I caught this for the first time today on TCM. I was intrigued by this movie without even knowing any history about the adaptation of the book. The subject matter and how movies handle December-May relationships has always grabbed my attention.

As a hardcore Romantic, I wanted something very real and special to come out of this. Though I found March a very captivating character, I have always found Novak to be a bit vapid and one-note. Neither of these actors convinced me that these people were anything but in dangerous denial and fooling themselves. Probably because they just didn't seem that much in love, but more in love with the idea of "maybe" being in love "somehow" ...because both of them wanted to be in love so badly. In his final proclamation about love, March's character goes on about passion and grand risks and living life. Great concepts but it fell flat the moment the two actors were together in scenes. The chemistry was just not there for this classic movie fan and in truth a bit painful to watch.

The Love conquer all ending may appeal to the Romantic in me, but the reality of the *doorway* reunion was too much at odds with the realness portrayed by the other characters and I wouldn't give these two a snow ball's chance...well, you know. But, more power to them. That is the real lesson, even though it promises to be a sad one. Do we frantically grab at something we know deep inside is a tragedy just waiting to happen? Do we write off others who chose NOT to put themselves at risk of such potentially damaging emotions? Dunno.

Grant and Balsam showed just why they are such stellar character actors. Novak's mother had a deliciously vibrant role.

Just a side comment but the sexual stereotypes of that period came raging through in spite of some very serious attempts to portray genuine human, emotional suffering of both genders at all ages.

skg


I remember waiting for this show's weekly segment with such anticipation as a child in the Early 1980's. To watch Michael Knight and his partner and friend Kitt the car battle criminals for the foundation was such a thrill. Today I look at this show and recollect with embarrassment the reasons why I watched it. The reasons as a child as to why I watched this show were simple. It was fast paced, adventurous & suspenseful. But to top it all off it had one of the coolest cars known to man. A car that not only protected Michael Knight, but engaged in full conversations with him. Conversations such as Michael's masculine pursuits were held up to scrutiny in the conversations and if my memory serves me correctly most of these chats were about Michael's roaming eye and how every damsel would fall for him in each episode. The adventures were many and the explosions and fistfights were plenty. At the end of each episode we were all grateful that the west coast of America was safe thanks to one car and its occupant.

Today however I can't see the children even being remotely interested in talking cars or for that matter the occupants of these cars. Maybe this is because the technology that was our imaginations has become a reality today and there is now no need for these dated action shows. The imaginations of today are now enthralled by what could be the technology of tomorrow. Or is it that children and adults alike have had enough of the rubbish and unrealistic story lines. We don't care about a car that could never exist and if it did we would be able to afford it or worse it could become like the next DeLorien car. Have we had now had enough of the likes of Michael Knight a man whose stylish leather jackets and sun tan of the early 1980's would now be the object of scorn and pity. Today a poser like Michael Knight would be bottled and beaten and not tolerated and that is just what the feminists would do. In this reviewers opinion! Yes. Knight Rider is very much a product of 1980's kitsch. To watch a re-run like I have today meant blushing with embarrassment at the though that I once found the dialog funny and cool. The story lines are wholly unbelievable and the methods of preventing crime are totally ludicrous. What's worse is the fact that this show has had a stigma far worse than the dodgy fashion and plot lines. This is David Hasselhof a person that is still on the T.V. despite the fact he cannot act and when he tries it is just very embarrassing to watch. Granted I will admit it is very hard to upstage a talking car, even Marlon Brando would have great difficulty in that.

Maybe I am have become too cynical and not being fair to the show. But I am justified in my criticism in this review. If you want to reminisce about television shows from your childhood and have a warm loving tone when you do so, then you can definitely find better ones than this load of rubbish. I find that when me and my mates will discuss these shows the A-Team will always be referred to as our favorite where we will mimic characters and talk about particular shows. Whenever Knight Rider is mentioned we will stare at our drinks vacantly in the hope that someone will change the subject quickly. 1 out of 10


THE SMART SET (1928) is a typical late silent era feature that M.G.M. cranked out to fulfill their quota of fifty (50) plus features a year. Even though a 'small' film it clearly shows that it was made by a major studio and has all the standard M.G.M. gloss.

THE NUTS; BlowHard and Egocentric Polo Star Thomas 'Tommy' Van Buren (William Haines) is selected to join America's Big Four championship polo team. Upon arrival he manages to put off his teammates starting with team Captain, Nelson (Jack Holt). He promptly moves in on Nelson's intended love interest Polly Durant (Alice Day) who he had met earlier in a failed pickup. Tommy also offends her Father, Mr. Durant (Hobart Bosworth), who he has replaced on the team. Story continues with his suspension from the team an act of heroism and finally redemption in the championship match against Great Britain, winning the girl. Standard stuff all around.

The main problem with the film is with its Star, matinée idol WILLIAM HAINES. His constant mugging and upstaging of his costars is more appropriate to Mack Sennett then M.G.M. He performs antics in this film that would endear him only to his Mother and only if she was addle headed. Some have commented on that his career failed because of his homosexuality. That may have been true but it was more likely his style did not translate well to the sound era. Not the era of JAMES CAGNEY, GARY COOPER, CLARK GABLE, WILLIAM POWELL, SPENCER TRACY, etc. They defined how a man was to act in sound. In fact his acting in silent films is hard to take today, especially compared to his contemporaries RONALD COLMAN, LON CHANEY, JOHN GILBERT and RAMON NOVARRO. Whos films do hold up well in the 21st Century. As hard to take as HAINES was the rather ordinary looking ALICE DAY. The rest of the cast did the best they could with what little they had to work with.

Though we gave it a relatively low rating of four (4) stars**** it is still worth a watch at least once. The print on TCM is in fairly good condition and it is interesting to see a film revolving around the sport of Polo. Which appears to be like Hockey on Horses.

ADDENDUM; Went back too this film today (04/08/09) on TCM too see if a second look would alter our opinion. No, HAINES still comes off as a 'Prissy Ham' with none of the charm he showed in SHOW PEOPLE (1928), the first of his films we had seen.


This movie was in th 27th International Movie Festival in São Paulo, (Brazil). It seemed at first it would have a plot. A woman who would buy a baby from a stranger to get money from her boyfriend. But it got lost in nudity, violence and profanity. Besides, poor directing leaves the audience bored if not angry (many scenes have not a steady camera shot, it shakes as the cameraman moves, becoming more difficult to follow). Not that is has anything to follow. There is no plot. Many scenes have no dialog and, when it have, it has no use. Most of the times, it features the leading actor captured smoking cigarettes in different places, where nothing else happens. The characters don't have any personality nor aims. This is really a waste of time.


For some reason, so-called `honest' films are quite popular with young Hungarians these days. However, this movie mistakenly suggests that drifting young people have no choice but to drift in life and always choose the wrong way, so no honesty here. This is the type of movie that would be financed by the Hungarian state these days, because you can sell it partly as artsy, partly as `a movie that explores the boundaries of human life and concerns deep social and moral issues'. Well, if the director's intention was to shock (`let us all face reality' and all), he definitely failed, unless he thinks that in the era of hardcore porn and Hollywood B-movies nudity and superfluous violence are shocking. Sorry, I simply do not feel sympathy, sorrow or pain for stupid characters (involved in a stupid narrative), especially if they are sketchy, shallow, or more like empty. The dialogues are crap - believe me, nobody talks like that, ever. This language was invented specifically for this film (not a new phenomenon in Hungary), so it cannot be honest in this sense either. With a little malice, I might add that the amateur acting was so artificial that it drove me crazy after twenty minutes. There was nothing in this film that grasped my attention image-, story-, character- or otherwise. This movie has nothing to it, nothing at all. As I come to think of it, if this is Mundruczó's profound reality, he should probably have made a film about nature and animals.


Now some people are complaining about the lack of plot, however there is a plot; a weak one, but yes it is there. Most characters are pulled from Ilsa - The Wicked Warden (another Franco movie) and yet all I wanted was for Dyanne Thorne to play a cameo. As a fan of exploitation movies such as Ilsa, I was hoping this was going to be something familiar. And by 'something familiar' I don't mean the same characters and same set. I'm looking for new torture, new sleaze and the like. Other then super fake electrical shocks there is none of that. Just badly dubbed naked girls who pretend to masturbate. If that's what I was looking for then I suppose I would have to have rated this movie more then a 4/10 but it was a little to soft-core for me. And for that I apologize.


i am not sure with what intention the movie is made.. It resembles to cannibal apocalypse (another ridiculous movie)in the sense of its treatment and cheap thrills. On the other hand it shows up naked women without any reason in it's frames.

the acting, plot, cinematography, screenplay is obviously, missing and you hope that the pathetic background score should have been missing instead. It is that bad. On the acting front, their are just a couple of seconds when you would see some acting on the screen and that is by the warden. when the leading lady prisoner undresses and approaches her, its the look in her eyes which makes you think that a good actress have been wasted.

The effort is so bad that that it get stck up in ur brain as if a chewing gum stuck in hair!!! quite frankly, if u want to show women's bodies and make money, then do just that n do it in a way which makes the experience worth enjoying.. or if u want to show the prison life, show it with some empathy and sincerity.


Can a movie get worse? ever? I bought this movie, not hoping to find great directing or acting. Just nudes and erotica, yet, the BAD acting, BAD directing and lack of anything that shows someone put some effort into making this piece of.. film, was Very annoying. The only, ONLY, good thing about this film is Martine Stedil. Sorry, but Lina Romay just doesn't do it for me. Martine is a Beauty. And you get to see close ups of her 'private' parts! Other than that, the film is Awful. The lack of respect to the viewer shows in every scene. It was like watching a film made for the mentally retarded. Films for children would still be more clever. I'm saying this, and I didn't expect to watch something intellectual or artsy.. just beautiful nude girls being canned, raped, abused, etc. Yet I just couldn't swallow the amount of sh** in this 'film'. 2/10 for the presence of Martine Stedil.


Well, you can't openly declare that you like (or even enjoy) watching this type of movies because then  let's face it  you automatically get a stamp on your head that says 'potential threat to society'. Barbed Wire Dolls is a non-stop series of sex and violence that explicitly focuses on female nudity and sexual torture. The more reasonable reason to be interested in this film is the man who made it. Jesus Franco, the undeniable Godfather of sleaze takes on the ultra-controversial subject of 'Babes behind Bars' here. Franco is a remarkable director to say the least, with over 180 films on his repertoire as a director. Although this 'Barbed Wire Dolls' doesn't come close to his best achievements, it sure is memorable. But not exactly for the right reasons The plot is thin to non-existent, it lacks range and feeling and there's no tension to detect. Even the typical exploitation-music (a must for films like this) is absent. Compared to what you might think, it isn't even THAT gross or nauseating. The film doesn't feature sequences of extreme bloodshed or severe mutilation. Instead, Barbed Wire Dolls only serves a lot of naked female beauty and absurd characters. We have the lesbian guard with obvious Nazi-tics, insane prisoners and fraudulent authority-figures. Oh, and let's not forget the falsely accused heroine and the remorseful male guard. Actually, Barbed Wire Dolls looked ideal to supply with a neutral rating. Like 4 or 5 out of 10but then it got entirely spoiled by the abrupt and idiotic ending. Really, it looks like Franco all of a sudden got tired of it and just said: 'That's a wrap'. Maybe he had to hurry to another setyour agenda is pretty much filled with 180 movies to direct.


Apparently a *construction company* produced this film? Well, that makes just about as much sense as anything.

The movie starts with shots of a Rottweiler attacking a person who is prostrate on the ground. Then, we're at the funeral of a woman. Hester shows up, and her voice is instantly recognizable as that of the actress who played Lily Munster: yes, it is she.

She is the late woman's sister, and she is not well liked by her sister's children.

Hester is rich, and she is angry at her sister and her niece and nephew, because she had had a relationship with her sister's husband prior to their marriage., and she feels she would have been better for him. He died years ago, but she has a place of honor in her house for a photo of him, and she likes to imagine herself dancing with him in slow motion in front of a mirror.

Hester owns a Rottweiler that she brought back with her from Europe. She also dabbles in black magic of some kind. She left a necklace with a pentagram on it in her sister's casket. The dog also has one on its collar. The dog also does things in slow motion.

Hester gives the dog to her niece, and pretends that she cares about her niece and nephew now that her sister has passed on. However, she does rituals involving blood and chanting Latin in order to remotely cause the dog to bring about the deaths of her nephew, her niece's neighbor and boyfriend and others.

The movie doesn't really have any resolution at the end. A real non-ending, not setting up a sequel, but just petering out without letting us know what happened to some of the main characters.


Yvonne De Carlo (everyone's favorite Munster) gives away quite a scary and praiseworthy performance as Hester Ramsey, a rancorous and slightly deranged elderly lady who lives alone in a large mansion with her harshly trained Rottweiler Greta. She holds a *slight* grudge against her family because she's convinced that her sister stole the one true love of her life and now she developed the fiendish plan to use Greta's killing capacities to get revenge. It's a fairly interesting and original concept for an 80's creature feature, but the film lacks tension and there's too little gore and bloodshed. Greta is an astonishingly trained dog, but her skills are still underused and the script at one point even reveals that black magic is responsible for her turning into a merciless killing machine. Why the hell was that necessary? Who needs voodoo to explain the aggression of a Rottweiler? There's nothing as pathetic as wanting to make a horror movie about a dangerous killer dog and then cowardly blame his action and behavior on the black magic powers of his owner. Greta also has voyeuristic tendencies, because she observes a young couple having (overlong) sex not once but twice. Instead of doing that, or instead of electrocuting people in their bathtubs, she ought to rip out throats, dammit! The character of the police inspector provides some comical relief, with his witty remarks and arrogant behavior towards his younger colleagues, but it's just a small positive detail in an overall extremely dull and forgettable movie. Good horrors revolving on murderous dogs are quite a rarity. Top of my head I can only think of "The Pack" and "White Dog". "Play Dead" belongs in the mediocre-to-awful section, alongside "Rottweiler", "Devil Dog", "Dogs of Hell" and "Monster Dog".


I've been after this movie for a while, though mainly because of the cool VHS cover and the fact that Yvonne De Carlo is in it. Well, I finally found a copy at a market. The film didn't live up to my expectations, but I'm used to that, being a fan of low budget horror.

The film is kind of watchable and semi-interesting, but isn't much of a horror film because there are no violent deaths. The deaths are caused by the dog but in very tame ways. The plot also seems muddled and the motivation for the killings is unclear. I found the ending rather bizarre but slightly surprising.

The main reason to seek this film out as far as I'm concerned is the VHS cover (the UK one). It looks good amongst my collection of big box horror films and I love the artwork. Other than that, there's little reason to seek out this film, even for fellow fans of low-budget horror.


OK, this is notable for one thing: the dog is well trained. Oh, and it's got Lily Munster in it (Yvonne De Carlo). This is a low budget film made in Texas and by something called "The Construction Company"? Well, that would be appropriate, I guess, since this possesses all the thrills and chills of framing a house. Seems like this dog, Greta, is a rather sweet and lovable Rottweiler. It also seems like Hester, the character played by De Carlo, is into dabbling with Satanism and black magic and uses to dog to kill off her relatives. I guess I'm a tad on the puzzled side WHY, because SHE'S the one that seems to have all the money, the big house, etc., so I'm not sure what the motive is. I'm even less sure what the motive was for making this movie, really. Anyway, the dog does all kinds of deadly tricks, like a curling iron in the bath tub, jumping out of the seat of a car to scare the owner backward into oncoming traffic, and even strangulation of her owner's boyfriend with the dog leash while he's dozing up against a tree.....and the guy is dead and the dog is lying by his side as though nothing had happened, and the cops are looking for someone that strangled him while a 100-lb. plus Rottweiler calmly lay there? Yeah right. Anyway, this movie doesn't get many points for coherence, but it does make a rather good point at the end: do NOT upset Rottweilers. 4 out of 10.


Not a great deal you can say about a film where the best acting comes from a dog. Yvonne De Carlo is supposed to be creepy and scary as the evil aunt but she was far more frightening as Lily in the 'Munsters.'

The cops investigating the killing done by the aunt's evil possessed canine seem to have acquired their detective skills from a mail correspondence course from the back of a magazine. It's not surprising that they fail to solve the crimes.

It's left to auntie to be the architect of her own doom when she seriously upsets the pooch. Word of warning: if you have 'Satan's Dog' (as my DVD copy was entitled), never, ever get on it's wrong side as it will all end in tears.....

Dull and boring, poorly acted, a waste of time really. Go watch 'Cujo' or the original 'Hound of the Baskervilles.'


As a Rottie owner I have a lot of experience with peoples reactions to my choice of breed. "Oh, he's scary!", "Those are vicious dogs" and "Will he bite me?" are common things I hear on a day to day basis.

Yet nobody has ever asked me if my dog will poison them, electrocute them or watch them getting it on! Why do I bring this up? Because the killer dog in this movie rarely kills anyone the way a normal dog would! For all the killing she does she could just as easily have been a toy poodle! This movie is just ridiculous, and not in the "good" way. Very slow moving story, and considering the subject, very tame deaths. All of the actors are bad, even Yvonne De Carlo. The only bright spot here is the Rottweiler Greta, who has been fantastically trained to do some really amazing stunts.


I really don't remember too many details about this show, other than that it seemed to always be on after the real TV programmes had ended, and that it was pretty downbeat.

James Whale was one of those sardonic, cynical and unfunny type of "humorous" presenters. It was very much his personal show and was the worse for it. I watched short segments of the shows quite often but could seldom endure more than twenty minutes or so. Frankly, I found it depressing.

The only details that I can really remember were guest Cleo Rocas nearly falling out of her dress (James Whale's reaction was gentlemanly) and a great stripper act involving a witch theme, flaming torches and fire breathing. OK, I guess you can see where my mind was... hey, I was young!

I am very surprised to find that the show ran until 1995. Admittedly it did seem to have a run that lasted interminably, but 1995? Perhaps it survived on some ITV networks longer than others.

One thing that doesn't surprise me is the lack of attention this show has received here; as I write this there has only been one other comment, and no action at all on the message board. Such lack of interest is an accurate reflection of the programme. It was just late-night filler TV, cheap and definitely not cheerful.


The snoopy reporter Jackie (Kelly Sue Roth) proposes the television producer Gilbert (Nitin Adsul) to investigate the small town of Buckeystown, Maryland, where in the last twenty years dozen of disappearances have occurred. Gilbert accepts and Jackie together with a cameraman drive to the local inn. Meanwhile, a young couple arrives in the inn since the husband will have a job interview in a video company of the town. Jackie interviews the reluctant locals and realizes that the common sense is that travelers and non-residents are abducted by UFOs in the haunted highway Route 180. However, she unravels a dark hidden secret from the elders of Buckeystown.

I am a fan of horror movies and also low-budget movies, but unfortunately "The Inn" is an awful mess. The concept of the dark story is not bad, with a small town that had serious difficulties in the past and the population to survive eats human flesh and becomes addicted insane cannibals, killing foreigners to satisfy their needs. However, the screenplay is completely dissociated between scenes and without a previous development (and even names) of the characters. The time-line is also confused, mixing day and night, i.e., in one scene it is day, and the next one it is night. The amateurish camera and lighting are terrible, using weird angles, and the edition is illogical. The unknown cast is reasonable, and the beautiful Kelly Sue Roth deserved a better make-up, since the DVD highlights the acne in her face. The movie seems to be dubbed in English, without the use of ambient sound. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "The Inn - Mistérios na Pousada" ("The Inn - Mysteries in the Inn")


School's Out was only a good movie because it was the Degrassi people. I don't think Joey was very convincing as a superstud, and I wanted to shoot Caitlin. Her character used to be all cool and feminist, but in this movie she was a big wimp. But it is definitely worth seeing.


If you're a Degrassi High/Junior High fan, maybe you shouldn't watch this movie. They ruin the lives of just about every character on the show! It is sad and depressing. This movie should have never been made!


I can't really see the point of this film. There doesn't appear to be any reason for its existence. Some criminals take over a house with an annoying family for hostage and from there it goes nowhere at all. You couldn't add any spoilers for this film because there's nothing to spoil. Because nothing actually happens!! The acting is fairly good but it's all wasted really as the poor actors have nothing to work with and just go round and around repeating themselves. So this little 'classic' just spins its wheels for nearly two aptly named desperate hours. Its worth three stars simply because it's a period piece but you spend most of your time looking at the cool cars and the clothes, your mind wandering. Humphrey Bogart does Humphrey Bogart with no surprises at all and although he's enjoyable to watch you just get bored because he's the same in just about every movie you've ever seen him in. I'd pass on this one if I were you.


The three things the creators of this horror wanted to do were:

(1) Photograph lots of beautiful scenery, treating the big screen as a monstrous canvas for near-still photography merging into visual art;

(2) Set it all to avant-garde classical music performed with electronic instruments;

(3) Show the mindless brutality and degeneration that they believe to be the Russian psyche.

(1) and (2) are self-evident at first glance. They're also quite secondary.

And (3)? Well, how else to characterize a movie the plot of which is as follows: semi-degenerate-looking man goes crazy, then tries to seduce a cheaply country-erotic woman; fully degenerate husband of country-erotic woman cuts off finger of girl bitten by dog; neighbors take girl away; woman runs off with man, has wild sex in fresh air; husband burns empty house down to the ground, takes shotgun, shoots cow, shoots man and woman.

Oh yes, and in between somewhere for no reason other than (3) otherwise apparent is a scene of a few degenerates partying away that ends with a woman stabbing someone in the chest with a fork.

And let's not forget the degenerate-looking mental subnormal that drools as he rides his motorcycle, in scene after scene.

Hell, perhaps there's more to the movie than (3).

What it is, I don't know.

But especially in light of (1) and (2), though, whatever it is, it is stinkily obscene.


Despite being lifted from a Hollywood flick Derailed (which wasn't exactly a huge hit), The Train was far from entertaining and so predictable that you didn't even have to be of average intelligence to figure out who is bad & who is good although I've not seen Derailed. The film was supposed to be a thriller but wasn't even a jot thrilling, then what is left? The only good scene was the song Woh Ajnabee with its excellent cinematography. The Music is good and the song Woh Ajnabee is one of the best songs of 2007 but what is the use of good music in a bad film? The story was so simple about Vishal Dixit (Emraan Hashmi), a regular middle-class guy, is settled in Bangkok with his wife Anjali (Sayali Bhagat) and their five-year old daughter Nikki. Anjali & Vishal are trying to gather together their deteriorating marriage. One day, on his way to work, Vishal meets Roma (Geeta Basra), a beautiful woman and that is where his miserable life begins. Overall The Train chugged to a slow pace before it ran out of steam. Neither The Train nor its passengers (viewers) reached their destination. In fact, many of them wanted to pull the chain and jump out of the running train.


Hasnain Hyderabadwala & Raksha Mistry after copying COLLATERAL and making THE KILLER(2006) remake again This time their film THE TRAIN is a remake of DERAILED a film which wasn't that great in the first place

The film looks similar to Emraan's own ZEHER in fact the promos and also the songs plus the adultery theme is so much ZEHER

The film could be a decent thriller but sadly the film comes too late even the chemistry between Emraan and Sayali Bhagat is bad The sub plot of their daughter is good but the rest film however isn't as engrossing

The problem is predictability and also the feeling of deja vu plus the villain's characterization isn't too convincing and the final twist is predictable too

Direction is okay Music is a winner, especially ZINDAGI NE, MAUSAM, WOH AJNABEE Camera-work is good

Emraan is good in his part and is getting more dependable though the role is too similar to ZEHER Sayali Bhagat is weak while Geeta Basra is better much has a way to go Aseem Merchant irritates Suresh Menon is as usual, Rajat Bedi fills the bill


I'm a fan of gay indie film and can usually find something to appreciate in even the smallest-budget movie. But Sun Kissed has nothing, NOTHING to recommend it. A Young Writer rents a house in the desert north of Palm Springs from an Old Queen (both performances atrocious, by the way) to finish a novel. Young Writer gets Cute Neighbor drunk after an afternoon of crazy dancing and hosing each other down with a hose (huh?) and gives him a blow job, and then throws a childish tantrum because Cute Neighbor wants to leave the next morning. Turns out Cute Neighbor may have killed his wife but returns to Young Writer to steal his novel. Or maybe HE wrote the novel. Maybe Young Writer doesn't exist. Maybe wife doesn't exist. Who knows? Who cares? The script is a nonsensical mess that McGuinn tries to pass off a "mysterious" or "arty". It is neither. The cinematography is bad even by the standards of a first-year film student, ranging from washed-out images to trite shots of hummingbirds. Do Young Writer (if he exists) and Cute Neighbor (who may be a psychopathic killer) find happiness running into each other's arms on the sunkissed beach, at the end? You'd have to view this mess to find out, but I'd advise against it.

A final note: at the San Francisco LGBT Film Festival screening, derisive laughter erupted during the most "dramatic" moments and the film was booed. Don't say you weren't warned.


By now, most of the Tudors' historical inaccuracies have been well pointed out; indeed, it's safe to say that the only thing that wasn't changed was the names. Granted, the series isn't good history. But is it good television? Unfortunately, although the Tudors are doubtlessly a visual triumph, they are also a fiasco in terms of pace, dramatic development and characterization  that is, the things that matter.

Tackling Henry VIII's life is no walk in the park; the events of his day can be daunting and a fine line has to be trod between the man's public and private life. It has to be said that the first episodes manage to balance the two fairly well (we get a decent examination of the birth of realpolitik) and do a good job of making 500-year old court intrigue actually look interesting.

But not for long. Apparently someone must have thought that audiences would soon tire of politics and that the only way to keep them hooked is to show costumes (for the gals) and boobies (for the guys). I have nothing against either of the two, but when you push everything into the background to make Henry's sexual escapades your sole focus, most of your plot ends up seeming irrelevant, a filler. The Reformation is a good case in point. Of course, we all know that heresy was a serious issue in those days  and that Lutheranism posed a very tangible political threat for England. The problem is that the series provides very little internal justification for the persecution of heretics; what we get instead is Henry taking a break from rolling in the grass with Anne Boleyn to pen a couple of pamphlets against Luther and a religious fanatic burning books and people. We are effectively requested to draw on our own knowledge to fill the gaps.

Another pitfall is the total lack of character development  something that may very well be the result of poor acting. None of the stormy events of the day (diplomatic crises; wars; epidemics) seem to have any lasting effect on the major characters - Sam Neils' Cardinal Wolsey being the sole exception. Some historical accuracy could have helped here. For example, Henry was 40 when he met Anne Boleyn (20 at the time) and pressed to produce a male heir to secure the continuation of the young Tudor line (he was only the second Tudor on the throne.) Any mention of the above would have added some much needed depth to their story; sadly the series opted for third-rate, sloppy romance that just drags on and on.

All of the above explain why the series suffers so much in terms of pace. The action visibly slows down somewhere in the middle to hit rock bottom during the last part. We see the introduction of several unnecessary sub-plots (Margaret, Thomas Tallis) that don't serve the development of the main storyline at all. The handling of Henry's divorce is also problematic. Considering how many other events were rushed through, was it really necessary to drag this one for so long? And why wasn't the issue resolved at the end? (Probably someone's idea of a cliffhanger ending.) Although the Tudors are great to look at, they are on the whole I found the Tudors uninventive and uninteresting  an no amount of costumes or boobies can compensate for that.


Just like the title says, Michael Hirst should be banned from doing historical movies. His work has a complete disregard for history (just see Elizabeth to figure that out). I understand the need for drama but Tudor History was full of drama without completely destroying the actual facts.

First of all, Henry had two sisters, Margaret and Mary. Margaret married the King of Scotland and Mary (his favorite sister) married the aging King of France. But there is absolutely NO evidence that Mary ever killed her husband. And she didn't die as it was depicted in the movie. She had a daughter named Francis (who was the mother of Lady Jane Grey) with Charles Brandon. After her death some years later, he married a very young 14 year old girl meant to be his daughter in law originally.

Also, they butchered the life of Henry Fitzroy. He wasn't a child when he died, either.

The costuming is good and there is plenty of drama. But it should at least be accurate. Michael Hirst should stick to topics he knows about instead of butchering history for everyone else.


I appreciate that the series tries to give us a look at a Henry other than the fat old Henry of the Holbein portraits. But when Henry looks like he's in his 20s and Katherine of Aragon looks old enough to be his mom, this makes me annoyed.

There were only about six years in the difference between Henry's and Katherine's ages. By the time he meets Anne Boleyn, Henry is 36, Katherine 42. By the time he marries Anne, Henry is over 40, Anne in her 20s. Hellllooooooooooo! Looks like they are not going to age Jonathon Rhys Meyers any in the series ...

You want a good look at a younger Henry, look at Richard Burton's performance in "Anne of a Thousand Days." Henry's active here, mature, and not the fat-tacular wreck he was by the time he got around to Jane Seymour, and Anne of Cleves.

I give it a 4 because of the "Field of the Cloth of Gold" sequence and the spectacular wood and canvas palace. And in 1520, Henry was 29, so Mr. Rhys Meyers is fine for that sequence.


What a waste of a great cast and lots of money! I love historical costume dramas but I was truly appalled at the soap opera-level of this script. There were such great historical events taking place at that time, such as mad King Henry's lust for an heir and willingness to plunge his country into a religious war, betrayal of his wife, intrigues of his court, black plague, etc. Yet we are subject to sex, sex, and more sex every third scene. I did find the Henry vs. the Cardinal plot line interesting, and Henry vs. his wife. But these subjects are dealt with in a very heavy-handed manner, with such obvious dialogue and no subtlety. Part of the reason I love English drama is the usually intelligent dialogue. I felt like I was watching a soap opera like "All My Tudors." You know you are watching trash when the characters keep jumping in bed to keep you interested.

Rhys-Meyers was probably miscast--he scowls and screams and overacts throughout. Sam Neill and Jeremy Northam are good, as usual, It is a shame to see them wasted on such a poor script! I won't be watching the new season.


Rather than disliking this show I'd just say I was kind of disappointed. Being a bit of a fan of the Tudor history I was kind of hoping for an in-depth look at a very complex time in British history, sort of like Ye Olde West Wing. The Tudors could have been a show that dramatically explored what was one of the most intelligent, erudite and politically savvy royal lines this country has ever seen. Instead I felt like I was watching a slightly more sexed up Ye Olde Hollyoakes. As a diversion there's absolutely nothing wrong with that I guess, but we just had Rome, which did it a lot better in my opinion. There's no one thing I dislike about this show, I'm just a little down that it wasn't as "clever" as I thought it could be. Maybe I'm in a minority though. Hollyoakes still runs despite my best efforts so.....


In this historical series, there are lots of inaccuracies, as such: While talking to Wosley, the french cardinal says that Pope Alexander is about to die. Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) died in 1503. Henry VIII didn't became king until 1509. Thomas More says to Cardinal Wosley that he is sorry to hear for the Cardinal Orsini's as Pope. There was actually several Orsini's elected as Pope, but none during Henry VIII reign. The last one before that was Nicholas III (1277) and after that only in 1724 Pietro Francesco Orsini would become Benedict XIII. Several historical sources refer specifically Anne Boleyn's dark eyes, as they were rare in the English court during the 16th century. In the series, Anne Boleyn (Natalie Dormer) has light blue eyes. Henry VIII sends his sister Margaret to marry the King of Portugal. In fact, Margaret Tudor was married to James IV of Scotland. Later she married the Earl of Angus and after that Lord Methwen, Henry Stewart. In 1525 (the year that Charles V armies capture Francis in Pavia, which occurs at the same time in the episode) Portugal didn't have a sick old king. John III was only 23 years old and he married Catherine, Charles V sister, precisely in 1525. It was Mary, Henry's younger sister, not Margaret, who was in love (and later became his wife) to Charles Brandon and was sent abroad to marry a feeble old king. This king was Louis XII, king of France, not king of Portugal. He died 10 years before king Francis was captured in Pavia by Charles V armies (not at the same time, as we are shown in the 4th episode).


Worst Henry VIII as he looks nothing like him

Costumes, excellent,

Sets,excellent . Many historical errors.

We are "Tudor" fans and would prefer more accuracy over the blatant pornography.

I know you do not like criticism, but someone has to face reality in writing We were hoping for a real good historical story with good writing , and accuracy.

That whole episode about the sisters of Henry VIII , Margaret & Mary was pitiful


Showtime's obviously expensive production of "The Tudors" has got its first season into circulation as a set of DVDs. I have seen some advertising on this, and my first reaction was that any series portraying Henry VIII as a lean man with black hair can't be all good. The truth turns out to be worse. It would take a few days of solid research to plumb the depths of this historically ludicrous series.

The fact of the matter is this: if you expect to learn much about Tudor history, don't turn to this historical travesty. Let's start with the most basic fact: Henry VIII had red hair. This is no deep secret; it is one of the best-known facts in English history. The British have certainly got it right in their TV series  how did the people responsible for "The Tudors" miss it? Amazingly, the right actor was right under their noses: Steven Waddington, who played the (3rd) Duke of Buckingham, is not only red-haired, but looks a heck of a lot more like Henry than Rhys Meyers and also has more the right build for the role. Rhys Meyers is certainly a delicious bit of eye candy, and often gets down to at least 1 button below the top of his shorts, but he is far too lithe to be a convincing Henry. Henry's eating habits had already given him something of a paunch by the time he was getting the hots for Anne Boleyn.

Before we continue with the bad news, we can consider the good. First of all, the sets and costumes are very good. True, Rhys Meyers is rather less overdressed than Henry VIII typically was. But overall, the sumptuousness of Tudor dress and architecture is well shown and gives the series a gorgeous look that makes us want to believe there's some attempt here at historical accuracy  which there isn't.

The acting in the series is professional if not exactly thrilling. Even Sam Neill, as Cardinal Woolsey (a name various spelt in the sources) seems fairly subdued. It's a good cast  just not a great one.

The script is fairly well-written  if you can ignore the numerous verbal howlers, usually terms not current in the 16th Century. The worst is probably the reference of the Field of the Cloth of Gold as a "summit". This is a term that had no currency until the later 20th Century and sounds ridiculous in the mouth of Woolsey. There are other solecisms of this sort, but not quite so awful. In general, the patois of the English nobility hasn't got any sort of Shakespearian feel to it, and sounds far too modern. Various epithets, including the "f" word  a favorite of the vocabulary-challenged, were unlikely to have been in use almost 600 years ago. We don't at all hear the favorite of the times, "'sblood". It would have helped if the producers had had a competent research department.

Historical dramas of course have to manufacture a lot  particularly conversations that took place behind closed doors. Manufacturing lies to replace well-known historical facts, however, is far beyond the Pale. There is the matter of Henry's sister Margaret. Now, as it happens, Henry had 2 sisters: Mary and Margaret. Mary married the King of France and later Charles Brandon  by whom she became the grandmother of Queen Jane Grey. Margaret married the King of Scotland and became the mother of James V and grandmother of King James I (and VI). In the Tudors, there is only 1 sister, Margaret, who marries the King of Portugal and then Charles Brandon. There is no excuse for this wanton perversion of historical fact.

At the end of the first season, Woolsey is arrested and conveyed to the Tower, where he commits suicide by slitting his throat. What an absolute insult to history and to the man. Woolsey was indeed arrested, but died of his illnesses before reaching the Tower. As you may know, the Roman Church takes a dim view (to put it mildly) of suicide, and no good Catholic  much less a prince of the church, would ever consider it. The version in "The Tudors" is not only a lie, it is a damned lie.

The series goes on like this, casting truth to perdition and lying about the Tudors and their courtiers at every opportunity. The very name of the series is a lie  how can it be about "the Tudors" when it ignores Owain Twdwr and barely mentions Henry VII? The rise of the dynasty is a dramatic tale that somehow gets overshadowed by Henry VIII's highjinks. I had hopes, when I first heard that this series was coming out, that it would have the good sense to dramatize the background to Henry VIII's reign. Apparently they would rather ignore the background and lie about the reign.

Well, as long as you realize this is almost a complete fiction, enjoy it. It's a good bit of mindless entertainment, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


I loved the first season of the Tudors. It was fun and scandalous and wonderful eye-candy. The second season was a huge let down. While the addition of the Pope and the creation of the Jesuits and the take over of the English Church by Henry made for good intrigue, and Jonathan Rhys Meyers continued to show his prowess as an actor, and the rest of the cast does a brilliant job supporting him, the character decisions made by the creators were upsetting. The gratuitous explicit sex continues, which is no surprise and in itself fine. But the brief respect the writers gave their gay/bisexual men in the first season did not carry on into this one. There is barely a touch between the male couple, Boleyn and Smeeton. Instead of showing a sex scene, or even a kiss, between these characters, the creators opt to make it clear that Boleyn is gay by showing him anally rape his wife. I was so shocked (and offended) by the decision I could not bring myself to finish the series. Up until that episode I had been only half as invested in the season as I had been in the first. And afterward, I decided it was just not worth my time. I was really looking forward to catching up with this show. What a waste.


HBO is renowned for their excellent original programming. Recently, the premier cable channel has gotten into historical drama with the excellent "Elizabeth I" and "Rome." Ever the copycat, Showtime now offers "The Tudors," combining the time period of "Elizabeth I" and the format of "Rome." Too bad it has none of the quality. Where "Elizabeth I" had gravitas, "The Tudors" is deadly dull. Where "Rome" was risqué and shocking, "The Tudors" is just empty-headed and smarmy. It was difficult not to change the channel on this show in the first ten minutes; I cannot imagine plodding through an entire droning, silly season of this. HBO's programs are the products of creators genuinely keen on their subjects and time periods, while this plodding, vapid Showtime program is another lame attempt to mimic a rival's glory.


I can't believe that real actors like Sam Neil and Jeremy Northam got involved with rubbish like this: "The Young and the Restless" in fancy period dress. Little Jonathan, even on steroids, looks more like Justin Timberlake than Henry Tudor. A History lesson for trendy simpletons. There are so many good films of the young virile Henry VIII, as this one touts itself to be, don't waste your time on this inaccurate absurd garbage.

Check out Keith Michell in "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", or Robert Shaw as Henry in "A Man for all Seasons"(1966). Both gave fully realized performances of the young robust king in love. Jonathan Rhys Miller seems more like a petulant male stripper than "The Defender of the Faith" - more like "The Defender of the Fey", in spite of all the extra artificial testosterone coursing through his veins.


I watched the first episode on On Demand last night and I have to say that I was not impressed at all.

First off Jonathan Rhys Meyers was seriously miscast as Henry the 8th. I have seen him do a good job before in other roles so I know that he is not a bad actor, however I just couldn't buy him being the king. Henry the 8th was over six feet tall and had red hair, both of which Meyers is not. Physically he is nothing like the historical persona, so I didn't feel like I was inside the program. I felt like I was watching from the outside and that made it seem very unrealistic.

Secondly, there were too many pretty people cast in it. It just seemed too Hollywood and artificial looks wise. If they had cast people who didn't have breast implants then maybe that aspect would have worked.

Finally, the script was totally off. The dialogue seemed dead and no amount of good acting could save it.

Avoid watching this series, because it really isn't that good. I gave it two stars because I felt generous. If anybody says that it is like Rome they are lying.


Having been a fan of Tudor history for many years, I was highly disappointed by this attempt to depict one of the most turbulent, turning points in European and world history. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers portrayal of Henry VIII of England makes him come off as a lisping, spoiled frat-boy and not the powerful monarch that Henry was. In fact, the entire casting of this series looks like a period version of "Desparate Housewives". The people of this particular time period should have only wished that they looked this good.

"The Tudors" also take generous liberties with actual historical events, characters and costuming. The all too frequent depictions of sexual activity only serve as a distraction to the complex social, political and religious events of the period.

What could have been a very good series is really just a soft-core pornographic Renaissance festival. If you are truly interested in seeing a historical and accurate depiction of Tudor life and events, rent "Anne of the Thousand Days", "A Man for All Seasons" or the PBS specials "The Six Wives of Henry the Eighth" or "Elizabeth R".


Considering that nearly everyone has seen some version of the reign of King Henry the eighth, this shows unbelievably sloppy writing, woeful miscasting in key roles, and reduces the central character to a narcissistic sociopath, and not the deeply flawed but charismatic ruler, scholar and musician he was. It also blithely ignores the speed with which the King degenerated from being the athletic, idealistic, hero of his people to the bloated, diseased, morally bankrupt tyrant he became, as the consequence of his desperate desire for an heir.

The fact that the writers ignored the real drama, inherent in the historical facts, for some cheesy sex scenes with the royal frat-boy depicted, just shows the inherent cheapness of their intent.

Truly the worst historical adaptation I've ever seen. The only good things about it are some excellent actors trying to cope with the dreadful material, and really admirable production values.


Goodness, after my several dreadful hours with HBO's Rome, I thought turning to the Tudors would be a smart choice for historical drama. Except this was even worse. Within 10 minutes of Season 1, Episode 1, I can name countless things that are wrong with the show. The script is intolerably pretentious; the background music comes at inopportune times with a laughable ambition of its own to be more exciting than the show actually is; the elite characters have faces that are more suitable for runway than for drama (lady blount, charles brandon). The producers simply put a crew of Upper-East-Side-ish, plain horrible actors in old English costumes. As much as I like JRM's good looks, he simply lacks the appropriate charisma for the role, and let's face it he and the other characters are way too skinny for the show to look the slightest historically accurate. Again, typical hyped-up, pathetic, American crap.


For the last two weeks, I've been watching HBO's "The Wire" on DVD, which made a big impression on me. So trying to find a replacement, I stumbled upon "The Tudors", thinking it'll be a tale of political intrigue and social transformation set in the 16th Century. What I got was a glossy soap opera interlaced with tit-bits of Cinemax porn, featuring 20-somethings hamming it up while naked. Why certainly the historical costumes and English accents could make up for everything? Call me a rube, but isn't Henry VIII that guy singing Greensleeves in one of those Skittles commercial? Guess he became that way by being such a whiny, angst-ridden little runt when younger, as "Tudors" would have you believe. I might as well be watching "One Tree Hill".


Terrible casting (or wasteful casting), bad acting, and historical inaccuracies (yes, so called history teacher from the U.S., it DOES matter!) Dumbed down, sexed up entertainment for those who would be just as amused watching a gerbil spinning around in his exercise wheel. Lots of action but very little real satisfaction at the end of the day. Hey, producers, here's a thought for you. Instead of trying to appeal to those who know little to nothing about history, why not spin a story for those who could REALLY appreciate it? I really pity the good actors who are attached to this series. Their talents are obviously being wasted. Poor Sam Neil, Peter O'Toole, and others. Too bad they have to be grouped with the likes of Joss Stone and other lightweights.


The Cover for the DVD shows a very impressive Submarine. Unfortunately, the sub in the movie is a very different and extremely inferior sub, nothing like the cover picture. Even though this is a sub movie, 98% of the action take place between humans far from the sub. No Monsters, No Fantasy Elements, just mid 90's direct to video really bad action, with less than stellar players. If this movie had just added some good CGI stuff, it would have been much better. This movie has an ecological message to it, and while important, always brings a movie down. And of course, even though the name of the movie is Nautilus and is about a sub, there is zero connection between it, and the writings of Jules Verne. (What we need are some direct to video/DVD Captain Nemo movies that hold no relation to the books, other than the character and his sub, fighting lots of monsters and stuff.) This movie was less than stellar, but I did manage to make it all the through with out turning it off. The actors failed, but the story did make me want to see how it ended.


"Crack in the World" meets "Back to the Future". An appallingly bad movie, I dare anyone else to see it to the end. I did, but I can't remember what happens. There is one interesting scene where a scientist sees himself commit suicide in the future. Don't think I've seen that before!


There is no bigger fan of ALF the T.V. Series than myself- I realize Paul Fusco was a big fan having created the series however I never would have allowed this stink-filled script to destroy the laugh filled memories of the Alf Franchise.

The first couple of minutes between Alf and Beverly Archer(Harriette Byrd in past episodes) was funny but then the film isn't about Alf so much as Military abuse of authority and the love story of two young Doctors who befriend Alf while he is in captivity with the Alien Task Force. The story line is beyond awful and filled with straight line after straight line. The rest of the original cast is gone- and how many laughs did we get from Max Wrights' dead pan deliveries and exaggerated befuddlement?

There were so many alternative stories after the final T.V. episode why Fusco chose the worst possible direction is beyond me (maybe he was hanging with Jerry Stahl at the time of conceiving this project)

I say to anyone who in later years discovers the Alf television show to stay away from this movie- it is lame unfunny and a pile of steaminess. I compare it to the let down of Highlander 2- it's that very very very bad.


The TV series was as funny as war, and here's a belated spin-off that serves no purpose. The first question has to be: what the hell are Martin Sheen and Miguel Ferrer doing in this? Sheen has a glint in his eye that screams 'where's my cheque?', and they've both made crap before, but they deserve better than this. So does Jensen Daggett, who brightens things up a bit by just being lovely. Admittedly there are a couple of decent gags that should be recycled in a superior movie, but more often than not a tumbleweed will roll by following the sound of another of ALF's one-liners thudding lifelessly to the floor. As TV icons go, ALF just isn't one.


This must be one of the all time worst films that I have ever had the misfortune of viewing.

It appears that the writers did not have their wits about them when they were attempting to develop a plot. They completely destroyed an all time classic -- "Frankenstein." As for the other horror characters in the film, what were they thinking???

The special effects were nothing to rave about either. And to add insult to injury, they didn't have a clue about either geography or topography!!!

What was amazing is that the female lead didn't even twist her ankle while doing acrobatic stunts in high heels!

How far into fantasy do we have to go before we get slapped with a dose of reality?


The Raffle is one god-awful film. It's fascinating to watch, though. Simply because you can't believe anyone would make a movie like this.

It's about two dishwater-dull guys who want to make some money putting on a contest to find the most beautiful woman in the world. The plot has potential for comedy laced with some smut - it fails miserably on both counts.

One thing that is highly irritating throughout the film is that the actors are always laughing or have big smiles on their faces when there is nothing funny going on. I'm not sure if that's because they realize how stupid the film is or because the director is trying to use them as a moving laugh track. If a laugh track is the case, then it doesn't work.

If you're in the mood for viewing some T & A, steer clear of this gem. There is precious little of it. Considering the quality of the picture, you'd think they'd pepper it with female flesh.

The screenplay seems like it was dubbed to fit the mouth movements of the actors instead of suiting the film.

The cheese in this film is constant. There is scarcely a moment that I wasn't close to yakking.

Mark Hammill has a small part in this debacle. Fortunately, I heard he cashed in on the recent Star Wars films, so he probably won't have to be part of a project like this again.

If you are feeling masochistic or want to show film students how not to make a movie, check this one out.


TCM showed the David Niven version of "Raffles" the other night, so I went to check on it in my library and found this movie sitting next to it, that I'd taped years ago but hadn't yet watched. I'd filed it under "raffles" since, at the time, I didn't recognize any of the actors in it. Realizing that I wasn't going to be adding any more movies about raffles to this tape, I slapped it onto the VCR to see if it was worth keeping and re-categorizing.

I don't know how this was edited for a PG-13 rating, but the R-rated version has two interlocking parts. Part 1 is the hackneyed story line. The best thing I can say about it is that the story flows rather well, probably due to good editing. Part 2 consists of a series of musical montages thrown in every once in a while, presumably to advance the story line and wake up the audience. Although they are jarring in context, out of context they are mildly interesting as curiosities in themselves, and they account for my rating this movie a 2 instead of a 1.

As for the cast, the two lead actors play these characters named Lake and Palmer (what, no Emerson?) who hatch the plot of the movie to raffle off a date with the to-be-found most beautiful woman in the world, played by Teri Lynn Rutherford, who apparently never made another movie, so I won't be stacking more of her flicks onto this tape. At least now I have a tape to reuse to record some other junk off the telly. I can't believe I spent my time writing a review of a movie barely worth watching.


The R-rated version of THE RAFFLE is one of the most baffling movies I've ever seen. Imagine a Disney-like movie, with cute acting, and cute this and cute that, but included in the whole thing are shots of full frontal nudity from a variety of bimbos. The effect is truly jarring. The whole film has the feel and authenticity of Pamela Anderson. Is so unrealistic and artificially cute, coy, and Aw Shucks, that one can gag at the whole thing. But the inserted moments of naked women, shot like cheesy Playboy centerfold videos, were totally incongruous with the cutesy aspect of the movie. This gave the film a creepy, sleazy feel unlike anything I've ever seen before, which was kinda cool, in an unintentionally funny kind of way.

The intentions of the artistically-challenged producers are clearly obvious: they wanted a parade of naked chicks. But they also wanted to make a movie that would be appreciated by more wholesome folks by simply re-editing the nude scenes out, and voila, a movie that can be played on some family network. But the characters of the movie, most of them men, are such losers and are so repulsive that a PG-rated version would still look bizarre and something about it would seem askew.

Is it worth watching THE RAFFLE just for the gratuitous nudity? I guess so, if you plan to fast forward through a lot of boring moments in order to see the naked bimbos. In the end though, if you want to see boatloads of female nudity, you might as well watch a Playboy video than this tripe.

THE RAFFLE is one heck of a confused movie.


Four friends facing their demons the summer after college graduation. This movie tries to be more than it is. It's characters are one dimensional parody's of what they could be. Situation are contrived.

The writing is hit and miss. mostly miss. Production values are mostly good, although you do see the boom microphone is a couple of scenes.

The acting is just a bit over the top. Something a good director could have fixed.

Bottom line. Save your money and go see something else.


It is incomprehensible how this footage ever saw the light of day. I cannot believe a TV station would dare air it, even TBN, as just happened in Dallas. This work is so poor, in so many ways.

More recent critiques and comments in this area do offer some needed explanation for the failed script, acting, directing and all technical aspects of this... film. Even low budget indy writers and directors I know, would never make the rookie mistakes displayed here. They are simply inexcusable.

The concept for this script is so lame, I cannot imagine anything making it salvageable.

I cannot even justify a further investment of time to comment on it. What an embarrassment.


Pleeease, no more Suzuki! We've seen enough of his face. All that hot air coming out his mouth - awfully boring. Does not say anything new. Anyone can yak about global warming, it's a fashionable topic and a good way to make money. Where is the real science? Maybe if you are from the planet of Mars and are absolutely new to the topic of Global Warming on planet Earth - then yeah, you can watch this movie.

Perhaps these movie producers should shift their attention to other topics. Overpopulation is a good choice. But please, enough with the arm-waiving already. And next time include some solid facts and references.

I gave it 1/10 cause it's boring, it's been told before a million times and it barely relies on facts.


In 1600 the world population, for the first time in the history of mankind, reached 1 billion people. This doubled in 1860 to 2 billion people. Then in 1960 this doubled to 3 billion and then it accelerated to 4 billion in 1976. Right now we are heading towards 7 billion people and they all have to be fed, need schooling, want things we all want. I do like warning documentaries but they should tell the real problem and that is overpopulation. Of course politics won't burn their hands on this problem because of the powers of religions but the real problem are Too Many People, that is why the wild animals are leaving, dying out, there is not enough space.

In this documentary, the same as Al Gore's, has many faults as global warming has nothing to do with mankind. Throughout the 4.5 billion years of history of the earth, climate has changed all the time. Greenland used to be green, pools have changed and Ice-times followed by warming up is part of the earth history. And we cannot stop this, we are living on a very violent planet, nothing is stable, earth quakes, volcanic eruptions, changing of magnetic fields, drifting of continental shells. Pollution is something we can stop, overpopulation we can stop. Climate change not. Of course with Global Warming scam, taxes can be raised without protest, trying to stop population grows is dangerous for politicians.


I really wonder why movies like this still come out. Global warming is a #1 issue for years now, at least at the citizens. I guess, if you believe in the danger of the warming, you don't need to watch this. Cause it basically says, what you already know. If you don't believe in gl. warming, you won't watch this movie anyway. The politicians and industry bosses should see this.

DiCaprio isn't really doing anything, he just appears every 10-15 minutes to hold a small monologue, but it's clear enough, the movie just needed a famous face to sell it. The whole movie is just 10-15 people standing in front of a dark background and talking. While they are talking, documentary footage is shown. I have to say, after like 20 minutes it became really boring and uninteresting to follow.


Leonardo. You must have seen the acclaimed documentary "design-e2"On PBS. Look for their new upcoming series. The edit and story far exceeds your film. An Al Gore remake is not a smart thing to do.Even if you bring solutions. (Al Gore failed in this). Google; design-e2.com Or go to; kontentreal.com See you on the big screen.You are a great actor. Your intentions are good as well. But Hollywood is a bit to much for me these days. Narration for documentary is fine. Self promotion like Mr.Gore is too much. Also there is so much more that we are learning on a daily basis (Facts) you could have included in your film that were not seen. Anyhow, Nice try but a bit to much like packaging and finalizing a ongoing problem. Kind regards.

Rob Stella.


There is always money to be made and political power to be gained by sensationalistic fear-mongering - which is exactly what 11th Hour is all about.

These fear-mongers claim that we're heading down the wrong path and that we're all going to die. Well then, if our path is so wrong...

Why is it that people in industrialized nations are healthier and living longer than at any other time in history?

Why is it that industrialized nations enjoy a higher standard of living than at any other time in history?

Why is it that our biggest health problem in the USA is that we have too much food and life is too easy?

How can our air and water be killing us when we are thriving on it and living longer and healthier than ever? And as if that's not good enough, why is it that, in industrialized nations, the air and water quality is always getting even better?

Why is it that the air and water quality and the environment are cleaner and healthier in industrialized nations than in our third-world counterparts?

How can ours be the path to over-population when the populations of industrialized nations are either steady or slightly decreasing?

Why aren't the unindustrialized, third-world nations a threat when their populations are increasing exponentially?

Why shouldn't we expect global temperatures to increase since we are still coming out of the last Ice Age? And has anybody noticed that the temperatures of Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also been steadily increasing? Over 90 percent of Earth's history was warmer than now.

The only threat our present path will bring is a threat to the power the elite try to wield over the "little people." Films like The Eleventh Hour try to keep us in fear and obedient to political authority. Don't be a useful idiot and don't buy into this crap.


I'm sure people will try to pass this off as a brilliant piece of camp perfection, but let's not kid ourselves. This movie was painful to watch, despite the bizarre satisfaction of seeing Les Claypool attempt to act. I got the impression that the initial filming was silent, and that the dialogue and sound effects were poorly dubbed on later. Seriously, unless your tolerance for utterly atrocious physical 'comedy' and dialogue that a dyslexic 6-year old could have spat out is ridiculously high, then you have no reason to watch this horror of a production. The sole high point would be the 'POWER MOST BIG' line, but they manage to repeat it enough to make it lose any comedic power.


This movie is sooooooo bad.....but that part when the bad guys are torturing Lou-Z and start cutting up his toupee is just too funny--I could not stop laughing!! You gotta see it, just for that part alone!


Director Frank Tashlin stretches his anything-for-a-laugh method of comic film-making to the breaking point with this very weak advertising send-up (with equally dull romantic-confusion underpinnings). Tony Randall seems the wrong actor for the part of struggling ad-rep Rockwell Hunter, who gets a buxom beauty queen to shill for a new lipstick--but at a price. It's supposed to be a riot, but Tashlin, who also adapted the script from George Axelrod's play, can't seem to bring the material (both farcial and cynical) into a cohesive whole. It's full of prankish jokes and questionable taste, but the episodic results are loud and forced instead of funny. There's a satirical, promising opening sequence (brightly prodding the TV commercials of the era), but the movie steadily loses steam from there. *1/2 from ****


Watch Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? for the opening credits -- they are a hoot! While Tashlin did a great job "opening" it up, the tone was uneven and Rita Marlowe had me scratching my head.

She is this Sex Bomb who turns men into jelly with her oh-so kissable lips, but her fans are teenage girls! We never see a single male swoon over her! Rock never wonders why April has pictures of Rita plastered all over her room and not Elvis or Ricky Nelson, or even Pat Boone?

Rita complains about how she finds these hunks and turns them into stars, only to have them leave her. Little wonder, as Mansfield give us no clue how this walking squeak-box has the power to make or break anybody! She Goes Gotham to make her latest "protégé" jealous. But he not only does not take the bait, he predicts she'll crawl back to him on her hands and knees! As it turns out, she never loved him to begin with! What was the point?

Which leads me to my main beef: Rock swears up and down to Jenny he loves her, yet clearly enjoys the perks that go with being Lover Doll. He becomes such an egotistical jerk, the level-headed Jenny getting worked up over Rita makes zero sense! And the "lesson" we're supposed to learn - success is what makes you happy - comes across as totally self-indulgent and insincere.


Watching this movie, I thought about the television series Seinfeld. This movie too is an offbeat version of mainstream humour and both are set in New York. More pertinently though, both rely on contemporary references to be funny. For their times, both seemed fresh and cool.

Well, taken out of its 1950s period, this movie is not funny. The humour is grotesquely lame. (I have a suspicion that in 40 years, people will not find Seinfeld funny either.)

Jayne Mansfield is probably more famous for her death than anything else. Tony Randall desired to be a stage actor but ultimately was successful in a TV series. If you like either, you should see this movie. Groucho Marx has a cute cameo at the end. His presence reminded me that good comedy is not dated.


The reviewers had written very positively about this film so I went with high hopes. Possibly too high, particularly when Hollywood is producing poor quality films aimed simply at getting butts on seats. So this is supposed to be a return to quality stuff is it ? Sure it had lovely sets, costume, shots but where were the real characters ? Where were the insights into human behaviour ? It brought nothing new to me at all and I couldn't fathom what it was saying at all. Simply because it was saying nothing. All the characters was far too simple as were the scenes, dialogue and structure. And don't start lecturing me that this is how it was in the 50's. I grew up in that decade and saw films like 'Look Back in Anger', 'On the Waterfront' and 'Rear Window'. Surely what was needed was to bring more characterisation and development of the story, not less. Heaven help us all if this is seen as Hollywood getting serious.


Far From Heaven has been explained as a "woman's film," and a "surefire tear jerker," but in fact it's intended for the kind of woman who would cry at the sight of a washing machine that wobbles a bit during its spin cycle.

Todd Haynes has lovingly perfected the surface of this film with the skill of a master mortician. However, beneath its perfect surface, it's equally dead. All of Haynes' energy has gone towards recreating the details and trappings of a past era of (let's face it) relatively minor film making, and there's no energy left to imbue the characters with power, believability or any trace of interior life. Therefore, Kathleen can utter ridiculous lines some "ice please" after she's just been belted by her husband and, without losing her pasted-on smile for a second, can make chirpy little jokes about her husband's disgustingly ugly drunken behavior at the party that she has spent most of the film (and perhaps most of her life) planning. As game as Moore's acting is, her character is like a windup doll.

Quaid's part is even worse. Although I like him as an actor, he has no clue how to portray the inner conflict of a gay man trapped in a suburban marriage, trapped in the 1950's. For someone who feels "despicable," he somehow has no difficulty ogling a cute blond kid in full public view -- in front of both his own wife and the kid's parents. And though he's already been caught by both the police and his wife in flagrante delicto, he has no problem getting it on with the blond boy in his hotel room while his wife reads Cosmo by the poolside (we don't see this happen, but it's clearly implied). This is simply ridiculous.

Dennis Haysbert's character is forced (by the script) into similarly disingenuous behavior. We're expected to believe that he's a Miro scholar/botanist/MBA and man about about town, yet he somehow thinks he could bring a whiter-than-white upper class woman into a "negro" blues bar and the patrons would be "really friendly"? And he's surprised when his fellow Blacks shower him with the same one-dimensional hatred that all of Kathleen's friends shower upon her?

Haynes seems to view the 50's as if they occurred 1000 years ago; the characters seem not so much as from a different time as from a different species. The result: a potential story of tremendous personal conflict and suffering ends up a curiously uninvolving pastiche, although one in Amazing Living Technicolor. This is perhaps the only film ever made in which the leaves are more alive than the characters.


There is even less that is original in this film than in Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho. "Far From Heaven's" story, cinematography, set design, costumes, actors' appearances and music are virtually identical to Douglas Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows". Does Todd Haynes have no voice of his own? The film crosses the line from homage to plagiarism. The only innovations here are to make the gardener black rather than white and the husband gay rather than dead. Sirk's concerns with female sexual desire and inter-class romance, have given way in Haynes' remake to the over-discussed issues of racism and homosexuality (yawn). I give it a 1/10 for Haynes' lack of imagination.


This is a very long Carol Burnett skit with Carol playing the role of Cathy an uptight 50's housewife who discovers that her husband Frank played by Tim Conway is a little light in the loafers. Soon Cathy finds comfort in the arms of her Negro handyman played by Harvey Korman. At first Cathy is spooked to find a Negro in her garden - in fact she is surprised at least THREE times to find a Negro in her garden. On a vacation in Miami - Frank falls head over heals for a pool boy played by Lyle Waggoner. Vicki Lawrence plays Eleanor - Cathy's nosy best friend. The laughs come hard and fast as Cathy and Frank struggle to make sense of their soap opera lives.


This is the kind of movie that sucks the fun out of going to the cinema. Why sit through this kind of drivel when you can watch the original "All That Heaven Allows". This movie hasn't an original idea in it except to put everyone's guard up for the Politically Correct times we live in. Complete garbage, the cast is wasted. It's very depressing when you come out of the theater more subdued than when you went in, and this movie will do that to you. Hopefully, the director will not get another chance to "remake" any other director's original visions.


This is without a doubt, one of the most disappointing movies I have ever seen. I had high hopes for it based on the cast and the Oscar buzz it received. It was indeed beautifully shot and the set dressing was perfection. However, that was as deep as the movie got. It was as superficial and stilted as a 50's commercial endorsement. Are we actually supposed to buy that people spoke and behaved in this mannequin-like manner, simply because that was what the era "dictated"? So much could have been really done with this subject and nothing was. A real pity.


If Todd Haynes intention was to lull us to sleep with the shallowness, closemindeness and already well documented mores of the fifties he succeeded. I for one can take only so much beautiful scenery before I start to get irritated from the LACK of a REAL story and "unstaged" acting. From all the hype of this film and hearing that Todd Haynes was a genius I really was expecting a lot more than a animated Norman Rockwell Painting. Really, Todd, you have a great future as a designer or landscape architect, but PLEASE no more movies like this. Nolie from South Africa said it much better in His/Her review a few days back "exquisite to look at but more than a little flat" and "stolid affected version of Pleasantville for the faux Hollywood cineast crowd, people in love with themselves as much as the film makers are in love with their product" I grew up in the fifties and their was more REAL drama going on in my neighborhood and in the lives of my family and my neighbors in a single afternoon than in the entirety of this "FILM".


Sadly, this is about as close as the Discovery Channel comes anymore to producing educational programming. At least they TRY to make this somewhat educational, but this is really nothing more than a science-based sitcom/reality show. "MythBusters" is a lot like a less educational version of "Beakman's World".

So many of the myths they supposedly work so hard to "bust" are laughable and incredibly obvious: Could a construction worker hang onto a piece of plywood and parachute five stories down to the ground? Does cola make a good toilet cleaner? Can a playing card be thrown hard enough to kill someone?

I thought their myth about a postage stamp being able to bring down a helicopter was one of their most comical myths. For crying out loud, the wind does more to alter the position of the helicopter blade than the weight of a stupid postage stamp would!

Why don't they just ask if the "Jaws" music is played when a big shark is swimming near you. If people are actually watching this show to find out the answers to these questions, these are some really dumb people.

This show is nothing but a silly game. The myth that this was actually a worthwhile science show is now busted!


I watched your documentary sir, and i can say I was very impressed by your skill to destroy a country like that. Sir, the country is not as poor as you depicted it, you've been here and you know that. You are quite aware of all the efforts the king is making towards the welfare of the people of the kingdom, but you decide to send a different picture to the world. WHY? True there are poverty stricken areas in SD, but Moneni was the wrong choice.First, because it's a township under the town council not Gov. secondly, the water you showed is not the water they drink, you just chose a dirty pond for livestock and that is evident in your documentary as you showed the cleaner water they use for their laundry. phew!!!!!

Your documentary is not the true reflection of the people and the beautiful kingdom because it doesn't give different views so it appears that it is a tool you and your friends(lousy political parties of Sd)are using to spark violence in the kingdom. In the documentary, no one is speaking on the side of the king but he himself, who will believe him? We wanted to put our views on that doc. Eish!!! that was very undemocratic 'sir'.

Sir, you need to know that the people who always cram the stadiums on the His Majesty's call are not doing that only because they love their culture but because they seriously love and support their King. Would you love someone who hates you? Would you listen to lying lips telling you they love you if you know exactly they don't? Actions speak louder than words, and never at any point will you hear the king telling his people he loves them - ACTION. But they just love him.

Watch during Traditional ceremonies, almost 10% of the population goes there. Just last week, we had the people's parliament and people crammed the place to forward their views. Then watch during these rallies which are against the king, you will see the nation standing on pavements just looking at what is going on.

Sir, you know exactly that the whole nation is in deeply in the king's heart. you have spent much time with him while making this documentary which HE allowed you to and innocently answered all your questions giving you perfect answers. I think He should be on fire if he does not do anything about this documentary because it is not an insult to him but the whole Swazi nation, so if he really loves us , he should protect us from such.

Lastly, it is serious that the luxury the king is enjoying should be watched with open eyes but honestly speaking, it is not true that that Swaziland is poor should be seen in the king's eyes. That he should attend all international duties without food in the stomach because the Swazis are hungry. The people of the kingdom don't want that. Just like any other head of state, so should our king appear, period.

Look I stay in swaziland but, Where is this fleet of limousines you are talking about?


"For the Birds" is only a three minute short film with a well deserved big award, the 2002 Oscar for Best Short Film, animated. I completely understand why, "For the Birds", one of Pixar's most recent short films won the award. Though I found Pixar's earlier work to be more enjoyable and humorous, such as their shorts from Toy Story 1 and A Bugs Life, it still was fun to watch and suitable for all ages.

This film is a perfect example of karma, how your negativity can back fire on you. It had many built in messages, most of the hidden ones recognized by the older audience, but children still get the same type of impression of what is going on and why the outcast, goofy looking bird was left out of the group of all the other birds that looked alike, because children start to build social groups at younger ages than what most people would think.

The introduction animation was amazing, how the letters flowed along the telephone pole wire in front of the blue sky with extravagant white cartoon clouds, it gives you a good feeling of what your about to watch. The birds were creative, short, chubby, but with an annoying repetitive chirp, they were also a bluish color and odd looking eliminating questions like, "What kind of birds are those?" when it shouldn't matter and isn't something that should be bothersome or a mystery.

I thought "For the Birds" was hilarious and a small three minute segment that can keep people talking. I would recommend it to anyone, especially children, though there wasn't any dialog the humor came across just as good or even better as if there was. But without dialog small facts to embrace the film can be difficult to get across. No one would know until they read about the film that four of the birds on the wires had names, Chipper, Bully, Snob, and Neurotic, and they all acted out their personalities, there was most likely no possible way to get that across unless they added something in the beginning where they introduced the birds but that might have took away from the comical value. I also don't think the title was appealing, it sounds kind of awkward and I didn't see the connection to the film.


I'm afraid I'm out of step with popular opinion on this one.

My recollections of the series are largely critical. It featured a capable rather than first-rate cast, who were condemned to struggle with those banes of British television: an inadequate budget and a melodramatic script. Both of which are far more debilitating than any virus.

The melodrama is there simply to make up for the shortcomings in the finance department. So, we are treated to needlessly verbose confrontations, and hysterical shouting-matches.

Given its budgetary constraints; there was about enough mileage in the idea to run for a 6-part serial. After that it might have perished with honours. Unfortunately, it was allowed to outlast its value and quickly descended into a soap opera. Perhaps I should say soap-less opera, considering how scruffy and squalid everyone and every thing seemed to be. There were tiresome digressions with people going away on obscure adventures, whilst lovelorn individuals would eventually go off in pursuit of them. These crusades and searches became the mainstays of the series in its later incarnations. Even its creator, Terry Nation, walked quietly away from its death-bed before the plug was finally pulled.

Nope; I have no fond memories of this turkey. But anybody with a penchant for disease-induced end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it-situations that bore your socks off, could do no better than to get their hands on 'Virus - The Director's Cut'. That's actually made in Japan, and comes with a standard Nipponese 3-year warranty to 'do your 'ead in', as the Cockneys say. Sometimes it's marketed under the more apt title of 'Fukkatsu No Hi'. I couldn't have put it better myself.


So this is the infamous Troll 3. Would you look at that? Nothing's happening! No trolls anywhere to be seen here! That's only one reason why this film SUCKS!

It's not one you can watch alone because part of the fun would come from joking about it with someone else. Watching by yourself is just torture! TOR-CHAR!

Maybe this movie should have been called "The Living Dead who Refuse to Rot" because the majority of the "actors" talk like zombies! Like the Sheriff character. Oh my goodness! Here's probably one of the worst actors to ever be in a non-porn movie. And I thought the mother in Troll 2 was bad! But he's not the only one! The boss in the power plant and just about everyone here is terrible!

Worst line delivery: "Ok, doctor we'll just evacuate the entire country before you can say Jack Robinson". Actually anything said by the sheriff makes you want to kill him. He's amazing in the sense that every single line he says sounds exactly the same!

There are no little creatures here, no trolls, no goblins, no nothing. Whoever renamed this movie to "The Crawlers" and removed the "Troll 3" name shows me there is hope for the world after all. Because this movie HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TROLLS!

They must've saved a lot of money by using killer roots instead of creatures.

Who finances this kind of c**p and why? I can only think that the targeted audience is that of non-english speaking countries where the people are used to dubbing.

I bought this (for $3.75) expecting at least the fun I had with Troll 2 because in spite of that movie's long list of shortcomings it had some very funny elements. None of those elements are present in Troll 3. There is however a hysterical scene where the killer roots kill a man in a suit who's chasing the "hero" with a gun. The guy takes forever and a day to die and he screams pathetically through it all.

Troll 2 had a little boy and a monster on the video cover, neither of which were in the movie. Troll 3 has a sexy girl on the "Crawlers" cover who, you've guessed it, is nowhere to be seen in the movie.

Troll 3 just plain sucks.


I'm prompted to write this review because my cable company is promoting this... feature film... as a PAY PER VIEW. I kid you not.

Let me open by saying that it's not the worst film I've even seen. That honour goes to US Seals. It's not even the worst horror; there's a dubbed Swedish monstrosity involving terrified cats being thrown at bored actors that just (JUST) edges out Crawlers.

Let's count our blessings though. The production company that "funded" this movie is an Italian outfit that thankfully hasn't managed to branch out beyond the likes of "Troll 2" and "Quest For The Mighty Sword (aka Ator III: The Hobgoblin)". And both of the writers had never written anything before - and haven't written anything since. Let's be thankful for that.


I don't know what to make of the title "Contamination .7" or "Troll 3." I saw this on video as "The Crawlers." There is nuclear contamination in the movie, but the figure ".7" and what it might mean was not mentioned (that I caught), and there are no trolls in the movie, but I haven't seen Troll or Troll 2, so I can't comment on what it might have in common with them.

The best thing about this was the cover of the video box. It has a pretty good illustration. Actually, the DeSoto was pretty nice too.

The movie starts dividing our attention between two young women on a bus. One gets stranded at a small gas station, while the other is returning to her small town home after having left it and her fiancé when she was in high school. For some time we keep cutting between the two of them, which is awkward.

Most of the acting was pretty poor, unfortunately. The Sheriff and his deputy, the nuclear plant's executives, goons, and whistleblower were are particularly bad. The threat in the movie is roots which have been contaminated by radioactive waste. They're now extremely long and carnivorous. What isn't clear is if they are just roots crawling around like worms, unconnected to anything, or if they are the roots of some tree or trees that are likewise mutated. We never see.

At one point, the townspeople show up to fight the roots. How that came to happen is not explained. Inexplicably, their solution is to find the barrels of nuclear waste that had been dumped in the forest and dig them up and put them in their trucks. They start to do this without any protective suits! Another solution is to bury the barrels under even more dirt, which doesn't make much sense either. Why the roots would stop attacking, or why they would die, when the barrels are carted away or further buried is entirely unclear.

The ending is particularly bad. It involves two horror clichés: the end that is not an end, and the freeze-frame.


Yes you heared right. This is the third and (God help us) final entry into the Troll trilogy. But before I drone on about this film, let's review. Troll: A little girl is possessed by a troll and turns everyone in her apartment into foiliage. Troll 2: A little boy is pursued by GOBLINS! Not trolls. Troll 3 a.k.a. The Crawlers: A small town in Alaska (?!) is being wiped out by killer weeds. Do you notice something? No film has anything to do with the one that preceeded it. In most cases THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TROLLS! Now on to The Crawlers. It's cheap, it's boring, it's stupid, it's fake, it's out of print (thank God), it's got to go. I have to move on now, I'm far too upset.


What can I say about this movie?It's simply an utter garbage.The plot is completely idiotic(the killers roots on the loose)and the acting is lousy beyond belief.The special effects are laughable,the gore is non-existent.Very similar to "Seedpeople" but even worse.So if you are a fan of sheer stupidity rent this in pair with "Sorority Girls and the Creature From Hell".I am sure,that you'll laugh till it hurts with this turkey.Otherwise avoid it like a plague.


The pain felt while watching this movie is almost life changing. From the acting, writing direction, and god awful special effects, this movie failed on every conceivable level. Now, this doesn't mean you shouldn't watch it, of course. After all, it's rare to find a film that can serve as fodder for so many jokes.


Big city girl Josie (Mary Sellers) has just arrived back in her small Alaskan hometown for an extended stay with her mother and kid brother, and decides to possibly reconcile with her former high school boyfriend Matt (Jason Saucier) while she's there. Down at the nearby nuclear power plant, illegal chemical dumping (part of an obligatory and half-assed cover-up subplot) has resulted in animated, super-intelligent, radioactive tree roots that are killing everyone off. Victims include an obnoxious sheriff, a female hitchhiker passing through town, a farmer and his wife, a hooker with a heart of gold and a gas station attendant and his pet dog Chester. The roots mostly just trip or strangle people and make a hilarious whip-cracking noise whenever they attack. They also make a (toy) helicopter explode by pulling it about two feet to the ground. During the film's one and only bloody scene, the roots go into a guy's mouth and then poke the eyeball out of a mannequin head. And that's about all she wrote with this dull-as-dishwater waste of time, which would be totally forgotten by now if not for a misleading title change linking it to the notoriously awful camp classic TROLL 2. So be forewarned, no trolls make an appearance in CONTAMINATION.7 (aka TROLL 3). Hell, there aren't even any goblins.

And unfortunately, while TROLL 2 failed in an enjoyable awful way, this one fails to reach that film's same level of redeeming unintentional hilarity. Though thoroughly inept, it's also boring, clichéd, slow-moving and far too tame to really be enjoyable. The fact they used inexperienced local "talent" to fill out the cast, along with providing these laughably bad amateur thesps with truly rotten dialogue throughout the film, is the only point of possible enjoyment, though even that got old quickly.

Probably best known as THE CRAWLERS here in the States, though the version I viewed was titled CREEPERS. Don't know if that's a cut version of this film or not, but I highly doubt it. I'm also not sure of Joe D'Amato's actual involvement since his name (or "David Hills" for that matter) is nowhere to be found in the credits. Only one director is listed and that's "Martin Newlin;" the same alias used by Fabrizio Laurenti for the Linda Blair/David Hasselhoff film WITCHERY (1988).


The Crawlers (USA) Troll 3 (USA) Troll III: Contamination Point 7 Creepers (UK)

Creepers, Crawlers, Contamination point seven, you can call it whatever you want. But please don't call it troll 3! If it wasn't bad enough that Troll 2 didn't have any trolls in it, Troll 3 doesn't even have anything that resembles trolls in it. I suppose in some perverse way, this means that it fit's in quite well in the series. It is as proportionally less like 'Troll 2' , as 'Troll 2' is unlike 'Troll'. If you get my meaning. Let's quickly recap the plots

Troll: A troll enters a block of flats, and one by one turns each apartment into a magical woodland, and all the people into elves. A boy called Harry Potter learns magic (!) from a witch and attempts to save the day

Troll 2: A group of nasty vegetarian goblins attempt to lure unsuspecting humans to eat their green goo, in order to turn the people into vegetables to be eaten. A young boy and his dead grandpa attempt to save the day.

Troll 3: A town is attacked by a mass of evil radioactive tree roots, and as people are killed off, our heroes try to hide the nuclear waste and attempt to save the day.

Now to say that they all have nothing to do with each other would be a tad unfair. As you can see, there is a definite running theme of anti-vegetarianism/ environmentalism. Yes, in every movie it's all things natural that become the source of all the suffering.

Creepers, in the end, however, just doesn't live up to the standard set by it's predecessor. It is generally very dull, with awful acting, toy bulldozers, no SFX (with the exception of a tree root winding through someone's face). But the film does set up an interesting thought. Just exactly what would 'Troll 4' be like if it were to follow in the trend of this series?

So basically it would have to have fierce anti-plant themes to it, and leave some people in peril, who save the day by doing something ridiculous

I'm thinking flowers. A backward red neck town gets attacked by a gang of mutant sunflowers (or whatever), and the locals group together and make a plan to save the day by blocking out the sun, killing all forms of chlorophyll-induced life in the area

So there we have it  Troll 4 in the making.

Oh, and back to troll 3, it's entertaining in a bad way, but don't expect a Troll 2 style masterpiece

Conclusion, Worth it, but only for completion purposes.