'Moonlight' is (so far) the only movie I've ever seen that was shot in Luxembourg, but I fervently hope it's not a typical example of Luxembourgeoise cinema. This movie is a lot more arty-tarty than it needs to be. For starters, the title is nearly irrelevant: some of the action takes place in a house named Mondschein ('moonlight'), but that name is completely arbitrary and unrelated to the plot.

SPOILERS COMING. 'Moonlight' is the first movie I've seen that's directed by Paula van der Oest, and (again) I fervently hope this is not a typical example of her craft. In 'Moonlight', she shows a penchant for camera set-ups that are distracting and serve no useful purpose. When young Claire feeds her dog, van der Oest plumps for an overhead shot as if we were watching a Busby Berkeley musical. Later, Claire and the fugitive boy break into a house during the resident family's absence, and then attempt some sexual fumblings in the parents' bed ... only to be caught in the act when two people walk in. Van der Oest uses a very contrived camera set-up to make us think that the arrivals are the parents, then uses a reverse angle to reveal that they are actually the family's son and daughter. The switcheroo serves absolutely no purpose except to disorient us. Elsewhere, Claire tells the boy that she's a foundling: is this true, or is it a lie told in a childish attempt to impress him? We never find out. Either way, it's irrelevant to the story.

'Moonlight' could have been a straightforward thriller. A boy from an unnamed country (apparently Turkey) has arrived in Luxembourg as a drugs 'mule', his digestive tract packed with condoms filled with narcotic contraband. When he fails to excrete them quickly enough, a drugs runner shoots him and leaves him for dead ... but stupidly doesn't bother to check. The girl Claire finds the boy and helps him, but oddly she never tells her parents about him. (If she's a foundling, they must be her foster parents.) Very implausibly, she runs away from home with the boy, having no clear destination in mind. Are there no police in Luxembourg?

The film places some emphasis on pubescent sexuality: Claire experiences her menarche just before she finds the bleeding boy, and there's some attempt to equate her bloodstained knickers with his bloodstained gut. Later, there's a deeply implausible sequence in which the two runaways enrol themselves in a girls' convent school, where the nuns accept them without question. Claire introduces the boy as her sister: he is very clearly male (even while wearing a Communion dress), yet all the nuns and at least one priest automatically accept him as a girl. Speaking of girls' clothing, I could have done without the shot of the Down's Syndrome girl stripping off to her bra and underpants.

Obscure joke: Claire's dog is named Quick, and at one point the dog seems to have a stunt double. I couldn't help wondering if the stunt double's name is Flupke. (Americans won't get this reference.)

This is one of those movies in which increasingly contrived events keep happening ... and AFTER each one occurs, we realise that it didn't really happen after all: Claire seems to be turning more and more hallucinatory as the film proceeds. At the end of the film, Claire commits suicide by an extremely implausible method. Or ... DOES she? Sheesh!

I well and truly wanted to like this film. When director van der Oest puts aside her arty crotchets and she sticks to the story, she shows some genuine narrative talent despite the increasing incoherence of this plot line. In the lead role as Claire, young actress Laurien Van den Broeck is extremely pretty and personable, with significant screen presence. I wish her good luck elsewhere in other projects.

If you watch any five consecutive minutes of 'Moonlight', you'll mistake this for a brilliant film. If you watch it from beginning to end, as I did, your response will likely be similar to mine: namely, "HUH?" I wish that all this talent and these resources had been devoted to a more coherent screenplay, and I regretfully rate 'Moonlight' only 4 out of 10.


I had never heard of this movie until monday, when i found out it would be available for rent(dvd) the next day. (02/04/2003) So i decided to pick it up as the imdb info and comment looked quite promising.

After watching the trailer on the dvd (before watching the actual movie) i thought, well this is going to be a good mysterious and a bit romantic movie. But boy, am i disappointed.

Let me start with the positive things first. The cinematography is quite good, beautiful filming and shots at times. The acting (especially by the young Laurien Van den Broeck) is good aswell. Just 13 or 14? years old and already speaking fluent english including some french and german. I hope she will develop herself to a good actress in the future. But then we get to the plot, which is really really weak and terrible slow. *** SPOILERS AHEAD ***

The basic story: A boy from afghanistan is used by some criminals to smuggle drugs(coke rolled in plastic, he eats it and keeps it in his stomage to poop it out at the destination) something goes wrong and the criminals shoot him 2 times. Thinking the boy is dead they run/drive off, he actually isn't and ends up wounded at the house of Claire. Claire finds him and decides to take care of him. The criminals ofcourse find out he isn't dead and start looking for him, when claire sees the criminals kill an innocent man she decides to go on the run with the boy.

The first 35mins revolve around claire taking care of the boy at her house. This part is very slow and contains some unnecessary parts imho: the ~2mins intro /w credits where the camera flies over the woods. Nice cinematography and all, but what does it contribute to the movie? Thats right, nothing. Ok you know where the movie starts, (in the woods) but does it really have to take 2mins to show that? The movie shows having the girl her first period, contributes nothing to the story. The movie shows a 1min swimming scene, and i still don't understand what that part had to do with the story.

After 35mins claire sees the criminals(which are looking for the boy) kill an innocent man and she goes on the run with the boy. (leaving her house) You would expect a nice thrilling follow up of the movie now. Too bad, it won't happen. The rest of the movie is as slow and stupid as the first part. They visit various weird locations, (including a convent) the typical dutch elements for a movie get thrown in again: The boy/girl start sniffing/using the coke(why?), the girl goes naked(thought i was looking at child porn here) and has sex with the boy, one of the criminals tries to rape(literally) the girl. And it contains alot of unnecessary parts, which only seem to be there to get the movie at the final 85min running time.

I could probably go on for another 5mins, but i think i will stop here. Final conclusion is that the plot/story is very weak, pathetic and it ruins the movie.

4/10 (cinematography, acting is good. But the plot takes the rating down bigtime)

PS. I tried to get my 4$ back at the videostore, but no...... :)


If there was a message the director of "Moonlight" was trying to put across, I missed it. However, one thing is certain, I got my fill of two kids' bathroom habits (or lack thereof.) We are not told why a young 13-year old girl, who is obviously loved by her parents and well-taken care of, decides to secretly harbor a young boy who has been shot once in the leg and once in the abdomen. Why she doesn't tell her parents remains a mystery. Of course, how she determined the boy's wounds were a result of being shot is even a more perplexing mystery. He doesn't speak English (or any other language in which she is apparently fluent.) This film begins with a very absorbing plot, but unfortunately the birds ate all its breadcrumbs, and inevitably along with its viewers, the film becomes fatally lost. The only folks left pleased, perhaps, are the pedophiles that steal glimpses of an underage girl's nudity.


The guy at the videostore did not recommend it. A friend of mine did and i am glad i rented it. Afterwards the guy in the videostore confessed that he only saw the first ten minutes. Anyways, good movie, interesting subject. The kids play really good. mysterious surroundings. good camerawork. YEP! well done guys.


This is just about as bad as it gets folks. If this is 'European art' then the words 'Emperor's clothes' springs to mind. The only skill the director and producer have is to lead you along so that just as you think it can't get much worse, it does. The number of flaws in the plot is countless and I won't list them all here. The baddies drift around in their car; we are led to think they are following the two main actors, in which case why don't they just pounce. The final image of the girl, rotating as it does back and forth, summed it up for me: No one knew where this movie was going and no one knew how to finish it off. Uggh. I hope this was not made with European taxpayers money, but I have a horrible feeling it was.


Version: Japanese, English subtitles (by SBS)

I don't know what to make of 'Otogiriso'. It was slow from start to finish, quite a feat for a movie that runs less than 90 minutes, but it built up a strange and creepy atmosphere and was crafted using some interesting concepts.

I can't say much about the plot without spoiling it: Nami (Megumi Okina) has been designing a video game based on dreams she has been having. After finding the house from her dream, Nami and Kohei (Yoichiro Saito), decide to investigate the house. Naturally, this is a bad idea, but video games and movies alike thrive on bad ideas.

The whole concept of 'Otogiriso' is that the movie is a video game. It plays out like a game - the characters are stuck in one location, they have a support team they can phone, they have maps and must find keys for locked doors. A nice idea, but probably one that would appeal to gamers and few other people. Others might appreciate the cinematography, but this is definitely not for everyone.

'Otogiriso' is a good movie, I would recommend it to gamers, and maybe fans of Asian horror movies - 7/10


Absolutely astonishing imagery and camera-work elevates this simplistic horror film to a level that doesn't even have a name. In all honesty, the story isn't that bad to begin with but it's just utterly put to shame by the sheer look of this film. I was expecting another thuggish Japanese horror/thriller, a la INUGAMI, but there was none of that here. Just an amazing experience especially for those who are intrigued by the power of the new wave digital cameras which have been slowly taking over more and more independent productions worldwide.

There are a few scenes in the film with laughable CGI by North American standards, but to nitpick about something that is so boringly dispensed in North American films would be such a gratuitous waste of time. This wasn't some insane Hollywood blockbuster with the standard $70, 000, 000 USD budget, hence requiring 50 million dollars just for the effects budget!

In the end this film totally delivers what is necessary for your enjoyment. An awesome story, genuinely creepy as hell moments, hot girls (BONUS!) and hands down, the best freakin' cinematography that I've seen since..., well, since Fight Club!

This is it people, the future is looking VERY bright for digital films!


Excellent production design within a tight scope that had enough room to breathe that the view should never feel cheated. I enjoyed the abundant MAC, Quick Time and Lycos product placements, a nice now to the media savvy. Some other nice touches, like a great video game level maker that is a Japanese go girl with blonde mane instead of the expected 20-something white male hacker stereotype.

Aesthetically I was enthralled with the stacks of amazingly, nay, beautifully disturbing paintings all about the home.

There is lots of playful stuttered editing, stylistically playing heavily on multiple planes of perspective (filmic reality vs. hidden cameras vs. the hand held camera one character is toting around). Reminds me at times of the aspects that I liked of the classic horror games like Seventh Guest. I think that really was why the film was nifty for me, a former video game artist / designer. The layers of real vs. game in the making and the tight interaction between the adventuring couple inside the mansion vs. the go girl artist and pensive programmer back in the design studio. The inter-cutting of the two locations combined with the playful changes moment to moment in virtual film stocks and perceived point of view really took this tidy, cute little yarn to a new level. Minute details like the miscellaneous brass keys helps convey the parallels as well; the keys seemed like level objectives true to genre. The design of the film further seems to question the movie's very existence as a construction in all as well as in layered fictional elements, wrapped up nicely with a sense of choices being explored without undermining the integrity of the narrative.

Admirably, throughout the film the narrative toys with the notion of linear versus interactive, which tends to parallel the comparison of film to video games respectively. This film actually approaches a sort of implied interactivity, a new perspective for the viewer in a time based medium to the proverbial backbone of the narrative that I've not previously seen, at moments both inside the story and as well a voyeur to the story. As linear progression without options is an abstraction of reality humans accept far too easily, this film did a splendid job of perverting the linear and can at least be viewed as a solid indication of the potential of newer technologies applied to film projects yet to come.


While the story of St. John's Wort is something I could easily imagine coming out of Hammer Films, or a classic Vincent Price movie, it's not BAD, and the visuals more than make up for it.

PLOT: Nami inherits a spooky old mansion, takes her ex-boyfriend along so they can scope out using the place as a setting for their video game. Turns out she may have had a twin who died when she was a child. Also turns out her father was a crazy artist, who painted creepy pictures. Is the house haunted? Is the twin still alive? Who is the spooky caretaker? See what I mean by it being very Vincent Price-ish? Anyway, the plot is fairly solid, though I did find at least one of the ending plot twists useless and incomprehensible, but since it really affected nothing else in the film, I ignored it.

The VISUALS, on the other hand...

The whole movie is oddly colored, which is unsettling to begin with, and which makes sections of it look like they might be CGI, or bluescreened, or might just be badly tinted - all adding to the unreality of the whole thing. Also, the camera "view" keeps shifting, from "reality" to the ex's hand-held camera, to B&W surveillance cameras, and even to a "video game version".

My favorite bit of unreality involves the caretaker - when they arrive at the place, the caretaker gives Nami the keys, but the scene is played out as a video game sequence, with the caretaker icon's lines being printed on the screen, rather than spoken - thus making it impossible to determine anything, even gender, about this "person".

Overall, I found it very watchable.


A young girl (Nami) inherits a house where she lived until she was 3, and she and her ex-boyfriend go check it out. They're part of a team of video game designers, and they transmit their findings to the rest of the team because they want to use the house & some ideas for a new game. Nami knew the house belonged to her father but that's all, she didn't know who her father was. Apparently he was a great artist, but from some of the other things that they found in the house he had other interests too. Not wholesome ones, either. One of my complaints lies in the making of the movie, wherein certain parts are made to look like a video game, so you're never sure if you're seeing a game or the movie. However, considering that I've seen "House of the Dead" which is the worst-ever movie-based-on-a-video-game, this is done quite well and was more intriguing and mysterious. This is not a top-notch film but it's decent entertainment. 7 out of 10.


This was my second run at Oriental horror films and unlike the first try (some movie about spirals) I actually enjoyed this one. I have a hard time trusting anyone who says they knew the ending, it was pretty well disguised through most of the movie. In addition it was a unique blend of video game and movie. Things going against it were the colors and the fast-forward thing that both of the Japanese horror movies have had. I would highly recommend subtitles over the dubbed in English as the subtitles seem to make more sense and the dubbing gives the movie an undesired godzilla effect. A little on the artsy side but definitely accomplishes good suspense. 8/10 for an enjoyable time watching the movie.


This was my first Asian Horror movie watch. I was leary about "reading movies" but this one was very cool. You can understand the movie by the movements, so the Subtitles aren't that important (for lack of a better term).

Very good work with the cameras, using different angles, and bringing out the smallest details. Not too gory, much to my disliking, but just enough to keep one interested.

Good movie all in all, a must see for any Asian Horror Fan.

8/10


If you enjoy Japanese horror than this film is highly reccomended. The plot isn't really the hi-lite here, it is the camera work and the atmosphere that is created. With this atmosphere, the story really didn't need to be to strong because the viewer is captivated by its visuals.

This film was shot on DV, I bought this movie thinking it was going to be another low-budget horror film, but boy was I wrong. If there is another movie that looks as good as this and was shot on DV, can someone please post a note in the message board.

GREAT MOVIE!!!!!!!! A DEFINATE MUST SEE!!!!!!!!!


This film tries to use "funky" camera angles & special effects to hide a terrible plot & rather uninteresting characters.

Completely lacking in atmosphere, a must for a good horror, this was so tedious I switch off half way through. Luckily I didn't fork out good money for this drivel as it was on cable TV when i saw it.

Avoid 2/10.


Modern film with good use of digital camera. The feel of the movie is really that of the 21th century, pushing the envelope with a vivid, in-your-face, yet artsy imagery. The hand-held video-camera goes way beyond "The Blairwitch Project" with a twisted and most effective use of colors to give a surreal atmosphere to the creepy tale. Poignant futuristic images you'll never forget. I was especially impressed by the bathroom floor-height angles that are so well orchestrated that they would give Hitchcook and Zemeckis a good run for their money in terms of suspense. Yes, there is still something new to do in this over-used "water running" room, where you are literally naked with nothing but skin and your fears. But that is exactly what this film is: NEW. From the use of computers to the rewinding of a scene just played, this movie screams Hi-Tech.

So besides the lavish package, the next question is: what's up with the content? Well, it is still a horror movie. So don't expect the plot to be overly thought out or imaginative (like Scream), but it is neither a seen-it-before boring-and-all story full of holes. Actually, I was quite pleased with the screenplay in general. The characters are engaging and the story holds up to mild scrutiny. It has enough twists to keep you wondering and interested.

Bottom line is excellent cinematography and better than average story8/10


Nami's is creating a video game with the images from her dreams. While visiting her estrange father's abandoned house that was inherited to her along with her workmate/ex-boyfriend Kohei, she discovers the dreams that she has seem to match that of the house and some hidden secrets too. It's basically a mystery/horror film about a creepy house and its dark secrets.

This was one really SLOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW film, with nothing really exciting happening at all actually to be honest nothing much did happen. Though you might say it was slowly building up the psychological terror that was about to come- but towards the end it turns into somewhat of a bloodbath of graphic images that doesn't really gel. All it was about was two teenagers wondering around a dark creepy house and Nami discovering secrets about her family it's too bad because it came across as very atmospheric- but it was really tedious sitting through this drag-fest.

The film looked great- but that's it, I had trouble trying not to fall asleep, as there was nothing engaging and mysterious about the story and characters. The plot doesn't make much sense at all, it was truly incoherent and all over the place as one scene slowly dragged onto the next without any real urgency, then you get a twist that you see coming- but then it would twist back on itself and your left scratching your head fancy that? But this final twist lacks logic, as it's not fully explained and therefore is ridiculously laughable.

What I can't knock is the sinister and chilling atmosphere, with a misty house that is truly atmospheric and unnerving, especially the paintings on the walls, the menacing shadows, dim lighting and dark corners. The colours stood out as well and become somewhat of an impact, very bleak and depressing colourings of greys, browns and black, created a real emptiness. The flashy camera-work (something you would associate with Sam Rami) is quite out there and very arty at first- but it was over-used to a point that it became real choppy and distracting, because at times you couldn't tell what was actually happening.

The performances were the same as the plot, really flat and uninspiring. That's because they're given nothing to work with and they don't do anything of any interest. Therefore who cares!!!

When the outlandishly grim conclusion happens and we start learning where the film is actually going, you couldn't really give a toss, as you were bored to death waiting for an hour for something good to happen. Instead for that hour we get look at dark rooms and more rooms, in many different stylish ways- but then something actually happens and it picks up in the last 15mins, though people might have given up already and I wished I did. To make matters worse the film ends with a very absurd and unsatisfying conclusion *Shaking head*.

Like some fellow users have typed, the film does play out like a video game. Though I admit I'm no video game fanatic- but the problem is it's like your watching somebody else playing the game, which isn't that fun... I rather be playing it!

Just expect to see the usual harrowing images, a creepy house with spooky noises and things lurking. Oh don't forget an evil looking girl with long black hair in a white dress. I bet you didn't see that coming.

Looks visually good, but this yawner lacks punch as nothing much happens!

1/5


This movie was of particular poor quality. While I can see that a lot of the images and camera-angles were in place to highlight the "new" technology of digital filming and video games, these images lost me and left me feeling a little nauseous. They were not effective in making the film scarier or more compelling. It seems the movie was made too fast, just to get on the market to show off the technology. It looks mass-produced and uninteresting.

The plot was nil and the ending atrocious. By the end, I nearly turned off the movie because I could not handle the unfinished story line, poor acting and predictability. The plot "twists" were unexciting. Unfortunately, this movie was absolutely terrible. I felt nothing for the characters, who were not well-developed and the plot did not entice me, and honestly, I'm pretty disappointed. The film case makes reference to the ring, but this film has no relation (in story or quality) to the ring, ringu, any remakes or any sequels.


I won't get into the computer game style of the movie, maybe its different, maybe its just a cheap excuse for bad 3d graphics and lack of budget for Effects. I sure watched this movie too late at night and since the pacing is slooooow (and thats still a compliment) it got hard to focus on the plot. Basically St Johns Wort is about some kids designing computer games. 2 of them delve into the story for a new one which is based on a house the graphics girl inherited. So the girl and a guy go there and move through the old abandoned house unfolding the "shocking" history of her father who was also a painter. All that done in a mixture of computer game dialog, finding keys for hidden rooms and Blair Witch Handycam storytelling.

I think up to today i have never seen a movie that tried on the computer game-story and succeeded. Most are just ridiculous and except for the nice coloring St Johns Wort fails too. At first you get an eerie surveillance cam atmosphere which reminded me of "my little eye" but they just take it too far. I might have missed one or two details but i doubt that saves the movie. If you are out for a plot twist or something making the 90 minutes worth being spent... forget it, the finale is just plain idiotic. So altogether a waste of some nice visual ideas on a pretty stupid script.


At times like an Afterschool Special (Nami inherited a mansion, she and her boyfriend check it out while the two computer nerds offer advice via computer download), at times purposely made to resemble a video game (Nami and her boyfriend enter each room of the mansion, get a key or other object, exit room via secret door, etc.), at times like a predictable, over the top horror movie (Nami, I'm your crazy sister!), St. John's Wort would be a total turkey if it were not for a few arty special effects that quickly grow annoying and a gloss of Generation Y computerese. Skip this one and you won't be sorry -- try "Dark Water" or "The Two Sisters" (Korean) if you are looking for quality Asian horror.


I wish the movie would make a decision as to whether to be a horror movie or a suspense thriller, instead, it can't make up its mind and ends up being neither.

For the record, I guessed the "twist" of the ending 10 minutes into the movie... too obvious...

It must be my misfortune, lately, none of the Japanese horror movies seems to excite me anymore. I want Ringu back! Now, that is THE way to make a horror movie.


5 minutes into the movie, and I have already figured out what the ending would be. Nevertheless, I decided to sit through the movie just to see the special effects.

The movie could have been much more. IMHO, too much time has been spent on the introductory part - wandering around the house, etc. But wandering is exactly how the movie is... It has a hard time trying to decide whether it is a horror or a psychological thriller and ends up being neither.

Minor spoiler: When the approached the chair and were about the turn it over, I kept telling myself - not another "Psycho" rip-off again...

End of minor spoiler...


This movie was really pretty dreadful. It seems as though as the popularity of Japanese (and other Asian) horror films increases, more and more of these barrel-scrapers are appearing in my local video emporium. Two teens spend the night in a spooky, dilapidated mansion. Incredibly slow scenes of non-suspense follow, as we watch the teens... wander through the house. Slowly. The action, such as it is, is punctuated by completely unrelated scenes, apparently comic in intent, of some more teens, these ones game developers. The story creeps towards a ludicrous, lurid climax, which is followed by a really bad denouement.

All in all, a badly thought out movie executed without any particular skill. There are a few saving graces, though, which saved this movie from getting an even lower score from me.

1. The atmospherics are actually fairly good, although the pacing is slow. The mansion is creepy, and an unsettled feeling overtakes the viewer as the characters dawdle their way through it. The addition of creepy paintings heightens the effect.

2. There was one film technique that I thought was pretty cool, where the camera zooms in on the viewfinder of a camcorder, and the viewfinder expands to become the frame of the movie as a whole. Other reviews here have praised the film technique as "stylish" and "interesting", but I'm afraid I can't agree, except for this one shot. The rest of the movie has a lot of jittery, ripping-off-the-Blair-Witch-Project hand-held shots and a lot of garish, unnecessary coloring.

Overall, a great film to avoid.


The idea of a video game as a movie (not a movie adaptation of a video game) isn't a wholly new one, and there have been efforts made on both shores to properly adapt the concept without adapting a game itself. "St. John's Wort" is in that vein.

"St. John's Wort" takes what it can from games like "Fatal Frame," "Silent Hill," and "Resident Evil," but unfortunately loses its way when forced to hold up the movie end of the bargain. Picture one of the aforementioned survival horror games and remove the interactivity. Just watch someone else play it. Someone who sucks at it. That's a pretty fair description of the movie.

It's clearly going for that "videogame as a movie" concept, heavily evidenced by the visual stylistic choices made by the director. Unfortunately, these choices are uniformly unappealing to the viewer. Scenes are high contrast, and frequently exhibit a very strong hue. This is not your television set, this is just an ugly movie.

The plot doesn't fare any better. The first twenty minutes at least is just watching our main characters wander around the haunted house. That's it. I wish I were joking. It's not even suspenseful, either; no hints that the house is haunted, nothing. By the time the alleged "scares" are supposed to kick in, you don't care what happens to these two. Any stabs at an actual coherent plot in the film seem forced and contrived.

The direction and plot were clearly going for more suspense than your average survival horror film, but they fail and the movie is a dull eyesore.

If you want to see a more lively, entertaining "videogame as a movie" I strongly suggest seeking out "Biozombie." Content-wise it isn't comparable, but the match in style is there except for an important distinction: "Biozombie" is watchable and entertaining, and "St. John's Wort" is not.


Cultural mathematics might not be your thing, but in writer/director Moussa Sene Absa's 1994 film Ca Twiste a Popenguine, he portrays the influence of the American and French cultures upon the peoples of the town of Popenguine, Senegal during the mid-1960's. Absa does a good job of showing this cultural mix by focusing on a struggle between two cliques of teenagers and adds just enough humor to keep the film on a light note and interesting. The cliques have similarities in that they have both forsaken their parents' traditional garb for more Western/European styles and they listen to artists such as James Brown and Jimmy Hendrix. What separates the two groups involves what they have and don't have. The "Kings" have the only record player in town, but no girls in their group. The "Inseparables" have the girls, but no record player. Absa also shows the influence of the French colonialism with the school teacher Mr. Benoit who is sent from France to teach the children of Popenguine French language and literature. A subplot involves his struggles and acceptance by the townspeople. The actual conflict between the two groups, the Kings and the Ins, is the main storyline of the film and Absa uses that storyline to convey the theme that involves the changing from the native African Wolof culture brought on by the influence of American and French culture to a mixed culture.

Absa's use of untrained actors/actresses works well in this film by giving it a flavor of reality. I would recommend this movie to anyone interested in seeing things from a non-western point of view or anyone wanting to see how different cultures interact and intertwine. If you do not like subtitled/foreign films, I would not recommend this movie unless you have a grasp of the French language. There is some fun poked at the differences involving Islam and Christianity, so if you are not tolerant or can't find humor in religion, you may be slightly offended.

This was my first fully subtitled foreign film, so once I became accustomed to that aspect I really enjoyed the film and appreciated Absa's sense of humor.


The film Ça Twiste á Popenguine focuses on the town of Popenguine. The main characters in the film are teenagers who are part of two different clicks, The Inseparables and the Kings. The Kings have the only record player that the town has, but do not have any girls. The Inseparables have no record player, but they have girls. The two groups have rejected most of their families' traditional values and have adopted a more western culture. They wear clothing that are more of a Western style and listen to western music, artists such as Jimi Hendrix.

The movie focuses around these two groups and their day to day activities. The Inseparables spend their days looking for ways to make money to use towards acquisition of a record player. They organize multiple gatherings and puppet shows, which are referred to as Pitchoss, as well as parties in which they attempt to charge for entrance, and only succeed a few times in making money. They also get into trouble with the adults in the town usually resulting from one of their projects not going as planned.

This movie is a coming of age story and it has the same overlying theme of many American movies that are of this genre. There were a few flaws in the story line, a few continuity issues as well as the movie becoming long and drawn out at times. Even with the language and cultural differences, the movie keeps your attention. If you are a fan of the coming of age genre you will enjoy this movie, even with some of the slow and lengthy parts. Much of the success of the story comes from the director using actual people from the village of Popenguine. This makes this story that much more believable and that much better.


Ca Twiste a Popenguine allows its' viewers to take a somewhat raw glimpse into the conflict between generations, caused by the colonization of one's country. Moussa Sene Absa (director and writer) does not convey a clear pro or con stance on the changing culture of Senegal, but does provide a rather complete look at both sides of the issue. He provides this raw look through his characters and their interactions with one another, the setting (Poponguine, Senegal), and time frame (1960's) of the film.

Ca Twiste a Popenguine is a movie best suited for one with some background information about Senegal or Africa in general. An uniformed (or entertainment-seeking) viewer would most likely miss the messages being sent by Absa; However, he does include many humorous perceptions of the American culture throughout the movie to keep the attention of the uniformed!


This film is entertaining - certainly the beautiful and haunting song of Isseu Niang is worth the price of admission. Everyone will enjoy this film as they watch it, and then will think seriously about its consequences.

But the film is also about coming of age as the world of tradition gives way grudgingly to the world of the modern. The imagery of the teenagers 'stealing' electric power from the mosque for their party, the traditional silhouette puppet theater of the Wolof nation in which African and European themes are confused, and the 'Kings' (fans of American pop music) and the 'Ins' (fans of French pop music) vie against each other all form a theme that goes beyond the frontiers of Senegal and beyond the coasts of Africa.

"Twist à Popenguine" offers an amusing view of cultural conflict and generational conflict, but also the gradual and sad loss of a heritage.


Writer/director Moussa Sene Absa shows how modern day(1994) Senegal reacts to having French and American culture thrust upon the native Wolof people, specifically in Popenguine. Absa does a great job of showing the struggle by focusing on two groups of teenagers each with their own idea of cool, and own take on these new cultures entering Senegal. While the groups each try to impress a group of girls with different techniques the townspeople struggle with the change they see in their youth. I think Absa dose a wonderful job showing the infiltration of French culture by using Mr. Benoit, a French school teacher who forbids the children from speaking their native language in his classroom.

Ca Twiste has an interesting story, and sometimes surprisingly good acting from untrained actors and actresses, but suffers from a slew of continuity problems. Lighting changes several times during some scenes, and costume can also be seen changing in a few cases. For someone who has a good grasp of subtitles and foreign movies, Ca Twiste was actually a pretty easy watch. There where some spots where the speaker was speaking so fast that the subtitles remained on screen for only a fraction of a second, not nearly long enough to read through.


The movie to me was basically teaching the viewer about the cultural distractions that the Wolof people in Senegal are beginning to be more influenced by other then there own. In the movie we see that the youth in the village of Popenguine dress in a European style of clothing while there parents stay true to there culture and dress in the traditional clothing. The youth also are very interested in music but not of there culture, but rather music from the United States and Europe.

The director, Moussa Sene Absa's did a below average job directing, since there are scenes that are shot in the day then suddenly are in the night time. The actors were not impressive either, but one interesting note is that they were non-actors cast for there roles. This really does the movie some justice and gives you a very raw and authentic feel.


I found Ca Twiste to be very interesting. It's not that it was profound or prolific... It was just because I am an outsider looking in. These young-ones were Africans, as pure as can be, (given the fact that they've been colonized) and I'm a little all American "tom-boy;" "Jack and Dianne in the American heartland" rolled into one person. Do these people and I actually have something in common? I guess we do. We all have to live, learn, and grow, even if we are half-a-world-apart. But I digress, the movie is what is important, I supposed. It's sad really, or at least pathetic. For the first time in goodness knows how long I crave an American Hollywood-style ending. But Hollywood can't do anything right in my opinion.

I'm just going to get right to it. The ending was- upsetting. I wanted more. The film just ends with the two children under the table making a reference to Ivanhoe that was lost on me. (Perhaps, if I had ever read that book, I could have understood it.) Thankfully, someone was there to explain it to me. The fighting between the quarrelsome children was over not because anything had been settled, but because they were sick of fighting. The voice over during the credits tells you how the kids grew up to love, laugh, and live elsewhere. That's how it ends: nice, pure, and simple.

The voice over was the most meaningful part to me; it served as a reminder that we are being given a glimpse into a real somebody's personal life, and it should be treated with a form of respect and reverence akin to what one would give someone else's diary. This is why I don't have the heart to pick it apart like a normal critique would.


Moussa Sene Absa's film portrays life in the town of Poponguine and how colonization has effected the population. Through Absa's film it is hard to decipher exactly whether or not he agrees with the adaptation of the population to the influence of French and America. From what I gather, Absa saw a blatant difference between the elders and the young people in the community. The young men were more willing and interested in wearing European style clothing and listening to American and French pop music. They also spoke fluent French instead of Wolof, unlike the older people in the community. Although it seems a bit disheartening that the young people are drifting from the traditional way of life, I think Absa realizes that the influence isn't going away and must be accepted. It also seems that Absa saw a lot of faults in the white males in the film, but in the end everyone was able to get along together.

I found this film to be very entertaining and believable. They actors did a nice job considering most were Poponguine natives who had never acted before. There were minor lapses in scenes that confused me a little and some of the scenes seemed to drag, but I could have felt that way just because I am used to the fast passed American cinema. I think the film successfully showed how much influence the West has had on Senegal and how much of a challenge it is to integrate the traditional culture with the new influences. I recommend this movie to anyone who is curios about current African culture and anyone interested in foreign films.


The movie, Ca Twiste a Popenguine, by Moussa Sene Absa is an interesting observation of the village called Popenguine in Senegal. The movie is in French with English subtitles. Absa successfully and with a light heart humorously portrays the positive and negative effects and influence of Westernism and colonialism in this little community. The elders retain their culture and roots firmly, while the teenagers flirt with the modern dress and music from France and the United States. There are two groups of teenagers represented, the French influenced "Ins" who have girls but no music, and the silly American influenced "Kings" who have music but no girls. The "Ins" show ingenuity in rectifying the situation.

Absa uses local residents of Popenguine, Senegal for his movie, not actors. It is filmed on location by Africans. This works well to provide an authentic setting and to show real people in action. Absa uses a young boy in the movie as narrator to effectively carry us through each event through his eyes. The movie does a good job at endearing its viewers to the characters. A French teacher is in the village to instruct the school children in the French language. He struggles with the feeling that he isn't at home in France or in Senegal. The people in Popenguine show great compassion and affection toward him by serenading him in song in their local Wolof language.

The beginning is a little slow, some scenes went too fast and were difficult to interpret. There is an obvious incorrect jump from a day scene to a night scene with the same event taking place. The local language of Wolof is not spoken as much as I would have liked, and it is not translated. The ending is cute, but abrupt. However, the good aspects of this film far outweigh its shortcomings.

I recommend this film to almost everyone for entertainment, to broaden their knowledge, and to see and experience other cultures. I would not recommend it to people with ethnocentric narrow minds who have no interest in change and no sense of humor.


Overall, I thought this movie had a nice theme. The way the director displayed the various types of people in the Wolof village was excellent. He had the older Wolof people seeming wise in their traditional-looking costume and tone of voice. He had the "Kings" who were of western (American) influence as the sort of rebel group, however harmless and sort of stupid, which I found funny. They were so stuck on looking and admiring people like Jimi Hendrix that they didn't know much about anything, even the American innovative rock which seemed to be their purpose.

Then you have the regular students and the Ins who were somewhere in the middle, however in a different way. They seemed to be half traditional Wolof and half French influence due to their teacher. I thought it was interesting how the director portrayed the views on the teacher. He was well-liked and always wore a white suit (as if he was a good, pure man), despite his rude and ironic breakdown in the restaurant. The director's main point seemed to be to show people of non-African (or even African culture) exactly how it was that they were able to be colonized, and just how much of it went on.

Despite the good story of the film, there was a lot that went wrong, too. What went wrong was unfortunate because it seemed to be all things that should NOT have been a problem in film for that time. The same scene being shot in plain day and then pure darkness was not only confusing at first, but extremely annoying. I also found the Foley annoying, because it was noticeable. When you view a movie, you shouldn't NOTICE that a slapping sound is weird or unrealistic sounding, and it was in this movie. The music in the background, such as "Sitting on the Dock of the Bay" seemed out of place considering it wasn't even played when showing the only American-influenced group of people.

So although the movie had the right idea but poor structure, I would recommend the movie for older people that are not African. When I say older I mean mature enough to recognize culture differences, and I say non African because I think the director was aiming more towards SHOWING colonization to others.


I like the way Absa,the author and director of the movie,used to tell the story. Simple, nonprofessional actors/actress, and low-cost(I believe) are this movie's characteristic. It is describing a "world" in a boy's eyes and his life in a sea-shore village, Popenguine, Senegal. In fact, in this small ordinary village, there is a "world" alive! The author use his direct simple way to display a situation that different cultures are interweaving and interacting each other in the tiny place.

As well as all good movies, it gives its audience a room to think. When the young generation grow up with the western culture, what will happen to their own culture? extinguish or survive, or still alive in the "corner" where have been forgotten by the rest of the world. Because of the "room" for imagination, different person will have different opinion from his/her different position of view. Like an ancient Chinese saying: "the benevolent see benevolence and the wise see wisdom", I think Absa love to see the different cultures in Senegal can get along with each other harmoniously.


I started watching the movie while flipping through the channels procastinating from doing something actually worth time when I found this interesting. Indeed, it had an interesting story which was presented very well and had some pretty good laughs without trying too hard. It's very good as a comedy, but as a drama it's somewhat bland. The characters don't connect to each other on a dramatic level and you really don't feel for them, but they are still entertaining to watch. Some parts had potential to be deep, and I think Pierre Brault could have pulled it off. Dan Lalande didn't do it for me in the dramatic sense but I did like him when he wasn't supposed to have emotion. He reminded me of Kevin Spacey in American Beauty in a way. I think it could have worked better, but overall a pretty nice movie.


House of Luk is the 'tip of the iceberg' of great things to come from this Ottawa production house!

This film takes an entertaining look at three unsuspecting characters' twists of fortune cookie fates. It's a good mix of fun, laughter and a few tears that leaves the viewer happily musing over one's own potential 'fortune cookie' read on life.

The three separate stories thread themselves nicely through the film. Nuances of Canadian humour add an interesting flavour to the stories. There were some strong performances from the local talent. In particular, John Ng, the Feng Shui expert, was one of my favourites. I was impressed with the cinematography of this newly formed production house. The music chosen was excellent! In fact I craved for more of it through the quieter passages of the film. It's clear Distinct Features has the talent to make excellent films!! Watch as this will become one of this production house's early classics.

All in all, it's a 'feel good and laugh' film. Go see it! It may influence your own fortune!


"House of Luk" had a wonderful response at the Palm Springs International Film Festival in January 2001. It was perhaps the lowest budget film screened at the festival but many attendees said they thought it had better entertainment value than many of the blockbuster movies which were also featured. You will remember the characters in this movie many months after you see and hear their story. Their predicaments and the resolution of their fortunes will encourage you to believe anyone's luck can change. "House of Luk" does not rely on blowing things up, computer generated effects or violence. It is 100% story driven.


I really enjoyed this movie and even more so the second time. Pat Morita imparts wisdom like Chancy the gardener in Being There. Only this time it's not from a garden but the warm glow of a Chinese Food restaurant. A little bit of mystery, laughs, love lost and found and throw in (ow) a flying pug dog. I was glad to see that no animals were hurt in the filming of this movie - in fact the monkey seemed to be having some fun. Quirky characters that you can care about. Where can I get one of those fortune cookies?


This is basically The Stand but with bad acting and a poorly thought out plot. A terrorist group has developed a deadly virus and it is unleashed on the world. I will give some things away here so stop reading if you don't want to know.

A number of pretty stupid plot points happen: 1. The President and key personnel are quarantined on an island off of Washington. Of course, they announce to the world where this island is. (that would probably be kept secret) 2. A flamboyant financier tries to land on this island with 12 kids (and low fuel) and is almost shotdown, but spared at the last second. They allow it land and park on the runway but indicate anyone who gets off will be shot. Um, wouldn't there be extra airplane fuel around. Gas it up and send it back out! 3. The lab where they are trying to find a cure for the disease is not quarantined until it spills. 4. They realize they made need medical help for the kids on the plane, but there are no doctors on the island except some former country club doctor. Um, wouldn't there be some doctors as part of the President's essential personnel? 5. A flight attendant (I guess) just happens to be part of the Bleeding Sword terrorist group that created the virus. He eventually takes the plane hostage and forces a face-to-face meeting with the President to tell his story (his village was hit by so-called 'smart bombs'). There is a gunfight and the President dives to catch the virus he has brought to infect him. Oh, this guy who was smart bombed had absolutely no accent.

It was just bad. The acting was horrible and melodramatic. It was a laugh riot!


It could have been worse. This movie is at the low end of expectations for a made for tv film. Fortunately, it is not available on DVD or VHS tape and had to be taped off of tv with commercials intact, but zappable. Most of the bad acting can probably be blamed on the script, because it is hard to conclude that what is up on the tv screen is nothing less than corny. The movie begins realistically enough but quickly goes downhill with lots of the dialog feeling forced and overly sentimental. At least Nastassja Kinski has the lead role as the scientist who has to find a cure for a bio-warfare, fatal virus. She and her on-screen daughter are the only ones to escape from the script alive and only because of Nastassja's screen presence that carries most of the scenes that she is in. Early on, Nastassja, dressed in a black Ninja type outfit, is a member of a destroy mission, somewhat reminiscent of Nikita of "La Femme Nikita," the tv series. Then she is plunged into a poorly thought out remake of "The Andromeda Strain," but without the aid of Michael Crichton. If the script were actually realistic, then we poor American citizens are in a world of trouble because the so-called national security is not even second rate, but probably fifth rate. If the writers are smart, they would be wise to never admit that they wrote this script because it has been very poorly researched with god-awful dialog and situations that only a real professional like Nastassja can escape, including a scene that seems to have been lifted out of "Paris, Texas." Most of the acting is hammy and some might find that amusing or something to laugh at because it is so bad.


Sweet: I have to defend the writer of the film who did manage to get a certain amount of emotional situations into the film. I found the acting to be Ok. It is always difficult to act or judge acting in fictitious films of this nature. How do we know how people would cry about dying relatives etc? I know I've never been in a situation where 50% of the world population was dying. But I have seen people distressed crying and they would be deemed unrealistic in a film.

Bitter: Most of this film is embarrassing. Despite being English I know that America has tighter security on its president than we do on the Royal family and the PM put together, so the whole island, planes, terrorist bit really made it difficult to take any of this film seriously.

Sympathy: For the people who were conned by the, "I've got a great film where a deadly virus sweeps the planet, the president is caught between his job and his family who are desperate to help the suffering. This woman is fighting for a cure but ends up quarantined from her daughter who resents her mother being away from her after her fathers death."

"Hey this has real dramatic potential... no wait, wait, who filled it out with this pile of....


Definitely a made for TV B-movie stereotype at its best. A disease is killing the human race, and its down to the first family to save the world. Aint America great?

Absolute cack, starring LA Law reject Harry Hamlin as Mr President.


Why people vote so low ?,i cant see what i wrong on this movie ,i saw worse...,and you have to think also in the back of your head it is a TV movie so that means less money to make that film..,i think they forgot that ,so the film is about a virus that comes free on a plane cash and than you see the results if such thing can happen...,very realistic if you think of the real life now Anthrax ....and that kind of stuff...so...i think people rate it too low they underestimated the script,the crew also was good a few good actors and actresses.


the reviews of this film unfairly marginalize it for lack of realism. Did they scoff at, say, "Fight Club" for such reasons? It's far more unique and interesting for its cache of Depression-era lore and its assumptions about the dispossessed. Highly recommended for its bizarre mix of creepiness and homiletic. Obviously allegorical, it nevertheless fails -i think somehow deliberately - in being uplifting and points instead to something sinister in the crippled, maimed and poverty-stricken denizens of the city. The blind accordionist who attaches himself to Atwill wears glasses which are half black, half clear. His speeches are absurdly virtuous cliché, which belie his mendacious appearance in a very unconvincing way. I also noticed the back of the envelope calculations Atwill makes when pitching his stock market club for beggars only involved impossible amounts: millions in months. A lot of ticker tape shenanigans go on in the second half of the film, all of which are so exaggerated, I ended up thinking public anxiety about the market was also being channeled here quite volubly, along with fear of the disabled and wretched poor. In a word, peculiar.


I guess one of the reasons I liked this film so much was because my expectations were so incredibly low. After all, this film was made by a "Poverty Row" studio I'd never heard of and the movie has slipped into the public domain. Plus, while I like the star, Lionel Atwill, he had a habit of making films for crap studios. Fortunately, I was wrong and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie...even if the plot is a tiny bit tough to believe.

The film starts off with Atwill playing a tycoon who owns a very successful steel mill. He's an interesting boss, as he often goes to work with the men in the mill! I thought this was an interesting idea but it didn't work all that well for one major reason--Atwill's erudite presence just made it very, very hard to believe him working in a steel mill! But, despite this, the plot became very interesting very quickly. It seems that a corporation wanted to buy up his mill but Atwill had no interest in selling. So, to force the sale, the leader of some horrible schemers did some outrageously evil things. First, he instigated an accident in the mill where Atwill was almost killed. In fact, his legs were burned off by molten steel deliberately poured on him!! He spent the next several months in the hospital--during which time, the evil plan grew. First, they convinced him to give his power of attorney to his "loving wife"--who then sold the mill! Then, she ran off to Europe with all the funds--leaving Atwill poor and without the business! Later, however, Atwill is able to recreate his fortune in a very unique way--he forms a union, of sorts, with the handicapped beggars on the street (much more common in the 1930s than today, thank God). He helped them find gainful employment, invested their earnings, got them health and retirement plans--and made a wonderful life for these marginally employable men. Why he did this was partly because he was a nice person and part of this was so that he could rebuild his fortune and regain his old factory. The plan would take many, many years and there were some nice twists along the way, but by the end of the film, he has his confrontation with his arch-enemy--the man who did so much to orchestrate his ruin.

Overall, the film has a truly unique plot that kept me guessing. While you'd think it would simply be a tale of betrayal and revenge, it was so much more. It also is one of the better early depictions of the handicapped as having so much more to offer society and themselves. And, to top it all off, the acting was very good--especially Atwill and his friend, played by Henry Walthall. A nice little hidden gem.

By the way, a 9 seems like a high score, but I am comparing it to other B-films. Compared to the rest, this is definitely a standout--one that got me thinking well after the film ended.


Steel mill owner Lionel Atwill (as John "Flint" Dawson) is derailed by evil associate Jamieson Thomas (as James "Jim" Marley). After Mr. Thomas costs Mr. Atwell the loss of his legs, he seizes control of the business. Before Atwell is even out of the hospital, Thomas convinces Atwell's wife to take their daughter, and move to England. Now a pauper, Atwell moves from his private hospital room to recover with blind beggar Henry B. Walthall (as Marchant).

Mr. Walthall helps Atwell, who assumes the name "John Daniels", back on his feet (a figure of speech). With Walthall's help, Atwell organizes a "Union" for beggars. Their beggar "Union" makes Atwell wealthier than ever. After fifteen years, he decides to return to the old steel mill, and seek revenge against Thomas. But, Atwell doesn't know his pretty long lost daughter, Betty Furness (as Joyce Dawson), has returned to America, and is being romanced by his old enemy's son, James Bush (as Lee Marley)

The cast is a treat, but the production and story become increasingly mediocre.

**** Beggars in Ermine (1934) Phil Rosen ~ Lionel Atwell, Jamieson Thomas, Henry B. Walthall


Unbelievable plot, Beggars that invest in hedge funds. But I enjoy the simplicity of the stock market, the characters are also simple but you don't care too much about that, because you're inside a story thats goes around different dramatics situations to finalize with a happy ending. Only for lovers of the 30's the golden age of hollywood.


Which is why I rented it. An OK movie about a cop who "goes outside the rules" to track what he suspects is a serial killer. Like other reviewers, I laughed at stuff that was probably not supposed to be amusing just because Woods was so damn funny. He plays a fairly sleazy guy, which is what he does best. Charles Durning is also very good, as is Lesley Ann Warren, though I just wanted to slap her character a couple of times for being so stupid and whiny. The sudden, no BS ending is awesome--I love it when movies end with an abrupt blackout like that, and he gets a great ending line. I played the ending back a few times it was so cool and bada$$. This movie was actually surprisingly disturbing in parts, there's a really gruesome scene where Wood's character (I can't remember the cop's name, it was probably Jake or Jack or something snarky like that)finds a murder victim about 3/4 of the way through the film that really shocked me and gave me the creeps. Anyway, a good underrated film with a kick-a$$ ending.


Lloyd Hopkins is an L.A. police detective that loves to take chances in his pursuit of an assassin who he believes is responsible for a crime wave in which women are murdered in a horrible manner. Right at the start, we follow Hopkins into an apartment where the last victim has been killed. He discovers a lead in the local newspaper personal ads and in a book of poetry.

Hopkins family life suffers from his long hours and a wife that doesn't want him to talk to his eight year old daughter about some of the cases he has covered. When she leaves him, Hopkins stays put because he is married to a job that consumes him. In the course of his investigation, Lloyd will encounter his share of crazies. At the same time, it's clear the perpetrator knows a thing, or two, about him.

When he meets Kathleen McCarthy, the woman who owns a small book shop, he suddenly realizes how she ties up with what he is investigating. Kathleen is a strange bird, with secrets she is not willing to share with Hopkins.

What comes out during the film is the corruption in the police department, something that is not new to the city of angels, and something we have seen again and again. The last scenes reveal who the real serial killer has been and his motives, but frankly, we have had no clue about this person, throughout the movie. That is a bit hard to take, although in the context of the investigation, it makes sense, since Lloyd has been following an invisible enemy.

The best reason for watching "Cop" is James Woods. His take on Lloyd Hopkins is right on the money. Mr. Woods captured the soul of this man and knows what he is up to. Charles Durning makes a good impression as Dutch, the man in charge of Hopkins, and his friend. Leslie Ann Warren's Kathleen is not as successful. She relies on mannerisms to convey the troubled soul of this damaged woman.

The direction of James B. Harris is right because he gives the viewer a good story. Mr. Harris co-wrote with James Ellroy, a notable crime author, whose book, "Blood on the Moon", serves as the basis for the movie.


This film is one of those rare treats that you see on a TV channel from time to time. The plot is a standard and unsurprising affair but what sets it apart is James Woods' sardonic, cynical and hilarious portrayal of a tough, world weary cop who has no time for 'do-gooders' and over sensitive types. It just goes to show that the talented input of one actor can turn an unremarkable film into something special. Cinematic magic... If you liked the Onion Fields or is role in any number of films that would otherwise have been pants then you will like this film. Long may he continue to be on of the movie business's greatest assets...


There are times that this feels like a TV Movie. In fact, if it were not for the presence of James Woods that is all this would be, a good TV movie. As it is, Woods acts his socks off without overdoing it. He manages to pull this up to a much higher standard, very watchable stuff, in fact. There is nothing really ground shaking in the script and, to be truthful, it kind of gets a bit lost at a couple of points. Like others have pointed out, the dark twisted aspect of the original book do not quite come across to the screen, but nevertheless is a very passable transition. In summary, not one to watch for your main film on a Saturday night, but certainly worth a look on any other night.


80's action in pure form. This is in the die hard mold, but less structure or bad guys. I must say before hand that James Woods is my favorite actor. He is amazing. IN this film he delivers the best 1 liner I have ever heard in my entire life. Ever. It's ends the movie in a hurricane of laughter. Laughter in a good way. Laughing at 80's movies. This one may have been made in 90, but it still has the 'pure cop with chip on shoulder' guy. I would also recommend The Hard Way with Michael J Fox. That's also one of James Wood's best performances.

Back to Cop. Watch for the violence. Watch for the great 80's Dialogue. Watch for a plot that while have some serious issues, is still passable and forgivably based on the movies final line. That last line, which I will not discuss her MUST WATCH THIS. Is the best ending to ANY movie I have ever scene (ofcourse in the context of an 80's action/adventure/cop/type movie). Enjoy!


James Woods hams it up beautifully as the "cop" with a REAL bad attitude, and Charles Durning adds a nice touch as his police buddy.

Over the top, overacted and hard to believe, but pretty damn fun to watch, with one of the greatest "smack you upside the head" endings I've ever seen in my twenty-six years on this planet. Check this one out and have a good time.


What lifts Cop beyond the range of a normal action film is James Woods's multi-layered performance in the lead. His investigation into a woman's death reveals a serial killer at work, one who's been plying his trade for about 15 years. The problem is that Woods can't convince the police brass of his suspicions, they don't want to alarm the public. He even has a problem with his partner, Charles Durning on the issue.

The connection to these crimes has something to do with feminist author Lesley Ann Warren and what happened back in high school which coincidentally enough is the same alma mater for Woods. Warren's cooperation has to be dragged out of her, she's not able to comprehend that she is the key to the killings.

Woods as the detective is at once dedicated, arrogant, tender, and quite the misogynist on occasion. Any one of these emotions is hard enough, but James Woods manages to achieve them all, sometimes all of them at once. Whatever else he is, he's a man convinced of the rightness of his course and nothing is deterring him whatsoever.

Also in the cast is Charles Haid, late of Hill Street Blues who also is part of the mystery. He too is an alumnus of the high school. Haid plays a sleazy deputy LA County sheriff and plays it well.

For fans of James Woods, an absolute must for them.


James Woods delivers a sensationally intense, wired and riveting performance as shrewd, sleazy and blithely amoral maverick loose cannon Detective Lloyd Hopkins, who obsessively investigates a series of vicious homicides that have been going on for fifteen years. Lloyd's pursuit of the serial killer puts his job on the line and pushes him over the edge. Tightly written and directed by James B. Harris (who previously worked with Woods on the outstanding prison movie "Fast-Walking"), with crisp cinematography by Steve Dubin, a harsh, gritty tone, unflinchingly raw and profane dialogue, a jazzy, shivery score by Michel Colombier, a tense and exciting climactic showdown between Hopkins and the killer, some seriously ugly violence (the murder sites are truly nasty), and a shockingly brutal and nihilistic ending, this bang-up little sleeper makes for an extremely gripping and suspenseful viewing experience. Woods effortlessly carries the picture with his usual arresting blend of live-wire energy and hard-boiled charisma. The supporting cast are likewise on the money excellent: Charles Durning as Lloyd's loyal and protective partner Dutch Peltz, Lesley Ann Warren as a touchy feminist poet, Charles Haid as corrupt Deputy Sheriff Delbert "Whitey" Haines, Raymond J. Barry as stern, no-nonsense Captain Fred Gaffney, Randi Brooks as brassy hooker and drug dealer Joanie Pratt, Steven Lambert as the killer, and Jan McGill as Lloyd's fed-up wife Jen. A worthy 80's noir thriller winner.


Based on the James Ellroy novel "Blood on the Moon", James Woods is LAPD detective Lloyd Hopkins who discovers the terribly mutilated corpse of a young woman and immediately starts comparing the scene with previously unsolved murders. He becomes convinced a serial killer is at work here, preying on women for the last fifteen years. Soon, more gruesome murders occur and detective Hopkins becomes a target himself. Detective Hopkins is the kind of amoral sleazeball that makes Dirty Harry seem like a little angel in comparison. He's the kind of cop that blows your date away, leaves his partner to clear the mess and then asks the woman if she needs a ride home and have some fun.

James Woods also co-produced with director James B. Harris, long time buddy of Stanley Kubrick and producer of THE KILLING (1957), PATHS OF GLORY 1958) and LOLITA (1962), who also wrote the script for this hard-edged cop thriller. I made the mistake expecting a really good film, mostly based on Woods' presence, the writings of James Ellroy, and Kubrick sidekick James B. Harris taking the directorial helm, but Harris hardly shines in that department. His direction is adequate, but not much more. Best to watch this as a gritty cop flick, trashy, cynical and sometimes a bit silly with plenty of misguided attempts at humor on account of leading man James Woods, always a plus, in any film. It's a reasonably well-executed cop thriller, but no classic. Expect an enjoyable slice of B-movie nonsense and you probably won't be disappointed.

Camera Obscura --- 7/10


James Woods is our hardboiled detective as he navigates the dark web of a mass murderer. Woods' wife and child have recently left him, and he is under investigation at the police department. He is unwilling to give up the case, and no one is going to stop him.

"Cop" displays Film Noir disillusionment and it's bleakest and the dark ending (not going to be spoil it) only adds to the Noir-iness. In the 1980's Film Noirs started to come out again, beginning with remakes like "D.O.A.", and new originals like "To Live and Die in LA." In this revival, "Cop" is a crown jewel, a wonderfully mysterious tale of man willing to risk and loose everything to find a killer.

As a Noir enthusiast, I highly recommend this film. It may be overacted at times, and the detective may seem a little to gung ho to be believable. But, Woods'es excellent performance is able to hold the film together. It is a thriller from start to end, and overall a very enjoyable film. Watch it, trust me.


James Woods is the most underrated of all the great actors. Maybe it's because he hasn't starred in enough 'classics', but there's something fundamentally troubling in his personality that discourages full recognition. It's not because he usually plays villains - audiences have had great affection for the hateful throughout movie history. Woods is too normal to be a melodramatic villain; he's a tensed up, selfish, narcissistic, arrogant jerk. He has neither redeemable qualities, nor conventional charisma. His look compounds these drawbacks with its strangeness - it somehow seems all wrong; his body is to wiry for his head and shoulders, his head is reptilian and bug-eyed. And yet he charms by his total indifference to what we think of him. (He's also very funny)

Cop is too flawed to be great - its plot mechanics are too predictable; James Ellroy, having started with the daring proposition that Woods might be mad, and his investigations just an extension of this, is too afraid of loose ends to be truly scary (serial killer plots, ostensibly about the blackest modern evil, are paradoxically reassuring - they suggest pattern and order, and an identifiable problem, which once rooted will result in restoration); the visual style could be out of any dour 70s cop show (except for some gorgeous Kubrickian tracking shots); the music is hellish 80s synth orchestration; the climactic showdown is implausible and silly, although the film boasts one of the best endings in cinema.

What makes this film essential is Woods, and Harris' direction. Laura Mulvey once claimed that Hollywood cinema privileged the actions of the male hero; the woman was an object to be stared at and won. Cop refutes this by having an archetypal male hero - a cop - whose actions shape the movement of the film, and yet who is riveted to the screen, subjected to the merciless exposure of the camera. Woods cannot lie to us, every tic, flaw, line of thought is laid bare. Even though he always seems in control, we are constantly aware that he is being stared at (even before this becomes a narrative element), that he is stuck in the frame. Harris, producer of The Killing, Dr. Strangelove, Lolita etc., has learned much from Kubrick in this unforgivingly formal, analytic approach (see also Melville).

The film subverts the usual maverick cop cliches. Unlike Dirty Harry, Hopkins' concern for the cause of murdered women is undermined by his egocentric insensitivity towards the women who practically need him in his life. There is a Freudian framework used, as Hopkins' neuroses (he is accused of having a fixation on murdered women) are linked to his past, but the final working of them out (it takes place in his old school) is not reassuring. The force itself is perverted and corrupt, both in obvious (one sherrif is a drug-dealing, rent-boy pimp) and not so obvious (most of Hopkins' superiors are 'born agains') ways. Hopkins is like a Kubrick hero, an instrument of a corrupting social force.

There are problems - the co-opting and infantilising of feminism, the possible homophobia; like the Searchers, the critique sometimes seems to become confused with what is being criticised. But this is brave, dangerous, clever film-making that deserves to be better known.


Cop is based on the book 'Blood and the Moon' by James Ellroy. I have not read the book that the film is based on; although I am a big fan of the first three books in Ellroy's 'L.A. Quartet'. It is often said of Ellroy that his writing got better as it went along; and assuming that this film is closely based on the book, I would say that there's a good chance that is true as the story here is not exactly solid. The entire film hinges on one major and quite unbelievable coincidence that boggles the mind if you care to think about it. However, it's the style and atmosphere that saves it; and that's the main reason I loved this film! The plot focuses on your everyday hard-bitten cop, Lloyd Hopkins, who after investigating the murder of a woman in Los Angeles, comes to believe that a serial killer may be operating in the area. Naturally, the police captain doesn't believe a word of it and Lloyd is forced to investigate on his own; leading him to a revelation closer to home than he was expecting.

Director James B. Harris creates a fabulous atmosphere for the film to take place in and ensures that L.A. seems to be every bit the gritty and sleazy location needed to facilitate a tale like this. Similarly, James Woods fits the central role like a glove and is always believable in the role; even when the plot is getting out of hand. The first half of the film is really rather good and plausible; but then the twist hits and it really requires a suspension of disbelief from the viewer. It's not that the twist could not happen; it's more the way that it does happen which comes off as silly. It's just far too convenient and the whole film is turned on its head from that point on. Still, the atmosphere is retained and the story continues to be gripping; which are the film's strongest elements. Certain elements of the film are rather nasty, and indeed the book was originally denied by many different publishers for being too graphic! Still, a lot of it focuses on dialogue and from what I know of Ellroy, this part of the film is quite faithful. It all boils down to a rather hurried and coincidental ending; but I really do feel that this is a film where the style of it is much more important than the plot line. For some it will no doubt be too much of a problem...but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this to anyone that enjoys a good crime thriller!


This is a good thriller with some very shocking scenes. It boasts several interesting characters which I found pretty believable. James Woods is Lloyd Hopkins a police detective who tries to catch a serial killer whose prey are young, innocent" women. Hopkins has a kind of a fixation on this type of female (not unlike the Russel Crowe character in L.A. confidential). He thinks they have to be cured" of this innocence at the earliest possible age and accordingly tells his own little daughter the gruesomest possible bedtime stories (a great scene with a great little child actress). Hopkins' wife says he is a disturbed person, and one has to agree with her.

In the course of the investigation Hopkins finds out that the owner of a feminist bookstore, Kathleen McCarthy, played by Lesley Ann Warren, is in some way linked to the serial killer. Hopkins, of course, hates feminists but somehow, for the sake of the investigation, he gets into a relationship with McCarthy. This leads to a hilarious foreplay" conversation with an ending that makes you rock with laughter. But real tragedy is never far away and even if the feminist character is a rather blunt caricature, her actions and her reasoning are an essential and convincing part of the story.

A further interesting point for me was the reference to born-agains". They are not involved in the crime of this movie but seem to dominate the higher echelons in the police hierarchy. Hopkins' partner warns him about them and tells him that he is at the top of their to retire" list because of his shaky family life. Hopkin's superior is a known born again (I go to church on Sunday and to prayer meetings three times a week, but for the rest of the time I put God out of my mind, he says something like that). It is a very good and sensible performance by Raymond J. Barry as it does not, like in the case of the feminist, revert to stereotype. That captain seems to be strict but correct, acknowledging the talents of Hopkins and criticizing his failings in a fair if tight lipped way. He puts Hopkins on suspension which leads to a violent ending many reviewers seem to appreciate.

The production values and the pacing of this movie are above average, it delivers action and leaves time for introspection on different levels. I wish Al Pacino had had a look at this movie before he starred in Insomnia.


James Woods is a great actor and this is one of his best roles. It's nothing more than a B picture, but Woods is great as Lloyd Hopkins a bad cop in a bad city. He's the kind of cop who picks up on the bad guys girlfriend after he shoots him dead on the street. It's got a lot of good scenes with Woods at his best and a knockout ending. It also has sexy Randi Brooks and Charles Durning for support. Lesley Ann Warren also does a fine job as a chainsmoking Lesbian poet. This movie is highly reccommended. Put it in the VCR and hold on.


But when it comes to the review of this movie, it's all good news. James Wood is Lloyd Hopkins, the jaded cop who throws himself into one particular case after his wife, Penny, leaves him. Adapted from a James Elroy novel, this crime drama turns out pretty good. And while not reaching the heights of L.A. Confidential in some ways, for me it come close and exceeded that great movie in other ways thanks to an understated acting chops of James Woods. That guy remains a criminally under-rated actor. In my mind, he's one of the greats. Plus the ending is so VERY good.

My Grade:A

Where I Saw it: Starz Action


James Woods must've been desperate to pay the bills when he accepted the lead role in this seriously flawed suspense/action flick. For a man of such immense talent, this is a total waste.

Scripters and director James B. Harris have done their very best to destroy what was probably a good plot, based upon the novel "Blood on the Moon" by James Ellroy, about an obsessive serial killer whose love for a prudish, feminist poet type drives him to commit horrid crimes while an uptight detective hunts him in the name of all the disillusioned young women...................................well, maybe the plot wasn't so good to begin with, but certainly Harris and company have done a great job in smothering what value there may have been. Any remnants of a storyline are washed out as the focus is pure vengeance. But it's a little hard to care about the way the characters feel when you don't care for the characters themselves.

Charles Durning, Lesley Ann Warren and Raymond J. Barry also conspire to throw away their collective acting prowess along with Woods. Apart from all the short comings afore mentioned, there really can be nothing else to say about what is a definite failure.

Saturday, February 15, 1997 - Video


James Ellroy fans will probably want to check this out. They especially are the ones who should avoid it.

Ellroy writes complex, psychologically damaged characters. James W. Harris's screenplay loses all that. It's watered-down and dumbed-down, making this just another average cop thriller.

Stick with L.A. CONFIDENTIAL or BROWN'S REQUIEM instead.


James Woods plays a stressed-out but determined detective on the hunt for a serial killer who has a vendetta against some former female college students.

Not only is he stressed with his crumbling marriage, but is also ham strung by his boss at the police precinct who is a born-again Christian and won't allow Woods the kind of resources he demands in order to trace the serial murderer before he strikes again.

By the end of the film Woods has been suspended from the force for repeatedly over stepping the mark, but at least he has his prey in his sights and won't let something as the Law get in his way.......

Not a particularly original script and it sometimes stalls & loses emphasis and a sense of direction. But for all that Woods hold the story together quite well in his customary man-on-the-edge way.

Woods has always been one of my favourite actors, he plays his characters with a great deal of intensity, passion and understanding (especially in the Oliver Stone movie, Salvador). And as a consequence his part as Lloyd Hopkins in this film is well suited & crafted for Woods' considerable depth.

Hopkins is arrogant & difficult not only to work with but also to live with. He is pushy and very confrontational and insists he gets his own way now rather than later, very much like Clint Eastwood's "Dirty" Harry Callahan character.

In particular he hates to see women ill-treated and so this particular murder mystery is to his liking and won't rest until he has tracked down the "scum ball" that murdered these students.

He has a heart of gold when he is with his little daughter. But he is also scared & concerned about her future and hopes that she will learn right from wrong and not fall into the shadows of crime & sleaze that he witnesses every day where he works.

But for all his morality & self-rightousness, he is also a cheat, a womaniser & just as sleazy as some of the scum that walk the streets that he so detests. So he is a man of contradiction, compassion and anger all rolled into one, which is just the kind of role best suited for Woods.

Unfortunately, none of the supporting actors are blessed with such dynamic or rounded characters, most of them are predictable & stereotyped, so we soon learn or hazard a guess as to what will happen to them during the unravelling of the movie.

There are a couple of cameo roles from Charles Haid (typecast again from his days as a cop in Hill Street Blues), Lesley Anne Warren and Charles Durning. But none of these characters are strong enough or offer any dimension to the film.

A lot has been said about the unusual ending. I guess in one respect it could have been done better although the very final scene (the fade to black and the sound of fired bullet casings clinking off the floor) is excellent and quite shocking.

Overall then, Cop is a routine thriller with only James Woods lifting it from the mediocre and into a competent drama. Woods does a fine job as always but there's not much else going on and is perhaps 20 minutes or so too long.

***/*****


Despite being based on a novel ('Blood On The Moon') by prolific and acclaimed crime writer James Ellroy (probably best known for writing the novel L.A. Confidential, which was later turned into the Oscar winning film of the same name) Cop is a crime thriller that just lacks, well thrills and crime in large doses. It's more a drama than anything else, only the drama isn't that well handled or particularly interesting.

Despite some good ideas the script (by James B. Harris) lacks any real cohesion and is for the most part rather contrived, worse than that the dialogue is also pretty flat and uninteresting, with the characters all painted as rather one dimensional. In fact is seems as though writer Harris didn't really have any room for any of the characters except for Woods central cop, with the rest all pretty much falling by the wayside. As such most of the characters are lacking any real...character.

As for the direction, also by James B. Harris, it's workmanlike but hardly inspiring, the nature of the story requiring a certain edge and grit to the direction that Harris just doesn't manage to deliver. That's not to say that either the script or direction are outright bad, they aren't, it's just that neither has the impact, style or strength to carry off this type of film or story, and because of this it all just comes off as rather flat and unexciting.

Performance wise James Woods is very good in the title role, which is good because it's basically down to him to carry the whole film, a feat that he almost, but not quite manages to do. He does receive some assistance, with both Charles Durning and Charles Haid giving good, solid performances despite their rather underwritten roles.

However the other actors aren't so lucky, with Randi Brooks, Raymond J. Barry and Steven Lambert merely passable in their roles, while Lesley Ann Warren's performance borders on schitzophrenic, with neither her radical mood swings nor motivations ringing true. Jan McGill as Wood's wife meanwhile is just so outright bad that it's no wonder that Wood's character doesn't seem all that effected when she (thankfully) leaves him not long after the film begins (I'd be relieved too).

All in all Cop isn't a bad film, it's just not a particularly good one either. It has it's moments and is a good showpiece role for the always entertaining (and underrated) Woods, it's just that the story and the film itself doesn't stand up to his fine performance. If it had spent more time detailing the characters and concentrating on the plot then it may well have been quite an effective little thriller, however as it stands it's merely just a passable one with a strong central performance.

7/10 One Man's Opinion.


I strongly recommend that you do not watch this film. The plot (roughly) is a cop on the edge, trying to catch a serial killer. No one else believes in him and the powers that be are trying to get rid of him. Meanwhile his wife has left him and taken their daughter with her. I really can't describe how mediocre this film was. James Woods does a passable James Woods impression and not much else. Tension is never built up and the ending must be one of the most stupid anti-climaxes ever. The thing that really annoyed me was the stupid line he uses at the end. What was that about? This kind of film has been done a million times before and each and every one of those million is probably better than this. Save yourself the 2 hours and do something else instead of watching this movie.


in this film portraying an actual couple, Cameron and Joanna Thomas. Having remembered Rinna from "Melrose Place",(she was the only one I would watch for) I watched this with expectations that she could raise the story to a higher level. She can, and does.

Although Cameron is a successful surgeon with all the accoutrements, something is missing. He fills the void in his life with an addiction. The story has been done many times before, but the specific subject of sex addiction has not. Lisa Rinna is excellent as the conflicted wife, angry and hurt by his addiction. Harry Hamlin is believable, doesn't overact, and still looks as good as he did in the 80's on "L.A. Law".

I hope that Ms.Rinna and Mr.Hamlin do more films of this genre, many films about addiction and family discord can work if they are done by talented, responsible actors not just concerned about their wardrobe or publicity stills.


Lisa Rianna is simply unbearable to watch. Her collagen filled trout lips simply dominate the screen. It is hard to take her seriously plus her acting is wooden, she has a very limited range of emotions that she can express with her trout lips.

It's a wonder she's on the screen at all. The answer, of course, is that her husband Harry Hamlin acts as the male lead plus also produced the movie.

Nepotism is alive and well in Tinsel Town.

There is no depth of acting or emotional ability, no sense of trauma or affliction rather sex addiction is viewed as being a "problem" that can be cured, with the emphasis on being a "survivor".

Movies that can present the extremes as mundane are dull indeed and this is one of them.


In 2001, this made for TV movie aired on Lifetime (naturally). It stars Harry Hamlin (from Clash of the Titans and LA Law fame) and his real life spouse Lisa Rinna as a couple dealing with sex addiction and how it is destroying the family. Cameron Thomas is a family man who is hiding a big secret- he's obsessed with sex. During the course of the movie, he shamelessly indulges in phone sex, picking up prostitutes and sex with strangers he just met at the airport. Now, in today's society, sex is everywhere. It's on television, it's in the movies, it's in the lyrics to songs. It's very hard to accept or believe that a love for sex is a major problem or a severe disorder. But it is. It's nymphomania and it's not good for you since anything in excess doses is not good for you- whether it's food consumption, drugs, alcohol etc. In the case of Cameron Thomas, he finds that his addiction to sex, pornography, etc, is destroying his marriage and even his life. Perhaps this is Lifetime's way of making a point about married men and sex addiction. It's ultimately more fatal and destructive for a married man to be addicted to sex while he is supporting a family. But I think it can also be argued that single men are in danger too. AIDS, and even if protection is used, the dehumanizing effect of sex, the detachment from any real feelings. The hardest part to watch is how distant the couple is getting. His selfishness, and it is selfish to be a sex addict while being married with kids, is consuming him and further tearing down the ties of family bond. He doesn't spend time with his son, or daughter, and he is neglecting his wife, who, if anything, ought to be the object of his obsession.Harry Hamlin makes a fine performance, getting so deeply into the character that one thinks maybe Harry Hamlin himself knows first hand about the problem. LOL He is married to Lisa Rinna, who plays his wife in the movie, and it was also their idea to present this film to other couples to enlighten them on the subject. They make a fine team, Lisa Rinna and Harry Hamlin and it's great to know Harry Hamlin is a faithful husband and great dad. Lifetime makes good films, really, but if it gets too over-dramatic its only to prove a point, this time being that sex addiction/nymphomania is just as bad as any major disease of the mind.


This story is supposed to be very engaging and seríous, and the subject and dilemma (sexual addicition) may very well be just one. However, the way the characters are portrayed here is quite strange and too often become ridiculous - perhaps from trying too tell too much in too little time. I suppose the intention is to explain the background of the sex addicts and the way they can be treated (in very much a US-style therapy manner), but it all becomes too shallow and 1-dimensional, almost like a 40s comic book series. And the lie-detector scenes - these could be an insult to anyone intelligence! Albeit the ludicrous dialogue the film is packed with a very much sympathetic intention and that´s why this is such a cute little piece of melodrama.


watched this on Lifetime Movie Network the other day , and i was thoroughly impressed with it. It showed what can happen to a family when an addiction occurs, whether it be alcohol drugs , or in this case sex. yes i said sex. there's actually an addiction for that, Harry Hamlin plays the cheating husband absorbed with sex, Lisa Rinna from Days of Our Lives plays the drama teacher wife. they have 2 boys who are seemingly caught in the middle of their parents situation. The wife finds evidence of him cheating,, confronts him,, and well the sparks do fly in this one, it's hard to say more without giving away what happens later, so i won't do that, but this is a very intriguing movie that delves deep into what can tear families apart, definitely worth a watch if you ask me.


this is the kind of pussy film that women love. all the females are good, and all the men are evil. no exceptions here. except for kids, of course, who are always virtuous in these American family films.

the most important virtue is fidelity. this gets beaten into a pulp.

what about some sophistication? think of french films where adultery is the norm. and Mormons with their multiple wives. when will America grow up?

and of course as in all American films, in the end the loser-guy reforms, comes around, and conforms to the female ethos. it's a wonder the poor slob, and a doctor to boot!, isn't impotent after going through all the shame, the shame, the shame.

a good antidote to this weepy feely goody film might be Casanova, but i haven't seen it yet!


Unfortunately this film made me reflect on a good friend who was married just like Harry Hamlin(Cameron Thomas),"Strange Hearts",'01, and had a nice family, good job and made a nice career for himself and family. However, just like Cameron Thomas, he was not able to stay faithful to his wife and family and ran after every woman he could find. This is a dreadful illness and leads to many other problems which this film portrays. Lisa Rinna,(Joanna Thomas),"Good Advice",'01, finally found out about her husband and went through a living hell. Cameron promised his wife Lisa, he would try to straighten out, but wound up looking at Porno on the Internet and just simply could not do anything else but fill his brain with SEX. If you have a friend or family member like this, get them HELP!


This really wouldn't look out of place as a student film. Leaden script, poor acting and a plot that never really gets going are just a few of the things that can be said. Caine is OK, but you get the feeling that the rest of the cast just don't care. In fact with better production values and a little more believable action this film could have been at least half-way decent. In the mid- to late-sixties there may have been a call for this type of film but not now. Then, it would have been slightly dangerous and risque, perhaps even exciting (then again perhaps not). Now it collects dust as it sits on the shelves of the local video outlet (really - it does!). The film is just a shadow of what could have been.


Possibly the worst movie I have ever made myself watch. The supermarket near my office recently had a stack of DVD's for 97p and the cast list caught my eye and parted me with my money. Tim Healey has the sense to get despatched early into proceedings but this woeful vehicle for Michael Caine and Edward Fox doesn't let them off so soon. I note that the director's children appear in this and that none of them have found a great deal of movie work since. Although this only cost me a very small sum of money, I will never get back the almost-2 hours it took me to watch this rubbish. I'd send it to the local church jumble sale but some other poor sap would have an equally unfulfilling afternoon, even if they only pay 10p for it.