An underwater sea park is attacked by a great white with a bite radius of nearly a yard. When it attacks a underwater tunnel, with many civilians trapped inside, it's up to Dennis Quaid and crew to weld a plate in place of the breach . Simon MacCorkindale portrays a Brit photographer who likes the media spotlight, but courageously offers to be "live bait"(..and is in the film's best sequence as the shark chows down on him with the camera recording this inside the mouth, really a remarkable effect)as a distraction for Quaid to complete the welding task without harm. Bess Armstrong is Quaid's lady love who decides to go down and watch his back just in case the shark swims toward them. Louis Gossett Jr. is the head honcho of the theme park who watches in horror as his dream goes up in smoke thanks to the shark's desire to feed.

The 3D effects just aren't very good..they might've worked in 1983 on the big screen, but just make the viewing experience now a burden. The 3D effects look like just that..separate from everything else. What hurts even more is that nothing really happens for nearly 1 hour and a half until the shark makes it's attack on people in the water(mainly Lea Thompson, the love interest of Dennis Quaid's brother John Putch). The shark effects range from good to awful..especially rotten is the scene where the shark breaks through the glass housing the control room with Gossett Jr and company. The cast, except Bess, are merely going through the motions and it's quite easy to see that the franchise was about finished off..JAWS:THE REVENGE would be the death nail on the coffin of the Jaws franchise.


I give this one 2 points for its narrative attempt at trying to make it "real," and one point for the filmmakers' truly laudable 'Efforts.'

Four generations of special-effects technology have already passed since J3 was made (maybe more... it was first released in theaters almost twenty-years ago), and the viewer simply can't get over its bad chroma-key mini-sub, cheesy 3-D props, et al.

However, like most badly executed thrillers with substandard "eye-candy," J3 has a worthy message for all of us: Try to bottle Nature in an attractive Theme Park package, and nature will get back at you in a deadly, often gruesome way.

Most interesting here are the two-dimensional, stock characters. They surprise us in how they eventually evolve as the story comes to its inevitable conclusions...

What we may initially perceive as the secondary Villain (the manager of this aquatic theme park, "Calvin"), turns out to be just an ordinary person at a loss for words, and tries his best to save the endangered tourists trapped underwater. Unlike the previous two films (in which we're subjected to the pig-headed-ness of one dollar-hungry Mayor), Calvin made me laugh when I realized his character was just all attitude and 'talk.' He is speechless when everybody realizes they have a serious situation on their hands: 35 feet of man-eating death!

The heroes (God save what's left of their present acting careers!) also prove brave and honorable.

My favorite character, however, was the calm and rational female tour guide that succeeded in 'tranquilizing' the trapped visitors until rescue divers could successfully bail them out. Here you have this short lady telling the much taller adults and children to conserve their energy and air, so that escape seems all the more possible.

Brief Review: J2 was pretty much along the same lines as its original... except here we have a regatta of mostly teens and twenty-somethings trying to stay afloat, and the shark in question keeps getting bigger by the time we reach J4.

J4 stinks and sinks! Pray that someday we'll all be allowed to go back to our beaches without the likes of Michael Caine and Lorraine Gary polluting our oceans. These landlubbers belong either on the Broadway stage or beside their mogul husbands, sitting quietly counting their box-office money.

See Jaws 3. If anything, it's great watching this truly unique aquatic show, where 'red popcorn' goes flying off into the audience.


I love the first Jaws-film. That is probably the best film ever done and this is the second sequel and I like it, some of the effects it`s very bad but the film is pretty entertainment. The acting is pretty good and the sharks looks great. This time is the biggest shark ever, a real monster. I hope I will see this film with 3D-effects sometime.

Rating: 6


A Nice Addition to One of the Best Series of Horror Films. The Problem is that it Takes Place off the Classic Island, but Just Deal with it. It is Most Certainly not the Best of the Series, As a Matter of Fact, Think it is the Worst one. But, It still is a Good Movie and Certainly worth seeing. 8 1/2 out of 10.


I can't understand why people attack this movie. The acting was fine. The SFX and directing are obviously not going to be as great as the original because there is no Spielburg. The shark in my opinion looked good enough. Too many people watched this movie expecting it to by like Jaws (1975). If you lower your standards, this movie is very entertaining. 3 out of 5 stars.


For all those people that did not like Jaws 2, this third installment makes the second look as good as the original! Not worth writing about!!! STAY AWAY AT ALL COSTS!!!

Grade: F


Jaws 3 is certainly an improvement from Jaws 2 and ranks behind the original Jaws as the series best. This third installment finds a great white shark who wreaks havoc at a aquatic Florida amusement park. This Jaws features some great scenes that are very thrilling and chilling the music is great and the setting of this Jaws film is what makes it so good. The acting is at the very top of the scale with Dennis Quaid and Bess Armstrong let me also mention Lea Thompson all three at this time were very young making this work their earliest roles. As always Louis Gossett Jr. is great. Jaws 3 runs enough on cable at just anytime during the years and try the video store and add this great sequel to your video library collection.


I don't know why this movie got so much criticism. I thought it was pretty good. Sure, the effects might not have been the best, but it was still a great movie. The original Jaws was one of, if not THE, greatest movies of all time. That's a tough act to follow any way you look at it. Jaws 3 also had some great actors, including Dennis Quaid and Bess Armstrong. You can say what you want, but I'll always love Jaws 3.


What can I say? It has horrible acting, beyond amateurish dialogue, sub-par special effects and you know what.....I've seen it about 50 times! It is so campy and awful that it is good! I definitely think this ranks right up there with Showgirls as one of the all time so bad its good movies! Special mention goes to Dennis Quaid, one of my favorite actors, for looking like he's in on the joke!


You know, they should make a DVD boxset consisting of Jaws 2, Jaws 4 and - Jesus - this crap that is Jaws 3. Why? Well, in simple terms it could be used as an extreme torture device, DVD quality making the pain even worse. I won't say anything about the plot (even though there is not one) but I will say something about the dazzling, state-of-the-art special effects, the only thing that salvages the movie. Basically there is some underwater sea life park and some folks go down to check it out in a little orange diving machine. Unbelievable! You wouldn't think for one minute that they were using a miniature centre made from yogurt pots, or a diving machine so super-imposed one side of it totally disappears in one scene! Nah, great SFX. They could even be compared to the might of the Doctor Who films made in the sixties, with flying saucers on strings etc. Oh sorry, I forgot - they weren't actually made from yogurt pots.

You can probably figure out that I dislike this movie a lot, and you'd be right. But please, take note from this review - when Carl Gottleib put pen to toilet paper we thought we'd have on OK movie. It turns out that looking at a dog turd for 90 minutes would give you more adrenaline rushes than this total tosh.


Why follow a bad sequel with another even worse one ? GREED!! 3d was lame .. Only relation to JAWS are Chief Brodys sons. Mike now works at Seaworld and Sean shows up to visit his brother. No references to Amity or their mother or father . No originals appear in this movie which is a blessing . And once again as in Jaws 2 is continuity problem , Mike and Sean are considerably older than what they should be . This movie is supposed to take place 8 years after Jaws . That means they should be 13 and 18 . Instead actors Dennis Quaid and John Putch are in their twenties . Oh well , lousy movie anyway.


OK... First of all the Jaws series doesnt need a plot. Who said all movies are supposed to make you think. I love all the Jaws movies. Given, the special effects in Jaws three were poorly done, thats the beauty of it all. Its an old movie. Just enjoy it!!! It has more of a plot and storyline than Jwas 2 did. And do you really want to question a killer shark. That was the only movie I had to close my eyes during, IT had more to do with my great fear of sharks and anything resembling them, but still. I thought the part where you are looking from inside his mouth was Exqusite. How many other older horror movies were good to you peoples standards??? (Directed at DAN GRANT and other people who hate this movie, for other reasons than not liking sharks) Why wouldnt Carl Gottleib want his name on this movie?!?! I would die to have made a jaws movie. Well maybe I will make JAWS 5... I mean how can there be like tons of the other horror movies and this one be bad. Can anyone really tell the difference between all the Screams and I know what you did last summer??? I dont think so. Well I better wrap this up i dont know how many words I have and I dont want to break 250... but might have so bye...


DUM,DUM,DUM,DUM.....Just when you thought you were safe from sequels... Comes this second dreadful,horrid,and poorly acted film.Louis Gosset Jr. sports a terrible ghetto accent thoughout the film,probably hoping he won't be recongnized.James Bond Hopeful(at the time)Simon McQuade plays a Costeuo-like Documentary filmaker,Mr.Fritz-Royce who*spoilers ahead* gets swallowed whole by Mrs. Bruce.Bess Armstrong(High Road to China) plays the love interest,but hey, at least she's better than Karen Young in Jaws the Revenge.Dennis Quaid(The Parent Trap,The Right Stuff,Dreamscape) is the now grown up Mike Brody,who with Martin Brody out of the film,is the hero.John Putch is Shawn still afraid of the Deep Blue Sea(get it?)In case your wondering the *cough* "plot" is set at SEA WORLD FLORIDA,not AMITY ISLAND,like in first two and "the revenge". A major plot point from the british sci-fi classic "Gorgo" is reused. What this film needs the most is to be released in Widescreen at it's 2:35.1 aspect ratio(plus with the 3-D process)on DVD. Hopefully if the Jaws 2 Special Collecter's Edition released this coming summer is a success,we might just see that,until then,avoid the atrocias video and Television Versions,Catch this fish at your nearest revival theater and enjoy some cheap thrills in 3-D.


Jaws 3-D is a trashy second sequel to Jaws that's more likely to turn viewers' stomachs over rather than keep them on the edge of their seat.

The premise sees biologists Dennis Quaid and Bess Armstrong capturing a great white shark to hold at Florida's Seaworld. However, the manager (Louis Gosset Jr.) makes a careless decision and the shark dies. Within hours, the shark's mammoth-sized mother has arrived on the scene for bloodthristy revenge.

Dan, on the previous page, clearly stated the mystery of Carl Gottleib, co-writer of Jaws and Jaws II, coming up with this idea. Actually, it probably seemed a good idea at the time which explains the presence of such established stars like Quaid and Gosset Jr. But, it turned out to be a thumbs-down. The film is daft and unexciting and relies more on blood and guts coming out of the screen than on suspense. The shark is bigger but no match for the two that took residence at Amity, it looks fake, roars and swims (or rather crawls) at a snails-pace and misses out on most of its potential-victims due to its clumsiness. But, of course, its just a model and so the direction is really to blame.

Fortuanately, its quite fast-paced so watching it doesn't really do any harm. Its just a big shame that Joe Alves has taken things so far off the rails.


Here is where the Jaws franchise takes a downward plunge. The story in this one is that Dennis Quaid plays the now adult son of Roy Scheider, whom played the police chief in the first two films. Quaid takes a job working at Sea World in Orlando, and begins to strike up a romance with Bess Armstrong, a dolphin trainer and biologist at the water park. A maintenance worker gets mangled and killed in a late night attack by a baby great white. When the young shark is discovered, it is captured with plans to exploit it for more tourist dollars. Then the baby dies. And momma gets ticked. Very ticked. When Momma shows up, I have to say that the deaths are done well. Especially the poor guy whom gets chewed up, and we see (and hear) the carnage from WITHIN momma shark's mouth.

The rest of the movie follows Quaid, Armstrong, and a few other noteworthy thespians such as Lou Gosset Jr., and Lea Thompson, as they try to outwit the momma shark's vengeful streak.

This movie was released in the middle of the 3-D revival of 1983, and several scenes are effective (the floating arm comes to mind), but many are just window dressing (the submersibles), or just painfully goofy (the shark approaches the camera head on, but DOES NOT swish it's tail back and forth as it swims. The shark looks like a plastic toy moving on a track!)

Just forget the earlier two films, and just turn your brain on auto-pilot, and you'll enjoy this film just fine.

I just have one question, to anybody whom may know... When I first saw the film in the mid 80's on BETAMAX (!!!), the title logo of "JAWS III" was animated in a cool red and yellow 1950's scifi lettering style, and they "chomped" at the viewer to the accompaniment of a rocket-like swooshing sound and a loud CHOMP!!!

Viewing a videocassette made in the mid 90's, the swooshing sound is there, the CHOMP sound effect is there, but the cool 3-D animated logo is gone. It is replaced by a still frame of "Jaws III".

That opening gripped me when I was a kid... where did it go?


Part of the appeal of 3-D is that can lift a relatively boring movie to more than it should be. That is the case in Jaws #3. Having pretty much gotten all they could from the creature from the deep franchise the producers were left with no other choice than to attach a gimmick to this movie to draw an audience.

 All I can remember about seeing Jaws 3-D in the theaters was that I had a lot fun. Being young I didn't care much for plot or characters. All that mattered was that I was entertained and I was. I just saw the movie recently on tape and it was all I could do to stay awake. It was just a ripoff of the original and all it's clones. If the tape had been in 3-D I might have been more alert.

 The only good thing that I can say for the film is that if you can't go to Sea World you can at least get an idea of what it is like from this movie.


The shark looked totally fake, especially right before it crashed into the glass window under water. The film, characters, and dialogue were boring and uninteresting. But no matter how bad it got, I still liked the Under Water kindom idea and when the shark was swimming around it and scaring all the people. A particularly funny(that's right funny) part was when the shark trapped a group of people and they were all moaning and crying. Jaws was good. Jaws 2 was somewhere between horrible, painful movie and OK movie, but closer to horrible, painful movie, this was OK, as for Jaws 4 let's not even go there.


3-D in 1983 was a big concept and another money making gimmick but it just doesn't stand the test of time. With todays studios turning out computer animated effects and creatures, this movie is just plain cheesey by millenium standards. Mostly it's just one of those movies you would watch on cable when reruns are in season-and the reruns suck would you watch it.


I gave this movie a 2 rating and that is only because of the abortion that followed it deserves a lower mark. The shark looked fake, the actors looked embalmed...even Sea World looked stupid. I remember when this movie came out and my parents took me to Sea World because they had all the props out used in the movie...I was embarrassed to even be in a picture with that stupid looking shark. I saw it in the theater with my sister when it came out and the only thing that was worth the money was the 3-D effects...this crap was on TV and I feel the need to vent because it's 2 hours of my life that are gone forever. I'm waiting for Crow and the MST 3000 gang to light into this...


Garbage.The word fits this film to a tee.Jaws was the cinematic masterpiece.Then you look at this film.I watched it often as a teenager.Same goes for all the Jaws movies.I see the trouble with all the sequels in this genre and hollyland.YOU CAN NEVER REPLICATE THE ORGINAL FEARS,SUCCESS,AWARDS.Jaws3 misses the boat for these reasons:No plot,no action,no directions.Jaws3 and Jaws4 are two films they should never have made period.I am of the firm opinion Jaws and Jaws2 are the only Jaws films every made.Hollyworld less is sometimes MORE.

-33 out of 10.


O.C. & Stiggs is one of my favorite 80's movies. I truly wish it would get issued on DVD but I realize the chances of this are remote. The movie did not have too much of a plot. And, while I loved the liberal trashing of the extreme right-wing conservative neighbor, the movie was quite mean-spirited at times. It is tough to classify this film, but I believe it struck a chord with me due to the anti-establishment mentality of the two lead characters.

The story centers around the two lead characters, high school guys with way too much time on their hands with an affinity for the African music stylings of King Sunny Ade and an extreme antipathy towards the ultra-right-wing insurance agency owner who lives in their neighborhood. The movie follows the two leads as they prank the family (the Schwabs) and otherwise try to survive a record Arizona heat wave by bothering as many people as they can. For instance, their joint purchase of the "Gila Monster". A giant monster-truck-tired old-school convertible which made more noise and belched out more smoke and fumes than any self-respecting oil refinery. Perhaps it was my being 16 when I first saw the movie and latching onto ti for being different (and funny), but hey, if it ever gets re-released, I will re-buy it.

The movie isn't for everyone, but I enjoyed it immensely. One quote in particular was worth the price of the rental back in 1988: "That's the problem with insurance. Destruction just isn't permanent anymore". And, if I can ever find my old VHS copy (many, many friends have borrowed this tape), I need to find out the title of the King Sunny Ade song he plays in the impromptu concert scene.


Robert Altman's O.C. and STIGGS is one of his most harshly critiqued movie. This is partly due to the expectations of the fans of the O.C. and STIGGS articles in National Lampoon. From what I can tell, this movie is *not* what fans expected. However, I never read those articles before discovering this film, and so my expectations were quite different. This movie could've been a standard "It's fun to be a teenager in summer" movie, but not with Robert Altman at the helm. There are some excellent performances by Martin Mull, Dennis Hopper, and Jane Curtin. Ray Walston (also known as Mr. Hand in Fast Times at Ridgemont High) gives an incredible performance as the senile "Gramps". I personally thinks he deserves a "Best Supporting Actor" Oscar for this role, but when a movie only makes $30,000 at the box office, I guess the academy doesn't even consider you. Plus Cynthia Nixon, one of the four stars of Sex and The City, plays the love interest. The entire sequence of events is well contrived and although you may not laugh out loud, if you listen closely (which is hard to do given Altman's style of overlapping lines) you will be smiling throughout the film. I've always been surprised how much people disliked this movie, but I suppose the genre and director are a bit like oil and vinegar: They don't mix well, but what a tasty combination.


By far the most wacked-out teen comedy of all time, this bizarre Robert Altman nugget was adapted from a single issue of National Lampoon magazine, the 1982 "Utterly Monstrous, Mind-Roasting Summer of O.C. and Stiggs" special. The plot is simple: O.C. and Stiggs are two bored, horny, Arizona high schoolers who find immense satisfaction in tormenting the Schwab family (the patriarch is fabulously portrayed by Altman regular Paul Dooley). Over summer vacation, they canoe to Mexico, buy a machine gun from Dennis Hopper, organize a King Sunny Ade concert, and try to woo Cynthia Nixon. There's no sentimentality in this film whatsoever. The two leads are unlikable, homophobic morons, but it still adds up into a remarkably funny endeavor. If you're not in the mood for something with a profound statement to make and enjoy laughing at bizarre non-sequiturs, give this film a try.


Perhaps it's because I came in with bottom-of-the-barrel expectations for a movie I've heard absolutely nothing good about, but I found myself enjoying "O.C. and Stiggs" quite a lot. I know from experience how bad bad Altman can be, so I expected the worst. But if you share Altman's smart-ass sense of humor, as I do, I can't help but think that you'll find this movie pretty funny.

The very nominal plot has something to do with two adolescents (the O.C. and Stiggs of the title) spending one summer terrorizing an affluent, middle class family because the patriarch (played with just the right amount of buffoonery by Paul Dooley), head of an insurance company, has denied insurance for O.C.'s grandfather (played uproariously by Ray Walston). But let me stress the word "nominal." This narrative loosely holds together what can otherwise only be described as controlled chaos. In typical Altman fashion, the film is an assemblage of barely choreographed scenes in which actors wander around ad-libbing to their hearts' content. This is not an insult. This style has resulted in some dreadful bombs for Altman, but it's also been responsible for some of his inspired classics. "O.C. and Stiggs" is nowhere near the latter, but it's certainly not the former either.

Altman said in interviews that he intended "O.C. and Stiggs" as a satire of all of those naughty "boys behaving badly" comedies popular in the 1980s. I don't know that it's so much a satire of those films as it is on people in general. It's full of a sneering disdain for a sort of vapid, bourgeois lifestyle that rears its head in much of Altman's work. Scottsdale, Arizona is depicted as a bland land of lawn ornaments, plastic furniture and man-made nature. We don't learn much about O.C. and Stiggs, and they're not even necessarily that likable, but neither are the Schwabbs, the family they torment, and anyway Altman doesn't really ask us to root for anyone but rather just enjoy the silliness. The funniest thing about the film is that the Schwabbs seem to be completely unaware that they're being tormented and instead wander around in a self-absorbed daze.

The rest of the cast includes Jane Curtin, as the boozy matriarch; Martin Mull, as a designer of African fashions; Cynthia Nixon, as a love interest; Jon Cryer, as a dweeb; and best of all, Dennis Hopper, reprising his role from "Apocalypse Now," and who features significantly in the film's climax, a shootout in the Schwabbs' bomb shelter.

It would appear that time has been kind to this utterly dismissed film from the mid-1980s, and you could do much worse from Robert Altman's canon alone, let alone from other films in the same genre.

Grade: B


I don't know when I've laughed so hard at pathetic "effects". Those black blobs (bees??) flying in formation were just too funny! I was surprised to learn this was made in 2002; the effects were reminiscent of something out of a low-budget 50's or 60's movie. Unfortunately, the title Bees were the best actors in the movie. Their human costars were at their best after they were dead. The lucky ones died early in the movie; the rest had to keep screaming in terror, as they realized they were trapped in an atrociously bad movie, with no script to work with, or acting skills for that matter. Besides the swarming black blobs, there were also a few laughs in the "plot"; it was both humorous and painful to watch them try to take seriously the tired, over used, simplistic plot line. There's no need to go into detail: bees arrive in small rural town, people scream, people die... About half way through the movie, I wished I could join them! Rating: 2 out of 10. (It would have been a 1, but those bees so put their little hearts into it!)


After watching "Killer Bees!" on television one night, I nearly decided to renounce modern technology altogether. The "bees" were just laughable as special effects go. Now, I understand that generating an effect that simulates the Brownian-like motion of a swarm is challenging, but the result here was very unnatural looking. The townspeople, in contrast, were very lifelike. Some of them almost seemed to be living, sentient beings. Amazing!

I think it would have been a better show if we had never seen the bees. Maybe there could have been some pack of dogs roaming the town, picking out the sick and the weak. That's scary. This was just sad.


This is so bad that I wasted so much free time on this bad special effects film.The bees are fake which don't look scary.Remakes are just not so good these days personally because special effects are what is ruining ferfectly good remakes. Special effects just destroy remakes. This is why Killer bees looks so bad for a remake.The Sheriff of a small town just goes around telling everyone that killer bees are coming and will get everyone.Even the Sheriff looks like an ass doing this. The bees are highly unscary.Also they are laughable for even me to watch.Flying in a swarm they look like little tiny dots. This looks so phony. Here this movie was just sad. If I WANTED something better I would have went for a stroll. Awful remake.


Routine, predictable, you-know-what's-gonna-happen "nature strikes back" schlock with C. Thomas Howell (ya gotta feel bad for him, being reduced to participating in this kind of thing) playing a rural sheriff being forced to contend with an enormous swarm of deadly killer bees.

Well, I guess we get what we expect with this underwhelming tale. Bad special effects, stock supporting characters and unimpressive performances, too many moments that only produce laughter. It would have been better if all involved could have some fun poking fun at their cruddy material, and played it with more irony and humor. But no, they had to take themselves seriously.

I sort of liked the main characters (particularly Fiona Loewis'), to be totally honest. If for any reason I found it a little better than completely worthless, that would be it. But that doesn't change the fact that the film itself is so unimaginatively hacked out - "hack" being the operative word there. It's simple, cheap (and, yet again, filmed in Canada, to save even more money) and silly.

Then again, one could always derive some entertainment out of it for the unintentional humor. It's amazing to see all of these people perform this material with such straight faces.

3/10


WOW! All I can say is WOWWEEWOWWOW!!!! This blockbuster flick kept in a cold sweat from the first moment the bees made their swarmy appearance, I am shocked that this movie was inexplicably panned at the 2002 Oscars?!?! Not only was the spellbinding special effects ignored but the jaw dropping performances of to many actors to mention was also forgotten?? Who in Gods name does this sort of atrocity happen in Hollywood in the 21st Century....this movie needs to "Bee" re-released toot sweet perhaps now the so called insiders will be able to appreciate just what they missed the first time out. If you see this movie on you TV listings, I urge you to drop everything and anything you are doing to make time for this entertainment roller coaster, be it the Superbowl or birth of your first child... you wont be disappointed!!!!


Imagine 'Jaws"with a $2.00 production cost.Small town with tourists coming soon.A sheriff who hates bees but lives in a town that relies on bees to make their living.Sounds like another sheriff we knew who hated the water but lived on an island. Soon into the picture a shark-oops,BEE kills someone.Sheriff is alarmed but the Mayor and other town locals ignore his warnings.Throw in a few teens who run amok in their sailboats- Er, pickup truck( along with sheriffs son)and you just know there's terror(?)around every flower bed.Son ignores daddy sheriff and runs amok with brainless friends who find great humor in killing off a herd of cattle with a box of bees.Hey,I COULDN'T make this up! Nor would I even try.As a few more extras get stung and die-the only way to get out of this bad movie before the drawn out ending-the sheriff tries to warn the townspeople.But don't pluck your tulips just yet,folks.The sheriff saves the day and the plants are pollinated just in time for crop season.As for the herd of dead stung cattle-we assume 'Killer Bees 11' will start with the town having a big old barbecue.


Oh boy, C. Thomas Howell has sunk so low... He did "The Hitcher", for Pete's sake! Here, he's starring in this poor soap-opera quality vehicle as a sheriff whose town gets infected by a plague of poor CGI killer dots. No thrills, no action, cinematography that gets painfully awful at some times and a final shot (involving a swarm of more killer dots) portraying that this silly nightmare isn't over yet. Please make it stop. And since this was made for TV, you might get the idea...: No gore and nudity either. Only watch it in a case where you feel you could die of boredom. Otherwise, avoid it, or you might as well watch "Swarmed" (2005) instead. That one's at least a bit of fun, and stars Tim Thomerson, everybody's favorite B-movie actor. Thomerson will kick Howell's ass any day. I don't care if Howell took on Hauer in the 80's. He sure lost it now.


This movie was great as I had very little expectations going in. The plot is very predictable and the characters are stereotypical, but if you're watching with some buddies it's a great picture to have a chuckle at. You have the sheriff's sidekick who looks like Ethan Hawk, a Wilfred Brimly look alike and the peer pressuring teenager. All together this movie scores for laugh ability. Think Dante's Peak and you will see every plot line. An authority figure who sees an epidemic on the horizon, money hungry investors not wanting the town to be in an uproar, heroics, and a tightly packaged ending that tells the viewer that everything is going to be okay.


In this film, a town is attacked by deadly killer bees after a truck accident caused them to be released. So, it's up to the the town sheriff to convince everybody that they will have to leave before the bees attacked. Pretty nice action, especially the scene at the Honey Festival (how appropriate to name a festival that when everybody was about to be overwhelmed with killer bees). That scene is probably the most action-packed and suspense filled int he movie. But everything else felt like a bee stung. The acting was cheesy and lame, the special effects were unbelievable and the ending (spoiler ahead) was disappointing-rushed through and undramatic. Above all a pretty predictable film, who no plot twits.

So, bee-careful next time should you ever go to a "Honey Festival" in the future.

Grade D+


Bad story, bad acting, terrible computer generated "Killer Bees" that don't even fly like bees would (more like the killer beauty marks from another dimension).

The thing that gets me overall: this film makes no sense!!! Now even though the terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE computer graphics bothered me, the plot of this movie is even worse.

It seems the whole town is held hostage by a mayor who just won't call anyone in on this because it might mess up the chances of the giant superstore people opening up a store in their town, and interfere with the upcoming "festival" (can we say "The Swarm"?). The sheriff (C. Thomas Howell) doesn't seem to have the sense to go over the mayor's head and call in the proper authorities. He just keeps running around telling everyone "the bees are here" like a nut and making posters to hang all over town. On a personal note, I truly hope the law enforcement in my town is a little smarter than this.

We are further forced to endure the silly sub-plot of the sheriff's failing marriage for some reason, a detail which just makes this horror of a film (not horror film) even longer.

So the festival goes on, the people are stung, bla bla bla. I was rooting for the bees.

Also I think people from Washington state should be insulted. This film portrays them as kinda dopey. Ah, Mr. Howell maybe it's time for a change in careers, but please not law enforcement thank you.

If this had been a student film, I would have given it a D-. Rating 1/10.


Tuned into this movie late one night as I occasionally like to watch 'B' movies (no pun intended!) just for fun. However I was wonderfully suprised at the quality of acting I found. This movie had all the suspense and drama of jaws, except with bees. And yes the bees were badly rendered, and looked very 2 dimensional, but GET OVER IT, else you'll miss the guts of the movie. Above par acting by most, especially the kids...........


Okay,

Maybe they should have titled the movie differently because it is not just about bees, it is a wonderful feel good movie that can bring hope to those that are feeling down.


I love Killer Bee movies. If anything would be in my top 30 film genres, it would most assuredly be Killer Bees. Me and my life partner, Jonas, decided to have a Killer Bee movie night. What a night that was! We watched 5 Killer Bee movies in one night and two the next! Definitely, this was one of the best. There's an exclaimation mark on this title for a reason. I don't want to give away too much, but you will never want to drink a beer again after the terrifying bee-in-the-beer segment that kills off a farmer! Holy moses! Killer Bees are a very real and dangerous threat. This movie did not shy away from the truth about them. I found the acting to be understated and subtle, a tone that was definitely necessary and sensitive to the hundreds that have died in killer bee attacks.

The lead guy gave a great performance.

I give this bee-tastic film a 10 out of 10.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED by Dan "The Movie Man" Wolfson!


Two annoying long-haired teens who look like they belong on-stage with Warrant, and their two girlfriends (in stone washed jeans) are attacked when they travel to a "secluded" house out in the sticks. The place is home to a deranged, ghostly family (masked brother, giggling pale-faced Girl Scout sister and fat, twitching mother) that were killed in a car crash. A surviving human brother tends to the house, cleans up the bodies and blood and has an overacting, beer-guzzling, white trash adoptive family that want his inheritance to contend with. A movie crew shooting "Vampires on Valium on Valentine's Day" also become victims.

There's some gore (electric saw, butcher knife...), a topless scene, lots of juvenile humor and voice-over narration in this silly, very dumb shot-on-video effort with better lighting, music and sound than most similar effort. It's a very rare tape and only worth searching for if you're an 80s horror completist.


This one has it all. Not really, but who's to say wherein true art lies? Not here. I mean, this is 'Phantom Brother' we are talking about. The veritable 'Citizen Kane' of the worst and most horribly gut-wrenching, stomach-churning, revolting pieces of irredeemable garbage ever made, but hey, who's counting? Other than that, it's a laugh a minute, or at least every fifteen? My recent comments for this little gem were apparently neglected, so I am re-submitting in the hopes that the 'Phantom Brother' will get its fair share of user comment by-lines. I mean, c'mon, last time I checked, 'Blood-Sucking Freaks' had fifty-two! If you are the kind of weirdo that would enjoy such a treat as this 'film,' and I mean that in the best possible way, then this is the one for you. It's so low-budget and mindlessly numbing to the higher orders of brain functioning, that I find it to be a combination of watching Grandpa Ralph's shaky home movies of drunk old people and accidentally getting your head stuck in the portable meat smoker. I liked it so much I went out and bought it and now I watch it every day. Not really, but just imagine it? I went to the best schools of higher education to write comments about 'Phantom Brother' at midnight. Just imagine that? The most touching scene in the film takes place when the split-personality plagued main character (for the life of me I can't think of his name at the moment) shares a meal with his 'Deliverance' foster family in their trailer that could either be a chicken coop or a bomb shelter. It will bring tears to your eyes. Rarely has cinema been so powerful. The acting and dialogue are so good that you can't understand a word the hillbilly family is saying. You just don't see quality or realism like that these days.


Phantom Brother is disgusting. Truly one of the worst movies ever made. It seems to me that this movie was filmed on a camcorder, due to the relentlessly horrid quality of the film, but perhaps I am wrong. No matter though this movie is disgusting. A man is living in a house in the woods, with three supposed phantasms. One is a nurse, the second a girl scout, and the third his Phantom Brother. Lord have mercy on the makers of this movie's souls. There is a family of hillbilllies looking for money, some people try to make a porno in the house in the woods, most of them end up dying bloodless deaths. The lack of any effects in this movie is horrible.


People who eat gourmet all their lives would mostly likely be put off by junk food, just as people who watch nothing but Bruckheimer films will be unsure of what to make of this (because they're stupid). Yes, this is shot on video. My God, no. How dare people make a movie within their means. Blasphemy. This is all very shocking stuff to the A-movie layman, I'll bet, but as someone who has seen a lot of super low-budget features, I liked it a lot. Most won't appreciate it, but the cinematography is above-par, in comparison to a lot of the pieces of crap out there. The acting is good by any standards. And the plot is funny, clever, and compelling. No, it doesn't look like Scream 7, but as far as slasher parodies go, you could do much worse. If you actually happen upon this somewhere, please rent it/buy it/take it out of the free bin. It's worth the time.


Swamp women rocks!!! It has a fun cheesy story about fugitive women, some bad acting mixed with some `ok' acting, lots of funny dialogue and of-course, many scenes of attractive women rolling around on the ground trying to kill each other while wearing skimpy clothing.

Corman does a nice job with a limited budget (as is his trademark.) squeezing the most entertainment he can out of limited material. We have some nice visuals (I love the moving shots in the swamp) and the style of the film is much more polished than most movies in this budget range. The pacing is quick with very few wasted scenes. Something is always happening in this film and it's never boring for a moment. Even though the story is pretty bad, I still got interested in it and I was excited to see what happened next which is a testament to Corman's technical skill in handling material. For the most part Corman is able to keep the production values from standing out in such a way that they would hurt the films entertainment value. It comes across as a cheap film, but not in a bad way.

The acting is mostly ok with a few really bad performances here and there, but the dialogue is so bad it makes the acting seem horrible. Some of the characters in this film are so over the top that you can't help but laugh at the hilarious things they do and say. They're all Caricatures, but they're funny and it works.

Overall, This is one of the most enjoyable exploitation movies about fugitive women of all time. Of-course that's a pretty limited sub-genre of films, but this one stands out compared to most others. Don't miss it if you're a fan of this type of cinema.


Only Roger Corman could get the most out of a rented dinghy, access to a small area of swamp and New Orleans stock footage. Man...these cool chicks are very groovy as they put the "touch" on Conners. Not really a laugh-out-loud-so-bad-it's-good kinda film, but bad enough to keep you with it to the bad-girl end. The "action" is paced well enough and the cast is near-perfect B-movie/drive-in stuff. The 50's style denim hot-pants are "prison issue" and with the tied-shirt halter tops they're all ready to wrestle. Poor Touch (Mike) Conners...he has to spend half the film with his hands tied behind his back. But that only makes it necessary for the girls to do all the heavy lifting as they plod through the swamp and pull the boat through the shallows. It's "African Queen" meets "Gator Girls" complete with diamonds, booze, guns, a homemade spear and an alligator that can't float. Holy cow!


Obviously, "Mystery Science Theater 3000" showed "Swamp Women" (alternately called "Swamp Diamonds") because it's such a slipshod production, and because the movie gets silly whenever the women start fighting. But otherwise, Roger Corman's directorial debut is quite fun, as some female convicts escape a New Orleans prison in search of some diamonds out in the swamp. With them are an undercover cop, and a man (Mike Connors) and his hubby. It turns into a real treat when they cut the legs off of their pants.

True, the movie is pretty short on real plot, and you can tell that some scenes were filmed in a swimming pool, but otherwise it's a real pleasure; guilty pleasure, that is. Of course, I do recommend the "MST3K" version.


On the trail of the once stolen and now missing "Nardo Diamonds", police woman Lee Hamilton (Carole Mathews) infiltrates the female members of said gang behind prison walls. Planning a jail break, she accompanies Beverly Garland, Marie Windsor and Jil Jarmyn into the swamps of Louisiana's bayou country where the gems are hidden. Along the way, the quartet runs into Mike Connors and his little bayou baby Marie (Susan Cummings) by way of the Mardi Gras. Marie earns her status as a gold digging, whiny opportunist, so that by the time she's attacked by an alligator, you wind up rooting for the reptile.

"Swamp Women" doesn't appear to be much more than an opportunity for director Roger Corman to put shapely women in cut off shorts on display in a lush tropical setting. It doesn't take long for the jailbirds to ditch their prison garb and land some eye candy duds for their swamp journey. You know it's only a matter of time before the obligatory cat fights and wet blouse tussles take center stage. Eventually, redhead Vera (Windsor) with visions of the entire fortune to call her own turns renegade. She ditches the group and attempts to escape with the gems, so why she climbs a tree instead of taking the boat is a mystery.

Mike Connors is credited in the cast as "Touch" Connors, and doesn't have much more to do in the film other than ogle the ladies. I'm not sure, but I bet when he auditioned for the part he said he could do it with his hands tied behind his back.

This is another mid 1950's film utilizing a color film process known as Pathe. My copy was heavy on the reds and browns including the swamp scenes, making it all look a bit unnatural. The entire business was filmed in and around New Orleans and Lacombe County. What's surprising is how many name actors wound up in this effort, with one on the way up (Connors), one on the way down (Windsor) and one still going strong (Garland). After watching the movie, there's only one thing that I'm still left wondering about - what prison cell in the country has a window?


That is about the best thing I can say about this little Roger Corman flick about female prison escapees looking for diamonds in the swamp. And trust me that is about all there is to the plot, except one of them is a undercover policewoman and they come across a couple going to examine oil wells or something. Of course, it starts out with these two plots separate, but you know they are headed for a wacky collision in the swamp. And speaking of swamp, man there are a lot of shots of swamp in this one. This movie is not very long, but it still seems long as the scenes just all feel the same. I am wondering how the heck anyone can know the exact place something is buried out there when they haven't been there for three years. Still though you get to see gals in shorts and an alligator attack scene...wow, talk about action. Though after the one girl was killed by an alligator her boyfriend didn't seem all that upset. Well with a film of this kind you basically know what is going to happen so nothing to thrilling to be seen except for those shorts.


SWAMP WOMEN opens and closes with profuse thanks to the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana for help in making this film. If any of the people who are mentioned actually saw SWAMP WOMEN they may have insisted that the filmmakers thank Florida instead. The truth is, there seems to be few shots set in New Orleans; the rest of the film takes place in unidentifiable swampland (and various swimming pools). The basic story involves a gang of women, hidden diamonds and, of course, catfights. The woman in this film (after having cut the legs off their jeans) roll around in mud, water, and dirt, often times going from one to the other in the same scene. When their limbs are not entangled in heated female rage, the women sit around and talk, or sometimes dock a boat. It's all about the "bling" for these girls, so when they become stranded ashore they "boat-jack" two young lovers who are out admiring the fettering malaria-infested bayou locales. The girlfriend gets eaten by a shark (or something) along the way, but they keep her hunky boyfriend (Mike "Touch" Conners) tied up as an insurance policy. Considering all four of the girls are sweet on this guy, being a hostage does not seem like such a bad gig. Anyway, the plot of SWAMP WOMEN floats along like a flip-flop caught in the "lazy river" ride at your local waterpark. Towards the end, I just kind of advanced through most of the scenes unless there seemed to be some integral plot revelation (catfight) that could not be overlooked. Some stuff happened, I think, and then the film ended.

SWAMP WOMEN was produced and directed by B-movie maestro Roger Corman, which explains quite a lot. He is of course famous for giving just about everyone in Hollywood their "big break." It is true that he has fostered (or exploited) many young filmmakers and actors; the list would be far reaching and hard to compile. However, as a director, he seems to be only as good as the material he is given. Now this is the same guy who directed THE LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS, which is considered a classic in the "cheapie" genre, but was based on an inventive and outlandishly bizarre screenplay by Charles Griffith. Corman does not seem to be a director who interprets a writer's work, but simply puts to film every page he has in hand. Here, working with a script by David Stern, Corman fashions a no-budget fetish fest. SWAMP WOMEN lacks any style, vision or logic. Yes, I know, the film was a financially anemic early effort by Corman, but c'mon, the integration of different shooting locations and the obvious stock footage is embarrassing at best. I'm also fairly certain that they killed an actual rattlesnake in the making of SWAMP WOMEN. If this is true, then, as viewed through the looking glass of time, that snake's brave and noble sacrifice was ultimately in vain. 1/10


***Some Spoilers***

Don't let the other review fool you. Swamp Women has the names Beverly Garland (It Conquered the World, Gunslinger) and Roger Corman (ditto) on it. The whole plot concerns itself with a bunch of bad girls who escape from a county jail in Louisianna. One of them has buried a bunch of diamonds in the swamps, so they go after it. They take two men hostage along the way. In one scene, one of the women is pushed into the water. They show someone splashing in the water from a distance in a swamp. When they do a close-up on her, it's painfully obvious that she's not in a swamp but in the local YWCA pool. Once they find the diamonds, greed naturally takes over and the ladies do a very bad catfight. Bad plot, bad acting, bad directing and the like shoot this one down.


A policewoman goes to jail to help a girls' gang of criminals escape to recover some stolen diamonds hidden in a swamp. The situation gets more complicated with a kidnapping, a lot of infighting and a few deaths.

Actually, Swamp Women is not too bad. It's not great by any means, but it's a fun, campy, low budget exploitation flick that can't help but entertain. The viewer does need to suspend disbelief at times-for instance, why the gang isn't more suspicious of a new inmate who knows all about the stolen diamonds and just happens to have a workable escape plan on her first night in jail, I'll never know-but that just adds to the "charm" of this film.

It's not an extreme film by any means, but it's fun and recommended for those who like this kind of low budget exploitation flick. Go in with low expectations and you won't be disappointed.


Policewoman Carole Mathews goes "undercover" to join Marie Windsor, Beverly Garland, and Jil Jarmyn in prison. The "Gang of Four" escape, and head for the local swamp, to look for some stashed diamonds. Who would hide their booty in a swamp? They take turns touching tied-up hostage Mike Connors. His girlfriend gets eaten by the alligator. Let's not beat around the bush. Stripped to its basics, "Swamp Women" was made for 1950s viewers to watch four naughty young women escape from prison, get drunk, cut off the legs of their pants, and wrestle in the swamp. Directed by Roger Corman. In color.

** Swamp Women (1955) Roger Corman ~ Marie Windsor, Carole Mathews, Beverly Garland


In this cautionary tale of greed and Roux rinses, three gun molls, one intersexual police decoy and Mike (Touch) Connors go on a boat trip. Desperately hoping to avoid the police in their rite of passage through an existential mobius strip of bayou, the women don hot pants and traffic-cone-orange shirts. In the case of Beverly Garland, also traffic-cone-orange hair. The erotic tension between the women, the intersexual and Mike Connors (and this reviewer) clearly trumps the need for camouflage as the floozies compete with the intersexual for the chance to caress Mike's big, hairy arms. And then slap him upside the head. Which brings me to the problem with this film. Mike gets wet, but Mike never takes off his shirt. Mike Connors with his hands tied behind his back is good. Mike Connors, shirtless and tied up would be better. Roger Corman really missed his chance to ramp up the subtext in this one.

If you're watching MST3K, Joel and the bots are a little limp on this one, but the movie is fantastic. The short "What to do on a date" is a bit upsetting as it seems to feature two actors with affective disorders, perhaps Asperger's Syndrome. Tom's disastrous date with Gypsy doesn't fare much better.


This film practically screams "cheap" from start to finish. The dialog is lousy, the acting amateurish and the music pure "cheese". Although the film cost more than PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE to produce, it probably didn't cost much more! The film opens with some Mardi Gras footage and you are introduced to Mike Connors (TV's "Mannix") and his "dame". Then, abruptly, the footage switches to a women's prison were some more tough dames are discussing some stolen diamonds--unaware that their new bunkmate is a cop in disguise! When these evil dames escape, they make a bee-line for the stolen loot. Too bad for Connors and his hot tomato that they stumble upon these tough broads!

What follows is a rather dull boat trip through the bayou punctuated by silly dialog (featuring lots of "cat fighting", frequent use of words such as "dame", "broad" and "loot" as well as frequent whining by Connor's girlfriend) and stock footage that is rather randomly inserted. Well, at least it seemed dull until some of the women noticed that young and studly Connors was too much man to leave alone--and they began slobbering and fighting to get into his pants.

All this slobbering is punctuated when the undercover cop falls into the swamp and she can't swim. Connors springs to the rescue and quickly dispatches an alligator with just a pocketknife AND he saves her from drowning---what a guy! Inexplicably, just moments later, the ladies take a break and a couple of them take off their clothes to take a swim--including the one who couldn't swim in the previous scene! Oh, well,...I guess they figured the movie needed a cheesecake scene regardless of whether or not it made any sense.

Later, when they find the diamonds the ladies do the most logical thing--have a long and pointless cat fight--complete with everything but jello!! Then, even more stock footage in a long and meaningless montage follows. Then, in the end, the women all turn on each other and by this point, rather inexplicably, the cop and Connors have fallen in love and the film ends with the surviving broads being arrested. Hurrah for justice!

This movie made the list of 50 worst films (from Harry Medved's book "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time and How They Got That Way") and whether it should or shouldn't have made this list is debatable. I'd put it on a list of maybe 200 worst films, but either way the movie stinks. As a result, the film is best seen only by bad film lovers (like myself)--not sane or "normal" people.


Thisa has to be one of the best of the Corman films that I've ever seen. The plot is a little slow and silly, there appear to be only three sets, and th dialog is campy at best. But the things it has that other Corman films do not have - 1. Not one, but FOUR strong female leads. Corman films tend to have strong females in them, but usually only one at a time(or two at most). And while the girls do spend a bit too much time drooling over the one guy in the film, they're still smart, strong-willed, and(in the case of Beverly Garland's character) vicious, as well. 2. The color's not bad. Most Corman films are in black-and-white, but the thing is even the colorized ones tend to look gray because they're usually so drab and depressing(i.e., Gunslingers). 3. There is no stupid, ridiculous looking monster involved. True, Gunslinger doesn't have one either, but most of the rest of Corman's turds have the dumbest looking monsters ever put on screen in them. Look at It Conquered the World, which still has the worst, stupidest looking monster ever(at least in my estimation, anyway). 4. The plot's not bad, for a Corman flick. I mean it is thin, of course - the entire film is about these women wandering around a swamp while getting drunk, cutting their jeans into shorts, cat fighting, etc. But this is STILL more plot than in normal Corman fare.

Swamp Diammonds is brilliant for a movie made by the truly untalented Roger Corman. It's actually almost worth watching - almost.


The film's basic philosophy is "We have three good looking women in shorts, so who needs things like plot, character development, and anything to endear them to you." The obviously staged catfights are delplorable at best. In the scene where the woman gets thrown into the water, watch the water go back and forth from being in the swamp (when shown from a distance) and the local YWCA pool (when close up.)


I watched this because it is part of a collection of 50 horror movies. This package is a hodgepodge of B movies and old classics. The only horror about this film is the fact that it went into distribution. I saw that Roger Corman's name was above the title, so I figured some silly spook show. It's a women's prison movie. How did it get into the collection? Let's see. There is some plot about diamonds that have been hidden away in the Bayou. There are a group of women, some pretty famous actresses. There's Mike Connors (Mannix), and then a lot of gun pointing, and, pardon my sexism, cat fights. Connors' girl friend gets eaten by an alligator. The undercover cop is the hero but she allows innocent people to be killed. She's also not particularly attractive. There's Beverly Garland, the last wife on "My Three Sons." There's more fights. Connors sits with his hands tied behind his back for most of the movie. I don't mind bad movies. Sometimes they have something redeeming. This just pushes the button of stupidity.


This may or may not be Chabrol's best, but it must be his bravest. For what else can "The Pleasure Party" (1976) be but an open protest of patriarchy and battery. Think Ibsen's "A Doll House," and you cannot be far off. I think it's the final scenes that erase any minute doubt about the film's intent. First there is the belated rescue attempt of four men and a woman: the adult men's physical prowess seems suspended as if, as men, their hands are tied, while the woman casts a blinding black veil over Philip's head, halting the action, and condemning the actor. And then the prison scene in which Elsie (his new llama or lamb) tells her father that she is unable to learn under the harassment of a male student, to which his non-response includes the same transcendent jargon he used in the cemetery prior to his vicious assault. Chabrol and the Leguaffs have indeed taken their stand with this shattering portrait of male terror--one that explodes out of a convincingly two-faced man, and is thus all the more effective.

Yes this is a movie about male power. It is not about sexual impotence, philosophies, or a mid-life crisis , but about Philip's hard-wired connection to masculine identity. If he feels inadequate and helpless in the face of what he can only understand as female weakness, it is because he has bought into women's difference--from men. In other words, Esther is so other to him that anything other than ownership is threatening. The turning point of the film is when he advises Esther --"you should do it."--to sleep with other men. This moment must be as pointedly misogynist as his later acts of violence; for here he equates his lover with sex, temptation, and whoredom --ostensibly to test his purity and his ideas of freedom, but, in effect, he is using her to provoke her own demise. It's very instructive that although he manages the first test--even offering his satiated wife breakfast in bed the next morning, it is sex in bed--with him (to reclaim ownership) must come first. And during a party scene, he argues for the comparison of Gandhi and Hitler--unaware that Gandhi similarly used women to test his own purity, and that the latter's sadistic, eruptive violence would soon adhere to him.

What Philip becomes is a full fledged Magus: "the man who tells you everything and what to do" as he explains to Elsie, in his characterizing Habib. Toward Esther, he grows increasingly resentful, suspicious, tense, judgmental, menacing--and possessive. He shows the brawn to break down doors, and a mentality which can accept and enact cruelty. He becomes more withdrawn and, as Esther points out, racist. In the bathroom mirror scene his face, viewed through her tears, is as perverse as the Landru he introduced to his daughter in his House of Wax. The "freedom" he has granted his wife has boomeranged on him. He hates it and everyone and everything connected to it. "Liberty makes me sh_t," he says. When Sylvia simply asks "Why do you yell at Esther?" he answers that she talks too much of freedom and hangs out with guitar players. And his "profound" need for his ex-wife doesn't occur till Sylvia displays her independence in the fishing scene--here he longs for Esther's dependency symbolized for him in her fear of crabs.

Esther grasps the picture, but does not have the social power to act sufficiently on it, so finds herself ultimately trapped. However, her defiance is quiet, lucid, and courageous. Her "you, you, it's all about you" refrain, and lines like: "You make the decisions, I only say amen" and "I was great as your reflection" are equal to Ibsen's Nora. But she is more psychologically isolated than Nora, and must suffer from far more abuse, verbal, and, of course, physical. Esther is a battered woman and must endure that syndrome--she cannot fully grasp what Philip says to his buddies: "her weak point move me," and how many times is she willing to forego the depth of her own words: "since when do you care what I say." She can never finally disbelieve her husband--even the forced foot-licking is not proof-- and so, in the end turns to him in a moment of personal crisis because "she is too scared" to visit alone the tomb of the dear deceased aunt, the woman who raised her. The irony here is as devastating as her words are convincing. And her final "NO, NO" has come too late and is heard too late.

I understand that the Phillip role was turned down by several leading French actors. If one can relive some of his lines just previous to the assault, one can understand why? But his words serve to finally and totally expose the man behind the mask. His self-assurance, disarming directness, and engaging and almost defenseless smile belong now to a slave-holder, rather than a man who in his words, was "born to be joyful." When he say to Esther that all his sufferings (since their breakup--ha, ha, ha) "must be compensation for what I've been through," the viewer can only say bring on the executioner. It's so extremely tragic that he is the executioner.


I had to press the return function of the remote control when I believed to hear that Paul Gégauff, main actor and writer of the novel which is the base of Chabrols "Une partie de plaisir", says about his wife: "She sides with Korzybski who claims to refuse Aristote, but she hasn't read either one". I heard right. Although I had mentioned polycontextural logic in a couple of my comments, I would have never expected to find it actually in a film - and here we are.

If you reject Aristotelian logic, you give up the whole fundamental of our thinking. With the logical categories of position and negation, also the corresponding ethical categories good and bad are abolished. In such a world everything has to be defined newly, and most things are not anymore either good or bad, but both good and bad or neither one for which a term has still to be invented. I have no idea how Gégauff came to the idea to introduce the founder of General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski, in this movie. However, one could imagine that Korzybski's most important mathematical feature, the "multi-ordinality", is seen here as the metaphysical principle of the open marriage structure of the couple which finally leads into one of the most brutal catastrophes ever seen in a movie. The concept of multi-ordinality replaces unambiguous mappings through ambiguous ones - yet, not in a chaotic, but exactly restricted sense. Possibly, in the eyes of Gégauff's character, his wife breaks out of this restricted area when she goes into a sexual relationship with Habib. Gégauff's character says clearly: "Earlier, she preferred sublime culture, and now she is wallowing in the mud of human scum". (By the way: Also the highly sophisticated language which Gégauff's character uses in order to damn every lower level of human existence into hell, shows a philosophical background which is hard to find anymore.) Thus, his wife crossed the border restricted by the Korzybski-functions and is to be condemned because of that. Up to this moment, Gégauff's character still appears as the guardian of a consistently valid metaphysics; e.g., to his future new wife he underlines many times that he feels freed and relaxed. So, the real breaking-point in the story of this movie is there, where Gégauff himself abandons his own metaphysical principles. From his unreachable position, he comes so-to-say down and turns into a vulgar stalker and beggar who is ashamed about himself. However, the story seems to trespass another border, too, namely the border between Gégauff's character and Gégauff, the writer, himself. In the movie he (almost?) kills his wife on a cemetery, in his real live (just a few years after the movie) he was stabbed to death by his second wife, on Christmas' Eve. Therefore, the final question arises: Does the reflexivity which arises when somebody plays himself still belong to Korzybski's principle or does it violate this principle, because self-reflexivity is excluded in a multi-ordinal world?'- It is.


Pleasure Party is yet another offering from the great Claude Chabrol that puts it's central focus on the director's all time favourite subject; that being infidelity. The director has explored this topic previously in films such as The Unfaithful Wife and Wedding in Blood (among others), but Pleasure Party stands out because it's an overall much darker tale than what went before, and may well be a contender for Chabrol's all time darkest film. The film really is not much fun at all to watch, but I would liken it to a car crash - the similarity being the fact that it's difficult to take your eyes off what you're seeing, despite perhaps wanting to. The plot focuses on married couple Philippe and Esther who live with their young daughter Elise. After an awkward conversation one day in which Philippe admits infidelity, it is decided (mostly from his side) that they should see other people as well as each other. It's not long before this plan backfires in spectacular fashion as Ester meets Habib and Phillipe becomes very jealous of their relationship...

Despite the ugly plot, in typical Chabrol fashion; the film is very nice to look at, which offsets the tone of the film nicely. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous and as ever, the director pulls good performances out of all his lead performers. Paul Gégauff may not quite have the screen presence of Jean Yanne or Michel Bouquet, but the character fits him like a glove and I really cant see anyone else in the role. His wife, Danièle Gegauff, plays second fiddle somewhat to her co-star, but also puts in a very good and believable performance. The film really all centres on the leading man, which isn't surprising since the actor is also the scriptwriter. Everything about the story flows from his character and the film is actually more about his ego and need to control his wife than it is about infidelity. The film does not feature shocks and thrills - rather it is a continual and intense grinding down of the audience as we witness the lead character self destruct, become a shadow of himself, and take down everyone around him. Pleasure Party is not one of Chabrol's best films; but it's an undoubtedly interesting movie from one of France's premier film directors.


Phew! Well, this is certainly no bundle of fun. What an ugly film, was my first thought as I stared at the closing credits. As a seasoned film fan, one is always put on guard when a male lead tells his partner that she should experiment with sleeping with other people. He would not be jealous - oh yea! But here things go from bad to really awful and as someone else has noted it is almost inconceivable that one would be likely to choose to revisit this little number. Having said all that, to discover than long time Chabrol script writer, Paul Gegauff, not only wrote this nasty piece but plays the male lead in question. Not only that but his real life wife plays the appallingly treated partner AND that their actual daughter, plays their screen daughter, just about the only light relief this movie has. Hard to recommend to non Chabrol fans but certainly a powerful piece of cinema.


OK, it's clear that this isn't a "great movie". It has some kind of tabloid energy that connects it to films by a director like Fuller. And it's committed to a very raw kind of amateurism that, as far as I know, is unique in Chabrol's oeuvre. The main actor was Chabrol's main screenwriter (Paul Gegauff), who also performs (with Chabrol's son) the 4-hand piano music used throughout the film (well, there is a one - pianist Schubert Impromptu at a key point). The couple and kid are a real-life couple and kid. And so on. This all lends a special intensity to the film but it also creates a lack of nuance. But I find that this energy corresponds to a certain experience I have (via my parents) of a marriage marked by emotional battering better than more nuanced films do. I wish Chabrol would have figured out a way to combine this rawness with his usual suavity in later films. Instead we end up with tired style exercises like Merci Pour Le Chocolat (although he really captures Swiss-ness in that film, I have to admit). Chabrol has a little trick, which I don't love, of adding some "surreal" element to his films right near the end. In this film, it's the veil as symbol of death. My girlfriend said "5 people couldn't pull him off her?" She didn't know that there's this kind of suspension near the end of many Chabrols. Anyway, I want to point out how Woody Allen seems to have stolen the 2 crab sequences for Annie Hall (the lobster sequences). In the 1st, the wife has an annoying fear of the crab. In the second, on the same beach, the new wife is masterful with the crab, and this makes Gegauff miss the 1st wife's now - endearing fear. Check it out.


For sheer spectacle, it's tough to beat the Bible. With "The Prince of Egypt," DreamWorks makes good on its promise to deliver a state-of-the-art animated film that will compete favorably with the best Disney has to offer. As with "Antz," released earlier this year, DreamWorks has successfully resisted the temptation to populate this film with characters that can be turned into further revenue through toy sales. (I do wonder, though, if three soundtrack albums--the film's soundtrack, an "inspirational" album, and a "country" album--were really necessary.) The animation team has accomplished something truly spectacular; watching "The Prince of Egypt" is like seeing life breathed into a rich, luxurious tapestry. The Biblical story told in the books of Genesis and Exodus is followed very faithfully, with only minor changes made for dramatic reasons. The action sequences are truly exciting, overall pacing is excellent, and the miracles wrought by God are depicted with awed and respectful wonder. One truly astonishing, harrowing sequence recounts the slaughter of firstborn Hebrew children by bringing hieroglyphic drawings to life on the walls of an Egyptian temple. The voice work is especially good--Val Kilmer is fine as Moses, and Pharoah, voiced by Ralph Fiennes, positively seethes with arrogance and hubris. The storytellers wisely chose to end their tale at the climactic crossing of the Red Sea; even the delivery of the Ten Commandments is portrayed only in an epilogue vignette. (After all, the Israelites wander in the wilderness for forty years after that, and Moses ultimately is not allowed to enter the Promised Land--perhaps not the uplifting ending the filmmakers had in mind.) Some of the subject matter is dark and disturbing, and there is no shying away from the harsh realities of the original texts. By all means, see it with the children in your life--and be prepared to discuss it with them afterward.


I saw Mulan, Anastasia and Prince of Egypt in a row. I loved Mulan, I loved Anastasia even more, and now... Well, I must say that Prince of Egypt is probably the best of all. I'd even say, the best animation feature ever produced in the USA (aside from Batman : Mask of the Phantasm).

It is a real piece of art, aiming to entertain everybody, not only act as a baby-sitter movie for kids. There aren't even any pets here. Only a great story, moving scenes, credible characters and fantastic music and storyboard. You will love this one.


The story of Moses is done here and, although not totally Biblically accurate, this is about as close as it gets in Hollywood. The inaccuracies are minor.

The artwork was fabulous when it came out in 1999. It's still very good, but animation has improved so fast in so short a time period that this is nothing special, art-wise, these day. However, it sure was when it was released just seven years ago. It's just beautiful in parts. Some of the prettiest colors I've seen on film have been in animated movies the last decade, and this is a prime example. The parting of the Red Sea in here is awesomely-done by the artists. That scene also sported the best sound in the 99-minute film.

The songs in here were nothing special but they didn't detract from the story because they were all short. Regarding the story, I only wish they had gone into detail on the plagues instead of just lumping them all together. They could have had some jaw-dropping scenes with the locusts, etc.

All-in-all a fine film and a rarity: a Biblical film that doesn't offend anyone.


"The Prince of Egypt" is a surprisingly near perfect movie. The beautifully animated has a great story and storytelling, beautiful songs and a great voice cast.

Animated movies has been taken to a new level with this movie. This is one of the very first animated movies made for an adult mainstream audience. Still the movie has some misplaced humor and 'Disney' like characters, to make this movie appealing for children as well but really this is more a movie for adults than for children. The movie has a serious undertone and some powerful moments, with the burning bush and the splitting of the red sea as the ultimate highlights of the movie.

The characters in the movie are well developed, which is perhaps also thanks to the impressive voice cast that consists out of; Val Kilmer, Ralph Fiennes, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sandra Bullock, Jeff Goldblum, Danny Glover, Patrick Stewart, Helen Mirren, Steve Martin, Martin Short, Ofra Haza. voices that stood out to me were Val Kilmer, Jeff Goldblum and Patrick Stewart. But it of course is also due to the nicely done character animation and storytelling that the characters work out really well and are highly realistic and humane. The character's movement and interacting is done really good and with eye for detail.

Another wonderful about his movie is the music composed by Hans Zimmer and friends and songs and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz. It sounds weird, songs for a serious movie but it works extremely well for the movie and the storytelling and on top of that the songs are all from a very high level of prestige.

With this movie DreamWorks showed for the first time that they are a worthy competitor for Disney.

The movie and its storytelling are really powerful and impressive and help to make this movie an unforgettable watching experience.

It's a great movie for all ages but mainly adults.

9/10


For years, I have searched for a truly epic film. I have witnessed the genius of Lawrence of Arabia, the majesty of Star Wars, the pupil-dilating battles of Braveheart, but after all that war, I realize that The Prince of Egypt is a little more special than all of them.

If not the best film of the year, then the best animated film ever. Its visuals simply can't be described, for its images will stay in your mind forever. They will not be seared, like the brutal images of Saving Private Ryan, but instead, simply stay with you. When you remember them, you will smile, for they are the true meaning of epic.

If you don't like the film's story, or even if you don't like the film in general, you will still stare in awe at its visual images. They are the best ever. The parting of the Red Sea is just one of the best. The closing shot is about 10 seconds long and is truly mind-boggling.

Animation just hit puberty, and I can't wait to see it become an adult. Go see it. You won't be disappointed, I guarantee you.


I adore the Prince of Egypt. Such a stellar cast of voices, and the names don't outweigh the movie. The music is fantastic. It has such a diverse audience, you cannot go wrong with this film. We are all familiar with the base story and we are provided a mild, interpretive, inoffensive version to intrigue and open the mind. If not, it can be enjoyed simply for the color, sound, and simple human emotions and actions that glide over right and wrong. I'm in college, and I listen to this movie while studying. I can't escape, humming in the shower, and learning calculus to the goose-bump inducing tones. The sounds of God capture all emotion and awe.


this movie, from Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks Pictures, is a great achievement in animated movies. It tells a story of biblical proportions (literally!) about slave Mozes' life as The Prince of Egypt, and does it in a great way. The animation is truly stunning, especially the scenes when Mozes splits up the Red Sea, and when he turns the Nile into blood (which was really kind of scary). I can't really recommend the whole family (including 7-year old kids) to go see this, but if you're over 12 years old and you know something about the story of Mozes, you'll definitely appreciate this film. I give it a 9.


This is very possibly the finest animation I've seen. Before commenting on the film as a whole, I want to make that clear, because in the inevitable rush to pick this film apart (the plot, the voices, the religious significance, the literary accuracy, the moral issues, the music, the comparisons with Disney and de Mille, etc...) one might easily become distracted from the aesthetic and technical triumphs of The Prince of Egypt, and that would be unfortunate. As someone who has an interest and appreciation of animation, I can say that this is the first film I've seen that successfully integrates computer-generated animation and traditional animation (and I've seen many attempts). More importantly, as someone who has eyes, I can say that the result is a visual experience of intense style and beauty. In fact, the initial depiction of Egypt is so breathtaking, that it seriously hinders the film's later efforts to vilify it.

Comparisons with Disney are inevitable, especially because Prince of Egypt employs tired Disney formula in an attempt, I assume, to remain economically viable. What a shame, since Disney hasn't made a decent film since Aladdin. I am referring, of course, to the unnecessary musical numbers and the two high priests, the film's comic relief, who are drawn grossly out of proportion to the other characters. Even worse than their unoriginality, however, is the open mockery of ancient Egyption religion and culture, which these two characters embody. I found their musical number especially appalling. On the other hand, it's a story in which the protagonists succeed only through a greater capacity for cruelty and destruction and the slaughter of innocent children, so it's kind of hard to nail down any concrete moral standard here.

In general, I thought the story was well told, with solid direction and a good script. The only complaint I have about the voice acting is that Jeff Goldblum's unmistakable mannerisms seriously distract from his character. I suspect that I wasn't really bothered by the others only because I hadn't seen a cast list before seeing the film. I wish they would stop relying on celebrity voices for animated features. No character can be effective if the viewer can't separate the voice from the actor supplying it.

The bottom line is, despite any objections, complaints, or concerns I might have about this film, despite the moral, religious, or idealogical issues it brings up, and despite the $8 and two hours you'll spend, this film is worth seeing. It's worth seeing because of the animation. I hope it sets a new standard for feature-length animated films. At the very least, I think it will show the movie-going public what the medium is capable of.


The first time I saw this film I thought 'Wow! I have to own that!' The telling of the story of Moses is powerfully done and the art is outstanding. It is the soundtrack, however, that brings this beauty together- the songs as well as the musical scores are catchy, beautifully composed and thoroughly breathtaking. The story has not been 'dumbed down' or watered down. It is accessible to children without alienating other generations and it humanises the characters wonderfully. The only thing in the entire film I found difficult was the pronunciation of Aaron's name- but that is obviously minor, it just took me a while to 'get' if that makes sense.

It's amazing, beautiful wonderful the art, music and sheer intelligence of the story will blow you away.


I went to the movie theater to watch 'The Prince of Egypt' and the money I spent was very well used,because it is a great movie and one of my favorites from Dreamworks!(And look,I am not catholic or Jew) We have, in this great story, two brothers: one is Egyptian and with royal blood(Ramses),and the other one an orphan with a mysterious past(Moises). They are best friends and they have a great life in their palace,with strong bonds. But when Moises is so arrogant as his brother Ramses,but one night, when he was walking alone at night after searching for a woman(Tzipporah) Miriam and Aaron met with him and are surprised to see their little brother so close. Moises cannot believe that he is not royal and stays angry with Miriam, but stays in doubt after some while, and reading the walls of the pyramid, he discovers the true: that he has Jew blood and was adopted. Angry and thinking that everything he always imagined to be true were illusions, he run away and starts a new life as shepherd and even marrying Tzipporah. But now he has a new mission in his life(sent by God), that is to help his people (The Jews) to not be slaves anymore and go to the Promise Land. But he will need to confront his brother Ramses in this battle, and this will not be an easy thing...


I was in tears and all emotional when I watched this movie. It's not a movie only for Christian people to watch, I think this movie's for anyone and I definitely recommend it. I used a whole box of my Kleenex and my eyes were so red by the end of the movie I freaked out myself. Honestly, people should make more movies like this, because nowadays, it's all movies like where you forget what the movie is really about. And then couple of months later, you don't even remember if you watched the movie or not. I don't think that really makes sense there. But anyway this movie is really good! I've got the soundtrack and it's really really good, watch the movie !!!


This movie stunned me when I first saw it, so I went and saw it again two days later. It's so beautiful, and it gives me so much to think and wonder about. I'm still thinking about it. I want to go and see it again. I may or may not do that. I realise that the reason I want to see it again is that it inspires a deep yearning in me for depth and beauty and purity and truth and love. Seeing it again will not satisfy this longing, but it will remind me that I have it. And that's good.


When i watched 'The Prince of Egypt' in the theatre, i was godsmacked by the amazing graphics. Dreamworks has made a movie, a cartoon admittedly, but this movie couldn't be made if it weren't a cartoon. This way the movie has no borders or boundries.. and the story is exploited to the fullest.

The story reminded me a bit of the Lion King, the cartoon by Disney two years earlier .. also it was about a (sort of) king-to-be which goes away to another place, only to return to the hometown sometime later with a lot of vengeance towards a lot of people. This story is straight from the bible, and what book holds more amazing and involving stories as this ancient book. And this movie is all that. Even believing people, who swear by the bible found the movie excellent.

'The Prince of Egypt' is a romantic drama, which draws you in and won't let you go... I described this movie as the best movie i saw in '97, maybe it's a little overrated, but that's how i felt walking out of the movie theatre. Almost whole of hollywood does a voice (Sandra Bullock, Val Kilmer etc.) and with the helping hand of Mr. Spielberg himself, this is a masterpiece not to miss !!!!


I absolutely LOVED this movie from beginning to end. I have NEVER been to a movie that "grabbed" me like this one did. The scene with the burning bush....there is no words for it. When I first saw it (and every time since), you could literally FEEL the presence of God in the theater. Plus, the music is totally AWESOME!! I mean, you have Mariah Carey & Whitney Houston, Boyz II Men, Take 6, BeBe & CeCe Winans, Steven Curtis Chapman, Alabama, Randy Travis and Linda Davis, Toby Keith, Charlie Daniels, Clint Black, Carman, plus an all-star song of which the actors and artists sing together. I highly recommend this movie and music to everyone!


Unbelievable. I have never had an animated movie take me on a breathtaking ride like that before. I didn't even realize I was watching a "cartoon". This is a movie for all ages. The Moses/Ramses relationship was unique and made you wonder what their relationship might have really been. The animation was absolutely fantastic. I was deeply moved in about 3 or 4 scenes. That never has happened to me before. When Moses split the Red Sea I just sat in awe. I can't say enough great things about this movie. I was not expecting it to be that good. It deserves a 10 without a doubt.


With the good audio and video effects, The Prince of Egypt being a good movie I have seen. Especially from the original songs such as "Deliever Us", I like it very much as well!


I thought this movie was a fantastic rendition of the events that took place in the bible. Val Kilmer did a wonderful job as the voices of Moses and God. I was very impresses with Hotep and Hut. They really gave the story a darker side. The tenth plague was drawn so well, I fell in love with the movie immediately. My favorite part was when Moses saw the burning bush, and when he parted the Red Sea. It was all drawn so well, that you could automatically lose yourself in the movie, and not want it to end. I however did not like when Moses accidentally killed the guard on the structure. It was disappointing to know that Ramases thought he could make it all go away. (If you want the Lyrics to "When You Believe," email bryonyalte@yahoo.com. I'll send them to you, Hebrew and all.)


Put aside all of the talk about technique and animation achievements (although these are done excellently) and enjoy the story for its triumph and splendor of the delivery of God's people. One comment about the animation needs to be said: The emotions of the characters are depicted splendidly, especially by the use of great breathing detail (watch for deep sighs and heaving chests).

The sound track is worth having on its own merit. Excellent work by the composer.


Spectacular is an understatement for this movie. The animation is BRILLIANT. Classic.


I expected the Prince of Egypt to be another 'run of the mill' cartoon which makes you say 'Wow, great animation!' but one which you basically forget about the next day. I was wrong.

As a Christian, I fully expected the film to take the story of Moses and jazz it up out of all proportion, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the story remained one of pretty much Biblical accuracy. Obviously some artistic license has to be taken to make the film more appealing to children and the non-Christian.

Almost to take a swipe at Disney, the Prince of Egypt oozes fluid animation and the water effects especially are the best I've seen in a cartoon. If any producers are going to pull Disney from its perch, Dreamworks will definitely be the ones to do it. Rarely have I seen animation of this quality before.

But the classy look of this film only hides its true nature as a Biblical story. The film delivers the story of Exodus admirably, with just enough humour and artistic license to keep the children interested. On a deeper, more spiritual level the film excels though. The story of Moses is not an easy one to come to grips with in the Bible and to see it brought to life on the big screen was a joy to behold. The burning bush scene was one of the most powerful, moving pieces of cinema I have experienced and the red sea scene was almost as powerful in it's own right. Obviously from a Christian viewpoint, this film couldn't have been made any better. To somebody else however, the Prince of Egypt also has so much to offer: Great animation, a cracking story and a good dose of humour. I highly recommend this film to anybody and everybody.


This movie is one of the greatest ever! I like it very, very much. It's a great start for Dreamworks. Unlike some other people, I think it was a good idea to make an animated movie about the Bible story and Moses. Animation is great, music also and it's good they made some characters funny. I think it would be a shame to miss a great movie like this one is. So go and see it!!!


I would like two say just some things about this movie. OK, the story isn't its strength, well it could be although it is taken out of the bible, though some of the scenes very really moving, not just because of some superb animations (especially everything covering the presentation of H2O).

And then there I want to add why I really liked POE: No talking animals. Thank you.


The storyline of this movie was close to the biblical story of Exodus. There were certain embellishments, as to be expected.

The animation was not all that great. The effects of the parting of the Red Sea was good, but the general drawing of the people in the story left a lot to be desired.

The music was, in my opinion, the weakest link in this movie. I honestly could not tell you a single line from any song. It was very forgettable -- and rather contrived. For no apparent reason, a song would break out.

Nonetheless, this was a good movie. It is nice to be able to go to a movie and not be assaulted by vulgarity or sexuality thrown in just to appeal to the masses. I liked the fact that part of the believer's heritage is written about in the mainstream media.

Overall, this movie got an 8 from me.


"The Prince of Egypt" has to be one of the best movies of 1998, let alone one of the best movies I've ever seen. This animated story of Moses (though minutes into the movie, you almost forget it's animation!) is told in such a unique and refreshing way which adds new life to the Biblical story yet sticks with it well enough to convey the same sense of power and inspiration. The animation is impeccable and the music (after a few listens/viewings) will stick with you for days on end. The Burning Bush and parting of the Red Sea scenes alone are worth the price of the movie ticket. If you're looking for a movie that has more character, more inspiration, more LIFE than the usual shoot-em-up's, check out "The Prince Of Egypt".


Sometimes you discover that a movie is not that good but better than you expected, sometimes you go to the movies expecting an unforgettable time and leave the theater with a "it-was-very-good-but-could-be-better" feeling. Prince of Egypt fits the last case.

It's all there: the visual impact, the fantastic scenes (the one in the Red Sea is no less than wonderful), the emotions attached to a very known story, etc. But this could be the best of all the movies in animation history and it isn't.

First of all, this Moses is like a shadow, he should be the soul of the story but feels like he's just passing through it; even his sister Mirian is more expressive than him. The personality of someone who has been chosen by God to free His people and, for that very reason, must throw his past away, could be much better explored.

There are too musical scenes too. I know they're different from another scores, as long as they're sometimes close to an opera act, but this shouldn't be an excuse to fill almost the entire plot with them. The one in the very beginning and the last, with the made-to-be hit "when you believe", are very fine; but the one with the priests is completely strange to the movie's mood. And, worse, the part that shows the plagues is a waste of good cinematography possibilities: it's all filled with songs and music. It seems like they didn't know how to do the scene and then decided to make a musical out of it. I really don't understand why animated stories must always be entwined with that horrible Broadway style.

But don't misunderstand me, you should watch this movie, and in the big screen. Although the plot is filmed mostly with a visual point of view, there are memorable scenes that can make you feel fully delighted and they're worth the price of the ticket. Otherwise, if you wait for the video, you might think this is just another one.


I was entertained by this movie, and I wouldn't call it biblically "incorrect," but biblically "incomplete." The movie fails to include one of the most important parts of the story, which is included in the Seder service for Passover, which Jews celebrate every year: after the Hebrew people were freed, and they are in the midst of their rejoicing, God basically yells at them and says "How can you be joyous when my children have died?" This acknowledgement of the loss that the Egyptians experienced is a really important part of the story, but it was fairly irrelevant in the context of the movie. The songs were sometimes unnecessary, but overall better than I expected them to be. One to see, (mainly for the graphical excellence), but there are better animated films out there.


I've seen this three times. Each time I have enjoyed it even more. In my opinion it is truly the best animated movie of 1998!

The special effects stunning and the character design refreshing. All in all, Dreamworks has a winner. Not bad for a crew that comprises mostly of very talented European Artists who were not all poached from Disney.


The Prince of Egypt is mightily impressive. Although an unexpected story for Dreamworks to embark on, they do a fine job of it. The animation is astonishing and the characterisations are great. I will not add further mention of how inappropriate 'You're Playing with the Big Boys' song is. Dreamworks must now set a different path from that of Disney. To avoid the inevitable comparisons, Dreamworks should continue with the idea to produce animated motion pictures equally for the adult because there IS an audience for such a genre. Additionally, I don't know why no one has picked up on this before, but songs in cartoons suck. With the exception of the River Lullaby and When You Believe (Pfeiffer/Dworsky), there is no need for the others. This is the same for all of Disney's animations. On each of Disney's films, who can really remember any of the songs besides the main piece? The lesser the amount of ridiculous songs the better the animation. All kids really want to see is the animation and action - not the silly songs. Disney discredits kids too much - kids are much smarter these days. The Prince of Egypt is wonderfully told and the actual line drawing is marvellous. It is great to know that Fiennes and Pfeiffer sang their parts. If movie studios are going to get celebrities to be the voices of characters and are still willing to persist with silly songs - the least they could do is make the actual actors sing the songs - or alternatively let the singers SPEAK the parts.


Usually animated movies are simply fun to watch, they rarely touch deeply in our feelings. But in this case, the animation is so perfect that the characters seems to be real people. In one of the first scenes I really got thrilled by the horse racing, although they were just two cartoons "risking their lifes", I felt as if that scene needed a stunt!!! What I mean is that the animation is so realistic that it entertains us as a regular shot movie.

The story is really interesting, and the epic songs gives it a special thrill. Even to those who have already watched billions of movies on this story, this particular movie is really worth watching! Unlike most animated movies it's a really dynamic one, with no such "crying songs" all the time!!!


The animation good, the music is great, the choice fo the story appropriate for a Christmas release (after all, Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday).

Also, very accurate to the Biblical account of the story.


I wish I had DVDs of the early years, I would use them in my Sunday School curriculum. Yes, I know that Sister Steve had some odd undertakings, but I don't think they detracted from the day-to-day exploration of Catholic Christian theology. The site requests additional lines so I'll commend Tom Bosley's warm performance as Father Dowling. Tracy Nelson had the look and personality of a young woman settling into the religious life. I enjoyed the Chicago setting as well. Around the time this show was canceled, I pretty much quit watching television as so much of it was so offensive. This show was substantive without being corny.


I really like this show. While I do slightly prefer Murder She Wrote and Diagnosis Murder, Father Dowling is an entertaining watch. Tom Bosley is superb in the title role, a performance of great warmth and dignity. Tracy Nelson does show real promise as an actress, she has a likable and quite bubbly personality, and it was a pleasure to see her develop as the series progressed. My favourite has to be the late Mary Wickes as Marie, Wickes was a very underrated actress, and I enjoyed her here. The episodes are benefited by some nice camera-work, lovely locations and good scripts, not to mention a number of funny moments. Of course you may find some over familiarities in the story lines, but overall this is a very entertaining mystery series, probably not the best out there, but worth a watch. 9/10 Bethany Cox