American Gothic is consistently awful as a horror film, but is nonetheless an entertaining picture, thanks to an almost constant supply of unintentional humor.

Six friends fly off for a camping trip, but when their seaplane suffers engine trouble, they are forced to land on the beach of a remote island. While Jeff (Mark Ericksen) tries to repair the aircraft, the others set up camp nearby. Naturally, one of the friends ventures into the forest alone (what else would you do on a mysterious island where anything can happen?), leading to the first of many situations which are intended to be frightening but fall flat.

When the six meet up again at camp, Jeff informs the group that he cannot fix the plane. He suggests that they explore the island. In true horror movie fashion, Jeff proposes that one member of the party stay behind to keep an eye on the plane. Of course, no one sees any harm in leaving Paul (Steven Shelley) all by himself in a completely unfamiliar area, and so the other five set off in search of someone who can help them.

The group's expedition leads to the discovery of a small house, straight out of the 1920s. They assume that no one has lived there for ages, though logic dictates that someone must reside there, as all of the antique furniture is dust-free. Nevertheless, they put a record on the victrola and proceed to get their groove on. Their dance party is cut short by the arrival of the house's inhabitants -- two elderly folk known simply as Ma (Yvonne De Carlo) and Pa (Rod Steiger). They seem a nice enough sort. Pa informs the group that a friend of his should be coming by boat within the next few days, and could probably help them get home. Ma and Pa invite the kids to stay with them in the meantime, and they accept.

All is not well, however. The kids' modern lifestyle immediately clashes with Ma and Pa's traditional values. Pa nearly has a heart attack when Lynn (Fiona Hutchinson) lights a cigarette at the dinner table, and Ma is very disappointed in Cynthia (Sarah Torgov) when she fails to clean her plate. Bedtime brings more conflict, as Pa sternly informs Rob (Mark Lindsay Chapman) and Terri (Caroline Barclay) that they are to sleep in separate rooms, for they are not married. (Strangely, Jeff and Cynthia are married, yet they are also forced to sleep apart.) Ma and Pa's children soon enter the picture, and the group's suspicions that something isn't quite right are confirmed. To reveal more would give much of the plot away, but suffice it to say that things begin to go downhill for our friends at this point.

The characters are about as deep as a kiddy pool. That is not so unusual for a horror movie, but a problem arises from the film's feeble attempt to inject depth into the character of Cynthia. Periodic flashbacks to a traumatic event in Cynthia's life are supposed to make us feel for the character, but fail miserably. The movie does manage to evoke emotion in the viewer from time to time, but it has nothing to do with the filmmakers' talents, and everything to do with Steiger's. He actually manages to make the viewer sympathize with Pa and his psychopathic clan. The rest of the performances are unremarkable, but acceptable, given how little the actors have to work with.


I usually enjoy Sam Peckinpah films, but this slow paced, meandering meditation on the decline of the West just never sparked my interest. There's an excellent cast, great music, stunning cinematography, terrific production design ... all the ingredients are there, but it never came alive for me.

The performances are so understated that the characters have no definition. Kristofferson plays Billy the Kid and James Coburn his friend turned nemesis, Sheriff Pat Garrett. It takes two hours for Garrett and Billy to have their final showdown; in the process they drift languidly through one laconic scene after another. There's a fair amount of gunplay, with the by now banal slow motion deaths, but even the action sequences lack fire.

This is ultimately a meditative, brooding film, which is probably the idea; but it's just too plodding for my taste.

One trivial gripe: whatever they used for blood in this picture struck me as some of the fakiest I've ever seen. It looks exactly like plain red paint. It's actually a distraction, detracting from the impact of the action scenes. It's the one aspect of the production design that rings a false note.


With two classic westerns under his belt (Ride the High Country and The Wild Bunch)and a reputation for being a rebellious non-conformist you would think Sam Peckinpah the ideal person to relate the story of the teen prodigy outlaw, Billy the Kid. You would be wrong. From start to finish this western is an aimless mess. Scenes are poorly paced and disjointed. It looks like it was edited on a beach.

Kris Kristofferson is clearly too old and limited for Billy. As Garrett, James Coburn fares much better with a stylish and graceful performance that exudes a cool confidence despite being in conflict with himself. Bob Dylan supplies some fine music but his performance is an embarrassment. In minor rolls some of the great old guard (Slim Pickens, Katy Jurado, Chill Wills, Jack Elam, R G Armstrong) steal every scene they are in.

There's the requisite slow mo blood spattering scenes of violence and in one scene Chickens replace scorpions (without the symbolism) in a gruesome moment of male bonding but Peckinpah for the most part allows Dylan's score to set the pace in scenes, rendering them sluggish and mawkish.

At this point in his career it was clear Peckinpah had nothing left. Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid is a testament to how far and fast he had fallen.


I saw Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid again tonight after a few decades. What a disappointment. If the story is true that Sam Peckinpah was so angry at the studio cut that he urinated on the screen, I can see why. It suffers from bad casting, bad editing and dull pacing, and is often just plain boring. This is due in part to Bob Dylan's irritating music, which drones on and on in the background like a stuck record. They should have gone with a real score by someone who actually knows how to write music. Imagine "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" without Ennio Morricone. The dramatic tension in this movie could have been seriously improved by an intelligent soundtrack, and not amateur Dylan-whining. At the time it might have been hip, but decades later it's just plain bad. I did like the gritty, dusty sense of reality in the sets and locations. But how come everybody is grizzled and gritty except for Kris Kristofferson, who is totally clean-shaven in every scene. He always looks waxed and buffed, like he just stepped out of the make-up trailer. Wouldn't some stubble and grit look more realistic on a wanted outlaw? He's also too old for the part, can't act worth a damn, and always speaks in his famous patented monotone drawl that he uses for every movie he's ever been in. There's a lot of major flaws in this movie. Casting Bob Dylan was definitely one of them. He's totally out of place with all the famous characters like Jack Elam, Slim Pickens, and Dub Taylor. Putting him beside James Coburn, who is a real actor and very believable, is a joke. Dylan was obviously written in for one reason only--- to sell the soundtrack. One of the most over-rated westerns of all time, and definitely not one of Peckinpah's best.


It takes Sheriff Pat two hours of movie time to hunt down Outlaw Billy. Along the way, each has isolated, random encounters with an assortment of characters that do nothing to move the plot along. An aimless and uninteresting Western, showing Peckinpah's continued decline after the peak of "The Wild Bunch." Every now and then some breasts are bared to perk things up but a better script would have been more helpful. Bland Kristofferson uses two facial expressions in playing Billy: Smiley Face and Not Smiley Face. Dylan's role seems to be an afterthought; he mumbles only a handful of lines, the most significant being the reading of food can labels. The only good thing about this clunker is cameo appearances by a Who's Who cast of character actors.


Watching this movie was truly a painful experience. Billy the Kid was an insignificant, unremarkable, pimply-faced, orthodontia-challenged 21-year-old thug that is remembered today because the New Mexico Department of Tourism spends hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to make sure that we do.

I do "get" Peckinpaugh's revisionist history. Regardless, when 37-year-old Kris Kristofferson appears on screen as the 21-year-old "kid," reality takes flight. Kristofferson, already sporting a jowl and drawling in a voice that has been drowned in whiskey and fried by too many cigarettes (in real life), displays the acting range of a tree.

James Coburn? Please . . . . Would someone please tell me what Peckinpaugh saw in this hack? Folks, Peckinpaugh died young -- about 59 -- and he got a fairly late start in the movies. His body of work is small, very small. His "Wild Bunch" is a masterpiece on any level, but please do not try to elevate his other work more than it deserves. "The Iron Cross" has its moments, despite its weird ending, but most of Peckinpaugh's cinematic work is pedestrian. Period. End of report.


While Peckinpah fans will go to their graves insisting on it's high quality; (invisable only to us non Peckhead morons}; the fact remains right up their on the screen in any version: this is a nicely shot but vapid film, filled with uneven performances, dumb dialog, and pretentiously rehashed ideas from other Peckinpah films.

You might not have like Peckinpah's ideas in "Straw Dogs" or even "The Wild Bunch", but they were certainly guided by an original, virtuoso hand. Here characters wonder into a scene, crack a dirty joke, scratch themselves, and shoot somebody, or... maybe not. Peckinpah seems to be blowing vainglorious raspberry's at his critics, there are scenes of pointless cruelty enacted by the film's anti-heroes, animal abuse, and women whores who always seem happily mute in their work.

The cast, the photography, and Bob Dylan's good score give it curio value; and the Slim Pickens scene works well. This is, however, tough going and ultimately pretty dull. When you hear the commentators fawning over the film on the commentary, you can't help but thinking some of this sort of stuff played a part in the man's downfall. As Dylan once said of his early rock performances, met with vicious booing: "Well, you can kill somebody with kindness."


"A film about a man who doesn't want to run being chased by a man who doesn't want to catch him" is a much-noted synopsis regarding "Pat Garrett & Billy The Kid". You could also say it's a film starring actors who couldn't act directed by a director without direction.

That may be unfair, ignoring as it does the sterling work of James Coburn, who plays the first half of the title pair. But Kris Kristofferson, as Billy, and Bob Dylan, as his pal "Alias", look very much like rock stars on holiday in a film that tries to be both elegiac and unsentimental and winds up slack.

Of course, with Sam Peckinpah directing what amounted to his final western, "Pat Garrett" has its champions. It's about the death of the West, they say; a fair point, though not a fresh theme in Peckinpah's oeuvre. Or it's about the problem of a lawman upholding a corrupt law, though as with so many other things about this movie there's more subtext than text to deal with there.

What "Pat Garrett" isn't is an exciting, visceral entertainment on par with any of Peckinpah's other major films. Even "Major Dundee", though rambling in its own right, has a bounce and energy this movie lacks. Too many tequila sunrises were adding up for this director, and though he still had bullets in his gun, he wasn't placing them as well as before.

Take the scene many bring up in "Pat Garrett's" favor, when Slim Pickens and Katy Jurado face mortality on a riverbank to the strains of Dylan's "Knockin' On Heaven's Door". A great visual image, Jurado both crying and smiling against the dying sunlight, but neither Peckinpah nor the script by Rudy Wurlitzer do enough to prepare us for the scene, the aftermath of a silly-looking gunfight featuring Jurado's shotgun-wielding antics. We hadn't even met the couple ten minutes ago; so how wrapped up in their fates can we really be?

Coburn makes for a superb boozy center, playing very much against his hipster image and giving the film a gravitas it sorely needs. "Comes an age in a man's life when he doesn't want to spend time thinking' about what comes next," he says, a contrast from the forever-young come-what-may Billy. As the commentators on the DVD Special Edition noted, there's a strange lack of incident involving Billy, a criminal we see committing no crime, except resisting arrest and one cattle robbery which goes awry. It's not exactly Kristofferson's fault he comes off as such a cipher; just that he doesn't do enough to fill the void with any kind of personality.

Count me as one who prefers the 2005 Paul Seydor edit to the longer version released in 1988. Seydor's version lends a focus by tightening some rambling sections and restoring a useful episode involving Pat Garrett's wife. No doubt Peckinpah's 1973 release would have been definitive if he had been given enough time to craft it properly; the editing room was where his true genius emerged time and again. Yet one wonders how much blood and sweat it would have been worth given the dreary, inert material he seems to have shot here.

The nice thing about "Pat Garrett", apart from the inspired visuals from John Coquillon, is the chance to revisit recognizable faces from Peckinpah's other films offering what would be for most of them a final bow. Some really shine, too, like R.G. Armstrong as a dangerously zealous deputy, Richard Bright as a surly member of the Kid's gang, and Donnie Fritts as another, more easy-going member. A rock musician in real life, Fritts could have taught Kristofferson and Dylan something about looking natural on screen.


This TV made film that I saw on Cartoon Network wasn't that bad for a Scooby-Doo film. Basically Scooby, Shaggy and the very punchable Scappy-Doo are going to a mysterious house to collect some kind of fortune or treasure. While they are looking in this house there is a spirit trying to stop them. So they decide to get a ghost hunting team to get rid of it, The Boo Brothers. They are ghosts themselves, but they call themselves frighteners of ghosts. I basically like this for the treasure hunting. Scrappy is the only thing ruining this cartoon. If I ever saw Scrappy again, it would be the last, he has so got to die! Apart from that though, not bad. Scooby-Doo was number 8 on The 100 Greatest Kids' TV Shows, and he was number 49 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Worth a look!


for me,this is probably the worst Scooby Doo animated movie i have seen.i found it boring and not that funny compared to other Scooby adventures.the i didn't think the story was very good either.there seemed to be a lot more repetition than in other Scooby movies.there are also a few elements missing from this particular movie(that i most Scooby Do movies) and one element that was nothing other than annoying and i really could have done without.those elements are that only Shag and Scoob are in this movie.the rest of Mystery,INC are absent.the element i could have done without is the inclusion of Scrappy Doo,which to me is a pointless character.i had to struggle not turn this movie off before the end.this is the exception with Scooby Doo movies,so far in my experience.for me "Scooby Doo Meets the Boo Brothers" is a 4/10


Adaptation of John Patrick's play about American soldier trying to teach Democracy to the Japanese in 1946 Okinawa. One-joke material about cultural assimilation isn't exactly politically-correct when seen today, but were these stale, frantic jokes ever amusing? Marlon Brando's performance as an Oriental interpreter has to be seen to be believed; he's lively, yes, but there's a concerted effort to make him appear clownish (this couldn't have been Brando winging it--director Daniel Mann must assume part of the blame). This silly story never gains any momentum, and the slapstick hijinks are broad but stilted (they have a mechanical feel which, again, should be attributed to the direction). Glenn Ford, Paul Ford and Eddie Albert are solid as always, but they get swallowed up in this unfunny facade. *1/2 from ****


The state of Japan after World War II was one of devastation. The war had left millions of people without homes and shortages of food, corrupt practices such as prostitution were on the rise, and the Japanese had drug and alcohol problems due to the depressing and hopeless conditions. Inevitably, this time in Japanese history was a subject that Hollywood could not resist. A few years after the end of the American occupation in Japan, one of many films about this time was produced; however, Hollywood decided to give this one had a comedic twist. Daniel Mann's The Teahouse of the August Moon takes place in the village of Topiki in Okinawa during the American occupation of Japan, and stars some of the 1950s most popular actors of the time, including Glenn Ford who plays the clumsy military Captain Fisby, Paul Ford (no relation) who portrays Colonel Purdy,and Eddie Albert, who plays psychiatrist Captain McLean. Although he is on screen for most of the film, Marlon Brando was unrecognizable to many audiences in his role as Sakini, the Japanese interpreter. The film also features Japan's popular and talented Machiko Kyo as the geisha Lotus Blossom who has been sent away from numerous other occupation villages due to the never specified "trouble" that she had reportedly caused. Based off of the play of the same name, The Teahouse of August Moon sends many mixed messages about Japanese and American relations after World War II. In the film, the army instructs the inept Colonial Fisby to be in charge of the building of a new schoolhouse, which is to help the American's integration of democracy in the village. Through the verbal "trickery" of Sakini, the locals persuade Fisby to have a teahouse built instead. As they say in the industry, and hilarity ensues.

The film was advertised to the public as a satire on American politics, and, unfortunately, most of the public and even some critics were fooled the marketing ploy. To put things into perspective, the dictionary definition of satire is "A thing, fact, or circumstance that has the effect of making some person or thing ridiculous," and if anyone is made out to look ridiculous in the film, it's certainly the Japanese. Primarily, not only was casting Marlong Brando in the role of the Sakini a horrible decision, it was also offensive and insulting. The film came out shortly after the occupation had ended, and, without the access of the current twenty-first century media, Teahouse was one of the only ways that Americans were to obtain images and feelings toward and Japanese people and their history and culture. The fact that the starring role was played by a non-Japanese already sends out a powerful message to the public. There were bilingual Japanese actors at the time; the fact that the Japanese were not even allowed to represent themselves immediately sends a superiority implication. Secondly, the film is strong, yet subtle in its ridiculing of the Japanese that many people don't even realize what their brain is absorbing. Only upon paying close attention to the dialog and aesthetics of the film that audiences can see and hear the exact message that the film was sending. For instance, in the beginning of the film during a scene between Sakini and Colonel Purdy, and later Captain Fisby, Purdy offhandedly murmurs comments such as "Can't you natives ever learn anything about custom?" and later when Fisby offers to learn the language, Purdy replies "No need; we won the war!" These comments, which were intended to and do have audiences laughing, are putting the image of Japanese people being dumb and unable to learn, and insignificant and that people shouldn't and don't have to learn about their culture.

Although the film is stained with the fore mentioned vulgarities, some of the actor's performances and beautiful, although most likely inaccurate, set designs cannot go unnoticed. Despite the fact that she speaks solely Japanese and never has subtitles beneath her, Machiko Kyo was able to communicate through body language most of what she was saying, and this cannot go unrecognized, although her portrayal of a geisha is far from accurate. Her, as well as Eddie Albert, Glenn Ford, and, unfortunately, Marlon Brando all received Golden Globe nominations, but all failed to bring home the award.

Although many people in today's society may roll their eyes at yet another attack of political correctness, it is essential to note that films, in both the past and present, shape people's perceptions of the world. Even fifty years later, many people don't take advantage all the media that they have access to, and get their views on the world from the latest gross-out comedies and Friday night television line-ups. Filmmakers need to take more responsibility for their films; even acknowledging that the Japanese were being ridiculed in Teahouse would have been a step in the right direction. Fortunately, the twenty-first century has brought the world and increasing number of films that not only have a conscious, but were also popular among critics and at the box office, such as Blood Diamond and An Inconvenient Truth. The Teahouse of the August Moon should be looked at as a shameful example in film history, and something to learn from for both filmmakers and the public. To add to the lesson, the film was nominated for was the Golden Globe award for "Motion Picture Promoting International Understanding". Fortunately, it lost.


I generally HATE the notion of "political correctness". I feel it is every American's first amendment right to say and do almost anything and that people who get offended should just learn to relax! Having said that, it is movies like THIS that encourage PC thought, as the movie has got to be offensive to most Japanese people. Not only did the studio pick an actor who looked COMPLETELY non-Japanese, but his part looked like a live-action version of the old Hoshimoto cartoons (as for his 'method acting', I think Marlon Brando watched dozens of these before attempting the part). Marlon Brando is nearly the Japanese equivalent to Stepin Fetchit. In the 1930s and 40s, it was common for Caucasians to play Asians (such as in the Charlie Chan or Mr. Wong pictures)--it's a shame to see this carry into the 1950s with Teahouse of the August Moon. Plus, his character is even more stereotypical than these earlier roles.

FYI--It's amazing that Brando did this movie, having also done the VERY sensitive movie Sayonara--a movie that really does a lot to humanize the Japanese. Also, for more highly offensive films featuring Westerners ridiculously cast as Asians, try Katherine Hepburn as a Chinese lady in DRAGON SEED, Mickey Rooney as a Japanese man in BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S and John Wayne as the Mongol warrior, Genghis Khan in THE CONQUERER. The worst, though, was probably the bright red hairdos of Susan Hayward and Agnes Morehead also from THE CONQUERER--even though they were clearly playing Mongolians!!!


What can I say about this film, except that it was an enormous disappointment. The comedy was mostly clumsy and nearly humorless, which made the whole thing extremely exhausting to watch. Even the cast couldn't save the film. Don't waste your time on this.


This movie is tiresome, not funny, and with Brando playing an Asian including fake eye makeup and a buck-toothed accent offensively racist. Ouch, what a waste of a rental. Stay away from this turkey. It seems to have been made on a shoestring, at one point during the introductory scene the boom mike dips into the picture as it follows a young Harry Morgan down to the floor. In another scene, a posturing wrestler chosen as a town leader inadvertently almost stumbles off the podium - they never stopped the camera, just kept filming as Glenn Ford seems to badly ad lib his lines. Save your money and your time.


I remember Playboy magazine had a spread with Misty Rowe when this film was made. She recreated Marilyn Monroe's poses for the magazine and I wanted to see the movie because of it. I finally saw it on video. I wish I never did, it ranks as one of the worst films I ever saw. I mean total trash, no wonder it never got theatrical release.

The movie is a retelling of Marilyn Monroe's life, I think it may have been adapted from one of the books that Robert Slatzer's (SLEAZER) published about Miss Monroe. You know him, he's the guy who claimed to have been Marilyn's confidant and husband for about a weekend. All his claims were never proved as a matter of fact his marriage claim was totally disproven when a check dated at the same time of their wedding and signed by Miss Monroe proved that she was in Los Angeles at the time. Even if it weren't based on Slatzer's (SLEAZER) writing it's just plain garbage.

Source material aside it was the whole film was a mess. The editing looked jumpy, the acting terrible, the dialogue lame and it sounds as if everything the actors said reverberated on the wall. The film looked like it was shot with the wost film stock they can find. I think it may have been shot in 8MM, I mean it looked horrible. As for the casting, they casts "Hee Haw" Honey Misty Rowe as Marilyn. I mean I always thought Miss Rowe was a total babe but come on she absolutely look nothing like Marilyn Monroe. Then again Poppy Montgomery, Mira Sorvino, Asley Judd all played Marilyn and they look nothing like her. At least they can act.

Two things that really stuck in my mind is the theme song, a soft rock/folk rock tune that went "Norma Jean wants to be a movie queen" and the other thing is when she finally gets her big break she utters the immortal words "I never have to perform fellatio again", except in a more graphic term.


I remember bullying my then-boyfriend (now husband, in spite of my demonstrably bad taste in movies by wanting to even SEE this) to go see this in '76 when it first came out. He fought it, but being a guy, he finally agreed to humor me. About ten minutes into the movie, people started leaving -- it was THAT bad. I turned to him and said, "OK, you win. It stinks. Let's go." My punishment? We couldn't go -- we had to sit there and watch the WHOLE THING. Omigod, it must have been filmed by a blind man and edited a drunk and on crack. It was just an exploitively poor excuse for soft porn that happened to tack Marilyn Monroe's name on it. If I were her, I'd sue from the grave! When the final credits started to roll, he turned to me and said, "I'm sorry -- it was so bad that NO ONE should have had to sit through that." We still laugh about it, 30 years later, but it's definitely the top of the list as far as bad movies go!


The Intro. reads "not as others told it; not as she told it; but as it really was". WRONG! It doesn't even get her early hair color right.

It depicts Marilyn as a complete naive airhead, who did not enjoy sex, and whose life (other than her eventual success in movies) was one of neverending abuse. She is depicted as really the same as the studio-pushed persona she later often had to use - a dumb blonde with that airhead voice. There is something of the Cinderella story here, as her early life was rough. The real basis of the film is the "revenge" theme. There is quite a man-hating aspect to it. It is not graphic, but the heroine endures repeated abuse, including rapes, forced lesbian sex and oral sex (in this movie it might be called "the casting floor"), but gets her revenge by eventually becoming a success as Marilyn. Some poor films and most soaps are watchable because of an attractive cast; this one lacks even that, other than Preston Hanson and Patch Mackenzie.


This exploitive piece of garbage has the look of either a bad T.V movie or a porn flick. Misty Rowe (the name sounds like a stripper) portrays Norma Jean as an idiot bordering on mental retardation. The script is terrible. The acting sucks. Marilyn Monroe would roll over in her grave if she ever saw this movie.


this is the worst movie i have ever seen. yes, i know that marilyn was raped but they make it so rediculous,like with a woman. i really dont think she would stoop so low.i have read up on her very much and there was no mention of that many rapes, or that close together. it seemed like everyday she got raped at least once. it is just heartbreaking to see a movie like that saying this is how it happened and it is the worst movie ever made


I watched this film because I am, at times, a film masochist. While I love classic Hollywood films, independent films and foreign cinema, I also have a soft place in my heart for the truly horrible films. I particularly love the worst schlock from the 1950s and 60s. And, considering that Larry Buchanan is one of the absolute worst directors of this era, GOODBYE, NORMA JEAN was a must-see.

The first thing I noticed is that the film maker really intended this as a "skin flick" by inserting needless nudity. Facts and getting the story straight were NOT high priorities. I especially like how they didn't even try to make Misty Rowe look that much like Marilyn. Before being discovered by Hollywood, Marilyn didn't have bleached blonde hair, as anyone vaguely acquainted with Marilyn's life would have known--but I guess wigs or hair dye were just too expensive for this film! The next thing I noticed is that this really wasn't a biography but instead was more like a series of sexually explicit episodes (a lotta rapes in particular) and beatings that were linked together by the theme of Marilyn Monroe--like it was inspired by her life only! In other words, it was pure exploitation. Instead of being titillating, however, it all came off as gross. Sure, Ms. Rowe was a sexy dish, but seeing her supposedly raped again and again is definitely NOT a turn-on for normal folks!! In fact, I sure worry about anyone who LIKES watching these terrible scenes. I really think if they had perhaps kept the nudity but not have it be in the forms of violent rapes it wouldn't offend most viewers.

Another really bad aspect of the film is the dialog. Again and again, Ms. Rowe goes off on the most ridiculous little speeches that don't sound the least bit like the way real people talk. In particular, the casting couch speech was laughable but examples of insipid drivel for dialog abound. Another great bit of dialog is the scene where Marilyn's mother appears in a dream wearing a straight-jacket and talks on and on about how hard life is! Ugghh!

Overall, there isn't really anything good about the film, though the production values are a lot better than Larry Buchanan's other films--which still isn't saying very much! Also, if you are looking for anything on the later life of Marilyn, this film isn't it as it focuses on the early career only. In 1989, Buchanan created GOODNIGHT, SWEET MARILYN that supposedly deals with Marilyn's last days. If it's as close to the facts as this film, expect to possibly see space aliens and a visit from Pope Innocent III in the movie! GOODBYE, NORMA JEAN is a rather sad and pathetic excuse for a film. The only reason it gets a 2 is that at least for Larry Buchanan it's got reasonably decent production values.

Written, directed, produced and edited by the great auteur, it is a soul-less and evil little movie.


I made the mistake of watching this and buying it. I have a lot of stuff to say to make this movie seem like junk and it is.

Marilyn was never forced to have sexual relations with any of her casting directors. The studio names were messed up, the modeling agency she was at was not named the same. It's full of nudity and Marilyn didn't do anything like that until Somethings Got To Give and the famous Playboy issue. She wasn't raped by a police man. All the none sense about the "Whamo ammo" girl trash is all false. The names are wrong, except for Norma Jean Baker, that seems to be the only thing Larry Buchanan could spell.

I hated this movie and if anyone wants to disagree with me and say its good then they're wrong and wasting their time.

I'd give it 1/2 out of 4 stars.


"Dr. Black and Mr. Hyde" is cursed by the same affliction as its protagonist/villain: it is a good movie that constantly morphs into a bad movie, until finally it's nothing more than a bad movie.

The plot starts off well, and is very intriguing at first. Dr. Pryde (Bernie Casey) is working with female colleague Billie Worth (Rosalind Cash) on a way to regenerate damaged liver tissue. He donates medical care to a clinic in the Watts projects. There is some interesting tension in the movie's early scenes, as Dr. Pryde speaks frankly with one of his clinic patients, a prostitute named Linda (Marie O'Henry) that he's treating for hepatitis. Linda is an interesting character in the film, as the first time we see her, she's sitting nude on an examination table. A bold introduction for a character, especially a major one, and I don't remember many films where the director has made a move like this. Linda is very sympathetic, and Pryde seems to truly respect her, despite how some may look down on her profession.

The attitude toward prostitution in the film is very matter-of-fact, which was fairly daring for a movie made in the early 70s, and it even proves to be a pivotal plot element. Dr. Pryde has an emotional discussion with Linda about how his mother passed away, which he blames on the inhabitants of a whorehouse who refused to help her. The main three actors here (Casey, Cash, and O'Henry) are all in very good form, which helps give the movie an unusual lift in quality.

It's in the details that the film starts to go wrong. If Casey had been a bad actor, it would have been easier to understand how he descends into a dual personality after taking some of his own liver serum, which of course turns him into a rampaging beast. But considering that Pryde shows so much real interest and respect for Linda at the outset, it's impossible to understand why he would do what he does. After taking a single injection of the serum himself, he then decides to woo Linda on a date, lays a big line on her about not wanting her "professional services" and simply wanting her company, and then he reveals that it was all because he wants her to allow him to inject her with the serum. We lose our sympathy for Pryde, and immediately the film unravels.

The Mr. Hyde creature is a strange one. One of the characters in the film refers to it as a "haint", which I don't get. My grandmother was southern, and I know full well that a "haint" is a ghost. Mr. Hyde is just Casey with some contact lenses, facial molds, and white makeup. It's funny how the people in the film are so easily duped by the transformation; in one scene, Hyde rampages inside a seedy bar, gets cut, and bolts outside into the parking lot, where he reverts to Pryde. His pursuers don't recognize him at all, despite the fact that he's wearing the same clothes, bleeding, and all that's changed is his complexion. Hyde doesn't even really look "white", as the movie suggests, and it's hilarious that the black folks in the movie pretend to be fooled by it. Perhaps if the makeup had been more shockingly white, it would have been an effective contrast.

It bears mentioning that the film's director also made "Blacula", a film that is eons better than this one. "Blacula" was pure silliness too, but it was very entertaining and it never betrayed its characters the way this one does. "Dr. Black and Mr. Hyde" also has a bigger problem: it has no thrills or chills. There is only one mild shock, when an old lady patient suddenly lunges at a nurse. There's also a fairly effective chase scene where Hyde goes after Linda in an abandoned warehouse.

Unfortunately, the remaining parts of the movie are fair to awful. The supporting cast is mostly terrible, especially the policemen who are working on the Hyde case, and it seems as if this part of the script is really badly done. The situations in the film make no sense, including one scene where Mr. Hyde uses his car to run down a pimp in an alley, and the pimp takes out his knife and attempts to "stab" the grille of the car in self defense. Whatever! Maybe if he'd hit a vital belt or gasket, he would have had a chance.

In a very strange ending, Hyde climbs the Watts towers and is shot down, just like King Kong. The image is surprisingly haunting, a human body inside the twisting metal of the tower, but it's not enough to make up for the gross sins that have come before it. It's worth mentioning that "Dr. Black and Mr. Hyde" is not nearly as bad as one of the other blaxploitation horror riffs, "Blackenstein"--but those of you who have actually SEEN "Blackenstein" will understand that this is not saying very much.


Wow, is this a cheap Blaxploitation film. Now it is true that many films of the genre have low budgets, but this one is strictly grade-z. Unlike other Blaxploitation films, this has almost no incidental music, has really poor camera-work and looks like it was made with an 8mm camera and $59.99 to pay the cast and crew. Oddly, however, the doctor drives around in a classic Rolls! What an odd dichotomy!

Bernie Casey plays an incredibly stupid and listless doctor who is performing research on the side. My wife was laughing at how he didn't wear gloves and conducted his "experiments" like he had no idea what he was supposed to be doing. I thought it funny that the doc didn't seem to think it was a big deal when one rat he injected with a serum killed all the other rats! In fact, soon after this, he injected it in some poor lady--who became a crazed zombie and soon died. So naturally, he decides to try it on himself!! Wow, nobody is any dumber than Casey! And, after turning into a bad fighting machine that looks like he fell into a vat of flour while using the drug, he then insists on injecting others! Duh!

Well, unfortunately it never really gets any smarter or more interesting. The only actor who seemed like a professional and had some presence about him was Ji-Tu Cumbuka as Lt. Jackson. Even the usually talented Casey seems like he was totally uninterested in making this film.

Perhaps the film was meant to appeal to the audience's antipathy towards White folks, as the rat and Casey both turned white and became killing machines. But because the whole thing is so dull and listless, any attempt at social commentary is wasted--if it was even attempted in the first place.

By the way, this is an odd observation, but if you do watch the film, notice the color spectrum. All too often, the film (which is already washed out) looks really bleak--with lots of browns and whites but very few blues or greens. They really should have noticed this, but considering the film was made by rank amateurs, it's not surprising it looked so craptastic (or is the word 'craptacular'?).

Also, and I know this will sound cruel, but it was also amazing that there were so many unattractive women in the film that were naked. Couldn't they afford better?

No humor, no suspense, no nothing--this film is a dog from start to finish. This film is only for the most hard-core nut who has already seen all the other Blaxploitation monster films, such as ABBY (sort of like the Black EXORCIST), BLACKENSTEIN or the Blacula movies (and I am one of those nuts who has seen 'em all--so you won't have to).

By the way, the DVD extras have absolutely nothing to do with the film. Instead, it consists of some fan-created films involving superheros (the type usually shown at ComicCon or distributed on the internet). For fan films, they are amazing and look 1000x better than DR. BLACK, MR. HYDE.


This is the first film I have seen where there is no plot. Apparently that is the plot???? A friend of mine who did his military service in the Soviet Army during the late 1980s said that the film's portrayal of the uniforms and barracks etc are very accurate. There was however no apparent mention of the dedovshina endemic in much of the Russian Army. Dedovshina (Law of the grandads) is the bullying (often very violent) of the new soldiers or dushi (spirits) by the older soldiers known as deds or dembels (grandads).

Many have commented on the supposed homoerotic scenes in the communal bath or banya, where the soldiers are seen washing each other down. According to my friend this portrayal of the banya is accurate, however the homoerotic interpretations are NOT!!! In the USSR homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness, and in the Soviet military it was an imprisonable offence. In addition there is substantial and often violent homophobia in Russia, nowhere more so than in the military. According to my friend if you were even suspected of being gay, let alone getting turned on by the sight of your fellow soldiers naked in the banya you would not have left the banya alive - literally.....BE WARNED!!!! All in all this is a very odd film. There is clearly some deep an inner meaning in it somewhere, but I'm afraid it was a bit too deep and inner for me.


Oh my .... my Russian film kick has turned up a rarefied film. Its vaguely about a Russian boot camp. Lots of young soldiers looking at the camera, looking at each other. Marching by in uniform, by the dozens. Swimming. Mass sponge baths. Yes they give each other sponge baths.

This film makes me speechless. Can a movie possibly be this bad? And its quite artistically filmed, with lots of locales and a big cast. Nothing really happens during the movie, although there seems to be some subtle winking going on between the soldiers. But then there's other soldiers that keep exclaiming "Don't goggle me!".

The movie manages to be as slow as a snail, yet impossible to figure out whats going on.

the camera slowly dollies past each scene, which is generally a bunch of soldiers doing the same thing. They may be standing at attention.... they may be walking down the hallway, but you get to watch all 200 or so soldiers pass, every time. When they pan over the faces of the soldiers standing at attention, you get to see the motionless expression of, like all of them!


This movie was either too deep and beyond my simple intelligence due to language and sufficient English subtitles or the people making this movie were uncertain of what the movie was suppose to convey. The movie was very vague, confusing and just left me feeling that I had wasted about 3 hours of my time. Yes, 3 hours, because I had to keep going back from the beginning to see if maybe I had missed something. Were these guys in boot camp? Were they in an insane asylum? Were they in a prison? I wish I could get the writer to tell us what he was trying to convey. I am really unable to give a summary because this movie jumps around from scene to scene. I don't know if at one point it is a real scene or someone's dream or imagination. In the end, I am uncertain if all the characters in the movie got killed, died or committed suicide. I do not recommend this movie.


I watched the film with my DVD player on double and sometimes quadruple speed and I don't think i missed a thing.

Since when does the army(of any country)take the time to have each soldier laboriously sponge bath one another? Why, when a soldier comes into the barracks drunk and late while everybody is asleep, does he pee on another guys face? WHY DID EVERYBODY JUST STARE AT THE CAMERA!?!?!?!?!?! Yeah, there were some artistically done shots, but they were not enough to make up for the three minute shots of absolutely nothing happening. For instance the time when the soldiers were all standing in a group. The camera panned across there faces, which took like two minutes. Then when the camera got the end it started panning back in the other direction. The whole scene took like 5 minutes and and I didn't even recognize any of the people in it.

I've seen a lot of art-house films and a lot of art and film in general in my life, but this film was just kinda boring.


First of all, I agree with most of the posters that say that Fox should have been shot for the way they handled "Normal, Ohio." That being said, a good amount of the blame should also be laid at the feet of John Goodman himself, who seemed to base his response to interviewers who asked about the show on its original title: "Don't Ask."

As good an actor as he is, John Goodman was the wrong actor to choose, in that he did everything but sabotage the show himself. He seemed very uncomfortable--almost to the point of hostility--that there was some small contingent of the gay community that might find him desirable, and that doesn't go over so well when you're playing a gay man on a gay-themed comedy. I didn't expect him to be anything like Richard Karn (who is aware of his gay following and is cool with it), but he definitely didn't handle it well.

But most of all, I miss this show because of the possibilities that would have been opened up had Fox not pulled the plug and showed a bit more moxie. If it had continued, Butch would have gotten a love interest--none other than Dan Aykroyd! This was a show that could have finally broken the "Will and Grace" stereotype of gay men that seems to have a complete stranglehold on the media. Only one other show has come close, and that was the two "Wings" episodes with "Men in Trees'" Abraham Benrubi (another straight-but-not-narrow actor who actually appeared on "Roseanne" as a younger version of Goodman's character). Sadly, like most potentially daring ideas on TV nowadays, they were forced to sacrifice their higher concept for survivability.


As an actor Mike Binder isn't much. But at a director he rides the crest of sappiness and uses only what he can borrow from the well of older movies. I've never seen a writer-director so incapable of coming up with something new. At best he's a mediocre TV director.

"Man about Town" is about a guy who works too much and eventually learns that he needs to spend time with his family. Woo, there's a plot. Affleck, normally decent, sleepwalks through the role. Romjin, normally hot and exciting, is listless and dull. The rest of the cast are throwaways (except Hesse, who could have had more screen time)..

But it's the story - or lack thereof - that makes this a waste. There's no real explanation of anyone's motives and you never really find anything out. The story builds to various climaxes which are suddenly diffused in order to continue towards the end - as if the director was ready to resolve something but needed more time. Nasty violence happens out of the blue and out of character.

The point seems to be to get Affleck to realize that he loves his wife and can forgive her adultery. Along the way comic relief is offered grade-B 1950s style: people standing in corners have doors slammed in their faces; phone conversations happen where A is talking to B but C thinks A is talking to him so; characters yell and posture about things that come into their heads separate from any storyline ......

Presumably Binder had a sense of all this and so resorts to the laziest trick: it's narrated throughout. You can't follow it anyway but if you fast-forward (as you want to) you lose any possible sense of continuity that the worthless narration (Affleck reading his journal) might give.

All in all, a complete waste of time: no laughs, no love, no drama, no eurekas. Nada.


Well this movie is simply - a waste of time. I only watched it because the reviewer before me said there was comedy in here, but I failed to spot anything, and I mean anything funny - at all. I don't know about you, but I don't really find cheating funny, or a medical stroke, or a car crash, or GBH, and apart from a bad tooth job joke which was on a level of a 3 year old knock knock joke, there was nothing to be called this movie "comedy" about.

As for the "drama" - despite all the above mentioned, I wouldn't even classify this as a drama, its hard to explain unless you see the movie, but all the above bad stuff has been dealt with in the movie so terribly, that you don't even get to feel for the guy, or the girl, or pretty much anyone. And if there is no feelings developed for any of the characters, there is no drama when something happen to them. In fact, the remote sadness I felt was for the 2 second car crash, which was so understated, that you really had no chance to develop even a tear.

The story was so badly written, that if you asked me what was the movie about - it was about a (badly written) journal really. The story was, boring and shallow, with ludicrous action points, and final that makes you say "What the...?"

So, a "Feel good movie"? I'm actually feeling very angry now at wasting 1.5 hrs of my life on this. And to top it all it did not help that narrator was Ben's monotonous "I don't care about anything including this movie" voice.

So all I can say is, I'm off to watch some Lee Evans. Now THAT's a "comedy", full of action, passion and feelings: all that this movie - IS NOT!

PASS!


This movie was advertised as a romantic comedy, but there was no romance and no comedy. All I saw was a boring story about a horrible person, a talent agent, whom I found myself rooting against. Talent agents are, in general, not likable characters. So why did the director think we'd enjoy spending a few hours with one, even if he's played by Ben Affleck? The nepotism and shallow nature of Hollywood seem to be accurately portrayed in this movie. Behind the red carpet glamour of the movie industry lies a dirty business totally lacking any morals or ethical standard. But this was well documented in "The Player" and doesn't need to be repeated. I couldn't bring myself to care about Affleck's character, and thus didn't get emotionally involved with this movie.


Sure, every man's life is suddenly ameliorated when a supermodel lands in his lap. And even though he's admittedly spent more time on his abs than on his marriage, after she runs off on a fling with another man, she'll spend the rest of the script trying to get back into his arms. Hollywood still loves a good fairytale.

The movie revolves around Jack's "journal." He's nearly killed over it, but the cops are not called in. He knows who attacked him, but the cops are not called in. He finds out who initiated the attack, but the cops are not called in. The most telling of all: the journal will make Barbi Ling's career skyrocket; it holds Jack's secrets, holds information that contradicts his testimony in court, holds information that can destroy Jack, her ultimate goal.

So, does she copy the pages? Store it away in a vault? Keep it in a safe place?

No, she travels all over the city with it and loses it twice back to Jack.

Finally, in the end, Jack gets his journal back, threatens to call the cops (duh), takes back the wife who's cuckolded him, and quits his business so he can now live life again (something that would have been forced upon him had Ling published her story).

As a comedy, it hardly works. As a drama it doesn't work. As a juvenile exercise in how not to write a script, it excels.


This is the single worst film ever made. Please do not see it.

The problems with this film are principally with the writing, directing, acting and editing.

Of these problems, though, the writing and directing are the most serious. This movie is narrated and even with this hackneyed device it makes almost no sense at all. The plot is paper-thin and there is no character development at all. The dialogue sounds as if it had been written by someone who'd once been told about human interaction but hadn't ever experienced it.

The direction is sloppy and underscores the fundamental lack of identity this film suffers from. It's neither comedy, nor drama. The "jokes" (THAT teeth gag) are old and flimsy and the drama (really ugly violence) is completely out of character and largely non-sensical.

I can't go on as it's making me angry, again. I want my time back. This movie is an insult to the medium.


Okay, first of all, Ben Affleck is one of the partners of a high-powered Hollywood agency. About halfway through, he moans about never being able to close a deal or get things done. How the hell did someone like that become head of a high-powered Hollywood agency? Second, why do we care about him? He's shallow, uninteresting and his life is meaningless. That's supposed to be the point, I gather, but this is no Jerry MacGuire and no hidden interesting depths are to be found here. Third, his supermodel wife (!) has absolutely no character. She mopes around about how much she loves him (even though she's been having an affair with one of his clients), but we learn nothing about her except that she has no personality. The whole movie's emotional center is supposed to be whether he gets back together with her, but we have no reason to think they should be together in the first place (and no, the idiotic virtual CGI sequence of them scuba-diving doesn't provide that context). Fourth, the Asian woman who steals Ben's journal - every time the agency folk meet this woman, she (A) HAPPENS to have the journal in her purse (which would be the stupidest thing in the world to carry to a meeting with them) and (B) they STEAL it from her and run in a merry Keystone Cops-like chase that's completely absurd and unnecessary since...IT'S NOT HERS TO BEGIN WITH. IT'S STOLEN PROPERTY. CALL THE POLICE, YOU SIX PEOPLE WITH CELL PHONES!!! But, no, no, that would make sense. And finally (although I could go on and on), the ending where Ben and Rebecca ride away from Hollywood to who knows where. I thought to myself, where are they going? They can only function in Hollywood. They have no other existence beyond Hollywood. The viewer can't conceive of them anywhere else the way they've been presented. This movie made absolutely no emotional or logical sense, I didn't understand the writer-director's take on Ben Affleck's character at all. I don't want to bag on Ben - he's actually good when used correctly = I blame the script and direction that left him standing around with egg on his face (and on his Armani suit).

Oh, I did like Howard Hesseman.


Caught this during Showtime's free-view as the first of what (I hope) was an unintentional Ben Affleck Marathon, as this stinker was followed by another stinker (The Third Wheel), then one more for sh*ts and giggles (Reindeer Games). Why a Lifetime Razzie has so far eluded Benjy's talentless clutches is beyond me! As one of the posters said, just when you think he can't sink any lower, he does!

You'd think Jack A-Hole would figure out how his minions REALLY think of him when they haul him to that dentist! Au contraire! After beating the crap out of the guy who beat the crap out of him, he goes back to the SAME DENTIST when he should be hauling the clown into court for making him look like Tom Cruise's retarded cousin! And some people wonder why this turkey was shelved for 2 years!

The female characters are even more loathsome than their male counterparts. Barbi is a Dragon Lady racist cliché! And like the rotten cherry on top, Mrs. Jack A-Hole and Dragon Lady duke it out in one room over his precious journal while the wife of a client he is desperate to land insists on aping Sharon Stone in another room while his Top Client (over whom Jack A-Hole kicked Mrs. Jack A-Hole out of the house) drops in to beg forgiveness! That whirring sound you hear is Preston Sturges spinning in his grave!

So who winds up running things after Mr. and Mrs. Jack A-Hole kiss and make up in the fish tank? (I kid you not!) Why, the token lesbian of course, who has more cojones in her pinkie than all the men in the movie put together! 'Nuff said!


A guys life is in trouble. He finds out his wife is cheating on him, and the journal he is writing as a result of a class of self discovery he is following gets stolen and used against him. How has his life come to that point and where will it go from here? If such interests you, go see this film.

Otherwise, avoid it all costs. It is bland, told solely from the side of the "victim" that does his best to sound like an absolute drama queen, failing miserably at that. He's having a bad time. Big deal, deal with it. Just like everyone else.

A couple short attempts at humor get made but none of them take the film into more than a small smirk or a light chuckle. A sense of drama is added but none of it is bad enough to make one bond with the lead character.

So in short. This film is as flat as the country I live in and not worth the celluloid it was filmed on.

2 out of 10 very boring drama queens


Just when you think Affleck can't get any worse, he, and his movie choices do just that...reliably so.

It is hard to believe that someone with an academy award for screen writing (undeserved, boogie nights deserved it)can't select even a halfway decent script when it arrives for him. Or maybe people simply aren't sending him any good scripts because they have realized he cannot act.

Regardless, I cannot in good conscience give a full review of this film, since it was so horrid that i turned it off 40 minutes in to watch Meerkat Manor...because it has better acting and a better story.

chalk up another disaster for Affleck, a man who has dropped more bombs than the air force.

I really do not know what else to say...avoid it if you can...the theaters sure did.


seeing it on cable. It was not very good. It's not really funny nor is it very entertaining. Ben Affleck is back to making the same boring, bad acting films. Rebecca Romijn still looks good for her age but still has little screen presence. If she wants to act, she should stick to TV roles. Ling Bai was OK, she offers what little humor there is. Also, as for the story, I don't buy that some fairly young, good looking guy with a high powered job would be just OK with his hot wife cheating on him with a client. He wouldn't just take her back.

FINAL VERDICT: Just another Ben Affleck disappointment. There's nothing in this film really worth watching.


I was disappointed to find that I was unable to watch this film as there was no captions. I would have thought as the film was made in 2006 and in this era of marvellous technology, this would have been available.

I thought when I hired the DVD, that there were subtitles available but after a phone call to the Video shop, I was informed that if you look closer, there was no tick beside the word, subtitles.

Maybe it would have been better if the word, subtitles, was not written on the DVD cover. Normally, I would look for this word and if it is not there, I assume that the DVD is not subtitled.


Thankfully not a lot of people saw this movie, but it's scary that a film like this could be made in 2006. I enjoy politically incorrect movies when they make fun of people's ignorant perspectives, but this film was flat out racist. How many Asians are really represented in the film industry on or off camera. Here you have an unlikeable Asian character who has a "chip on her shoulder" because the "white man" won't let her in the film industry. She's poked fun of like the director's saying "take off the training wheels- you're just untalented." But, let's pose this question: is it really unjustifiable for her to have the perspective that the industry is a closed industry. Open your eyes and look at the amount and quality of work that's out there for minorities, especially Asians. Go to the DGA or SAG and get the facts. It seem like the director is saying that the industry is not closed- people make it on their own talent. If Asians are underrepresented, is he saying they have no talent (just look at Ang Lee, Zhang Yimou, Gong Li)? Why mock a person with no talent and make her Asian, who belongs in Chinatown to a buffoon-like family of kung fu artists. The fact that this director is Jewish and has no ability to make reference to being a victim of prejudice is hypocritical and plain idiotic. It seems like he had his own personal vendetta and made this horrific picture. How would he feel if people thought every Jew in the industry is working because of nepotism.


I saw this movie in a test screening, and it is not good. Bad acting, especially by Affleck, and i wants to be Jerry Maguire, but it doesn't even come close. The director did a good job with The Upside of Anger but here he really messes up. I thought this was supposed to be Affleck's comeback movie? I hear its has been on the shelf for over 2 years in the US and is currently being released overseas...now I hear Lions Gate has picked up and it is going STRAIGHT TO DVD!! In other words, it sucks. This must be embarrassing to Affleck, as he was praising it in interviews last year. This guy needs to learn how to pick scripts. Surviving Xmas, Gigli, Jersey Girl, anyone? Wow, he is turning into the male version of Tara Reid.


First of all I am sorry for my poor English, I just want to say that the moral of this movie is just wrong, I would say stupid, the wife betrays her husband and he "cuckold" forgives her easily... No way, this is not real, so what is the moral then, I could not understand, I like Ben Affleck and enjoyed some parts of the movie where he says about his family and his father, these parts are good and makes people to think, moreover the movie is full of funny stories, however, the main idea and subject is totally wrong and this movie may cause some wives to betray their husbands, thinking their husbands will forgive them?! This movie can destroy normal families, I would not recommend to see it, it may mislead one, These are my opinion and I would glad to have any comments from you, my e-mail is: murod2000@yahoo.com sorry if I said something wrong and wish you and your families all the best... Best regards, Murodkhon


After i couldn't get a ticket for Clerks2 or Silent hill because of the age problem( i am still not 15, not long to go though) so instead i bought a ticket for this film since all the other movies looked quite stupid. So i went in and the movie started. It was good for like the first 15-20 minutes than the nightmare began.

Affleck was horrible and i mean just horrible in this movie, the jokes he told were supposed to be funny but were not and were rather lame, The scenes which were supposed to be touching and emotional were just plain re***ded. This was the third movie of him that i have seen(the first and second being GWH and DD) and its probably the last one of his movies that i am gonna see.

The scenes where Affleck goes to that writer dude's house and makes that help me help you speech was a limp rip off of Tom cruise's Jerry Maguire speech.

The supporting cast was also horrible except for the guy who played the teacher and a one or two others.

That's not the only thing that makes me hate this movie, i mean i sometimes like a movie with bad acting but good story and i thought the story was going to get better at the end but guess what? it stayed the same during the whole movie and the plot was just full of holes.

I really wanted to like this movie but half way through the movie i stopped trying to find good points in the movie mainly because there weren't many so overall it's a disappointing movie and i wouldn't recommend anybody to watch it.

3/10


With two of the principals dead and the other in jail, I don't understand why the film makers skipped and/or took liberties with key details, and didn't delve headfirst into the sleaze fest that was the real story. Pelosi has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever, but, here, he's a pretty decent guy. It didn't show how he ate up his 15 minutes while he plowed through Generosa's (or Ted's) money. He couldn't keep his fly zipped or his big mouth shut, either, both of which proved to be his undoing. It doesn't even mention that he was an unlicensed electrician or how desperate he was, he just showed up at Generosa's because he heard she might be hiring. Ted here is a wuss and Generosa is your standard-issue wack-job. Other characters tell us what was going on between this unholy trio instead of just showing Ted, Generosa, and Danny interact (except when she goes off her nut.) The actors try to overcome the limitations of the Z-Grade script, but the performances are merely passable, although the actor playing the nanny was suitably creepy. Seeing what she did in "Blonde," Poppy Montgomery's performance here was a real letdown. Come to think of it, "letdown" sums the movie up very well.


I'm only commenting due to the lack of information about this movie available--I'd like to keep anyone interested from making my same mistake.

"Uniform" was a largely cliche-ridden, uninspired movie which contained sequences both unappealing to the eye and intellect ("simple" as the reviews called it). Essentially fruitless, "Uniform" is simply unbearable to sit through-I painstakingly made my way through half. I found it amazing this movie was given any credibility (however underground it may be), as every aspect was entirely banal and seemingly ignored during production (note when a passing SUV passenger sticks his head out the window to look at the camera crew). An obnoxiously linear story teamed with horrible, horrible acting is what should be expected.

In summation...

"Zhifu" is reminiscent of a student film--a student sadly disgracing cinema who has no right to be using the medium until he shows a little more respect for it's intrinsic artistic value.


Van Damme is back... doing more of the same.

It seems that whenever Van Damme, Seagal or any of the straight-to-video culprits release a new movie, some fan-boys always have to claim it's some kind of "return" to some glorious era. This fails to take into account, first and foremost, that there never was such a period. And in the case of "Wake Of Death", this is not a return to form to the mediocre Bloodsport or the mildly entertaining Universal Soldier. What we have here is a very typical, B-grade action movie, reminiscent of what we've seen a thousand times in the 80s and from the sub par Hong-Kong trend.

THE (relatively) GOOD

Van Damme (who plays Ben Archer) has improved as an actor. Although the performance is very uneven, there are glimpses of real, actual acting here. The supporting cast is mostly adequate considering the b-nature of the flick. Simon Yam's screen presence is good, although he fails to impress. The young actor portraying Archer's son is weak but Valerie Tian as a young refugee does an OK job. Archer's misfits friends were probably the weakest link. Finally, there's a lot of action going on. Doesn't look like a movie where they cut costs. Car chases, gun fights, explosions, stunts, martial art fights... you get the whole nine yards.

THE BAD

The plot is ultra-typical. The movie also has a somewhat schizophrenic vibe to it, possibly due to having had three different directors attached to it, or just being plain bad. The five writers credited for this "story" didn't help either. Some of the scenes are far too serious and contemplative one minute, only for dramatic considerations to be thrown out the window the next. The movie starts decently but loses steam and so does Van Damme. Although the action flows nicely, there's also nothing memorable here for action fanatics. No particular stunt you'll talk about for months or years. Heck, you'll be lucky if you remember this stuff minutes after being done. The movie's conclusion felt particularly flat to me. All in all, this movie is forgettable, unoriginal and not very exciting.

This is recommended only if you really feel like watching a bad old school movie. Something John McTiernan, George P. Cosmatos, John Woo or John Irvin might have done on a very bad day in the 80s.

For a movie with a somewhat similar premise but sublime execution and a main character that is ten times more menacing, check out "Man On Fire" starring a very convincing Denzel Washington.


The former lead singer with "Fleetwood Mac," gives a concert at Denver's "Red Rocks" outdoor amphitheater in 1987, and it was a disappointment, at least to me.

Being a fan of her smoky voice, pretty looks and song interpretations, maybe I expected too much. A lot of times you can find out just how good a singer is when you hear them in person, instead of the studio making them sound perfect.

I found out Nicks isn't that good a singer as she sounds on disc. What's more, I was totally turned off and disgusted she resorted to profanity in a couple of her songs, even saying "G- damn" in one of them. From what I have read, she's into witchcraft, too, which is pretty weird. Anyway, her raspy voice sounded poor and this was not an impressive concert.

I thought it might be fun to see and hear Mick Fleetwood and Peter Frampton, who are billed as guest stars, but they just played backup and didn't have much of a role in here. There are 14 songs in all, the best one being the finale although part of it is just her shaking hands with people in the audience.

For a beautiful setting like Red Rocks, I thought the lighting was just so-so, not as dynamic as it good have been, sort of like Nick's performance.


Khwaish Picked up this movie at Atlantic Video, frankly attracted by the steamy cover starring Mallika Sherawat and a guy I really did not care about.

What's new? Mallika Sherawat got introduced through this movie. I have seen Murder before, so her physique was kind of a disappointment here, but I'll catch the glimpse nonetheless! Noticeable: Almost every bit of Mallika is up for a view! Her acting comes as a real surprise. Now, here is a quality actress who does not mind exposure at all.. in fact she wants it! The actor was a real dud and a third class aadi aal.. nothing else! Verdict: The movie was nothing if there was no Mallika. She alone is the star in the movie. Mallika's 'acting' gets an A. The story, technicians, music and pretty much everything else was way below average! I guess you cannot blame them. How could they have concentrated on their work?


It is a copy of "Love Story". For those of you who have read the novel or seen the English movie with same title "Love Story", don't watch this movie. The actors specially Himanshu Malik needs to go some acting school to do better. The credited cast lacks acting skills and they have spoiled the beauty of the movie. It could have been made better by taking some experienced cast.


A rehash of "Love story" - the opening monologue is a verbatim translation - this film is a prime candidate for "cruel and unusal punishment". To say that the actors have the acting range of wooden puppets is actually insulting to said puppets. The lead actor should be disbarred from acting ever again. To sum up, given the choice between a root-canal and watching the movie, i would exhort you to choose the

former.


Treat Williams stars as Karl Thomasson who this time teaches at colleges where steroid abuse is a problem and in which the mobsters in question are needed to be straightened out once and for all. Also he is teaching there because his friend's daughter (Rebecca Staab) was attacked by the said mobsters. The Substitute 3:Winner Takes It All is easily the worst of my killer teacher binge that started with Class Of 1984 and ended with Substitute 4. I think the real problem with this entry is that not only does it stink to high heaven but because there is a lack of action we are forced to watch an anti drug message delivered with all the subtleness of a brick through a window. The third chapter consists of Williams kicking some student's asses but in reality he is more engaged with fighting the mob and therefore the whole story loses it's edge. Also of note is that Claudia Christan (So hot in The Hidden) is ultimately wasted as one of the hero's sidekicks and although she is a woman that even I would be afraid to mess with in real life, her character is too lightweight. Williams who brought much charisma to earlier roles such as Things To Do In Denver When You Are Dead and Once Upon a Time In America (Even in Substitute 2) is surprisingly flat here. The audience on the other will be too bored or busy rolling their eyes to derive much interest in either case.

1/2* out of 4-(Awful)


Terrible movie. I will be the first to admit it, but you have to admire Frank Gerrish. He's a great Utah actor who excels in any part that he is given, regardless of the movie's quality. His role spares this movie from being a bad memory. The school scenes are filmed at the Salt Lake Community College and our main actress is a professor, but for some reason it is more like a high-school.

The screenplay is terrible. Give me the screenplay and give me Frank and you will have a conclusion to a trilogy worthy of. . .well, at least worthy of watching.

The direction of this movie is. . .to put it nicely, lacking. But honestly, the poor guy was working with what he was given. For a low budget the directing is tolerable, the screenplay still a disaster, and the characters are terrible. With the exception of our hero and Frank Gerrish. If they were given better lines. . .Give me the power to remake this movie. It's ripe. It's asking to be parodied in its absurdity but seeing its potential stops me from burning it out of my memory.

I hereby announce my plans to begin production of Copyrighted Name: Redux. Who cares if they killed of Frank Gerrish's characters. If Uma Thurman can dig her way out of a grave then so can Frank.


The first two were good. Decent plot, cool fight scenes, and good acting(personally I like Treat Williams better)and was excited to find out a third was coming w/ Treat Willliams. This movie is pretty bad. The plot is ok, the acting is only ok. The fight scenes in the first two were imaginative, but these are only the usual. There are probably 5 mins that actually take place in the classroom. The makers must have realized it wasn't looking too good and decided to put in some pointless nudity. If you liked the other Subs give this one a try, but don't expect too much.


STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

Karl Thommasson (Treat Williams) returns to teach at a tough school after a stint in Kosovo, to honour a promise to a fallen comrade in that war in the shape of taking care of his teacher daughter. He discovers a drug racketeering ring operating in the school and must stop it forthwith.

In a role originally written for Tom Berenger, Treat Williams here returns after appearing in the first sequel. He does have a good presence as an action hero (very Steven Seagal) but sadly he is not enough to stop this dreary sequel from emerging as a sad re-hash of the last one, complete with inconsistent villains and a rather surprising lack of action. With this one behind it, I don't hold out much hope for Part 4. **


I must say give the filmmakers and cast credit for making a sincere effort to bring a relevant social drama to the screen. It is also good to see such films that would otherwise be overlooked get made with limited funding. Nevertheless, "LIft" is proof that an adequate screenplay, a capable cast and a worthy subject manner do not always turn into good movies. Much of the action is stilted, and the dramatic scenes are ruined by amateur directing and theatrical acting. The film feels forced and there are plot twists which seem to come straight from "Guiding Light." I think, however, films like this need to be viewed and studied for those of us who are chasing the unicorn that is filmmaking. On paper, and perhaps even in the editting room, this may have well appeared to be a good film. Alas, a good recipe and the right ingredients do not always guarantee a good pie. Just as there are films which would have seemed awful in a board room but turned out quite good, this one simply falls short but a worthy effort nonetheless.


Editing is an art. This flic needs an editor with better qualifications. the story line jumps like a frog and you are expected to pick up the gaps. both gay boys are really cute and have considerable talent in the construction of their posteriors. this is an eye candy movie for the rice set. the fa* hag is just as she always is filmed, neurotic, lonely and by one vile q**een UGLY.

The straight family is all the standards: Jewish mother, accepting niece, angry, loveless marriage woman.

What recommends it is if you want to view the daily life of 2001 Nippons.


This aussie flick starts off good,i liked the tale of it,it was well thought of,and the scenes were done fairly well.The girl finds herself in the past,40 years in the past,she witnesses a murded,a guy got wrongfully accused,she goes back to investigate with scepticle boyfriend,blah blah blah yada yada yada.What im trying to say is the film gets boring,they just walk around talking to people,asking things,touching things,bringing back flashbacks,at times many scenes were irrelivant,and the film wasnt scary,the only scary thing was the frenchmans face...VERY freaky! The film goes downhill,they talk too much,not enought relevant material,they do a little treasure digging,its just all too much to be good..UNTIL the great ending,watch it for its ending,a perfect twist to a bad movie.

OVERALL I GIVE FRENCHMANS FARM (4 out of 10)

GOOD POINTS OF FILM:Good Start,Few Twists,Good Ending.

BAD POINTS OF FILM:Irrelevant Scenes,Boring,Lacks in horror Genre.


An 80s Aussie lassie goes for a drive in the country and suddenly finds herself in the 40s (cue: 40s car and music.) She pops out of her car to figure out what's going on, which is a bad idea because she witnesses a murder! Ooooh! She time-warps back to the 80s, and enlists her boyfriend to help her solve the mystery of the 40s murder. Eh. This really isn't that bad, it's just way too long. It almost feels like an episode of "The Twilight Zone" and really would have worked better as a half hour short. The villain is indeed creepy and it does have an eerie atmosphere going for it, but the bigger picture is just too bland. Admittedly, I was distracted throughout most of the film, but it was hard not to be.


Or so says the leading man in the film at one point. Sadly, he's wrong. This might have made a middling 30 minute episode of some TV series like 'Tales from the Darkside,' but doesn't cut it as a full length film. Other reviewers say the ending was the best thing about this but if you'd seen or read a number of horror/mystery films/stories, you can pretty much guess what's going to happen.

Still, it's OK in it's own way if your expectations are set suitably low and the idea itself is reasonable. A murder in the past continues into the present.

They didn't push the boat out with the special effects though, the journey into the past of the 1940's is portrayed by the radio playing old songs and war news, a newspaper will a war headline and a vehicle from the period. Well...that would convince anyone they'd gone through a time warp....er....perhaps not.


This series is based of the "Little Princess" books by Tony Ross which was first published in 1986. I haven't really read any of the books since they were aimed at little children. But twenty years later, they finally decided to give the Little Princess her own T.V series but there's only one problem: it's WAY past it's time! This series is about 15 years overdue. I don't know why it was delayed but I feel that loads or people nowadays wouldn't remember of even heard of the Little Princess. It's just too late to capture a new premise! As for the show, it sucks! It contains the annoying and immature presenter Julian Clary bringing out a creeping narrator that chats to the princess. The characters have no personally and are very undeveloped. The Little Princess herself is annoying with all her rants and demands. She's a spoiled, little brat and I don't like it. Bad influence on children. The stories don't even make sense and the settings are so unrealistic. Altogether, if the series was released in around 1991-92 with the books most promoted then it would have been more understandable and rightly timed but still probably would have sucked the same. Don't bother with this show is watch I say! 2/10


This has to be one of the worsted children of the corn movies but i have only seen number 1,2,3 and 7. Of course this film is corny because it is all about corn Thought that there were only one or two good scenes for example micah (bollman) is in Church and has a wooden doll and knife there is someone sitting across from him then micah starts putting the knife up the doll's nose and the guy across from him nose starts to bleed then micah keeps on doing it until the guy dies and the other good part is when micah dies. See They weren't that good but the were the best scenes.

I would like to say Ryan Bollman is one of the worst actors so was practically everyone that was in the movie, He shouted like microphones weren't invented. This movie should not be seen


Okay so I laughed on and off throughout the entire picture, so that is why I gave it one step above a 1. Now, the scene with the wheelchair is not only one of the most freaking hilarious things I've ever seen, but it is also flawed like there is no tomorrow. How on earth can some fly directly sideways (staying in their wheelchair the entire time) when being hit straight on?

More clarification: The road is parallel to the bingo parlor. The lady is in the street crying and the bulldozer nails her a good one. She doesn't fly into the street! She fly immediately sideways right into the bingo hut.

this movie is bogus on every account and should be deemed only a comedy from this point forth.

on a side note: the teenage girl looked really good. What kind of dude just unbuttons a shirt and leaves it at that. He doesn't even want to look at them?


This has got to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Bad script, bad acting...everything in this movie is bad. In this sequel to 1984's Children of the corn, the authorities find the bodies in Gatlin and the murderous kids responsible. The kids are all adopted by foster parents in the neighbor town next to Gatlin. But soon a boy named Micah is taken over by the evil corn deity named he who walks behind the rows. Micah gets the kids to go back to their murderous habits and soon the adults begin to die...again. I don't understand why the 1984 movie needed a sequel or sequelS I should say since there are seven of these movies. You know the original movie made 14 million dollars at the box office, so if it didn't do good why make a sequel (this movie made 6 million, a box office disaster). The only 2 good scenes were when the character Micah is possessed, he gets zapped and then he's falling through a strange shaft, gets his body dismantled, he who walks behind the rows enters his blood, and he gets pieced to together and falls out into the cornfield. And 2nd is the nosebleed scene. Take my word for it, don't see this movie.


Second in the monotonous horror series takes place soon after the events of the first movie, with reporter Terence Knox poking around as he tries to discover what happened in the empty town. Strangely, although every adult and a bunch of kids were killed, no cops stick around after the first five minutes, leaving Knox free to discover bodies all over the place. Anyway, without a series of gruesome deaths there would be no movie, so people are killed by a bunch of spooky kids and, erm, a cornfield. It's pretty much the same mixture as before, but we also get boring troubles between father and son, perfunctory romances, and corn-this and corn-that. It's repetitious beyond belief, seems about twice as long as it really is, and as the plot of this film revolves around Knox piecing together the events of the original movie, it's also completely redundant.


I loathed Children of the Corn, not only was it totally different from Stephen King's darker and unsettling short story, but it was also boring and not in the least scary. I had no interest in seeing the rest of the series as I figured if the first was horrible, how well could the rest hold up? However, just recently a friend gave the first three to me so I thought what the hell, I will watch them. First off, I thought this Children of the Corn film was better than the first for a few reasons, the major one being this was rather funny (unintentionally of course). I found this one more interesting than the first due to the preacher being creepier this time, and there were some surprisingly cool (and cheesy) deaths which kept pace relatively even.

The story is quite simple really, the massacre at Gatlin is discovered by the neighbouring town Hemingford. The children are adopted by the townspeople and everything seems peachy. At the same time, a reporter is trying to uncover the story of the massacre while trying to deal with his angry son. Soon enough, the children have found a new preacher, and the adults of Hemingford are all meeting grisly demises.

Yes, the story is clichéd and not at all good, but it is enough to keep the movie moderately interesting. The acting is pretty average from the entire cast, save one or two decent actors. The level of gore is increased from the first film, and it actually helps this sequel a lot. I did not take this movie seriously, and I really don't think anyone should. Just accept it as bad (but improved) entry to the Children of the Corn series.

1½/5


But then again, I completely HATED the first one.

The children of Gatlin, who killed their parents back in CotC1, are rounded up and bused to the neighboring town. No investigation, trial, psychiatric evaluations - just taken in by idiots. Along comes reporter Terence Knox, who's having a terrible road trip with it estranged son. They decide to stay in town so dad can get the story and son can act like a whiny punk. Soon enough, the freaky Gatlin kids start getting' religious again and kill a few adults. No one seems to notice they all stand in a pack and brood next to the person who ends up dead. Most of the idiot town gets burned alive at a town meeting but not before some toxic corn subplot is introduced. The movie ends with a good old-fashioned showdown.

In spite of a few decent gore scenes, the grossest scene in the movie is a Terence Knox sex scene that may hold the record for fake sweat in a mainstream movie. Actually, I'm still not sure if this was supposed to be a comedy or not.


I believe the film makers could have done so much more with this film, than what they did. I love the first Children of the Corn movie. When I found out there was a sequel, of course I rented it; what a disappointment. I can't believe it took them nine years to make a sequel and with none of the original cast or characters. (They mention Isaac's name a few times and that's about it). Micah was probably my favorite character because he was the bad guy and you finally want him to win because you get so sick of the "protagonists". They had really annoying/corny love scenes too. I never thought I would say this about a COTC movie, but I seriously thought it would be better. This movie would probably be good if it wasn't supposed to be a sequel to something made a lot of years ago. Hey, I give the makers of this movie credit for at least keeping the "original town" of Gatlin and Hemmingford and mentioning Isaac. There's also another thing I do not get about this film, a lot of those teens in this movie would have been like 7 or 8 in the first movie, so how do they remember all of this? And, how does Micah remember his father if he's only a teen and the original Gatlin slaughtering was like 12 years before this movie even happened? If somebody could please explain that to me. Anyway, I guess if you like a little more "frights" you should see this, if not then I highly do not recommend this to you.


This film really just comes across as a very belated and totally redundant sequel and has very little point to it at all.

The story of the film being that that the neighbouring town takes in the killer children of the original film just seems a stretch, why would they take in children who appear to have killed every single adult - more to the point did they not notice that the town next door was missing it's entire adult population.

That's pretty much the side story though as the main story follows a news reporter and his son visiting the town with the father trying to get the story of the original film - he also gets an extremely unpleasant to watch love scene with the woman he's renting from. The son also falls for a hot girl from the town but alas she stays fully clothed. Also living in the house is the new leader of the cult who at least looks slightly closer to childhood than Isaac in the first film.

There is a Native American subplot relating to the Corn Cult which is unnecessary and just confuses the story.

The film is not quite without merit but when the credits roll there is a strong feeling of what was the point, and "He who walks behind the rows" is mentioned so many times I wanted to throw the DVD case at the screen.


Stephen King's "Children of the Corn" story is relatively short so most of what is in the movies has nothing to do with his story. This is the last of the movies I saw, but many more sequels would for some reason follow. The first movie did have some elements that were found in the book, this one only a few concepts remain as it does a lot of things differently this time around. For one, you do not get the creepy abandoned looking town you found in the first movie, which is a shame as it is what made that film for me. You also do not have really much of anything as far as development goes as this film is for the most part very forgettable. The story centers around what are supposedly survivors from the town in the last movie and for some reason it seems the corn is infecting them in ways that once again make them into bad children, or bad teenagers for the most part. Yes, I would have to say all these movies would be more aptly titled teenagers of the corn rather than children, though I can guess they do it so they do not traumatize a really young kid.


This film has plenty of plot options and new character development to work with. However, the film makers seem content on turning what could have been a classy horror sequel into a borderline B movie. Unfortunately terribly awkward dialogue and poor staging give this film a very unsatisfactory feel. Still, it does advance the story line and continues the plot of the original film rather well. But in the end there is little excuse for a production company backing a film with this many visible flaws in a finished product. (PS - Don't put your money in this FX companies stock)


This movie fits poorly with the first and tries too hard to link itself with it.

The acting is medium to bad. Little feeling and hardly engaging.

The plot is lame as I could predict every person who was killed and in what way at every interval. Besides completely destroying the mood of the first film, this one adds sex and profanity. Both are highly out of place and are obviously stuck in to get more viewers.

Gore and sex do not a movie make.

I don't have any idea why a Native American character was forced into the plot. It was odd and seemed like a purposeful ethnic diversification of the movie. Lame.

One plot note: Satan kills the two guys in the news van early on, infuses 'Mikey', and promptly disappears from the plot.

The first one is better, much better. Overall, very poor. 1/10


Overextended, cheaply made and poorly written, with third-rate special effects and point-of-view shots that suggest a low-rent "Predator", this looks like a straight-to-video film product that was released theatrically almost by accident. A few mildly effective scenes (like a murder that occurs in a church) can't really save it from being a bore. (*1/2)


9 years have passed since the original "Children of the Corn" appeared in theaters, but it looks as if this movie had been done the same year. That can't be good.

Only a very low budget could explain why the movie looks as it does, nevertheless, as people like Robert Rodriguez and Sam Raimi have proved, a low budget is not an excuse for a bad film.

The plot is as follows: After the events in Gatlin described in the first "Children of the Corn", the surviving kids are adopted by the people of the nearest town, Hemmingford. Meanwhile, a failed journalist and his son arrive to Hemmingford. They will find that the Gatlin events are about to continue as another boy is possessed by He Who Walks Behind the Rows.

The first movie was not as bad as most people think, it was actually enjoyable, but this movie does not keep the elements that made the first one a fine movie. Gone are the eerie score and the creepy atmosphere of the first one.

The acting is bad most of the times, and even when the acting in the first one was no Oscar-worthy, John Franklin's Isaac is in many ways superior to Ryan Bollsman's Micah as the leader of the cult.

A forgettable sequel that looks like it was done to the TV, it has a few good moments, but it falls down. Specially when compared to the first one.

4/10


You'd have to be a fan of farces to like this. It has some novel ideas, such as illegally obtaining a fresh cadaver that has to be transported from the city morgue to the school, while rigor mortis is beginning to set in. Alan Arkin has a secondary, not a starring, role. He brings more to the part than the writer gave him. Steve Guttenberg is surprisingly good as the son of a doctor who can't get into an American medical school, or even a first or second grade foreign one. Curtis Armstrong, in particular, is terrific in his medical student role. Over all, however, this is strictly a B movie. Julie Haggerty is terrible as the glamorous student with whom the school director (Arkin) is enamored. There is nothing alluring about her looks, and her approach to comedy acting is out of sync with the rest of the cast's.


IT SHOULD FIRST BE SAID THAT I HAVE READ THE MANGA AND THEREFORE MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES.

This anime greatly disappointed me because it removed the comedy and high quality action of the manga and OVA. What it left behind was merely a husk of what it could have been. Many of the characters lacked the depth that is seen in the manga. Alucard is not the sympathetic character that secretly wishes for death. Walter's story lacks the betrayal. And the Nazi villains that plot to engulf the world in war are completely absent. Instead, the anime provides the Gary Stu villain Incognito who is defeated against what appear to be all odds.

My primary complaint is not that the anime diverges from the manga, but that it does such a poor job.


This movie got my attention because its producer claimed it'd compete for Oscar foreign language film along with the Banquet and Curse of the Golden Flower, another two big budget Chinese films. But this small budget movie fails to stand out both for story line and performance. Its setting is basically within an apartment building. With twisted love among an unfaithful husband, a heartbroken wife and of course, the lover, a salon owner, the story seemingly is trying to tell how the mystery can evolve into something to grab peoples' heart. Unfortunately, it rapidly runs into mediocre with basically no surprise at all. Its acting can't score anything either. Carina Lau has some shining moments, yet with an emotionless(trying to be sophisticated?)Jun Hu, there is really not much to tell. Its supporting roles are also weird and unconvincing. Well, it is an ordinary story. Maybe it happens everyday in China nowadays. If you are interested in peeking into the changing society, you might find something intriguing. Otherwise, turn on your TV.


Okay, first of all, notice how all of the other reviewers who gave this movie a good rating are either: A) From Canada (where the movie was made) or B) Helped work on this movie or the second one ? Seriously, this movie was God-Awful Beyond Belief. Makes House of the Dead look like the greatest movie ever made !!! It is just the worst ! The acting: terrible. The editing: worst !! And here's what's also stupid. Zombie victims just give up so damn easily. If they get touched by a zombie, they just simply fall down and let them take them !! And let me talk about the boobs.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a man, so I like seeing boobs. But when it comes to bad horror movies, it is nothing more than a poor attempt at getting guys to pick this crap off the shelves and say "Hey dude, let's get this one! Looks like it's gonna suck, but there is nudity !!" My God !!

DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE !!! YOU WILL BECOME TWITCHY, EMOTIONALLY SCARRED, AND TEMPORARILY RETARDED !!


If I could hand out awards, I would give this movie the Worst Movie Ever Award for being devoid of any real plot and having absolutely no believable characters with terrible dialog. I was never sure how much time had passed or how all the random people kept showing up. And because there were so many randoms in this movie it made it hard to even follow who some of the main characters were (i.e. Amber). The supposed "good guy" was almost as much of a douche as Derrick (up until the point that Derrick kills the girl). Also, if you're fighting for survival in a world overrun by zombies (and in a supposed nuclear fallout - or something quite similar), why would you let such a terrible person stay in your midst? Anyhow. This movie was terrible, and I only finished watching it out of pure fascination as to how it is possible to make such a terrible movie, even on such a low budget - which is no excuse, just to let you know.

A cheesy movie is acceptable when done right - this wasn't.

If you're going to watch this movie, be prepared for the worst cinematic adventure of your life.

PS, I agree that this should be called an F Movie instead of a B Movie, and should not even get the good graces of a 1, for it was far more terrible than that. Also, there should never be a sequel to this atrocity.

Thank you, and good night.


This movie is proof that if you let some one watch to many zombie movies and give them a cheap camera and a bunch of air head extras, you to can make a BAD movie. The acting is some of the worst I have seen in awhile. The sets, locations and sound are way below par as well. This movie has nothing to make it worth while. In some scenes there are 5 or 6 people making plans, and then the next scene the have added about 10 to 15 more people to their group. The don't explain it either. Also the gore effects are not that good. To make matters even worse, the previews on the DVD were almost as bad as the main movie. I heard there was going to be a part 2 to this mess. I don't know how. If this played in any theater it should be closed down. When I got suckered into renting this there was only one copy in the store. If you like to waste 90 minutes of you life on bad movies, than this is for you. Yuck !!!