The highlight of the first ten minutes, John Wayne is serenading his prisoners, George Kennedy is a well groomed, neatly presented bad guy who snarls with the best of them. I kept waiting for this turd to get better. I knew I was in trouble when all the actors were wearing the cleanest, neatly pressed dirty clothes I ever seen in a western since 1934. And it was mighty white of John Wayne to show that it's okay to treat Native Americans with respect, as long as the Indian gets killed in the last reel. But, as I was coming to grips with the compassion the producers had to cast Gary Grimes after this flick, lead me to thinking about those good IL' days of Watergate and the dis grace the Republicans revealed themselves to be. Too bad they haven't noticeably changed for the humanitarian good of Americans since.

I had a bad case of the runs and a fever when a 'friend' brought this flick by hoping it would make me feel better. I have to wonder if anyone 'camped out' to see this one on opening day back in 1973! Seriously, this would have been a great 'drive in' make out flick back in the day. But, now to sit there for 103 minutes, guts churning and bubbling was bad enough, But to have the Duke insult my intelligence in the last three seconds, of what I figured out in the first ten minutes: "Don't Rob Banks!"...at least not where the Duke is around...I mean 'Cahill: Republican Dumb Arse'. But, I give this tripe two stars for the opportunity to reflect on America in the 70's,well, the summer of 1973 to be specific.

Going to the movies as a teenager in 1973 was an escape from the day to daily pre-empting regular re-run TV shows with the Watergate hearings. It turned out that 'drive-in's without your parents as a teen in 1973 was nookie haven if you played your hand right. Drive In's showed these wild stupid 'sexploitation' flix back then. Parents, no matter how liberal, would never allow their teens to borrow the car to take their date to go to a drive in to see 'Savage Sisters' double billed with 'Super Chick'. But, if Johnny ask ma and pop to borrow the car to go see John Wayne's apple pie at the Drive In. Well, John Wayne was a trust-able 'drive-in' teenage sitter, from a parental point of view. Of course it would have doubled with something else like ...maybe 'Pocket Money', no Newman's a sex symbol and way too liberal an much too humanitarian to be billed with John Wayne. Maybe 'The Train Robbers'. Hmmm, to totality of possibilities seem endless of a John Wayne double feature at the Drive In, especially after sneaking in to see 'The Harrad Experiment' the week before! The orgy of fun, fun fun 'til our daddy takes the t-bird away at the Stateline Drive In with the right people to engage in such wild sexcapdes such as car hopping, knob bobbing to a spit shine polish, flower tasting sometimes we'd even play pok'er! So, what's to be learned and realized? The Republicans can bring some bad stuff our way, but, it is up to US to decide how best to deal with it. And if there don't seem like there ain't no silver lining to the dark cloud, it is up to US to be with like minded people to become the silver lining itself. But the main thing I came away from this movie with, because we live in a relative universe, one can't know a good film until they see a number of bad flicks. I thank John Wayne for having the guts to release this picture with a message, as heavy handed as it is. And I forgave my friend for wasting my time, but I still have the runs.


There are few actors who define national attitudes. Wayne is one of them. He matured in a simpler time, when white hat vs. black hat was expected, not just acceptable. He didn't need to be anything more than an archetype, his presence was cartoonish...the hapless bad guys were equally cartoonish. His triumphs affirmed who we were as Americans.

He was displaced by flinty Clint, the iconoclast. But Clint, for the most part, also faced cartoon bad guys.

The current postmodern hero archetype is Willis in the "Die Hard" narrative -- the ironic hero now has to face off with fully dimensional villains. Most studios now invest in getting the perceived 'best villain', and all other considerations form a line behind that.

So it's shocking to see this today...the mind has to jump back not one, but two generations and adjust.

This is a failure on many levels. The visual storytelling is distinctly uncinematic -- it would pass for a "Little House on the Prairie" TV show. The acting and props are horrible.

Wayne tries to stay aloof, brushing aside everyone in his path with smoking barrels and one-liners. He tries to validate for us that "a man can't ignore his duty".

By 1973, this no longer worked. Whatever Wayne had built up for us in "True Grit" or even the "Green Berets" was lost forever...like sand against a tsunami caused by Vietnam and all of its flotsam and jetsam that rushed at us(My Lai, Kent State, the bombing of Cambodia, etc.) We were rapidly becoming a nation of quiche-eaters.


Many of you are familiar with the feeling when after watching a film (or midway through it) you think that this was a complete waste of time and money. I almost got this feeling after watching this film. This film has very little in terms of a story line or a plot (which you can get from the IMDb summary, so let me not reiterate it). It does not take much effort to figure out what happens in the end.

The main themes of this film (e.g. romantic love, family loyalty, sacrifice) have been better explored in many other Hindi films. A substantial portion of this film comprises of various ceremonies (e.g. marriage) and associated songs. I found this mind-numbing. The songs are repetitive and in fact tunes from a previous Rajshri film (Maine Pyar Kiya) can be heard in at least one of these songs (I have to watch this film again to be more specific, but I would rather be corrected than suffer through it again). The actors do justice to their roles, which is not saying much, given these roles. Mainstream Hindi films in recent decades have neither been very realistic nor critical, but they (at least the good ones) while being entertaining, have embedded some understanding and critique of the larger social context. For example, films of Amitabh have tried to show the larger forces that produce crime and the virtues of religious tolerance. This film, while being somewhat of a fable of morality (about love, family ties etc.) is very far removed from social reality  everything (people, families etc.) is made of honey and sugar  nothing in common with the real India.

Some people have told me that this is a great film because it is family entertainment - no violence or sex. If this is true (and I think fans of Madhuri would disagree), I don't see why a film meant for intelligent families (adults and children) should be considered good for this reason. Then, why don't we watch only TV programs meant for children? I now come to the one redeeming feature. This film was a huge hit despite all the above problems. This made me think  what does this success reflect about our (Indian) society? I give this film 1 out of 10 for provoking my thoughts in this direction.


The user rating says it all. This is supposed to be the biggest hit of Indian film history! Sorry I saw it only after 2 years and it was still running full, and I din't like it. Reason : its not the original. The story was borrowed form a Telugu classic 'Abhinandana'. It was a tragedy and hence not so salable. The director cleverly moulded the story with a happy ending.

It looks like a typical marwari marriage party with the all the ingredients: Big family, happy family, no bad guys. The story is thin line and moves form one song to another, with some funny tricks added, like the old trial and test methods. This is no food for the head movie.

It is solely for family entertainment, a picnic and a money spinning machine.

Not recommended for serious viewing.


With the box office success of this movie, Indian film industry hit a new low. Indian film industry is still trying to come out of the bad drug that it got infected with. Just when there seemed to be some sensible movies started to come up in India, in 1994 this movie got released and brought us back to where we were 10 years back. It inspired a genre of movies which have completely meaningless melodrama, utterly nonsense dance song sequences, brainless stories. I sometimes wonder if Indian movie industry would be better if this movie (along with another crappy movie called Kuch Kuch Hota Hai) had not come. I may be wrong, Indian movies were never worth considering seriously before that also barring a very few exceptions. But this one just took it to a new low.

Many people say this movie changed the face of Indian movies, and I absolutely agree with it, not for good but for worse. It has been close to one and a half decade and we are slowly managing coming out of the hangover. Hope Indian audience will be sensible enough not to create another Suraj Bhartyaja or Karan Johar.


what a waste movie, where is the acting??? where are the scenes???

i don't blame Indian audiences, they have lost the taste long time ago. how can this silly movie be a big blockbuster.

other than Lata mangeshkar's voice nothing is good in it. a boring story line that only starts from the second hour.

how can this movie be hit??? and a great classic like Lamhe flop ?? plus Madhuri Dixit didn't deserve that years award. I think Sridevi deserved the award for her powerful performance in Laadla. really there is no match.

i really advice u to avoid this movie. One star only goes for Lata's voice nothing else


The original story, a novella by Paul Theroux, was turned into a screenplay, also by Theroux (he wrote several). It was terrific. You couldn't put it down. It was a highly-atmospheric work with complex characters. We struggled to find the right director, who could give it the right kind of film noir look at which Theroux was clearly aiming. We ran into early problems when few actors we approached for the female lead were willing to play this kind of a role. The nudity was not an issue; they just didn't "identify" with Dr. Slaughter.

Signing Sigourney Weaver was a blessing but also a problem since she's taller than most leading men but fortunately, so is Michael Caine. We got lucky in that combination. We had long conferences with the director, who seemed to understand exactly what Theroux's concept was all about.

During shooting in London, the RKO team (in New York and Los Angeles; our post-production group was based in London) kept asking the head of production how things were going, how the dailies looked, etc. He told us they were on time and under budget, which was true.

When the film was finished, I went to London with the President of RKO Pictures to look at an assemble edit. It was almost unwatchable. I began to wonder if there was a good way to edit around the female lead. But it wasn't really her fault. Who could possibly undress Sigourney Weaver and make her look unsexy? That took a special kind of talent. We walked out of the screening room into the daylight of Dolphin Square and contemplated the end of our careers.

Fortunately we were able to make other pictures and have the time to spend the rest of our lives wondering exactly how to apologize for this one.


From the title and what little I knew about its subject-matter, I was expecting a BELLE DE JOUR-meets-JACK THE RIPPER kind of thing but imagine my disappointment when, after an intriguing start, this is forsaken for boring political machinations which ineffectively breach thriller territory towards the end. Actually, it gets sillier by the minute: from having Sigourney Weaver (playing a researcher in Anglo-Arab relations moonlighting as a high-class escort) chatting up an Arab playboy's cinematic banter at a society party with "Am I supposed to say 'Your place or mine?'" to which he retorts, "No, these days you say "Betamax or VHS?'"; to seeing Michael Caine (as a celebrity British diplomat) standing in the rain holding out a bouquet of flowers for Weaver - whom he has fallen for in the course of her extra-curricular activities and with whom he has had a minor falling out! Still, the often-nude Weaver is nevertheless quite good in her role but the film is certainly no BELLE DE JOUR (1967) and it is easy to see why Bob Swaim's career went downhill very quickly after having made the excellent French policier LA BALANCE (1982).


There was something about this film that intrigued me deeply. The day after watching it I paid a visit to my local Waterstones to try and solve the mystery once and for all. I wanted to know if Paul Theroux had written all that awful, stilted, clichéd dialogue (I actually laughed involuntarily at a couple of exchanges) or was it some sort of set up? Was the screenplay for Half Moon Street a literary mugging of the acclaimed authors' work (he has his enemies you know), or was the original story (Dr Slaughter) just as unbelievable, unsubtle and irritating as the film?

I was puzzled by something else too. I knew the dialogue was bad but why did Sigourney Weaver's part seem so much more wooden than Michael Caine's? Were her lines being tampered with while she was having her hair done? Was Sir Michael somehow involved in the whole intrigue, or is he such a fine screen actor that he is able to rise above bad writing and deliver a reasonably believable performance in the most adverse of circumstances? I felt a pang of sympathy for Sigourney. She certainly had had a tough job on her hands not only having to spout forth such hackneyed drivel but also having to give depth to a thoroughly unappealing and one-dimensional character. I started to formulate a theory that perhaps Jackie Collins was somehow involved in rewriting the part of this supposed independent and intelligent women, so ham-fisted was it; but who had hired her? Who had it in for Sigourney so badly? As I neared the counter to pay for my copy of Dr Slaughter I began to realise that I was falling prey to the kind of half-baked conspiracy theories that often pass for the plots of films like Half Moon Street. What's more, it started to dawn on me that perhaps I had been lured into watching it by the prospect of seeing the beautiful Sigourney in various (often gratuitous) states of undress; these included a shower scene and a scene where she pulls on a tight white cotton singlet; were the producers cynically cashing in on the whole Alien/Ripley thing?. I was starting to feel exploited and vaguely sullied (pretty much like Sigourney Weaver must have felt). The DVD had been free, but upon discovering that the book was not, I made my excuses and left.

I can't advise anyone whether or not to watch this film; I suppose it really depends on how valuable your time is. It's not an erotic film though, if that's what you're expecting - psychological depth is conspicuous by its absence. If you're a Sigourney fan then I think you'll be so disappointed by her wooden performance that her charisma and sheer physical allure won't compensate. The film is dated (if nothing else was amiss with Half Moon Street then the soundtrack would kill it single-handedly), the plot is confused and boring, and the characters lack depth.


A bored woman decides to become a whore to break the monotony. One of her clients falls in love with her and draws her into a web of inner-city political intrigue. This 'story' meandered about like the Colorado River. Boring dialogue, confusing story, no entertainment value. I'd rather watch golf.


I was very disappointed with this rather tame offering from Amicus. The script was okay about a curse put on the family of Fengriffin, but it covered territory seen before(most notably in Doyle's The Hound of the Baskervilles). Stephanie Beacham, newly married, arrives at her new home. As soon as she gets there, she begins to see a painting play mind games with her, a severed hand, and a multitude of strange deaths occur whenever she asks someone to explain the secret her husband is hiding and why a woodsman lives nearby. The first half really drags by despite these "horrific" images we see through Beacham's eyes. Thankfully Peter Cushing arrives halfway through the film to add some boost - but it just isn't enough. The end result isn't a bad movie nor a good one or even a really interesting one. The setting is decent enough with gardens, antiques, and other period specialties, but the illogical story, the lackluster direction, and the mediocre acting all portend a rather dull ride. Cushing as always gives a good performance and really is all I can really recommend about the film aside from some small roles artfully played by Patrick Magee and Herbet Lom. Beacham isn't great, but in her outfits that push her bosoms up - you probably won't mind terribly much. If you can take your eyes off her chest long enough(no small feat) you will see she has little range. With a better story and this cast, so much more might have been possible.


A young virginal bride, an old haunted castle, and a twisted sexual curse! Sounds good? Don't bet on it. There are a few scares in this ponderous adaptation of the novel FENGRIFFEN, but they are very few and far between. By the time the family secret was revealed I had lost all interest.

One more thing.What does the title 'And Now the Screaming Starts' have to do with the movie?

You've got me.


Catherine Teneriffe (Stephanie Beacham) a mistress of a country household is haunted by a curse from the past, where she keeps on seeing a demented ghost and it's wandering head, but is it hallucinations. Her husband Charles Teneriffe (Ian Ogilvy) and everyone else know about the curse, but the mistress is kept in the dark about it. Anyone who tries to inform her to what's happening is suddenly killed off.

What a real mixed bag this film is. It has its fair share of good and bad elements, but the bad stands out more. Its hardly scary stuff or that particularly exciting as a whole, but there are some enjoyable moments thrown into the mix. The look of the film is rather stylish, but still it's a hysterically formulaic piece that overplays itself.

The direction lacked strong execution, slowly paced and was rather patchy. There are some rather humorous sequences rather than frightening because of some badly staged scenes. Though, the plot didn't entirely help either. The story had its interesting aspects, but the whole mystery surrounding the curse isn't entirely enticing. The plot was hardly convincing and rather flawed. While the script was mostly bearable.

A thrilling opening 15-minutes is never recaptured in the film, well maybe with the exception of the scenes with Cushing's character. The idea and some repetitious scenarios get a bit tedious, as it feels like the story is going nowhere. With strange happenings at night that you come to expect from the usual haunted or cursed house tales. With windows opening, a subtle breeze or gust of wind in the house and figures looking into the window. Some conversations were dragged out in long and lacklustre scenes. Though, that's the problem as the few enjoyable scenes are amongst many dull ones. The suspense seemed to fade away and it was let down by a slow midsection, that truly bogs down the film.

A persistent music score that sometimes was effective, but most times quite annoying. At times the score sometimes over-killed certain scenes by keeping such an upbeat mood that it mostly overpowers many of the sequences.

The atmosphere is truly impressive and it's incredibly well shot. Great production, costumes and set designs. The grand house has an imposing nature, with its menacing shadows, dim lighting, creaking windows and doors. The scenery on the property is quite exquisite. The make-up effects are fairly good and there are some bloody moments. The creeping severed hand looks quite good and as well the make-up of the horrific ghost.

It has a good cast, but most of the performances are rather bleak and stilted. Herbert Lom is solid in a small cameo and Peter Cushing's first-rate performance added class, though he doesn't appear until halfway through the film, but his lone performance couldn't elevate the film from being below average.

Just like Catherine Fengriffen, we are kept in the dark about the curse until virtually towards the finale. The end result of the curse is hardly satisfying. It just felt like a rushed anti-climax. The predictable outcome took way long to get into it and overall it was kind of a disappointment and rather overwrought. You just see it coming.

It's a pedestrian film that has small pockets of excitement and thrills. Expect to hear a lot of screaming, but only on the screen.


Based on the trio of name actors present, I decided to give "And Now the Screaming Starts" a shot. I had also read that the movie had some gory scenes, which led me to believe that the print I saw had some footage removed (it's practically goreless). I've never had a fondness for Victorian-era horror films, but I do admire the talents of Peter Cushing, Herbert Lom, and Patrick Magee, and thought they'd make this worth my while. The latter two have extended cameos, while Cushing plays the lead (unfortunately, we have to wait 47 minutes until he makes his grand entrance) and, god bless him, shows not a single hint of the boredom I was feeling in his refined, ultra-classy performance. The plot revolves around a newlywed couple honeymooning at a castle inherited by the husband; soon enough, strange happenings start to plague the wife, and the story drags insufferably, as the central plot point hinges on a secret everyone wants to avoid. If you're a fan of any of the actors (particularly Cushing), give this a shot, but I found myself mostly bored by this effort.

3/10


A pair of newly weds move into the family mansion in the late 18th century but unfortunately new bride Catherine keeps seeing ghostly apparitions and the bad news for her husband is that it usually happens just before she consumates the marriage . This is why sex before marriage is essential nowadays chaps you don`t want a frigid wife screaming before bedtime , during bedtime of course is a different matter . Mind you Catherine does have a cracking pair of lungs so obviously she`s excercised them a lot .

But apart from Catherine`s lungs there`s not much in this film that held my interest apart from a few unintentional errors like the obvious stunt man falling down the stairs or the wood cutter who`s the spitting image of Rod Hull . I should also point out - As people have done on this page - that Peter Cushing doesn`t appear untill well into the second half


If you like beautiful scenes of an old English Castle with huge stain glass windows and lots of antiques along with beautiful gardens and very odd servants running all around, this is the film for you. As the film progressed it reminded me of the "Beast with Five Fingers", starring Peter Lorre in the 1940's. Peter Cushing appeared in the middle of the picture as (Dr. Pope),"Top Secret",'84 and gave a good supporting role. Herbert Lom (Henry Fengriffen),"La Setta",'91, tried to keep very dark and horrible secrets from his new bride, Stephanie Beacham,(Catherine Fengriffen),"Wedding Bell Blues",'96, who on their wedding night went crazy with all kinds of images appearing out of various paintings in the hallway and in her bedroom, which prevented any love making! This is a good film to view only on Halloween along with a few strong apple cider's!


This movie, in my honest opinion, looks like a college film student's project. A majority of scenes are shot on a campus, and the actors are all professors or students. I wonder what kind of grade she was aiming for with those sex scenes? It did not make up for a bad movie concept and horribly cheesy effects. Was anyone scared by the demon? I cannot recommend this movie, it had zero entertainment value, and I was left bored and frustrated at the end of it.

*** SPOILER ***

Okay, I'm giving away the ending here, but it was a disappointment anyway. Anyone hwo has seen it will likely agree that the ending is probably the least important part. The main character has to defeat the demon, and does so by breaking a mirror? No climax, no logical reason why that made the demon disappear. I was left wondering how that resolved anything, and it doesn't. The movie simply ends with that.

I have seen other college student movies that were done better than this.


There is a decent idea buried at the core of "The Whispering", but the script's logic is messy (why can some people see the demon-woman and others can't? What does the hypnosis scene have to do with anything else? And - SPOILER - as someone else already mentioned, how can you defeat a demon simply by breaking a mirror???). Leif Garrett gives a narcoleptic performance that matches the director's funereal pace perfectly. In short, this is yet another horror film that you'll have completely forgotten two hours after seeing it. (*1/2)


I wonder why this flick get R-rating.Yes,it has two nice sex scenes and nothing more.No gore,no real suspense,no intresting plot-everything here is so boring and lame,that after watching one hour of this crap I felt asleep.Please,I beg of you,if you find this title collecting dust somewhere, don't rent it.I give it 1.5, maybe 2 out of 10.


Lief Garrett? This movie blows. It makes you go "what the heck? that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard!" It really does! Quite a few times. It's so predictable and none of the characters have any originality. That one weasely looking guy looks like Dennis Christopher's annoying brother. The office scenes, the sex scenes, the demon scenes, it's all been done before. It's very stereotyped and very lame and very boring. And balding Leif Garrett can hardly keep his eyes open the whole time anyway.

The hyper high school girl says to Lief, who is about 30 years old, "Would you like to fu*k me?" very clearly, then he says "excuse me?" and she says, "I said, would you like a cup of tea?" and I said out loud, "what the heck? whatever!" and rewound it and it's so stupid that anyone could ever think those two sentences sound the same and it has nothing to do with the girl's personality. Why did she say that? I don't get it. LAME LAME LAME STUFF


I recently rented this movie, figuring it would be cool, but what do i get???? JUNK! The classification of this movie as being "HORROR" and/or "THRILLER" is absolutely laughable! One expects "horror" to be blood and/or guts gushing out on-screen, but the only real "blood" is from what appeared to be a dead animal? But, even that is just a split second of viewing, to leave it rather questionable, as to if it was just a paint can.

Now, on to the "thriller" part......well, this is laughable too. I was on the edge of my seat, just waiting for the movie to end! There isn't anything to get all excited over in this movie, besides waiting for it to end.

Save your money, and rent a good movie, like........Hellraiser movies. Now, those are horror movies!


Eccentric young man has chance to mend errant ways when guardian angel pays a concerned visit.

The role of Bevis is pivotal to this half-hour and calls for the acting skills of someone like the late Hans Conreid, who specialized in humorous eccentrics. Unfortunately, Orson Bean's performance demonstrates all the skills of an earnest teenager placing second in a high school audition. You would think with a name like 'Bean", he could bring off a nutty character who likes 'zither music' and broken-down old cars. But he doesn't, and with him goes the episode. There are two possible redeeming features-- Henry Jones as the delightfully smug guardian angel, and the story's subtext, which appears to be an unflattering comment on businessman conformity during the button-down 1950's (a recurring concern of Serling's). With better central casting, this could have been a whimsical and revealing half-hour, instead of the flat-liner it is.


Extremely slight film-version of Harry Segall's play "Heaven Can Wait" stars Robert Montgomery as a boxer who receives an unexpected transfer of his soul by a novice angel who thought the boxer was to die in a plane accident. Exposition-heavy fantasy keeps stressing the same trivial points over and over, and Montgomery is rather tepid in the lead (the whole film depends upon his performance, but Montgomery hasn't that much charisma as an actor to carry the weight). Some sweet scenes, but the rest is piffle. Remade by Warren Beatty (as "Heaven Can Wait") in 1978, there's something about this material that none of the writers were able to solve: the circumstances of the plotting work against our sympathies for several supporting characters, who ultimately are left out of the happy ending. ** from ****


Spoiler free review / opinion.

First off, I am a huge fan of the 24 series. There were good seasons and not-as-brilliant ones *cough*season6*cough*. But at least every season got me caught up in the middle, and I always craved for just one more episode.

This movie should prove me otherwise. The first half of the movie I was trying to get to know the "real" storyline. I was waiting for serious threats, terrorists, bombs, data espionage... well, something. Then it hit me, this movie is really just about moving a bunch of kids around. It was so blatantly mindless boring that even the action sequences did not get my mind of tomorrows grocery list.

In the series there was always an imminent danger to something. A nuclear bomb, poison gas or some nasty viral stuff that put a large portion of the citizens in jeopardy. Granted, it can also be fun and extremely exiting if only one person is at risk, as it was on the first season. But you could feel with Balmer and you actually were worried for him.

This movie is just about a bunch of kids, so it's not the "mass effect". And since the kids did not really bond with me, that is, I never had the feeling of "knowing them" I never really cared. I was hoping the other plots in the movie would cause some excitement, but it failed at that too.

My recommendation: If you are interested as hell in Jack Bauer hauling a bunch of kids around AND if you are a hardcore fan, watch this! Everyone else: Watch the athletes foot of your best pal grow! Much more exciting. AND you care about the person, at least.


24 Redemption is truly awful.

Once more I am stunned that the users here, got so lousy taste. You actually think this is a great movie?? Oh my god!!

Bad script, no budget = no action, bad acting all around. And the real time really limits the ability to tell a credible story. General Juma is not stopped, the political bad-guys in Washington are not stopped. Jacks surrender to the us-government is ridiculous and unbelievable. That he would give up so easily after being a fugitive for more than a year. Nothing is really explained. And nothing in the story seems related to season 7, witch makes this low-budget crap pointless and unnecessary.

If you are a fan of the series, pretend like this TV-movie was never made.


compared to the TV series,this thing is crap.i couldn't get through it,i was so bored.it's just not exciting.there's no real suspense or excitement,at least up to the point i watched.that's really surprising,given the quality of the series.it takes place after season six,and before season seven,so i guess it's a season seven prequel.if you can get through it,i would recommend it,as it does fill in some gaps between the sixth and seventh season.i only know this,because in some scenes they allude to events that must have happened in the movie.for me,though it was just too difficult to get through.my vote for 24:Redemption is a 4/10


I watched this yesterday on Dutch Television. I had not been following 24 for quite some time and to see a movie was a great surprise. As an avid fan I really looked forward to this. I made my tea and cookies and was ready to enjoy.

Obviously Jack Bauer kicked ass again, no surprise here, what the problem was was the poor ending. Not to mention the film only lasted an hour. It was too damn short, the ending wasn't a real ending. It didn't feel good. I think that you can't really make a good movie out of a series if that series requires 24 hours to make an entire story. They had the same eye for detail but not the time to make it fit. The action scenes weren't really fitting, I felt more as if the director said to himself: "gee, we're lacking some action scenes.. hmmm let's do another one and I don't care why I just want action!"

It really didn't feel 24ish. I understand that it may sound strange, requiring a perfect film for a man who is the year 2000's Chuck Norris and usually isn't too complicated other than struggling with the dilemma of deciding to kick them with his left or right leg, but it just wasn't right.

I'll look forward to a next season of 24, but I'll pass for another film.


Awful is a good word to start with. are you others stuck in the 80's or just pretentious film students? i have seen better "stuff" in my toilet. i am a James spader fan, but after seeing this movie early one morning suffering from insomnia i question his ability as a person. for Christ's sake he is a fellow mick and Bostonian and could not pull off the accent! not only that the movie sucked more than a hooker on a good day! all you lovers of starcrossed, it is time to put away the d&d game and move out of mom's house and get a job. if i ever see this movie on my t.v. again i will vomit and then drop my t.v. off a thirteen story building! James spader should be ashamed, better yet humiliated for ever even thinking this movie was a good career move! and you lovers of it GET A LIFE!


Based on a Ruth Rendell novel, this is the tale of a young English girl called Eunice who goes to America to be the maid of a rich family. On the surface she seems to be the perfect worker and an excellent cook, but underneath festers years of resentment at being mocked because she can't read. She also has strange visions with lots of blood, and has a surprisingly quick temper.. a fact that her father has already found out to his cost. Her only friend after relocating to the States is a religious nut who used to be a prostitute, and thanks to her influence, Eunice is slowly pushed over the edge..

This is a rather dull psychological thriller which finally comes to life ten minutes before the end. Of course, by then it's too little too late. Rita Tushingham does a marvellous job in making Eunice a believable character with her solitary ways and slow decline into insanity. However, the screenplay doesn't give her enough to do other than hide in cupboards and peek round doors while listening to secret conversations. There is also a tedious half brother/sister relationship that could have easily been left on the cutting room floor, and a cute dog that always turns up where it's least wanted. This sort of thing was done better in the 90's on ITV when Rendell's books were divided into 120 minute episodes. Here it looks like they've had a bigger budget, but to the script and film's detriment. I give it a 3/10


Eunice cannot read anything so she goes to the United States of America to become a maid. In the meantime she is completely psycho but it's sad because she cannot read. It was funny when she wet her pants but I think that everyone was too hard on her. Who cares if she couldn't read? She was a maid and they could have helped her read or sent her somewhere to learn how to read. I didn't think that it was that big of a deal and she seemed like a good maid except when she went completely nuts. It wasn't that great of a movie and they could have given her a better weakness than she couldn't read. She could have just been completely psycho. Anyway, I did like her crazy religious friend but the movie is something to clean out of a box of bad movies.


Probably one of the better Spenser Tracy/Katherine Hepburn movies. Hepburn is an all around female athlete and Tracy is determined to be her agent. Tennis and golf are the highlighted sports. Hepburn has trouble making the big finish because she "chokes" when her boyfriend is around. Casual and funny banter; evocative of the classic romantic comedy. Also in the cast are:Sammy White, William Ching, Aldo Ray and smaller roles for Jim Backus; the debut of Chuck Connors and yes that thug is Charles Bronson, then known as Charles Buchinski. Directed by George Cukor this story is no great whoop, but the selling point is the Tracy/Hepburn team.


Average romance comedy that had bad screenplay and script.Hepburn and Tracy gave great performances though and carried the whole movie on their shoulders.The directing was almost below average as well.The best part of the movie was only the last 10 minutes.Very slow start which will really test how much you love Golf or these lead stars.Only for big fans of the famous Spencer Tracy/Katherine Hepburn love team.......


I was prepared to love this Hepburn-Tracy pairing, but the movie doesn't date well. In 1952, it was probably a proto-feminist statement to have Hepburn leave a conventional but dull romance to fulfill her career potential as an athlete. And it was probably nothing unusual for a 1952 heroine to tell her true love that she needed someone to watch over her. But even from a 1970's perspective, much less a 21st-century's viewpoint, it's clear that Hepburn needed people to get out of her way, not watch over her.

Tracy wears his blue collar uncomfortably. His pugnaciousness seems genuine, but it's a labored effort for him to keep his intelligence under wraps.

As always with Hepburn and Tracy, there is the potential for great chemistry, but the script throws a blanket over it for much of the film, unable to find a natural, gradual way to show the increasing attraction between these two people from opposite sides of the tracks. Only in Tracy's last line of the film, which feels ad-libbed, does the relationship feel unforced.


Someone made the unwise decision early on to stick as close to the hit Broadway play as possible in adapting "The Bad Seed" for the movies, including having several key actors reprise their roles, including Patty McCormick in the lead as a sociopathic youngster in long pig-tails. The piece has not been rethought for the screen, and what works on a bare stage doesn't always deliver in the more intimate medium of cinema. So it's not all McCormick's fault: she delivers a performance of a headstrong, evil child in a perfunctory, overly-rehearsed manner and probably deserved the accolades she received at the time. It is a very demanding role for a youngster. However, there are no shadings in the dialouge for McCormick to pick up on, and she's not fresh in the part. Worse, she's directed to be too terrific--enunciating very clearly and loudly, as if to reach the back row, all the details of a complex human being are ironed out. This couldn't possibly have been intentional, as the rest of the cast members are handled in the very same way. It's so forthright, uneasy, repetitive and awkward, it becomes a static transformation of stage material onto film. *1/2 from ****


I see all the high marks and the claims of being scary this film gets from people and I wonder if I just finished watching the same movie. Other than the evil daughter, whose performance I enjoyed, the acting in this flick is SOOOOOO over the top it's laughable. I found the mom's performance painful to watch, as well as the grieving, drunkard mom of the drowned boy. I will say that the story was intriguing, and I put up with the rotten acting to see it through, but it was hardly scary, and to compare it to the Exorcist as some posters have done is nuts. Campy best explains the mood of this flick. Plus it is WAY TOO LONG! This story could have been a 30 minute Twilight Zone episode with no trouble at all.

I guess it was easy for the girl to be so evil and cunning, growing up in a house with NO Dad, a ham for a mom, a janitor with a weird southern accent, and most of all an extremely annoying wanna-be psychologist as a landlady.


I am so tired of people applauding films just because they are old. This film out & out sucked. Not scary, not funny, not clever or good for 1 minute! Absolutely awful. An utter waste of time & I can not stand when people say to please not remake this. Why not? Worst case scenario it won't be as awful. I've heard about them remaking this and took advice to rent the original. To hear it was nominated at one time is unacceptable. Geesh. The same year Giant came out this actually graced that stage. I recommend you do not waste your time. save your money.Stay home and watch American Idol. The girl on that show would be more interesting.


Considered "shocking" in its day (largely on the basis of PR), "The Bad Seed" remains little more than an interesting relic today. Yes, I saw the film on its initial release (I was 12). Even then, it didn't work -- as a film. From all accounts, it DID work on Broadway as a play.

Nancy Kelly, Patty McCormack, Henry Jones and Eileen Heckart reprise their stage roles here. Interesting that only Heckart understood the different requirements for film acting and stage acting. Her two brief scenes are the only honest (and heartbreaking) moments in the film.

Even director Mervyn LeRoy apparently hadn't the professionalism to alter the others' stage (and stagy) performances that had been set in stone during the Broadway run.

Nancy Kelly's odd, idiosyncratic sing-song line delivery is pathetically "attention getting." "Watch me act the hell out of this," she seems to whine in every scene. Banging the table repeatedly while Rhoda plays that infernal piano as smoke billows outside and the yardman screams is NOT acting. It's indicating. It's commenting. But then, Kelly's every on screen moment seems to be "commenting" on her character's plight, rather than inhabiting that character. As an archival record of her stage performance, its valuable in revealing a certain style of acting that, in the '50s, was already becoming rapidly outdated. Kelly never enjoyed much of a film career, or a stellar stage career, for that matter.

McCormack is effective, for the most part, until her "big scene" where she reveals the truth of what happened at the picnic. Then, her limited acting skills are all too visible. She has two levels: phony sweetness and phony hysterics. Phony sweetness (when you know the kid is really a murderer) plays, for awhile. Phony hysterics in a child psychopath is the wrong choice (though it may have worked well on stage). Instead of jumping from "sweet" to "rage" without any transitional steps (always one sign of a poor actor), a "real" psychopath would have used the moment to launch into tearful "vulnerable" pleas for understanding. A far more effective and subtle choice -- both for an actor and a psychopath (all psychopaths are actors, after all).

Henry Jones' portrayal veers too close to a baggy-pants vaudeville comedian to be remotely plausible. Jones was an excellent actor. But not here. "Ham" caricature wasn't needed: real sympathy was.

Only Eileen Heckart delivers the goods. The clash between her performance (which is the real thing) and the rest of the cast is startlingly obvious -- even to a 12 year old audience member.

"The Bad Seed" couldn't work today -- or even a few years after it was made. It was never a great play. It relied completely on the "shock" value of its theme. On Broadway, perhaps its most disturbing element was its ending -- yet that was jettisoned for the film version because of the "moral" dictates of the times.

In the play, Mommy dies and Rhoda survives to kill another day. "What will you give me for a basket of kisses," Daddy asks. "I'll give you a basket of hugs!" Curtain.

Not here. Instead, we are treated to a tacked-on ending where Rhoda (in a noisy thunderstorm in the middle of the night, no less), sneaks out of the house and onto the pier to retrieve -- what? That penmanship medal Mommy threw back in the lake? One forgets. It doesn't matter. The orchestra and sound effects department whip up a frenzy of a storm while little Patty McCormack is required to -- what? Walk? That's it? Then, BOOM! Deus ex machina. God takes care of the plot by obliterating the little actress, uh, Rhoda, with a bolt of lightning. Then the camera pans up into the trees.

But wait! There's more! Cheapening an already cheap shot of a film even further, we must now sit through "curtain calls" of the actors as they appear, smiling, in the doorway of the Penmark's apartment. (Get the symbolism YET? "Penmark" and "penmanship medal?" It was that kind of play.) This bizarre sequence ends with Nancy Kelly mock-spanking Patty McCormack on the sofa.

Presumably so the presumably terrified audience can presumably return to their normal lives after the presumed shocks of this presumed thriller.

Even At 12, I knew I'd been ripped off. And the film looks worse with age. A deservedly ignored anachronism.


Sorry but this is a horrible movie some of the acts were poorly acted in this kind of movie, I felt sorry for the little girl at the end as she gets hit by lightning and jumped into the water? I bet she did that on purpose cause you die burning if you get hit by a thunderstorm I don't understand why she gets out of the house by herself in the middle of the night that is kind of against god's law and this girl is to cute, pretty in this movie to hit lots of people and die if It wouldn't have made a movie called "The good daughter" like the "The good son" and that will probably help spread the word to the little girl's actions and they said that the little girl is 8 and she looks like a 11 or 12 year old. It seems to be unlucky for a movie about a evil child killing other people it might spoil people watching this people please do not watch cause after the day I watched this movie, it gave me sad dreams about Patty McCormack's death I almost started to cry after I dreamed and it might upset you a very sad movie and spoiled movie...


My honest opinion of "Scary Larry" is that I thought it was going to be better than it actually was. I guess it just wasn't what I was expecting. My first thought is that I cannot believe that he actually wore that wig. It looks like a Halloween wig that he bought at a local store, and thought people would think it was real hair, too funny. I would've liked to have seen the 'Karaoke King' more. Maybe singing at the Legion, with an audience, rather than in his garage. The reason why I did like "Scary Larry" was that I think it gave Larry a lot of confidence. The story should've told a little more about Larry's life, his background. Where is he from, why exactly does he live in the garage with this family, how did he meet them?


While in the Punta Abreojos in Mexico with his girlfriend Maya (Annica Bejhed) and two other couples, Tyler (Brendan Fleming) invites his brother Colin (Kaiwi Lyman-Mersereau) to join him in the paradisiacal beach for surfers. Colin travels from Los Angeles to the spot in his old car with his girlfriend Ashley (Michelle Borth), her slut friend Rose (Joleigh Pulsonetti) and his friends Javier (Jon Ada) and the goof Lucky (Alex Feldman). When they arrive in the beach, they do not find Tyler and her group, only their motorcycles, surfboards and finally their campsite and truck. While seeking out their friends, the group realizes that there is something wrong with the cursed beach.

"Trespassers" is a plain low budget movie with a shallow and non-well developed story and characters. There are awfully silly lines, and I believe that the winner is when Lucky asks what "km" is and Colin (I guess) replies that it is a shorter mile. The camera and lighting are terribly poor and the best scene in the movie is when Rose removes her bra and shows her wonderful breasts. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Intrusos" ("Intruders")


I hear a lot of people making excuses for this movie based on the low budget. However, the movie fails in terms of acting, writing and direction... all areas that don't necessarily cost a huge amount to get right. I've seen many movies made on even lower budgets that were far more entertaining and well-crafted.

The story is classic horror cliché. Five attractive young people go on a road trip to a secluded Mexican beach. Of course, something is terribly wrong with the beach and they start to die one-by-one. I won't go into the details of the inane plot, but let's just say it has to do with the curse of a cult leader called "El Gringo" (yes, that's actually what he's called) and people being turned into blood-thirsty zombies who hunt by night. So it's basically a bad, zombie b-movie set on a Mexican beach.

The acting is pretty labored and the story gets dumber and dumber as it progresses. There's plenty of gratuitous nudity from the attractive female stars, which was maybe the highlight of the movie. Some movies are bad but don't take themselves too seriously, so they become fun. "Trespassers" seems to take itself way too seriously, and winds up not very scary and not very entertaining.


The story goes about 5 young people taking a trip to some hidden beaches in Mexico. it seems like there are some weird weird things going on at that beach, and it seems like our 5 young hero's have just landed in the middle of that...

Just watched this movie, and i could say, its a bit disappointing... low budget and bad acting really didn't give this movie the right push. the story line was far from complete with useless characters in it. the scenes are just to messy. the camera shakes far too much witch just don't give you the change to see the movie probably. Most of the time i just had to wait till the scene was over to find out what just happened, and that doesn't have to do anything with the storyline. hence, at the end of the movie, i didn't even remember the main characters name's. The end is very strange to, its like the movie just stopped in the middle of the plot.


Five young adults head off to Mexico in search of some waves that one of the group's brother said were great down there. But when they get there the brother and his friends are nowhere to be found. They soon clash with demented (possibly demoniacally infected) locals. The acting was serviceable if nothing special, the mere fact that this is a low-budget film, i can ignore that. What I couldn't ignore was the lack of good lighting were a good portion of the movie or the reliance on shaky-cam shots during the action scenes of the film. Or, for that matter, the surprising lack of gore. What we're left with is a somewhat boring travelogue of Mexican scenery for a good part of the movie and inane banter. Skip it and rent "Turistas" or something else better that this movie is akin to.

Eye Candy: Joleigh Fioreavanti gets topless

Where I saw it: Netflix online view

My Grade: D-


This is my first review ever, what a way to start where no one has posted anything yet so here it goes. without knowing much by the DVD cover i didn't know what to expect even though it said "in the vein of dawn of the dead, Shaun of the dead as well as other zombie movies." so i said hey why not it's only $11.00, but after viewing it i think i should have waited a little longer.

The story involves a group of friends going to Mexico to surf at an abandoned beach, getting their they find no one is there, so what do they do strip down and surf and have a sex filled week (more on the line of a teenage boy surfing through porn) you get to see the only girl you want to see topless. later when one vanishes they look to find his video camera lying on the beach (farther away then he dropped it.) to see something grabbed him, and try to figure out where Colin's brother went to, then the rest of the movie is pretty much a tale of terror where Javier and the girl with him (forgot name) get information about the past of the beach by a store clerk, where this man and followers lived on the beach and prayed to god for (I think) entry, they never ate real food just what the tide would bring in until one day he brings food and everyone devours it, then they realize he was bringing children from town, well they get man and do a horrendous act by placing him in the sand with his head out and cut his eyelids off while facing the sun, as he was there he prayed for help, but got the wrong religious man, but took the offer so he could take revenge on anyone who comes near his beach. when the corpses of fellow boarders come back to life they do what "kill" which isn't much of a climax, after a few die only two are left to leave and fight off the dead (which is choppy by how the camera is moving so fast to catch all the action)none the less once they leave on the dirt bike which was left there they meet the pact leader to decide there fate.

This is a well put together movie with a decent amount of blood, some nudity, and it's a zombie flick but the bad thing is it gets old fast they all have the mind of a 12 year old, with to much sex related humor, and the acting is so-so, its decent but not a must maybe a rental instead.4/10


This movie on the back says that it is in vein of Dawn of the dead and Shaun of the Dead. Somebody lied!! This movie is completely opposite. The only good thing about this movie is that the girls in it looked good. The rest had really nothing to do with zombies. Do Not rent even if your bored. Stay Bored, go play with yourself or something, anything would be better than this crap. Now I will say this; the weird guy with the camera, i think his name was lucky, got to see the girl topless and then recorded it on the camera. Whats funny though is the fact that 5 seconds later we see him sitting on a rock by himself playing a challenging game of pocket pool, but before he can finish flogging the dolphin he gets scared and runs away. Even though this is sick it just shows that if this was the best part of the movie imagine what the rest of the movie is like.


I agree with everything you said. It is all about flashing boobs, also masturbation. On top of that it is like seeing one big soap opera . I would of rather watched a soap opera than this movie. I would not recommend this movie to anyone. My girlfriend fell asleep in the middle of the movie because it was so boring. This is my opinion. If you buy or rent this movie it is a waste of time and money. Dawn of the dead and any other vampire movie beats this movie big time. Like I said this is an opinion I came up with. You make like this movie if you like fake blood, and body parts that look like scraps from a meat dept in your local store. Let me not go any further before I give the whole plot away.


Ken Russell directed and co-authored this flagrantly useless biography of silent-screen legend Rudolph Valentino, adapted from the book "Valentino, an Intimate Exposé of The Sheik" by Brad Steiger and Chaw Mank; certainly the producers and actors associated with this film knew of Russell's penchant for the gross and bizarre, yet everyone seems to have jumped on-board blindfolded. It's a stiff and self-conscious circus, albeit one with an opulent 1920s production design. The essence of capturing a romantic hero of the movies on film has seldom come off (proof of that is the unsuccessful 1951 version of "Valentino" starring Anthony Dexter); here, Russian ballet star Rudolf Nureyev struggles with his Italian accent, struggles with his romantic partners, and really only looks comfortable with the dancing (an early scene featuring Valentino and Vaslav Nijinsky together on the dance floor is the picture's best moment). The impersonations of real-life players in Valentino's short life are grotesque caricatures, and the flashback conceit of female admirers recalling their associations with "The Sheik" after his premature demise is flabby and tiresome (and fails to pay off in any sort of narrative context). Ken Russell has never been very nimble with actors, but one expects more fireworks with this large cast (they are largely posed and wooden). Leslie Caron's nutty interpretation of famed actress Alla Nazimova gets some goosey laughs, and Seymour Cassel is always nice to have around as Valentino's manager, but the lead is too old for his role--and intensely uncharismatic on the screen. *1/2 from ****


Ken Russell has always been a director that took his films into excesses with both style and subject matter but I found this so-called biography lacking any real substance. The story is of course about the rise and death of Rudolph Valentino (Rudolf Nureyev) and after his sudden and tragic death we see the woman in his life reflect in flashbacks about his life. Valentino was a tango dancer and a gigolo but he still had dreams of buying his own orange grove in California. A casting director spots him in a dance hall and convinces him to come for a screen test which he agrees to. He starts working in small roles until he catches the eye of famed actress Alla Nazimova (Leslie Caron) and her companion Natasha Rambova (Michelle Phillips). Soon Valentino becomes a screen sensation and he becomes involved romantically with Rambova but technically he is still married to his first wife. The two of them become a team and they want artistic control over his parts which is to the chagrin of the studio head Jesse Lasky (Huntz Hall).

Russell's films are always visually interesting and this effort is no different. There are many scenes that have brown and gray tones but suddenly a bright shade will be entered into the shot. Also, this film is suppose to be in the United States but is actually shot in England. Russell did a pretty good job recreating the look of 1920's America with his sets that were built specifically for this film. But let's face it, this is a very clumsy attempt at retelling the life of Valentino and while Nureyev was excellent showing us the tango, he looked like a fish out of water when it came to dialogue. One of the more irritating things about this film was that Russell told this story like it was a silent movie. The scenes and dialogue are overly dramatic and Nureyev uses lots of body movement to show what he is feeling. This also wouldn't be a Russell film without the gratuitous nudity and they're are a couple of lulu's here. Nureyev himself has one or two full frontal shots. I didn't complain too much about the historical inaccuracies but with the uninspired casting (Huntz Hall?) and the annoying style of this film with Nureyev's awkward performance its clearly an effort that goes nowhere.


The movie is utter trash! The actors and actresses seem to put more trash on poor Rudy. The movie was not really true to life. I've researched and read many a biography and Valentino was NOT the way the director portrayed him to be, other than a great dancer and an excellent actor. I loved Nureyev; nothing personal against any of the actors and actresses; it's just that the story is so over inflated with a bunch of false accusations.

Natasha Rambova never even appeared at his memorial. Rudy was not homosexual, and was not a gigolo. He was a dancer and danced with women prior to getting into movies, yes, that is true, but he wasn't the "clown" the way the movie puts him out to be in the movie.

It stinks.


I don't see how I could possibly spoil this movie, as I'm pretty sure most people know Valentino is dead. The manner of his death spoiled the movie for me, fact-based viewer that I am. This movie is a five-car pileup -- you can't look away. Nureyev is no actor, but it hardly matters. This must be the noisiest movie ever made about the silent era. Even Seymour Cassel, known for his work with John Cassavetes, soon joins in the general shouting and gesticulating. The two-whatevers rating is for the costume one of the women wears to the funeral, which makes her look like a Klimt painting. It made me laugh.

Please, Ken, leave Garbo alone.


There are two basic problems with this film: First, Rudolph Valentino may have been incredibly sexy on screen (woo-hoo!), but he wasn't that interesting off-screen. Second, he Rudolf Nureyev isn't a good enough actor to make him interesting. Russell tries to work around these basic problems by including lots of 1920's Hollywood excess and decadence, and as much sex and violence as he could fit in, all in amazing period clothes, but it's not enough.

It's a gorgeous film to look at, the screen glitters with light and color and glamour, and some of the scenes are stunning enough to keep you watching. My favorites are the dance sequences, Valentino was a dancer and the slinky, sexy Nureyev does several dazzling tango numbers. (I recommend this film to any serious balletomane for that reason)

It's when he has to talk that the film runs into trouble, and since he's the entire film, it's major trouble. Nureyev's English was never that good, and he either stumbles over his lines or spits them out at top Russian speed. His body is expressive, but his face is not, which is typical of dancers whose faces aren't clearly seen by the audiences, and who are mainly concerned with not panting visibly.

But the problem that could probably never be overcome is that the characters aren't very sympathetic or interesting. Valentino spent his short career as a passive pawn of the studios, his bitch wife Natasha Rambova (snippily played by the bland Michelle Phillips), and diva actor-director Alla Nazimova (Leslie Caron gnawing on the scenery). The script tries to build some regular-Joe-who-never-wanted-to-be-a-star sympathy for him, which somehow makes him less worthy of this kind of attention.

No, Valentino was an astonishing stud on screen and a wuss off, the only compelling thing about him are the performances he left. Better to get a tape of "The Sheik" than to watch this.


As someone who loves African scenery and doesn't mind ogling Kim Bassinger, either, I was looking forward to seeing this film. It turned out to be disappointing. The scenery wasn't nearly what I had hoped, certainly no "Out Of Africa," and the story was, in a word: boring.

I never quite understood, or was told, a number of things in here, such as how the leading lady "Kuki Gallman") in this movie and her husband, financially survived. He was out fishing and hunting with his buddies all the time and she was home building some sort of wildlife conversation. One almost got to the point of asking, "What's the point of this story?" outside of being some sort of travelogue. That's the feel I got; an overly-long documentary about living in Kenya. It gets boring quickly.

Given the circumstances and scenery, this movie should have been fascinating, but it tedious. I'm not surprised it flopped at the box office and video stores.


This is a strange movie. The title refers to dreaming of Africa. But the movie leaves unclear why the two principal characters are dreaming of Africa and what they are dreaming of. Perhaps they are dreaming of touristy pictures: beautiful landscapes, herds of wild animals and dancing Africans. Indeed, the movie has some nice images but alas, even these are spoiled with music that often sounds ill adapted.

What is worse is that African people are nearly absent as people. Not a single African gets more than a superficial treatment in this movie, so that it seems that the principal characters are dreaming of an Africa without Africans.

Well, perhaps all this is just due to the weak overall quality of the movie. In fact, there is hardly any character development. Many images remain disconnected and thus remain hollow. Finally this movie does not surpass the level of my neighbor's slide show of his package tour to Pakistan. Which is a pity for the means spend on it.


Reading the several reviews herein, I perceive no middle ground. Reviewers either hated this film or loved it. Haters decry poor acting, poor story-line, pointless deaths and wanton frustration, and, most damning, imitating Out of Africa. The comparisons are just too many to ignore. Lovers, on the other hand, wax romantically about feeling like "being in Africa," the poignant love story, the tragic deaths and the courage of a woman under the strain of living against the sage advice of her dear old mum.

Well, sports fans, I worked in East Africa for over 20 years and there is damn little to find romantic about it. Beautiful? Yes, Afica is that. Wild? Yes, beyond your wildest dreams. Frustrating. Same answer. I've never met an old Afican hand who did not at once love and hate that continent. [I could go on for hours on that subject, but back to the film:]

I fall in with the critics in that I found this film to be most unsatisfying. There are many fine treatments of the subject of women dealing with the frustrations and challenges of living in a land where if anything can go wrong, count on its occurring twice. Isak Denisen's and Elsbeth Huxley's books are greatly superior to Kuki's story. For my part, I found any ethnic connection being carried over into the story very unconvincing in both the book and this film, both of which come off as second rate. Look, Denisen and Huxley could write. We can leave it there. Out of Africa and The Flame Trees of Thika are classics...I dreamed of Africa is a whining wannabe tragedy, as a book and a badly acted film. Everybody's performance was weak and unconvincing in light of earlier treatments of the same subject.

Romantics will still gush and choke up at this story. Critics will still hold noses and give Bronx cheers. As for me, count me among the latter.


follow your mother advice, stay home and never do anything daring, exciting or new. that's the message i got from 'i dreamed of africa'. twice kuki's mother tells her how it is, kuki doesn't obey and loved ones start dropping like flies. so the movie seemed to reverse it's premise completely.

and furthermore, there's nothing really interesting going on in africa, unless you like seeing pointless deaths and lots of crying after. the acting is, really, just awful. the supposedly italian pair sound more like danish, and why the heck are they talking english in italy, if the director has gone through the trouble of having the african natives speak their own language? it's beyond comprehension.

the deaths make this movie a very depressing one, and the promised 'great shots from africa, just like you were there' are completely missing. i must tell you, i don't really understand the bit about the illegal hunting either. the man, paolo or whatever is going hunting or fishing all the time, so it's not really an ethical point for him...then what is it? maybe somebody would like to explain it to me. but for sure, even if you were hunting to eat, you don't have to spend your entire living hours to do so, do you? the man is obviously obsessed with guns, and teaches a small kid to use a gun as well.

the plot is childisly predictable. 'oh, oh, now the kid goes to play with the poisonous snakes after his mother just warned him about it! i WONDER what's going to happen.' the dialogue is dull, and there is zero character developement for some side roles that might have saved at least a bit of the movie, for example daniel craig and lance reddick are completely ignored and wasted.

'i dreamed of africa' is a boring and just an incredibly naive, shallow, depressing and stupid movie.

1/10


Except for Kim Basinger's performance in this movie there is little to recommend it. The story is biographical but it is somewhat pointless and goes no where as well as being disjointed. The time period is never clear but a lot happens in Kenya during this period and somehow the story never relates to it.

 I have never considered Kim Basinger to be an actress, just a sex kitten, but she did show some acting ability in this flick. The tragedy of this movie is that she needlessly appears half nude from a less than revealing angle and it really detracts from the any value the picture had.

But this is a story that should have been left untold. It is a waste of time.


Wow! I have never seen a movie as screwed up as this. I'm not sure if it was really bad editing, really jumpy screenplay or if the director was just stoned. In "I Dreamed of Africa" get ready to be confused. You will see one scene and then you will see another scene, and the two will have nothing to do with each other. This doesn't just occur once, but through the entire film. And the scenes themselves are way to predictable. The viewer knows what's going to happen before the movie does. The acting is hit & miss. Sometimes fairly good, but when deep emotion comes in, seems forced and unreal. The script is cheesy and sometimes just stupid. A some moments you feel like you're getting to know and like the characters, but then you get shot into a scene that is totally different from what you've just seen. Which causes you to get to confused or just tired of trying to keep up. Overall I give a 4 out 10 (would be 3&1/2). So, unless you're really bored and just want to see Kim Basinger's naked back for a brief moment, don't watch this film.


First of all, I would like to say that I have no problems with slow shows. And this movie does not fail because of that. It fails because of its predictability and absence of plot. Nothing is interesting and nothing could stop me from walking out after an hour and a half.


The last couple of sneak previews brought films full of violence and so I was hoping for a change as I didn't want to leave the cinema in the middle of a film again. Although this film is very positive, I sometimes wished back to something more exciting. It seems to be a common misconception to believe that a life full of tragedy automatically turns into a good story. This film is the perfect proof for it. It swings back and forth between tragedy and bliss but there's no suspense. Even the tragedy is predictable and unavoidable. The conclusions that are drawn from all this are commonplace. Of course, from a personal, private perspective it's different but from the point of view of a film there's nothing in it. This makes me wonder why people seem to think that all this is more interesting if it happens in an exotic place. I guess many, many people have gone through all this and worse and no one seems to think it worthwhile telling a story about them. There's one good thing to be said about this film, however. It goes against the grain of modern film producing. It's quiet and the acting is toned down.


My Age: 14

 Hah, I bet you thought just becuase I am a teenager, doesn't mean this movie is pathetic. Well, to say I loved "Out of Africa", and I have been around the block. COLUMBIA pictures has been complaining about bad business. This is why. I swear they were on drugs when they thought a rip-off of Sydney Pollack's Out of Africa was going to profit, with a budget of $34 million. Woah! I watched some of this when going to see another movie, while waiting. I was sorry. I find the lobby much more interesting than this trash. If Kim Basinger could win an Oscar(L.A. Confidential was an exception), so could Jennifer Love Hewitt and I can't stand either of them. That's all folks!


This truely wasn't a very good movie. The story had potential though. Like the previous user said, it was beautifully filmed, but it wasn't consistant. It gave you pointless shots of sceens that had nothing to do with the story.

The dialogue had be laughing. She kept complaining about how she wanted a "change" in her life... Now if you've see this movie, tell me her life didn't change. It wasn't that well thought out.

I went into this movie thinking it might be a good sleeper film (one you haven't heard much about but is really good [like Shakespear in Love]). But it was really bad. Wait for cable or for some network television to show it. At least the commercials give you breaks.

PS: One fun thing to do during the movie is to keep track of the number of dogs they have.


This movie did play like a dream or maybe even like an autobiography - it was disjointed. It was basically a bunch of mostly random scenes throughout this lady's life and you wonder what is going to happen next to her. The scenery was beautiful, but that is the only redeeming value I could find. Wait for it to come to tv.


The story is dull and lackluster but the biggest disappointment is in Kim Basinger's performance. She sleepwalks through the part. Her job is to be convincing, instead she seems like she is acting. Vincent Perez fairs better. However, his energy is wasted in his scenes with Basinger. She just seems like she would rather be anywhere than in this movie. Towards the end she does come through a little better but, by then it's too late to save the film.


This was a wonderfully shot movie, too bad the acting, plot, and direction were below average. I have seen Kim Basinger do better than this. Her performance was horrible and the rest of the cast followed suit.

The action is not linked and the characters just exist with no purpose. The movie doesn't even get interesting until the end. The watcher sits and waits through the whole movie for something significant to happen. Unfortunately, nothing really does.

I urge people not to see this movie. It is a waste of time and money. Gladiator will crush it at the box office this week. Sorry Kim...

I gave it a three because there was some effort put into it, just not enough to make an average movie.


If it had not been for the lack of an old wind-up gramophone playing Mozart, I might well have thought I was watching a revamped remade redone rechurned `Out of Africa', or some kind of variation on `Gorillas in the Mist'. If it had not been for some excellent photography, I might well have dozed off. Even Maurice Jarre's music did not seem much inspired, as it careered rather hesitatingly among various influences, and indeed the best was when the native chants took over. That, and an as-ever unconvincing lack-lustre Vincent Perez, together with a Kim Basinger who did ever so much to look enticing and not much else, left me wondering as to what the whole enterprise was up to.

The story itself seems to get lost in the probably overstretched biographical original tale of woe, and thus meanders about as if in a misty labyrinth in the Great Rift Valley. However much Italian aristocracy was purported to have been in on the events, they plainly became unstuck in this rather woolly-eyed misanthropic excursion which at times left me guffawing and ready to reach for my video copy of `Out of Africa', as so many of the scenes in this film seemed to have been borrowing chunks from that film and converting them to own use.

The film is right for those who just want a nice story or simply some really good photography, and preferably have not seen either of the other two mentioned films, which are both better.


From what I had heard and read of this movie, I was rather expecting to find a gripping story of animal activism in Africa, somewhat akin to "Gorillas in The Mist." But there's nothing like this here. What we get is a confusing story, in which the plotline jumps from scene to scene with no apparent pattern or purpose.

The performances are generally sub-par. Kim Basinger plays Kuki Gallman, the real-life conservationist, as we learn the story of how she got to Africa in the first place. Basinger showed a few sparks throughout the movie, but for the most part came across as rather distant. Vincent Perez was, I thought, a terrible disappointment as her husband Paolo. These two never struck me as being a likely couple, and there seemed to be little reality to their romance.

The only thing even remotely holding the movie together is its anti-poaching theme, but even that consists of a series of scenes seemingly spaced about twenty minutes apart where we see a dead animal, and Basinger and Perez get angry. I never got a real sense of what they wanted to do to make any real effort to improve the situation.

There is some wonderful photography of both the African landscape and wildlife, but aside from that this movie is a tremendous disappointment. I rated it 2/10.


Having read all of the negative comments about this movie - and having just wasted a few hours of my life by watching it - I can pretty much say that they're ALL true.

The scenery is great, but I think my wife said it all. During the windstorm scene, she remarked, "What a tough place to live. Why would they continue to want to live there?"

Why did they continue to want to make this movie? 5 stars for scenery, 1/2 star for acting ability, which was SORELY lacking.

This probably would have been a good book - something about perseverance in the face of tragedy and everything that nature throws at you - but for a movie to plod along like this without you ever really caring about the characters **Spoiler** such as when the husband is robbed - his emotion and her face as she held him were just NOT there.


I've seen thousands of movies over the years, many good, many bad, and some that just make me wish I would've just shoveled snow naked instead. This film was the latter. Yes, it was painful to sit through. Very painful. I really had high hopes for this film. I was looking forward to relaxing to a good nature flick that had some excitement as well. One with a good plot. Forget it here! I kept waiting, and waiting, and waiting, but nothing. There were tons of opportunities too. But nothing. A few things kept going through my head as I watched this movie: 1) Hollywood losers trying to make a point. 2)Bleeding heart liberal conservationist using this as a vehicle, and 3)Chick flick. Not even just a chick flick, but a chick flick written by a chick! Man, I'm still hurting! I hate it when 4,000 babies are being aborted a day in the USA, and yet I'm supposed to cry over a dead rhino which is far more important in their eyes. Yes, many have missed the point in life, especially you Kim. Ok, Basinger still looks good in her upper 40's, and I applaud her at not using tons of facelifts like most of Hollywood past 40, but that's the only reason this film gets a 1/10 from me! Hello folks, there's a reason this film has been given 68 1/10's! Keep reading...From the get go it was lost. A bunch of rich people living in Italy and none seemed to be Italian. They're loser theatre types out drinking and heading to a bar late at night. Hymph, accurate there at least. An accident and it's time for a change. Let's get married and move to Kenya! Hello!! They go from pampered to no running water or A.C., ya, right! On another note, that lead actors accent, it was enough to make me rip my eardrums out! Ugh, please get it out of my head!!! I don't know what country he was from. Kim (Kuki), or Kooky, which is more accurate, is having a hard time adjusting to rough Africa life, but hangs in there. She worries about her husband going out too much with the boys, and danger...he of course dies. The funeral, and Kim's first painful written speech. Her boy grows up, she tells him not to raise poisonous snakes, he gets bit, he dies. Kims second and even more painful funeral poem/speech. Ugh, thankfully I had some pudding to eat and the fast forward button. Kim's Mom keeps flying in to the funerals. It's Eva Marie Saint, and boy, she hasn't aged well at all. In fact, the dead rhino looked better. Sorry Eva. At one point their jeep gets stuck in the mud (of course after Mom warns her) and she steps out into a puddle and wrecks her new gucci's. Ya, gucci's in wild Africa, oh, I forgot, us idiots had to be reminded they were rich socialites from Italy! Oyvay!!! Kim also informs some local tribal chief of poachers killing the poor Elephants and Rhinos..You have to see this guy, man, what poor typecasting! He reminds me of the black guy from Crocodile Dundee II, all cool and suave. My gosh, he's supposed to be a tribal chief living in a 130 degree hut!!! Plus, he's wearing shades and not sweating!! A black guy not sweating in the African heat, give me a break! I really can't go on, man, this film totally stunk! Period! Not even Kim's shirt falling off from behind could save it. Force the director, the lead actors, the casting agent, and all involved to live there for the rest of their lives! Flamio, and I'm out!


I think this movie was a completely horrid waste of my time. I honestly believe that I have never seen a more depressing, purposeless movie in my entire life. The movie also has absolutely no closure to it whatsoever. I will never understand what purpose the egg held in the movie aside from making the viewers angry.


I DREAMED OF AFRICA / (2000)

	"I Dreamed of Africa," the true story of Kuki Gallmann, is a dull, slow moving journey into the gorgeous heart of Africa. Although visually enticing, this material seems more appropriate as an autobiography book. I felt the movie would be more at home with audiences if released around three decades ago. Hugh Hudson ("Chariots of Fire") tries to create his drama with an old fashioned appearance. To his own demise, however, the director succeeds. Watching Kim Basinger and Vincent Perez on screen is like studying forsaken lore; not worthy of magnificent cinematic filming.

	Kim Basinger is the middle aged Kuki Gallmann, a struggling divorced parent living in 1972 while nurturing her young son, Emanuele. She lives in Italy near her snobbish mother, Franca (Eva Marie Saint) who likes a customary lifestyle, but Kuki herself is ready for change.

	Kuki soon marries Paolo (Vincent Perez), and then, much to her mother's alarm, moves to Kenya, Africa. Her family buys a small ranch near the Great Rift Valley and purchases huge amounts of property. In this admirable landscape, the filmmakers capture the gleaming life of Africa exquisitely. The scenery and wildlife are filmed with an inspirational and harmonious melody.

	This story is disheartening, phony, sketchy, melodramatic, and lifeless. It feels contrived, lacking conflict, irony, romance, and intrigue. Kim Basinger and Vincent Perez form no relationship with their characters. The most passion we witness between them is a short sensual sequence in which the two briefly make love. From a so-called lush and emotional production, the audience requires much more than what the film offers.

	Instead of forming active participation with a goal or problem that the film's woman of admirable exploits must overcome, the movie assigns separated incidences involving Kuki to compensate for the lack of tension. Here are some of the occurrence and the problems with each:

1) Kuki's son is sent off to school as she and her husband struggle emotionally. (There is no development of Emanuele. Therefore, we do not care along with the characters.)

2) Kuki's cattle are being infected with deadly diseases by a local Native American tribe. (There is no examination of the Indians, therefore we are not able to follow along with Kuki's protesting.)

3) Kuki must deal with the fear of Paolo being killed on dangerous hunting trips he takes with his friends. (Paolo and Kuki never create chemistry, so the audience may not buy them as a close couple.)

4) Kuki becomes rugged after protecting her property from wild animals, preparing the ranch for a disastrous sandstorm, and teaming up with friends to rid her land of evil poachers. (How do the natives make a living? Farming? Ranching? The film does not even investigate the land in which the characters live. How are we supposed to become involved with Kuki's property conflicts?) 5) Kuki must deal the compiling stresses of being a ranch hand in Africa, especially when people close to her heart pass away. (I did not care that much about the characters.)

	The film's obvious dialogue explains nearly every nugget within the story. Kuki's extremely important character is development orally; personalities are replaced with wordy clarification. Moreover, we witness none of the crucial events of the plot, like Kuki's previous marriage and her divorce, nor the childhood of Emanuele. If the writers were abreast with colorful subtext, or the least bit clever in their abilities, the movie still may have recovered from this flaw. However, screenwriters Paula Milne and Susan Shilliday are much to blunt to be effective.

	I question the quality of Kim Basinger's performance here. At certain times in the film she captures her character's deprived solitude flawlessly and at others she looks as if in a melodramatic soap opera episode. This potentially effective actress (who dazzled in the Oscar Nominated thriller "LA Confidential") seems to be held back by the film, which does not allow her much leeway to explore her character. Vincent Perez is good in his role, but like most side performers here, his only purpose is to aid in development of Kuki's emotional status.

	"I Dreamed of Africa" is not the worst movie in release at this time, but perhaps the most sappy. Kim Basinger's overacting, the filmmakers shameless usage of African territory, and the many burdens placed upon the main character lead to a conclusion of remote emptiness. The audience walks away with a feeling of unsatisfied hollowness. I almost feel guilty for negatively criticizing a movie about a person I respect so much-but not enough so to recommend this movie.


If you're looking for an entertaining fighting movie, avoid this one at all costs. Do you want to see a movie that's so bad that it becomes an unintentional comedy? Then you also should avoid this one, because it's so utterly bad that it's not even funny. The movie's plot circles around illegal, underground street-arena fights where the fighters use many kinds of brutal weapons and kill each other. Sound familiar? This has been done many times, but never as bad as this. Most of the fighters are really unfit and shabby people, and there aren't much that reminds me of true martial arts skills. The story makes no sense, and is just full of plot holes. I just don't get why Lorenzo Lamas stars in this. He's not exactly the best action star around, but this was a disaster even by his standards.


This film has more cheek than any I have seen. It seems to be made almost entirely from left over footage from The Swordsman. It is like watching outtake footage. The plot has been extended to include a new baddie, but the relationship between the two main characters bounces around in context all over the place, continuity is almost non-existent and you keep wondering where in time and space the activity is happening. I guess this is recycling taken to new levels. However watching The Swordsman and then Gladiator Cop is an interesting exercise in picking up what you have seen already, what really belongs in the first film and why you aren't doing something more productive.


Malkovich and Casta! Seems like a safe bet, but no way....

Nothing really interesting during the entire movie. Too boring, even for a Casta fan.

Don't lose your time. A golf game is much more exciting!

Santosped.


There is much hype surrounding the release of les Ames Fortes in France due to the starring debut of Laetitia Casta as the main character.

We can understand very well what has appealed to the 23 year-old model: the movie, freely adapted from a Giono novel, tells the story of a peasant girl who will discover and use her personal attraction on men and women as she goes to town.

What could have made a good story turns very boring as Ruiz lacks a sense of tempo and seems unable to craft a good end to the movie.

This movie is not worth two hours of your time, even if you are a Casta fan.


What a strange film. It begins as a crime thriller and ends up becoming an indictment against war in Africa; in my opinion it is far more successful at the former.

An asylum seeker fleeing the fighting in the Congo, gets a job at a security guard in a bank in Eire. He seems a trustworthy sorta fella, however, his wife and child have gone missing in London. When the authorities track them down and grant them all leave to stay, it's seems it will be a happy ending after all. But when an Irish gang kidnap the guy's family in order to get him to cooperate in a little heist they have planned, they don't count on his resilience. As well as a few skeletons he has in the closet that could have them think twice..

No-one's behaviour in this film makes any sense! Character's personalities change at the drop of a hat, and seemingly intelligent people make some stupid decisions for no other reason then to add some spice to the plot. Unfortunately this shoddy scriptwriting cripples our interest in the second half of the film, with one 'outrageous' revelation after another resulting in a forced tragic ending.

Shame, because the opening scenes are very promising, with Eriq Ebouaney portraying a very sympathetic hero, and Fatou N'Diaye also impressive as his deceptively strong partner. Perhaps the film have been better if the movie had been about their reintegration into a new culture after surviving a traumatic ordeal in a war-torn environment.

But no, we get the classic stereotypical gang of chirpy Irish hoodlums, a botched bank raid and then the bloody aftermath, which is where things really come off the rails. There isn't a single event that occurs in the last half an hour that convinces, not one happening that doesn't feel tacked on and absolutely zero elements that aren't stolen from better movies.

Just because a film has a humanistic social agenda it doesn't give it the right to be this lacklustre. Someone should have taken the first twenty pages of this script, developed the plot from there are thrown the rest of it on the fire. In my opinion, anyway. What could have been, we'll never know.. 4/10


There is not much I can add to Hanleymac"s comments except I hope Richard Carpenter can find a way to completely stop this mess from ever being seen ANYWHERE!!! GET, IF YOU CAN, "THE KAREN CARPENTER STORY, 1989. I think you'll find it much more informative, and that it deals with Karen's suffering more than "Superstar". It, as I recall, helped make all of us aware of the problems associated with Anorexia and other eating disorders. "The Karen Carpenter Story" doesn't free the Carpenter family from some responsibility for what happened to Karen, but it doesn't bash them either. The attempt on the part of Harold and Agnes was simply to try and protect them (Karen and Richard) from the problems of the entertainment world. If my wife, Terrie and I had been their parents, we might possibly have done things the same way. As for "Superstar, The Karen Carpenter Story", it should be sent as far away as the East is from the West.


Beginning as a Saturday morning cartoon show for children, Hey Hey, It's Saturday went through a number of format changes during its run. It is somewhat ironic, then, that the host's refusal to make changes to the format, in spite of requests to do so from everyone save the cameramen, eventually killed it. During the mid to late 1980s, it was the best thing for those with nothing to do on a Saturday night to watch. During the 1990s, however, it slowly devolved into an unwatchable farce, made all the more intolerable by the egotism of its host, Daryl Somers. You can also see his difficulty in staying relevant to his audience during later seasons, as he addresses guests who happen to be in their mid-teens (Christina Ricci being a good example) as if they were three years old. Make no mistake from some of the user comments offered. This show was canceled for a very good reason, and it was not canceled soon enough. In fact, Somers desperately tried to save the show towards the end of its run by proposing some of the changes in format that had been recommended by staff or fans.

Naturally, Somers was the only one surprised when the network, one run by Australia's answer to Rupert Murdoch at that, was no longer interested in Somers' ideas. By then, the show was rating in single figures, which is no small feat for a country that has only five free-to-air television channels, and still thinks impediments to its recording industry like Molly Meldrum are relevant. No, Hey Hey had been dead for at least several years, and like the vicar with the nymphomaniac wife, Somers was the last to know. It was almost sad to see the clear desperation with which Somers tried to appease the critics. About the only funny thing left about the show, which had previously thrived upon irreverence, was how staid and formulaic it had become. Even the Gong-Show style variety segment, Red Faces, had grown stale thanks to a clear lack of willing talent.

It has been pointed out before that after Jacqui McDonald retired from the show for reasons that have been lost to time, Somers' ego began to run rampant. This is true, although the problem didn't really manifest until Ernie Carroll, the voice and puppeteer of one Oswald Q. 'Ozzie' Ostrich, retired for what was cited as health reasons. With nobody else to share centre stage, Somers went rampant, basically dominating every aspect of the show, and keeping his co-hosts as out of the picture as he could. In fact, there was a big gap in the mid-1990s where there was no regular co-host. I don't think it is a coincidence that most of the damage that drove viewers away was done during this period. What really drips with irony is that until about 1998, Somers was unwilling to change the series' format, crying that the format was what kept viewers tuning in. He seemed utterly unaware that the Hey Hey of 1991 onwards and the Hey Hey from 1983 to 1990, probably earlier, were two utterly different shows.

This is not to say that the show was always bad, or even all bad. As I have intimated, the show was quite entertaining during its peak in the 1980s, where predictability was the last thing one would associate with it. Red Faces, even when its contestants were as boring as the rest of the show became, managed to entertain because of regular judge Red Symons. He had the nerve to say about an act what everyone in the audience was thinking, a quality that is sorely missing from every variety show of the current era. Forget Simon Cowell - Red could easily chew the man up and spit out barbs that would make grown men cry. My personal favourite was when a man dressed in a bad chicken suit attempted to do a twisted keyboard and vocal version of These Are The People In Your Neighbourhood. Red's comment was simply that this man had accomplished the impossible by making the other two acts look good. Given that this segment was filmed in the declining days of the series, I don't think much imagination is required to understand what the other two acts were like.

Sadly, many shows show the terminal signs of inflexibility or idea dearth much sooner than did Hey Hey. The problem is that getting anything canceled in Australia is an uphill battle at best, even when advertising revenue is not a tenth of what it could be. There is only one show that lasted as long as Hey Hey and stayed good from first episode to last, and it did so because it regularly changed staff, allowing new ideas to make their way in. It was also British. In contrast to what many will tell you, nobody who saw Hey Hey in its last eight seasons will miss it.


This show was terrible its its final years. Daryl Somers refused to change the format of the show (like the bosses/fans kept telling him he should) and so it got axed (yet he was still suprised).

Whenever a side kick would get more popular then Daryl he would kick them off the show. He did this to Denise Drysdale because she was simply to funny, so anyhow he then decided to put blonde bimbos as his co-hosts on the show instead (they were really REALLY dim)

I will give the show credit for unveiling alot of talent on its RED faces segemnt (this was a segment EXACTLY the same as The Gong Show from America)but beyond that it was pathetic.

Actually the show was mentioned to Jay Leno once and he said " what a stupid name for a show, whats next run run its Monday. LOL This was actually show to Daryl during the show and he obviously wasnt expecting it by the look on his face. He was talking up Leno beforehand saying what a great guys he was and all this. You should have seen the look on his face what a classic!


Can't say I would have much faith in a bunch of scientists that come to survey the devastation reaped on the West Coast of Ireland but are so 'clever' that they fail to notice that the surveying instrument they are using does NOT have a battery. Admittedly I use this sort of gear all the time and do tend to notice minor details like whether or not I can actually turn it on or not but this crack team of experts seemed to miss that. Bet they felt silly when they got back to their base and found that all their work was lost cos they were too dumb to notice something as obvious. Not a bad film but some of the accents were a bit odd to say the least......and why is it that America always takes charge whenever Earth is threatened.....that would terrify me more than the bloody comet.:)


I watched this last night. Awful, but sometimes really bad is really good. Low points: - Bad North American accents by British actors. You might fool Britons, but not North Americans. The Chief of Defense staff sounded like he had a stroke, and I loved the guy with the overacted Southern drawl. - Unrealistic. A whole bunch of scientists detected the comet at a number of different places, but only our hero scientist can break the news to the world. I could go on. - The U.S. government is relying on the scientific advice of two scientists, even though the end of the world is about to happen. Maybe ask a few others for opinions, you know? - After six weeks of evacuations, there are still people waiting at the airport when the big day comes. - Bad science and bad script. Could've used a scientific adviser AND a script adviser. Too many science errors to count, poor character development with weird dialog. - Poor U.S., taking one for the team. The comet hit near Lake Ontario, which would have taken out about an area in Canada that supports about half the population (works out to about 16 million people). Remember Canada? It's the world's second-largest country by area, is about half of North America, and shares a queen with England. Darn Colonials.


I just watched Impact Earth and was really surprised to see that Dublin, the capital city of my fair country, has moved! Yes, you heard me Dublin has relocated to the North of Ireland and is now roughly where Belfast is. (Maybe Miss South Carolina was the geography consultant on this movie?) As if that isn't bad enough the Irish 'science' people in this movie are from Queens College Dublin. Note to the writer/director/producer - many Irish people are a bit tetchy about the subject of the British monarchy and would really not appreciate our main educational institution named after their queen. Folks maybe before your next movie you might check out the geographic and socio-political facts, eh?


Folks I live 10 miles from Shannon airport and I can tell you this - it is not located in Galway Bay and does not have a seaside beach. This show puts it about 50 miles from where it actually is. A small bit of research, say looking at a map, would've cleared this up. Dublin is not in north county Louth by the way and Queens University is not in Dublin, it is in Belfast. The very notion of an Irish university named after a British royal is insulting. The building used in the closeup shot is Dublin Castle. I like the new spin on America saving the world by the way. America takes one for the team i.e the rest of the world. An awful pile of rubbish this was.