I saw this film right on the day it opened in a large theater and even though I wasn't familiar with the original German TV Series I at least expected decent action entertainment and hoped to experience some two hours of fun and adrenaline.

But even my lowest expectations were completely shattered. DER CLOWN is a vintage cinematic failure - which rates even more painful, as it is conceived to be the first cinema released film of the newly formed cinema division of Germany's production company ACTION CONCEPT.

This is even more lamentable, as the film presents its assets in a very loose and disadvantageous manner: even though it contains some extremely strong elaborate stunts, explosions (of choppers, cars and even entire planes) and shootouts, which certainly would be worthy of a true Hollywood action production, these supposed assets are not presented as eye candy at all. The actions sequences are framed and edited in a dull way, making them look average, boring and uninspired. The blown up 16mm to 35mm image on the screen looks awfully cheap, the ongoing use of grand camera moves and particularly the frequent split screens pretending some artistic merits are just annoying and do make no sense at all!

But it's not only the failure of technical aspects, which ads up to me feeling FÜR DUMM VERKAUFT at the end of the screening. The actors, the storyline and the governing VISION of this project seem to be dis comfortably stuck in the feeling of average German 90s television bonanza (no matter how successful it must have been at its time) - and this doesn't add a sense of missing aura and charming feel to the flick...

And finally: the producers really ought to be warned for their slated upcoming productions: if you tailor you next films after this model DON'T EVER ATTACH THE KIND OF CREDITS WITH FEELGOOD BACKSTAGE FOOTAGE AND BLOPPERS ... it's simply downright embarrassing, period (I had to cover my eyes).

Finally I really have to mention, that the best experience of this very evening was the preceding trailer of the upcoming film KAMPFANSAGE (an ACTION CONCEPT CINEMA production as well), which appears to be far more satisfying and in terms of story, look, style, music, characters, acting and directing. And I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

Rumors have it, that this guerrilla like film has been produced on a tight, little budget of EUR 300,000. Now, if there are guys who can make a supposedly appealing feature for such a tiny budget, why are other people of even the same production company (!) entirely unable to end up with something witty and gripping for an estimated budget of 8 billion Euros? That's a Gordian knot I haven't been able to untie yet...

A true and newly born German entertainment cinema is certainly about to appear on the spotlight - but DER CLOWN dosen't belong to it (... at least, that is what I hope!)

... I rated it 3 lame stars for some whacky pyrotechnics and for the hyped-up lips of German I-wanna-be-a great-star Xenia Seeberg ...


I love both Eva Habermann and Xenia Seeberg for their incredible performances in immortal Lexx Series. But here I was so badly shocked and so much disappointed that no words can come in. The plot is a real obvious silliness - bad guys, Xenia is among them, are always plotting some bad actions, only to steal some big chunk of gold from some place. Good guys, including Eva and some mystical Der Clown, as a modern day Robin Hood, always hinder them on doing that. There are many cars exploded, some helicopters, some airplanes, some cycles, some bombs, some more... It all looks like a cheap remake f some Commando or Rambo films, only with poor play and cheap budget. Xenis does not play, she only makes effective poses and shows her legs galore. Eva is better by a hair width, she is always cool but then frightened and brave. I say, this is a brainless, light weight ditty, not a serious thought behind. Do not waste your time on that. But it is good for laughs.


This is by far the worst film ever made. It lacks idea, talent and originality and makes Ed Wood's films seem like Oscar masterpieces. Even the special effects and stunts are boring and completely laughable. It feels like it's been made by monkeys. the "acting" is nonexistent and against the Geneva Conventions and the dialog is so embarrassing that i had to switch it off from time to time. Even a piece of mud would act better that this ensemble. It is a complete waste of time and money. If you want something interesting, i recommend to rather watch static on TV and to avoid this film under all circumstances.


But whoever came up with this crap? The series had more action, more funny lines, and a packed story altogether. The effects are crappier than I've ever seen before. Take the shot with the lorry that's being rocketed - you clearly see a dummy driving. Or the shot where a car passes a tram, it's clearly computer generated.

Might not be that bad, but untrue characters that do really stupid moves, it might have been acceptable at the beginning of cinema.

And then the soundtrack. After practically every scene a bit of English or German noise has to be added. Why, is it a musical or what?

Really awful and unbelievable. We've seen many events in other movies before, and a lot better. I loved Kommissar Rex, Derrick, Der Alte, Der Klown, but this is major C*R*A*P!


John Huston's adaptation of Malcom Lowry's celebrated novel is very much like his adaptation of Flannery O'Connor's "Wise Blood": foggy, dreamlike and at times unwatchable. Huston finds a strange, distant tone that is somewhere between ironic and completely bizarre, with intentionality that is questionable at best. Even though Huston was getting old at this point, he was still tackling challenging material in his old age, which possibly explains the odd mix of provocative, dense material with stilted, unintuitive storytelling. If his age isn't the main culprit for the film's weird failings, then it may be his stiflingly traditional film-making, which seemed a bit outmoded in 1984. Either way, the film never finds a proper stylistic center, causing "Under the Volcano" to continually sink into incoherence.

Huston's most grave misstep was his choice to pace the film with mostly static shots and slow editing rhythms. For being so conservatively made, there is an almost constant lack of clarity, as no one element in the film complements the other. Albert Finney's go-for-broke performance as British diplomat Geoffery Firmin is fearless and raw, but Huston's shot selections and mostly bland mise-en-scene distract from the brimming anger and pain the actor tries so nakedly to express. Similarly, the absorbing, mythical imagery of the story's Mexican "Day of the Dead" setting instead feels random as the foregrounded symbolism seems ham-fisted where it should have been atmospheric. Instead of casting the story's eerie spell, Huston's film-making suffocates the material, causing it to become overblown yet underdeveloped.

That is all not to say Huston is completely to blame, however. Screenwriter Guy Gallo's task of condensing such enormous, literary ideas into a stand alone two-hour film is admirable, and structurally he does great things to keep the story immediately revolving around Geoffory's character arc, but by the end it feels like too many corners were cut to make it happen. The character of Hugh, Geoffery's dashing half-brother, is extremely undeveloped to the point of feeling unnecessary, and Yvonne, Geoffery's estranged wife, is never given the psychological need that would make her sympathy toward him credible. Even worse, the conclusion comes with a clumsy thud, ending the film suddenly and untidily.

(2 out of 4)


When Malcolm Lowry's multi-layered novel hit the post war literary scene it was hailed as an instant classic. The stream-of-consciousness and hallucinatory profile of a former British consul drinking himself to death in 1938 Cuernavaca served as a metaphor for the world's imminent fall into the precipice of World War II.

Immediately Hollywood responded and a 35-year pursuit of the elusive project began. Orson Welles showed interest. Followed by John Ford and MGM producer Frank Taylor. The list goes on to include director Jose Quintero, actor Zachary Scott and directors Luis Bunel, Joseph Losey, Tony Richardson, Joseph Strick and Anthony Harvey.

Why all the interest? Despite the complex literary references employed through the novel, "Under The Volcano" remains one of the most cinematic literary devices ever published. Influenced by the fluid and subjective camera work in F.W. Murnau's silent classic "Sunrise," Lowry succeeds in brilliantly portraying the psychological awareness, panic and deliberate downfall of Geoffrey Firmin amid the spectacular garden-of-eden setting of Mexico with the shinning array of the snow capped peaks of Popocatepetl looming beyond. Symbolism, drama, the d.t.s of alcoholism, mysticism and the ever present hope of salvation are further layers that shaped the novel during it's eight year gestation.

Huston's film adaptation discards all the cinematic brilliance for the sake of simplifying the story. In other words, the film eviscerates what makes the novel great and we are left with an adequate performance by Finney and laughable work by Bisset and Andrews. An all round dismal and forgettable film.


Imagine Albert Finney, one of the great ham bones of the acting world. Imagine one of the great ham bones of the acting world playing a character who's drunk for the entire length of the movie. If you can imagine this, you can imagine why the audience applauded when Albert Finney's character finally died because it meant that the movie was apt to be over soon as well.

Predictable and self-consciously "arty," the movie never seemed to be about anything, but rather seemed to be a vehicle for Albert Finney to overact (as usual). The plot was non-existent and the characters were stereotypical "strangers in a strange land."


I normally aspire to write reviews which are witty, thought-provoking, and provide true insight into a film's artistic merits. This made-for-TV movie, however, deserves no such effort. This is probably one of the worst TV moves - no make that movie in general - that I have ever seen. The acting is horrible (I have seen better performances in high school drama class productions), the plot is rambling and pointless, and even the cinematography is more soap-opera than any movie ever should be. Pure trash - avoid at all costs.


The movie never picked up momentum. Bad performance from most of the actors. Looked more like amateur theatre. And the music score in dramatic scenes for eg. while rescuing the girl from the woods was mundane. The film just lacks focus. Don't waste your time. I can't believe Paramount bought this movie.


Pre-World-War-Two Hollywood got a lot of mileage out of Hungarian plays, in this case one by Ferenc Molnar which had been filmed previously and would be filmed again. These plays had one thing in common  people impersonating other people or pretending to be something other than what they really were in order achieve a status-seeking goal. Here, a princess (Lillian Gish), at the urging of her ambitious mother (Marie Dressler), keeps company with her younger brothers' tutor (Conrad Nagel) in order to make a prince (Rod La Rocque) jealous so that he will propose to her. This is the kind of story that might have been the backbone for an operetta directed by the likes of Lubitsch. But this film plays it straight and without the visual wit that Lubitsch brought to his projects. It begins promisingly as foppish, decadent LaRocque is dragged away by his handlers from a wild party to pay a visit to Gish and Dressler. But as soon as he arrives at his destination the film degenerates into one boring setup after another in which various combinations of people talk a lot about whether they are in love or not or which suitor will win Gish. Occasionally a voice is raised, a kiss is planted on lips or hands, or Dressler pulls nervously on her hanky.

In talkies, La Rocque fared best as a villain (as in THE LOCKED DOOR) but as the prince it's hard to tell whether his character is meant to be bad or good. He has a fey way with line readings that brings to mind the chronologically later Vincent Price. Although he looks magnificent in military garb, he lacks the natural joie de vivre that Maurice Chevalier brought to similar roles and he seems to be mocking himself. Nagel is, as always, dashing and sympathetic but at certain moments pompous. Dressler restrains herself commendably; in general she contributes much needed punch as well as dashes of humor. The ethereally beautiful Gish is every inch the princess in a flawless performance; the role she plays, unfortunately, is so tepid that her efforts hardly matter. She was 36 years old when this was shot but Karl Struss's soft focus cinematography helps.


Movie itself it quite catchy - the fight of Jack with Asian man in the hotel room was the best, imho...

But some things are under critics. Like exploding on the arena - when eventually whole the building is got blown away - what 'bad guy' of Mickey Rourke was thinking about when placing mines of such explosive power there? :) Or what was on 'good guy' of Dennis Rodman's mind when swapping some mine marks? To play the game 'who dies first - good Jack or bad Stavros? A big number of gotchas that may be forgiven only because it's just an action. Plain action with good fights and explosions...


courtesy of www.PopBunker.net We've all had it happen. A day will be going merrily along with normal annoyances and accomplishments. Then suddenly, out random chaos, something triggers the memory of an innocent of something so profoundly awful and cringe-inducing that all he wishes is that the memory would have stayed forgotten.

Sometimes the buried memory is in the form of an embarrassing moment; like taking out one's junk and swinging it around at a wedding reception. And other times it is bewildering reminders of craptacular movies like Double Team.

My day "job" includes managing an online inventory. Recently we obtained around 300 DVDs to add to our online and brick and mortar inventory. Usually I don't pay attention to titles when mindlessly adding to our inventory. But yesterday I was struck as if by a malevolent satorie when this DVD came through.

I tweeted about it and got back a few colorful responses with regards to re-opening this wound of a movie in the minds of many.

So what was so awful about "Double Team?" Well, first of all the name: Double Team. Everyone is entitled to his most far-fetched fantasy, but I can't imagine anyone  not even the most strong stomach celeb stalker  wanting to be doubled teamed by JCVD and Dennis Rodman. It would be like having a fantasy involving a threesome with Larry King and Frances Bay (Granda from Happy Gilmore) while everyone wears a KISS mask. It just doesn't compute even to the most perverse of minds.

The next thing well Dennis Rodman. I mean just image google his name. Or don't.

Be who you wanna be, kid. It's all good. But to be who Rodman is and mix that with the absolute fact that he can act about as well as he shot three-pointers (23.1%) makes a mess recipe for a movie.

"Double Team" even had Mickey Rourke when he was an a-hole everyone hated instead of The Wrestler reborn a-hole that everyone suddenly thinks is cool because he is in Iron Man 2. (A side note: Rourke is the ultimate retro-cool has-been a-hole re-made into the suddenly in-demand cool a-hole that soon everyone will remember is an a-hole and will be cast aside once again. It's a crazy business.) The last thing I'm going to point out in "what was so awful about" is that it was a stone cold career killer for JCVD. It may well be that JCVD was going to have a short career arc as a major action player anyway, but in the three years leading up to "Double Team," he was in Timecop (1994), Streetfighter & Sudden Death (1995), The Quest & Maximum Risk (1996). "Double Team" flushed down in 1997 and then that was it. I think everything after "Double Team" was a direct-to-DVD or limited release for JCVD. JCVD was not known for quality cinema, but he was known for exploitative movies made for men who love movies made for men. JCVD movies were cheap to make and did enough bank at the box office until "Double Team." Not even men who love movies made for men could love JCVD after he was in a movie with Dennis Rodman that, if I remember correctly, featured a fight or chase or something where Rodman's mode of attack was Grabbing a Rebound Kung-fu or some ridiculous junk like that. I know it involved a gratuitously out of place basketball reference somehow.

courtesy of www.PopBunker.net


The truth is that I am a big Van Damme fan. Yes I said it. I do not think that he is a good actor but movies like Blood Sport and lion Heart were entertaining no matter how cheesy they may have seemed. But Double Team is completely different on all levels.

Forget the fact that like any Van Damme movie, all character and plot development are non-existent, this movie still finds a way to suck to a new level. It is nothing more than a desperate attempt by Rodman and an aging Van Damme to try and be hip and cool and show us that people can work together no matter how different they are. Garbage! This is the only Van Damme movie that i had to stop in my life. It was so boring that i got depressed for about an hour afterwards.

There is nothing good about it. I actually recommended it to my best friend at the time because i told him that it was the worst movie ever made. I have watched countless cheesy action movies and suspense movies but this is truly the worst. Imagine watching dust collect for an hour and a half and then you get the exact idea of what it was like watching this movie.


It goes without saying that Belgian-born martial artist Jean-Claude Van Damme can do incredible things with his body. The things he can do, with his better-than-average flexibility, seem so acrobatically impossible that it hurts just to write about them. It's cool, that with Van Damme's martial arts background - a black belt in Shotokan Karate, several middleweight full-contact Karate titles, and training in ballet (yes, ballet), which makes his kicks and flexibility defy normal-person standards (not to mention the fact that's he's just one of the most impressively-built men in the world) - his film career would pan out better.

"Double Team," directed by the Hong Kong veteran Tsui Hark, is Van Damme's first foray into the world of Asian/American cinema. "Double Team" has an astounding production but that's about it. In a globe-spanning odyssey from Spain, to somewhere in the Mediterranean and finally to the Roman Coliseum, you would expect "Double Team" to be fast & furious Hollywood/Hong Kong action of the first degree. But it's not. The plot is incoherent and insensible, with even worse script-writing and acting (the last is a moot point, but you understand).

Van Damme is Jack Quinn, one of the world's leading counter-terrorist experts, who is leading an operation to nab master terrorist Stavros (a plastic-looking Mickey Rourke). When the bust goes down, lots of explosions and gunfire, and in the ensuing chaos, Stavros's wife and young son are killed. A martial arts fight breaks out between Quinn and Stavros but Stavros escapes, and Quinn is badly injured during the course of Stavros's explosive getaway.

Presumed-dead-to-the-world and now banished to this shadowy island paradise called "The Colony," Quinn recovers but is made a permanent resident of The Colony along with dozens of other agents who are "too valuable to kill, too dangerous to let loose" (or something similar). The Colony is actually a think-tank of former counter-terrorism experts, who offer their clandestine services to elite clientèle all over the world. Of course, no prison can hold Quinn, who meticulously engineers his escape in one brilliant sequence (the best one in the entire film, in fact), teams up with flamboyant arms-dealer Yaz (Color-me-bad former San Antonio Spurs basketball sensation Dennis Rodman) and together the two go after Stavros, who has kidnapped Quinn's pregnant wife and is threatening to kill her once the baby is born and then raise it has his own.

"Double Team" is a ridiculous action-fest the likes of which have yet to successfully transition into mainstream American films. Hark makes sure the action is fast and ridiculous, but it's unfortunate that the rest of the film is not as skillful.

The biggest problem is the insane story: it's too insane, too insane for its own good, and lacking brain-power. I understand that the film was originally going to be a much better action thriller with a much smarter plot than what we've got here. But that's Hollywood for you.

3/10


I realize that a lot of people actually enjoyed "Double Team", that its director Tsui Hark is a talented and hard working fellow responsible for some outstanding Hong Kong cinema in years past, and that Jean Claude Van Damme has at least managed to stay pretty buff even as his career declined (unlike his contemporary Steven "Make Mine KFC" Seagal).

But "Double Team" sounded the Death Knell for Van Damme's movie career, which was finished off and consigned to direct-to-video Hell by Hark's follow up "Knock Off" in 1998. (Although I felt that "Knock Off was mildly enjoyable, Hark's off-kilter approach and the 3rd rate screenplay made it tank big-time with American audiences).

It's not that the movie itself was all that bad to look at.It's obviously the work of professionals. The hyper-kinetic camera work and meth-driven action sequences are pretty much what we've come to expect from Hark and his colleagues, there's some reasonably witty give and take in the dialog, a few decent one liners, etc., the actors are reasonably buff, etc. I tried to take all this into account, and all these mitigating elements help a little, but in the end, "Double Team" is obviously the Beginning Of The End.

Why?? Well, we've always known the Van Damme isn't an Actor, he's a Body (like, say, Marc Singer in "Beast Master"). He's only believable in a limited range of roles, and he's very limited in his dramatic range of emotions ( the thick accent has always been a hindrance ). And "Double Team" pretty much signaled that Hollywood had run out of things to do with him, that his fan base and audience was pretty much played out, and that every VD film from now on would be a retread or a derivative, 2nd rate mishegoss. Three major directors had made a shot at bringing him into the mainstream ("Hard Target", "Time Cop", and "Sudden Death"), and Van Damme had been decent-to-excellent in all of them...but all those directors had moved on and Van Damme was now back to making "B" movie fodder.

Or in the case of "Double Team" a 'freak show buddy movie' whose gimmick was that it starred Dennis Rodman as a giant Dennis Rodman. Rodman's whole gimmick as a celebrity (as opposed to his inarguable talent as a pro basketball player) is that he is "outrageous", and the movie stops repeatedly to let him BE outrageous, with various hi tech gimmicks and basketball-themed weapons that seemed to have been invented by your ninth-grade nephew. There are some potentially funny and incisive lines , but the delivery (by both Van Damme and Rodman) pretty much just lies there. Van Damme is particularly "off" in this movie, like he's just going through the motions until his hangover subsides or something.

So it's not a "real" movie, but just a strung together series of set pieces with testosterone-fueled muscle flexing and an almost complete lack of actual human emotion or feeling. Oh, a certain kind of audience will love this kind of thing, but somehow, this particular movie seemed to permanently typecast Van Damme as a 2nd rater, a hack actor in the same vein as Rutger Hauer, Dolph Lundgren and, yes, Steven Seagal...All these actors also started off with a big splash in well designed vehicles that showcased their talents...and then faded into B-to-Z movie hackdom as the casting agencies and action directors moved on to other, fresher faces.

For all his limitations as an actor and an action star, I've always enjoyed Van Damme - he's good looking, he is capable of mild wit and self deprecating humor, and he works hard at maintaining his physique in a career phase where a lot of his action star peers from the same period have let themselves go and have to suck their guts in and hope for a good camera angle. I was sad to see him going through the motions in this silly half-baked excuse for a screenplay.


This movie just falls flat. The action sequences are ok, but they quickly become boring and seem to drag on endlessly. Rodman is truly pathetic as an actor. One of this movie's main faults is that it forces you to watch him stumble through lines and pretend to have wit. The movie's premise is ridiculous and its portrayal of the "spy game" is preposterous. If you're looking for a good action film, go watch Face/Off or Ronin, don't waste your time with Double Team.


Double Team is like the greatest pleasure in the whole world times 100. Van Damme has an excellent roll as Jack Quinn, a hard core counter terrorist who is out to get terrorist stavros, mickey rourke. Also teaming up with VanDamme is weapons dueler yaz, dennis rodman. Some of the fights scenes will blow you away well other things will make you laugh until you cry. Also if you are wanting one of the best final showdowns between good and evil then the ending of double team will blow you away.

In conclusion, Double Team is a excellent movie for all you action fans out there with a love for van damme flicks.


I've seen this film a number of times over the years. Call me mad, but it has a special place in my heart. Admittedly, the acting is awful, and I'm not just talking about Dennis Rodman. The script is ridiculous, full of clichéd references to "the game." And the fight sequences, arguably the only reason to watch the movie, are so dominated by stunt-doubles I wonder if Van Damme and Mickey Rourke ever met during filming.

Still, I love it. Maybe it's a case of "so bad it's good," maybe I'm just partial to Van Damme, or maybe it's because I still have that promotional "Double Team" baseball cap from working in a theater. But whenever this movie comes on cable I am compelled to watch.

For some reason, I'm compelled to drink Coke afterwards....?


It`s impossible to believe today in 2003 that a few years ago Jean Claude was a fairly famous film star , but his career soon hit the rocks as audiences became aware that his films were unnecessarily violent and very very dumb . Van Damme movies also lacked a sense of humour thereby ensuring his status at the box office was short lived . In other words a film containg the caption " Starring Jean Claude Van Damme " is not a good thing and I can`t help thinking DOUBLE TEAM is Jean Claude`s worst film

!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!

The major problem with DOUBLE TEAM is that the plot is so slippery it`s impossible to explain . It involves the hero Jack Quinn hunting arch-terrorist Stavros and because Quinn fails in his mission which leaves several people dead he`s given the choice of instant death or being exiled to an island similar to the one in THE PRISONER . He chooses exile but decides to break out to gain revenge on Stavros who`s planning to kill Quinn`s wife and new born child

If the last paragraph makes much sense then I`ve probably explained it all wrong because the plot is totally underdeveloped with a massive amount of scenes that lead nowhere . For example Quinn runs into an old rival on the island and gets involved in a fight . Who the rival is remains vague and we never see him again . It`s as though the screenwriter got bored with the subplot and discarded it while he was writing it and the film is littered with these subplots that are unexplained and go nowhere . I was also going to mention the climax with the tiger and the sports staduim that`s been mined but you`d never believe it


THE HONEYMOON KILLERS is based on the true story of Martha Beck and Raymond Fernandez who remorselessly killed a number of wealthy lonely women back in the 1940s.

I bought this movie expecting it to be average but my expectations were not very high. Since I had never heard of the movie, I was not expecting a classic by any means. Nothing could prepare me for what I was about to face.

Firstly, I am a big fan of movies based on true stories. I think BONNIE AND CLYDE, THE BOSTON STRANGLER and 10 RILLINGTON PLACE are very good movies. Those movies contain everything this one does not  suspense, tension, good acting, excellent dialogue and scripts, wonderful direction and surprising shocks. And these movies invoke emotion from the viewer.

THE HONEYMOON KILLERS is by contrast an incredibly bland and boring movie that is merely relying on the fact it has a basing on real events in order to attract viewers. Some say the movie was made just to cash in on the success of BONNIE AND CLYDE. I would agree with that analogy.

As another reviewer has pointed out, the movie deviates a long way from the real story. At the time of viewing, I didn't know anything about the real events, but I most certainly did find the events in this movie implausible to say the least. The very idea that Martha and Raymond could be having sex in the marital home whilst Raymond's supposedly new bride was taking a bath was just plain silly. The real Martha and Raymond would never have been so reckless in their actions.

The characters in the movie are not in any way shown to be ruthless, cunning and remorseless killers. Martha Beck is portrayed as a very hysterical woman, unable to contain jealousy and unable to avoid getting into heated arguments with the couple's intended victims. This cannot possibly have been what the real person was like. If she were then her partner in crime would have soon got rid of her before she bungled their plans. Raymond Fernandez is portrayed fairly well by Tony Lo Bianco. He makes a convincing gigolo. But the character does become a little annoying at times. There is no chemistry between the actors, nothing that indicates what attracts the characters to one another. And when we are expected to believe without question or hesitation that an Italian Lothario would shack up with a fat, frumpy, hysterical nurse, the movie loses any credibility.

The rest of the characters in the movie are very bland and boring. Most of them are portrayed as idiots who quite happily sign away their savings and investments to a man they hardly know. And they all act hysterically when they find out the truth. Naturally, the couple murder them when this happens. Although, the intended victims act so hysterically that any reasonably minded person feels like hitting them just to shut them up. In other words, the victims cry out to be killed.

Only three murders take place in the movie, one of them is off-screen. The other murders are committed in a very lame manner. The poor acting from the actresses playing the victims doesn't help either. I have read reviews on this site claiming that the murder scene with the hammer was "shocking", "scary" and so on. Well, I nearly laughed when the scene came on. I couldn't believe the scene could have been filmed so badly. The other murder scene was filmed equally badly. Both scenes were devoid of any suspense or tension. It was simply all too predictable.

The decision to include an off-screen murder was supposed to provide a shocking moment worthy of a brilliant director like Hitchcock. Unlike Hitchcock's scenes in the masterpiece PSYCHO, the off-screen murder in this movie is almost totally devoid of any suspense, tension or emotion. It invoked no emotion in me whatsoever.

I have read many reviews claiming the movie is filled with "camp" humour. I would say WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE is a proper example of camp humour. In THE HONEYMOON KILLERS, I found nothing remotely funny or entertaining. It was just boring talk with no action in virtually every scene. Where was the humour the fans keep babbling on about? I kept waiting for something to liven the movie up. But, it never came. It wasn't even one of those "so bad it's good" types.

Apparently, Martin Scorcese either was on the project at some time, or was being considered to direct the movie. It's a real pity he didn't direct it because if he had we probably would have ended up with a far superior movie.

Everyone who loves the movie uses the low budget as an excuse to justify the shortfalls. But, this movie was made in the same era as NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, another black and white movie filmed with only half the budget. That movie was a classic and the black and white cinematography helped to make the movie more disturbing and atmospheric. In THE HONEYMOON KILLERS, the black and white cinematography seemed to be used purely for cheapness.

Overall, I cannot recommend this boring piece of tripe to anyone. It is one of the most boring movies I've ever seen in my life and I've seen plenty of movies. It is just seems to go on and on forever. It is incredibly boring, with little more than talking all the way through. The murders don't even begin to happen until three quarters of the way through. Even then, the movie contains nothing to write home about. Just don't waste your time on this. If you want to know the story of Martha Beck and Raymond Fernandez, just watch a documentary on them, or do some research on the Internet or at your local library. Either investment would produce a much better benefit for your time.


Just caught this last night on TCM. It's got some moments, but overall it drags. Stoler as Martha has an early scene where she quits/is fired that's priceless and when her mother plays the guilt card on her ... that rings as true to life for anyone raised Catholic. However, as the story progresses and the bodies rack up the film takes on a John Waters-feel (i.e.- Serial Mom). There are scenes that play like comedy when they should be tragic: the lake/picnic scenes w/ our main LOON trying to drown herself stops any pretense to dramatic tension in it's tracks. In scenes that take place in the bedrooms that Martha shares w/ the unknowing, prospective brides there's a "Throw Momma From The Train"-feel to them that begs the question why any of the brides-to-be even puts up w/ Martha's awful behavior. Let alone swallow pills pro-offered by Martha!?!

There's some dramatic redemption towards the last ten minutes when the story finally delivers the best sequence as Martha orchestrates the murders (mother and child) that will eventually close the grisly story. The film is terribly photographed and the sound recording is the worst of any film I've reviewed on IMDb.


Movie based on real life killers Martha Beck (Shirley Stoler) and Raymond Fernandez (Tony LoBianco). Beck was a 200 pound nurse who met sleazy Fernandez through a lonely hearts correspondence. They met and fell in love. They then met rich old ladies through the correspondence, killed them and took their money.

I've seen this film multiple times over the years and its popularity totally escapes me. It does have some things going for it: it's well-directed by Leonard Kastle; the one murder shown is actually quite frightening and Stoler and Lo Bianco give out good performances. Also Doris Roberts has a small early role here. Unfortunately the bad things far out number the good.

This was shot on no budget and it shows: the sets are really shabby (although that DOES fit the tone of the movie); all the characters are unpleasant; people scream rather than talk to each other; the dialogue is banal; Stoler and Lo Bianco aside the acting is terrible; the music is hilariously inappropriate; the attraction between Beck and Fernandez is never explained and, quite simply, this is boring! The movie just drones on and on and on. Critic Pauline Kael hated it too--she hit it on the head when she calls this "minimalist film-making". A dull, unpleasant and boring little film. I can't recommend this to anyone.


Tony Lo Bianco plays a Latin cad who meets women through a dating service, happily strings them along and marries them under an alias before taking off with their money; after meeting Shirley Stoler's possessive, mercurial Martha, he almost reluctantly allows his deceptions to turn into a series of murders. Low-budget queasiness (worked on at an early point by Martin Scorsese) takes a surprising amount of time to mount its grisly story--and by this time, one is watching and waiting for one of the nasty killings to occur simply because nothing else is happening. Lo Bianco and Stoler argue constantly, yet we can't see why he is so devoted to her (or why he changed his course of action for her in the first place). Stoler, in her nurse's uniform, looks like a camp icon (and in a house-dress with her hair down, she seems a refugee from a John Waters satire); her performance is almost all on one-note and she's tiresome, though Lo Bianco is exceptional and well-cast as a horny, naughty boy in a man's body. Based on a real-life couple in the 1940's dubbed 'The Lonely Hearts Killers', the movie was trumped the year before by the dark comedy "No Way To Treat A Lady" (which was actually more explicit and disturbing than this film). It isn't a terrible picture (some of the conceptions and camera compositions are startling), but with so little happening in the foreground, interest quickly wanes. *1/2 from ****


despite the opening credits. Finally got to see this on IFC, and the only thing they got right here was that Martha Beck and Raymond Fernandez were killers. To wit:

1) The story took place in the late 40's, not the late 60's.

2) The scene of Martha confronting the nurse and orderly is pure fiction. She was superintendent of a home for handicapped children in Florida, not a head nurse at a hospital in Alabama.

3) After she was fired, Martha showed up at Raymond's apartment in New York with her two children, and dutifully abandoned them at a Salvation Army on his orders. None of this is in the film.

4) Although they may have killed as many as 20 people, Martha and Raymond were convicted of one murder, the Albany widow. After they killed the Michigan widow and her child, they were extradited to New York, which had the death penalty. None of this is detailed.

5) Martha, crazed with jealousy over Raymond's wooing of their latest mark, calls the police? Needless to say, that didn't happen.

This was an obvious answer to the ultra-glitzy Bonnie and Clyde. Granted, Honeymoon was shot on a shoe-string budget, but Kastle isn't half the filmmaker Arthur Penn is: the story jumps, the pacing is sluggish, the sound is wretched, and, he is so disinterested in his heroes or their victims, whom he insultingly depicts as hopelessly square and stupid, you wonder why he bothered! The result is a campiness only John Waters could love (Shirley Stoler could have been Divine's mother!) Gustav Mahler must be spinning in his grave!


Beyond its attractive, feathered hero and a surprise appearance by Thelma Ritter (her last as it happens) as a woman in the hospital's waiting room, "What's So Bad About Feeling Good?" actually has very little to recommend it even to the most desperate entertainment-seeker.

In this labored farce, seemingly endless variations on its one joke are tirelessly milked to extinction.

True, Dom De Luise, when he finally appears on the scene, does liven things up considerably. But is it worth waiting for Dom through a boring hour with pallid George Peppard and tiresome Mary Tyler Moore? Even the New York locations and a Vic Mizzy score fail to overcome the ennui produced by a combination of dull writing and charmless leads.


Raoul Walsh does his usual yeoman-like job of directing this mediocre Western with Joel McRae as an outlaw trying to make one last big haul by robbing a train, Dorothy Malone as the young woman he thinks he loves, and Virginia Mayo as the girl who is, as he finally realizes, made for him.

Walsh also directed the original story, "High Sierra", with Humphrey Bogart, Joan Leslie, and Ida Lupino in the same roles. "Colorado Territory" absconds with the story but leaves John Huston's felicitous script behind as scraps.

Walsh has never directed a dull film, and this isn't dull. What it is, is simple minded. All of the subtlety and ambiguity that made the original so fine, so artful, is discarded and instead the characters and their motives are simplified to the extent that any particularly aware third-grader can grasp them.

What I mean is -- how should I put this? Maybe I can make the point by giving an example. In "High Sierra", Bogart meets a simple, kind old man with a crippled grand-daughter who needs an operation. That's the teen-aged Joan Leslie we're talking about, and, man, she looks good, though rendered sullen by her disability. Bogart comes into some loot and gives much of it to Joan Leslie's family so that she can have her operation. Meanwhile, he falls in with Ida Lupino, a whore who has been kicked around, loves Bogart, and will do anything for him. Before adopting Lupino, Bogart tells her that there's no place in his life for her. (He's thinking of settling down with Joan Leslie once she's fixed up.) Leslie's operation is a success and from her recovery bed she showers Bogart with gratitude -- but not love, as she explains to Grampa. On his next visit, Bogart finds her drinking and jitterbugging frenetically with a boyfriend. Leslie is still grateful to Bogart but she rejects his possessiveness, and he leaves her forever with Ida Lupino. Huston and Walsh fill these scenes with love, ambiguity, a frantic hope and a hopeless remorse.

In the remake, the Joan Leslie figure, Dorothy Malone, has nothing wrong with her except that she is greedy and treacherous. Although McRae gives the family enough money to start their farm, Malone tries to alert the sheriff to MacRae's presence in order to collect the twenty-thousand-dollar reward. The Ida Lupino character, Virginia Mayo, actually has to have a physical fight with Malone to keep her from rushing out the door. There is no ambiguity, no sense of real life. Malone is not a nice, if slightly empty-headed girl, who wants to just enjoy her new freedom. She's a bad girl.

"Colorado Territory" is miscast, as well. Joel McRae is a good light comedian or light action star -- a nice guy. He's not the tough ex-con that Bogart was. And Virginia Mayo is supposed to be part Pueblo Indian, though she looks about as Indian as Jean Harlow, the heavy makeup notwithstanding. One of the most touching (because grounded) elements of the original is that Bogart had to give up the vivacious young Joan Leslie for the older, husky, used, and rather plain Ida Lupino. In the remake, the succulent Virginia Mayo of 1949 could give Dorothy Malone a run for her money any day. It's like a high-schooler having to give up his romance with the head of the girl's cheer-leading squad for the love of the Prom Queen. There's not much of a sense of loss.

I've picked out just one set of relationships to compare, but any viewer could easily spot a dozen more in which the original is superior to the remake. (Humphrey Bogart, describing what a Tommy gun sounds like, taps his finger three times on the desk and says, "Tap tap tap. That's all." Nothing like that here.) Nice location shooting, but if you want to see a movie made for adult sensibilities, rent the original. This remake is pretty watered down.


The opening of Massacre at Central High has the credits play over shots of the films main character David (Derrel Maury) running along a road and across beach in Southern California to an awful song called 'crossroads'. It's David's first day at school after having recently moved to the area. His friend Mark (Andrew Stevens) belongs to a gang of bullies, Craig (Steve Bond), Paul (Damon Douglas) and Bruce (Ray Underwood). Mark tries to make things easy for David by getting him excepted into the gang. But after seeing how the bullies treat various other students David has none of it, and in fact tries to befriend and help the picked on students. He also becomes very friendly with Marks girlfriend Theresa (Kimberly Beck). One day Craig, Paul and Bruce try to rape two female students, Mary (Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith) and Jane (Lani O'Grady). Both Theresa and David see whats happening and stop it. The bullies go after David and in an 'accident' David's leg is crushed, crippling him. He sets out to take revenge on those responsible. However it soon becomes clear that with no one to keep the other students under control the school quickly becomes worse than before and it soon turns into a free for all as anarchy breaks loose, realising what he has done David must clean up the mess he has unwillingly created.

Written and directed by Rene Daalder I really didn't like this much at all, even though I know it gets a lot of good reviews. Maybe the problem was the exploitative title Massacre at Central High, it was also known as Blackboard Massacre here in the UK as well. I was expecting a gory slasher with loads of teens being hacked up, but what I ended up with was far from that, a rather tame drama with a bit of revenge thrown in to keep any potential viewers just about awake through the 85 odd minute running time. The script, I presume, tries to be thought provoking with its supposed social satire as the students run riot with their newly found freedom as they have no one to control them. The script is character development heavy and very light on action and exploitation elements. No adults are seen in the film until the last 10 or so minutes, I'm not sure where all the teachers and parents are or the police when the students start having 'accidents'. It's an interesting idea but the film itself is boring, dull and somewhat poorly made. You can clearly see the boom mike in scene. There's no blood, gore or violence in it, unless you count someone being murdered by their own hearing aid! Or some people in a tent being crushed by some fake looking boulders. Music, editing, and photography are all instantly forgettable. Maybe I wasn't in the right mood when I watched this as I could see why someone might like it, but for me it was a bit of a snooze fest. Disappointingly slow, dull and unexciting.


This movie might have been somewhat decent, if it hadn't been for the terrible filming, lighting and sound recording. Half the time you couldn't recognise the characters or understand their conversations. You had to guess who they were and what they were saying (which, I have to admit, was pretty fun!).I also noticed that all the actors were at least in their thirties while their characters were high school kids. They kept on talking about "old friends" (how old could they be, if they were not older than 18???) and their time in jail!! This seems pretty impossible for someone attending grade 12. The story itself was not even too bad, but all the efforts were in vain due to the amateurish way in which the film was shot.


David, the new kid in school, prefers not to join the club that the only new friend he made ,Mark, runs in. Craig, the leader of said gang doesn't like that David isn't falling in line and when he saves some "bull dykes" from getting raped by the gang, he pays for his insolence. Now after a stint in the hospital, he plots revenge. Horrid acting hamper this 'message' horror movie. Homoerotic sub-text, lame killings, and bad dialog don't help either. And don't get me started on that theme song. Go rent "Class of 1984" instead.

My Grade: D

Eye Candy: Kimberly Beck & Cheyrl Smith show all; Lani O'Grady shows breasts


Average movie, predictable movie. With the very so often motive of revenge used. It's not a bad watch, but you could do better with other great horror movies. But do take a look at MACH because it's a good watch.


this is not a good movie.i don't recall seeing worse acting for a long time.basically,a new student becomes bullied to the point where he is pushed over the edge.he exacts revenge by killing those who wronged him, making their deaths look accidental.sounds okay so far,right.but,this killer decides to kill other students who had nothing to do with bullying him.now there are no real "legitimate" reasons given to murder everybody.now,we get to the acting.each time a fellow student has a fatal accident,the other students show very little emotion and continue as if nothing has happened.i have to chalk this up to the limited acting ability of all the actors.in most so called horror movies, acting is not expected to be Oscar calibre,but this is worse than almost any movie in the horror genre.and things are worse because this movie has no scary sequences,so it would be nice if the actors could pick up some of the slack.the characters are like robots in their reactions,so it's really hard to like any of them.there are at least two scenes of nudity which are pointless.there is never any suspense generated,so there is never any feeling of anyone being in jeopardy.one last thing.this movie tries to take itself way too seriously,as if it is an Oscar contender.if it had been played for laughs,it may have been a better,or at least watchable movie. 1/10


Plenty of T & A, shower scenes, and full breasts straining against flimsy cotton blouses in this beyond-belief exploitation film. Four gorgeous American babes are wrongly jailed in a Turkish prison, where they face the expected sexual threats from cruel jailers, lesbo-inmates, and the inevitable warden-rapist. Perhaps the best reason to see this film is for the wardrobe: all four of the curvaceous cuties wiggle around the prison in Daisy Mae Dogpatch-style butt-twitcher cutoffs and oh-so-tight, braless tops.

If you really have 90 minutes with nothing else to do, you might watch this Israeli curiosity; be warned, however, that the reason for its existence will mystify you.


Well, it may be fun to see this soft-porn for you, but politically speaking, this movie is the perfect example of hatred against Turkey where the story took place. This is not how it works in this country. Also, the picture of Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, was "defaced" and played on to make him look like a monster. And, you should note that the girls are very well treated in Greece, and very bad treated in Turkey. I wonder where the producers of this film are!


This was the most terrible movie I have ever seen.The summary of it doesn't really make sense and it is all sensual sex. The girls kill nearly everyone that comes in their way(which is completely useless) and a man gets his testicles cut off.

A sure movie to stay away. Rating .1 out of 10.0


As a mental health researcher, I'm always intrigued by movies that display pathology. So when people start doing things that are not explained by an underlying mental disorder, I get confused. Perhaps because of the translation (or a poorly written story), I just didn't see what her underlying reason was for her self-mutilation. I thought maybe it was something akin to Body Dysmorphic Disorder (evidenced by seeing her disconnected hand on the table at the business dinner). I couldn't quite understand what was going on with her, and I would have liked to see some reasoning for her pathology.

Unfortunately, lacking any sort of character driving force, this movie seemed like an excuse to shock the audience with something on the edge of disturbing and taboo. Because of the lack of character development, it seemed simply to be an exercise in exhibitionism, which certainly dampened the effect of the film.


SPOILER This film, while fascinating and beautifully made, seems little more than a glorification of self-mutilation. Other users have called it self-love or masturbation, and they mean it in a positive way. But inflicting pain on oneself, mutilating oneself, is not self-love. Masturbation is a wonderful way of making your body feel good. Cutting off pieces of your own flesh and eating them doesn't make your body feel good and shouldn't be glorified or reviewed positively.

So if I've spoiled the movie for you, I must say I'm glad. You don't need to watch this film. You need to do something good for yourself and for your body and leave this movie on the shelf.


Do not see this film. There is no plot, no story, and unattractive people. The whole film consists of a woman cutting at parts of her body. I had to look away at many of the bloody scenes. I would have walked out, except I wanted to see how it ended. The ending was ???? Who knows? The small group of people who attended this showing were grumbling on the way out. What a waste!


I heard about this film while at the NY Horror film festival where the audience was told they HAD to see this intense & brutal movieand I read some reviews that called it amazing and grippingLIES! I recently became a fan of Gasper Noe's `Irreversible' and that was an amazing, brutal and brilliant piece of filmmaking, so this also being a French film I thought it might live up to the hype. Well, don't waste your timethis was perhaps the most boring film I have seen in yearsIt was boring, then briefly brutal then boring againit tries to be artistic but it's really just autisticit's not a daring brave piece of filmmaking because it truly makes no senseI tried very hard to find either the reason for the woman's actions or the hidden meaning in themNOTHING! Someone had a very good idea and executed in a terrible, boring, artsy, unjustified way.


Taking advantage of the Cineplex's "free pop refill", I exited the theatre once to get my self another large vat of cola to continue what up to that point had been an sometimes funny comedy of errors, but when I returned things simply stopped being funny.

Its like watching Adam Sandler's "The Waterboy" -- ooooh, I can talk in a funny accent... listen to me talk in a funny accent! I'm funnnnny in a funnnny accent. It gets tired after a while.

The same goes for John Travolta in this dozer of a flick --- oooh, I'll mug and say "gosh golly gee, how can this be happening to me."

But its not only on the comedy where Lucky Numbers fails to produce results... its also the day and age the film is set in. It seems the production assistant was totally oblivious to any sence of time or continuity in this film... we watch as weatherman Russ' blue screen goes from being blue to black to blue and black... all in one scene... its changing with every shot too -- not like theres time for some "off camera action" to make the change occur. Or how about the use of a modern (post-90's) Denny's sign off the top of the film???? Or how about the scene where John and another character are standing in the middle of the road talking... a semi is coming up behind them, they cross the street, but the semi never does cross the screen!!! These are simply a small handful of technical gaffes which in my mind take the film even lower, since there isn't much of a plot to look at so YOU HAVE TO WATCH THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE!

Save your money, this movie's a sleeper, and go do something better with your time --- this film simply doesn't payoff.


I was disappointed with this movie. I expected alot more from John Travolta. Lisa Kudrow's role was just an upscaled 'Phoebe' from Friends. It had a few laugh moments, but more not than so. This one will be at Blockbusters soon.


Nothing says scheming television weather man like John Travolta. Trust me, my sarcasm is well warranted. This movie misses the mark terribly. Even a cast featuring John Travolta and Lisa Kudrow could not make this picture worth seeing. The plot was overly simplistic at best, accompanied by an ending that can best be explained as lazy and incomplete. I left the theatre with only one question, What has happened to John Travolta's choice of movie roles ? Does anyone remember "Battlefield Earth" ? Need I say more...


This script film is just plain bad and embarrassing for all concerned. The Director, Nora Ephron, notable for putting out a decent script or two (When Harry Met Sally, Sleepless in Seatle et al), surely must have recognised this scrip for the dog it is. I had to wait for the 2nd 30 minutes or so before I could see a laugh coming and when they did they were mediocre at best. However, my optimism was challenged, because by the time the last 30 minutes of the film came to fruition, it looked as though the cast were just keen to see the end of it and so was I. The writer, Adam Resnick, would have been better off developing the plot into a 5 minute skit for "Saturday Night Live", and I am being generous at best here. The end credits should have been all listed as "Alan Smithee" for the production crew. It really had me wondering one thing though.... What decent scripts did Hollywood pass over for this melange to escape the net?

If you enjoyed the film, good for you.


A review from mattymatt4ever from Jersey City isn't helpful in reviewing Lucky Numbers. Matty gives it a 7 while the average voter gives it a 4.9.

It isn't a bad film, but shallow. Definitely below average. So the average around 4.9 is maybe more appropriate than a higher number; certainly 7 is 'way beyond the range.

What can you expect of a film that has Michael Moore in it. That alone knocks it down at least two full points.

You get what you pay for, so don't pay any money for this one. See it free, and even then you are spending your precious time, more than enough payment. Better yet, avoid ALL movies associated with Michael Moore.


Well, well, well...

Many people were curious what would be Travolta's follow-up stinker to his previous MEGA-stinker, "Battlefield Earth: The Saga Of A Dumb Hollywood Scientologist". And he didn't disappoint: "Lucky Numbers" is a piece of crap, not quite the kind of highly enjoyable garbage like that little intellectual exercise written by "Elron" Hubbard, but nevertheless trash of the highest order. Not to be enjoyed in any way, but marveled.

1: the movie was utterly unfunny. 2: it was supposed to be a comedy. 1 + 2 = an embarrassment to all involved, to the viewer and to the maker of this crap.

The plot is supposedly based on true events, yet so much in this movie smells of phoniness. It lacks realism. Besides, any film that has Michael Moore (a bad propaganda-movie maker and even worse actor and director) in its list of cast members can't have much chance of being quality stuff.

Having realized after the first 10 minutes that this movie is going to be relentless in its pursuit of unfunniness, I was half-hoping that Travolta would once again introduce the concept of "leverage" into the plot. (Leverage was an essential tool used by aliens in "B.E.", riveting stuff, I assure you.) I thought maybe John's character could try to find out what Roth's character likes to eat and send him on a quest for rat - as happened in the afore-mentioned bomb.

Forget his movies for a second if you can - and something tells me that LN is easy to forget (or at least advisable). The only thing I want to know now is how such a brilliant mind, such as Travolta undoubtedly has, can learn to fly an airplane? Is he an idiot savant? Or is learning to fly much easier than I thought? (MUCH easier.) Dear John, go back to your plans of making a sequel to your wonderfully inept "Battlefield Earth" saga. All us fans of that Edwoodsian mega-flop are praying (even though I'm an atheist!) that you make that follow-up stinker - and you promised you would!


Ok I didn't compleatly hate this movie, I liked everything up to the point where they won the lottery then the whole thing took a tragic nose dive. I can't put into words why I didn't like it after that point. I guess it might just be that there wasn't enough material here to make a film. Were offered many interesting characters for a few minutes, then most of them die. Lisa Kudrow has proven herself as a great character actress (like in the opposite of sex, analize this, romy and michell, friends) she was IMHO the only saving grace in this movie.


Acclaimed director Nora Ephron misses a winner by a big margin. High priced talent and a screwy plot equals a lame comedy. A very popular TV weatherman(John Travolta)is fighting foreclosure on his home, because he is going broke with a business venture. With advice from a strip club owner(Tim Roth)and the eager assistance of(Lisa Kudrow)the state lotto number caller on TV, a plan is contrived to rig the winning numbers. Situational comedy, but more or less a pretty stupid story. Maybe more of a drama and a whole lot less comedy could have saved this project. But this lotto flick is a losing crap shoot.

Overweight Travolta is close to over the top as the egotistical weatherman. I don't recall seeing Kudrow in this light...sexy. No complaint here. Also in the cast are Ed O'Neil, Michael Moore and Bill Pullman. No great shakes, but the Travolta name is wagered to give credibility to this one.


Lucky Numbers shares many resemblances with the novel Lucky You, by Carl Hiaasen. The biggest difference however, is that the book is great and the movie really sucks. The book follows a woman who wins a jackpot and the two rednecks who win half of it. The rednecks want to get their hands on the ticket so they can cash in on much more money. I must point out however, that this is NOT an adaptation of the book, merely a movie that resembles it vaguely.

Russ Richards (John Travolta) is a big personality in his town. You see, he hosts the weather on the local TV channel. He does it so well that he has his own table at the Denny's. However, Russ isn't quite as good in managing his money as he is at making wisecracks about rain. Russ has dug himself a neat little hole and now he doesn't have any money. So what he decides to do is win the lottery. He and the lotto girl Krystal (Lisa Kudrow) rig the lottery so that their number wins. Their scheme works but they need someone to go and pick up the money. They choose Krystal's asthmatic perverted cousin. However, he gets into a little incident with Krystal and. things degenerate from then on.

Lucky Numbers is a sorry, sorry film from the very beginning. The characters are all very, very lame. In a comedy, you usually hate all the characters (as in a black comedy) or you feel sorry for what they're going through. However, Lucky Numbers gives us no sympathetic characters and then wants us to care for them. This is so blatantly annoying that after you've met the cousin, you just don't care anymore. You want the jokes.

Ahh, the jokes. Essence of every comedy. The jokes in Lucky Numbers go from blatantly obvious to moderately amusing. Some jokes work, especially those triggered by Bill Pullman's policeman character. A couple of nice wisecracks about TV do get through, but on the most part this is weak.

The acting is pretty horrible. John Travolta, fresh off Battlefield Earth, looks like a wax dummy. Lisa Kudrow, is as always, an attraction, but her character is so lame that we don't care about her acting. The supporting cast is great, on paper, but their acting is awful. A bigger waste of Ed O'Neill, Michael Rapaport, Bill Pullman and Colin Mochrie has never occurred. (I list Mochrie because I love Who's Line Is It Anyway? Even though his role consists of two lines.)

Behind Lucky Numbers is a very promising plot. However, the execution is horrible. If the movie had focused more on them getting the money instead of them killing each other off for the damn ticket, this movie would've been much better. Even more surprising is that the director, Nora Ephron, wrote the script to movies like Sleepless in Seattle. This failed black comedy fails at almost everything. A real snooze. 3.5/10


I probably would not have rented this movie many because of the string of stinker movies recently released with John Travolta. However, I was born and raised in Harrisburg and I remember the Lottery Scam. Plus my mother, who is not a movie buff like myself, was asking about the movie and whether she should watch it. After viewing it, I let her know this was the worse piece of trash that could ever be put out on movie.

First, maybe I was still kind of young (but it happened while I was in HS) and I just don't remember any kind of nudie bar involved in the movie. I'm not some sort of prude that needs to have all the nudity removed from their movie, but there was absolutely no need for this any nudity in this movie to move the plot along. Plus it's a major disappointment to see a good director like Nora Eprhron (Sleepless in Seattle, When Harry met Sally) to have to use such tactics in her movie. Sure, we wanted to make Tim Roth look like a bad guy from the seamy under-society of Harrisburg. However, there are many ways it could have been done without the nudity. Tim is such an excellent actor he could have ran a Florist Shop and still come off as the bad guy.

What really embarrassed me was just how bad this movie made Harrisburg look. I know Harrisburg isn't the first small city/town/location to have a bad movie associated with it, but the advertising made such a big deal that the movie was in Harrisburg. Heck Girl, Interrupted had major parts of the movie filmed in Harrisburg, it was a decent film but you didn't know it was filmed there by any of the ads. (Found out through IMDB).

It was just a weak plot, I'd hate to say it was bad acting because there were so many good actors associated with the movie. But as the old saying goes "Garbage In, Garbage Out"....doesn't matter how good the actor is if the script is horrible.

So please, if you watch this movie, please don't pass judgement on those of us from (or formly from) Harrisburg. No where is there any Denny's that has valet parking and preferred seating for it's weather folks, I think you have to drive to Reading to find the closest nudie bar and in general we're all pretty smart, well-educated folks.


I rented this on video. Spend the first 1/2 of the movie bored to tears and the second 1/2 wanting it to hurry up and end. I didn't care for any of the characters and honestly didn't care who ended out with the money. This movie makes The Money Pit look good. John Travolta, Lisa Kudrow, and Ed O'Neil could not save this money. A great cast but a terrible movie. In rating this from one to ten I give it a low 2.


Taking advantage of the Cineplex's "free pop refill", I exited the theatre once to get my self another large vat of cola to continue what up to that point had been an sometimes funny comedy of errors, but when I returned things simply stopped being funny.

Its like watching Adam Sandler's "The Waterboy" -- ooooh, I can talk in a funny accent... listen to me talk in a funny accent! I'm funnnnny in a funnnny accent. It gets tired after a while.

The same goes for John Travolta in this dozer of a flick --- oooh, I'll mug and say "gosh golly gee, how can this be happening to me."

But its not only on the comedy where Lucky Numbers fails to produce results... its also the day and age the film is set in. It seems the production assistant was totally oblivious to any sence of time or continuity in this film... we watch as weatherman Russ' blue screen goes from being blue to black to blue and black... all in one scene... its changing with every shot too -- not like theres time for some "off camera action" to make the change occur. Or how about the use of a modern (post-90's) Denny's sign off the top of the film???? Or how about the scene where John and another character are standing in the middle of the road talking... a semi is coming up behind them, they cross the street, but the semi never does cross the screen!!! These are simply a small handful of technical gaffes which in my mind take the film even lower, since there isn't much of a plot to look at so YOU HAVE TO WATCH THE TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE!

Save your money, this movie's really bad... go do something better with your time --- this film simply doesn't payoff.


John's role in this movie was the worst I've ever seen. He's usually the man, like if you've seen The General's Daughter. But this time, my girlfriend and I both agreed (which rarely happens) that this movie was horrible. I gave it a 2 because the story itself was ok.


You would think with Lisa Kudrow, John Travolta, Ed O'Neill, and Bill Pullman in the cast you could expect a fun, clever movie. Travolta and Kudrow try very hard, but the story was tired and boring. Lisa looks great and the dancers are decorative, but even skin couldn't save this film. This is just a hideous waste of time.


Please, if I can stop just one person from seeing this movie my life will not be wasted. I wanted a fun movie for the whole family. I expected a weak plot and bad acting (both of which I got in abundance), what I didn't expect was this movie's negativity. The boy says shut-up at least fifty times, and the parrot says moron at least a dozen times.

The movie begins with an upset boy who gets into lots of fights with his Dad (his home-life sucks). He likes his Grandpa. The first thirty-five minutes of this movie is how horrible this boys life is at home. So at least the rest of the movie is uplifting. WRONG! On his quest the boy is constantly badgered by this annoying parrot, whom is rude and cruel to complete strangers in airplanes, hotels, etc. The boy fails and fails to believe in himself until the parrot calls him a quitter (just like his good old Dad).

To top off the movie, the boy destroys someone else's property and is declared a hero for doing so.

Therefore, my kids learned lots of mean words, watched a negative outlook on life, and learned that if you destroy other people's property you can profit from it. If you like all of the above, plus the bad plot/acting/directing, than see this movie. Otherwise avoid it at all costs.


This is, frankly, the most disgusting film I've ever seen - and I've seen a lot. So I'm amazed, and a little frightened, that so many people have rated it highly. Joe Spinnel (now deceased), Caroline Munro, Tom Savini, all ought to be ashamed of their participation in this immoral dungheap of a film.

I hope none of you who rated it higher than 2 ever find out where I live.


First of all, the battle of Poltava is very far from the center of this movie, so the international title is very misleading. Second, the story sucked. Big-time. Two french noble mens, one on the Russian side and one on the Swedish side, just for them to meet and settle at the end? Ridiculous.

All the foreign characters are played by Russian actors, and the foreign language is done by voice over, which is done really bad by the way.

The clothing is historical incorrect, with the officers on both sides looking like the Napoleonic offers during Waterloo. I guess Oleg Ryaskov got some inspiration from Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo. Except there is more than 100 years apart from these two battles. And for example, the Swedish attack wasn't lead by Karl XII (because he was wounded and couldn't lead Sweden in battle), it was lead by Carl Gustaf Rehnskiöld. I could go on and on about historical incorrectness.

The sound effects are the same throughout the movie. There is this exact same sound every time someone stabs another, and the guns all sound the same.

This is not a movie worth watching in my opinion.


I was excited to finally see the Russian view on this historical event. But what did I get?

The story is a shallow version of a well documented epoch. In this story, that takes place in the 18th century in a war weary Europe, the Polish and Russian countryside are overcrowded by busty beauties, brutal and horny soldier of Charles XII and two french noblemen caught in the middle of two armies. It's beautiful filmed but... thats it. Stereotyped and full of clichés. The swedes got their asses kicked, but not in this way.

Now and then I thought I was watching a danish soft-core comedy from the 70s.


I ran this in my cinema..... and for kids! Oh dear!!... in the 80s we used to screen midnight to dawn marathons for teenagers (and younger) who all came, pajama clad and spent the night at the movies. THE FLODDERS was apparently some breakout hit in Holland so for the usual bizarre reason, it was rushed to Australia. So, in the tradition of SEXTETTE, or UNDERSEA KINGDOM, or AT LONG LAST LOVE.... it was plonked into a midnight to dawn show for 'wake me up' value. And eeeeeekkkkk! did it ever.... a never ending stream of vulgar gags about this drunken fornicating spewing bumpkin family who move to a stylish suburb and the skid-marked mayhem they cause. I clearly remember standing at the back of the theater watching from between my fingers as some oaf was fornicating on the bonnet of the family car... when it was revealed - ha-ha- he didn't know it was (wait for it......) his daughter! I ran screaming from my own cinema.


A shipwrecked man (Michael York) ends up on an island where Dr. Moreau (Burt Lancaster!) lives with his helper Mr. Montgomery (Nigel Davenport) and the required beautiful, sexy woman (Barbara Carrera). It seems he's doing some strange experiments on animals. York is horrified to discover that he is trying to turn animals into men and, instead, comes up with half-man half-animal mutants. And it looks like York might be next...

I saw this as a kid and thought is was a little dull but OK. Seeing it as an adult it's VERY dull and not even remotely OK. The science in the film is just ridiculous as is the reasoning behind it. The acting wavers. Mostly everybody is OK (especially York and Davenport) but Lancaster walks through his role and Carrera (a stunningly beautiful woman) is no actress.

It is a well-made, elaborate movie beautifully shot in the Virgin Islands but way too slow and dull. The saving grace is the scenery and some excellent makeup on the animal men. Nice score too. No where near as good as the 1933 "Island of the Lost Souls" but slightly better than the 1996 remake. I give it a 3.


'The Island of Dr. Moreau,' a retelling of the H.G. Wells' classic, plays like a '70's TV movie. It isn't awful, but neither is it very convincing or scary. Certain elements are fine; the dialogue is literate and the performances by Burt Lancaster, Michael York, Barbara Carrera, and Nigel Davenport are all good. The island locations are beautiful. But the essential creepiness of Wells' story is missing completely. One mistake is very apparent- far too many of the scenes take place during the day when they obviously cry out to be shot at night. The make-up of the 'humanoids' is too neat and tidy as well; they mostly look like variations of Lon Chaney Jr.'s Wolf Man or the aliens in 'Star Trek,' animal faces and perfectly-coiffed hair. Whenever they go on a rampage, you feel like you're watching some half-ass, low-budget zombie flick. Lancaster might not seem like the perfect choice to play the eccentric, mad Dr. Moreau but he does an admirable job, at times lifting the film above its pedestrian level to something closer to what Wells intended, and York's portrayal of the stranded seaman Braddock is fine too. (Behind the make-up of the 'Sayer of the Law' is none other than Richard Basehart, of all people. You know, Admiral Nelson from 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.' Talk about casting against type!) Here and there, 'The Island of Dr. Moreau' threatens to become genuinely frightening but it never manages to adequately bring to life the horrific ideas of Wells' novel, which are monstrously disturbing, as anyone who's read it can attest. The living nightmare the creatures must endure, not knowing who or what they are, is barely hinted at and represented in a way that resembles more a Saturday morning kid's show like 'Land of the Lost' or one of Irwin Allen's numerous TV shows, such as 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.' (Hmm...) Moreau's attempt to reverse his experiment by turning Braddock from man to animal is promising; it's too little, too late though and the idea is never fully explored. Some of the final shots of Moreau's camp burning to the ground while the now-dead doctor himself hangs from a railing in the foreground are impressive too, but the movie hasn't really earned them. The brutal truth is that 'The Island of Dr. Moreau' isn't gruesome enough. It's hard to imagine H.G. Wells being pleased with this take on his brilliant novel.


My Take: Good-looking and well-cast, but utterly tedious.

I haven't read the book yet, and this is the only version of the novel that I have seen. This adaptation has its moments, but apparently too few than one might expect. Burt Lancaster delivers a wonderful performance, and so does the rest of the cast, but the film lags a bit too long. The make-up job on Richard Basehart and the other creatures are excellent, but doesn't show much to save some rather unimpressive moments.

I'm sure H.G. Wells wouldn't roll on his grave with this since it is wonderfully fashioned, but it definitely not a classic like the first one, "The Island of Lost Souls", has become, but definitely worth a look for some fine performances, exotic locations and fine creature make-up. Also for those most in need of nap.

Rating: ** out of 5.


Briefly, enjoyed the book. Love SciFi. Think Burt Lancaster, Barbara Carrera and Nigel Davenport do the best they can in this movie.

But (sorry, have to say "but") Michael York is definitely graduate of Hambone School of Overacting, like Ben Cross (remember "The Far Pavilions?). For my taste, he pretty much sucks the juice out of any scene he's in.

Combine with some script holes, and you've got a mediocre movie, which is still much better than the Marlon Brando/Val Kilmer version.


Why, lord why? Why can't someone, just once, produce a version of the Island of Dr. Moreau that is even slightly faithful to the original (and may I say excellent) book. Why does every version have to have a love interest? Why do they leave out the main character's descent into madness when he is left on the island by himself and sees the beastmen degenerate into animals? Where's the social criticism, by the way? That having been said, this film isn't entertaining on *any* level. It's slowly paced, nothing ever really happens, inexplicably Dr. Moreau attempts to turn Michael York into an animal, and ultimately the film goes no where. On the small plus side? The film does have decent make up and acting by York and Lancaster. What is the law? To stop making crappy movies out of good books.


Kim is an okay film, but has too many weaknesses. At least they actually filmed it in India...

The worst aspect is Peter O'Toole who looked terrible, acted terribly, whose spirituality was expressed through empty platitudes and lack of any kind of foresight. He seems more like a lost old man than a holy man. And the fake bald rubber head cap was just ugly. Sheesh.

I'd skip it and watch something else, like Ghandi. With Bollywood turning out so many films it is amazing that this film could be so bad.

For those who get bored halfway through can have fun watching the Indian extras trying and failing to avoid looking into the lens.


This expose is for people who have seen the movie and can't quite put their finger on why they have come away feeling so dirty. Well people, following are a few reasons why The Core poops all over science along with having the worst plot, characters and premise of all time.

Firstly, that little speech the physicist gave to the class about sound traveling through rocks? He says something about the wavelength increasing (ding right), and then says the frequency will decrease (bzzz wrong). Frequency stays the same regardless of the medium it is traveling through. It is the wavelength that will in fact decrease.

Secondly, what's with the explanation of how the Earth is going to end? Burning a peach with a deodorant can? Come on, I know military people are considered no-brainers, but he was demonstrating this to the people that lead a high tech organization. This patronises any military personnel, as well as the audience.

Thirdly, The premise of the film is based around the effects that occur because the core of the Earth stops rotating. Let me just first note that there are geological records to say that the magnetic field has changed direction many times in the past, with evidence to support that each time it has been reduced close to 0. To the best of my knowledge, and that of every history book out there, this happens without any of us combusting like the peach.

Fourthly, the scene with the golden gate bridge heating up because of a hole in the magnetic field? I think someone got magnetic field and ozone layer mixed up. The idea of punching a hole in a field is absurd. The field may be weakened, but the atmosphere would still protect our little bridges from cosmic radiation.

Fifthly, there is a force field (magnetic) around the Earth, not much of one, but there is one, not an "electromagnetic energy field". An energy field would do sweet f*ck all to deflect radiation. The same radiation that is supposed to wipe out humans like the peach...

Sixthly, 5 200-megaton nukes? Come on, those would weigh about 250 tons together. Let's try transport that on the dildo shaped 'virgil'. And the computer simulations of how they would be set off? All in 1 spot? That wouldn't create the required rotational force, since there would be no rotational force due to symmetry. He finally gets it right in the end to place them apart from each other. How they initially overlooked this one, I have no idea.

Seventhly, the material used to withstand all the pressure and temperature on 'virgil' was called 'unobtainium'. nuff said.

Eighthly, assuming we just spent the entirety of the world's budget on developing paradoxically copious amounts of unobtanium, it would take another 10 budgets over to have the resources to "control" the internet.

Ninthly, when 'virgil' was tunneling downwards, why could the people walk around inside as if it was horizontal? They mentioned the rotating bridge, but didn't mention anything about rotating hallways, or the rip in the space-time continuum needed to walk straight between the bridge and the subsequent hallways. The compartments would need to rotate individually, which would put them out of alignment with each of the other compartments. Logically, they would be aligned parallel for everyone to be walking horizontal, and not fall to the front of the ship, as the front is pointing towards the centre of the Earth. If only they could pretend virgil was round, and the entire inside could rotate as one. A pity every shot shows a long cylindrical ship incapable of this.

Tenthly, the giant geode that they crash into? All that pressure, all that temperature? But if that wasn't enough, they get out, and walk around. I know those space suits they had on looked cool, but they couldn't withstand the ~1000 degrees of temperature, and a few thousand kPa of pressure that is needed to keep the geode from collapsing under the weight of the world.

Eleventhly, when the ship springs a leak? It would have been like a nuke going off in the ship, but instead, it took a few minutes for the compartment to crush.

Twelfthly, the unlucky guy that has to walk through 9000 degrees temperature in a suit only designed to withstand 5000 degrees. He makes it to the duct and switches the lever? 9000 degrees is about 2-3 times the temperature of a nuclear bomb going off. I think the walls and floor of the corridor would have been glowing white with heat. Our man would have been vaporised, but lucky for him, only his converse pumps melted to get to the lever.

Thirteenthly, the guy that pulls out the plutonium rods undergoing fission? He didn't even have a helmet on. $10 says his kids will have 5 noses, 3 mouths, and a foot coming out of their heads. I guess it's a good thing though that the DNA of such a twit is wiped from our society in these industrial accidents.

Fourteenthly, when the power cut out from the lack of reactor rods, they hook up the power cables to the inner hull. Where do they put the ground? There needs to be a potential drop for power to be gained, and if there was a ground, then anyone that touched the hull would have been electrocuted.

Fifteenthly, the arming code for the nukes was the first four prime numbers... 1 2 3 5... Pretty sure 1 is not a prime number.

Well, thats about all, and thats not even going into the fact about how the core could stop spinning in the first place. Thanks for your time.


1 out of 10, only because there are no negative numbers on the scale. I'm going to split the bashing of this film into 2 categories: Science, and The Rest

Science: Ill only cover a few things here, I bet someone could list 100 things wrong, but lets hit some random ones (limit to 7) 1: the ship has 6 compartments, 1 is crushed, 5 are used for nukes, and 1 is used to return home... therefore 6 = 7. Try and solve that, apologists.

2: If that "geode" were to have survived, its pressure inside would have to = that outside, in short, they would be all crushed like bugs stepping outside.

3: A pigeon cannot break plate glass, even if it tried.

4: Any hacker who could do half of what are hacker can would have either been locked up, or would be in control of the whole bloody world.

5: Gravity does not act perpendicular, it works VERY vertically, and it would keep anything IN the core from coming out, especially anything propelled by a minuscule nuke's shock wave

6: It does not matter if you start in the marinara trench or the top of everest, the difference is irrelevant compared to the radius of the Earth.

7: Throwing reactor grade plutonium next to a weapon is NOT going to make it more powerful (otherwise, they would be doing it already!)

If you want more on the 'science' read the other reviews, and the Intuitors insultingly bad movie physics page (google it)

Now, for the rest, which is to prove that this movie is bad even IF you have the IQ of a walnut and don't "care" about science.

1: Bad, BAD acting, not one character is believable, they evoke no sympathy, their backgrounds are so stereotypical, and their dialog is purely contrived and occasionally "slap your face I cant believe he said THAT" bad, full of clichés.

2: Speaking of stereotypes, every character is completely "by the books" predictable, the 'smartest' ones seem to die, except the hacker who is the worst character of them all, annoying, contrived, insulting, I truly had hoped he would have died.

3: Lets talk entertainment, not for one moment was I caught up in this movie, I did not have one shred of emotion, this movie has no substance, no deep moments, and the 'climax' and ending are just plain stupid. If you want an ending thats equally as stupid, watch Star Trek Voyagers: Threshold.

4: The plot is a dime a dozen, people off to save us from our mistakes and sins of some kind or another. Don't believe me, count how many movies you've seen where nukes save the day?

I could go on, but thinking about this movie is infuriating and probably damaging my braincells.


I just got done watching this...uhhh...movie, if that's what you can call it. It happens to be one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Not since "Mission to Mars" have I hated a movie so much. This movies few supporters try to say "relax, and enjoy a mindless disaster flick."

The question is, exactly how mindless are we supposed to be? Should we completely remove our brain first by smashing our head on a rock until it falls out, because if so, I'll do it. It would surely be a hell of a lot less painful than watching this rancid mass of decay again. And I love mindless action flicks. The problem is even for a pure f/x only movie, it sucks. All the "special" (as in, short school bus special) effects look like they were done by some failing college students using their pirated and hacked version of 3D studio. During the space shuttle crash sequence, I was half expecting to see little strings attached as it bounced around like it was in a freaking puppet show.

The "acting" (a very loose term) was below sub par, and everyone seemed like they hated the very movie they were acting in. Hilary Swank's character couldn't be any more plastic, annoying, and clichéd if she tried, and as for the rest of the cast, yuck. Delroy Lindo, was okay as Dr. Ed Brazzleton. I wish I could have skin that could withstand 4500 degree heat for 5 minutes. (It was 9000 degree in the core, but the suit could 'only' handle 4500 degrees, and naturally, someone has to go outside.) Then again, it might have been lucky for him, so he didn't have to suffer the humiliation of being 'saved' by whales.

All in all, this movie was an abomination; a freak of nature that could have only been devised by the most twisted and sadomasochistic of minds. Maybe in about 10 years or so, they'll do a "Mystery Science Theater 3000" for it.


I don't know much about geology, but what little I do know suggests that the nature of the Earth's core is such as to be impervious to any merely human intervention, and that traveling to it is something human beings probably never will be able to do. Hence, any SF flick about humans doing one to rectify the other is likely to be as fanciful as The Wizard of Oz, so a big "caveat emptor" is attached to this movie. I figured that anyone audacious enough to cook up an eco-fable like this would have checked his science so as to make the movie more believable, but apparently I was wrong according to the legion of IMDb reviewers who have savaged this film.

This film reminded me a bit of the 1966 film "Fantastic Voyage," in which a group of scientists and their craft are shrunk to the size of a microbe and injected into the body of a scientist (or was it a diplomat?) who has been wounded in an assassination attempt, in a race against time to save his life. "The Core" resembles "Fantastic Voyage" in several ways: First, the technological premise that makes possible travel to this inaccessible realm is so far-fetched as to be more magical than scientific. Second, in all but a few places, the inside of the body is naturally quite dark, and so, one would think, is the interior of the Earth; but in both movies, these unseen realms are aglow with light. Third, the sex ratio is similar: Four men, one woman, who of course is played by Raquel Welch. Fourth, none of the characters rises much above stereotype, since the story is driven by situation, not characters. Fifth, come to think of it, Hilary Swank, while not as voluptuous as the young Raquel Welch (who could be?), does slightly resemble her. Sixth, the events of the film are kept secret from the public, and Edmund O'Brien's General Carter is very similar to General Purcell, who is played by that excellent and serviceable character actor Richard Jenkins. (Unfortunately, every time I saw Jenkins, I was distracted by memories of his hilarious performance as Walter Wingfield in "Say It Isn't So.") I will say one thing in this film's defense: As absurd as it may be, and as uninspired in terms of plot, characterization, visual effects and believability, it did keep me watching to find out what would happen next all the way to the end.


SPOILERS!!! actually- what would spoil the film is actually watching it.

the sheer magnitude of idiocy boggles the mind. I have never seen a movie that was as much a waste of film as this was. I haven't bothered to see who wrote the screenplay for this flick because I'm afraid I'll never see anything he's attached to. ever. there are so many clichés is this movie it defies imagination.

exhibit a- reluctant unlikely hero who SAVES THE WORLD!!!

exhibit b- team of world- savers who get killed one by one.

exhibit c- unappreciated guy sacrifices life to save above mentioned world. lots and lots of emotional blackmail.

exhibit d- unsure female lead who 'finds herself' thanks to hero. with smooch during moment of danger (why god why???!!???)

exhibit e- geeky hacker dweeb

exhibit f- said dweeb 'hacks the world!" his word not mine.

exhibit g- bad dude sacrifices himself to save the world. glib last words included.

exhibit h- incessant use of 'oh my god??!!?!!'

don't. please don't. please don't see this movie. it sucks.


How could trillions of tons of spinning molten metal suddenly just stop- A WIZARD IT.

If it had stopped, wouldn't the magnetic field just collapse immediately - A WIZARD DID IT.

Why would a vanishing field cause electrical storms- A WIZARD DID IT.

Can you use a 3000 degree nuclear reactor as a power source when the temperature outside is 9000 degrees- A WIZARD DID IT.

Why even have EVA facilities if there are no conceivable circumstances under which you expect to use them- A WIZARD DID IT.

Why would you put headlights on a vehicle that doesn't have windows- A WIZARD DID IT.

How do you bend your arms under a jillion quatloos per square inch of pressure- A WIZARD DID IT.

Do NASA-trained pilots often abandon the controls immediately after they've established that the autopilot is incompetent- A WIZARD DID IT.

Hang on though; how do you steer a vessel with no control surfaces anyway- A WIZARD DID IT.

How on Earth (or in Earth) are a few megatons of explosives supposed to effect a trillion tons of superheated metal- A WIZARD DID IT.

How... how did they expect to go back up.. what... how- A WIZARD DID IT.

And the biggest mystery of all; how did such a dull, unengaging, androgynous botoxed stick insect with more fat in her lips than the rest of her body, and an acting range that runs all the way from "pouty" to "petulant" win an award for best actress in a leading role not just once, but twice?

You guessed it: A WIZARD DID IT.


Written by people who must have failed all of their high school science classes, directed by someone who must have never seen a computer actually function, this film is jam packed with the most tired clichés of filmdom. The acting is abominable--and by actors who are very talented. Shot almost entirely in television style close ups, this film is an insult to intelligence. It all starts with an awful script--it really seems like someone just recorded a bunch of twelve year olds playing "rocket ship" together--"whoah, someone diverted our energy! where's it gone?"(actual line!)--transcribed it, and decided to spend one hundred million dollars on it.

No reason to write a spoiler, you've seen it all before a hundred times, mostly on television.

Basically, if Ed Wood was given a gigantic budget, this is what he would've made.

It just goes to show that in the words of Miles Davis, "you can't polish a turd."


I've voted a one, but i can't decide if it's supposed to be a serious film. If it is, my vote stands. If, however, it's an insidious and subtle parody of recent disaster films it might be a triumph... i doubt it, though.

I can't even remember half of the gaping plot holes and moments where anyone with a science education above infant level would scoff at, but the one thing that does stand out for me was the remaining two protagonists bodging up a perpetual motion machine to rescue themselves.

Ummm... surely a film about the socio-political consequences of such an action would be far more interesting. But, nope, we get some piece of cobblers about the centre of the earth stopping spinning.

Worse than "Armageddon", probably worse than "ID4".


SPOILER I should get a refund for just sitting through the Core. It was a whopping 2.5 hours of boredom. Within the first five minutes I knew that the two main characters would get together, the rest of the crew would die, and they would be successful. The movie hit rock bottom when the characters got out of their ship into a geode that couldn't possibly exist. The temperature was about 9000 degrees and they're walking around in aluminum foil suits(witch conduct heat and energy). The only good part of the movie is when the guy who made DESTINY dies. I don't recommend this movie to anyone who has ever had a conscious thought or has an IQ equivalent to a small stone. If you want to see the movie, don't; Just watch the preview, it shows you the entire movie in 30 seconds.