First of all, to everyone who said this was a great movie because of originality: I would like to direct you to The Ring, or to Ringu, which is what The Ring is a remake of. Either one is infinitely superior to this piece of dung. Word has it that production of this movie was rushed so that it could be released before The Ring came out. And boy does it show. One example of how ineffective this film is: I am scared to death of cockroaches, yet the scene containing cockroaches in this movie didn't scare me in the least. Most likely 'cause they were obviously computer generated. I stayed through the whole movie hoping the movie would improve. Then the lights went up and I was like, "That's it? That really sucked." I've never been more disappointed in a movie in all my life. Everyone involved in this waste of time, money and filmstrip should hang their head in shame. Do yourself a favor, skip this movie and see either The Ring or the original Japanese version, Ringu.


Ugh. Awful. Didn't last much past point one. Violent without

remorse; predictable without restraint; terrible beyond belief.

Even my own first self-rejected and childish screenplay was better than this!

Women should be picketing this piece of trash. It's abusive and condescending. The writer and director should be ashamed they spent the money this type trash.


This was unbelievably bad - the trailer leads you to think "Hey it's another great horror flick" - WRONG!! It was so horrible I couldnt stand it another minute and we left early. Dont waste your time on this one - save yourself and go see something else, anything else!! Watching cars drive by would surely be more entertaining....


Very disappointed. All star cast yet a let down. The plot drags on and on at a very slow mosey. Very little action for a western. Definitely not to the caliber of tombstone or unforgiven...having had to watch this is unforgivable. Very slow story line there was a slight yet predictable plot twist. Hopefully you are still awake by this time. A few one liners for a chuckle. Some very interesting characters are introduced played by some extraordinary actors and actress. Sadly these follow the same style as the dull plot line and there characters never really explode to life. Several times you feel like you are watching amateurs reading off a cue card in the back ground. Like a piece of tumbleweed blowing through this thing goes on and on collecting dust along the way. There never is any real wow in this movie. Save both your time and money and see the two previously mentioned.


1. Turn your western into a love story. 2. Have the protagonist - a hired gun that rides into town from the dusty wastelands and is hired as a marshall to take on a local cattle rustler who lives above the law - fall in love with the town whore. 3. Fill an otherwise cliché, paint-by-numbers, fill-in-the-blank, textbook story of good vs. bad with pointless, extended musings on the nature of love and romance a la just about any chick-flick you can waste time and money seeing.

And, presto! There you have it! You've just ruined your first western - arguably the easiest movie genre to produce, direct, star in, and market. Congratulations, Ed Harris! You took High Plains Drifter and you ruined it.


Let me make this very clear, 'Appaloosa' is the worst and most boring western i saw, usually i have always found great drama, fun and action in this genre, from classical John Wayne's westerns to Sergio Leone's legendary spaghetti-westerns, and this movie offered me absolutely nothing. This is extremely outrageously boring and dumb movie, what in earth did encourage Ed Harris make this movie, he thought he can make something like 'Unforgiven' plus 'Hondo' and he obviously got his head too much into some stuff that aren't important in western and in the end he made this pile of junk. Most surprisingly this movie actually has very famous cast, there are like 4-5 star actors, but not even appearance of famous actors could've made this movie any better. A disgrace to western genre!


Ed Harris should stick to acting.

This movie was so boring and so lame and annoying and filled with clichés that my friend and I, ended up fast forwarding after we had seen about 30 minutes. Nothing works here. The acting is wooden (especially from Zellwegger) the dialog is awful (these two "tough" gunmen actually talk about the color of drapes at one point in the movie, what the hell??) And the problem with two friends and one "attractive" woman is never really followed through. So what is the point of showing it at all?

Talents like Jeremy Irons, Lance Henriksen and Viggo Mortensen are completely wasted here. Ed Harris looks way too old for his part and he cannot direct himself.

The few action-scenes are dull and boring and short. And in the end where there is gonna be a showdown between Mortensen and Irons, it's over before you even noticed what happened.

Stay away from this crap and watch Tombstone instead. Even Open Range is better than Appa-loser.


I liked the main story of the movie, our heroes are lawmen for hire brought in to deal with a man who's been running roughshod over a town. The heroes have a history together and are interesting characters, the villain is a typical western baddie, crew of loyal outlaws and no conscience, the town council/owners are eastern dandy's unable to deal with the raw life of the frontier. The actions of our heroes is well done, as are the resulting confrontations although I saw a missed opportunity or two in plot execution. The thing that ruined this film was the "love interest" subplot and the fact that Cole was fool enough to keep trying to make a life with the woman even after he saw her cheat and knew she would do so again and again and again. Frankly it seemed to go against everything we knew about the character who was otherwise an intelligent if not well schooled man, who understood psychology well enough to make a crowd of 20 armed men back down. Spoiler time: Besides the repeated idiocy regarding the "romance" i feel the pardon plot point was woefully flimsy. The villain receives a pardon for all crimes committed in the county, the problem is the murders he was convicted of took place outside the sheriff's jurisdiction and thus outside the county. Overall I give this movie a "C-" its passable but could have been so much better with a little more thought and a little less forced romance.


Not even an excellent cast can help this often muddled film. Bring back the westerns of the 1950s, they had class, intelligence, and people who could speak their lines.

Renee Zellwegger has the part that Shirley MacLaine would have had in the old days. Suddenly, she is on scene as a widow, and after Cole (Ed Harris) asks her if she is a whore, the two plan a house together.

Viggo Mortensen is his side kick and deputy Everett Hitch. Mortensen falls for Zellwegger as well but there is no absolute final conflict between the two men.

It is Jeremy Irons who is the real laugh here. This erudite actor is horrendously miscast as the villain. Irons sounds more like a sophisticated gentleman than a bad guy in the 1880s.

Since when has Chester Arthur ever been mentioned in films? While it is true that the film takes place in the territory of New Mexico, 40 years before statehood was achieved in 1912, the only thing we might remember Arthur for is becoming president after Garfield was assassinated. Students of history would remember the Pendleton or Civil Service Act of 1883, but that's another story.

Even the scenes with the Indians have little to no action. Ed Harris, you're a terrific actor and I liked you with that big brim hat, but this picture is a definite bomb.


I guess if you're a fan of Westerns, you'll be more inclined to forgive this movie's many flaws. However, seeing as I enjoy Westerns, but I'm not particularly a fan of them, I didn't forgive a single one of them.

From the opening sequence I was thoroughly disappointed with the acting. Everyone except Ed Harris sounded like they were reading from cue cards off screen, so I became annoyed early on and the movie did nothing at all to redeem itself. The story moved along at a snails pace and, except for one part, was very very predictable. Also, for a Western movie, there was very little action. Appaloosa's does have some good points though. The action sequences they did have were brilliant and realistic (which I really appreciated). There were no drawn out gun sequences, they were quick and packed full of shooting, which makes perfect sense, since everyone in the gunfights are supposed to be well trained gunman. And the acting did gradually get better, all the way up until the last few lines, which were, again, delivered like being read from cue cards.

Like I said before, if you are a fan of Westerns, you'll probably be a lot more forgiving than I am being, so you should probably go ahead and see this movie. If you're like me, and can enjoy a Western but not particularly a fan, then ignore it. Yeah, it's watchable and you won't feel like you completely wasted your time, but there's a lot of times when you'll be thinking "Okay, someone either needs to get shot or this movie needs to end."


I tell you, I've never walked out on a movie before, but I was desperate to walk out on this horrible disaster of a movie.

I respect Ed Harris as an actor and I went to see the movie because I am fond of all the people who starred in the film. However, Ed Harris has proved that his understanding of film-making is greatly lacking.

This movie had so many scenes that were directed the way a college student just learning the basics might direct. Bad edits, amateur camera angles, and long... long... painful long sequences of meandering dialogue that did nothing for the story except make you wish it would end soon.

There were also some scenes where they failed in the sound mixing so you couldn't catch certain lines that might have been funny... but the direction for the actors was just as poor as the technical miscues and failings. The script had scenes that could have been funny if they had been delivered in a form other than FLAT... which was the feel through the whole film... FLAT. All the lines were delivered with dismissive feeling toward the film over all (another reason the movie fails to capture or interest.) The plot was very basic and straight forward, leaving no surprises... and there really seemed to be no sense of consequence for any action. There was no real tension in the film... or real anything (except for the town itself. I do have to give credit that the town and costumes were very realistic... succeeding in making the town looking lived in).

I suggest Ed Harris not direct another movie ever again...

and I wish I could get my money back...


I had some expectations for this movie, but it didn't take long to figure out that it was complete and utter garbage. Ed Harris is a great actor, but I hope the director Ed Harris, is someone else...

Do not go and watch this movie. It has to be the most boring western I've seen since the old John Wayne and Elvis Presley crappers. The story is very choppy, totally without consistency. As someone has previously noted, its almost like its been written by an aspiring teenage filmmaker. Some scenes that are supposed to be serious, comes out like the first read-through of the script, except that they're actually on set wearing costumes. The performances of the actors are very sub-par compared to other films they've done.

I watched through the movie only because I didn't pay anything to see it, and im sure glad i didn't.

Stop directing, acting, writing, producing your own movies Ed, you're not very good at it. Ed-Harris actually sing in on of the songs in this movie, the tune was pretty good, but the lyrics were almost worse than the movie dialogue.

:(.............garbage


I have watched CSI: Crime Scene Investigations from the start, along with a lot of other people here in Canada. It is the best show on TV with Grissom in it. If Grissom is really off the show then I won't be watching anymore and neither will my friends and millions of others who made the show #1 for so many years. He is the glue that binds it all together. This "new guy" is a joke. It looks like they tried to get a man who resembles Grissom and failed. If William Peterson is wanting to leave the show, I bet he will still be the Executive Producer and will not want to lose the millions and millions of fans of the show. Please bring Grissom back and lets get on with the best show on TV bar none!! Y. Nairn


CSI has been my favorite show since it first aired. The plots are interesting, but the element that keeps me coming back every week is the chemistry among the diverse characters. The keystone character is Grissom. I hope he is only on a vacation, because the show falls flat without him. The chemistry is less than that between me and my ex-husband.

The writers err in their assumption that they can make the new guy...Kessler?....interesting to viewers by giving him a mystery. Because he has all the appeal of a featureless cardboard cutout, I don't care why somebody is trying to get hold of him.

Please bring back Grissom! SOON!


A Love Story is basically the same old trashy filipino soap style movie being serve by Star Cinema. We can see the usual stuff like heavy on dialog, over the top crying scenes, and all those melodramatic cliché being thrown into the screen. This movie is all about Ian (played by Aga Muhlach, acting cute as always) who have to decide which two chicks his hooking up his going to end up with. Is it the bitch Karyn (Angelica Panganiban) or the mature and caring Joanna (Maricel Soriano)? Basically, its a contest between these two lousy women on who gets the grand prize(Ian the womanizer).

The story was presented in non-linear and boast itself with a plot twist not common to filipino movies. Unfortunately, the direction was gawd awful its messy and confusing. The scene editing was horrible you get lost between transitions to different location and time. All sorts of supporting casts appears right at you.... you just unable to keep up knowing each one of them.

The problem with this movie is that we really don't care about the characters we are seeing. It doesn't show the true values of a filipino. Like Karyn for example, mind you.... a woman who met a guy in the elevator then ends up having sex on the same night will always be a woman of bad reputation in Christian Philippines. Then there's this Ian who broke his leg on a pathetic skiing stunt who cries like a girl eventually going gaga over Laura because she was the one nursing him till he gets well. Its unbelievable..... and when they finally reveal the over hype twist in the story, I'd say oh yeah..... big deal.


I watched this movie with not much expectations. I've been let down several times by most Tagalog movies that it's hard to expect too much. So with an open mind, I watched this movie with a friend. And boy were we in for a real disappointment.

Before I start ranting, credit must be given to where it is due. The over all look of the movie is not bad. Like almost all recent Filipino movies, this movie also looked expensive. The cinematography and editing were good, the direction was average and the acting were good given the material that the actors had to work with. Aga's portrayal of Ian's character was moving in a sense that I'm sure Filipino yuppies were able to identify with him. Maricel's (Joana) portrayal was her usual drama. Nothing spectacular. Angelica (Karyn) is a pretty face but she could not cry to save her life.

What irked me the most, aside from the musical score, was the plot. The basic storyline was a disgrace to the intelligence of women all over the world. Yes, it is a virtue to forgive and forget. Yes, love should conquer all. But balance must also be made with respect to morals and values.

This movie patronized how men could conjure up reasons why they would cheat on their spouses or their girlfriends. Unavailability of your partner is not a reason for anyone to go looking for someone else. It may be a reason for a termination of a relationship but definitely not one for cheating - not that there's any reason to cheat, mind you.

Maricel portrayed an intelligent, successful woman who was once betrayed by the man she loved. And then all of a sudden, here she is falling for a married man. That's illogical. How could someone who have supposedly suffered so much commit the same adulterous mistake once made against her. Though it may happen on real life in the unlikeliest of situations, the writers of the movie failed to create a reasonable impulse on Maricel's character for the audience to comprehend her actions. In addition to this, in the scene where Joana and Ian first met, the former said:"pwede ba tayong magpakuha ng stretcher?" No self respecting doctor would sound so doubtful in this kind of situation.

Aga, on the other hand, played a rich, recently married playboy who has issues with his father. Aga plays the role of a rich playboy so well we almost believe that in real life, he is (who knows). But the problem with this with regard to this movie is that such shallow characterization of Aga's character failed to utilize Aga's acting skills. Can he just stop playing cute in each and every movie and be a serious actor soon? Like in this movie, Ian, who was supposed to have shun his family's already steady business to make a name for himself appeared to be shallow and immature in his personal life. The writers could have used the character's pain brought by his dad to their advantage by making Aga's character deeper, wrought by confusion, racked by guilt and generally logical. But somehow, in their attempt to make the audience sympathize with the character's betrayal, the writers forgot the actual character.

As to Angelica's character, well a former comment on this was so apt. Karyn's character was not fully developed, to say the least. Here is a smart guy who has everything in the world going for him who met a pretty girl who is so much younger than him. They slept together and then boom! They're married? How come? What compelled this elusive bachelor to get hitch with this seemingly loose girl? Once again, there is no logic here. To be contrite about it, there is simply a lack of progression.

The movie seriously underestimates the intelligence of the Filipino audience. Gone are the days when people seem to be satisfied with a happy ending. Loose ends NEED to be tied seamlessly this time. Gone are the days when movie patrons comprise mainly of yayas and manongs. The educated Filipinos are trying to appreciate our film industry. Give us good stories. Give us reasonable tales. Give us a reason to come back. Stop feeding us rehash of old tales. And please, stop advocating male machismo at its worst.

It is NEVER okay to cheat on your wives and expect to be forgiven just because you're sorry. Even if you have a child. Women need to understand that children are not a reason to stay in a marriage. You don't lose your dignity when you get married.


If somebody knows a hundred odd things about Italian cinema then it must be assumed that that person must surely have heard of Gianni Amelio.He is a great figure of Italian auteur cinema having made important films like Colpire al cuore,Il Ladro di bambini,Lamerica and Così ridevano.It is sad to state but a hard to digest truth is that "Le Chiavi di casa" is a film for which Gianni Amelio has failed miserably.There are elements in this film which have the potential to emotionally stir a viewer but they do not have any effect as they are presented in a disconnected manner.This is a film about a father and his troubled relationship with his invalid son but so many questions are left unanswered.It is not sure whether this film is favoring invalid children or is just showing fake sympathy.Casting for the film has not been done properly.There are times when "Le Chiavi di casa" appears as a pathetic euro pudding as it features an English actress Charlotte Rampling sharing screen space with an Italian actor Kim Rossi Stuart in Germany.


The original 1978 British TV miniseries PENNIES FROM HEAVEN was such an outstanding production that it seemed pointless to make a truncated feature film version. The only way a new version would succeed would be if Potter's scenario was given a different interpretation that would provide a new perspective on the story of Depression-era salesman Arthur Parker's passionate belief in the sunny lyrics of the songs he markets despite his bleak life. In fairness to the feature, the American producers do attempt to give their version of PENNIES a new spin. Whereas the miniseries took place in England, the movie is set in the United States, specifically Chicago. The British version emphasized the songs' emotional resonance in the characters' lives; when they lip-synched them, they generally remained in their ordinary settings. The American version, on the other hand, stresses how removed the songs are from the characters' brutal reality; when THEY lip-synch them, they generally find themselves in opulent Hollywood-style musical productions. Thus when the characters stop lip-synching and resume their dreary existences, the effects are more jarring than in the miniseries version.

But what made the British version so wonderful was that despite the drama's unrelenting grimness, it was truly heartrending. One was moved by the hopes and struggles of Arthur Parker and the other characters. By comparison, the drama in the American version has little soul. One problem is that because Potter's original story has been retrenched, important characters have been diminished. The Accordion Man, a haunting, tragic personage in the British version (beautifully played by Kenneth Colley) who functioned in a way as Arthur's alter ego , is reduced to an incidental figure (Vernel Bagneris here) in the American version. Another problem is that while most of the performances in the feature version are professional, they cannot match the sterling performances in the TV version. As Arthur's wife Joan, Jessica Harper possesses the necessary prissiness and bitterness, but lacks the vulnerability which made Gemma Craven's performance in the original version so affecting. Only Bernadette Peters as Eileen Everson and Christopher Walken as the pimp Tom contribute notable performances that measure up to the original miniseries.

But Steve Martin in the central role of Arthur Parker is the film's greatest liability. His efforts are earnest but he fails to capture the character's essence.

If the feature version was completely original, it would emerge as a fairly successful dramatization, save for Martin's miscasting, of the disturbing clash between musical fantasy and Depression-era reality. But since this film was a remake of a TV miniseries, it reveals itself as a dim shadow of a brilliant melodrama.


Morbid, cynical, depressing script. Overstaged, empty direction. Actors who can't act, let alone dance or sing. Apparently no one noticed that, in the classic '30s musicals, there's no more than one or two tap-dance numbers per show--more than that irritates, and almost all the numbers in "Pennies" are tap dances. All the gimmicks like lip syncing wear out their welcome after two or three repetitions. A truly worthless venture.


This movie does a good job of showing the viewer how a psychologically disturbed personality can interpret neutral stimuli in a paranoid fashion. The use of the scripted newscasts were reminiscent of the news coverage post 9-11.

It was a movie that was well-acted and well directed to show how one misconception can lead to another - and how a bad situation can turn into a nightmare with just a few missteps. There were also some surprisingly humorous moments as the neighbor who is held hostage comments on the situation at hand to a man who is obviously losing his grip on reality.

It is ashame that the movie disappoints in the end by insinuating that the neighbor was indeed a terrorist. This drags what was a well-crafted story down to a cheap potshot of a film that stereotypes all non Caucasians as terrorists. This implication taints the picture and helps to fuel the paranoid delusions of pathetic individuals such as the one portrayed in the main character.


The best thing I can say about 'Civic Duty' is that it makes me want to move out to Hollyland and get a job. They obviously need help.

The problem with this film isn't just that it's not a good film (though, truly, it isn't very good); its problem is that it should probably never have been made. Here's why: The basic conflict in this kind of movie, by definition, is between paranoia and reality. Krause's character, however, is set up to be obviously paranoid. In any suspense thriller, a filmmaker must work *against* expectations. And in a *really* good suspense thriller, the filmmaker should even work against the expectation that he or she will be working against expectation. And in a truly *exceptional* film of this kind, you can repeat this process and flip reality several times.

'Civic Duty' takes no such steps. Terry is suspicious about his neighbor from the first time he sees him, though for no real reason except overexposure to news media. There is very little effort (indeed, perhaps none at all) made to make the viewer suspect that perhaps the neighbor is, in fact, nefarious. We're simply waiting around to see how badly Krause will unravel.

But that *still* doesn't address the heart of this movie's problem, which is that in the overwhelmingly liberal entertainment industry, it would be all but impossible to make a movie in which a character is paranoid about a mysterious Middle Eastern neighbor, only to find that said neighbor *is* in fact a "terrorist." It would be somewhat gutsy film-making, in fact, to make such a movie. And since Terry is riddled with paranoia, the filmmakers spoon-feeding us with several minutes of news footage and Bushspeak before the movie even gets underway, the movie simply has nowhere to go.

And that's what it does. It goes nowhere.

It would have worked better if it had been done the opposite way. Perhaps Terry could have a long-time friend or co-worker who's Middle Eastern. Perhaps a third party, an FBI agent or even his wife, could voice suspicions. Terry would defend his friend right to the end, only to end up going down in flames with him when the truth was finally revealed. That would have at least loaned a touch of dramatic irony.

Or perhaps the FBI agent, or lead investigating character, could have himself been Middle Eastern, and the film could have shown that character's inner struggle: not wanting to believe that this hard-working master's candidate had something to hide vs. doing his duty to protect the American public, frustrated by always being required to investigate people of his own ethnic background. Of course, that would require the absence of Richard Schiff, who in my opinion was the movie's only saving grace (man, do I miss 'The West Wing').

Here's an even better scenario. Terry could have come to his senses about his paranoia toward the end of the second act. Amidst his embarrassment, he could have become reluctant friends with Gabe. Then he could discover that, not Gabe himself, but Gabe's associates at the copy shop were part of a terrorist cell and were 'using' Gabe as an unwitting 'mule' (or whatever). This would then provide motivation for Terry to again take action. His reluctance to end up looking foolish again would be outweighed by a sense of duty (nay, 'civic' duty) to Gabe, whom he is now motivated to protect since he put him through such an ordeal to begin with. Of course, Gabe would be reluctant to believe this. And perhaps the audience would again suspect that Gabe himself is knowingly involved. But in the end, it would be Gabe who would give his life to destroy the cell, thereby becoming a hero and doing his 'civic duty.'

And there you have it: You could have had a good movie, and still been politically correct. Hell, the 'bad guys' don't even have to end up being Middle Eastern. They could have been pale white corporate crooks, perhaps selling information or materials to "terrorists" who themselves are never seen. The only Middle Easterner in the film would turn out to be the hero. Then you could have your movie and still be *completely* politically correct.

But as it stands, 'Civic Duty' goes exactly where you think it's going to go the moment you see the photo on the DVD box and read the description. Because it has nowhere else to go.

Which brings me back to my original point: Who the heck greenlights such projects?? How can you set out to make a suspense thriller when the outcome, for largely political reasons, is practically a foregone conclusion. I'm really not trying to advance my own ideology here. I'm just demonstrating how politics has gotten in the way of good entertainment and quality storytelling.


According to this film, you should never notify the FBI or other authorities if you get a suspicious neighbor. Not even if he looks like a terrorist and has a chemistry lab and receives constant deliveries from other suspicious-looking people. And especially not if you just lost your job and your wife just left you. They will just think you are paranoid and put you in an asylum, even if it turns out in the end that you were right all along. This is one of the reasons why terrorists have succeeded so far. This is how they put the first bomb in WTC and carried through their second assault. This is how they made the bomb for the Lockerbie accident and got it on board. People did not care, or were afraid of the unpleasantness to themselves if they notified the authorities.


This is without a doubt the worst film I've seen since Boxing Helena. It really is that bad.

I can only begin to imagine why it has a decent IMDb score (friends and family of the film-makers?). I cannot imagine anybody enjoying this film, so banal is the script and so lacking is the plot.

After (roughly) the 20 minute mark, the film has become so utterly, irredeemably rubbish that one is forced to consider whether it is intentional and intended as a form of challenging art rather than as a linear film.

Terrible, terrible film.

Avoid like the plague.


Seriously, a man should be deemed crazy and out of his mind for even being able to watch this movie without squinting out of boredom. The movie depicts the life of angel who falls in love with a mortal woman. You get to hear their thoughts. Actually, that's all you get to hear throughout the whole movie - some guy muttering and mumbling something in a philosophical manner; it could actually have been interesting if it hadn't resembled Nitsche's words all the time. Nonetheless, kudos to the director for his superb use of the camera; I've never seen a single shot last so long. Seriously, sometimes I felt like like the operator was asleep during the filming or something. Did I note the gorgeous actors that vivaciously portrayed the characters in the film? Like, even my guinea-pig could have shown more emotions. And he's dead. So yeah. If you really hate someone, then buy them this movie for their birthday. Nothing worse than that.


LFD is the most unwittingly hilarious film I have seen for ages.

The painfully long opening scene is a dialogue-free killing spree peppered with pantomime deaths and schoolboy-like 'Aieee!' shrieks of terror.

An inexplicable (bad) fake-American narrator intones low voiced nonsense by way of introduction to 'the streets' (or a Brighton industrial estate to be precise).

Some of the overly-serious hard man facial expressions make Eastenders Mitchell twins look like Pacino in Taxi Driver.

The laughs just keep coming. A scene where two henchmen receive a stern ticking off by the yellow teethed grimacing boss reaches surreal heights of humour. In the background a man is chained to a fence and is being teased by a WWF looky-likey bloke pulling cartoon character baddie faces and pointing at him threateningly. This goes on all through the overly long scene.

After our hero has been shot, he makes it back home to his flat where he fumbles in his bathroom cabinet, crashing amongst deodorant and other jars. The same shot of a blood stained hand, shaking and crashing (its owner out of shot) around the cabinet is seen twice within a couple of minutes. What was he thinking of ? This is no time for a shower.

Budget Jackie-Chan-meets-Bugsy Malone (without the songs) Worth a watch for the laughs alone.Heading for the so-bad-its-good genre.


This may be the worst movie I've ever seen, but I'm sure there's worse out there, that's why I gave it a two out of ten.

You can't blame the budget for how much this film sucks. The acting is horrible, I've seen movies on a smaller budget with better acting. The fighting sequences are lazy and the story is non existent. The first 20 minutes of this film is fighting, for absolutely no reason. There are a lot of sequences that just don't' make sense visually as you watch it, they are so absurd and badly choreographed most of you could do better yourselves. There is no plot for about 1/2 of the movie. You can't even play the artistic freedom card in this abomination of a film. I like bad movies too... but this one is hard to laugh at, it just angers you cause you know you could do better with $16,000.

Final Thought: Don't watch this for action, don't watch it for acting, don't watch it for creativity, only watch it cause it overall worse than any movie you've ever seen.


Man this movie sucks i'm glad i didn't pay for it (netflix) but i did waste a movie that i could've watched from my que. The camera work is garbage along with the fight choreography these guys don't even make contact! once i saw that glenn salvage guy knock 2 guys down with a lousy hook kick that had NO sound effects i nearly spat my drink and turned the movie off which i did anyways 2 mins later. The muzzle flash's on the guns are poorly added in along with blood which they probably couldn't afford or knew how to make stage blood. The stupidest characters EVER! that one fat idiot with the 2 piece sword that he got off of karate depot that he clearly does not know how to use! i mean comeon doesn't he know he looks ridiculous? i wouldn't even have let them put my name in the credits if i were somehow in this movie. don't waste your time look else where. these actors should hide in shame.


The movie was presented in order to "educate" the public on the 40 year gang epidemic amongst the black youths of our Los Angeles society. It was, in short, a failure. The inability to show the true cause of gangs (i.e. the gangsters themselves) was flabbergasting. Yes, they were able to eloquently throw around the term "disenfranchised," yet had no clue as to why these characters chose the streets. It boils down to this: Money, power, and (perceived) respect. Nothing more. Racism did not start this problem. Slavery did not start this problem. Their absentee father did not start this problem. There is an easy, high school-level word that can describe gangs perfectly. That word is opportunism. They brought this movie forward to an extremely gullible and impressionable public who believes whatever they see on TV and they failed to show these black gangsters for what they truly are: professional victims. "Nothing is my fault." No accountability. "It's the white man's fault, it's the Cub Scouts' fault, it's the policeman's fault." The "I did not create this, it was created for me" idea is tired and hackneyed. Black people are disproportionately represented in prison? 28%? Perhaps if they decided to stop committing crime in this state, the numbers might even out. Why can't we have a documentary that simply reports the facts, with no agenda? Why must we perpetuate this myth that the black man can do no wrong? That, somehow, it's someone else's fault? I watched this movie in order to gain a deeper perspective when it comes to the gang culture. Instead I just found myself wading in the deeper-than-usual B.S. Congratulations and thanks a bunch. My opinion of (and my hope for) the blacks youths of L.A. has officially faltered.


This documentary is about how white people are evil, and responsible for all black problems. Every word spoken in this film is complete and utter garbage.

Throughout the film we learn how white people manipulated the poor, innocent blacks into creating the Bloods and Crips. We are taught how the evil white people forced the gangs to go to war with each other and sell drugs. Everything is white people's fault. Everything.

This "documentary" is quite possibly the greatest work of fiction of all time. Only militant blacks, or guilty white people will derive anything but anger and disgust from this bravo sierra.


I wasn't sure what to expect going into this, but when I watched it on Netflix I was pretty disappointed by the end of it. As far as film-making goes, it's impressive with the film aesthetics. As far as a documentary goes, it was one-sided anti-white propaganda.

The main problem with this film is that they only interview black people, gang members and the few white people they do interview come off as retarded and somewhat racist. This is not factual to me, 'nor is it the marking of a respectful piece of media. They do not interview members of the Los Angeles government from any point in history, except they use stock footage in a manner that demonizes the government.

I also resent the idea that gangs were formed because blacks couldn't get into the cub scouts, that's absurd, silly and utterly ignorant. This work of "fiction" is nothing more than propaganda to bring hate among white people.


A well produced documentary, but if you don't share the political viewpoint of the filmmakers, you will end up frustrated. A very one sided perspective where everyone interviewed agrees that the this tragic situation is 100% the making of outside forces like the police, school system, prison system etc. Frustrating for me because I really would like to see conditions in gang infested communities improve but by the end of the movie the message is clear: gang members and the people in high crime communities are doing nothing wrong and should not change a single behavior. Therefore everyone should continue these self destructive behaviors and wait for the world around them to improve their communities. A well meaning but sad and tired viewpoint that has unfortunately contributed to this tragedy. Most gang members would leave this film feeling much better about themselves and the crimes they have committed! "No Excuses" President, Barack Obama


A soulless and oddly voyeuristic white boy's visit to the South Side  seemingly for the first time  "Crips and Bloods: Made in America" offers few insights and much editorial gimmickry in an extended, ninety-three minute rock video which ultimately concludes that yes, THEY are human. Oh my goodness! Who knew?

About fifteen years ago filmmaker Randy Holland made a documentary about the 1992 Los Angeles riots, "The Fire This Time," which covers the same material, with the same structure. Using interviews with scholars, statesmen and the mothers of murdered Black Panthers along with members of the community, this earlier film provides an intellectual context that explains the emergence of gangs from the ashes of militancy, whereas the Pearlta doc shows little more than a litany of anger and self-pity.

"Crips and Bloods: Made in America" was made in America on a nifty computer, by a filmmaker who thinks good editing entails hammering on the keyboard as though it were a drum kit; how cool. And while we're at it, let's use every single special effect available in Final Cut Pro  or was it Avid? These jitters, shakes, blurs and flashes, especially when used during talking heads or emotion laden file footage, totally disrespect the experience of the film's subjects. And even worse, the incessant, wall-to-wall music, dull and hypnotic to the max, opens up a giant chasm between the film and the viewer. In the end, a pointless and arty documentary. Look for the Holland film; libraries have it.


Saw this movie last night at Sundance at BAM. I thought that I would get a look at the history, structure, economy, and cultural legacy of gang-life in LA. This movie didn't deliver on any of these fronts. Instead of history it just ran over the broad-strokes of black oppression on the west coast. Instead of gang's organizational structure it just talked a lot about finding a family and not having a father figure. Instead of the economy of drug- selling it just talked about how crack totally messed stuff up. Instead of cultural legacy it just flashed a bunch of pictures of west-coast rappers and had a hip-hop inspired soundtrack.

Throughout the film there are constant montages of hyper-masculine men, showing off their muscles, guns, and clothes. After awhile, we can't help but question the filmmakers leering, homo-erotic/homo-phobic view of these gang-members. We rarely learn anything concrete about them. They rarely tell us particular stories, facts, or credible statistics. Instead we are presented with their hyperbolic exaggerated rants about how tough they are. It reminds me of some of the AA meetings I've attended, where former alcoholics brag about how high, drunk, messed-up they got in a way that seems to relish the very self-destructive aspects of their lives they now pretend to critique. In the end, this is one of those movies that can't get enough of the guns, blood, and violence culture, it pretends to disapprove of.


As usual the trailer for this movie was more exciting than the movie itself! There are lot of moments that are creepy! But there also are a lot of scenes that are simply annoying! This is because the plot is very thin! When there are enough scares I don't really care about the plot! And if only the lack of suspense or story would get compensated by drama or action or even comedy than it would be great! But this is not the case! "Colic" isn't very scary! There is lack of drama (and no humor at all)! Example: The mother of the main character dies very sudden! No tears,no crying except for the baby! No funeral! No real conversations between the husband and wife about what happened! There is no show of emotion like nothing is wrong! And this is the main problem! Something bad happens and things go back to normal without any change! Sure you see the parents of the baby searching for help to cure the baby,but that's it! They visit a priest but he is not really helpful! The absence of a real dialog (especially) between the husband and wife makes it difficult to care for these persons! The explanation at the end makes it all worse! At least they could have come up with something better! The only thing that really was outstanding was the sound! The sound is the major reason that this horror is worth watching! But overall it is very average!


well thats my first review, you can guess!! the movie was actually that bad.....Yes it is one of the worst movie ever it is non horror at all , should be a thriller of a low grade and never be made as horror at all .True that the plot start promising but i just lost all interest after 29 minute of hardly trying to keep my eyes open ....why you ask >>>well thats a Thai movie who tries to capture a phenomena that happen to turn it to supernatural base it is purely cultural which is OK an all but the movie have set Zero effort to place any fear There is suspense I give u that but overall the film could have been made into a much better film and in my own review i say the idea is great but the display is very very poor just give it try when u have time to kill and u are Bored so just by then knock yourself out lol


Well, I was told that this is a 'hentai' with a good story. After seeing it, I just couldn't stop laughing because it is just too stupid even for a pornographic film. The positive characters are just too stupid, the villains are evil because they have just one face, et cetera. And also this series makes the prequels boring. It has so much flashbacks that even that small 'story' becomes boring, long and stupid. If it is possible... After a few episodes even the 'actions become long and boring, because everything is just repeated, and I think that there is nothing that could possibly make me believe this is a horror. The fantasy stuff is just that we see a lot of pentagrams everywhere, with runes around them. This stuff never made anything a fantasy or horror... I wish someday somebody could really show me an enjoyable and entertaining hentai!


I normally don't like to give low ratings to art-house films set in Europe with a strong cast. However, this film simply didn't "do it" for me and most of the blame, in my view, is directed towards the story and the way it was unfolded.

To begin with, the storyline seemed to drop in and out of focuses and it all became a bit of a mish-mash. Initially, it looked like the focus would be on recovering and perhaps (though this was my instinct) the characters emerging from their ordeal with new directions and outlooks.

Following this, it became more clear that the group were forming a very special attachment to the little girl as they felt she gave them a new youthful spring and perhaps a new beginning or lease on life.

However, I'm convinced that the film makers simply did not flesh out this angle nearly enough. Once her uncle arrived from America, the film lent little further weight to the nature of this special bond between the survivors and rejuvenating power of her niece. Because of this, it was difficult to identify with the emotions and subsequent motives of the central characters.

Maggie Smith's character descended into a bit of a drunken mess and the focus suddenly shifted to her inconsistent relationship with the uncle. The somewhat wooden performance given by Chris Cooper didn't help much, though he is generally a good performer. I suspect he was over-restrained by the director.

Then suddenly, the identity of the bomber became a focus and that whole episode gave rise to the odd revelation that Maggie Smith had some sort psychic ability through her dreams.

Finally, the ending and the story line generally somehow seemed to lack expected crescendos and ultimately came off as a bit flat, slightly shallow and certain parts seemed to be a bit of an excuse for the film makers to go on a self-indulgent photography run through Umbria.

The fact that certain aspects of the story were not fleshed out sufficiently and the shifting focuses, resulted in a story which was missing a strong core that the viewer can latch onto and limited ability to understand the emotional "being" of the characters. You would be forgiven for leaving this film feeling as though there was something "missing" about it.


Other than the enjoyment of looking at Carol Alt in her business suits, this is a pretty good cast wasted. To start with, I couldn't care less about her rich girl persona and her snot son. The kid looks like a refugee from Leave It to Beaver. He is so happy all the time. Even when he punches out the big kid in the principals office. Rutger Hauer is hired to go retrieve the boy from his Arab father who is an aspiring Emir in a desert colony. Boy, it's hard to watch what the likes of Omar Sharif became. Anyway, they blast their way in and attempt the rescue. She comes along, of course, because she is an Alpha female, rich, corporate executive, which qualifies her to fight against Arabs with machine guns. Mostly she hides; but she is there. I'm sure a fair amount of money was spent on this. There is some nice desert cinematography. It's just too many deaths, done easily, to get back that little jerk kid, who, in actuality, couldn't fight his way out of a grocery sack. Too much shooting and not enough plot.


I must admit I haven't seen all movies starring Rutger Hauer yet, so I'm not sure, but my guess is that BEYOND JUSTICE (aka THE LAW OF THE DESERT) has got to be the worst Hauer-movie out there. It excels in being bad. Now I know that, for instance, PRECIOUS FIND was a poor attempt at sci-fi/action, but at least it had Brion James in it and it wasn't an ambitious international co-production. And, yes, I know that TURBULENCE 3: HEAVY METAL was a trashy crapfest, but that one was at least so 'over the top' it was hilarious. So nobody can convince me that those movies were worse or, at least, less fun than this one.

I'm gonna be brief about the plot. There's a divorced couple, an American wife and an Arabian husband, living in America. The Arabian dude kidnaps their son and transports him to Arabia to live with his grandfather (Omar Sharif). The son is supposedly to inherit his legacy, and thus living the Arabian way of life for the rest of his days. He doesn't seem to mind, by the way. Maybe it's because those Arabians don't do anything throughout this movie except sitting in a castle and riding horses (yes, indeed: Boring!). The ex-wife (Carol Alt) and her legal adviser (Elliot Gould) bring in Tom Burton (Rutger Hauer) to go and save the kid.

The acting: Rutger Hauer, though undoubtedly the best actor of the cast, seems hopelessly lost in this movie. At the time of shooting this movie he clearly hadn't developed his method-acting-skills yet. So with the absence of any guidance from the director, you could consider him a loose cannon throughout this film. I love the way his character is introduced. He is on this mission to save some political prisoner, so you see him running around randomly shooting and throwing grenades. Quite pointless, if you ask me, while stealth moves would've been more appropriate. Carol Alt has not much to do except looking beautiful. Omar Sharif, well, the only good thing the man did - in my book - was his role in TOP SECRET. And after seeing him in that one you just cannot take his whole 'respect my Arabian authority'-thing in DESERT LAW serious. As for Elliot Gould (TV's FRIENDS), the man's acting range is limited to two aspects: whining and looking sad. I must also mention the young (non)actor who plays the kid's Arabian slave/friend. Not only he just can't act, he also looks like a moron with his tongue cut out who smiles all the time (in fact, his tongue was cut out, if I remember correctly... Oooh, those savage Arabians!)

The cinematography: This movie was shot in 1989, re-released in 1992, but looks like something from the late 70's. It seems like the camera-operator just discovered the zoom-button and is very enthusiastic about it. He just can't stop touching the damn thing.

The editing: Atrocious. Sometimes the editor cuts too soon to the other over-shoulder-view in a conversation, making you here the last word of one person's line without seeing his jaw move. At one time, after a dialogue is finished, the camera stays focused extreeeeemely long on a guy's face instead of cutting away to the next scene.

The plot: Now, the premise is OK. The clash between traditional Arabian and modern day American lifestyle could have invoked interesting moral discussions resulting in a violent confrontation during a climactic ending. Because you feel like it builds up to that (it takes almost two hours to get there), but in the end it just does not deliver. The conversations in the drama department are boring blahblahblah's, the trip through the desert is boring with just one lame and badly choreographed shoot-out scene. The rescue near the end is rushed followed by one of the most stupid happy-endings I've ever seen: Omar Sharif handing over the kid, admitting he was wrong and HUGGING Hauer! And what's worse: after that, in some sort of epilogue, we find out that sissy-boy Elliot Gould was a traitor. Normally you discover something like that just before the climax, so you could have some kind of showdown between Hauer and Gould, or heck, Hauer just shooting the bastard. No, instead this goes on and on and then we get to see Gould make a confession while a fly is walking around on his face.

The directing: I think there was no director present at the time of shooting.

The music: I just can't believe they got Ennio Morricone to do the soundtrack. Even he f#@ks it up. One time he cooks up this really dumb funky porn-movie tune. And most of the time he mixes his score with so much cheesy sweetness that by the time this movie ends, you'll have to be taken to a hospital suffering from a sugar-overdose.

I think you all get my point, no? This movie was abominable. Rutger Hauer, what the hell were you thinking? I guess you thought it was fun to come back to Europe and do a picture while being here, no? Well, at least I hope you got paid alright, 'cause this movie turns BLIND FURY into Oscar-material. Normally I would recommend this kind of movie to make fun of, but it's actually a torment to sit through and you'll feel insulted in the end. Therefore I will add that Rutger Hauer even gets the girl in the end! So, there you have it. Now you have absolutely no reason to watch this tripe. And now, please excuse me, I'm gonna go watch TACTICAL ASSAULT (starring Hauer and Robert"T2"Patrick). I heard it's so bad, it's fun.


How you can make a movie about such totally unsympathetic and insufferable people is beyond me. Beyond that, the movie makes no sense and the plot has no credibility. Father kidnaps son from mother and then helps mother re-kidnap him from primitive Arab tribe who have managed to place elaborate warning boxes into the, one assumes, well guarded mansions of the two parents in America. Two hired mercenaries somehow manage to obtain crates-full of sophisticated weapons and a caravan of other Arabs to transport them. Mother in business suit insists on joining commandos when her presence at any point could betray and undermine the entire mission. OK, that's enough, I got my ten lines in but will mention that I am a big fan of Rutgar Hauer.


If you are a big fan of Rutger Hauer you might even *enjoy* this movie, otherwise, don't spend your time on this one. The music is awful and so are the action scenes, if you want to see Rutger's action film i recommend seeing rather split second or arctic blue.


Man ! I give 1/10 for this movie. And I would prefer give 0. Can't believe kind of so bad "movie" exist. It's not "B series" but "Z series".

Produce in 1992 ! Have no sense. Even the music of Ennio Morricone(Once Upon a Time in the West)is ridiculous for this "movie".

It's evident after to watch this movie, that we can conclude actor/actress don't make movie just for fun but to win money to pay their "Kingdom", their Mercedes, their swimming pool, etc.

Personally to be a good actor and make this kind of movie I would feel a lot depress. Oh my God !

Even in my better bad nightmare I can't imagine a so bad movie. It's Fantastic that they are guys to find money to create this kind of "thing".

Not only the movie is "null" but actor/actress are bad too. But can we be good in this kind of "movie".

God give pardon to the producer of this "thing" cause he/they really don't know what they do !

I must admit this "movie" is a very good soporific and if you have some trouble to sleep well I suggest you buy it. Be sure at 100% you will sleep before the end.


2 trouble-making girls get sent off to boarding school in Greece. Just another typical 80's movie, with no substance or acting ability, just rebel kids getting into wacky situations. Not really as bad as many movies, but really boring. At least this one has some attractive girls (Tricia Leigh Fisher) to look at instead of just a bunch of nerds. And what is it about dumb 80s movies that they have these great theme songs? Weird.


No, not the closing credits - I wouldn't recommend you stay that long! No, I'm talking about the opening credits! The first 5 minutes is all I recommend you sit through, as it is the only thing that contains anything related to a plot, and you get to sit through a rockin' song! If you can stay awake any longer than that, I commend you!


I was really disappointed with this movie. It just DOES NOT make sense. I cannot believe all the 5 star reviewers. Does basic storytelling matter to you people? OK, where to begin......

Gosling's Danny Bolint is a militantly self-hating Jew. Why? Not sure really. Through use of some clumsily overdramatic flashbacks, we learn that Danny enraged his Hebrew School teachers by challenging long accepted laws of Judaism. OK, fine. So Danny learns some untraditional teachings from his father. How that evolves into violent hatred for his own religion is anyone's guess.

Well, as another reviewer wrote with the title, "You better believe this movie deserves 5 stars" explains:

"Soon thereafter we learn that Danny himself was a yeshiva student. He's a Jew who has become a Nazi skinhead."

EXACTLY! Hey buddy, how do we go from point A to point B here? So his father teaches him some non-traditional interpretations of the Torah and suddenly he's some violent hard-core Jewish Nazi? Huh? I think we need A LITTLE more than that people! Another reviewer stated that "you could tear any movie apart if you wanted to." Perhaps that is true. BUT this is a FUNDAMENTAL part of this movie! Its a fascinating concept that deserves a reasonable explanation. This movie fails miserably on this crucial point, that alone should keep it from 5 stars, but of course, there is much more:

OK, so after going into a synagogue, this violent Nazi who has no qualms about beating up Jewish kids, setting up bombs in synagogoes to kill dozens of Jews, has the uncontrollable urge to protect the Torah from his friends and other religous properties? Not just that, but he reveals his immense knowledge of Judaism in front all his fellow Nazis and gives them obvious hints that he's Jewish, for no apparent reason, throughout the film (ex. wearing a Hebrew cloth inside his shirt, keeping and protecting objects from the synagogue, goes to a Temple, says a Jewish prayer in his room and in front of fellow Nazis, teaching his bizarre girlfriend Hebrew. Why does she want to learn it? Don't ask me). Even though he says to the reporter that he would KILL HIMSELF if it was ever found out he was Jewish he gives these obvious clues throughout the film.

When Danny was with his friend attempting to shoot at a Jewish couple, he finds he can't/won't do it, and then his Hebrew cloth is revealed to his friend who realizes he's Jewish. Danny then shoots at him and leaves the area........OK.....Soooo what happens to his friend? Is he dead? Is he injured? Does he survive to tell anyone? The character completely dissapears and we never hear what happened to him. Once again, thats amateurish storytelling at best, dissapearing characters is not a minor detail. Jeez, I would get upset if this happened at a local high school play, let alone an award-winner that I'm paying money for!

Another unexplained event in the film is perhaps the best part: during the resensitivity seminar when Danny and his friends hear stories from Holocaust survivers. Danny offends the speakers and walks out prematurely even though the instructor warns him that he will be resentenced if he leaves. OK.......so what happens next? Does he go back to court? Is he sentenced to jail? Is he fined? Is he a fugitive? Better ask the 5 star reviewers, the fanatics in this website all these questions, because after watching the movie I can provide you with none.

Keep in mind, I'm ignoring the emotionless and puzzling girlfriend played by Phoenix, Is she a Fascist? What are her politics? Why does she like Danny? Why does she like to get physically hit by Danny? Why Danny showed no anger/emotion at Phoenix or Zane when he saw them making love, the make out scene the day after , right when Danny just threw up, what exactly makes Danny so incredibly valuable to Zane and the fascists, Zane's laughable hairpiece, etc etc etc. Point is, I was willing to accept ALL that as being "minor", however I cannot accept the HUGE holes in the script. Basic points like why he's a Jewish Nazi, what turned this violent person around so dramatically, and the missing and unexplained characters/events throughout the film.

Sorry for the long review, but I was truly disappointed with this film. Expected much better.


The first thing I thought after seeing this movie was "How is this possible that 'The Believer' actually won a price at the Sundance Filmfestival????"

It's not that it's all bad, but it's not a movie I would call good. First, there are dozens of little errors. Especially in the beginning the editing is bad. Two times you get the feeling "where am I?" after a very quick cut to a scene somewhere else with the same characters. You get disoriented by it.

Another error, when Danny vomits on the street, his girlfriend (who is actually not yet really his girlfriend) comes after him and french kisses him!! Man, that's gross! You just don't do that!

The main character Danny, doesn't convince me either. Why did he become a skinhead? Okay, there's this explanation of banishment when he was a child, but I just don't see how you can choose for being a skinhead after that. And doesn't it seems slightly odd that although Danny has a huge collection of jewish items, knows hebrew by heart and doesn't want anyone to get close to the tora, and nobody seems to think, "well, maybe he's jewish???"

Last but not least, there's the acting. Especially the flash-backs are very bad acted. The young Danny-boy tries to much and thinks he's as good as Haley Joel Osment. Furthermore, the older Danny tries a bit too hard to look like Edward Norton in American History X. I have to say, some of his looks sometimes work very well, but alas, most of the time they're just rip-offs.

No, it really astonishes me that this movie won a prize. Well, it's just one prize, but because of that, I think less about the Sundance Filmfestival. A grand jury should know better than to give this movie a prize.


This movie who is supposed to be about the Jewish issue, is really nothing more than an absolute waste of time, except for one or two scenes. "The Believer" is just extremely poor. The scenes with his girlfriend are perfectly superflous and should not have been there at all. The so-called fascist family are incredibly bad casted and impossible to believe that these people are fascists, or should be in a movie with this theme at all. The main character too has absolutely no credibility. I suggest you see a documentary like "Hotel Terminus: Life and Times of Klaus Barbie" or some decent fictional movie which does not exploit its audience with superflous and hard-to-watch scenes of some actor trying to appear like something from reality.


I'd heard about this film when it won the Sundance prize, and immediately thought, given the accolade and the premise, that it had to be great. I also assumed it would be ultra-disturbing, so being somewhat squeamish, I waited a long time to actually see it.

What a disappointment.

The idea that a religious Jew could become a Nazi is indeed compelling, but this film never lets the viewer in on the WHY behind the main character (Balint's) decision, so, to continue watching, you just have to take it on faith that for some reason he has his reasons for inspiring a group of fascists to begin executing Jews. This, maybe I could have lived with.

But when this anti-Semitic Jew brings his thuggish skinhead buddies into a temple and has misgivings, here is where the lack of character development really becomes a problem. I could live with the assumption that for some reason this Jew's a Nazi, but, without any insight into the character, this business of his conflict, a seeming revelation of complexity, is just plain confusing.

Then, it commits the sin so many independent films do...by believing its overlong dialogue and speech scenes are compelling enough to drive a story forward. But this is minor in comparison to the nonsensical protagonist and the un-paid-off story lines: Balint shoots a fellow Nazi, Drake, when Drake discovers that Balint is wearing a prayer shawl under his skinhead clothes (again -- WHY???) I assumed he killed Drake, but, he doesn't...shouldn't there be some resolution to this turn of events, perhaps some jeopardy for Balint? For example -- your fellow Nazis find out you shot one of their own...shouldn't there be some sense that maybe Balint's life is now in jeopardy? Also, the leaders (played by Theresa Russell and Billy Zane) find out off-screen that Balint is a Jew. Shouldn't this also be a moment of high tension? This is a great, intriguing premise, but, the film is an extreme disappointment. I expected at some point that everything would tie together in a way that formed a cohesive, powerful, compelling, morally ambiguous narrative, but it doesn't. It's extremely unsatisfying throughout, and I really believe that its status and acclaim come from the premise alone.


I found this movie, brain numbing more then anything else.

The director tries to portray Gosling as an intelligent underachiever with the wrong mindset, which is very hard to believe when they have Gosling slur out lines that you would think to hear on an Episode of "South Park", and to believe that he could have intelligent people listen and believe what he's saying is outrageous.

The supporting cast is also terrible, i really cant comment much on them other then saying that most of them would have been best suited in daytime TV dramas.

The action scenes suffer from the same disease, not believable, with fight scenes more at home in a B class movie.

I wouldn't recommend seeing this movie if you wanted to see something with depth and intelligence.


A total snoozer. If it is based on a true story, then it took far to long to tell, and it just wasn't worth it. What was the point? He was a confused young man? Watch this movie and you'll be confused. The screenplay, characters, and acting are so weak. If there's a movie to miss, this is the one. I just can't believe the other reviews given this movie. This is one lame movie. If it's so great, would you ever sit through a second time? I doubt it.


I want that 99 minutes of my life back, this was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. If you know about movies, you'd know this garbage is a waste of film. There is no dialog, no structure, no plot, no climax, NO NOTHING. This movie was all over the place and it was complete trash, The best character in the movie was SHLOMO, "Stewart" he only had 2 minutes in the movie. This movie is Jewish propaganda and it's trash, I felt like hugging Jews after i saw this movie. If anybody compares this movie to "American History X" they deserve to be shot and strangled. "American History X" is a very well written movie thats has a moral to the story, This Movie "the believer" on the other hand was complete trash. It didn't make any sense what so ever, Take my advice and don't waste your life watching this piece of garbage movie. I rather stick a knife in my stomach for entertainment, rather than touch this movie with a 10 foot poll. TRASH TRASH TRASH.


Someone read too little Nietzsche and decided to encapsulate it all (a la Cliff-Notes) in the form of a little melodrama. Plays out the same as those tales of born-againers sowing their nihilistic wild oats only to find Jesus just as the thrill begins to get lonesome. It's just that this guy finds The Torah and decides the only decent thing left to do now is to act out on the wisdom of his Hebrew-school-inner-child that had somehow never been successfully challenged. God's all powerful. After all, isn't that the way we make Him? Someone told this story much better a long time ago. It was called the Parable Of The Prodigal Son...


if you're considering seeing this movie for its political / cultural message, don't waste you're time. you're IQ will actually lose 5 points from viewing it. if you know anything about skinheads, white racialism, etc, you will instantly see problems with the movie that discredit the entire thing. for example, why does the main character have an AWB(Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging) tattoo? hes from new york, not south Africa, i fail to see how he'd have a strong enough connection to the Afrikaner resistance movement that he would tattoo their symbol to his body? its there because it looks something like a Swazi, although its really 3 number 7's connected, meaning 777 from Christian dogma. the only other reason he may have this tattoo is for its connection to the racialist group blood and honor, a group that also uses this logo sometimes. why he would get a tattoo of this group, which is still in existence and in many nations, i have no idea. there is no way the character portrayed in this movie would be a blood and honor member, for reasons too numerous for me to bother with here. also, when he attends the "skinhead retreat", they show a female with a completely bald head, as if she just had cancer treatments. this is another piece of sensationalism. while National socialist skinheads often are guilty of misrepresenting skinhead style and fashion, this is a silly exaggeration. however its meant to jump out at people who know nothing about these scenes, and take advantage of their ignorance. what about him walking around Manhattan with a Swazi shirt, him and his blatantly Nazi buddies walking around Manhattan drinking etc? the traditional skinhead scene in Manhattan is huge, and violent. they basically cleaned out the Nazi skinhead scene YEARS ago, and the remnants rarely if ever present themselves this way. maybe he could walk around like this for days, weeks maybe months and have no problems, but the truth is this is another bit of sensationalism. you just don't see this like the movie tries to portray it. as if this movie wasn't unrealistic enough. so, he gets caught with the Torah in his room, his fascist girlfriend finds it, and he makes her get dressed because being nude in front of it is a sin, according to Judaism. then he begins to read it to her, in Hebrew, and teach her Hebrew. so, this doesn't send up any red flags to her at all? I'm sorry but I'm sick of these sun dance winner movies being touted as great works of cinema, when they are really just awful white guilt trips. now i wasn't able to sit through the entire thing, but I'm going to guess that this movie totally avoided the fact that the vast majority of American skinheads are traditional, in the sense that they are not politically affiliated, are non racist, and are actually respectable members of the community. i wonder if i made a movie that showed Hasidim Jew's as only diamond smugglers and Zionist supremacists, would that win a sun dance award? there are a few scenes that cinematic ally are good, the opening scene is exciting and almost hard to watch, the fight at the retreat is good. there is some truth to the way NS skinheads are portrayed. other than those, i fail to see what made this film an award winner. seriously, don't waste your money like i did on this one folks, it stinks of agenda.


This short is an oddity in that it hardly has any stooge dialogue or slapstick! The verbal exchanges are limited in that they simply advance the plot; we have no wisecracks, visual jokes, or typical dumbness associated with the boys. And you can count on one hand the amount of slapstick gags.

Many talk about how Curly was in failing health in this short, but surprisingly he has a lot of energy. Outside of the fact that his voice is lower than normal, he engages in typical Curly antics which show him to be full of vim and verve. Too bad they didn't give him much to do.

This short has the most bizarre scene I think I've ever seen in all the shorts. The three are made up in blackface and are in a huddle; Larry says, "If we-all can get that map back to headquarters, we-all can win this war!" Curly responds, "Yeah, and then we-all can get married!" Moe rolls eyes and chirps, "Brothers, you just ejaculated a mouthful!" (While that verb does have the appropriate meaning--to espouse--even in 1946, the stooges surely were giggling under their makeup.)


I'd normally give this one about 2*, but will add another because it was filmed in its portrayed locale, Phoenix. This is almost unheard-of for "Lifetime" flicks, which alone must be a significant proportion of Canada's economy, since most are filmed there. I was surprised they didn't simply place a few pieces of fake flora around, say, Vancouver, to indicate a more southerly location.

Certainly the subject of any predator affecting the life of a child is a very serious one. However, unlike some others who regard this movie as a meaningful presentation, I simply felt it ludicrous. You don't have to praise a dramatic presentation simply because the subject matter is significant

The story presented perhaps the two most prominent components within "Lifetime's" resources: its most ubiquitous thespian, Meredith Baxter; and its likewise most ubiquitous theme, the completely wacky, psychotic neighbor.

Sometimes the victim, sometimes the villainess, Baxter has done these cable flicks so often she sometimes appears to have "phoned-in" her performance. Very much the case here! The husband's in these presentations are usually vacuous, clueless nerds, also the case here.

The youngsters are sometimes thoroughly annoying, sometimes completely engaging, and you know that virtually all of them probably have a stage mother in the background, prodding them like a trainer with a show horse. But here, the young actress portraying the besieged daughter presented a listless performance (consistent, however, with those by the adults).

However off-the-wall, the obsessive, insane villains in these offerings usually provide a chill or two, even where wacky or unbelievable. Here, even the actress in this role was more boring than interesting.

The two slow-witted parents were so moronic in the way they permitted this nut case to insinuate herself into their family's lives, over the period portrayed in the story - that I couldn't help but feel that, in real life, anyone with even minimal intelligence would have have extricated themselves within less than the "real time" two hours of the airing.

**Possible spoiler here (although what's to "spoil?").**

The "climax" which occurred within the last half hour - especially when the parents are visiting the villainess' former apartment with the elderly landlord (or building super), and their frantic musings, were more amusing than dramatic or frightening. I couldn't get even a minimal feeling of either tension or drama, for imagining Barney Fife and Gomer (or Goober) fluttering about aimlessly and inanely around Mayberry, before Andy would arrive to straighten everything out. In fact, those doophuses could have done a better job and been amusing while doing so.

The overdrawn investigation by the parents, and the storming of the predator-cum-kidnapper's hideout at the end, provided an appropriately silly and inane way to conclude these proceedings.


I'll watch Evan in anything (her she is in one of her earliest roles), even in this tepidly uninspired rehash of the Fatal Attraction/Hand that Rocks the Cradle tone. She still shows her remarkable poise and maturity as a performer at a very young age (she was 11 when it was filmed), but this lifelessly conventional release doesn't deserve her.

In Down will Come Baby, she plays Robin Garr, a young, mostly anti-social adolescent silently worried about the arising tensions at her upper-middle-class home. Her mother wants to move to Denver with a high-paying new job, but her Dad wants to stay in their Phoenix suburb and continue his burgeoning architectural career. So, with the growing distant relationship between the family despite her parent's earnest and loving efforts, it looks like the film's headed for a potentially affecting domestic drama.

Not quite. As Robin takes a trip to camp during the early summer, she finds solace with another remote camper named Amelia, a young, sad-eyed girl that seems to be hiding something. Over the next few weeks they bond into best friends, not caring that they are somewhat removed from the rest of the campers and counselors in the entire place.

One night, however, when they sneak away from the campfire to have a night-swim, Robin doesn't seem too worried when Amelia warns that she's not a very skillful swimmer. As she soon gets stuck out in the middle of the lake, barely being able to keep her above the water, Robin's belated attempt to save her ends up in tragedy as she immediately drowns below the lake.

And all that certainly didn't make for a benign homecoming. Even as her parents try to calm her by telling her it wasn't her fault, she still blames herself, and has a tough time adjusting to her regular life back home. It certainly doesn't help that her mother is often gone to Denver, and when she is home the tensions of the distant relationship with her husband are quietly manifested, as Robin watches with her worried, faintly melancholy eyes.

However, one day, luck might seem to change, as a stroll through the park she meets Dorothy while sitting a park bench, an unusually intriguing one who just happens to move in to her apartment building the next day. At first, she seems like the perfect older mentor for robin, as she enjoys spending time with her after school and showing her how to bake and do other rather useful things.

After a while, though, she seems to have become obsessed with young Robin, as she soon starts popping out of everywhere at any time to try and spend time with her, to an alarmingly excessive degree. So it should come as no surprise that Dorothy happens to be the resident psyhco, hiding a baby monitor in Robin's room to listen in any conversation that takes place in there, surreptitiously taking photos of her from the balcony and angrily lashing out on her when she happens to put too much chocolate chips in the cookie batter. It starts to frighten Robin, as she tries to avoid her completely, though her parents tend to differ on their views of Dorothy: her Mother gets worried as she perceives subtle signs of nefarious intent in Dorothy, though her Father thinks she innocuous and a reliable baby-sitter for robin. Then, on one night, as her mother is in Denver and her father has to visit a client in California, he invites Dorothy to come sit for her as he is away, despite his wife's warnings not to do so, and... well, I guess you can pretty much fill in the blanks right here.

As usual, Wood manages to carries the film with grace and makes her robin completely believable, and lifts the film into watchable territory. However, Down Will Come Baby doesn't merit the attention that Wood deserves. The film seems like it was written, directed and produced strictly for late-late-night cable TV: it's tedious, poorly paced, often over-the-top and offers no surprises (or thrills) whatsoever. It's plot contrivances are shameless, and they seem as if they we're made to pluck out any possible moment of suspense whatsoever.

That's too bad, because at the begging, it looked like if it stayed in the domestic realm it could have made for a perceptive, moving drama about family and childhood. However, it goes into the trajectory of the myriad thrillers about obsessive psychos and young kids before it, and a completely hum-drum one at that. If it weren't for Evan, I would've changed the channel (though seen during one of my insomniac nights, I didn't have a whole lot of other options), and she was, without exaggeration, the only thing worth watching in this ineptly produced dreck.


I won't spoil the ending, but I will talk about the (paper thin) plot, that's why I put the spoiler alert/tag. If you haven't seen the movie, but have plans to do so (although I wouldn't recommend that as you can see by my voting), I'd tell you not to read this beforehand.

This movie is in the vain of similar torture movies (or "gorno" as they are called). While the American business man is supposed to be a everyday man we (or let's say a "western" audience) can relate to, but still stay ambiguous enough, that never fully gets "exploited". Instead it's more exploitation and in a bad way. Robbing a man of his "senses" and making it as painful as possible. But watching this is even more painful, especially because it is as predictable as it can get. While Saw (at least the first one) had an intelligent twist to the whole thing, this movie tries to disguise the whole torture thing with a social commentary, that just doesn't work ...

What I didn't know, but read here on IMDb, is the fact, that this was based on a novel. As a read this might have been more interesting, but after watching the movie, I don't feel the need for more ... "torture"


i found the plot synopsis for this movie pretty interesting and for sure the basic ideas could have been easily transformed into an excellent movie, so i found it very promising to check out this flick. usually i try to stay neutral and don't get my hopes too high upfront and would for sure have been satisfied with an at least mediocre thrill ride.

it all starts with our main protagonist captured and been held captivated by a group of people that claim that he is a guest and is about to change. to archive that they want to take away what means the most to him. as soon as he gets tortured for the first time and they take his sense of taste away the viewer instantly knows what that is: his senses. since there aren't too many of those we it becomes clear very early in the movie what will happen within the next 90 minutes. as a movie buff it always worries me when they reveal most of the next events so early in a movie. there are very few directors to either manage to dig themselves outta that hole use that to their advance. Hitchcock would be one of those rare examples that even used this as a stylistic element. unfortunately we don't see such brilliance here.

we further get explained that his sufferings are being broad casted. by that they can only mean an internet stream as TV would be way too off. people can contribute money, write letters and vote his sufferings to stop. the main goal according to the kidnappers is to get together money for their operations.

our protagonist also gets some time with a seemingly innocent female that claims that she doesn't support the ways of the group she's in. this might have been believable in 1960 when this genre wasn't as overused as it uses to be, but nowadays this is simply not plausible.

to justify that exactly this guy has been picked for the operation we see some flashbacks and some explanations by the protagonist himself into the camera, showing that he has been a ruthless idiot without morals in his life. not, necessarily evil, but just not a good guy. i have no idea why that should be a justification for keeping him captivated, torture him for weeks and then cripple him for life, but alright.

all of this counted together makes what we see completely random. the main character is not sympathetic and not evil. the evildoers are simply villains without a reasonable justification. after 45 minutes it just gets mighty boring as it is completely random and pointless. as the graphic violence shown has no real meaning but to shock and disgust the viewer it gets extremely boring. i don't enjoy watching someone getting tortured for 90 minutes. there is no thrill in that, it's just stupid.

nevertheless i was hoping for a clever conclusion AND twist at the end to make up for my lost time. disappointingly this doesn't happen and the movie simply ends.

don't get me wrong, i am a horror movie fan, but this is not a horror movie. there is no thrill in it. i enjoy getting scared and i have seen quite a few Japanese extreme horror movies, but without justification there is no thrill. if this would have been an action movie it would have been transfered to this: i guy drives around in a car and just kicks the heck out of random people and shoots some other, without no reason or background story behind it.

also this genre of movie is not new. if it were there would at least been the justification of going beyond everything else that has been done in other movies just to prove a point. i know for a fact that this has been done much more extreme to prove those points. if you take a look at the guinea pig series then even in the genre of wannabe-snuff-movies this example is just a very lame attempt to even reach those limits.

overall this has been a very disappointing experience.


I just saw this short on TCM. It's a fun short, but nothing terribly exciting or hilarious. It is filled with parodied clichés of lawyer/crime movies almost to the point of exhaustion. Some sight and physical comedic gags do not fit well, and it comes with the type of humor you would expect from a Looney Toon if it were live-humans instead of animated critters.

Our hero pleads "not guilty" until he finds himself facing 10 years in prison. It is at this point, around the 8 minute marker, that this little short finally feels like its taking off the ground but by the time you end your first laugh, our hero is ducking behind the big 8 Ball and "The End" is scribbled across the screen.

Worth watching if only for the sheer enjoyment of it being a short, a long lost cinematic tradition in an age when so many pop-tart films would be served in an 10 minute format.


This is another one in a long line of typical Japanese black-and-white film-student-project-gone-wrong pretentious wannabe-deep-but-it's-not pseudo-surrealistic piece of crap masquerading as "disturbing horror." A never-ending bout of morons screaming for no reason and just "freaking out" is what you are in for with this film.

Of course, any movie like this will attract countless reviews speaking of how "briliant" the director is, how "disturbing" the film's "message" was (bwhahaha!) and a long string of steamy nuggets of self-delusional insight, but what it comes down to is this: low budget black and white boring inanity with lots of stupid screaming that will bore you to the verge of tears.

If you're looking for an actual movie with plot that will entertain you, this is not it.


I saw this film a while ago when I was on a big Z-grade zombie movie kick. I was not disappointed by this little number. Naturally, there were some problems with the film. The biggest one I can think of is the soundtrack. It sounds like some kids decided to have fun with a synthesizer and the film makers wanted to put it in for kicks. The acting wasn't too good either, but it's obviously on a low budget, so I can forgive that.

The plot is that a group of Satan worshiping hippies come to a small town to wreak havoc on the local population. The hippie bunch end up molesting a local girl and then shacking up in an abandoned hotel. They run afoul of a local brat after feeding his grandfather acid (oh, it was his sister that they molested earlier by the by). So little lord Fauntleroy decides to get even with that counterculture bunch by feeding them rabies laced meat pies (trust me, I'm not making this up). The traveling satanists become blood thirsty cannibals and terrorize the town.

Overall, the film is pretty much a blood and sex packed piece of celluloid, but it's not without its charm. If you're into graphic, low budget violence and shock, this is a film for you. "Citizen Kane" it obviously isn't, but it still manages to retain its overall fun and shock value.

Happy viewings B movie fans.


Some films seem "long" because it demands the audience's attention at all times, others are so because the audience is bored. "Broken English" falls comfortably in the latter.

I have a feeling, in making Broken English, Cassvetes sticks with "safe" grounds. The topic, the set, and the characters are nothing new to those familiar to the "chick flick" genre. Being an independent film, she could have been a little more bold in her story, but she was too worried about pleasing the judges than the audience.

Instead, it is reduced to a "checklist" independent film. Lead role with obvious personality flaws - CHECK! Cheated by playboy celebrity - CHECK! Man in "sexy" accent - CHECK! Nice guy and gay friend - CHECK! Ethnic representation (Jewish, Hispanic, Asian, etc) - CHECK! Friend has secret psychological problems - CHECK! "Romantic" location for ending - CHECK!

The interesting thing is, the broad brush Cassavetes used to paint the "typical" American woman: perpetual depression, distorted reality, aimlessly looking for "happiness" in the wrong places, fear disguised in a sense independence. Is this the message she is trying to convey?

To sum up, "Broken English" tries to be groundbreaking, or topical, or both. But it ends up being a paint-by-number independent festival film. The distinction comes not from the satisfaction of the audience, but from the tick marks on the judges' evaluation forms. I hope films such as "Broken English" is not indicative of the trend in independent film making, but I am probably wrong.


Honest to God, halfway through B.E. I thought, "This director has watched too many John Cass. movies." I did not know his daughter directed it until I looked at the box. Lots of scenes with only one or two people on screen does not necessarily make drama. Nora was annoying, not sympathetic,and did not make an ideal victim. You don't get a Purple Heart for self-inflicted wounds. Was that supposed to be an arty ending? I was just glad it was over. On a positive note, I gotta give Zoe C. credit for doing something that was arguably a little risky, although it seemed tailored for film-fest crowd. I went out with a woman like Nora a few times, until I realized she was boring and an emotional black hole.

In B.E.II, he dumps her after 2 weeks and swears never to go out with an American woman again.


This was one of the lousiest 1.5 hours of my life. Nora is a stupid and annoying woman who is also desperate, immature and boring. Her character made me cringe-- why was she so monotone and emotionless? Oh except for her anxiety attacks... yeah, whatever. and why does her being 30 make her feel SO OLD? shes so stupid. She needs a male blow up doll.

If she whined any more about how she just wanted to feel loved by a "good guy", I would've puked.

Not to mention, she's a drunk. She's drinking in every part of the movie. it's like she cant go through 24 hours without having at least one glass of alcohol.

And every 2 minutes of the movie, there's Someone with a drink in their hand.

The movie is annoying, unforgivable and seems unfinished. I hated this movie with a passion. Really a waste of time.

Stupidest story line ever.


To use one of the many off-placing one-liners seen within the film, the simplest way I know to describe Broken English is, "Barf." This confusingly written film focuses on the dysfunctional life of a prescription drug addict and slightly psychotic female, played by Parker Posey. The usually fascinating Posey seems utterly boring, for the lack of a better term, throughout the entire film. This might be due to the fact that her character remained underdeveloped and emotionally ambiguous the entire time. The acting, cinematography, storyline, and soundtrack within Broken English all feel despondent, uncreative, and forced. Broken English completely failed to grab my attention as by the middle of the film, I was actually yawning and counting the number of tiles on the ceiling. (148, if you were interested.)


Before watching the movie I looked on the "reliable" IMDb site to see what type of movies this is.

"Comedy / Romance" ???? are you people crazy??? Comedy??? I was really in the mood for something funny and enjoyable, and instead I found myself watching a Drama/Romance , a story about broken, sad people.

I only had the patience to watch half of the movie, probably I missed a great ending, probably...

I wanted something funny, the category in which this movie was placed was "Comedy", I ended up watching something totally different.

If this is a Comedy then it's the worst I've ever seen.


Intimate KISSES and that's about it!

This movie is a TOTAL waste of time. The first 20 to 30 minutes is bearable then this movie is LIKE a DRAG! I totally disliked this movie.

BORING and DULL. Stupid.

Broken English has nothing to do with the movie. OK so what happened because he had Broken English? Nothing!

The performances are OK! I don't want to Talk about it since I hated the film.

The story isn't anything new. It's the same old GIRL not finding her Perfect GUY QUEST.

I wish thay would rather have put some CLICHÉ' Stuff. I think the movie would be MORE ENJOYABLE then.

Otherwise it's a TOTAL mess- Low Budget film. 2/10


Olvier Gruner stars as J269 a robot who becomes the target of a group of mercenaries sent to destroy him after he kills a man trying to rape Nora Rochester (Daphne Ashbrook), fearing bad press Goddard Marx orders the machine dead in this well made yet very routine rip off of Robocop and The Terminator. Automatic however does have good actionscenes.


There are those who would compare The Treasure of the Amazon to Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981). They would be wrong. OK, This could have been an excellent movie, but it is not. The cast is great and at times actually demonstrates it, but the plot is so thin and ridiculous that it is extremely difficult to get into it at all.

Stuart Whitman stars as your typical aging adventurer who leads a group of misfits into the Amazon to find lost WW2 treasure. Most of the group is killed in various horrible and ridiculous ways. The only way I would recommend this film is if you are interested in seeing some top notch actors doing their best to make something of nothing.

The cast includes Whitman, star of such wonderful films as Rio Conchos and The Comancheros as the bull headed leader. Bradford Dillman, who starred opposite Robert Redford in The Way We Were, makes an appearance. Donald Pleasence, star of many classic films such as The Great Escape and The Eagle Has Landed, plays an evil Nazi. Rounding out the cast are John Ireland(Gunfight at the OK Corral 1957),Pedro Armendariez Jr.(License To kill 1989)and none other than Harold(Odd Job)Sakata.


It is sad when decent actors are involved in cheap rubbish like this that squander their talents. Most notable are Stuart Whitman, who is a very competent actor but when placed in a cheap jungle thriller, albeit lacking any thrill, one wonders why they stooped so low. This is absolutely one of the worst films I have seen, it is amateurish, directed by some hack René Cardona Jr., who did numerous other junk that probably isn't worth seeing either. Evident are a lack of story, character study or anything that resembles "action", instead, one dumb scene is added to the next. The editing is incongruent, many scenes looked as if they were filmed in the same "jungle location" or a mediocre studio. Loud music and dumb 'moments' signal the start of the supposed action, such as a man falling into a river and showing stock footage of crocs going into the water, not very exciting. There was a stupid Fulci scene in where a man is "torn" to pieces by small crabs in one of the most absurd scenes ever. The acting is atrocious from the minor leads, who can't even speak English very well, and it ruins their credulity. Donald Pleasence, who is also normally very good, was terrible here. There is nothing to motivate the audience, this is entirely dull and a complete waste.


This film is characteristic of the type of films Ernst Lubitsch made in Germany after he stopped making exuberant, although (from what I've seen) hit or miss, comedies and started making vehicles for Pola Negri. There's sexual intrigue set in a fictional past with decent production values in the surroundings. The multiple story lines in this one coalesce rather well, especially Negri replacing Jenny Hasselqvist as the sexual possession of a sheikh played by Paul Wegener (who, in addition to working for Lubitsch, took part in two important early German films: 'The Student of Prague' (1913) and 'The Golem' (1920)). And, the light, sometimes sarcastic, treatment is appreciated. But, the film is forgettable and mostly just fluffy. Some of the staging is awkward, as well, perhaps due to the source and director's theatrical traditions. Lubitsch was very successful with these types of pictures, though--paving the way for the exportation of German films and the emigration of himself to Hollywood.


This movie is so bad, in every way, that the one line summary just about covers it!

There's no action, no excitement, no special effects, no script, no acting, no nothing. So do yourself a BIG favor - and do not watch this so called movie!

I regret it bitterly and it's the worst movie experience of my entire life. YUK!


Unless you are a sucker for punishment... Do not watch this movie. It is very bad! It said that it was supposed to be a sort of continuing story following Top Gun. Words cannot really describe how awful it is. My rating 1/10


I went to a screening of Spook in Vancouver on April 9th at the Havana. We had seen a very appealing ad in a newspaper, showing the movie. Seeing that it has won awards and was controversial, we were interested to see it. It was a disappointment. My husband and I were not impressed. It was actually painful to sit through. We found the movie very long and very boring at times. This is something that could never be mass produced or shown in a commercial theatre. People would just not pay the money. It was drawn out and very hard to follow at times. The lighting throughout the movie was terrible. When the lights came on at the end, it was a great relief. The lead role acting was OK. I would not waste your time viewing this.


For a long time I'd heard about how bad all the Joe Besser-era Stooge shorts were. So when I finally got around to seeing some of them, I approached them with low expectations. And for the most part I found that they were better than I expected. I didn't find Joe all that annoying, though I could see why others would.

Now I've seen "Outer Space Jitters", and I have to say... when I heard that the Besser-era shorts were bad, this is EXACTLY what I expected them to be like.

I found this short dumb and almost totally laugh-free (although a couple of the cheap jokes did hit their mark -- barely). In my opinion it's not Joe that ruins this (although his repeated "let's get outta here" lines are unnatural and annoying). This script would not have been helped by the presence of any other third stooge.

I'm happy to report that all Besser-era shorts are not like this one -- not by any means. And I'm glad this was not the first one I saw.