This movie was terrible! Judd, dude! You use the same bits in EVERY movie! Write some better stuff! Damn, this was terrible!

Riley's character destroys numerous sinks throughout the movie. Why? For no reason whatsoever. Apatow had one or two hits with such physical comedy, but that very short era has ended. Similar to Will Ferrel's role in Talladega Nights, Riley's character runs around naked and screaming. Terrible. Not funny.

Way too much gratuitous nudity and vulgarity. Don't get me wrong, I love vulgarity. But in this case, none of it fit. There are a few points in the movie when we see penises for no reason. Absolutely no reason. Terrible.

I can't even put into words adequately how terrible this film was. DON'T RENT IT OR BUY IT! It was terrible!


I cannot think of one redeeming feature about this movie. The acting is wooden, the script unbelievably bad!! If there is a redeeming feature it is the scenery from many shots taken around New Zealand and the brief appearance of some rarely seen New Zealand artists.

If you have a choice between a dentist appointment and watching this film, take the drill every time, even if it means a root canal!!!


From Ellyn Bache's novel about the feisty mother of seven boys, most of whom are now grown and out of the house, still worrying after them, concerned over their health and safety, which eventually puts a strain on her sanity. Extremely odd piece is not an attractive vehicle for Susan Sarandon, although she's as interesting as ever. Film takes place over a couple days' time, while Sarandon and her eccentric brood await the news of her soldier-son, but the picture has no particular viewpoint, it's just a melodramatic passel of scenes. Susan is its one distinguishing factor: giving another in her repertoire of aggressive-yet-vulnerable characters, she's reason enough to take a look but you probably won't remember the flick a day or so later. *1/2 from ****


Dracula's Curse is a B class horror film done on a low budget. While most of the scenes were well shot and the dialog was adequate, there was stodgy editing that left a good deal of time between lines. The story is about three groups, the regular vampires, an elite group of powerful pure blood vampires decedents of Dracula, vampires out to dilute the pure blood line lead by Van Helsing, and the vampire slayers that protect humanity from out of control vampires. The enter into an armistice, that eventually fails and leads to the final battle of 'good' v evil. Interesting, but nontraditional plot. Dracula is spoken of many times, but never seen until the very end. Semi-entertaining.


I won't say it was a bad offering, but why doesn't someone make a vampire film that actually is a vampire film and not another kung fu action movie where the villains just happen to drink blood? What we get from Dracula's Curse is once again lots of fancy gunplay, swordfighting and martial arts involving hot goth chicks, which seems to have become the rule for vampire films these days (Blade, Underworld, Van Helsing etc. etc.) The cast perform adequately, but there's nothing much for them to do except strike poses looking cool or angry. The fights are choreographed okay and there's no poorly done CGI to laugh at, but we have seen this sort of thing before and I expect better from The Asylum.


OK this is a low budget movie - but even some low budget movies have good acting. The film "Manticore", for example was low budget but it did stand up because the acting was good.

Draculas Curse lacks any descent acting - in many scenes the actors seem unsure of what their next line is which makes me wonder if this film was properly story boarded. The poor screenplay, direction and editing back up my suspicions.

The fight scenes were consistent with the general low quality of the film.

The story was kind of interesting but is over shadowed by the over all poor quality of the film.

Avoid at all costs


I could only watch about half an hour of this movie - it was so bad that I was glad I rented it instead of buying it. The audio was so poor that I had to turn the volume up just to hear it and when there was gunfire it almost blew my audio system apart! The dialogue was completely out of sync and the camera work was so poor that you could quite often see the overhead microphone appearing in the picture. The only good part of the movie is the few sexy women wearing mid drift tops but that was soon ruined as soon as they spoke. I guess I'm just not a fan of B grade flicks and this movie doesn't help! If you want to see this movie, wait until someone else rents it or pick it up in the $2 bargain bin.


Dracula's Curse starts as a pact between the waring Vampires & the Vampire hunters is agreed & signed, the Vampire hunter leader type guy Rufus King (Thomas Downey) warns the Old One (writer, editor & director Leigh Scott hiding under lots of make up & an awful wig) that if any Vampire kills a human being again the truce is off. Jump forward five years later as a pureblood descendant of Drakulya (pronounced Drac-You-Lar) named Christina Lockhart (Erica Roby) is kidnapped by Drakulya's three Hungarian brides who now serve Countess Bathorly (Christna Rosenberg) & need the pure blood of a pureblood (!) to gain strength in order to launch an attack on the worlds population & basically rule the Earth. Once King realises that the truce has been broken he & the rest of Vampire hunting mates gear up for action once more as they are the only ones who can stop Bathorly...

Edited, written & directed by Leigh Scott who also has a small role in the film under lots of make-up one has to say that The Asylum doesn't have a great track record in making good horror films & Dracula's Curse only goes to enhance that reputation rather than change it. As I write this comment right now Dracula's Curse has a lowly IMDb user rating of 1.6 so considering 1 is the lowest any user can rate a film 1.6 (this will probably change over time but not by much) is just about as low as a film can get & one has to say that Dracula's Curse really does deserve that rating. There are so many things wrong with this film, the story is awful as it's some sort of horrible low budget cross between the Blade & Underworld franchises as the film portrays the now clichéd hidden Vampire society living within our own & a team of specialist Vampire hunters dedicated to eradicating them dressed in silly outfits & using 'cool' weapons. It doesn't work here, the Blade & Underworld films has sufficient scope & money behind them to make you believe that there were hidden Vampire societies amongst us but here in Dracula's Curse we see about five Vampires in a basement & that's it. All the character's are awful, there is constant annoying sub plots where they are given little personal problems & dilemmas which amount to nothing & just bore the absolute pants off the audience waiting to see some proper Vampire action. The dialogue is awful too. The story is rubbish with one Vampire bird & three other's seemingly saying they can take over the whole world by themselves, right. At almost two hours in length Dracula's Curse is a real chore to sit through & I would imagine a lot of people won't make it, it really is that bad on all fronts including a terrible twist ending which has zero impact.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of both the Blade & Underworld series were the dazzling set-piece action scenes, the cool production design which mixed the sleek chrome plated modernistic up to date along with the imposing traditional Gothic with the over-the-top blood & gore special effects. Unfortunately for the audience Dracula's Curse has none of this, the production design amounts to some bland shotguns, a basement & a few rooms in a house while I can't remember a single action set-piece. OK there are a couple of really poor fights & a bit of shooting but nothing that will excite anyone & if all that wasn't bad enough I can't remember seeing a single drop of blood in the entire thing. A few Vampires are staked through the heart but they have green blood so that doesn't count, Countess Bathorly (like her obvious literary source) bathes in the blood of virgins to stay young but there is only one scene of her doing this & the blood is already in the bathtub so it just looks like red water. So to sum it up there's no action, there's no special effects apart from a monster at the end, there's no cool weaponry & if it wasn't for some swearing this wouldn't be far off a PG rating.

Technically the film is an eyesore, while a lot of films have certain colour schemes to look stylish Dracula's Curse just looks as if sometime turned the colour settings down on your telly & it just looks bland & lifeless throughout. The fights are poorly staged, the Vampires just sort of stand there & wait to be killed by the hunters who have all sorts of weaponry. I mean if the hunters are flesh & blood humans why don't the Vampires just use guns to kill them? The sound effects suck as well. Some of the acting in this has to be seen to be believed, it really is that bad. Some of the delivery is just cringe inducing although one or two of the girls look quite nice.

Dracula's Curse has nothing to do with Bram Stoker no matter what the film would lead you to believe, in fact it even changes Dracula to Drakulya. It's just a terrible film that deserves it's lowly 1.6 IMDb user rating, I mean it's that low for a reason people & you have been warned. Only for masochists & insomniacs.


We have to agree for the full 100 percent with Jesse from Australia: After about 30 minutes we stopped this.... Very poor audio, poor camera-work and very bad acting of some amateurs. And the dialog being out of sync, made things only worse.

The quality of acting and sound made us sometimes think, it was an X-rated version of Dracula, where the explicit scenes were taken out.

Jesse wrote that one should wait until somebody else is renting it or wait for the 2-Dollar-bin..... We don't think it is even worth it.... Just a waste of time.

If you like this kind of movies, you better rent and see "Dracula 2000" with Gerard Butler, for example


I understand that this is a 'merely for the fans' movie...the tomb stone of the 'Trinity' series.

However, the result is pretty embarrassing. First, while Hill aged rather well, Spencer looks significantly older than he actually was, much as if he was sick or something. Second, they don't know what kind of movie they want...is it a Trinity movie...a parody of a Trinity movie...a western-styled Piedone movie with lots of kids around...? Beans, belching and a (very moderate) amount of fist-fights do not automatically make a good Spencer/Hill movie. They push the envelope but I am not sure about what.

Who knows... Maybe it's that the atmosphere of 1960-70s Trinity movies, or late 1970s-early 1980s Spencer/Hill is gone.

I find the final scene in which they come to get them but loose their guns listening to children singing the corniest and lowest moment in all S&H movies, including Banana Joe & similar.

Ruth Buzzi as their mother is ugly as puke...you can see she's wearing a wig and that jaw...that horrible jaw...

Intentions behind this were noble, but I maintain it shouldn't have been filmed.


This was designed to capitalize on the run-away popularity of Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In during the late 60's, but it was neither fish nor fowl. And many of the jokes today are badly dated. What is left is Dick Martin's absurdist slapstick and a very clever ending that tries hard to salvage the film, If you wish to re-visit the 1960's, this is a great film for you. Otherwaise, it's just mediocre.


Dan Rowan and Dick Martin, famous TV cut-ups from the then-current hit show "Laugh-In", go a curiously different route for their second theatrical film as a team (the first was "Once Upon a Horse" from 1958). In a weak spoof of monster movies, Martin plays the landlord of a suburban boarding house who believes he's a werewolf and eternally-tanned Rowan is a moocher who makes stag films. Carol Lynley is also around as a college student-turned-amateur detective, Mildred Natwick is the housemother, and Robert Reed sniffs about sourly as a police lieutenant. The worst, however, is saved for former-Catwoman Julie Newmar playing the bloodthirsty daughter of a scary Count (with an even-scarier accent). Newmar, looking tired, seems to have wandered over from the old "Munsters" set--or perhaps the latest Don Knotts picture. Odd that two TV swingers would choose to plod through this unfunny comedy like a couple of square schnooks, and the phony sets and cheap backlot look gives the entire enterprise a depressed spirit. 1969 was not a good year for Carol Lynley (she also starred in the clinker "Once You Kiss a Stranger..." around this time), but at least Reed had "The Brady Bunch" to fall back on! NO STARS from ****


I liked a previous comment posted here that voiced the probable concerns of the studio "heads" of the era: What kind of films should we make for these kids who like to go to the movies stoned? The problem with BIPPY is...the stoners evidently were the ones MAKING the film (that NO ONE went to see). This dog was hardly ever shown on TV (at least not in NY area) FINALLY caught it on a cable movie channel decades and decades later.My only viewing of the film for years was the print feature that ran in FAMOUS MONSTERS magazine.

After years of build-up...boy what a let-down. There are only two reasons for a normal guy to sit through this; Julie Newmar (post-catwoman already) and Carol Lynley (pre-Poseidon Adventure).

I never understood the appeal of Rowan & Martin to begin with--even on Laugh-In. They were acceptable as low-end comedians at a bowling ally, but didn't deserve the run they were able to have IMHO

But they were OK...this movie makes like a vampire, though-and SUCKS


Another late 60's entry into Hollywood's attempt to answer the question, What kind of movies/TV shows do these drug-addled kids want to see? Older producers never did really figure it out. The Maltese Bippy is a cross between Head (by the Monkees), an episode of Laugh-In, and any horrible "comedy team meets danger" movie. Poor Rowan & Martin. Born in the early 20's with no chance to engage in all the free love and drugs they saw going on around them in the 60's and 70's. They tried to get in on it with hair dye, bad rugs, sideburns and plaid sport coats (and in the case of Rowan, even taking up the Hefner-like pipe).

You don't see Laugh-In in reruns for a reason. I enjoyed the show as a kid. But it was highly topical and the humor just doesn't translate well into the 21st century. Not a lot to irritate anyone in The Maltese Bippy, but it's all been done before, better, by others.

Much like Bob Hope movies, you just can't see many of today's kids getting into it. Then again, I don't think anyone will be rushing to watch Napoleon Dynamite in 30 or 40 years either.


After watching Rown & Martins Laugh In I expected something better than this. There are a few humor touches but I really thought the scenes with Rowan & Martin doing stand-up including in the opening credits would have been better.

The plot such as it is is strange in that there are no vampires next door even though plot synopsis of the movie says there is. The center of the plot has to do with a large diamond everybody is looking for, yet at the end we are never quite sure if it was found or not.

Some major continuity moments happen when the film jumps from day to night suddenly & some of the scenes ending & the next one beginning make no sense either. This would have been better if they had stuck more to comedy & less with a plot that falls kind of flat.

This film does have some well known television folks. Carol Lynnely was better known for other films & isn't given much script in this. Julie Newmar is best known as a Catwoman on TVs Batman. Even though she is already 36 in this one, for many years she was ageless in the beauty department. She is the only cast member who worked with another comedy team Noonan & (Peter) Marshall during the 1950's.

Leon Askin is better known for Hogan's Heros roles. Robert Reed in a small supporting role is more known for Mr. Mike Brady.

For Rowan & Martin fans, this is OK. Both of them get to use Dick Martins line "I didn't know that!" The opening & closing of the film are bits of whimsy, but the rest is only sporadically funny. Say Good Night Dick.


This was designed to capitalize on the run-away popularity of Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In during the late 60's, but it was neither fish nor fowl. And many of the jokes today are badly dated. What is left is Dick Martin's absurdist slapstick and a very clever ending that tries hard to salvage the film, If you wish to re-visit the 1960's, this is a great film for you. Otherwise, it's just mediocre.


This movie stinks. Now, I'm a huge fan of the TV series but the movie shares little of the series' great music, quirky humor, bizarro characters or other fun stuff. Instead, the movie trades all that in for a cliched and boring story about terrorists.


Don't get me wrong, this movie had the potential, but then lost me somewhere in the middle. Most of the Cowboy Bebop episodes are fast paced and have an underlying sense of style to them. This movie did not. I love the characters frm Bebop but they were for the most part unengauging in 'Heaven's'. The best character was the purple haired chick who Spike meets. Jet did 'jack', Ed was more annoying than usual, and all Faye did was give us the most insane tease of her tits. I could have done without all the boring buildup until the last 2 fight scenes. We never empathixe witth the bad guy and they don't stress enough that Spike is after the bounty. They make him just a dude who's bumming out.


Has a big fan of the series I was very disappointed in the movie. It was as if it was completely something else. Not much from what made the series a hit was use in the movie, except the hip.

The music, the jokes, the stories where all simplified to accommodate the newbies, so it lost all it's charm and originality.

Even if I didn't new the series before seeing the movie, I wouldn't of give more then 4 out of 10 for this piece of ...

Everything is very predictable, nothing is really funny or new, nothing to push me to the limits.

I wish I've never seen it!


what's this?

the storyline is nothing but exploitation of action scenes, even the soundtrack is just too mesmerizing. This reminds me of Final Fantasy the spirit within where most critics mention that the movie is just a show off of special effect with awful storyline.

The usual bebop characters are just put down into some manequine-class action: FRUSTATING!

and what's with Faye? This will be rather subjective but I like the lady a lot despite her fashion style (she never appear cheap though, so treat her with respect). And in the movie.....what the....whoever write this script and direct it must be one horny person or someone who is trying to meet the demands of the horny fans; DISGUSTING!

The only part I enjoyed were the common bebop jokes and a tiny characterization of Faye and Spike in one part....

Well like I've mention, if you are a true bebop fans who reach personal level of the characters, don't bother with this one. It's just AWFUL!


The main problem with this version of "Bedazzled" is that it wants to be loved. The Peter Cook/Dudley Moore original had a cynical bite that is completely missing here. It was also concerned not just with the schlemiel's wishes, but with what makes the Devil tick. Why does he do what he does? What's his relationship with God? Unfortunately, that movie's viewpoint that God is generally far more callous and satanic than Satan is not even hinted at here.

That being said, this version does what it wants to do very well. Elizabeth Hurley is hot and Brendan Fraser again proves to be a likable and versatile actor. He also convinced me: you can believe Dudley Moore as an unnoticed little shnook. But Brendan Fraser??? Well, he does it.

This is a good (safe) American version of an acerbic British classic. It is well worth seeing (at matineé prices.) I just hope this means that the original will become available on DVD now. *That* one is a keeper.


I obtained this little piece of scuzz on the VideoAsia "Tales of Voodoo" DVD label. Quite where the voodoo is supposed to fit in, I have no idea. Indeed I would not usually connect voodoo with Indonesia anyway (let alone with WIPs).

I know and love WIP movies. I have seen most of them. I could not therefore resist this little known gem from the description given to it on the cover.

It is APPALLING. You cannot have a WIP movie if the women keep their clothes on (even in the shower!). Although it gives a nod to the exploitation genre, WIP without nudity is like a Big Mac without the beef.

As my gym teacher used to say, on the whole, I'd rather be at the disco....


Deranged wig-maker/barber/dentist/doctor (whew!) Sweeney Todd (Ben Kingsley) kills rich Londoners and keeps an abused, mute, pale orphan around as a slave. A hideous-looking, rotten-toothed Joanna Lumley (from the "Absolutely Fabulous" TV series) is his lover and partner in crime, who uses the dead bodies in her famous meat pies. A very bland Campbell Scott is the "American gentleman" trying to clear up a debt and instead stumbles onto the operation. It's all a grim, unpleasant, talky new version of the famous tale that could have used some more comedy, but just barely skims by on some good performances, gore and, especially, excellent costumes and sets that accurately capture rich 19th Century London atmosphere (although it was actually filmed in Dublin, Ireland). The original movie version (SWEENEY TODD, THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET, starring Tod Slaughter) of George Dibdin-Pitt's stage play came out in 1936 and was followed by the popular Stephen Sondheim musical and many inferior Z movie copies from the likes of Herschell Gordon Lewis and Andy Milligan. This one was backed by the Showtime cable network and there's nothing much to gain from watching it.


It's probably a bit unfair to compare this version of the Sweeney Todd story  as well as any other film version ever made before  with Tim Burton's film which came out in 2007, but at the same time also inevitable. Burton's movie is like the ultimate adaptation of the Sweeney Todd story, with the perfect cast (Johnny Depp, Alan Rickman, ), superior production values, dazzling music and breathtaking art-direction. Naturally all previously released versions pale in comparison, but that still doesn't mean they aren't interesting to watch. Despite being "just" a TV-production, talented names were involved in this movie as well, like director John Schlesinger ("Midnight Cowboy", "Day of the Locust") and veteran actor Ben Kingsley in the titular role. The plot details here differ with most other versions I've seen thus far and particularly Sweeney Todd's motivations to kill the customers that set foot in his barbershop aren't as convincing as usual. Here, Sweeney Todd is a downright merciless and malignant killer whereas in other versions he's more of a mentally tormented individual with pure vengeance on his mind. He kills random and seemingly lonely people in his barbershop and "donates" their bodies to his associate Mrs. Lovett; who processes the flesh in her acclaimed and world-famous London meat pies. Their morbid business finally raises suspicion when an American investigator arrives in London in search of a former partner. It turns out the missing person was last seen as a customer in Sweeney Todd's barber chair "The Tale of Sweeney Todd" is reasonably entertaining throughout, although there are too many dull sequences and moments of substantial emptiness. The infamous lead character's profile is bleak this time around. You can't feel any empathy for him, but neither is he the intellectual and eloquent master villain that he pretends to be. Mostly surprising about this movie is the high amount of nasty make-up effects and grisly images. There are quite a lot of gruesome murders and their bloody aftermaths on display and some of the make up effects are even TOO repulsive, like for example Mrs. Lovett's dental hygiene. Kingsley's performance is far below his usual standards, but he nevertheless remains a professional chameleon actor. The best performance actually comes from the young Sean Flanagan as the mute barber assistant. It's certainly not a bad effort from the legendary director John Schlesinger, but I wouldn't go through too much trouble to purchase a copy.


This movie includes at least two exceptional actors in Ben Kingsley and Campbell Scott but together they cannot pull this period horror story beyond the doldrums of an unsurprising 18th century slash/horror flick. It's lame, slow, unsurprising and bland. It takes place in unjolly olde London of course, with Kingsley playing the nefarious Sweeney Todd and Campbell Scott, (son of George C. Scott) hot on his trail. Mr Todd is the famous barber that chops up people into hamburger after slitting their throats and selling said hamburg to a local meat pie shoppe.Some of the sets and street scenes seem solid and true to the period but the whole mess is overall (forgive me) ham-handed.


I bought this movie for 5 bucks at a pawn shop.. I wasted my cash! From the looks of the box I was expecting a little gore..I guess I was expecting a horror movie. Nowhere near it. The goriest thing was a "lady of the night" with rotten teeth...watching Ben Kingsley kiss her made me feel ill. Not to mention that this movie just dragged..I thought it would never end... Can't believe I passed up Plan Night from Outer Space for this!


I have recently enjoyed watching some cartoons that have been pulled from circulation because they offend modern sensibilities. Some of them are actually pretty good cartoons with material that only offends annoyingly politically correct people (you know, the ones who think all humor is somehow evil and offensive). However, even with my love of free speech and hatred of things "p.c.", I certainly do understand why this film was yanked from general viewing. Bugs Bunny's nemesis in this film is a very, very offensively drawn and voiced Black character. And while almost all the film he really acted no different from Elmer Fudd, at the very end, Bugs tricked the guy by getting him to 'shoot dice'--a typically sad and obnoxious stereotype from the 1940s that claimed Black people were lazy and all they wanted to do was gamble!! This is just awful and considering that this isn't a wonderful cartoon apart from that, it is no great loss to the world that it can only be found by combing the internet. Even if this film had NOT been banned by Time-Warner, it would still be very skipable, as it's far from the best material from the era.


This is another of the Warner Bros. "Censored 11" cartoons that aren't shown on commercial television anymore and the only one with their star character, Bugs Bunny. In this one, the hunter is not Elmer Fudd but a caricatured black man with the big white lips and the slow drawl that's a carbon copy of the Stepin Fetchit character. It's largely because of this stereotypical characterization that this cartoon is banned and in this case, I don't blame them. While there are still some funny gags typical of Tex Avery (such as when Bugs' various body parts quickly disconnect when he gets scared), the Fetchit character's presence makes the whole thing uncomfortable, especially during the final sequence when he's challenged to a crap game. So unless you're a completist of the Bunny, Avery, and/or Warner cartoons, I don't recommend All This and Rabbit Stew.


The ghost stories of MR James show his fascination with the psychology of terror and it is therefore no accident that film makers down the years have steered clear of his tales. The visualisation of psychological dread inevitably compromises the impact experienced when reading the stories, where we are allowed the slow build-up of anticipation and fear. And this is the main problem with this production. It is slow all right but totally lacking in suspense. Part of the problem is that we see right from the start that the penalty for disturbing the buried crown of Anglia is death, and the rest of the film merely plays out exactly the same pattern, as Peter Vaughan searches for and finds the crown, is pursued by a ghost and dies in exactly the same way. This comes as no surprise at all, and is ponderously done to boot. The Norfolk setting is eerily desolate for sure, but the inclusion of an artist (why is this significant?) and creepy landlord merely divert our attention away from the dramatic focus which is obviously being played out in Vaughan's imagination. To this extent we are excluded from the heart of the fear explored in James' writings and one can only conclude, I'm afraid, that trying to film such a tale was a mistake at worst, or needed a more inventive approach at best.


If you are curious about watching this movie, be warned. It's a stinker and it is so obvious that even my wife could guess what happens next. I'm always looking for a solid ghost story, I happened upon this one from the IMDb and it sounded like a good chiller. I hunted this movie down, finally got a copy and told the wife it was a good one. I had to apologize to her after making her watch this. This movie offers nothing that would be even remotely considered scary, not even to little ones and it has nothing to do with gore or slasher shock value. I've watched countless no budget b movies and have found many gems, this is a stinker even for early 70's.

There is no real sense of danger or fear because the lackey who plays the "ghost" is ridiculous. Not to mention a bumbling, incompetent misfit even for a ghost. I didn't know if this movie was directed by Benny Hill or Monty Python by some of the chase scenes bordering on the absurd. Can't forget about the complete lack of any time/space relationship between point a and point b. A classic ghost story this is far from, but if you have 35 minutes to waste and want to get a chuckle at something really sad this could be your movie. However, I warn you...it might say 35 minutes running time, but it feels like 200. Maybe that is the scary part.


An alt-rock score, a hellish nightmarish world right out of The Crow, colorful, hideous characters who sing, comic interludes expressing past incidents which tell us why the story has culminated to the point we're witnessing, and the grisly operations of a repossessor of organs working for a futuristic tyrannical businessman who practically runs the goth city where the events take place. Paul Sorvino is an obvious choice for the role of Rotti Largo, an intense, contemptible, ruthless corporate giant whose face is perfectly etched with anger and disgust, rotten to the core and dying of a cancer progressively getting worse(..his duo of gun toting female guards shoot the doctor for bringing him the news, just a sign of how the state of life is in this depressing future). Anthony Head is his diabolical repo man, Nathan, who seeks out those who have signed a contract with Rotti for an organ they needed to live..if these people fail to pay for their repaired organ, it'll be collected(..when Nathan viciously removes the organ, surgically, we can see the bar code!) Rotti took advantage of a terrible plight sweeping across the country, organ failures, and offered those afflicted hope, with a price. Nathan is held accountable for a past tragedy, caused by Rotti who was enraged at him for stealing away his bride, Marni. Using a poisonous drug, Rotti had it placed in the vial containing a formula Nathan was working on for his pregnant Marni who fell ill. Nathan, using the infected formula, instead causes the illness to worsen, needing to surgically remove their daughter, Shilo(Alexa Vega)before certain death. Caught by police for his actions in saving Shilo, Nathan must work for Rotti as a way of paying off his debt for saving him from prison. Rotti, ashamed of his horrible offspring, Amber Sweet(Paris Hilton), Luigi Largo(Bill Moseley), and Pavi(Nivek Ogre)wishes to leave his successful corporation, Geneco, to someone else. He sees this as an opportunity to get the ultimate revenge against Nathan who he hates with an overwhelming passion, for taking Marni away, by targeting a 17 year old Shilo, who has been isolated from the outside world, yearning to experience what life is like away from the prison of her apartment. Nathan has Shilo taking pills for a supposed blood disease, but, unknown to her, it's actually a poison(..he wishes for her to remain distant from a world he wants to shield her from) and Rotti will take advantage of this situation so that he can turn daughter against father. And, Rotti has plans to leave his corporation to Shilo, for she is the only one he sees fit for such an enterprize. By drawing Shilo into the outside world promising her a cure for the blood disease, Rotti can successfully trap Nathan. Also, part of the plot has "Blind Mag"(Sarah Brightman), a friend of Marni's, whose eyes were transplanted thanks to Geneco thanks in part of a contract she signed in blood, wishes to leave her singing career and have freedom from Rotti. Mag will meet Shilo with a domino effect transpiring..it's only a matter of time before Shilo will discover the truth about her father's practices and the real reason behind the death of her mother.

I think this is indeed a cult item, the songs will work for a certain crowd, as well as the grotesque costume designs, and the industrialized look of the world, fallen to ruin, degradation, and decadence. The alt-metal music which accompanies the songs will also work for that target cult audience. It's extremely graphic with some unsettling surgical organ removals. I personally found the music and singers horrid(..but that's because I'm not exactly a fan of musicals, especially with a cast who can not sing)and the characters overbearing. This future, though, is not supposed to be a pleasant world, so the characters and what they have to sing about reflect this devastated society. Full of surgical freaks(..like Hilton's Amber), junkies(..addicted to a hypo-injected drug lifted from corpses called Zydrate), and hedonists. Moseley has his usual psychopath, Luigi, with an uncontrollable temperament, often stabbing folks who just so happen to cross him at the wrong time. Vegas has the central role, a pivotal part that inadvertently controls the inevitable confrontation between Nathan and Rotti. The character of Pavi(..and to a certain extent, Amber)reminded me of Eyes Without a Face, with his face covered by a skin mask..I kind of wondered if this was a homage of sorts. Hilton was expertly cast as a self-absorbed drug-addicted tramp who is obsessed with surgery, and with designs of being a star that takes the place of the beloved Mag. Director Darren Lynn Bousman shoots with soft focus photography, and the bleak world looks lifted right from a computer screen. Vega has an innocence and vulnerability that works for the part of an angel lost in a nightmare where fiends and miscreants lurk around every corner. The make-up effects are quite effective, particularly during those notorious organ removal sequences(..and a marvelous reveal of Amber's ruined visage).


Big Monster on Campus is set ion Los Angeles where smart science student Frank Stein (Matthew Lawrence) has ideas about bringing the dead back to life, while at a party local nerd Karl O'Reilly (Ryan Reynolds) is confronted by cool high school dudes Lance (Justin Walker) & Tuttle (Christian Payne) & after an accident Karl ends up dead at the bottom of a swimming pool. Fearing they will be blamed for Karl's death Lance & Tuttle accept an offer of help from Frank who says he can bring Karl back to life, unfortunately Karl has suffered a bad head injury so Frank replaces Karl's brain with that of recently deceased killer Wayne Dobbs. After successfully bring Karl back to life it's no great surprise that killer Dobbs takes over much to everyones annoyance, Frank realises what he has done & feels compelled to right his mistake...

Also known as Boltneck & Teen Monster this was directed by Mitch Marcus & I have to admit that I loathed every second of this horrible teen horror comedy that I am struggling to find one positive thing about, nope I can't think of anything at all. With a lead character named Frank Stein & a dead body being brought back to life by electricity with a killer's brain inside it's not hard to tell that this is a parody of Mary Shelley's classic novel Frankenstein although to be honest this plays out more like an episode of Dawson's Creek as it focuses on various teen issues & problems, in fact there's little reason to have the Frankenstein subplot here at all. The comedy moments are embarrassingly bad & of the moronic variety, two kids with a dead body in their car are stopped by a cop & he just thinks the dead guy is drunk (yeah, right) or two guy's pulling someone else's pants down at school. This is as clever & funny as it gets which basically means it's not clever or funny in the slightest. There are no horror elements, the teen angst issues are awful & predictable (kid impresses demanding father & gets the girl of his dreams, groan) & I sat there watching this crap with a blank expression on my face not even really taking it in, there's just a collection of bad scenes strung together with no reason behind it. Also it looks like bringing the dead back to life is pretty easy according to this, I think I might give it a try...

The whole film has no flair or style & feels like a bland soap opera. Forget about any horror as there really isn't any. All the character's are really irritating & the comic relief bad guy's are just dumb. I actually can't remember that much else about this & I only endured it last night.

This probably had a small budget but has reasonable production values despite being devoid of any style or personality. The acting is alright, to be honest everyone just got on my nerves though.

Big Monster on Campus is a terrible horror comedy that doesn't contain any horror or laughs, one of the worst films I have seen this year so far & a perfect example in how to make 90 odd minutes feel like an eternity.


"The Wizard Of Speed And Time" is a low-budget movie loosely based on the trivial adventures of a special effects person (Jitlov) who is making a short movie. I sought out this movie after reading many glowing reviews on IMDb. Despite wanting to like it, I found the hype to be unfounded.

Dated music and visuals along with cheesy humor screams out "80's movie". Inexpensive early synthesizers in simplistic arrangements were used for a large part of the music. For visuals, somewhat crude stop-motion photography is the order of the day. Never do you finish a scene without having to digest the awkward and unnatural effects. Even keeping in mind that this is a low budget movie, we never cross over into cherishing the effects for what they are, and instead lose whatever redeeming value they could have otherwise had.

As a fan of Airplane!, I enjoy 'low-brow' humor. Unfortunately, "Wizard" is not nearly in the same league. Puns sometimes replaced any real attempt at adding any substantial humor. Scenes showing Jitlov's dealings with various unions (complete with double-talk representatives) left me cold, despite their humorous target. The various flat-lined police scenes (often involving mock-chase scenes) produced groans instead of laughs. In other parts, clever visuals took the place of real humor. Often, a small effect (for instance, glasses that glowed at the right moment) inspired a smile. Unfortunately, cute effects can't bridge over the large gaps in humor this movie has, and "Wizard" never goes beyond a level that only pre-teen audiences can enjoy.

"Wizard" contains Jitlov's running commentary on Hollywood unions. Jitlov reduces the movie industry to a two-dimensional caricature of evil and incompetence. In one case, a movie producer ambushes Jitlov's efforts at every turn in order to win a bet. "Wizard" is also laced with running themes about Hollywood union lock-down. For example, studio executives use creative accounting to allow the non-union Jitlov to make his short while remaining out of union sight. "This potentially political statement lacks the bite it needed to come across as anything but fluff. Instead, it becomes lost 'in the mix'.

Script limitations left the actors out in the cold. Philip Michael Thomas ("Miami Vice") played a bit-part policeman that had no significant role in the plot other than to chase some conveniently placed bad guys. His character ends up slapped on top of a script held together by loosely-based vignettes. Stephen Stucker (who nearly stole the show in "Airplane!") had even less screen time. His last screen appearance, Stucker's comic talents unfortunately are never allowed to surface. In the end, Jitlov spends too much time in front of the screen with his only 'adequit' acting skills.

Some have made much of the movie showing behind-the-scenes glimpses of how special effects are done. Nobody is going to walk away from "Wizard" a special effects expert. While "Wizard" held a few moments of interest (notably, the 'running on the wall' effect), most everything fell into simple 'common sense'.

In conclusion, this isn't the 'diamond in the rough' that some have suggested. I wanted to like "Wizard", but the many flaws quickly grew tedious. If you do come across it, take a look. Just don't get your hopes too high.


With all the hoopla I'd heard about this movie before its release, I was expecting a lot more. Instead, I was treated to a pity party thrown by the guest of honor. I was told it was going to be an expanded version of the short of the same name, so I was expecting that. Instead, I got a movie on how tough it is to break into show business, and how the little guy always gets trod upon and ground into the dirt by the bigwigs. Please. I've seen that done 100 times before and 1,000 times better. There was little to engage me; it wasn't "The Wizard of Speed and Time", but "The Making of 'The Wizard of Speed and Time'."


On the wrapper, this show purports to be a fast paced comedy, however I found not one laugh in this slow documentary like film shot with an abundance of non-standard camera angles. Don't be mislead by the view angle of the wrapper photo or the text. Nothing like that is in the film. The director's comment on the DVD says the story was created from his wife's experiences trying to get pregnant with the aid of modern medicine. The journey is painted like one into the heart of darkness punctuated by obvious gags. The film may find empathy with those who have made the journey but I doubt even those individuals will laugh.


It seems, from the audience demographics, that I'm the only person under 60 who listens to PHC. Do I have any business reviewing what is, apparently, an older person's movie? Does one's tolerance for excitement diminish so much with age that I myself would consider this watchable 20 years from now? Can I ever trust IMDb user reviews again, after seeing an average score of 7.7 for this most awful of movies? And can I ever enjoy listening to PHC on the radio again, after suffering through the two most tedious hours I have ever spent in a movie theater?

I went to see it with my girlfriend. She wanted to see The Lake House. I pointed out that it had gotten terrible reviews, and it wasn't on for 2 hours, and said that she could trust the Prarie Home Companion people. I've been a fan of the show since Reagan was in office.

You would think that a 2-hour PHC movie could be at least as good as a 2-hour PHC radio show. But the movie suffered some major flaws relative to the radio show:

1. You couldn't get up and iron clothes or file bills or do whatever you do during the musical parts of the show.

2. The funny parts of the radio show, like the monologue and the skits, weren't in the movie.

3. The movie didn't set any boundaries between reality and fantasy. In the radio show, you always know where the boundaries are between truth and fiction. The sketches are fiction; the actors are real. The movie was presented as if the sketches were real. Guy Noir is a real detective; Dusty and Lefty are real cowboys. A mildly amusing sketch about an orangutan, a rottweiler, a flock of geese, and a letter from an ex-lover - much the sort of stuff you might hear on the show - was presented as if the ex-lover bit was reality, so that it was not so much funny as pathetic.

4. The movie couldn't decide whether it wanted to be slapstick or drama. Really serious things would happen to or be talked about by the actors, and I couldn't tell whether we were supposed to sympathize with them, or laugh at them. When Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep are talking about their family woes while Lily's daughter reads her bad poems about suicide, the stories are just outrageous enough that you can't tell if it's supposed to be a comic piece or character drama.

5. I couldn't reconcile the supernatural elements of the "plot" with the familiar background of the PHC radio show. Not to mention that everything that happens, makes no difference, and you don't know what happens in the final scene. Also, a tip to GK for any future screenplays: Introduce the first plot event LESS than one hour into the show.

If they had just presented a PHC show without the distracting and uninteresting "plot", they could have fit in more interesting stuff. If they really wanted to go with a plot, they should have cut 5 or 6 musical numbers out to give them a little time to do something with it. Instead, they gave us a pseudo-movie, pseudo-radio show with a pseudo-plot and pseudo-characters not developed enough to be called 2-dimensional. I writhed in my seat waiting for it to end, knowing that I would owe my girlfriend big-time for this. If I'd been there alone, I would have walked out. I tried to read a book, but she didn't have one and said I had to suffer with her.

I have to look on the bright side. It was much worse for my girlfriend - she hates folk music.


Garrison Keillor has wildly overestimated his talent as a writer. I'm a HUGE fan of the APHC radio show, but this is a poorly-written, meandering, boring movie that seems to be created solely so that GK can rub elbows with Hollywood royalty. I'm a closet News from Lake Wobegon fan (I have listened to all of them) and most of the dialogue and jokes were lifted from old "News from Lake Wobegon" segments. Maybe that's okay & maybe that's what you're after, but I was looking to be entertained and during this movie it simply did not happen.

It had no story (a show being cancelled is not a story) and a weak, meaningless ending. The characters, while interesting, bear NO resemblance to the ones described on so many precious APHC broadcasts. These characters seem awash in a sea of bad dialogue as they search in vain for a story.

And the posters who talk about how if I don't like this movie, I must "not be intelligent enough to understand it" are just flat wrong. I am intelligent, I love the radio show, and I can't figure out why anyone would like this movie.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say, avoid this film.


When I saw the previews (and the reviews on here) I was expecting a funny and warm story about a radio show. I am sure many people would say that's what this film is, and maybe it is. Perhaps you have to be familiar with the actual radio program to fully appreciate this movie. I found it to have a very scattered feeling to it, and my friends agreed. Kevin Kline's character was so cheesily awful and over-played (no fault of Kline's - that's how it was written), and Garrison Keillor lacked likability or charm. Also, the woman in white was just completely unnecessary and made no sense. The only redeeming parts of this film were when Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilly were on stage. Their singing was the best of the whole film; I was really impressed with their harmony. Also, the dirty jokes towards the end cracked us up (especially since it was the only bright spot of actual humor in the whole film). So, if you're an established fan of the radio show, this movie might be something you'll enjoy. If you've never heard the show, maybe not.


I like APHC (except the music) but was bored to death by this movie. You would think the movie would be at least be as good as the weekly show. Not so, not so. Guy Noir was flat and lifeless (and I like Kevin Klein), the jokes were slow and poorly timed, there were no serials, the letters segment was extremely short, there was no "sermon". Did it take more than five minutes to write the plot? I was expecting the usual APHC bits and got nothing but old, old, old country music.

If you like old country music you will love this movie. If you are expecting a shining example of the weekly show, you will be disappointed.

Edward


I have listened (had listened)to PHC for two decades. The eponymously named movie seems quite to have been assembled by a craftsman with a remarkable difficulty exchanging a jumbled inner monologue with a coherent, external story telling monologue. However, since it is the GREAT ALTMAN, none dare say the emperor has no clothes. Well, I am at a loss to understand how you can take so many familiar characters, structures, processes, sounds and styles and extract from them the essence of their familiarity, humor, pathos, drama, and poignancy. It smelled of such preening self-absorption that I could barely tolerate the stench. Listening to the actresses and actors on talk shows in the days leading up to the release and to the day I saw it I was sure that the movie would be as magical and enchanting as the radio show (sans The News from LW). No such luck. They just cannot avoid behaving like little toddlers who come out and say "I MADE POOPIE" "LOOK AT MY POOPIE". To which the other toddlers clap and say "OOOOH! What GREAT POOPIE". Thank heaven JC Reilly and W Harrelson at least told some of the more lame jokes from the Joke Shows of PHC. The only moments of charm.

A movie about death. Death of characters we don't know or care about b/c they get killed too quick to learn anything of them. Sorry. It isn't a personal attack on anyone. I just hated this one as much as I have hated every movie that Jim Carrey has ever been in.


What has happened to film makers and the reviewers that laud their work with words like "amazing," and "profound," and, the oft over used category of "masterpiece?" Are these critics giving us their impression of a film's substance, or lack there of, or are they simply becoming mouthpieces for the film industry who's purpose is to sucker us in to purchasing tickets in order to assure themselves employment? First "Lost in Translation," and now "Prarie Home Companion"--lord above, what is the world coming to? Let me alienate as many people as possible who might find fault with this review by saying, from the get go, I positively despise films that force me to "get" them. Furthermore, I have little patience for people who feel superior for seeing something deep and meaningful disguised behind what, to the rest of the world, appears to be pure and utter schlock. "Lost in Translation" divided moviegoers into two categories: those of us who were bored silly, and the suddenly enlightened, intellectually superior group that pulled a higher message out of the toilet--or at least acted as if they did. "Prarie Home Companion" is dangerously close to doing the same.

Let's just call a spade a spade, shall we? This film made absolutely no sense. It was boring. It built and it built to a conclusion that just as easily could have been a middle or a beginning. In other words, it started nowhere, it traveled ploddingly through nowhere, and it slowly fizzled out to a finish that took us nowhere.

The film centers around an NPR radio show who's run is coming to an end. Given what the show had to offer, I'd say it's about 10 years behind schedule in its cancellation, but, I digress. Instead of giving us any attempt at a behind the scenes story that sizzled (the biggest scandal is two geriatrics who are having a huge affair--whoo, fetch me my smelling salts), we're treated to a mind numbing "who cares" story about the crew and cast of the show. Their lives, instead of intriguing us, adversely hammer home the reason as to why those of us who don't listen to NPR, don't. Sure, they're played by Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin, Kevin Kline, Woody Harrelson, John C. Riley, Lindsay Lohan, and company, but, the bottom line is you won't see anything out of these actors that is going to re-enforce why you like them to begin with.

Streep and Tomlin play over-the-hill sisters who sing the same act they sang in their 20's. Harrelson and Riley play "good ol' boys" that tell lame jokes while playing the guitar. Lindsay Lohan plays Streep's daughter--an introspective, poetry writing teen who can't appreciate what her mom does for a living (I'm right there with you, Lindsay). Kevin Kline runs the show behind the scenes. Virginia Madsen plays what I thought was to be a ghost, or a symbol of death--but, truth be told, I was too disinterested to care.

Altman has always been hit or miss with me. I enjoyed "Ready to Wear" more than most, but, didn't get the appeal of "Gosford Park" that everyone else seemed to buy. I don't consider myself to be a "thrill me" kind of moviegoer. I can appreciate films that don't have planes crashing, shoot outs, and international espionage--in fact, films that have all of the above aren't my cup of tea. But, for the love of god, watching paint dry isn't part of the process of art. Come get me when it's framed and hanging on the wall--then, I'll appreciate it.


When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and "Silver Spoons" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.

Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.

The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.

The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.


I cannot believe how popular this show is. I consider myself an avid sci-fi fan. I have read countless sci-fi novels and have enjoyed many sci-fi movies and TV shows. I really wouldn't even consider this true sci-fi. Every episode I have sat through was like a lame, watered down version of a Star Trek episode, minus anything that might make it interesting or exciting.

It's basically a bunch of people standing around in ARMY fatigues, talking about something boring, who occasionally go through the Stargate and end up on a planet that looks just like Earth, with people who look and sound just like Humans! It seemed extremely low budget. The characters are all forgettable one dimensional cutouts, and the many attempts at humor fall flat. It reminds me when you see a commercial with a famous athlete in it, trying to be funny, but he is not. It is just sad.

The movie was terrible as well. There is so much you can do with a portal through space, yet every place the ARMY people go is BORING! This shows no imagination! I actually thought the TV series "Alien Nation" from a few years back (based on the movie Alien Nation) was much better. That show actually had good story lines and decent characters. I wasn't crazy about "Alien Nation", but compared to this overrated crap, it was great!

Also, unlike the great new "Battlestar Galactica" series, "Stargate" copied the look and feel of the lame movie too closely! They should have at least updated the cheesy "toilet flushing" special effect of whenever somebody goes through the Stargate.


Im watching it now on pink (Serbia TV station) and I must say this is a crap. Shallow, no acting, effects too sloppy I mean, who made this series?

This was a stupid attempt of the Studios to make some more money on the success of the film. OK. The film was great in 1994 when it came out. But the series?

Some times you can see how idiotic the lines are in the speech of the characters. I mean, did they actually pay someone to write that, was that someones relative at the Studio? This is no SciFi.

The film was the bomb, the series suck.


Having seen the first ten episodes, I must say this show sucks.

What bothers me the most, is that the show was shot in Canada. I know it's cheaper, but they should have shot it in California, so we could have had scenes in the desert. That would have been more true to the movie. The first scene where they are outside in another world is in the mountains, with lots of pinetrees where it looks cold. That does'nt feel very Egyptian. What worked so well in the movie was that it felt like you were in the ancient Egypt. Here it feels like they're running around fighting aliens in a Canadian forrest. And it's so lame that appaerantly, on other planets, the fall comes as well. You can see leaves on the ground in the forrests that all look like forrests outside Vancouver. It just makes the show even more unbelievable and dumb.

And then there is Richard Dean Anderson. He is no Kurt Russel. Sure he does a decent job and he tries to copy Russels performance a little bit, but he is just not as cool as Russel. And not nearly as good an actor as Russel. And Russells way of playing O Neill, well he was much more cynical. Andersons O Neil, is way too soft. I liked it that Russels version just did'nt give a s*** and had no trouble detonating the bomb until the very end of the movie.

Michael Shanks does a really good job as Jackson though taking over from James Spader.

Teal'c is a really annoying character. He is Jaffa. Not a Jaffa. Just Jaffa. Aaaarrgh!! A former bodyguard of a pathetic Ra character, seen only in the pilot and in one other episode so far. Teal'c speaks talks and acts like a robot. I've seen better acting from Jean Claude Van Damme.

And the fact that Teal'c and the Ra character and the people they saved in the movie, can speak English all of a sudden is also incredibly dumb. What made the aliens so scary in the movie was that they spoke an ancient language and were real monsters.

As for the special effects, they are really good in the pilot. But the very rare effects in the actual show are badly done and looks cheap. Especially a planet they visit with crystals. It's so obvious they walk around on a soundstage with a badly made painting in the background. It's an insult to us viewers that they made it look so cheap. Especially when they could have made it in front of a bluescreen with cgi backgrounds.

The X-files had better effects when they aired their first episodes in 1993. That was 4 years before SG-1 started. And they did'nt have the apparent two million dollar budget per episode, that SG-1 supposedly had. They must have spend all the money on catering. Because I don't see it on the screen.

Incredibly boring and pointless show, that could have been great if they had shot the show in Hollywood with a bigger budget and better writers and better characters.


1 How is it that everyone can understand each other perfectly without devices like universal translators or translator microbes? Did the creators of this show realize that people who were taken from different parts of the earth, in different time frames (Attilla the Hun wasn't a contemporary of preliterate Hellenic cultures, nor were the Vikings contemporary to the Pyramid builders) speak different languages and can never develop a language so similar to modern day English(except for the inflections they "do not" use), which has been influenced by Latin, ancient Greek, Danish and French?

2 Cultural differences can't be overcome so easily, trust has to be won, yet everywhere the team arrives they are welcomed without any suspicion and start ordering people around like they are their appointed leaders. Of course real fans would comment that they are perceived as gods. The people they meet should be shocked by their technology and accuse them of witchcraft and the like.

3 Historical background: none. Visually it might vaguely remind you of Greek or Viking culture, but anyone can dress in a bunch of tablecloths or run to a local costume rental for a plastic helmet with horns and claim to look the part. A small-town theater group probably has better props.

4 Boring! Another lame Canuck production, which inexplicably ran for ten long years. As a kids show it could make the grade, but anyone who has a little knowledge about human behavior and language couldn't bear to even watch the first twelve episodes of season 1, like I just did. I very much wanted to believe I had found a decent sci-fi show, otherwise I would shut it of and cleansed my computer of this refuge after the first five minutes!


In 1975, Navajo Indian Calvin Duggai (Sonny Landham) deliberately abandoned five men to die in the desert because of an argument involving tribal rivalry and the powers of Indian witchcraft. Four psychiatrists testified that Duggai was not capable of distinguishing right from wrong and recommended he be institutionalized. Years later at the "State Hospital For the Mentally Insane," Calvin suffers from 'Nam flashbacks, escapes through the air shafts and kills a friendly hunter who picks him up hitchhiking. He then decides to get back at the four shrinks who helped put him away. One by one, he kidnaps them, ties them up, throws them into the back of a truck and drives miles out into the middle of the desert and drops them off. There they must face the extreme heat, dehydration, starvation, snakes, scorpions, birds, etc and Calvin, who is off in the shadows with a high-powered scope rifle watching their every move AND using his powers of witchcraft to strike out at them. Thankfully, one of the victims (Steve Kanaly, from the TV show "Dallas") gave up head-shrinking years ago for a job as a park ranger and helps everyone survive by digging holes to sleep in, hunting rabbits and using cacti for food and water. He also has to make peace with the jealous husband (Robert Chimento) of his former lover (Karen Carlson). Macon McCalman (who had a small role in DEAD & BURIED) is the fourth doctor, an overweight, bald, homosexual with a broken leg who reacts to the stress by becoming a born-again Christian! (Not quite as funny as the "I'm a lesbian but I guess I'll stop it" line from EVIL COME, EVIL GO, but still...) Though watchable for the most part, it's by no means a great film and the annoying non-ending will leave a bad taste in your mouth. It was based on the novel 'Fear is a Handful of Dust' by Brian Garfield.


I have this movie on a Rhino Collection called "Horrible Horrors" and it's not really a horror movie. A native American dude is sent to a psychiatric institute for leaving 4 of his companions in the desert to die as part of some tribal justice thing. Of course he was tried and committed by white folk so therefore when he escapes he goes after them, and takes them out to the desert for...either tribal justice or revenge, you can decide. He leaves these 4 people in the desert to die but they're crafty to some extent and have read their survivalist manuals, apparently, so they make shoes out of dead rabbits, eat cactus, and collect water with a plastic raincoat. Of course, Mr. "I'm Not Insane" is hanging out nearby to make sure they don't wander away from his desired fate for them, but somehow they do manage to decide that they want to live and begin to look for help. None of the characters are particularly likable so there's one big problem there, go ahead and die, the viewer might wish. At one point the head "survivalist guy" Sam, says "it's not over yet" but you'll sure wish it was. Overall it's sort of watchable but in a sort of "I'm too lazy to get up and take it off" way. 4 out of 10.


Some parts of FLESHBURN are very good and it sure could have been a very good movie. Instead, however, the film is just pretty poorly executed and stupid much of the time. Too bad.

The film begins with a guy breaking out of a hospital for the criminally insane. Obviously bad things will ensue. The maniac is apparently in the mental hospital because years earlier he took a group of folks into the desert and allowed them to die due to exposure--a slow, lingering death. Now, his plan is to find all the people he feels are responsible for putting him in the booby hatch and exacting revenge--and killing him just like that first group of people; So far, all this is a very good setup for a film. However, it has two major strikes against it. Instead of the villain simply being an American-Indian who knows the land and how to survive, he's some sort of American-Indian who dabbles in WITCHCRAFT (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean). He has some goofy psychic or magical power that allows him to occasionally do things like catch and train a hawk to attack on of the four people stranded in the desert!! Gimme a break. And, the more serious problem is that although the people are exposed to the elements in the desert, they seem amazingly healthy even after many days there. With very, very little food and water, they all seem to have miraculously avoided any sunburn!! And, what's worse, a couple of them are running about with no shirt on--and yet their skin isn't even pink!! The inconsistent elements of their dire circumstances and their actual condition makes no sense at all and is just sloppy. Just as sloppy is the gun scene at the end--again and again, the guy who takes on the killer gets the upper hand but never finishes the job. If I were taken into the desert to die, if I ever got a chance to kill my tormentor, I'd not hesitate for a microsecond. duh.

Overall, this is a wonderful example of a decent idea for a movie that was totally botched because the film makers were apparently squirrels.


Sonny Landham plays a man who is locked up in an asylum after he leaves five people in the desert to die as his way of winning an argument. He escapes only to capture the people who he feels wrongly sent him to the asylum and leaves them out in the desert while he watch over them making sure they don't leave.

After a good start where Landham escapes and picks up his targets the film stalls for over an hour as the group is stranded in the desert and begin to talk. Its dull and boring and you can;t wait for something to happen. A few things do, but not enough to fill out a 90 minute movie. If you'll like me you'll scream at the TV et hoping that something happens. By the time it finally does in the last fifteen or 20 minutes its too little too late.

A waste of your time


This one of the most boring movies i have ever seen!. Nothing happens, until the final 15 to 20 minutes!, it's basically just people wandering around, screaming and arguing, there is hardly any action, just lots of boring dialog, with unlikable characters, and a pretty uninteresting main villain.I got this on a 8 horror movie 2 disc set. I don't really have anything more to say, about this, god awful film. The Direction is terrible!. George Gage, does a terrible job here, with a boring location, terrible camera work and most importantly the pace is extremely boring!. There is a tiny bit of blood, a few bloody gunshot wounds, bloody stabbing, gory bird attack. The Acting is not good at all. Sonny Landham, is bad here, he is uninteresting, and seemed bored, i like the guy, but his performance here was terrible. Steve Kanaly, is okay but nothing great as the main hero,and was the best of the lot. Karen Carlson, is annoying, here, and very unlikable.Same goes Macon McCalman Overall Avoid like the plague! BOMB out of 5


The title and cover try to promote this as some sort of horror thriller, but don't be fooled; it's really a revenge/survival story. It's meant to be about man's primal instincts, which surface under extreme circumstances, but it's so unconvincingly done that the four protagonists never seem to be more than an hour's walk away from civilization. Completely boring, filled with scenes of people just walking or driving around, it also resorts to all the usual stereotypes about paranoid Vietnam vets and evil, witchcraft-practicing Indians, having as a villain a man who is both of the above! In short, I'd rather be stranded in the middle of the desert than having to see this film again. 0 out 4.


this movie isn't that great...at all but it's good when you want to just laugh, because it's pretty ridiculous :) there are a lot of mistakes in it and it's cheesy. i got this movie for Christmas like 5 years ago but for some reason i've never given it away. i guess i just like it for a rainy day even though i only watch it like once a year. This is a very 90's movie so it's really funny to see how everyone dresses and acts. this movie is good for someone young...although come to think of it, i didn't even like it much when i was like 12 but that's just my personal opinion. the movie was really predictable. i wish it had had some extra weird twists but i guess it was trying to be an appropriate movie for everyone to enjoy. i think it was appropriate for the whole family but Hallie's dress was a bit unmodest but certainly appropriate enough for family material.


Maybe the target audience of this Disney Channel TV-movie will be pleased with it, but if any parents are watching along with the youngsters, they will clearly see that "cranked out" is written all over this production. Obviously it was no one's dream to make this movie, but rather, this was concocted in a board room somewhere, then produced with cold efficiency. There is some talent among the cast, but actors like Dabney Coleman and Jay Thomas don't get much of a chance to showcase their talent. The impossibly cute Elisabeth Harnois is engaging as the First Daughter, but Will Friedle is stuck once again playing another dumb character, though he's not nearly as moronic and annoying as in his "Boy Meets World" role. The background for this movie is Washington, D.C. and the White House, but there is no real "presidential" feel to the film and the Secret Service is made out to be little better than the Keystone Kops when it come to doing their duty. The Disney Channel presents a lot of original TV-movies and most of them are better than this.


If this was nominated for a screenwriting award by the WGA, a professional association of screenwriters, then it's time to hang up the word processor. Astonishingly inept writing, direction, production, at every level, even for a TV movie. No cliche goes unexploited in this jaw-droppingly bad movie. What were they thinking? Does anyone really believe kids are stupid enough to watch this?


I can't help but wonder if everyone connected with this 1993 film isn't trying to forget they were ever involved with this mess.

It's awhile before we even know that Mexico is the foreign country where the characters are.

It starts out somewhat promising with an young American man, Alex Walker (Kevin Anderson)coming into a Mexican bar where he encounters an overly friendly drunk named Felix Crawley (Robert Harper), also an American.

Like most of this film's characters, we never really know what motivates Felix to chatting up Alex and even setting him up with a woman in the bar, that I assume was a hooker.

Alex goes off with the hooker, but a weird circumstance in her room, which is never explained and which made no sense, causes him to change his mind and he decides to leave. That's when Alex discovers his wallet is missing and realizes Felix is undoubtedly the guilty party.

Alex, whom we later learn is a sailor who jumped ship, because of some trouble he is already in back in the states, hunts up Felix.

Felix is not in a good way, having already ran into someone who decided to kill him.

Alex flees. The police think Alex has murdered Felix. In avoiding the police, Alex literally falls inside the car of what turns out to be an American couple - Phillip and Missy Mills. Philip played by John Lithgow is Missy's somewhat older husband. Shortly after this the film bogs down and begins to drag.

I don't know if Rosanna Arquette has any acting range or not, since I've never seen her play anything but slightly nutty, silly sluts - which is what she's stuck with again in this film.

Despite the fact that it becomes evident very early on, that Missy is quite attracted to Alex, and that he likewise is attracted to her - Phillip never tells Alex to get lost. Instead, Alex keeps traveling with them - car, bus - whatever the transportation mode might be. In fact, Phillip even pays Alex's way some of the time. Phillip also pushes Missy and Alex together and then acts as if he is jealous when they act on it.

Phillip's behavior never makes any real sense. He declares that he wants to keep Missy, although he complains about her and insults her quite a lot, but he never dumps Alex - that's what made zero sense.

There's dialog as this threesome travels along, but they never really say anything. Phillip and Missy are constantly contradicting themselves, they're hot and cold in their relationship with each other and in their relationship with Alex.

The ending is not particularly unexpected.

2 stars for this lack luster offering.


A couple of points that haven't been mentioned: Setting aside the plot, this flic has very good Mexican mise-en-scene, at MANY different points. It's up there with "Bring me the head of Alfredo G." for capturing the feel of Mexico. For instance, the wonderful cloudy scenes at the start, of the port city. {Where is this? I think it's supposed to be Veracruz, but does not look at all like the V. city that I recalled, in terms of the geography...) Also, I very much liked that decaying motel in the jungle-- where things really get crazy between our jolly trio.

Second, the soundtrack is by Los Lobos so you have the enjoyable moody "wrong man theme" during these opening shots of the port city. Also a soulful ballad, as the credits roll up, at the end.

The biggest liability is Anderson, who is so insipid, has none of the appeal that one would hope from a lead "hero." This leaves a sorry hole at the center of the movie. (On the other hand, I rather liked Lithgow's nutty over-acting.) Definitely recommended for those who'd like a brief Mexican getaway.


Well, here we go with yet another John Lithgow loser. Man, did this guy make a lot of terrible films and was unlikeable himself in almost every role, or what? In this film he's at profane screaming best! No wonder he did so much better on network television where he could be restrained. (Don't be fooled by the "TV" label on this; it's cable TV and this film is rated "R.")

A good screen partner for him was Rosanna Arquette, who usually treated the male audiences to good glimpses of her ample breasts. She went topless here for at least five minutes. Meanwhile, the lead actor was neither Lithgow or Arquette. It was Kevin Anderson, a young actor who likes to play low-life roles. Maybe he's related to Lithgow.

Wow, does this movie have "class" written all over it or what?!

If you picked this up at the video store, you not only got "The Wrong Man," but you got the wrong movie. Go back and get the one with the same title, but starring Henry Fonda.


...........This contains a spoiler or two................. Alex, a mug on the run, is duped by Felix and finds himself wanted for murder, again. to escape the law he climbs into Arquettes cleavage, sorry, make that convertible, and along with her very annoying husband Lithgow, hits the road. this movie seems to be nothing more than a vehicle for Miss Arquette to parade her body and considerable charms at every opportunity. Lithgow is awful - just plain unbelievable with the mood swings of a metronome. Alex is one dimensional and as blank as his suit. his vision does not extend beyond the end of his nose, or Miss Arquette's cleavage, whichever is closer at the time. for all that, it is strangely watchable until the end, which is laughably so. the getaway vehicle is a train pulling out of the station with the speed of the road roller in Austin Powers. three old ladies with zimmer frames would have time to get on or off without breaking sweat, let alone a limb. yet to the mexican police it is a challenge. ludicrously funny.


I have given myself a day to calm down before 'voicing' my critique of this shoddy film. What happened to the terrific Matthew Modine? So much of it needed editing. The contrived situations, the change in mood, the ridiculous outcome . . . why? Could have been a fairly decent film, if only someone with brains would have stepped in and watched the dailies. Pitiful. Example: if someone is a teetotaler, they have ways to refuse taking a drink. Chug-a-lugging wine, just to bolster ones nerve, is extremely juvenile, and not in character for our leading lady. Why resort to gym shoes, when dancing barefoot has been the norm for hundreds of years. (Not that the wedding was even formal, which is another atrocity). Nothing jived. Scrambled nonsense. Only satisfying moment was when her selfish fiancée exited her life.


Well. This is a not well-known movie, and initially, i was surprised at the low rating it got at IMDb. But then I still went ahead to watch, and i was wrong. The movie is interesting only to the first half, then it begins unleashing the crappiest elements of a romantic comedy.

First, there is a sense of realism and the movie attempted to shape the characters of the two main leads. We can see, from their never ending arguments to the lifestyle that they have, how different the two are main leads are. Both of them have major flaws with their characters, but nevertheless, remains quite likable. Then, comes the climax of the movie. They fall in love with each other. How? In what way? There is no plot line, no events that will lead them to even change their views of each other at this point of time(half the movie gone)and seriously, there are such little chemistry or sexual tension between the two leads that I for one, even though knowing that this is to come, still can't quite imagine them falling for each other. And before long my doubts are cleared, they are brought/forced together in a very unconvincing and awkward way. There must be divine intervention really for the two of them, with their characters to behave like they did. From then on, it's all very rushed and the characters of the main leads seem to change overnight(especially for the female lead). Why shape their characters up if you're going to ruin it so completely later on? For romance? A very awkward and forced one? NOTHING is convincing.

This is a terrible movie. Even if you've got a couple of hours free with nothing to do, don't watch it.


I used to watch shows like Beetlejuice, Real Ghostbusters, and even that lousy Mummy show. Sure none of them used the movie's actors, recycled some jokes, and were pale imitations of the movies they were based on.That least they did not try to literally recreate its source. They expanded on, and sometimes alluded to, the movie. And at least those shows were meant for children.

This show, however, is by far worse. I don't know who this one's meant for. It's too adult for kids and too stupid for adults.

I had high hopes too. Great movie. Mel Brooks coming back. Plenty to draw on thanks to Star Wars Clone Wars.

The most noticeable problem is the voice acting. Sure you got three actors returning from the film. However, none of them seem all that interested and their acting falls flat. The rest are just lousy. Those other shows at least got voice actors who sounded like the movie's but weren't just imitating, these are just trying to be the movie characters.

Why is Rino Romano even getting lead roles in series? Didn't anybody watch Spider-Man Unlimited or The Batman before hiring him? This man has no range. He's so blah.

It started off with a whimper by simply trying to quickly recreate the movie. Turning classic gags into such brief moments that no one can care about. Why not just start off after the movie like those other series? And none of the jokes were funny. I can still watch the movie and laugh out loud. With this show I was wincing as they said the same exact thing. No one seems to have good comedic timing. Lorenzo Music may not have been Bill Murray but at least he had comedic timing.

The animation looks like some flash video that some kid posted on some website. They really couldn't get anything better in this day and age?

Fans of the movie, skip this show. Haven't seen the movie, skip this show and watch the movie. Unless they undergo some drastic changes this show is going to disappear quickly and quietly. Not that I'll be missing it.


I LOVE Spaceballs, it's one of my favorite movies of all time. But this show is awful! I've only seen 2 episodes but have no desire to see any more as I can't imagine them being any better.

The animation is cheap (flash?)and terrible. I'm not trying to be a prude, but the way every single woman in this series is drawn is disgusting. They're chests are vamped up and jiggling at all times. This is fine I suppose for the triplet "bimbos" that hang out with President Skroob, but they also draw the main female character (Princess Vespa) in the same way. When did her chest look like that in the movie? Oh yeah that's right, it didn't.

Dark Helmet is not funny AT ALL and looks like a windup toy from a Happy Meal. I know Rick Moranis is short, but come on now!! Lonestar is by far boring and useless and it seems the writers weren't sure what to do with him.

When was Barf all gross all the time? I lost track on how many times he burps, farts, or does #2. His character in the movie didn't even do any of these things not once and was funny. Why resort to the cheap potty humor now? It isn't even funny at all and quickly grosses you out.

The ONLY good things are President Skroob, Yogurt and Dot Matrix. They're not very funny, but are drawn to resemble their characters and are voiced by the same actors. (Yeah I know Daphne Zuniga does Princess Vespa, but it neither looks nor sounds like her so I don't count it.) I DVR'd the 2 episodes I saw. ("Druidian Idol, "SpiderMawg") And as i'm sure most of you are already aware, when you DVR something, you have the luxury of fast forwarding the commercials, credits, etc. Even with this added bonus I still found myself checking to see how much time was left in each of these 30 minute episodes. It seemed like an hour had passed when in reality it had only been about ten minutes. That's how awful and dragging this show is.

Shame on you Mel Brooks for green lighting this mess and for participating.


Spaceballs is the first spoof movie and Mel brooks movie i saw, and i loved every minute of it. when i heard of this show i was yelling "i need to see this! do we have G4?" etc. Im glad Mel, Joan rivers and Daphne Zuniga are back as their roles, Dee baker is OK as helmet (he actually funny in Spaceballs of the Caribbean), Tino insana sounds good as a John candy impersonator, but Rino Romano sound boring, he doesn't even try. every episode is a spoof of hit movies(Skroobinator,spidermawg, watch your @$$ic park etc), i was hoping for "search for more money" and even a spaceball prequel. P.S. Mel brooks did not write any of the episodes. one more thing, i wanted more colonel Sanders, where is he!! i missed him


Spaceballs was probably Mel Brooks' last funny movie before his schtick got old and dry.

After having watched six episodes of this poorly animated series based on it, I feel sorry for the guy. I think he's trying to recapture some of the old spark and falling flat.

The show is based on parodies of other movies, most of them not funny, funny stuff having been done on the Cartoon Network without relying on boob jokes, ass jokes, poop jokes and puke jokes.

Daphne Zuniga and Joan Rivers add their voices to this travesty, as does Mel himself, reproducing the dual roles of Skroob and Yogurt.

Isn't worth watching, please skip it.


This "space snippet" was kind of dumb. I guess it was supposed to be a shocker unexpected ending, but IMHO it was just a huge letdown. Joseph Campanella and the rest of the earthbound actors do a great job in this one; their performances are not done justice with such a silly ending though. How this ending could ever have made it through any kind of review by the producers is beyond me. The other comment on here is not correct, the tongue in cheek vignettes only came in during the second season, this thing was supposed to be taken seriously! The producers and writers could have been a little more creative with the ending to do the rest of the episode justice.


Although I could sum this pathetic episode of Night gallery in two words, those two words being "horse manure," I am obligated to write a minimum of ten lines. This is a very sophomoric episode, not worthy of the standards of Rod Serling, but rather an inept attempt at some sort of ironic black comedy. The premise of giant rodents inhabiting the moon, a lifeless orb to be sure, is totally ridiculous, as is the construction of a giant mousetrap. I suppose we are to also assume that the moon is made of green cheese and that is how these absurd creatures survive. I can only assume that this episode was presented as a filler to supplant the other two episodes first aired on that date. All in all, a waste of film, actors and air time.


I admit it, I rented this film because Billy Campbell is in it, but it was a disappointment. I won't say it was a huge disappointment, as I wasn't expecting much, I still found it to be plodding and boring. Outrageously funny? I can't imagine where or how. Don't waste your time with this one.


Compared to the great Spaghetti Westerns this was a waste of time, glad I didn't have to pay for the box set. Rent first

I saw this years ago in the theater when it came out upon release and my first impression still stands. Crap compared to Leone, Corbucci, Sollima, Petroni, Damiano, and Castellari. Watch it solely for Lee Van Cleef and Linda Veras, Berger who usually can be good is terrible, its just a mindless flick. Blame the scriptwriters, two of the top villains come off looking very gay. Mental note to all, any Western where you have acrobats stay away from. Its just a piece of fluff made to cash in on the popularity of the Spaghetti Westerns.

My biggest regret is that Lee Van Cleef who should have had a career boost in the US just like Eastwood didn't get one and he was forced to go with a career making some forgettable crap like this in Italy. I'm glad that he was able to become a top box office star in Europe but come on they could have made better movies.

Lee Van Cleef's best films for anybody interested:

Great starring roles-

For A Few Dollars More, The Good The Bad And The Ugly, The Big Gundown, Death Rides A Horse, Barquero

flawed movie but good-

Day Of Anger

Films with supporting roles to check out-

The Tin Star, Ride Lonesome, High Noon, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Gunfight at the OK Corral


"Sabata" or "Ehi amico... c'è Sabata, hai chiuso!" is a comic book affair with ridiculously over the top action and banal dialogue. This is a very childish film and also extraordinarily camp. I misconstrued the first look between the effeminate Villain and his fat banker accomplice as a look of homosexual satisfaction!

Lee Van Cleef is as magnetic as ever and steals every scene. He has a Mexican comic sidekick that is not very funny and a Wayne Sleep look-alike that bounces on hidden trampolines through out most of the film. William Berger is truly awful as Banjo the murderous musician. His performance, if you can call it that, is so bad that it makes you cringe. His smirk is that of an old woman without her dentures in. You keep hoping through out the picture that Sabata will shoot that ridiculous actor in the face.

There is some very imaginative gunplay in this film that most certainly livens up the infantile proceedings. "Sabata" is really a cheap James Bond picture set in the west and I am sure Frank Kramer or should I say Gianfranco Parolini had that in mind while developing the project. My favourite moment is when Lee Van Cleef confuses a would-be assassin by posing behind a gilt picture frame.

The production design by Carlo Simi is very good especially the interiors and the saloon in particular. The music is also good fun especially the go-go title theme. That said this is a stupid little film that has its moments but if it weren't for Lee Van Cleef it would signify nothing.


The group decides to form a simply economy to make things feel civilized. They base the economy on twist-ties just for fun, and then divvy up some goods. The stockbroker takes nothing but some simple tools.

Later they're all having fun trading goods and services for a few twist-ties. It's basically a bunch of kids playing store at this point, until they ask the stock broker for a shovel. He charges one of them 50 twist-ties for an hour's worth of shovel-time. The show actually takes a dramatic commercial break here.

The show returns after the break to see the broker as a self-appointed King. They're all basically serfs/slaves on King's land. They start an underground newspaper, which is nothing more than a note that says the King sucks or something similarly simple. The main character makes a smart remark about the paper, and another guy walks up says 'Yeah I stopped subscribing because they keep running the same article.' FUNNIEST LINE IN THE SHOW....sigh.

Finally the overthrow the King when the former-teacher fixes him some 'super-fiber' muffins. She owns all the toilet paper still, and charges him a million twist ties per roll.

In the next scene you see the woman has now appointed herself queen, treats the people even worse, and has a crown made of twist ties. Which is a little bit funny.

Somehow they just give up on the economy and go back normal. Lesson learned (I don't know what it was). End show (probably the best ever).


Excruciating sex and romance comedy wherein the romance is applied by cutting to close-ups of star Olivia de Havilland gazing at her G.I. with stars in her eyes, though the sex never happens because this is hermetically-sealed 1956 and, of course, people didn't do such things. Out to prove her Ambassador father wrong, daughter Olivia goes out on a date with soldier John Forsythe (under the guise of a French model!) to prove he isn't a "mucker" (or, wolf). It gets worse from there. Forsythe's chatty buddy, who sounds like he's auditioning for a cartoon voice-over job, gets chummy with a senator and his wife while Forsythe has a confrontation with every person he talks to (he's far too intense and focused an actor to relax and be easy, and these fluffball surroundings have him looking like a deer in the headlights). Norman Krasna wrote and directed this misguided comedy, one without a single laugh or single engaging character (although Myrna Loy tries). It looks good in widescreen, but the script is a piece of lead, insulting to everyone from French fan dancers to bagpipe players to horny American G.I.s who can't even take in a show without arguing with the maître d' over their restaurant cover charge. * from ****


What I learned about the fascinating Paris sewer system was easily the best part of this film. Unfortunately that scene lasts for about 2 minutes. The rest of the film just seemed flat, dull, limp.

The production values of this film are the next best thing. It is, indeed, a Technicolor treat to the eyes. The women's costumes are lovely. The sets are also nice. However, the director is totally clue-less about the artistic use of a camera or a soundtrack.

Much of this film lacks background music. This lack of comedy-mood-setting music is devastating because this story is not inherently funny, and the only member of the cast that has a sense of comedy (or really has any funny lines) is Tom Noonan. So whatever comedy is there, is undermined by the lack of an appropriate soundtrack. There are a couple of scenes when we hear some ambient, "street" music - the predictable Parisian accordion, and the completely unexpected Breton bagpipes droning in an over-packed Eiffel Tower elevator - preposterous and rude, but not funny! There is also music, of course at the ballet, where the scenes are photographed in a totally static, pedestrian, uncreative way. However, background piano or light string music is conspicuously absent in the charity fashion show scenes. And transitional scenes such as Forsythe's walking along a street toward the airline ticket office are music- less. Without music, such scenes contribute nothing to the erstwhile "comedy" atmosphere of the film. Instead, they are just flat plot devices. The entire film is similarly flawed, leaving it to the actors, themselves, to convey the comedy. Unfortunately none of these actors is up to the task.

The plot is a lot like Clash of the Titans - a mythical melodrama! But instead of Greek gods testing the character of a "mortal," here we have a senator, a general and the U.S. ambassador to France testing the character of a U.S. serviceman in Paris. Except for Noonan, the cast plays this movie like a Greek tragedy. Noonan is a little more restrained than usual, although he still seems very hammy because his role is in such stark contrast to the rest of the cast. He seems like he is performing in a completely different movie.

The repetitious wallet-losing has potential for comedy that is totally lost. The first instance sets off a heated accusation-and-denial confrontation between Forsythe and DeHavilland. After such heat, it is so suddenly and easily dismissed that it is very awkward. It is not simply a lost opportunity for comedy, but it's unreal. When the wallet is lost a second time, while DeHavilland and Forsythe are at a nightclub, the comedy is supposed to be conveyed by the two actors yukking it up with stage laughter. DeHavilland's predictable line, "I didn't steal it" is supposed to be the cause of such belly-laughing for them (and presumably for us). Sadly, the line would have been only moderately humorous had it been well delivered.

The nightclub has another lost opportunity for comedy. Instead of ending in a funny encounter between Forsythe, the club host and the gendarmes, it is a mere plot device - everybody playing it straight - most polite, gracious and sincere!

What one commentator mistakenly calls the final scene is actually the penultimate scene. It is admittedly one of the better scenes AND (coincidentally) one of the few with soundtrack music to help set the mood! (This scene WOULD have made for a nice ending, but the director is too heavy-handed for that. So in a totally superfluous scene tacked onto the end, we see Bride DeHavilland and Groom Forsythe, with the rest of the cast kneeling in a cathedral before a priest during what is obviously their wedding ceremony.)

Olivia DeHavilland is, as several commentators have noted, hopelessly miscast. She is not only too old, but comic delivery is a part of her craft that totally eludes her.

John Forsythe, likewise has no sense of comedy or comic timing. He plays his role almost exactly the same as Harry Hamlin portrayed Perseus in Clash of the Titans!

Menjou, who I usually enjoy, delivers a very unfunny performance as the senator. The senator is (unbelievably!) a tightwad. His touching of DeHavilland's face at the ballet is not only unsporting, but also offensive. His character is very unsympathetic, if not downright despicable - and definitely NOT funny. And the lip service paid to penny-pinching is not ever comical.

Myrna Loy... WHY? She is another one of my faves, but here she seems bereft of energy. She seems rather wistful or even sad when attempting to discuss the Prince with Menjou or offering "motherly" advice to DeHavilland. Then her scene with Forsythe at the ballet is definitely NOT funny. She tells Forsythe that she was in the presence of Menjou when he struck "a woman" (HA-HA! Now THAT'S hilarious! I wonder who she meant? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge! )

The general is a mere functionary, and Edward Arnold almost a non-entity.

Finally, there is DeHavilland's fiancé, the Prince. What was he doing in this film? He has about 3 "straight" lines, and the rest of the time he strains to sit around looking "princely." He provides no conflict with Forsythe or resistance to DeHavilland's leaving him. He is a totally superfluous "prop!"

I never felt any chemistry among ANY of the cast members. Consequently, I was pretty indifferent to their respective fates. They all seemed to be actors delivering lines and receiving a paycheck at the end of the day. I suspect each one of them regards this film as a personal embarrassment. The plot is weak, the lines weaker. The cinematography is totally unimaginative, wasting some nice sets. The direction is clue-less. The acting is uninspired, failing to strike the right tone. And the lack of a good soundtrack is the nail in the coffin of this cadaver. Lifeless.


Simply miserable film starring Olivia de Havilland as the daughter of the American ambassador to France. The trouble is that Edward Arnold, the ambassador, and the visiting senator Adolphe Menjou have very little to do in this hopeless film.

It's basically the story of an engaged woman who meets a soldier by chance and the two engage in a whirlwind romance throughout Paris. Tommy Noonan as the friend of John Forsythe, the guy who courts de Havilland, and Myrna Loy, as the senator's wife, are both unable to salvage a poorly written film.

At age 39, Miss de Havilland was way too old for the part.

The story is nonsensical at best and Forsythe confusing de Havilland as a kept woman of the older Menjou is not written up to the hilt as it should have been.

A shame that such a talented cast of thespians were wasted on this nonsense.