I'm no ultra hard-core batfan, but love Batman I do. This film just left me feeling a little sick.

I heard about this from someone who was drunk at the time, and expected some sort of satire. At first, with such horrendous acting and Bats getting crotch-zapped (while wearing a rubber suit?) there was no way this wasn't a joke.

As it became clearer that they were honest to goodness serious, everything just got confusing. There's so many ridiculous plot holes that I won't even go into them, but the director seemed to address a few of them by simply having the junkie protagonist or antagonist or whatever he was supposed to be make mention of them. "How ironic that it was I and not the Joker to catch you." "You're not trying very hard to escape, master escape artist." The contradiction of Bats's basest character elements is never explained further than that.

I'm not a fan of rape in general, but seeing it happen to Batman, and especially in such an irrelevant and syntax-lacking way, is something to shake you. It's like seeing Mr. Rogers, or the Power Rangers, or the Street Sharks, or whomever your childhood heroes may be getting...well, getting raped, I guess. And it begs the question (particularly being that this is a "fan" video) who walks around daydreaming about what it would be like if Batman got raped? Why was this thought in place? This was 28 minutes of my life lost. I wish I could explain that in clichéd heroin metaphors.


Spoilers* Terrible terrible! Horrible piece of Crap! (And I'm not a by any means a picky guy, there are only a handful of movies i don't like, or don't appreciate in some way). Not only is the thing poorly written, it is just a bad idea! Its supposed to take a real spin on the whole superhero concept, but fails miserably. It has some whiny junkie capturing Batman then proceeding to beat him, inject him with drugs, and rape him. Then the guy who captures batman reveals that the Bat sent him to prison wrongfully cause his car broke down in front of some drug bust. Junkie shoots himself, Batman breaks and kills himself by intentionally O.D. ing on heroine. Forget all that just take into account that batman is stun gunned in the groin by the junkie and thats how he's captured. Interesting that batman is stunned through a rubber suit huh? Considering electricity runs through rubber so well. Further batman plays with the guy by beating him up, oops cause thats how batman always operated, by feeding his ego and beating up some worthless junkie while the Joker is on the loose. Terrible waste of time, and a crappy waste of money for the writer director that i wont even bother learning the name of. For great comic shorts particularly pertaining to Batman. Check out Batman:Dead End, or Grayson. Any fan, or someone with sense at all will avoid this trash P.S. Don';t let the open minded bull-crap fool you. This movie was just a bad idea. Nothing open-minded about it, It only guilts people into saying its good so that they feel smart of have an open mind, at least thats the only reason i can think of for someone to like this crap.


This was the most ridiculous piece of wasted media I have ever seen. Warner Bros. and DC comics should team up, and sue the writer/director of this garbage. Come to think of it, anyone who has ever been a fan of Batman, should sue this guy. First of all, he has Batman being felled by a scrawny junkie with a stun-gun and a well-placed kick to the Caped Crusader's groin. (I guess the old body armor doesn't extend south of the utility belt.) Then, the little thief chains up the Dark Knight, gets him hooked on heroin, and SODOMIZES him! Hey, guess someone finally found the secret entrance to the Batcave! (rimshot) The actors did what they could with really bad dialog, and I'm sure everyone worked really really hard to get the project done... But, why?


Batman is a detective; he wouldn't make a mistake by thinking the punk was part of the gang that he had busted. and batman couldn't be taken down by a tazer. it wouldn't work on his suit, plus bruce wayne is prepared for eventualities. batman/bruce wayne isn't cocky("I hate it when they put up a fight"). even if a tazer had some effect, it wouldn't make him unable to make a move against the punk. bruce blames himself for his parents death so he wouldn't kill himself because a punk took his own life, or kill himself because he was raped/got aids. and he certainly wouldn't OD. he wouldn't lower himself to that level. the film's story is dark(the only good point), but too dark to the point of lame in how it portrayed batman. the person who made the film obviously hates batman and wants to discredit the character(and is probably more of a marvel fan). it should not have been made.


This is an extremely Poor Excuse for a Film,Batman or Otherwise.There are many Batman Fan Films out there and You'll find some Excellent Ones on Youtube like "Call Me Mr.J" and "Batman:Dead End".This Film looks like The Director tried to be Tim Burton or Christopher Nolan but was closer to Joel Schumacher.

First,Lets look at the Illogical.How could a doped to The Eyeballs Junkie take down a Vigilante in Peak Condition.His Taser would not affect the Batsuit and,even if it did,Batman is an expert Escape Artist and a few Chains could not Hold Him for Long.He is also a Genius Detective.How could He make such an obvious Mistake as thinking a College Student was part of a Gang? Furthermore,how did The Police not figure it out? Of course the Argument could be made that it is illogical to apply Logic in a Fantasy World.So lets look at the other Flaws.The main Villain,for Instance.While I think I can see the Tragedy in a Superhero being killed by a no-Name Thug,perhaps a Reference to Bruce's Parents,The Villain does little else than Moan of His Lot in Life.His Anger is Justified to an extent but is Batman Responsible for His Subsequent Prison Rape and Drug Addiction? Then there's the Bat Himself.Here He cracks Spiderman's rejected One-Liners and displays a Cocky Attitude.

On an Interesting Side note,This Film stars Louise Bale,Sister of Christian Bale,Arguably the Finest Actor to play the Role.That may Distract You enough to avoid the Awfulness of this Film


After Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher, here comes one. A franchise died in 1997, but this one sort of personifies that. The premise was good, the cast was good and the darkness quotient was fine. But the director should not have been explicit about certain matters. The ending should have been refined. There was no consistency in Batman's character and no effectiveness in the combat and counter-combat sequences. Other than that, this had the makings of a tolerable film. And please, do not make Batman appear so ineffective. There should have been a fight. Or if the director wanted to kill Batman with a whimper rather than a bang, he succeeded.


Anyone who's seen any of these Batman fan-films knows they're dime-a-dozen. Every one of these directors has their own take on the Dark Knight. Everyone's gotta add their own little twist, evidently. That's great, I understand the concept of adding a little to an already well-known franchise to make it your own. This director decided that killing off Batman wasn't flashy enough, so he adds anal rape! Sounds great, huh?

Apparently some whiny criminal, who enjoys blaming everyone else in existence for his problems, captures Batman with the ole taser to the peepee trick. I guess years of training couldn't possibly prepare Batman for a slow-moving junkie with a taser. And really, why would Batman even bother to protect himself in that area?! Once chained up, the criminal is kind enough to share his drugs and some man-lovin' with Batman. See that's the part where the crook gives Batman a taste of the hard life that he endured because of Batman. Because we all know that once you go to jail, you are immediately hooked on drugs and have sex with men. And it's always Batman's fault. I guess the director figures anyone who goes through injustice is entitled to act like a raging lunatic.

Yada yada yada, a bunch of pointless & poorly delivered speeches happen, the criminal does everyone a favor and blows his brains out, and Batman uncharacteristically kills himself because the director thinks this is a brilliant plot twist. Then you see Batman lying in a coffin in full costume. It's hilarious.

In short, the director probably never bothered to research anything about the character. He probably found a second hand Batman suit laying around, and thought he'd show everyone his awful take on Batman. This may sound harsh, but this film is really that bad. Aside from the absurd plot, the acting is embarrassing to watch. Every line, especially from the criminal sounds forced. If you walk away from this crap feeling anything other than disgust, you have issues. No amount of BS film student excuses can save this film. It's just poor taste in every form imaginable.

The director's message in this film seems to be: "If your life is difficult, you should blame others and take drugs. It will be justified."


Oh my God! It was a miracle this movie was made! You have not lived until you have seen this movie. You have not lived until you have seen Batman violated! Whoah! This cowboy needs to hold his horses! I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me start at the beginning. I was looking for something on Batman Begins only a couple of hours ago and I found something in the list: The Death of Batman. Curious to see what it was, I checked it out. I read some reviews and some posts; the vast majority seemed to hate it, but some seemed to like it (probably recovering from some horrible experience, like loss of limbs or death of entire family). I tell you now this movie deserves to be neither liked nor hated, but to be loved. Loved! I looked the title up on Google and went to the movie's site. I clicked on Movie and it to me to Youtube. I watched the 28 minutes of bliss.

I didn't feel that way at first, though. At first I couldn't believe how awful it was! The acting was just terrible! But I've kinda always had this philosophy (it only works with some movies, unfortunately): Acting doesn't matter if you have special effects. I had to change that philosophy for this movie: Acting doesn't matter if you have nothing else. There are no special effects in this movie; there is no good acting, no good writing. By rights this movie should be condemned to hell.

But, wait! There is one little detail I am forgetting. A little scene that changes it all. A scene I like to call... The Butt-Rape Scene! During an Entertainment News report about Batman being the sexiest man in Gotham, be sure to look up in the top-left screen (you don't see any parts, but you know what is happening.).

I don't like gay sex. I really don't like it when it's forced on someone. I am no pervert. But after the god-awful performance from everyone in that film, you can't tell me he didn't deserve it! I laugh at his well deserved punishment! It was awesome! This scene happens about 11 or 12 minutes in, so after that it goes back to suck. But, this movie has achieved a new level of suck that I call Supa Suck. I can't offer the makers anything but kudos. They made a movie more entertaining than an old man strung up on a flag pole, forced to dance the jitterbug.

Oh yeah, and Batman dies and no one wonders why Bruce Wayne is never seen again.

Incredible.


I understand the movie was fan based and the script was written with prior knowledge of the batman comic, cartoon and movie series. The character of batman is highly complex and possibilities to play with are infinite. However, this mortal human being is and immortal character whose sanctity is profaned by killing him on the screen.

As mentioned in the above post, he has several instances where guilt from the death of several close partners and family has built up over the years. As the character has been developed by other script writers, we have come to realize that he, after a while, does not blame himself completely for all these deaths. Though they are the reason why some changes have been brought about in his actions; introspection leads to the development of wisdom on account of which he is able to continue fighting crime, even when he is incapacitated by old age.

His strength does not lie as much in his physique as it does in his internal character. Years of training cannot have him addicted to a drug. The very concept of this is unimaginable. Rash decisions(heroine) and the usage of several of those tag lines in the beginning is not the Batman developed in detail over the years. Moreover, we saw no use of any gadgets by the dark knight. Gadgets are what bring him at par with his colleagues Superman, Spiderman, etc. They are the reason he cannot get himself into a situation created by an ordinary, off the street criminal.

On the whole, credit must be given for the making of a decent short. However, the idea and script are rashly written giving no thought the brilliance of this character developed by writers over this millennium.


Voodoo and mad science experiments on a plantation in the 19th century. In the tale of two brothers and a mother running the plantation, the mother is of the opinion that the madness of the family should end with them. One son isn't certain and has sent for fiancé. Gothic nonsense results. Woefully talky "horror film" plays like an Andy Milligan film on a bigger budget and with a better sense of framing a shot. The film looks good (even in the poor copy I saw) but outside of that this is a chore to get through. The plot is so all over the place that it becomes silly, especially with the twists that occur. The performances are equally uneven from fine to you must joking histrionics. Nothing compares to the endless inane dialog that just bores. Recommended only for insomniacs.


"An insane scientist has been experimenting with the transfer of souls between human beings. The crazed doctor has conducted his nefarious deeds upon even his own family members, including the exchange of his own soul into his brother's body. With his soul now inhabiting a new body, the madman believes he can continue his experiments uninterrupted," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The title "House of the Living Dead" may be more an attempt to cash in on prior successful motion pictures than a reflection of what goes on in this movie. The story might have been above average, with the cast and crew involved; but, the execution is severely flawed. The lugubriously languid production picks up (slightly) in the last quarter. Leading man Mark Burns (as Michael and Breck) tries awfully hard; he maintains an long screaming scene remarkably well. Shirley Anne Field is a welcome attraction. But, the movie doesn't work.


It starts out really good, with a lot of elements and characters laid out to build suspense and great atmosphere, but by halfway through it narrows itself down to characters seriously wondering if an escaped stallion is behind the murders. Yes, a horse. And it tries to achieve a feel of all Hell breaking loose at the end with some psychedelic lights and crazy acting which both miss the mark. Worth seeing once, but I consider it to be to period-piece Hammer horror films what Space Mutiny was to Star Wars.

Oh, and in a dinner scene about halfway through, our heroine wears an outfit that somehow achieves an insupportable cleavage-to-breast ratio. Science geeks may want to study this scene just to see if they can figure out what laws of physics her corset's breaking. Really. Seriously.

Recently bought this in the Nightmare Worlds DVD 50-pack. Not sure if it's gotten its own release.


A pair of hooray henries and their cold wives, who take part in the London to Brighton veteran car rally, decide to race it back to London.

Another commentator is right on the button when he says that we the audience do not care who wins because both antagonists are childish. That is exactly the way I felt. Many of these British comedies of the forties and fifties are remembered with fondness. By whom? This is just another example of an idyllic home-counties England run by an elite who can afford to indulge in puerile sports like racing veteran cars. We see it in other films, where things like traction engines are raced.

If you are a fan of Larry Adler, you will enjoy the soundtrack, but if you have an IQ higher than your shoe size then I don't think you'll miss this film.


Why are British films so over rated? This film (which may be obscure to most people outside the u.k) is considered a classic by the British public and some critics. I was looking forward to watching it, even though I have grown wary of British films with the 'classic' tag attached. Probably 90% of these films I have found to be over rated and inferior to their Hollywood equivalents. Now don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of Hollywood either, but compared to British films, they are generally much more entertaining and less self conscious. Anyway getting back to 'Genevieve', I found the experience of watching this almost painful. For a supposed comedy it is very unfunny. The Oscar winning(!) harmonica score is annoying and so are the performances by the lead actors. This film tries so hard for the whimsy of, for example the ealing comedies but fails. One thing that really got on my nerves was the constant laughter of the two male competitors, which makes them sound like complete morons. I think the British are very biased when it comes to their own films. Thats the only explanation for immature and extremely CHEESY films like this getting the classic status.


This film is, in fact, not a comedy at all, but rather one of those light entertainment films which is classified as a comedy simply because it's not a drama. It's basically a road movie, since the vast majority of the film takes place during a classic car drive to and from Brighton in England. Two somewhat friendly rivals participating in the annual event, one of whom drives a car called Genevieve, decide to race each other there, taking their reluctant wives with them. Most of the purported humour in this film consists of each car taking turns to break down. As one car breaks down, the owner of the other car drives past and gloats, only to have his car break down soon after and the other car start up again. This happens many times during the race to Brighton, with the lead changing each time.

The highlight of the film is the night the couples spend in Brighton - more specifically, the mildly entertaining musical item performed by one of the wives, who turns out to be quite an accomplished trumpeter. During the stay, there is some suggestion that one of the wives has had an affair, but the characters are so entirely dull and the rest of the film is so shallow and plotless that this sub-plot fails to offer any redemption. After the night in Brighton, the couples simply race home again, making the second half of the film just as unfunny and boring as the first half.

I try to avoid vitriol in my reviews, but in this case I must make an exception for the sake of an accurate summation. This is one of the most appallingly unfunny, unendurable, pointless, excruciating pieces of cinema I have ever had to sit through. Every attempt at humour goes down like a lead balloon, there is hardly a story to speak of and all of the characters are cardboard cutouts. Clearly we are supposed to be on the side of the couple riding in Genevieve, and yet both of the couples are so intolerably immature and unlikable that it's impossible to care at all about who wins the race. If you like intelligent films, then avoid this at all costs. If you like mindless fluff, then there are still a hundred other pieces of mindless fluff you'd be better off watching than this rubbish. I tried to like this film, especially given all the positive reviews on this site, but save for the nice cars, I found nothing whatsoever to like about it.


The best thing about this film is Aaron Webber's portrayal of 13-year-old Emerson. I'd recommend keeping an eye on his career in the future.

I found it preposterous that a lad of 13 would desire his teacher. Could someone please explain to me what is appealing about this older man - as far as I can tell, nothing. If the teacher were younger and better looking and the student 16 instead of 13, this movie might be believable. It is hard to get into a movie that is implausible out of the starting gate.

Canadians take pride in their movies because they are often freer and more daring than films made in the U.S.A. But one can be simply sordid and pointless instead of courageous and honest. The film-maker should do something with this greater freedom - not proclaim it for its own sake.

For all its supposed bravery, this movie is surprisingly conventional with regard to its depiction of the human body: The female lead is shown fully and plainly nude, whereas the father and the son are ever so carefully posed to avoid equivalent frankness. How traditionally sexist.

In "Whole New Thing," the viewer is presumably "liberated" from hackneyed, conservative American stereotypes. But let's take a closer look at the characters here: In place of sexually crimped, over-zealously religious parents trying to retard the sensuality of their teenage children we get a careworn, pot-smoking couple - a withdrawn, tepid man and his sad, adulterous wife; in place of a restless, dutiful youth shackled by legalistic restrictions on his behavior we get a kid who has no trouble lying about his intentions because he believes the lie will help him manipulate a much older man into having sex with him; and instead of an uninspired teacher limited by narrow, parochial thinking we get a guy who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to cruise for casual sex at a rest stop. Are any of these free-wheeling replacements an improvement over their safer, more traditionally drawn counterparts? Is the indignant radical's cry really, "Liberate me so I can be sordid and miserable!"?

There are seeds of a high-quality, courageous film in "Whole New Thing," but they are never watered or cultivated. For example, there is a passably good-looking kid who harasses Emerson verbally and physically at school. At one point, Emerson asks him, "What is it you want?" But what if the film-makers with their Canadian courage explored the psychology of the bullying? What if Emerson punched back with gusto, held his own in a fistfight and then asked the question: "What is it you want?" What if the bully desired Emerson? (This is certainly more plausible - not to mention more innocent and age appropriate - than Emerson desiring his teacher.) How would such a relationship develop? Would they try to date? Would they meet secretly? How would the relationship affect the other kids in the school? The film might even flash forward to a committed, long-term relationship when the boys are older. Surely this would have been more interesting and daring than the somber radicals we're presented with in this movie.


...perhaps in a first year film school nightmare??... I'm not really sure where to start with this one. Perhaps I should talk about why I think this 90 min+ miracle of Canadian cinema could have easily been condensed to a 10 min (that's even pushing it) mediocre short film. Or, perhaps I should talk about the the character of Emerson and my fascination as to why people think this kid gave a great performance. Yes, that'll do. This was a TV movie, a lesser episode of Degrassi Junior High (sorry Degrassi for making this comparison, I still love you), an After School Special. This was not fresh , this was not original, and this in no way gave me confidence in my Defending Canadian Cinema argument I sometimes bring out when there's an awkward silence at parties. All I can say is don't see it, don't waste your time, and strive to expect more from us Canadian filmmakers. We need less praise for our mediocre achievements (Sarah Polly anyone?) and more accountability for our government funded mistakes. Enough said. ps. Daniel MacIvor, you did your best and played your role with heart, for this I thank you...but then again you also wrote it, so I'm still upset.


This is one of the really bad films I have seen lately(thanks for the gratuitous nudity!). Beside the poor acting and lack of authenticity in the representation of the Bulgarian hunk, the meager Spaniard is regretful, the whole plot is brave but lacks back up from the cast and director. The generalizations about the Bulgarians are so hmmmm...general that they should be found offensive by anyone who is Bulgarian. (My friend is and she thought it was awful too). There are so many loose ends and discrepancies, the cast and acting are so naive and not convincing. The Spaniard who supposedly is a big fish and has a consulting firm is so dumbfound with love or desire for the BulG hunk, that he looks like an idiot. The solo shots of him looking at the camera and trying to deliver some sort of documentary feel to the movie do not fit, there is nothing that can save it.

Don't waste your time and money to rent this.


The movie is not only terribly boring, but it is a pain to watch: BANAL, BIASED, NO STORY, NO MEANING. It is a good idea for any director to first study the culture and mentality of a country before staining the name of a whole nation. The representation of Bulgaria is simplistic and one-sided. No doubt any Bulgarian would feel deeply offended by such distorted representation of his country. Second, the movie is more than explicit when it comes to male nudity. Nobody would mind to see a couple of passionate love scenes, but it is beyond the call of duty to have Dritan Beba (by the name of Kiril in the movie) walk around naked all or most of the time. Finally, the movie is simply dragging since there is really nothing happening. Even though the actors are believable in their personification of homosexuals, they are simply not convincing when it comes to human emotion. As a whole, the movie is a complete waste. I couldn't finish watching it and I guess nobody in his right mind would unless he's desperate to see gay porn.


I can't for my life understand what's so appealing about this show and how on earth it has such a high rating.

This is a type example of a show which just have gone on and on, years after it should have been canceled. The plots are utterly ridiculous including possessions by Satan, evil twins and mind control through chips operated into peoples brains. This is what happens when the writers run out of ideas and take to bizarre stories just to keep the show running.

Unless you're a fan of bad acting and ridiculous plots you should stay as far away from DOOL as possible.


I started watching this in high school and it used to pass the time. Now with Tivo I watch 6 soaps (Y&R, ATWT, GH, OLTL, AMC & DOOL)... out of all the soaps, Days is definitely the worst BY FAR. It's uneventful, boring and slow. Really naive and repetitive story lines. They drag nonsense out for months and even years sometimes. I literally fast forward every episode, to the point that it takes me a minute to understand the point of the whole episode. It's just dreadful. I was so excited that the Dimera storyline finally ended years ago, but now it's back. WHY? The Dimera storyline is so horrible and boring and unrealistic. Days really needs to pay attention to General Hospital and see what a soap can do... it CAN be fast-paced and engaging!


Natural City is plain awful. Possibly one of the worst cinema experiences I've had so far. Not only are many story ideas badly stolen from scifi-classics such as Blade Runner or 5th Element, but the whole scenario is so pathetic and kitschy that the viewer is constantly fighting slumbering away. Mr Min Byung-chun, if you don't have any good ideas for a movie then leave it be but don't torture audiences with a horrible rip-off of good movies!

The CGI sucks, the dialogue is repetitive and boring, the actors are terrible throughout and the action finale is an endless joke. Stay away from this garbage!

1/10 points.


Professional football was all the rage in the 1970s and a phenomenon Hollywood recognized. Several football movies were made in the 1970s (and some non-football movies, like ROLLERBALL) which were inspired by the violent sport's massive popularity. NORTH DALLAS FORTY was made to satiate the thirst of avid football fans to see what they weren't been shown on regular television broadcast: drugs, violence, sex and cursing. So ND40 basically plays like a voyeuristic behind-the-scenes look at what goes on in a professional football team. My favorite such scene is the party at the beginning. But in this context, the film looks positively dated. The fact that there are almost no African American football players in the team should tell you how dated it is. And the idea that a player is being hounded by the team's owner because he's too much of a rebel reeks of that silly and ubiquitous anti-establishment theme seen in too many movies of the 1970s.

The actors do what they have to do with the script. Most of it is forgettable. Dayle Haddon (remember her?) looks like Sylvia Kristel's frosty sister. And Nick Nolte and Mac Davis basically play themselves. BTW, it's nice to see that Nick Nolte looks as bad in this 1979 film as he does (25 years later) today.


Okay, so I've heard of the litany of accolades this movie has received. I've heard how this film is a "black comedy" by the Coen Brothers, who supposedly are geniuses in the film industry. And I've listened to friends discuss how creative and wonderful the film is. But none of this, I repeat, NONE OF THIS, is apparent in this movie. What I watched was a film confused at whether to be serious or comedic. And in making up its mind, both elements are fused together in a twisted fashion with an out-of-place Canadian humor.

Basically the story is about a car salesman who needs cash...fast, so he pays a couple of guys to kidnap his wife so that her rich father will pay the ransom, thereby getting him the cash he needs. Well, all goes to hell as the kidnappers end up on a killing spree with a cop questioning all possible leads, including the car salesman himself.

If in fact this film was based on a true story (as indicated at the beginning), I would be horrified if I were close to one of the victims. The Coen brothers make a strange mockery out of the deaths of the victims portrayed and deter the audience from taking the film seriously, instead giving them a quasi-mental hypothermia with the serious/humorous dichotomy. And even if this film is not based on a true story, it is so poorly directed that I just felt like I had wasted my time going around in circles. But yet I'll walk out my front door and everyone will still be applauding this satirical trash. Sigh. What did I miss here?!


I am sorry, it may be a 'work of art' as some have suggested here, but Fargo is the most BORING movie I have ever seen. You just can't care about the characters, the plot, anything! The only way my friends and I could continue to watch after the first hour was to MST3K it, shouting comments at our TV screen that at least kept us amused. There was a whole lot of snow..a bunch of really 'meaningful' scenes including snow. Some more snow. Some person who was so pregnant she could hardly walk, but seemed just fine stalking down the rabid killer at the end...oh, and she was in the snow when she did it. Then there was some more snow. I think the snow had a really bad accent, but I cannot be sure, because eventually I couldn't even stand looking at the screen to see who was saying their incredibly banal and annoying lines. Fargo is boring. Fargo is bad. Never watch Fargo, not even to put you to sleep. It just isn't worth it.


This movie seems to suffer from a low budget. The writing is okay. The plotting was okay. The actors are okay. The special effects are weak. All could have been better. This movie could be compared to Anaconda, but replace the snake with a killer crocodile. Swap out South America and see Africa instead. Unlike Anaconda, Primeval makes a social statement about the political unrest in Africa. In the back drop of filming a crocodile documentary, political unrest and murder is happening all around them. Where this movie suffers is the pacing. It starts out slow and isn't even interesting until the crocodile appears. Once the crocodile appears, that's really all you may care to see. Unfortunately, the special effects are too obvious and the crocodile acts fake and looks fake. It's only at this point that the movie even gets up to the quality of Anaconda which also had fake looking effects.

Orlando Jones as Steven Johnson brings a welcome light touch of humor to an otherwise serious movie. Brooke Langton as Aviva Masters brings a welcome touch of beauty to a dirty and unattractive African setting. The other characters aren't quite as appealing.

This movie is worth seeing, but just barely. Wait for the DVD.


I have no idea why, but from the cover and short summary in back, I thought that Primevil might have been an entertaining horror film. I'm not really into crocodile stories, they usually don't work, but for some reason this one looked very promising. When I started watching it, I kept checking the cover just to make sure I was on track, but the story just seemed to get lost somewhere. Now I don't mind different stories, but the cover promised something else and I wasn't even really that entertained or moved by the story.

Basically there is a killer crocodile in Africa, apparently he is a big one to be very frightened of. So an American crew of reporters wish to capture the beast or get him on film so they can help these villages and become famous more so. But there is another major problem that takes the story to a completely different place, where there is a huge war going on and starts to terrorize these reporters and one by one they are killed off before the crocodile gets to them.

Primevil would have had good potential for a horror movie, but it just went in an intense turn where you had no idea where the film would take you. The script was also in some ways done in poor taste and wasn't well thought out, like I'm not offended easily usually when it comes to racial jokes, but Orlando going on about slavery in Africa went a little too far and was ridiculous. The acting is so so, not the worst I've seen, but the effects are not that impressive, a warning in advance. But if you would like to check out this film, please feel free, but I wouldn't really recommend it.

3/10


Primeval, by all means, isn't a terrible movie to the point where it is unwatchable and receiving so many negative reviews. It actually starts off quite well and shows promise, but when the movie more-or-less forgets about one of it's main stars - The Crocodile - it slips into a boring movie about a group of people being attacked by angry African soldiers rather than being a movie about a group of people being killed off by a big nasty croc. The movie is meant to be about a news team, including Dominic Purcell, Brooke Langton and Orlando Jones out to catch a giant croc by the name of "Gustav" that has tormenting local villagers and killing. However, the movie soon turns into a movie about, well lets just say, a lot of angry men in the African jungle firing bullets at the news team and killing them - with a crocodile thrown in the middle of it. That is what I feel the main problem is the movie - The Croc just seems to randomly pop up in the middle of a shootout and take out some of the characters. It's like a boring, slow movie "action" movie in Africa...then a crocodile just pops up occasionally and brutally kills off someone and gets in the middle of it. It's a shame, as the croc in the movie seems like a nasty, big croc - but it's wasted and gets less screen time than you would think. This made the movie boring and dull, and not what I was expecting - after all it is supposed to be about a crocodile. The acting, on the other hand, is actually good - but the characters aren't. The characters are completely boring and the only character who I'd say is likable in the movie is Orlando Jones' character as he provides a quick couple of laughs. Every other character is just dull and unlikeable, but like I said - the actors do well with what they are given. The movie isn't all bad though, the crocodile is quite nasty when it pops up, there are one or two nice, brutal kills, some laughs and good CGI for the crock - as well as like I said before, good acting and a good cast. But the movie is just ultimately boring and slow, and while it's not the worst of some of the crocodile flicks I've seen (*cough* Crocodile), it's not the best and it is far from the best - but actually not as bad as people are saying to the extent of getting so many 1 votes. It deserves a 4/10 from me and no more, no less. Wait for late night TV or pick it up when it's a bargain...but either buy some alcohol with it or watch it really late...cause it is one boring flick and you'll probably fall asleep due to it's slowness. Not recommended, and disappointing.

4/10


After a noted scientist is killed by what can only be described as some sort of beast an expedition is sent to track it down. Dealing with their own problems, conflicts, and the fact they are in country torn part by civil war.

The film starts as a typical monster flick with an intense death scene and a hint of political agenda. It then proceeds to be a typical creature feature with some decent gore and terror, but the political agenda brought up subtly in the beginning resurfaces and the film becomes mismatched. Fans of gore and horror will have fun with the gore and horror, but the political theme is sorely out of place. It is hard to say that it is irrelevant, because if it was well developed it could serve as a decent metaphor.

Godzilla, for one, is a monster metaphor - the bastard of the nuclear age. Here that is what the film tries to do with Gustave - the HUGE killer croc. It fails - whether it is noble failure or pathetic failure is ultimately up to you - but the failure to intertwine themes and idea throughout the movie results in this mismatching. Things just seems to appear out of nowhere, like a long sequence where the main beast literally disappears from the film. It was right there in the previous scene, but for a while it is gone. Then it is conveniently back for the conclusion. In a funny way this seems to be a monster horror flick from the Sci-Fi channel that has the seriousness of "Blood Diamond" here and there. That just doesn't work, folks. Metaphors and themes must be a pervasive presence to work. --- 4/10

Rated R: graphic violence/gore and profanity


I went into this movie expecting voodoo magic, an evil curse, and a dark scenic setting. The preview leads you to believe that there will be some form of monster in this movie and there is but unlike the previews lead you to believe it turns out to be a basic giant crocodile. After you discover that in fact the monster you're chasing IS the giant crocodile you're greeted with some humanitarian green piece film that will annoy you to death. The most memorable characters die and the film feeds us a surprise "plot twist" which is more like a plot flop. This film gets a deserving D -, but I will say that it may make a good rental on a buy one get one free night; and it did provide me with a few moments of shock. Finally the films ending made me laugh uncontrollably so I guess it wasn't all bad... just mostly.


Killer Crocs and Gator movies are a dime a dozen for every "Alligator" there is "Lake Placid 2". However the concept of a very violent and aggressive Crocodile movie gets me a tad excited. Unfortunately for Primeval more hopes were dashed as we get a tad to much comic relief and way to much political/civil war story and not enough Croc action.

The story is about a news crew who are sent in to South Africa to capture a 25 foot long killer Croc dubbed "Gustave". Unfortunately for us the film-goer there is a civil war that has broken out which we are surrounded with for much to long of the stories running time. Be it the tribes in the area or the military men that are with them the movie just really wanted to hammer that fact home, with the Crocodile as the side story. We do get the Croc and when it was on screen it was a bad sucker unfortunately they opted for more CGI then you could shake a stick at but it was not of "The Mummy/Mummy Returns" crappiness so I guess we can let it slide to a point but would a prosthetic monster Croc be too much to ask for in some of the scenes as it would have been more effective.

The shame here is that the whole myth and legend of this creature was very cool but ruined by the fact that we hardly see it for most of the running time. I believe total there is about 20 minutes at best of Croc action. The rest well you get the point. I highly recommend getting the original "Alligator" or the lesser known Austrailian Croc film "Dark Age" as they are more effective and you get to see what the movie intends for you to see...Croc and gator action.

In the end this is a waste of time, it really is a "just there" movie with a few good Croc scenes (the cage scene comes to mind). If you have seen all the Croc movies and want to see another well have at it but for the average horror movie/ nature amok fan this one is just not that good.

4/10: Below Average: A few Croc scenes that are good otherwise a lame excuse to shove info on South African civil war at us.....go figure?


It's odd. Every time I go to see a good movie, there is usually no more than fifteen other people in the theater where I go (ex. The Fountain, The Prestige). But it was absolutely packed for this horrible piece of garbage. Peole actually expected a good movie. Then again, I couldn't blame them. It is, however, about a mutated crocodile that kills hundreds of people. My main complaint about this movie is Orlando Jones' ridiculous, unfunny one-liners that happen about three times per scene. Even though some of the action sequences are kind of interesting,(with the civil war and all), and the special effects are okay, it just doesn't make up for the film's garish cheesiness (seriously, when the crocodile was chasing Orlando Jones through an open field, was it supposed to be serious?). You would probably be better off seeing The Hills Have Eyes remake if you're in the mood for some senseless violence. Primeval, however, just doesn't cut it.


3 votes are also for good camera work for initial 30-40 minutes of movie.Its bad movie,its really very bad movie.Don't waste your time as well as your mood and your next day by watching this movie.

It starts on well,have some very spectacular visuals of Africa,but it disintegrates,disorients thereafter.Its very good example how you neglect most vital part(rather say it soul)of movie that is SCRIPT and ends up most boring movie ever made.Storyline simple,leave it nothing to say more about it.I usually watch horror flick for special effect ,but it is not the case here.It seems director avoids such situation where special effect needed,if its there though very few which looks really primitive as compared to other Hollywood movies.I think it could have been better,overall its bad in all aspects except photography.


This movie wasn't very good. It brings nothing new to previous giant killer creature films. The plot is nothing great. A few news reporters are sent to a poverty stricken, war torn African country to track down a killer crocodile called Gustave. So of course not only do they have to fight the croc, they are also in trouble with the local war lord.

The croc resembles something from a sci-fi channel TV movie. It just looked very fake. And the few scenes that showed the croc were very fast and blurry, it was hard to tell what was even going on. There is little blood and gore and it certainly isn't scary.

FINAL VERDICT: Poor special effects. Not even good enough to be one of those B movies that are fun to watch.


we snuck into this movie because it was the only thing playing that wasn't night at the museum. i should have just killed myself instead. this sucked. there was nothing good about this.

i knew it was going to be cheesy from the previews but i wasn't prepared for how bad it was going to be. right away we see the main chick with a jacket on with nothing on under it while she was at work. yeah, okay i guess shes the office whore. then they goto Africa because there is a crocodile thats been killing people for like 60 years. and it has to be the same one, there's no way in hell it could have been multiple ones. anyway there's also a dictator who has the same name as the crocodile which also causes some problems. (i guess they realized they couldn't make a 'good movie' with just a crocodile so they needed more crap) then the crocodile kills a baby.

one of my favorite scenes was when they meet the hunter and for like the next five minutes all his dialog was exposition. there was some good writing there way to develop. my other favorite was when they meet the shaw-man and hes like having a spasm. i couldn't stop laughing, it was so funny.

anyway then they set up the trap that never works and of course it doesn't cuz the crocodile like knows to knock out the cameras and flip the cage. then we left cuz we couldn't take it anymore; the only reason why we stayed that long was because we thought the chick was going to get naked (i found out she didn't).

everything is bad the direction, the story, the suspense, the characters, the acting, everything. it was clear that all the actors were doing this for the money. i was shocked to see orlando jones in this movie. i hope hes doing OK.


this was the worst movie ever....i can't believe i paid to see it... this movie tricked you into see it by claiming "based on a true story of a serial killer still at large" please...very very mad...i really would like to beg people to not see that movie...they'll thank me when they see it on tbs in a couple of years or something...and one more thing why did the black guy die??? a black guy always dies!! and since the movie started i knew he was going to die..and what was that whole slavery was a good thing?? idk.. i just think this movie didn't have any high points at all. i should have gone and seen Arthur and the invisibles or something other than primevel!!! but seriously the main guy only had like 20 lines in the movie what was that about??? if you are reading this please donate the money you will spend on the ticket for this movie because it'll be put into better use, cause trust me it will not entertain you at all!!!!


It's funny, this movie had two subplots but not an actual plot to keep it going. One about a killer crocodile and one about oppression in Africa. Yet neither is what you went to see the movie for. I expected a human serial killer movie with African attributes, not Jaws. From step one I was hoping that the crocodile was a red hearing, but alas. The movie even eluded to how much it was going to suck by the first scene where the actor says "nobody watches shows about alligators" (paraphrased). And as if to let the audience know this was simply a recycled Jaws the cameraman said "This is Jaws baby". Don't waste your time or money even renting it, let it go, don't contribute to such blatant deceit in movie advertising. I actually left the movie angry.


I just recently saw this movie expecting it to be good and was definitely disappointed to find out that the killer was nothing more than a crocodile. The really sad part is that the sub-plot (the warlord stuff) was better than the main plot. That's pretty sad in my opinion. It was pretty decent with the gore, but it was still kinda disappointing to me. It was also too predictable. I like movies where I'm wrong when I guess what comes next. This one, my predictions were always right. Everything from who gets killed next to the warlord's true id and everything. I know that I gave this movie a 4 and that I am complaining a lot about it, but the gore was pretty good and the sub-plot was pretty decent, so that's why it gets at least a 4.


What a colossal disappointment. Another movie with a great trailer that cons the naive movie goer. I would nominate the trailer for an Academy and a lawsuit for misleading advertisement. this is just a bad movie. It has an unimaginative plot, cheesy character development, lame action sequences, and an ending guaranteed to frustrate even the nerdiest gore-aholic. Save your money, wait for the rental. If you feel compelled to see it, take my advice and pretend you're going to a comedy. You will get more out of it, and laughter is always better than crying. Thank god my son lied about his age so I didn't feel totally ripped off.


I, along with other viewers,was duped into thinking that this was about a serial killer when in fact it was about an animal that kills humans. O.K. animals do this as it is part of their instinct & sometimes animals acquire a taste for blood. In this case the theory is that the "Gator" acquired this "taste" because of all the bloodshed from the civil war that had gone on for years in that country. Could be? All I know is that when I started watching the movie & realized that it was just another "Gator" movie I was not only disappointed, but just plain mad. Mad that I had been duped, but I am not alone as many of of my fellow movie goers will see!!........Very Disappointed!!!


I must admit, whoever advertised this movie is a genius. I would have NEVER seen this movie if i knew it was about a crocodile. I thought it was going to be a decent movie about a serial killer, who is a person. That would have been interesting. It not only was completely boring, but the plot completely sucked. I was so mad when i realized the killer was not going to be a human, and also that the advertisements fooled my friends and i (probably as planned). The only good part about this movie was the jokes it provided my friends and I. But, i can admit that the fake-me-out Steve Erwin was funny, and so were some other lines in the movie. I cannot believe i waste money on seeing this movie.


Warning this contains a spoiler. I'm sure we all saw the promos about the most prolific serial killer in history, again not true that tile belongs to Elizabeth Bathory with over 600 victims but that's another topic entirely. Many people might think that this is going to be another good psychological thriller ala Silence of the Lambs. Sadly you couldn't be more wrong. The "serial killer" is in fact a crocodile, a large and impressive crocodile, but a crocodile none the less and I'm sorry to say but a crocodile, which kills in defense of territory or for food, cannot be a serial killer. What we end up with is a generic creature feature.

The creature feature genre is more or less uninspired and formulaic to the point of nausea anyway and this film takes that to a whole new level. It follows the formula exactly, one tough protagonist, one hot female interest and then your token comic relief character. The addition of a antagonist warlord hints at some current events savvy but other than that it is more or less a wasted plot device meant to add depth to a woefully shallow flick. Between deceptive promotion and an uninspired plot this has to be the worst hour and a half I've ever spent in a theatre and I don't recommend anyone expecting a fresh plot or inventive story go and see this movie. It will only disappoint


I'm not one for horror movies, but I am one for a good mystery. From the advertisements, I thought this movie was going to be based on actual events of trying to capture an internationally notorious serial killer. The little bit of being "not-human" grabbed my attention furthermore, due to the idea that there really could be missing links in the evolutionary scale. Instead, I'm handed crap. My friend and I viewed possibly one of the worst movies ever, but unexpectedly hilarious. As well, how dare Hollywood Pictures have the gall to advertise a horror movie when it is a lame excuse of a somewhat political agenda. Yes, there is suffering in this world, but how dare the powers that be exploit such poverty with horrific humour. Sadly enough, I caught myself laughing at Orlando Jones' lines and the badly made CG deaths. If you dare see this B movie (maybe C or D), be sure to not watch the advertisements.


May contain Spoilers,I doubt it, but I'm not taking chances.

Early TV trailers touted this movie as being based on the true story of the most prolific serial killer in history, and I was excited!

When I sat down with my popcorn and Dr.Pepper, all set to watch a hopefully well made serial killer flick, only to discover that today's feature was actually going to be "Lake Placid Redux", I was mad enough to kick a puppy -into the mouth of a seriously p.o.ed mutant crocodile!

I hate bait and switch! It drives me up the wall when a scene featured in a trailer isn't in the movie, but I can understand the editing process. To me there's no excuse for the way this movie was marketed as one thing and delivered as something else! It's the same as if Disney had marketed Snow White as a porn movie. All they accomplished in doing this was boost their opening weekend totals. As soon as the word got out, this flick tanked, tanked HARD!

Now that I've gotten that off my chest.

For what it really is, this is not a bad movie, even though I kept expecting to see Betty White leading a water buffalo down to the river's edge. Orlando Jones was damn strong in this movie, a solid performance, probably the best thing about this movie.

I think that Steve Corwin's estate should be considering legal action considering the particularly unflattering parody of the"Crocodile Hunter". I also found that character inappropriately funny given that the movie was released so soon after Corwin's death.

I'll not be buying this one, maybe if it had been marketed honestly, but the bad taste left in my mouth from being tricked into seeing this movie far outweighs the fact that it's a decent (and not more than decent) film.


Back when I was a kid in kindergarten, we always used to sing a song about a crocodile named Sophie and, according to the lyrics, her jaws were never closed because she always gossiped about the rest of the animal kingdom. Well now, the croc in "Primeval" answers to the name Gustave and his jaws are never closed neither, but for a completely different reason. Since the beginning of time, he reigns over the swamps & rivers in the poorest regions of Burundi and he supposedly devoured over 300 people already. Gustave normally just feeds on locals, so nobody in the Western world cares whether he lives or dies, but he now made the terrible mistake of eating a female white reporter and his quiet and peaceful days of over for good. A prominent American newspaper sends out an expedition, complete with reporters, local guides and a professional crocodile hunter, to capture Gustave alive. "Primeval" only just came out a couple of months ago, but it already earned itself a spot in IMDb's bottom 100 and receives one harshly negative review after the other. Quite undeservedly if you ask me, because it really isn't such a terrible movie and even benefices from a handful of good aspects, like a solid cast and engaging CGI-monster effects. The scriptwriters simply made one incomprehensible and unforgivable mistake! Why on earth did John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris had the ambition to use the premise of a low-brained monster feature to alert us about the disastrous political situation in Southern Africa? There's a 25-foot-long crocodile running amok and yet this movie mainly criticizes how the Western world shamelessly turned its back on the poverty & civil war issues in Burundi. If they wanted to make a harrowing and insightful follow-up to "Hotel Rwanda" that's perfect by me, but please don't pretend it's a non-stop gory and exciting creature-feature! It's like the characters in the film say themselves: nobody cares about politics as long as there's a croc involved! Mixing big-animal-horror with political drama topics, as well as the supposedly heart-breaking sub plot revolving on an African adolescent who'd do everything (literally EVERYTHING!) to enter the USA, is probably Hollywood's worst spontaneous decision to date, and it's really no surprise the pubic hates this movie for it. If "Primeval" simply had focused on the bloody crocodile-hunting mission, everything would have been a-okay and it definitely would have ranked on the list of above average monster films. All the necessary ingredients and stereotype characters to make a delightfully cheesy and entertaining creature feature are present. The crew exists of a reluctant reporter who considers his trip to Burundi as a punishment for ruining a previous assignment, a new and ambitious female reporter who desperately wants to prove herself, the 'token-black-guy' cameraman, the overly self-confident expert who thinks he's even better than Steve Irwin (RIP) and of course the introvert guide who has a personal score to settle with Gustave. Director Michael Katleman patiently waits a good 45 minutes before properly showing the crocodile  and hence effectively builds up tension  and it has to be said the animal looks very impressive. Gustave is big, but not over-the-top big, and he looks genuinely menacing when speeding through the swamps and destroying cages of solid steel. But then, completely out of the blue, the cameraman accidentally witnesses a political execution in the middle of nowhere and suddenly the Americans have to flee from local crime-networks instead of from Gustave. The sudden change in tone & message is impossible to cope with and the rest of the film is giant disaster. Not even the fairly spectacular finale can undo the damage. The cast is good, with Dominic Purcell ("Prison Break"), Brooke Langton ("The Replacements"), Orlando Jones ("Evolution") and a typical supportive role for B-movie veteran Jürgen Prochnow.


This movie is horrible! I can think of many different things to waste my $13 and I wish had instead of watching this movie. It falsely advertises, a "serial killer" which is actually a huge crocodile in Africa. The movie trailers portray a human serial killer, but it is the furthest thing from it. Everyone is assuming the movie is actually about Jack the Ripper, but it is not. Don't be fooled. If you want to see a man eating crocodile, rent Lake Placid. They are exactly the same. But much cheaper! Save your money! Worst movie of 2007, and its only January.

There is nothing good about this movie. Enough said!


The only thing historical about this film is that there was once a man named Brigham that had many wives and went to Utah. Other then that, you have to look somewhere else to find out about the Mormons. Not one scene through this film is historically accurate. The makers take so much license in this film that you have to be very ignorant to believe it. My friends and I watched it once as a joke. Perhaps it works better if considered a parody. As for the question of polygamy, it is very clear from the beginning that the filmmakers have no idea how it was practiced among the Mormons. In fact, it appears that someone just sat down with a cold beer and dreamt up what it may have been like.


My dad was the third bigot in the credits. This laughable rendition of Mormon history was a patchwork lunacy staffed by local theater people and a shoddy productions company. At the time, the actors thought they were making an epic, they even were told the man who produced EL Cid was the brains behind the operation. The casting is way off. I mean, Richard Moll plays the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith. This was well before his fame in Night Court, as the tall bumbling court security guard, and the casting choice is hilarious. It would be like Wilt Chamberlain playing Martin Luther King. Any way, the joke in our family has always been to call our father the third bigot. Good Stuff for a campy night at the cinema


I had the misfortune of watching this movie while I was serving a mission for the LDS Church. Contrary to the comment by Kolob, this movie was neither historically accurate, nor entertaining. The cinematography was crap, the editing was crap, the acting was crap. Please do not accept this trash as any accurate representation of the great men that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were. It is certainly a discredit to their memories for something like this film to be made. Coincidentally, this same movie was edited a bit, then changed to "made for TV" under the title "Savage Journey." That movie (because it is the same movie) is also a blatant work of nonsense. Nice try though. The only semblance this movie has to actual historical fact is that, yes, Brigham Young did have a beard.


This is an awful,wretched,painful,terrible film, ranking second only to the excremental smear that is "September Dawn" on the list of inept cinematic portrayals of LDS history. Questions of history aside, it's just horribly made, with cinematography that looks like an 8mm home movie, and acting that wouldn't pass in a junior high school play.

The ending sequence is one of the most hilariously ludicrous in movie history.Unlike the utterly worthless "September Dawn" (which I cannot stress enough may be the worst film ever made), "Brigham" has some value as a sort "Plan 9 From Outer Space" type curiosity.If you want to laugh at the silliness of it all,and see Joseph Smith portrayed as Bull Shannon,it may be worth your time.


While vaguely historical,i.e., the Mormons were persecuted and Brigham Young did lead them to Utah; this film is very inaccurate in portraying that history. The production quality is poor, splicing in badly color-tinted black and white stock footage and clips from the 1940 Brigham Young to show the westward trek and cricket plague. The acting of the minor characters and bit players runs from adequate to exceptional, but to say that the acting of the leads is pitiful is more than kind.


The advertising looked good - the fact that it had gone and done great things at Cannes (it was a Directors Choice presentation) was very positive but I have never been so disappointed in a film in all my life!!

Despite the hype, it wasn't moody and to call it reminiscent of Jane Campion films is an insult to Ms Campion. It was pretentious tripe. The dialogue was appalling, the characters unbelievable and the delineation between past and present at times was very hard to determine (making the understanding of the film even more difficult).

The only reason I gave a rating of 1 is for the music, which really was its only redeeming factor.

A complete waste of and hour and 20 minutes!


College student members of the "dare club" break into an abandoned asylum to have a scavenger hunt using their own underwear. No one has as much as a backpack on them, but suddenly about five thousand candles appear all over the house to illuminate their fun and games and right when you get into double digits counting the fake slap-on-the-shoulder scares, a psycho pops up to plant lethal booby traps everywhere.

**SPOILERS** (If you've never seen a horror film before)

The victims turn out to be the children of lynch mob members who hung a man outside the asylum 15 years earlier, who've been lured there and trapped inside. Meanwhile, name value stars Corbin Bernsen and Dee Wallace Stone sit around a lot and talk about the deed to the place, the murder and other things. Attempts at characterization include a black guy who dies first and a sexy/tough lesbian who masturbates while watching another couple have kinky sex through one-way glass.

One interesting touch has all the women outliving the men, but that's probably only because they're slightly better actors and willing to go topless once in awhile to relieve several boring stretches where nothing of plot relevance is happening. I give this film a little credit because it DOES pick up a bit by the end, but otherwise it's typical slasher nonsense, done with little creativity and flair.


"Takedown" is a dire film. Poor direction, poor acting and an embarrassingly bad script make this a film to avoid at all costs. The story of Kevin Mitnik is a fascinating one but "Takedown" misses the mark by miles. If you want to watch a well-made and fun film about hacking, then watch "Wargames". If you want to know the truth about what happened to Kevin Mitnuk then watch "Freedom Downtime". There's simply no reason to watch "Takedown".


Why did I rate it a 3 ?

1) Because it's slow, and pretty boring. There's little effort from the production to create any suspense at all...

2) Because although some of the technical aspects are rather accurate (the Dumpster Diving and all the Social Engineering) , most of them are truly absurd. *SPOILER*: the FREE KEVIN phrase, at the ATM ? Gimme a break.

3) It's totally one-sided. It's even written by Shimomura.

4) Pretty common to all hacker movies: quite shallow. Why didn't they even bother to depict the hackers' spirit a bit more in depth ? I truly believe the whole sequence with Amanda Peet could have been much more useful had they explored Mitnick's principles and beliefs, instead of bringing up the 1st amendment and how interesting scanning can be.

Wouldn't recommend it to anyone. If you really want to know the true story, check out the documentary "Freedom Downtime".


i think i prefer the original "hackers" to this, at least it had some humor value. "takedown", when you take into perspective the articles/books john markoff has written about his dealings with kevin mitnick [and the subsequent bling-bling-cash-money], is just a lot of lipservice for him and shimomura.

but if you ignore the flawed story, "takedown" is still mediocre. the editor should have laid off the speed, we could have done without the mutiple "rotating shimomura" shots. imo, rotating phonebooths are much more 1337, if that's the effect the producers were hoping for.

logue and ulrich did a decent job however. wong came off too mellow for what i took to be a rather intense corporate hacker.

if you want a decent hacker movie, go find "freedom downtime," or "wargames" which is infinitely more fun.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** i gave it one star because this is supposed to be a true story. it was not. it was a one sided tale of a "dangerous hacker" and the trouble he caused. not only am i mad the "true story" was wrong on details, i'm equally pi**ed about the amount of "hacker fluff" that is presented. ok spoilers follow.. the fbi agent goes home to find his water, gas and utitlities have been turned off.. ok, that could happen.. sure. or the bit about the super virus... what crap. oh, the biggest piece of crap was the part where shimomura goes to his cash machine and instead of getting money it flashes "free kevin" at him instead. what utter crap. i hated this movie as it was neither fair to kevin, nor hackers in general.. it does nothing but foster public fear of hackers and what hollywood says they are and can do. never once did they mention that kevin was held without even so much as a bail hearing for nearly 5 years. no charges were profered, nothing.. only after over 4 years of being locked in prison, sometimes in solitary confinement because they thought he was so dangerous, was he offered the plea bargain. of course he took it.. after 4 years of prison without bail, without even a bail hearing, i think anyone would take it.


The movie is fine, but what makes me flush it down the drain is that the people creating it portray it as a true story, when it is in fact BS! Kevin Mitnick never caused money loss or economical losses for the companies claimed. He sat locked down without contact to the world. 3 years without trial, probation or bail. FREE KEVIN. He did hack into companies to get code for the reason of doing it. This is a crime usually punished with a fine or a month in jail. Kevin sat inside until 2000, and got to use the internet not until 2003. This man is a hacker yes, not a cracker. The justice system is about who wins a case, the federal government or you. John Markoff at the NY Times made Kevin so famous with his ignorant articles that the government couldn't afford to loose this one. Kevin is a true product of the American ways, stupid morons that have no idea how to use a computer sit and try to educate the people who do, hackers, by using there money, influence and power to shut them down. Imagine the argument the government gave for Kevin being in solitary today, "if he so much as has access to a payphone, he can call a certain number and whistle a certain frequency to create a nuclear war". This is one of the reasons Kevin sat in jail for! What bullshit, big brother sees you and then some more. Free Kevin Mitnick.

www.2600.com

FREE KEVIN

Watch Freedom Downtime instead.


This is a terrible waste of time. Its supposed to be a real story, but is

obviously pure fabrication and anybody who has the slightest understanding of technology will see right trough it. But this is only the part anyone can easily see as false, but not the major blunder of this abomination. I'm trying to find something good about this movie, but as it isn't very entertaining, informative or well made it certainly isn't an easy task.

As a counterweight to this fiction I would recommend watching "Freedom downtime" a documentary about Mitnick and other hackers, Tsutomu Shimomura and John Markoff (the writers of this movie).

The one thing that is obvious after watching this movie is that the egos of Tsutomu Shimomura and John Markoff are off the scale. As for Mitnick, who knows what the reality is, one things for sure its not what this movie is representing.


Although when i first watched the film i liked it. although i then found out the truth about the Kevin Mitchnick story. And this film is bull Pooh and doesn't portray the truth. if your interested watch freedom downtime i have seen it and they interview Kevin in it to get the truth don't go by the plot of this film. Also if anyone has any more information about Kevin and general stuff along these lines you can send to me greatly appreciated i thought id clear the rumour about it being a follow up of hacker its not can people please not make that assumption its not its an independent film

thanks Yoda_the_jedi

Northamptonshire u.k


The way a man's life is played around with on screen is just stupid, this poorly made fabrication of what Kevin did and did not do was not approved by Kevin, and anyone with a familarity with hacking knows that this is a movie that you should avoid. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME, GO RENT WARGAMES. It's fiction but it's still more factual than this waste of film.


* EDIT: I urgently have GOT to add severe corrections to the following text, but reading thru it, you'll see I do by myself uncover the lies of this movie, when I write that Mitnick "just accessed some data":

I read thru the other comments. Many people realize that this movie is a clear exploitation of our completely innocent hero Mitnick by authors who wrote a book without knowing him or his story at all, or if they did, they simply lie to us all. This movie is propaganda that doesn't admit that it is such, but then, propaganda always cloaks itself. Only at the end of the movie some thoughts about "regret". Not enough by far. I can only join most good folks round here in saying to you: Distrust this movie, watch it, but then watch the truth, namely "Freedom Downtime". I thank all the ones who spread the truth here. Thanks for not letting us all fall back into the third Reich! Go see the movie "The Serpent's Egg", also, as a warning from the danger of fascism. EDITEND *

Somewhere, at two thirds of the film, I realized the critical view, the critical stand the direction takes, also against the government.

Right before the end, after he visits Mitnick, our Nakamura or so starts to seriously regret what he did.

The world is now at an abyss. We will fall into it if we let that fascist and covert exaggeration of the by itself good concept of thought and idea property rule on undeveloped.

Info DOES NOT flow freely thru the world. This is NOT right and leads to a state that we already reached where only rich people can obtain knowledge and education.

The whole patent system and concept is highly corrupt and willful.

Although it protects the ideas and works of serious and sincere, REALLY honorable people, it turns this concept of protection upside down and restricts access to culture to people who pay for it any given price.

And prices are too high. WAY too high. A single DVD, 20 Euro, that's some 20 dollars? Too high.

This movie has GOT me at the end. I am happy that out there, there are some ethical, good directors of movies. There ain't a lot of em.

There are many different "hackers". Most of em are good. Only really few have clearly destructive intentions, and THOSE are the ones spamming the net with all those cute viruses.

Peter Sellers did a movie against the movie industry, the name's "The Party". If Sellers would have known his OWN movie would become a central aspect of the illegality of obtaining it without paying, he would TURN in his grave.

I agree we should pay the CREW of the movie, all the people that worked in it, and also the folks who gave the money to realize it SOME substitute and reward for their brilliant work.

But twenty dollars for a DVD? Even 10 Dollars? Too much. Too much!

It's like the taxes in the times of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Too much. Simply too much.

But we only stand up when we OURSELVES got nothing' to eat. Before that, we DO NOT stand up against injustice, even fascism.

As Mitnick said: He could take huge amounts of money from accounts he's got access to. But he does not do it. So why is that FBI cop so keen on busting' him. Because the in itself corrupt hegemonic system has to protect its interests. Which are: Makin' dough. A LOT of it. I hope by here, you see a glimpse of self-contradiction in our everyday life.

What they did to Kevin Mitnick is a shameful injustice. What? He just accessed some data?

When he caught that other phone call, I wondered why he doesn't go out and protect that lady. He could maybe find out who was calling. No, not the case. He was just scanning for cellular calls on some frequency, by the aid of the descrambling apparatus attached to his cellular.

One could use that for the good. The problem: Big Brother. WHO is controlling those controlling machines?

This also leads me to the fact that democracy is not only way too capitalistic - in the last years, there have sprung out economy con men, partially "network marketeers" and others, by the tens of thousands, even more.

The governments are not acting strongly enough to catch the guys that REALLY make money by unjustified and cheating means.

They go for the ones they CAN catch.

Good guys get busted, the real bad ones not.

THAT is the message of Hackers 2. I remember that was a part of Hackers 1, too. *EDIT: This last sentence is total BS, sorry I was so stupid to believe in this movie. Also Hackers 1 tries to justify the criminalization of ethical, rebellious and intelligent people by the state authorities. EDITEND*

Those movies want to show the audience that hackers are mostly very ethical people who just use their means for their convictions. *EDIT: Also that last statement is untrue. The movie does a good job between not too obviously demonizing hackers and between in fact doing exactly that, for example, when Kevin is shown having trouble getting along with a girlfriend. EDITEND *

Which are WAY better than the convictions of some government-related forces. They just follow orders, they don't judge by themselves what they're doing.

Good movie hint to continue in your rebellion against the system:

"The Falcon and the Snowman". Excellent. About a government computer systems employee that becomes an accomplice to some friend of his who goes to the Russians to try and sell them some information from his friend.


So bad it frankly defies description. Nothing seems to ignite in this hacker flick which is not quite trashy enough to be good old-fashioned vulgar fun. The plot is unsexy, to say the least, direction seems lacking in all crucial places and performances are woody and devoid of chemistry. A true disaster.


I was beside myself with glee when I first heard of this movie. The book it is based on has been a book I have read and reread as well as given to children and adults alike over the years. So I was HORRIBLY disappointed at the changes made in this adaptation. Key elements left out, characterizations gutted, the mythos it was based on trivialized.

After such great adaptations as LotR, Narnia and the Potter books to see this classic ruined was a sad sight.

The books concepts depend on British folktales and legends (Arthurian based) and the movie seems to have tossed that aside in an attempt to woo American audiences. The family is changed, leaving out the close knit structure that is the basis of the story.

Don't see this movie. Don't let your kids see this movie. Do yourselves a favor and read the book.

Someday someone will make this movie with an eye to the source material.


That should just about sum it up, but I'll continue. There were about 3 things about Susan Cooper's magnificent book that were preserved in this movie: a couple of names (but certainly not all of them--where was the difficulty in letting his father be named "Roger" rather than changing it to "John"??), a rook feather in the snow, and... that's about it. Sorry, couldn't think of a third. From the color of the Rider's horse to the number (AND AGE) of Will's siblings, from the abilities of the Old Ones (Swords and crossbows? Really?) to the utter importance of the Walker (I wanted to scream)... nothing nothing nothing was safe from being altered, disregarded, obliterated, and out-and-out ignored. I wasted $7.50, but had to be sure that it was as awful as I feared. It was worse. The last time a superb book-turned-rubbish-movie angered me this much was when I was forced to see Jim Carrey prance around as Count Olaf, who should've been one of the greatest villains to scare the wits out of little kids everywhere.

I'd like to say I'm done with adaptations, but The Golden Compass is coming out, and that one looks like more than the gaffer actually read the bloody book.


Awful, awful, awful - from screenplay to casting to effects. Should one be surprised considering the director announced in the past that he thought the books did not give good movie material and that he dislikes fantasy/children's movies to begin with? Did he pick them up in the end after all to ride the Harry Potter wave? Announcing at the same time that he changed the script from younger British boy to older American boy to avoid having yet another Harry... Well, Susan Cooper's book series the Rising of the Dark sequence was written long before Harry Potter and it has all the material for a good movie. If you like Britain. Its landscape and people. And history, as the background of the book is the King Arthur legend. Unfortunately, the original book has been butchered to the point that the story is unrecognizable. That does not necessarily make a movie bad, just different. However, in this case, as a result of the butchering, the story does not make sense, lacks any depth, and is a disappointment from A to Z which the director tries to hide by using cheap effects and repetitive and lame shooting angles. Save yourself the theater ticket fees and buy those wonderful books from Susan Cooper instead.


If you were to take the Harry Potter film franchise and remove all the memorable characters, fun, adventure, and coherent narrative storytelling, you would get The Seeker: The Dark is Rising. While not completely unwatchable and competently made, the film has no sense of wonder. That's quite an amazing feat when you consider it centers around a kid with numerous superhuman powers, and surrounds said kid with themes of time travel, villains who can summon swarms of crows and snakes in an instant, and an apocalyptic snow storm that could bring about the end of the world.

Our young hero is Will Shanton (Alexander Ludwig). Will is your average awkward teen struggling to fit in after his father's job forced the family to move overseas from America to England. He's just turned 14, and has also just discovered that he's part of a prophecy that he never knew about. Supposedly, thousands of years ago, there was a great battle between the forces of Light and Darkness for control of the world. Light won out in the end, but Dark is vying to make a comeback. The Dark is represented by a villain called The Rider (Christopher Eccleston), named so because he rides around on horseback. The Rider keeps on appearing before our young hero, and sending demonic mall security guards and evil grannies who can summon snakes after him. He claims to be looking for "the Signs", but Will doesn't know what he's talking about. Fortunately, there are some people to help explain Will's destiny, and explain the plot (but do little else). They represent the "Light", and inform Will that he is the "Seeker", and that only he has the power to seek out six Signs - powerful artifacts from the past that hold the fate of the world. As the Seeker, Will gains various powers including super strength and traveling through time, of which only the time travel one seems to be of any use to him in his search.

All the ingredients are here for a fun fantasy adventure, but The Seeker: The Dark is Rising doesn't even seem interested in itself. This movie has such a shocking lack of wonder and whimsy, two things all fantasy adventures must have. The incredible keeps on showing its face throughout the story, but the movie forgets to allow the characters to react or even respond to it. At one point, Will's younger sister discovers her brother's power first hand when she accidentally travels through time with him. How does she react to this? She doesn't. She finds herself transported thousands of years in the past in the middle of a battle, and all she cares about is that she rescued a kitten from the battlefield. She doesn't even ask her brother what's going on, nor does she ever bring it up again in a later scene. She does, however, keep on clutching to that little kitten she found for the rest of the movie. I guess time travel, super powers, and the fate of the world itself just can't hold a candle to the adorableness of a kitty cat.

The storytelling employed here is of the most basic and episodic quality. Things happen out of sheer coincidence or dumb luck. I mean, what are the odds that all of these Signs Will is supposed to be looking for all seem to be within a three mile radius from his house? He doesn't so much "seek" these things out, rather he stumbles upon them. He goes to church for Sunday service, and wow, there's one of the Signs he's looking for! Whatever the case, can it really be qualified as an adventure if the hero is hardly forced to leave his own house? For all the characters' talk of prophecies and darkness destroying the world, everyone in this movie sure seems to be taking it in stride. They even still have time to celebrate Christmas, even the ones who know the world could end in five days.

For all its mistakes, The Seeker is not without some merit. The opening moments has a mysterious atmosphere, and got me interested before the movie decided to brush off its own explanations. It's kind of like finding a beautifully wrapped package, opening it, and finding a ball of lint inside. It's at least interesting before the disappointment hits. The first 20 minutes or so have hope and the promise of wonder, then the movie just kind of craps out and loses interest in itself. It's odd to think that The Seeker is more comfortable dealing with the ordinary rather than the extraordinary. If the people behind this film were behind the Harry Potter series, the "Muggle" world would be more interesting than Hogwarts. I don't think I even have to explain what would be wrong with that picture.

The Seeker: The Dark is Rising is based on a very famous children's novel by Susan Cooper. I have not read this book, but I have a feeling that this adaptation is missing what made the story so interesting in the first place. Here is a story that cries out for the fantastic, and gives us people who don't even seem to notice it. Those kind of people don't deserve to inhabit a story like this. We need a hero who shares our sense of wonder. All we get with Will is someone who discovers he has the power to change the world, and says "that's nice", then walks away.


If you saw the preview and thought "Pass", I would call you prudent. If you have been a fan of Susan Cooper's beloved book series since you were a kid, saw the preview and thought "Maybe it won't be as bad as it seems...", then I weep for your broken childhood love. If you were like me and thought "Even if it is cheesy, it might turn out to be fun", then I'm giving you a Get Out Of Jail Free card with this review. It is not enough that we must be subjected to one-dimensional characters, painfully predictable dialogue, hackneyed plot lines, cliché villains, headache-inducing camera work, and one of the worst climaxes ever recorded. No. Not by a long shot. The atrocity here runs deeper. Our intelligence is insulted, our tastes are ridiculed, and our freedom of choice turns on us and squeezes its fist around our throats. This film registers as a negative, a black hole, in the canon of cinematic creations. There were parts where I imagined the producers saying, "Just leave it that way. They'll never notice" or "You don't have to explain that, it'll fly right over their heads." I understand that the budget for this film was (gasp) a measly 20 million dollars, but lack of financial resources is NEVER, EVER an excuse to feed gold-plated crap to the masses. Christopher Eccleston fans may get a slight quiver of a laugh out of his (failed) quirky turn as The Rider, the wraith-like shape shifting ambassador of "The Dark". But in all seriousness, I think he may have just needed a few extra bucks for a down payment on an Aston Martin he might have had his eye on. Otherwise the acting is not even a subject to be brought up, since cardboard cutouts don't require much effort to portray. The special effects are where all the money went, and they're fairly decent. Though I refuse to count this as praise, any more than I would appreciate a smattering of whipped cream on the top of a rancid pile of stinking, eight-week old peach cobbler.

In any fantasy, there are rules that must be set and limitations where magic is to be found. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes a free-for-all that never holds any kind of credibility. I don't think I have the time or the energy to describe all of the problems, violations, and inconsistencies I saw occur within this film that barely topped two hours. It would be a real challenge for someone to sit down and try to catch them all. There was no respect for the genre here, just a seemingly voracious need to exploit the current fantasy craze. If after The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Harry Potter, the bigwigs in the studios think that this sort of thing can pass as acceptable, then the legacy of Story is over already. Yes, I am being overly dramatic, but at this point, it's too late to turn back. Time once lost is not recoverable, money once spent requires more labor to regain, and the wish to walk away from a story feeling like we've been entertained, had our minds and hearts opened, once dashed is hard pressed to be soothed back again from boundless feelings of deep discontent and a sense that we have been robbed. It breaks my heart, and I left this film genuinely livid.


If you read the book, skip the movie. If you did not read the book, still skip the movie. I saw this with a group in which some of us had read the book and some of us had not. Everybody disliked it.

The story was confusing, disjointed, and eventually pointless. Even if you had read the book, it appeared that the screenwriter was taking scenes from Harry Potter, scenes from the Fifth Element, and a few scenes from Cooper's original novels then patching them together. This led to an incoherent story line.

The biggest question is what were they thinking when they disregarded the story contained in the book? In an episode of "all things considered" on NPR, screenwriter John Hodge asserted that he was trying to distance this movie from Harry Potter. If so, he failed miserably because the massive changes made this look more like a bad Harry Potter knock-off than a separate film. From the NPR interviews, it appears that Ms. Cooper had little or no input in the film. I suspect that the filmmakers were trying to make a Harry Potter-like film out of Susan Cooper's story so they could avoid copyright infringement. Unfortunately, they were trying to fit a square peg into the round hole and it did not work.


Rarely have I been so disappointed, I actually walked out of this film half way through, not caring how they end this debacle. With such a rich text to draw from, this movie could have been awesome, the plot is pathetic, the characterisation all wrong, the dialogue clichéd drivel, what were they thinking.

Why they had to change the setting away from Celtic countries & Saxon mythology I have no idea. The whole heart & soul is missing from the story.

Everyone involved in the production of this film should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, they've chipped away at a cherished bit of thousands of peoples childhood memories by squeezing out this arse-gravy onto celluloid.


I first came across this sequence of books as an eleven-year-old boy myself, in 1980, 7 years after the book on which the eponymous book was published. The storyline and writing style is a breath of fresh air and the book, "the Dark is Rising" rapidly became my favourite read. Even now, 27 years later it has lost none of its appeal and my own children are enjoying it too. The secret of success is in the way it creates magic not out of stereotyped wizards (a la Harry Potter), but out of the honest descriptions of the events that unfold for Will Stanton. The description of his village and countryside and how they change as Will himself develops. Above all it is quintessentially English and far from being dated it is a timeless masterpiece as relevant to children now as 30 years ago. The interweaving of Arthurian legend with local Chiltern folk-lore does not need special effects and the story itself is perfect for a film without plot changes. So, to make a film that changes characters as significantly as this does, omitting some, radically altering others, changing the whole substance of Will's family is unforgivable. The casting is poor - Ian McShane is no Merriman. Avoid this like the plague - it should have been a film to bring a new generation of readers to Susan Coopers masterpiece (a sequence of books that shows J K Rowling's Potter saga for the dross that it is). How sad to waste such an opportunity


The Seeker is not only one of the worst films I have ever seen it is probably the worst movie of all time. PT Barnum said there is one fool born every minute so I ask why were they all involved in making this pile of utter crap? It doesn't matter if it had followed the book (it woefully doesn't) but it isn't a good movie in any respect at all. This was a money grabbing, farce of a movie, with terrible plotting, terrible casting and even worse directing.

It insulted, the readers of the books, children's intelligences worldwide and the movie industry in general. I wouldn't trust the writer nor the director to sit the right way on a toilet.

If you ever read Ian Fleming's work you'd know that the books and film stories are totally different but they manage to convey the ruthlessness, the style and epic quality of the books and add their own style of fun to generate the longest running successful sequels in history.

With the care and attention to detail put into the filming of the Lord of the Rings I honestly thought we were past the limitations that dogged fantasy films in older days but Fox proved us wrong, I can only surmise, that the financial and marketing people don't read, watch good movies or even have decent IQ's.

How is this for a financial idea: Susan Cooper wrote a 5 book masterpiece that works for kids and adults alike. If we cast it properly, plan out a set of films to bring the books that brought joy to millions out to billions we could if done properly be in the money for years to come and rule the Christmas films for the next 5 years. Hmm who do we get to produce it, screen-write it and direct it for us.

I know, how about we get a successful producer, can we get the one who did that massively acclaimed hit "Legally Blonde 2", a screenwriter who can't write for children and a director who admits he doesn't like the fantasy genre.

I'm trying to work out if movies qualify under the Sale of Goods Act here in Britain. Calling the film "The Dark is Rising" might just be considered as false advertising or at least an infringement of the trade descriptions act. I can then claim my money back and clear the way for everyone else to get theirs back too.


Like many it seems I dreamt of seeing The Dark is Rising on the big screen. Such depth, such scope. With such a true adaptation of the narnia classic already achieved I couldn't wait to view the trailer.... Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Is this really based on Susan Coopers book? What I remember as a powerful novel, full of magic, good versus evil and suspense bears no resemblance to the movie. What a waste of time and effort.

I can't believe for one moment that Susan Cooper has authorised this movie which is supposed to be based on her book. I just hope that people new to this series will want to read the books if the first taste they have is this abysmal looking film.

It seems the studio which produced this film have come up with the golden goose egg of formulas for those too stupid to appreciate the myths and legends in the book. Of course they would change his name from Jack to Jaqueline and get rid of the bean stalk for a rocket to the stars. Oh and not to forgot replacing the giant with a basketball player. But hey all in the name of making a quick buck.....


I am quick to love movies, especially ones set in Britain. This one could not pull me in if it had a rope around my neck. The actors of this film do not deserve any ire. They did the best that they were told to do. Which involved over-emoting and false drama. For that the director deserves horrible ratings. The real villain of this movie is the writer. Now, I have not read the book, I pray that it is better than this waste of an hour and 39 minutes. Though if the screenplay is based on the book, it is probably 26 pages long. The dialog was uninviting, there was not a shred of suspense. Everything was stumbled upon or told immediately by another character. I give credit to the producer, the money spent on the actors was probably worth it I did think that there was a bit of integrity because of the actors (I was wrong). Though in the future they ought to spend more on rewrites. The screenplay writer needs to never work with the pen again. It would be better that way. Don't spend money on this. Take the time to find a place that is still showing Stardust, if it is 2 counties away, still worth more than subjecting your self to this terrible "coming of age" fiasco. I want my money back.


If you want to see several long scenes of Our Young Hero whining about why he doesn't want to save the world, this is the film for you. Add in every bad low-budget fantasy film cliché that has ever made you groan and you can pretty much predict the contents of this film.

What's really a shame is that the main actors are so very good. What a waste of talent. The special effects were fine but they kept repeating them , so they lost some impact by the last part of the movie.

---Possible Spoiler---

Don't miss the exciting scene where Our Hero uses his World Saving Powers to make an erect knife dance between two round salt and pepper shakers in the creepiest sexual innuendo ever to grace a children's film. When his unappreciative honey goes off with Our Hero's brother, Our Hero uses his powers to throw the same knife at them as they leave the house. Talk about unsavory symbolism! I think the director may, just possibly, have some unhealthy issues about women.


I just watched this movie and I don't know where to start. This is just a very bad movie. This has nothing to do with the fact that the movie departed from the books; it's a very bad movie, period. I don't blame the actors; I think they did the best they could with what they had. I would sum up this movie as an awful lot (or a lot of awful) effects and camera stunts being used to hide the fact that there is no story.

The camera switches from close-up to dangling high overhead repeatedly. It jumps around in battle scenes, apparently to make up for a lack of action. The special effects are cliché, more distracting than dramatic, and the battles turn into yet another CGI super-hero cartoon scene. But this is really just obscuring the fact that there is no story. The history is contrived; the family is pathetic; the Old Ones are rather useless; it's fortunate for Will that the enemy is inclined more to drama than to action. Once again we see the woman-as-temptress, tool-of-the-devil theme. The final battle is mostly against a lot of black dust. Will is driven by self-pity and only gets interested in the battle when he finds he has real power -- and then he becomes a rather self-righteous little jerk. None of these characters are likable or interesting (except possibly to 13-year-old boys).

Which brings me to the review by the Truly Moving Pictures judge. I notice that the reviewer did not use a real name, and the website does not list judges (that I could find). The fact that this organization gave this film any kind of award can only indicate some kind of financial interest, since there is clearly no merit whatsoever evident in this film. I would agree that you can see the budget in the film, but I would add that you can also see that it was wasted. I was highly gratified that on opening weekend, there were perhaps twenty or thirty people in the entire theater. Hopefully there won't be any attempt at a sequel and perhaps someday someone will do justice to Susan Cooper's books.