I couldn't wait for the DVD to end!!

Don't waste your time on this crap which makes Troma look like Broadway!! There's tons of extras for such a crappy movie.


Reading other more positive comments you could be forgiven for thinking this trash is comparable with John Waters movies, let me assure other Waters fans who may be persuaded to watch this...It's Not. The only comparison between this and Waters movies is that's its marginally twisted. Thats it. If that was all it took to make a good movie then everyone would be doing it, Waters has a visual style and a wicked sense of humour. The makers of Bride of Frank have no style whatsoever, they seem to have mistaken an old inarticulate person as a source of comedy. Guess what, Frank swears a lot, he's old thats pretty much the whole humour section of the movie. As for the "shocking" murders, I swear I nearly fell asleep, this is so ridiculously bad you can't even be shocked by such things, I'm guessing the blood squirting excessively from severed heads is supposed to be funny, it can be if done right, sadly nothing is done right in this film.


Maybe if I was not younger than most of the cast members who are trying to pass themselves off as teenagers then I would not have had a problem with this film. I didn't buy the hype surrounding 'Jaane Tu ya Jaane Na' (a film of similar persuasion) and thankfully this one was not hyped up (at least not in the part of the world where I reside) so it is easier to just watch the film as a time-passer rather try to figure out why I'm not feeling what other people are feeling. High School Musical, it is clearly NOT.

I'm guessing I just don't like films like this that try to to be like 'Grease' (which was acted by people who are older than the age they were claiming but so well written and well acted that it did not matter) and 'West Side Story' just to mention a few.

All that aside, Ruslaan Mumtaz (Rohan) is very cute and sort of reminds me of Arjun Rampal. And Hazel Croney should be very grateful that with such a think foreign accent, she was still allowed to dub her own lines for the film. Katrina Kaif should be so lucky.


I bought this movie at Wal-Mart for a dollar because it had Vincent Price on the cover. I love Vincent Price and love Horror so I bought it and was happy to add it to my collection. I went to look it up on IMDb and noticed it had a rating of 7.9 so I figured it would be good. I found out it was a Saturday morning show aimed at kids and was beloved by all that watched it.

I just put the movie on a few minutes ago and I watched about 20 minutes of it  I am guessing it was the pilot episode that I watched but couldn't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that I was far from being impressed.

This show bored the living daylights out of me, I never even so much as cracked a smile for one thing said. The characters were stupid and annoying to say it in a nice way. It was badly pieced together and sloppy. I can't imagine even in 1971 kids thinking it was funny. The jokes were a bit more adult like in my opinion and its obvious they were aiming it at both kids and adults alike.

Vincent Price couldn't even save it for me. Seeing him do anything other than horror has always been hard for me to enjoy. In this one he just sat and said little stupid rhymes in between the skits. His motives for doing such a crappy show are beyond me.

People, if you like this show please explain to me why.

If you have never seen it, then avoid it.

It's badvery, very bad!


This is a god-awful film and I was shocked to see that the featured review gave it a score of 10. This is like giving a pig the crown for Miss America! Instead of a 10, I am actually feeling a bit charitable in giving it a 3, as it was a groan-inducing movie from start to finish.

The film starts in Heaven. It seems that somehow Heaven has screwed up some paperwork and this necessitates the angel Michael (Bob Cummings) taking a trip to Earth to convert a soul! It seems that the evil Brian Donlevy is soul-less and Michael needs to point him towards God.

There are so many problems with this sappy picture, I don't even know where to start. The script is full of religious clichés and never once seems genuine in any fashion. It will most likely irritate or offend many religious folks who watch it was well as atheists--one of the two times these groups will agree! And, to top it off, on top of all the hooey, the film is so deadly serious and earnest that it was just very, very hard to take. It makes GOING MY WAY seem very gritty by comparison! Preachy old nonsense is the best way to summarize the film. Just plain dumb might be another.

By the way, though it was probably NOT intended, in the scene towards the very end of the film my family and I laughed because by the way the dialog was written there sure seemed to be a gay subtext. Think about this as you hear Donlevy and Cummings give their lines--they sound more like lovers than friends.


I was really looking forward to seeing this when I 1st heard it was on TV. I've become quite a fan of Rachel McAdams recently, and I quite like Anna Faris's films also.

The film is about a high school girl who has it all, and a down and out criminal in his mid 30s. Somehow they switch bodies and we see the consequences unfold.

The film itself was pretty awful. The script wasn't funny and neither were the actors. There were major points glossed over and the characters actions were completely unrealistic, even for a comedy of this type. It was bizarre how they almost completely ignored one of the two affected characters for much of the film, such a wasted opportunity.

The dilemma I have is I am unable to give it less than 4/10. Despite how bad it was, at no point did I want to switch off or even get bored with the film.


What might have been an excellent detective thriller turns to unwatchable slush halfway through because of an utterly ludicrous romance plot.

Burton plays Clare Blake, a policewoman promoted to the top of her profession, despite being so lacking in judgment and self-control that she risks destroying her own career by jumping into bed with a convicted killer who is under investigation for another two murders, then conducting an affair with him in full view of her colleagues, the press, and the public. When a junior officer remarks "I can't believe she'd be so stupid!", my wife and I could only nod our heads in agreement.

The villain, by contrast, is shown as so brilliantly adept at manipulating people that we could only wonder how the prosecutors ever found a jury that would convict him.

We kept watching this farce lurch from plot hole to plot hole while Burton did her best to lend it some undeserved dignity, but by the end we would have needed a forklift to keep suspending our disbelief. Unless you desperately need to see Amanda Burton in her underwear, avoid this one at all costs.


Usually I like Amanda Burton's acting, honestly. But accepting this role was a complete mistake.

The Commander in this series does everything a good cop wouldn't do. She garbles evidence and sleeps with suspects. On top of that, she has a huge ego. Now, ordinarily this wouldn't kill a series - it would maybe even be an interesting touch.

The problem, however, is: this is about all the series has to offer. Obviously the title "The Commander" wasn't a misnomer for this one; the commander is all the series is about. No interesting crime or mystery, just this commander being a disgrace for the whole British police. It's not credible that a person like this would ever become a commander and moreover, it's not interesting to watch.

As an alternative title I suggest "The Clare Blake show".


Have we been so stifled by Hollywood formulas and actors studio mannerisms that we need throw gold stars and superlatives at anything that does not retread plot devices or boast a familiar narrative contrivance? Is that the measure of good cinema? Anything that isn't a bloated American production? 12:08 East of Bucharest won the Camera D'Or in Cannes for what must the most self-indulgent, esoteric, longwinded one-note joke ever put on art film. We have needlessly long- shots, completely disjointed from the movie's rhyme-scheme, which does nothing but draw attention to the fact that you're watching a film that desperately craves acknowledgement for its bureaucratic pace and 'artistic' subtleties. But nothing congeals and the film's 2-3 minute inert shots and circular banter is reduced to mere gimmicks instead of underscoring (almost non-existent) themes of a stagnated post-communist economy and wishful democratic nostalgia.

This has all the hallmarks of a disastrous inside joke; though the characters are supposed to be quirky, lovable oafs they're never actually written to be anything other than 2-dimensional pastiches each equipped with one tragic flaw and completely irrelevant emotional baggage.

In spite of a few truly charming scenes during a live broadcast gone awry, this is trite, uneventful (in every way) and surprisingly pretentious art-house filler.


WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS Willard is a very slow moving character study. It is not, as it is billed, a horror film, unless you have a phobia relating to rats. Yes, scenes with the rats can deliver a gross out, but that's about it. The only really horrifying thing in the film is the way the rest of the cast (excluding Sondra Locke's character) treat Willard. Basically what we have here is the story of a shy man, suppressed by his overbearing mother and without his father who is put upon by everyone. He withdraws so much that his only friends are rats. At various points in the movie he uses the rats to ruin his bosses party, steal money, and finally murder his boss. All of the acting is good, and Borgnine is excellent as Willard's creepy boss. But this can't save the film from its glacier pacing and inappropriate music. Ultimately the film is a let down because nothing really happens. I do not recommend this film unless you really like slow paced character sketches or are afraid of rats.


A few weeks ago I commented to a friend that Willard & Ben were fondly remembered movies from the 70s - he lent me a VHS copy of Willard which I foolishly watched. If you want to keep your fond memories it's best not to look to closely with older eyes.


The film reveals the Japanese's view of themselves as "the victim of Atomic bomb". The crew of the submarine Lorelei believe that they are fighting for their homeland and the future of Japan and hence sacrifice themselves at the end of the movie by surfacing on the water (even though the area is surrounded by US fleets) so that they can take down the US airplane which was carrying the third atom bomb heading for another drop in Japan. Of course the whole situation is fictional but the Japanese should know that they never needed to see Hiroshima or Nagasaki if those stupid Japanese war maniacs and that irresponsible Emperor had surrendered in prior.


A two-time loser like Gator McKlusky (Burt Reynolds) will do anything to avoid a third strike and a long prison stint. So when a big city revenuer asks for Gator's help, what choice does he have? Gator's mission is to get the goods on Bama McCall (Jerry Reed), the nasty crime boss of a neighboring county. Gator gets something else he hadn't counted on, however, when he falls for television reporter Aggie Maybank (Lauren Hutton). Can he get the girl and the goon?

As is the case with most sequels, Gator is a vastly inferior movie to its predecessor, White Lightning. Everything that made that movie so good and so memorable is missing from Gator. While there are a few good moments like the opening boat chase, the movie doesn't have the same gritty feel to it that characterized White Lightning. Gator trades much of the action of White Lightning for a tired, dull romance between Reynolds and Hutton. Not only isn't it believable (especially if you know the Gator character from the first movie), but the outcome of the relationship is terribly predictable. "Sappy" and Gator McKlusky just shouldn't be used together.

But the most offensive part of Gator is Burt Reynolds. In White Lightning, he played it straight. From my review of White Lightning, "One of the coolest things about White Lightning is that it presents Burt Reynolds as an actor at the top of his game. This was a Burt Reynolds who seemed to actually care about the final product and not just yucking it up with his buddies on screen." In Gator, far too often Reynolds reverts to the clown he would become in movies like Smokey and the Bandit and Cannonball Run. That laugh of his just grates on my nerves. There are times in Gator when Reynolds and Reed are on screen together that I swear it's like a test run for Smokey and the Bandit. And it's not surprising to see Hal Needham's name in the credits as Second Unit Director.

Overall, Gator is a huge disappointment. I'm being generous with my 3/10 rating.


What a disappointment this film was. I was pleasantly surprised with the film's predecessor, White Lightning. While no master piece in film, White Lightning was an enjoyable film set in the deep south. Gator on the other hand leaves so much to be desired. The film opens with one of the most ridiculous chase scenes I have ever seen. There is little improvement as the film goes on. Jerry Reed plays a kingpin and does not do it very convincingly. Burt Reynolds, as Gator, does not seem nearly as tough this time around. Perhaps his second stint in prison made him soft? It seems Gator is not as confident this time around. The remaining cast members are most forgettable. Most forgettable was the slob/federal agent that Gator is in cahoots with. There was one good shot the entire movie. Gator visits with a 15 and a half year old prostitute and the part of the scene is shot in the reflection of a music box mirror. Somebody else must have suggested this to Burt Reynolds as the rest of his directing in this movie is deplorable. The film's failings can't lie solely on bad directing, most every film making element of "Gator" falls short. What a shame, Burt Reynolds seemed to be such a promising talent in White Lightning.


Why oh why do people make films that start off with a light-hearted attitude but in the end become grim and depressing. "Hickey and Boggs" and "Shout at the Devil" also come to mind in this respect. The only things saving this film from being lumped in with "Hustle" (the worst '70's Reynolds film in my opinion) is Jack Weston as a bumbling federal investigator and Jerry Reed as the icy evil villain. Of course, with the acting talents of Lauren Hutton on display, a lot more is needed than just a couple of good character actors. Add an exploitative ending that feels like it was tacked on for a sense of serious "drama" and you get one bad movie.


Thornton Wilder's play about a matchmaking busy-body named Dolly Levi in 1880s Yonkers, New York who has been hired to find a mate for a wealthy, grumpy business owner; she comically attempts to keep him for herself, while the gal he admires is quickly falling for one of his own employees. The later stage (and film) musical "Hello, Dolly!" actually improved upon this scenario--there are pauses here which practically call out for a song--but there's evident charm in Shirley Booth's lead portrayal; at times addressing the audience directly (with many of the players following suit), Booth sounds a lot like Thelma Ritter (and has some of Ritter's spunk), but she doesn't get her share of the good lines. Scenes of Dolly getting a wedding ring stuck on her finger or delightedly finding men hiding in Shirley MacLaine's hat shop don't really come off. Booth is friendly but frivolous, and we never quite become involved in her quest to have a man--this man--in her life (in the film-version of "Hello, Dolly!", Barbra Streisand was much more persuasive about her need to share her life with a mate--even if it was Walter Matthau!). The film flutters about in a jolly, folksy way, but some of its gags (such as Anthony Perkins and Robert Morse having to dress in drag) are just silly. It begins and finishes on an upbeat note, but the leaden handling drags its midsection down, even though the cast is quite good. ** from ****


This is your common family comedy: a lack of realism, fart jokes, kids and dopey adults taking control, more bad jokes, and a busy parent with a struggling relationship with his/her child.

What is with the last item on that list? All these family movies have the boilerplate `'I hate you, Dad/Mom''save me, Dad/Mom''I love you, Dad/Mom'' subplots, as if they're required by law. I thought such subplots were dumb when I was young enough to appreciate family movies. As an 18-year-old, they look even stupider. I don't think anyone truly gets anything from them. Even the dumbest jokes were a better investment of time.

Still, it's not all bad. Silly movies like this can be much worse. The acting was decent, assuming that several actors were still kids. It's sad that they did a career-crushing film like this. Of the five kids, only Rachael Leigh Cook has had a remotely notable role since (`She's All That,' almost three years later). As for the adults, I was impressed with Rod Steiger and David Paymer, but couldn't they find something better?

Most would be horrified to think about a sequel, but with so much to improve, I doubt it could be worse. (Maybe Kayla, now in her late teens, fills in for the carpool and Chelsea and Travis are now teens, with new little kids to take their place. The hijacker could be an early-20's guy so he can have a love/hate relationship with Kayla. You groan, but would you rather a cheesy parent/child relationship?) These are just my ravings: even if you could get the actors to return, the reputation of the original would still be there. Then again, maybe the public has forgotten after four years.

My overall impression: this movie is as mediocre as it gets; just how so depends on your age group. Kids will enjoy the bad jokes. Adolescent boys will enjoy Kayla's outfit. Everyone else: it won't kill you, but there has to be at least one better tape in the store.

Parents: be advised that family movies are not the best way to spend time with your kids; this one is no exception.

My rating: 5.


CARPOOL was produced by Warner Bros , a film studio with a long history of movie making . You'd think the studio heads would know what makes a successful entertaining film so couldn't have come up with something better than this ?

What's that old saying " Never work with children or animals " ? The studio broke one of the rules by employing children as main protagonists and while we don't have much in the way of animals we see another golden rule broken , the one that states " Never work with a duff script " . A man drives his children to school only to get kidnapped by a desperate robber . You probably think you've seen this premise a million times before but it's not really a plot that's been filmed all that many times , probably because it's so weak and obvious which leads me to be confused as to how it survived its pitch . I guess the studio must have been really short of good ideas that month . The already weak plot is brought done even more by the way the actors mug for the camera and the really weak situations: " You put the gun down - No you put the gun down " which means it's not really worth your time seeing


The biggest problem with the critically slammed "Car Pool" is its lack of originality. The affable Arnold plays a likeable two-bit carnival owner in need of money who carjacks a gaggle of kids on their way to school in a van driven by Paymer. What ensues are the usual chases and sophomoric nonsense. A busy flick with lots going on, "Car Pool" is a regurgitation of hackneyed stunts and gags which have been done many times before. An okay diversion for the vegetating sofa spud and little more. (D)

Note - IMHO Arnold's Razzie is undeserved. It's hard to look good in a really bad film.


There were a million different ways this film could have gone and, subsequently, improved. However, this "Carpool" runs out of gas early on.

Tom Arnold can be funny, I've seen him do it. And there are parts in "Carpool" where he is, in fact, funny. But the whole storyline is just a line of desperation on which this movie hangs situations that just don't stay up.

And what in all that is holy's name are actual actors like Paymer and Steiger doing here? They can be funny on occasion, but not here; you just spend your time scratching your head, wondering how bad they needed the money.

As it is, one long car chase, punctuated by the kids thinking Arnold isn't such a bad guy after all while dad Paymer insists they "stop being nice to the criminal" (okay, I liked that part).

Two stars. And if I never see Steiger dressed like a clown again, that's fine with me.


I distinctly recall sitting down to watch "Carpool" at home ten years ago and being appalled within the first ten minutes by the film's insulting intelligence level. It stars David Paymer as an average Joe who transports a bunch of whiny kids back and forth in a daily carpool. However, one morning he picks up a stranger - or, more specifically, a criminal (Tom Arnold) who may or may not actually be such a bad guy after all.

The movie is one of those incredibly lame "family movies" that is clearly designed for one target audience: infantile children who can't differentiate between quality and utter rubbish.

This is, sadly, part of the latter category. I don't "hate" Tom Arnold for no good reason like some people out there seem to, but I don't like him very much (he's only ever caught my interest in one movie before - "True Lies") and he's completely aggravating here in a role just about anyone else could have performed better (except, perhaps, for Pauly Shore).

Paymer is given the thankless role of a hapless, meek idiot who evidently attended too many Nice Guy Clichés 101 classes.

Overall, you won't be neglecting yourself anything particularly special if you decide to skip this unfortunate little disaster.


At first glance, you start watching this movie and wonder if you accidentally turned to the Idiot Channel, because you can't possibly imagine someone actually getting PAID so much to act so poorly. Is this what it has come to? Cheap hacks of real actors like Tom Arnold, and kid actors that made McCauley Culkin in "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" ALMOST a pleasure to watch.

If this is the kind of movie to which our children turn for entertainment, then I'm scheduling an appoint with my urologist first thing tomorrow morning for a VASECTOMY!

The only ENDEARING quality I can give the movie is that Colleen Rennison makes the Olsen twins look like something out of a Wal-Mart circular, but it's not worth seeing the movie when you can see her cameos in great T.V. series like Stargate SG-1. I'm being sarcastic, of course.


The movies starts off like a comedy, with 9-yr-old Natalie Wood spending 15 minutes pestering the men who come to hook up the family's new television set, but things soon turn somber.

Joan, the middle sister, is extremely jealous of the older sister, Gail, and has the hots for Gail's handsome boyfriend. She flirts openly and outrageously with him every chance she gets, and at Gail's 18th birthday party goes so far as to expose her bare shoulder to him! Jane Wyatt, the girls' mother, says to the father, "Joan is acting horribly. I must speak to her about it," and chastises her daughter about her abhorrent behavior, but if you don't listen carefully you'll think she's discussing the weather or the latest fashions because I never heard anyone get such a calm and polite scolding.

By accident, Joan has found out that Gail was (gasp!) adopted, and in a fit of jealousy and anger over being chastised at the party, blurts it out.

Now you would expect some sort of reaction by Gail -- a slap across Joan's face, an exclamation of "No! It can't be true!", fainting, crying, anger, ANYTHING -- but all we get is a blank stare and then Gail trots off to bed, and the parents just stand there.

Meanwhile Natalie Wood has all but disappeared from the story, and when we finally do get to see her again she is no longer the yakkity funny little pest, but reflective and quietly concerned about her sister's state of mind. Nice, but not true-to-form. Joan no longer envies Gail for her good looks or her boyfriend but respects her and becomes her protector, and once again we get a character who does an unbelievable 180-degree turnaround. And the parents? All they do is tell each other, "It'll be all right. She'll get over it." Gail asks about her birth parents and immediately gets all the information about them, just like that, and within a few days has made arrangements to meet the mother. No legal red tape, no closed files to worry about, no privacy restrictions, no impediments of any kind.

This is real life? I think not, not even in 1950. People have always had emotions, but you'd never know it by Ann Blythe's robot-like portrayal. She suffers silently with the shocking news of her adoption until one night, after an ugly (by her standards) meeting with her natural mother, she stays out late and when she comes home her father asks, "Do you know what your mother has been going through?" and she snaps back, "I just left my mother. She's fine." At which point Daddy slaps the bitc -- I mean, Gail -- in the face and I stood up and yelled, "Bravo! That bitc -- I mean, Gail -- has had that coming for a long time!" In conclusion, it takes too long to get to the main storyline, and once it gets there it goes nowhere, and takes a long time to say absolutely nothing. The characters were one-dimensional, unemotional and ultimately too uppity to make me care anything about them or want to sympathize with their plights.


I don't know if this has a spoiler in it or not but I'm not taking any chances. I am probably wearing my feelings on my sleeve with this movie, too, as I am an adopted person myself. Don't know why I have watched this film more than once because I always get so mad~~~which is pretty silly. I hated that Gail's parents couldn't bring themselves to tell her she was adopted, how Gail's adopted mother told the birthmother that her other two children "were their own", Gail's look of icky disgust when her birthmother was lower-middle-class (Gail looked at the woman as if she had leprosy), the fact that the birthmother was portrayed as common, and the snippiness of both the adoptive mother and the 16-year-old sister. Of course, the father was a complete idiot. Had I been the housekeeper, I'd have poisoned the whole bunch of them except, well, cute little Natalie Wood.

Okay, so I'm a tad sensitive, so sue me. I know that few adoptees are as fortunate as I am to have found my birthparents and that they are wonderful people, and my half-siblings (well, most of them) are sweet and accepting. I have an adoptive mother I adore and who never kept my adoption secret; she is nearly 90 now and I worship the ground she floats above.

Anyway, movie plots back then were a bit different (gross understatement). For those not adopted, I guess it's a cutesy-pie little trip, but I hate this movie and this is the LAST time I will ever watch it!


This pointless remake of the 1961 classic adds nothing to the original. Apparently "updated" to 1970's production (and score), 80's graphics and the occasional 90's technical term, it doesn't even qualify as an homage to the era.

The characters have no depth and less credibility. The one dimensional depiction of Dawnay (Jane Asher) blindly pursuing the holy grail of genetics is an affront to anyone who has ever entered a laboratory. The essence of the scientific method is to question everything, and no scientist with more than half a brain would take the course of those portrayed here. Even the initially gullible Hardy (John Fleming) is unrealistically slow to develop a conscience and realise the potential issues raised by his actions. This is the kind of portrayal that gets scientists a bad name.

Equally insulting are the scenes that portray the destruction of monitors and keyboards as integral to the destruction of the alien computer. How many people are actually stupid enough to believe this nowadays? Regardless of familiarity with the original version, the plot is 100% predictable from the first few minutes right up until the last five. In that last five minutes is the most dramatic plot point of the entire film. The turning of the creature against its creator, the examination of humanity vs. the alien, the very human moral dilemmas, freedom and pre-destination, all take place in under two minutes. There is no examination of the conflicts faced by the creature or their resolution. (It feels suspiciously as if there was a large edit here.) Similarly, throughout the film any opportunity to explore morality, the role of technology, or cloning is passed by. According to Richard Fell (BBC4 web-site), one of the key questions addressed is "How complex does a computer have to be before we consider it to have some kind of human qualities?". This has been under constant examination since 1950, and Alan Turing's paper "Computing machinery and intelligence" (available on-line). This adaptation adds absolutely nothing to the debate, even failing to acknowledge that for over twenty years there has been a growing opinion that it doesn't actually matter.

Sadly the film isn't even bad enough to be amusing.

If you're interested in the ideas of the film then read Crichton's original "Andromeda Strain", although the plot of this version is actually closer to Sagan's "Contact" (more investigative, and perhaps even more worthy than Crichton's). {Edit: Oops. That should have been "the original 'A for Andromeda' by Hoyle/Elliot", of course. Not "Andromeda Strain".}


I thought this was a very poor drama. The setting - a radio telescope station in somewhere remote like Yorkshire was well done, but how come it was able to turn into a fully working molecular biology unit with containment facilities? Ludicrous. And as other commenters have mentioned the completely unrealistic communication with Andromeda. Two characters die with no real explanation. The characters were stereotyped scientists - the geeky one with glasses, the geeky one with a beard, the driven icy female. Oh and the girl, who clearly wasn't qualified to work there, let alone operate the computers. I assume they were all wearing lab coats to show that they were proper scientists - people operating a radio telescope don't usually wear them. It was just silly.


** Contains minor spoiler**

Despite being a remake of the 1960s BBC series, this comes across as an uninspired cross between Contact and Species. It is filmed using the typical cheap BBC Sci-Fi manner i.e. dull, grey, overcast and in a quarry. They spend the budget on the one "special effect", which is, of course, destroyed at the end. The story is unconvincing and the basic science is badly flawed (real time communication to Andromeda anyone?)

It tries to pad out a thin story line with the addition of a few extraneous few subplots, namely a love triangle, some espionage and the oh so stereotypical "government subverting science for evil" thing. Even Jane Asher can't drag this up from being a long, slow, and predictable hour and a half.


This is a totally pointless remake of the 40 year old TV series that launched Julie Christie. No such luck this time round. The film opens with a completely irrelevant rock-climbing scene and then deteriorates. There is just enough to hold some interest in the early scenes, set in an unrealistically empty government research laboratory, with just four scientists - evidence of BBC cost-cutting? All the cash seems to have gone on one special effect.

But when the military appear, the whole storyline collapses. Even the acting is wooden, with good actors such as Jane Asher and Tom Hardy unable to rise above the poor material they have to perform with. The risible debates - good scientist against wicked soldier, human against alien, risk-taking biologist against cautious computer scientist - are couched in the crude terms of a 1950s American B-movie. Before the end - no spoilers but utterly predictable - the only question I'm left with is "why am I wasting my time watching this rubbish?"


It's hard to believe this film was (re)made in 2006. OK, it's a low-budget production shot on video for TV, but the production values aren't really the problem - plenty of shot-for-TV-on-a-shoestring stuff is watchable without cringing embarrassment. Nor is the plot, per-se, the problem - as Sci-Fi goes it's a respectable enough premise, and it ought to have been possible to make a decently entertaining film out of it.

No, what staggered me was the incredible way in which even the most basic appreciation of contemporary science and technology seems to have eluded the writers, script editors and director.

I know this is a common complaint about sci-fi adaptations, and sometimes seen in artistic circles a churlish and unfair criticism - after all, these are "creative people", not "cold-fish scientists" (as the stereotypes go) - but this film is scarily Luddite to the point, as I said, of embarrassment. The most self-consciously "arty" of my friends and acquaintances have a better grasp of basic technology than the writers involved in this turkey. I have to wonder if the makers of this film are the ones featured in all those myths you encounter: Folk who think covers on their wall sockets stop the electricity dribbling out; people who use their computer CD ROM trays as cup holders; those who try to copy floppy discs on a photocopier or staple documents to their computer screen by way of e-mail attachments.

Here, it seems a real pride has been taken in ensuring that most of this film's potential audience, who in 2006 might be assumed to be vaguely technically literate, would suffer tooth-gnashing agony every three to five minutes.

So given the above, I hope it's meant to be a parody.

Taken as a parody of the genre it fares a bit better, but it's still deficient insofar as it's not so much funny as painful, and badly paced at that.

To steal a phrase, this movie fills a much-needed gap.


Any schoolboy would be ashamed of the scientific mistakes in this. For example, the team send radio messages to Andromeda and get immediate replies! Andromeda is millions of light years away and so any radio signals would take millions of years to get there and back! Also, at one point in the story a technician saves a genome or record of the entire genetic code of a human being on a single floppy disk! Fred Hoyle would be rotating in his grave.

The acting is equally bad. The two male leads are the "geekiest" type of anoraks one could possibly hope not to meet, and they are as wet as they come. Neither speak their lines clearly. And the Army General is about as nonmilitary as you could get...he looks like your average window cleaner.

Please please please just go back to making them the way they originally did in the sixties, BBC...


I'll admit I love the look of Foghorn Leghorn but I hate his cartoons. Come on, they are ALL the same. It'll start out a normal day on the farm then that annoying bird will come along and say 'I'm a chicken hawk' a hundred times. Foghorn will pretend to not be a chicken but get clobbered anyway. The impartial barnyard dog will get involved and they'll repeat the same unfunny joke over and over until the 7 minutes are up. Am I right or am I right?

This was the routine EVERY Foghorn Leghorn cartoon followed and I have never liked, even when I was a little kid. This cartoon is notable for being the first appearance of the Rooster but for no other reason.


This movie was really stupid. It was like one of those late 60's comedies that aren't funny at all. It must have been written by a really lonesome nitwit who had no friends and wasn't funny.

This movie is full of slapstick, believe it or not. Really bad slapstick. For instance, there's a guy who lives with the vampires (who live in a pretty slick crypt in a graveyard) and he wants so bad to be a vampire. He even sleeps in his own coffin made out of plywood. There's a really strange part that I can't understand what was happening - he gets in the "coffin" and puts a plastic hose in his mouth and starts breathing in and out with it. Then he starts farting a lot. He farts so much that he opens the lid to the coffin and starting wafting his nose. Then the scene is over. ? Yeah, it made no sense.

And there is an ULTRA long orgy scene that lasts for like 10 minutes. It's not even a good orgy. A lot of slow motion hair-flipping, and long long long kisses. It's one guy and three vampire ladies. They show the same kissing parts over and over to this very cheezy porn/helicopter music.

The main vampire man (Carradine) is almost funny. He keeps quoting poetry and claiming that Shakespeare and Whitman must have both been vampires because he really understands their poetry. It's kind of pathetic because he can never find anyone else that cares about his poetry fascination.

And whoever wrote on here about vampires having tan lines, that's a good point. One vampiress is constantly complaining that she can't go play on the beach or get a sun tan, but when the orgy scene comes up, she's got giant tan lines.

The voices they use and the audio system they had are really terrible. This young sailor guy who is always trying to get laid has an old man who smoked and drank all his life voice. Then the young sailor who has the orgy has a voice like that red head kid from Happy Days. It just doesn't fit.

Vampire Hookers = Really bad slapstick humor, awful choices for voice dubbing, a long and boring orgy scene, lots of taxi rides, guys who wear sailor outfits the entire time, and a funny ending credits where each character has their own screen with a shot of them talking and their name.

LAME


This is an absolutely horrible movie (though still better than both Queerwolf and On Deadly Ground (best use of Michael Caine's hair to sop up oil spills)). However, it is almost worth owning if you choose to just fast forward to the credits for the theme song. Any vampire movie with the line "Vampire hookers... they'll suck more than your blood" in it is worth putting next to your copy of A Polish Vampire In Burbank on your schlock shelf. There isn't much more to say about this movie except that it is very difficult to fill out ten lines of commentary about it that aren't merely "Ow... that hurt my brain" repeated over and over and over. Ow... that hurt my brain.


And to think that I've always felt sorry for some of the trash Boris Karloff was reduced to appearing in late in his career. But this thing that John Carradine made late in his career makes Karloff's Snake People look like Citizen Kane. It's embarrassing. Carradine is some sort of Shakespeare spouting vampire who uses a trio of vampire babes to help him lure his victims. It's supposed to be some sort of horror/comedy, but it's neither scary nor funny. The obviously plastic-toothed vampires in Vampire Hookers couldn't scare a three year old. And unless your idea of humor involves an overweight vampire who has a problem with gas, you won't find anything to laugh at. Oh, I suppose there are moments that are so bad they're almost funny, but the intentional attempts at comedy are utterly ridiculous. I'm being more than generous by giving this one an extra point on its rating for these moments of unintentional humor.


I dunno. Do you give points for enthusiasm? This is like John Landis's "Schlock" or "A Polish Vampire in Burbank." The script reads like Hecht-MacArthur for morons. "Coffins are for being laid to rest, not for being laid." Like that. But the botched attempt to be snappy means that it looks REALLY good up against the trudgery of Astro-Zombies or my last Filipino outing, Curse of the Vampire. John Carradine must have been on set at least two or three days, and they give him some Whitman and Shakespeare to recite for old times sake. There are three vampire babes - the blonde does a great Swedish deadpan - and they do this endless ten-minute three-on-one sex scene, complete with wah-wah guitar, with this guy who might as well BE Steve Guttenberg. He must have been a co-producer. They live in the cemetery under this stone trap door which closes with a perfect styrofoam 'thud'. The music cues cut in and out abruptly all over the climax. The theme song, bearing the original title "Vampire Hookers," is goofy and tasteless, like the rest of the movie, which gives you xenophobia (locals feed the sailors duck embryos) and homosexual panic (a cross-dresser at a urinal, plus the line "Hey! You've got balls!") in the first five minutes. But I am also responding to the fact that this is a film of legend, which Sean Welbourn described to me in wonderment back in Grade 11. It is the film with the guy who sucks his farts through a hose. This actually happens. What does NOT happen is, nobody says "Sounds like a fart - let's get out of here!" My world is shattered. But I guess it's better to know. I'm rating it low as a push to get it on the bottom 100, it's some kind of glory anyway.


Vampire Hookers is certainly a bad movie but that is part of its charm. If you are a fan of 70's T&A films, this one will should appeal to you. I first saw it at an old downtown theater that ran mostly B horror movies and soft core porn. That was many years ago so I guess something about this film impressed me as I have never quite forgotten it although some of the people in the cast would probably like to.

My main question is, what is John Carradine doing in this? I know he was at the end of a fine career (hey, the guy was in Stagecoach and The Grapes of Wrath for crying out loud) but Vampire Hookers?!? I can only guess that he either A. needed the money, B. wanted to help out a producer or director friend, or C. lost a bet in a poker game with this film's producer.


I have been trying to make myself "like" this nearly unwatchable horror/comedy for a couple years now and am getting nowhere.

Shot in the Phillipines on the cheap, starring a bunch of nobodies and featuring John Carradine's most forgettable screen appearance as Count Dracula [though sharply outfitted with a white linen suit complete with Panama hat; he looks great!], VAMPIRE HOOKERS pretends to be kinky horror fare but wallows in fart jokes, transvestite jokes, racial humor and awful disco music. Nai Bonet's NOCTURNA with it's sleepy boogie scenes and breathtaking bathtub scene by it's star doesn't seem like such a bad movie after suffering through VAMPIRE HOOKERS again. At least they could dance -- all the jokes in HOOKERS fall flat on my eyes & ears, there is no real horror, and the question of whether or not there are really girls in this movie at all sort of reduces it all to a cringe inducing slog of 90 minutes. The fact that it seems to go on and on forever doesn't help, and while I am as nostalgic for the late 1970's as the next guy one can at least take heart in the fact that human kind effectively evolved beyond a state where movies like this are possible. If you've ever wondered why there hasn't been a re-release of this for the digital age, STOP, because people often find themselves getting exactly what they asked for and regretting it. Beyond a fabulous title, VAMPIRE HOOKERS is unredeemable, uninteresting crapola, and that is what Out of Print prior rental tapes were invented for.

Avoid it; * 1/2 out of a possible ****.


Another film based on a story by AAV Creative Unit This movie walks that fine line between being "one of the absolutely worst films ever made" and "one of the absolutely worst films ever made, yet somehow entertaining". Its a line it crosses and re-crosses frequently with in its 90 minute running time making for a surreal experience. (And don't get me wrong this movie is BAD, but its occasionally as low as you can go in badness and still be enjoyable in a jaw dropping sort of way.) The plot of this film has a witch queen sending off a rubber suited monster thats controlled by a guy playing a magic flute off to kill people while the cops try to stop the mayhem. Meanwhile in unrelated footage Richard Harrison runs around trying to look like he's part of the movie after a girl he picks up on the side of the road (after she flashes him her breasts) dies spewing orange ooze after a failed murder attempt during sex. I wish I was making this up.

Dreadful, this is a movie that will tax even the most jaded bad movie lover. Die Hard bad movie fans will eat this up most others will be shaking their head wondering what in the wide wide world of sports is going on how many people actually paid to see it.

Avoid.


I won his video at a raffle 2 years ago. After going through my video collection, I finally got the chance to watch the film. OK! It's another one of those 'Joseph Lai's cheap action fluke'. But this one has got to be one of the weirdest.

This film tells the story about a serial killer snake (which some guy must've been dressed in a humanoid snake costume) goes round killing women. Although the police are trying desperately hard to find the killer. They do believe it's not human.

As the film goes, we run into Richard Harrison who plays himself (for some reason). He has a ring which could a stop an evil witch from putting out those weird spells which somehow is responsible for making this woman (Helen) a journalist from turning herself into the snake demon.

Another thing about this flick which I had to laugh at, is how comes I watch one of Joseph Lai's movies, they always have music samples from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' or 'The Big Brawl'. Some well known movies and they take the music score from that movie and put it on theirs? It so weird. Anyway, the film may've been good, but not that good! Totally disastrous


Trust me. I've been in enough sleazy video stores, pored over myriad Z-grade shlockers to be able to qualify this as the most inept waste of celluloid I have ever seen. And yet it achieves greatness in a way only the most bereft of talent can, a deliriously incompetent mishmash of bungling Kung-Fu action, tomato-ketchup horror and side-splitting soft porn. Only the most insane need apply.


I first watched this as a cricket-obsessed kid, and loved it. Watching it again as an adult, it disappoints on many levels.

Firstly, I understand the need for dramatic licence, but this doesn't excuse some of the laughable inaccuracies portrayed here. A batsman described as left-handed but depicted otherwise, fielders described as leg fielders moving to the offside when the opposite is the case, etc. They must know that cricket fans would be attracted to a series such as this, so they should have done their homework.

Secondly, it is technically poor. The writers seem more interested in telling a fable, with its cast of clichés and "representative" characters. The radio commentator (played by real life sports commentator Norman May) detracts from the story with his repetitive exposition, and I was sick to death of "the barracker" by the fourth episode. Honestly, wasn't there a Depression? He followed them from one city to the next, I can only think he must have been a millionaire disguised as an uncultured and stupid yob. By contrast, Bradman's own parents get barely a look in, with only the odd scene here and there.

Thirdly, they felt they could make up for the above with melodrama. I'm a sports fan and have known over the years quite a number of sportsmen and women who represented Australia. Nobody takes it this seriously. This was patriotic muck at its worst - five and a half hours of it. By the time going out to bat was compared to Gallipoli, I'd had enough.

This is certainly not one of our finest TV moments.


A young woman, who is a practicing Satanist sets out to unearth the tomb of Countess Bathory by sacrificing young, virginal women. Waldemar Daninsky (Paul Naschy) also used to be Countess Bathory's loyal servant when they were executed several hundred years earlier for their gruesome crimes. Waldemar is now on a mission to destroy Countess Bathory in order to prevent her from making him her slave, once again.

THE CRAVING, when it was released in the states was horribly butchered because of its violent content. Unfortunately, this was its biggest detriment. It barely made any sense, and was quite difficult to keep track of what was going on.

However, I must say the climatic battle between Daninsky and Bathory was quite exciting and hilarious to watch.

Any Paul Naschy fan should check out. Fortunately, it was re-released under its uncut form via BCI/Deimos a year or two back. Just please avoid the censored version. It's way too confusing,


No amount of rediscovering, remastering, or even redubbing will ever save "El Retorno del Hombre-Lobo" from being a mess. It is actually even more contrived and ridiculous than some of the other efforts by the star/filmmaker Jacinto Molina, aka Paul Naschy.

The problem I have with this film...well, better make that plural. The problems I have with this film begin with the fact that it is a very tiresome retread of some of Naschy's finer moments. It's true that his films are often more than a little campy. But Naschy in his prime was definitely an auteur of sorts. He had his favorite aesthetics and he saw no shame in going over them film after film until he got it right.

Quite simply, "El Retorno del Hombre-Lobo" is almost an exact remake of Naschy's "La Noche de Walpurgis", known in America under the no-brainer title of "Werewolf Vs. Vampire Woman". Naschy even throws in a dash of "El Retorno del Walpurgis" (aka "Curse of the Devil") for good measure. Whereas the best of Naschy contains some great atmosphere, lush images, and classic horror movie iconography, this one plays more like a spoof.

As in "Curse of the Devil", Naschy opens the film by showing the demise of a certain Countess Bathory. Bathory is accused of Satan worship and vampirism, and she is executed for her crimes by a ritual burning-at-stake. Also ready for capital punishment is the perpetual Naschy character Waldemar Daninsky, who seems to have pioneered the idea that no character is ever really killed off for good in a horror franchise. Unfortunately, after about five or six times, this just seems like a lack of imagination and new ideas, which is exactly what sinks "El Retorno del Hombre-Lobo".

From here the picture becomes a scene-for-scene remake of every Naschy werewolf vehicle before it. Let's see....stupid, babbling fools who unearth the werewolf and pluck the silver cross from his heart (and are immediately throttled)? Check. Random gypsy campers on the moor who ignore werewolf legend, only to be mangled? Check. How about the goofy female guardian of the werewolf who understands his pain and protects him until he can be released from the curse? She's here. Oh, and the prerequisite babe who will immediately fall deeply in love with Waldemar? She's here, too.

Even within the context of the supernatural, nobody behaves logically, or even seems sentient enough to survive an encounter with a Ouija board, let alone werewolves and vampires. We have a conniving bitch-witch who is crafty enough to throttle an invalid in a wheelchair, yet balks at the use of a gun on a would-be rapist. We have two damsels-in-distress who are too ditzy to realize that their "best friend" is a Satanist who intends to sacrifice them in order to resurrect a vampire countess. After Waldemar's resurrection, he seems to have no trouble setting up residency in a castle and blending in with the locals, despite his medieval wardrobe. Furthermore, for someone who knows he turns into a werewolf every full moon, you'd think he would have learned to lock himself up--or at least warned his lovely female houseguests to please lock their doors at night instead of wandering around the castle in a nightgown with a lit candelabra.

The werewolf attack scenes are by-the-numbers and completely unimaginative, even to the point of absurdity. Routine transformation scenes depict Naschy communicating his agony to the audience by hurling furniture around, followed by a hurried werewolf attack on superfluous characters, who usually don't even see it coming so there is no chance for any real suspense. One woman who watches him transform before her very eyes does not even know any better than to run away, that is until it's too late.

The stuff with Bathory is especially trite. Her headgear is a copy of Countess Wandessa's, and her horde of vampire women had been done to death by the time 1980 rolled around. Not one to let a good idea die without using it four or five times more, Naschy even returns to his "Walpurgis" theme. Yes, Bathory wants to bring about the end of the world (or something) through a black mass ritual that will unleash the powers of darkness into the real world (yawn). Naschy even recycles the "Blind Dead"-esque guardian that was first glimpsed guarding Countess Wandessa's tomb in "La Noche de Walpurgis".

Daninsky sports a full beard in this one, but that's it for variations on the previous films.

The version I viewed is the US video version known as "The Craving", and I couldn't help but notice some places where there seem to have been cuts made. Our pure-hearted heroine is unconscious in bed one moment and then necking in the shadows with Naschy the next, madly in love with him. There is also a woman hung upside down in preparation for virgin sacrifice, with no explanation as to how she got there. Instead of any juicy footage, I suspect that these edits saved me about five extra minutes of boredom.

"El Retorno del Hombre-Lobo" will seem hopelessly ridiculous to those who have no appreciation for the charm of Naschy's horror vehicles, and fans of Naschy will have seen all of this stuff already several times, so there is very little to recommend it. The only thing innovative is the complete absence of a secondary male hero to carry the heroine off after she slays Daninsky out of love. This time, she dies with him, mortally wounded by the werewolf and heartbroken over the fact that she has killed her one true love.


We all have them, you know...those movies that for whatever reason we somehow managed to miss in the theatre and can't find available on video and never gets shown on TV. This one, for many years, was mine. My holy grail film.

I have loved the music of Harry Nilsson for 30 years, and the Beatles as well both solo and collectively even longer. When I read about this film in the pages of the late, lamented Creem magazine, I couldn't wait to see it! When I was a teenager, my friends (well, the cool ones anyway) had the (excellent) soundtrack album with its generous helpings of film dialogue, so I knew lines from SoD long before I saw it. But it rarely (never where I could see it!)was shown on TV and was not available through normal video channels...I finally got a copy through a video service that specialized in foreign Kung Fu and porn (!). Breathlessly, I put it in the VCR, hit play, and...

Well, lets just say it wasn't exactly worth the wait.

Son of Dracula is, I am sorry to say, just a terrible film in nearly every respect. It looks cheap and is horribly acted by everyone involved, especially Harry, whom I regard as one of the finest songwriters ever, but is no actor. Ringo is, well, Ringo. It's hard to dis the likeable Mister Starkey and be convincing about it, and he gives a typical Ringo performance here-no more, no less. He gets by , as always in his non-drumming endeavors, on his charm. I had hoped that it would be better served by the direction of Freddie Francis, the Hammer horror veteran, but SoD just looks so shoddy that it is obvious that he couldn't care less and was just picking up a paycheck. The story is a jumbled, confusing mess, and the makeup is ineptly done. Perhaps this can be excused a little by the fact that SoD was intended as a spoof, but even on these terms it is a failure.

That being said, SoD is not entirely without merit-it's great to see Nilsson perform "live" (he never did so during his real career) with an all-star band, and there is a clever scene where Harry puts the bite on a nubile young female while T.Rex's "Chariot Choogle" from his "Slider" LP is playing in the background (they even show Harry putting the needle on the record, which sports a T.Rex Wax

Co. label-unseen in the USA and very cool for this fan of not only Harry but Marc Bolan as well).

I can't recommend this to anyone but hardcore Nilsson fans (we are few in number but ardent nonetheless!), and even then with a caveat; my advice is don't expect much and you won't be disappointed. Much.


To begin with, several people involved in this ill-advised and little-seen venture – a fusion of Gothic horror and rock music – have connections with other films featuring some of the monsters who appear in it: Freddie Francis helmed the likes of THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN (1964), Dracula HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968) and LEGEND OF THE WEREWOLF (1975); Suzanna Leigh had been the heroine of LUST FOR A VAMPIRE (1970); Freddie Jones had appeared impressively as the creature in FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED! (1969); Dennis Price did an extended cameo in THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN (1970) and, for Jess Franco, played Van Helsing in VAMPYROS LESBOS (1970) and the Baron in Dracula – PRISONER OF FRANKENSTEIN (1971) and THE EROTIC RITES OF FRANKENSTEIN (1972)! In retrospect, other contemporary films attempted this formula – namely PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974) and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (1975) – with considerably more successful outcomes.

Personally produced for Apple Films by ex-Beatle Ringo Starr (who here appears as Merlin, the famed magician of Arthurian times!), the title role – which comes equipped with a lame pun on the character’s name, Count Downe! – is filled by singer/songwriter Harry Nilsson decked-out with a hirsute look and, understandably, his performance is a pretty bland and completely forgettable one (a good thing, therefore, that the film-makers’ original plan to have David Bowie in the lead didn’t pan out!). Nonetheless, Nilsson does get to perform a number of good tunes during the course of the film (though stymied by the poor sound quality of the edition I watched!) including “Without You”, which has become perhaps his most representative song; among the session musicians one can also recognize other popular figures of the era such as guitarist Peter Frampton and drummer Keith Moon! By the way, Mrs. Michael Caine (Shakira Baksh) also appears as Merlin’s feline housekeeper.

Culled from a worn-out VHS – in which dark scenes come off as extremely blurry – and slightly damaged to boot, as I said, the version of SON OF Dracula that came my way proved far from ideal viewing. Still, the film itself is a bit of a mess anyway: Dracula Snr., depicted as a Max Schreck lookalike, is killed by Jones’ Baron Frankenstein – the villain of the piece, with evil dwarf Skip Martin for an assistant; Price, on his last legs, turns up as Van Helsing (the film, in fact, was clearly shot in 1972 but released after his death) and Leigh is his luscious secretary – who attracts Nilsson’s amorous attentions…so much so that he decides to renounce his vampiric ways (except that with it goes his claim to immortality!); however, this occurs at a most inopportune time – as several monsters have been convened in order to crown him their overlord (a title which Frankenstein actually covets himself)!

Unfortunately, the plodding film resolves itself in a number of tedious conversation scenes – between Dracula Jnr. and Merlin, between Merlin and Frankenstein, between Frankenstein and Van Helsing, etc.; the resolution, then, sees a happy ending for the Count and his companion – while Frankenstein’s well-deserved come-uppance is amusingly delivered over a game of pool by Merlin’s own hand. In the long run, the mournful ballads work better within the context of the narrative than the rollicking numbers – “Without You”, for instance, serves as background to the demystification/humanization of Young Dracula (a title, incidentally, by which the film’s equally well-known and which got changed presumably as a nod to Mel Brooks’ spoof of Universal’s Frankenstein saga from the same year). By the way, this SON OF Dracula shouldn’t be confused with the stylish 1943 outing of the same name Robert Siodmak made for Universal during the heyday of classic monster movies…


Imagine "Rocky Horror" with every drop of vitality, wit and cinematic talent sucked out by a toothless vampire, and you begin to approach the experience of watching "Son of Dracula." As a die-hard Nilsson fan (is there any other kind?), I can't even recommend this film to fellow completionists who simply *have* to see this movie. You really aren't missing much. Ringo, buried under a mass of grey hair, long beard and pointy wizard's hat, is unrecognizable - that is, until he opens his mouth and his completely inappropriate Liverpool accent slurps out. (How's this for a sample of dialogue poor Ringo must spout: "Mercury, my Mercury, you are subdued tonight... To what import might you tonight transcend?") Nilsson's line delivery is so limp and monotone I was convinced someone else had dubbed his voice from a bad Japanese horror flick. He displays none of the energy and humor which so defines his music, even when lip-synching to his own songs. There is zero camp value here; I can't believe anyone could classify this as a comedy. The storyline is utterly pointless ("biological" son of Dracula must decide whether to become lord of the Netherworld, or undergo a procedure to become human so he can feel love for groovy chick), with werewolves, mummies and Frankenstein's monster thrown in for no discernible reason. I give it 2 stars, one for the fact that the picture is visible, and one for the fact that the dialogue is audible. I hate to advise obsessive collectors like myself to stay away, but if you never manage to hook up with a copy of this off the internet, trust me, you are missing very little.


I don't think this film was ever really released widely. It has something to do with Dracula taking over as the head of all the monsters or something, but I'm not sure because its not very good, and I lost interest in anything that was going on.

A good deal of this film is taken over by musical numbers. At the drop of a hat Harry Nilsson will burst in to song, which isn't a bad thing since the music is quite good. The problem is that the rest of the movie is a complete mess. This is more akin to Paul McCartney's vanity projects like Give My Regards to Broad Street, where there's a minimal plot and lots of songs, than anything you could call a real movie. It's a lot of ideas that don't really add up to much.

I can't really suggest anyone actually watch this movie because its a bit of a bore. I give it 4 out of 10 because of the music and the curiosity value, but there always is the album and then again there are some movies best left unseen.


I purchased a copy of the soundtrack in high school and wore it out! I did not get to see this movie when it came out. 31 years later I found a bootleg copy on ebay. Great music, but an awful movie. The story has very little dialog and never goes anywhere. Such a waist of great musical talent. Harry Nilsson's who is one of the forgotten song writers of the seventies acting is so bad that he makes Ringo Starr look good. The song daybreak is a different mix than the album and the camera is so frame so close that you almost don't see Keith Moon playing drums. Freddie Francis who directed this movie is a great cinematographer (The French Lieutenants Women) and camera man (Moby Dick 1956) but should have skip this film project. Fine the soundtrack and forget this movie!


First off, to answer the previous person's question:

"Daybreak" was the only song Harry Nillson specifically wrote for this film. Everything else was already lying around.

Harry had two top-40 songs with this flick; "Daybreak", and the Pete Ham written "Without You", which had originally been recorded by Badfinger the year before.

This film was released on videotape by Apple in 1982 or so. It has never (to my knowledge) been rereleased on either Video, Laserdisc or DVD. Bootleg DVDs of this film circulate among collectors, they are copies of the Video release, and in low-fi mono sound.

Besides very brief cameo appearances by Keith Moon, Peter Frampton, John Bonham, and a few other now lesser-known 70's rockers as the band The Count Downes, this film has little to recommend it. Harry's not convincing in the title role, and Ringo is even more plastic here as Merlin the Magician than he was as Larry The Dwarf in Frank Zappa's 200 Motels.

For die-hard completists only. NOT recommended.


That a film this poorly written, poorly shot, poorly directed,

and poorly acted was even brought to the screen is stupefying! I had the album when it came out, but the movie never played anywhere near me. For the past 29 years I have longed to see this film, and in spite of all its faults, it was extremely fun to watch. Most of it is pretty predictable. Vampire prince is set to inherit the throne of the netherworld. Vampire meets human girl. Vampire turns human. Vampire, now human, keeps girl. Harry Nilsson's musical score is brilliant - some of his best songs, but the settings for them are contrived, and in the case of the climax scene, downright goofy. There is a brief period of a few minutes toward the end of the film that are really quite good - from the end of the operation to the end of the movie. I'd have to rate it a must-see for Nilsson fans or for fans of that weird immediately-pre-disco period of the early/mid- 70s. I would not, however, classify it as one of those films you watch over and over.


A potentially interesting film about the hijinks at a car dealership starts out very funny, with on-target jabs at the named industry; but midway through, it abruptly changes tone.

The apparent satire on automobile salesmanship suddenly turns into a dramatic thriller-type film with nearly all the main characters erupting into violence that culminates in a truly rotten denouement.

Worth seeing only for the first half, which, as mentioned, delivers the laughs and offers a nice change of pace for FULL HOUSE's Lori Loughlin, who breaks her "nice lady" image with a foul mouth and a brief nude scene.

*1/2 out of ****.


This obscure little satire makes the point that there is "a sucker born every minute" and shows numerous examples to prove it. Examples which may be disconcertingly accurate. A sardonic spoof of the car sales business loaded with gratuitous sex, crime, and melodrama as filler, "Suckers" is a "B" flick a best. However, it is also a primer on scamming and could be worth watching before a trip to a car dealer.


I watched this movie several times because it didn't flow well at all but it had some great information in it. The beginning seems about one subject and suddenly it becomes an entirely different plot. Maybe the writers and director didn't want to spoon feed the audience into anticipating everything.

The whole film had a home movie quality about it but there are some very good performances in spite of this.

Maybe someone will remake this and fix the problems. I wonder which story they will go with?? Really though, either story in this film is worth watching. And it could be fixed where the first story could move into the second smoothly. That would be my preference. If they did that I would watch it again to see who plays the surprising characters in that one. There are several characters that are very much worth watching.


this show is very disappointing, and oh so predictable. overall, it has a good premise, i mean who doesn't love shows about sexy vampires and forbidden romance? but lifetime has found a way to butcher it. each episode is formulaic, and the writing, special effects, and acting are all lacking. also, the show lacks any originality. maybe this show could have been less generic if it were on another network.

in each episode you can guess the conclusion of the episode within the first five minutes. and there's never any suspense. you always know everything is going to end up well for the characters. the Coreen character (Gina Holden) is completely ridiculous. she's into the supernatural, so she basically wears Halloween costumes in everyday life. give me a break. Dylan Neal as Det. Mike is completely lame. having to watch him on screen makes me want to claw at my arm. Christina Cox as heroine Vicki is also lacking. there is nothing special about her performance, so it makes it hard to believe two guys are fighting over her. The "love triangle" is very UNconvincing.

the show is on lifetime, and it's soapy so it has its addictive qualities, which might make viewers return. But, the best thing about the show would have to be the Henry Fitzroy character played by Kyle Schmid. he brings a lively energy and a real presence to his role. his scenes are the most entertaining to watch.

to some up, this show is so totally unbelievable and torturous to watch, and not because of the vampires and voo-doo zombies. (although that whole "bad juju" episode was sooo bad and contrived it made me want to through my TV out of a window). unless you have a lot of free time, u shouldn't waste it watching this show.


I'm a big Gary Cooper fan, but even the Coop's by this time ageing skills can't rescue this comedy-western from mediocrity.

The plot is contrived, scenes are too long, characters and situations are poorly drawn - in truth, as a movie it just drags and sags to its predictable happy-ending finish.

The problem for me is that the older Cooper got, the less believable his country bumpkin persona convinces. Here familiarity really does breed contempt, and while his Melody Jones character gets into some heated clinches with the alluring but otherwise out of place Loretta Young, in truth there's little other chemistry between them and you can't imagine her really throwing over the at least mildly dangerous desperado Dan Duryea, whose abilities are wasted here on an underwritten part, for slow-walking, slow talking Jones.

The action sequences are pretty inactive, to be frank, the laughs are few and far between (Jones' hat falling off every time he enters a room is about the height of the humour), conveyed by pretty lumpen direction and by the end you realise that the film is something of an epitaph for the comedy-western genre. Tougher, more realistic westerns were just around the corner (Ford's "My Darling Clementine", Gregory Peck's "The Gunfighter" and James Stewart's collaborations with Anthony Mann, to name but a few examples) and Cooper was to find his last great role when he eschewed the overdone country hick in favour of the dignified seriousness of the marshal in the classic "High Noon".

I love the Coasters' hit song of the same name as this film, penned by the great Leiber and Stoller partnership from a few years later than this and before watching, had hoped it had been inspired by a rollickingly funny and richly entertaining movie.

I was wrong.


What a mess this was. There are some fans of Wishmaster evil demonic genie Divoff who plays, I believe, Lucifer here(..with albino white hair!)and he certainly has a way of exhibitioning pure evil with the way he tilts his head and twists his face. This film seeps every ounce of artistic integrity from the original play bludgeoning us over the head with Ringo knows what. Faust himself was once this artist named John Jaspers(Mark Frost, incredibly hammy) whose lover was killed by her portly pimp and his accomplices, wishes revenge to the point he'll sell his soul, gain from Divoff these Wolverine-esquire titanium blades, kill those who did his ole lady in, and face the consequences for his harbored anger and blood-lusting vengeance. Divoff has control over him and forces him into destroying a Chinese Consul meeting wiping out something like 19 people. Jeffrey Combs is a detective who wishes to know why he did it as Faust(in human form at this point)is catatonic. A psychologist,Jade(Isabel Brook, a stunning beauty) who uses music to get inside what makes the mad crazy, soon becomes a chess-piece between Divoff's Lucifer and Faust(still John at this point).

Soon Divoff is through with his acquisition and buries him alive, but the joker kills a skeleton choking him(huh?)and returns from the near trip to hell as a steroid-n-crack version of the Daredevil who obliterates, I'm guessing, more than 20 or so people(and a slew of damned cops..I figure the entire police station was emptied into Faust's feverish wrath). Divoff has a chick by his side, Claire(Mònica Van Campen, melts fervent heat right from the screen) always trying to seduce someone into robbing her master of his power since Lucifer's human shell is weakening(..I don't know, ask those who made this damn thing what the point is of Lucifer staying in a weak body when he should be able to invade many of those who worship him). She loves showing her breasts(they are quite delicious, I must say)and cavorting around like a cat in heat. Jade has issues..a buried rape from someone whose face is covered in wax(you think this sounds silly, wait until you see the method of torture used to project who the rapist was)and she falls in love with the John. Combs soon joins allegiance with Lucifer and the poor Jade is tricked by him into Divoff's lair..she is a hostage at the mercy of her captors. Meanwhile, Claire who desires Lucifer's seat will perhaps get her wish.

The film throws the kitchen sink at you..are you willing to duck? Because, the climax has this beast summoned from hell, Faust trying to save Jade from being impregnated by Lucifer, Combs swallowing a serpent removed from the stomach of Lucifer's Claire who betrayed him, and a blood, sacrificial orgy of Satanists.

Phew, I'm telling you, this flick is messed up!


Faust is a classic German legend focusing on the classic idea of a man selling his soul to the devil. Faust: Love of the Damned takes that basic plot and adds in a heavy metal soundtrack, a bunch of gore and a comic book central character and the result is...well, not even as good as you might think it will be. The inspiration for this film was a comic book by Tim Vigil and David Quinn which, like every other comic book ever made, I haven't read. However, it would seem obvious that director Brian Yuzna took most of his inspiration from this film from the comic book revenge flick 'The Crow', and somehow this film doesn't come off as well. The film focuses on John Jaspers; an artist who witnesses his girlfriend being killed by a bunch of thugs. Some other things happen, and Jaspers end up in contact with the mysterious 'M', who offers him the chance to get revenge on the thugs who ruined his life, for the small price of his soul. Naturally, Jaspers jumps at the chance to sell his soul for revenge, but he later regrets it when he turns into a horned demon...

I'm actually quite a big fan of Brian Yuzna - I wouldn't hesitate to call the likes of Society and Return of the Living Dead 3 modern horror masterpieces; but Faust: Love of the Damned is undoubtedly his worst film. Typically for Yuzna, there's no shortage of gore and gruesome special effects, which is nice and there's plenty of interesting scenes and imagery; but the plot is all over the place, really quite boring and the film doesn't seem to know what it wants to do once the horned demon superhero pops up; it goes from being a demonic horror movie to some sort of comic book comedy! The one liners that Faust utters are awful, and the suit looks pretty damned silly too. Yuzna did manage to collect something of an interesting cast - Mark Frost doesn't really impress in the lead role, but the film has supporting turns for the likes of Jeffrey Combs, who is good in the sort of role you don't often see him in, and Andrew Divoff, who is clearly ripping off his own role in the crappy Wishmaster, but at least it's amusing to see. Overall, Faust: Love of the Damned is really too silly to be taken seriously, and I don't mean that in a good way! Avoid.


This movie is so bad, and Jeffrey Comb's acting is so good, that my unborn baby popped out of me and slapped against the screen in a flood of blood and amniotic fluids! Curse you Jeffrey Combs! Curse your Oscar grade acting and damn you for still being sexy after all these years! The special effects were pretty good, however Mark Frost's face...well, it's definitely one of the signs of the apocalypse. My God, man, can you over-act any more? Also, I think it made me gay. Pregnant mothers and straight people beware, don't watch this movie or you'll be as bad as those monsters at the abortion clinics! And also you'll lead a deviant lifestyle!

Signed Two Angry Bitc--Ladies