This movie is very hard to rate. Is it a plain, old bad movie or is it a good bad movie? I've decided it's just a plain, old bad movie. Yet whenever I stumbled upon this movie (usually on Lifetime) I get drawn in. Think train wreck and you understand what I mean. Regardless of Christina's "allegations" this movie certainly bends and twists facts and sometimes even creates brand new characters who never existed to help fill in the blanks. The E! True Hollywood Story would be more factual than this, so this movie falls into the realm of sheer fantasy. Faye Dunaway. What can be said? She needs to be done away with. The rest of the cast, especially young and old Christina were played by two very bad actresses who must have been striving to be nominated for the Academy Award with the amount of gusto they put into their portrayals of "She who must not be named." I give this movie one weak handed bitch slap out of five.


As a child, my parents took me and my sister to the movies (this was the early 1950s) every week when the double-bill changed. Occasionally, the second feature ("Torch Song," "Female on the Beach," "The Story of Esther Costello") featured an actress named Joan Crawford, whose gargoyle face was scarier to me than any horror film we saw. Years later, when the studios released their old film libraries to television, I discovered that, when she was younger, that same Joan Crawford was not only a first-rate actress ("Mildred Pierce") but when she was VERY young, naturally beautiful and vulnerable ("Grand Hotel"). When I became a member of the movie business (journalist, publicist), I loved hearing stories from the "old-timers" on film crews who had worked with the screen legends way back when. One of their favorites was Joan Crawford, whom all agreed was the best, most loyal and caring friend one could ever wish for. In the late 1970s (a few years after Miss Crawford's death), New York Magazine ran excerpts from a forthcoming book called "Mommie Dearest," written by Ms. Crawford's adopted daughter, portraying her mother as the ultimate witch-from-hell. It--and the book (which I had no interest in reading, the excerpts were more than enough)--caused a sensation. Most of the film people I knew who had known Miss Crawford were outraged, claiming Christina had made the whole thing up to cash in on her departed mother. A few others simply shook their heads, sadly. When "Mommie Dearest" was made into a movie, I was invited to a press screening but skipped it when a friend of mine at Paramount told me it was utter garbage (I was never a Faye Dunaway fan anyway, finding her as cold and off-putting as the middle-aged Joan Crawford). The reviews of the film were terrible, but within weeks, journalist friends informed me that a phenomenon had taken place--the movie had become an instant camp classic, with audience-participation unrivalled since "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Moviergoers flocked to the theaters showing "Mommie Dearest," armed with wire hangers and cans of Ajax. I was amused, but not enough to check it out. A year later the film hit HBO and I finally watched the damned thing. I wasn't bored, but saddened. The tale of an an aging movie actress, over 40, put out to pasture by the major studios, and driven by loneliness to alcoholism and then to child abuse didn't strike me in the least bit amusing. (Nor do I enjoy scenery-chomping performances like the nauseating freakshow given by Miss Dunaway--whom many of my friends had worked with and, for the most part, disliked intensely.) I'm glad the majority of the comments on the IMDB website find immense enjoyment in this admittedly one-of-a-kind movie. I find it clammy, clumsy and depressing. As over-the-top and shrill as it is, I'm afraid Christina Crawford's account of Life With Mama is, for the most part, basically true. And alcoholism and child-abuse are not, for me, sources of entertainment. In her later years, Joan Crawford was obviously a very disturbed and unforgivably cruel parent to her two children. Perhaps the most telling remark about the uproar caused by "Mommie Dearest" (the book, not the movie) came from the always gracious and intelligent Eve Arden (a friend of Miss Crawford's with whom she appeared in "Mildred Pierce"). Asked by a reporter if she thought the allegations brought against Miss Crawford by her daughter were true, Miss Arden paused and then said: "Joan tried to be all things to all people. But the one thing she never should have tried to be was a mother."


This show is about putting a person into a job that she does not have the basic requisite skills to perform properly. In particular, Lauren Jones, a former Miss New York, is assigned to a job as an anchorman at a struggling Texas television station. She has no training with television or production equipment, or with doing news broadcasts.

Such a concept may work in a scripted fiction show as there would typically be a reason why the person has to try to sustain the appearance of competence, and there would be humorous situations and dialog built in. However, it does not work with a reality show, as comments and situations as those that make the TV series "The Office" or the movie "Anchorman" amusing would (usually) never be made by real people in real jobs. The idiocy in Anchorwoman is incredibly predictable and not at all entertaining. We all deal with inept people at work, and it is frustrating, not funny. As an analog, how amusing would it be to watch someone technologically illiterate be put in the job of a network administrator where he had to call the boss to bail him out for even basic tasks?

This is absolutely the worst show I ever saw. The genre was listed as comedy and reality. Comedy is supposed to be funny and reality is supposed to be riveting; this show was neither. Very quickly I didn't find it entertaining (the initial allure of Lauren Jones' looks wore off rather fast), but since it was the premier episode I decided I would give it a chance and stick with the show for the entire half hour. Unfortunately, when 30 minutes was up, there were no final credits, and a quick info check on the TiVo revealed the show was actually a full hour. I rarely do this, but with Anchorwoman I decided I could not force myself to sit through another 30 minutes. I changed the channel and did not go back, and I never had any qualms about not finding out how the show ended.

Fox made a very wise decision to limit its damage and not air a second episode.


I read a lot of great things about this series, so I checked it out. Honestly, there is a lot of potential here, but it just falls flat on it's face.

One big weakness was the acting. The worst of them was the main one (Rocco). He was on screen probably 75% of the time, and he was hands down the most un-funny person on the whole cast. I actually van't think of an more un-funny person in the history of film. I'm not just saying that to be mean or as hyperbole, but seriously... Even Rob Schnider manages to be funny now and again in his movies. He reminded me of those nerdy high school drama students who thinks of themselves too highly. His facial expressions and voice inflection was way too overexaggerated which was distracting. I just wanted to punch him every time he said something. He only had one moment that I thought was funny, and that was the Metal Gear mission briefing. That was the only time it didn't seem like he was reading a cue card.

The other main character (the one who played Horatio and the other beta-tester) was only slightly funnier. He suffered from the same over-acting as Rocco did. I felt like they were trying to go for a unscripted/spontaneous type feel for the film, but most of the sketches and gags were OBVIOUSLY scripted to the point where they were clearly reading lines.

For instance that part in the beginning where one of them was just standing there eating pudding in front of the camera for 2 minutes. You could clearly tell he was acting, it didn't seem at all like it was natural or unscripted. The unscripted schpeel works for most small budget stuff like Jackass when it's actually unscripted, not fake like this.

I did like the skinny white guy though. I thought he was the only character who portrayed any personality. His gags seems genuinely funny throughout. The absolute best part was the puppet. That damn puppet had me in stitches just about every scene he was in. If they do a sequel, they need to feature more of this guy and the puppet.

The sketches were in my opinion the weakest part of the whole thing. Why the hell would I want to watch a bunch of high-schoolers throw dodgeballs at each other? Or a fat teenager run around asking people "Do you know who killed my father?" over and over again? Most of the sketches came off as poorly done Tom Green ripoffs. At least Tom Green played off bystanders' reactions to make it actually funny. Acting like a dumb ass in public does not automatically make it funny.

Also, I must say the editing, music, costume, and sets were all well done, especially for a small budget film like this one. The three guys who wrote this should be proud of themselves. Its just too bad the actors had to ruin it.


Can we really watch a movie lasting almost two hours just for its stunning cinematography and some glimpse of storytelling, or should it rather be the other way around? I think "Silk" proves that it is often impossible to adequately translate a deep, emotionally charged book into a credible and enjoyable movie. Personally, I just got terribly bored less than halfway through the movie. Yes, it is visually compelling. And yes, there are some fine moments in the acting, especially from Alfred Molina. But as a whole this leaves with quite a disappointing feeling in the viewer, the feeling that with all that money and resources and brilliant actors perhaps they could have come up with something a bit different. And a little less slow.


This is undoubtedly the most tedious film that I've seen all year. It is the sort of film that gives 'art house' films a bad name.

The acting is wooden throughout though worse than usual as it appears as if all the actors have been heavily doped with some sedative the slow, deliberate way they ponderously shuffle about. The dialogue is wholly unconvincing but, sadly, only occasionally risibly so.

There were a couple of highlights. In one scene there's an interestingly designed basket of lemons hanging on the wall - I had time to commit to memory and it might work well as a wire basket. There are also numerous scenes of somebody playing billiards with himself (no, not pocket billiards!) on a real billiard table. You don't see many of those about these days.

They don't seem to have been clear about what language the film was supposed to be spoken in. It mainly has rhotic 'r's, but not always. It is beyond me why, when they were supposed to be French, they didn't just hire real French actors and actresses - even if they then tried to speak English it would have been more authentic sounding. It would have been better in the original language with sub-titles.

The garden looked just like you'd expect a hastily prepared film-set garden to look - quite unconvincing.

The beard continuity is all over the place. The lead robot grows several beards that all look different.

On top of all these failings, it is nastily, gooilly sickly- sentimental. Mawkishness drives almost every scene.

I wish somebody had told me to avoid this film. See it only if you want a kip.

Somebody must have bribed somebody a vast amount not to have this sent straight to DVD.

Amazingly the director also directed 'The Red Violin', a first rate film in almost every way - he must have been drinking himself into a coma every day since then or had a nasty accident that damaged his brain.

Do not be misled by the comments suggesting that this is artistic or worth watching!


I just saw this movie tonight. That director should be ashamed-especially since I loved the Red Violin. The pacing here was incredibly slow. Sllllllooooooowwwww. I don't require every movie to movie like a music video, but this was like the unabridged version of Les Miserables-60 pages of unnecessary exposition on something of no consequence to the story.

For example, the Dutch Merchant? What happened to him? Why were we given that ominous clue if Herve did not try to find out what happened to him? That scene never should have been in the movie. Why did the Concubine slip him that note? Why were we told that detailed story of Ludovic's silent father? The boy and his mom were very minor characters.

I also don't require movies to spell out everything for me, but this was certainly one of those adaptations where people who had not read the book were a bit lost. Even the central question of why Helene did what she did, and how she knew who he was obsessed with was never answered. And how did they both know to go to the Japanese prostitute? Alfred Molina's character must have had something to do with it? The childlessness and long illness seemed tacked on-if they had something to do with Helene's weird behavior, I could have accepted it. But this all seemed like a lot of strangeness in the 19th century.

Maybe I'll read the book.


A trader from Japan arrives in a small English village in the mid-19th century. He is not particularly handsome or charismatic, he can't even speak English, but the town leader's vivacious, sultry wife, played by Keira Knightley, falls in love with the Japanese man and urges him to take her away. Why? Because any Japanese man who turns up has to be better than what the British male has to offer. The Japanese man is haunted by a glimpse he caught of Keira naked, slowly immersing herself in river water. Finally, he realises it is all an illusion, and that the woman he truly loves is his recently deceased Japanese wife. His wife then replaces Keira in his dreams of the river, but decently clothed...

You don't buy it, do you? Then why are we expected to swallow it in reverse? This is a lusciously shot, lyrical, understated piece of orientalist claptrap. Michael Pitt takes insipid to new levels, and Sei Ashina has to put up with a credit as 'The Girl,' probably because they couldn't get away with calling her 'Asian Eye Candy.' Not surprisingly, Sei Ashina is a newcomer - no experienced Japanese actress worth her salt would have taken on such a demeaning role. Ashina will forever live down her involvement in this film, I fear.

This should have been a breakout film for the wonderful Miki Nakatani, but she is lost in a stilted role. Koji Yakusho is as forceful as ever, and as such is mis-cast - why would any woman leave this guy, especially for a simpering Eurobrat? The reveal at the end shows, ironically, the film this should have been. The woman wronged, the woman whose love should define this film, is Hélène. The whole thing should have been re-written from her perspective. Hervé's infatuation with a pretty girl he saw on his travels should have been just that, a minor issue in a great love story. Focussing on Hervé's delusional obsession is regrettable. Implying that the Japanese woman had reciprocal feelings is feeble-minded.

In sum, great actors in cinematic locations and a story with bags of potential wasted by mindless Eurocentrics.


There was once a time when it could at least be considered understandable for people to be caught up in the myth of the "orient." Few people had ever been and the people who had been, brought back wondrous things such as spice and pottery back to their fellow European barbarians.

Those days are long since gone and yet some people feel compelled to keep the "exotic Asia" myth alive in film and literature and this film is one such example. The plot is silly and largely unexplained -but that does not matter! The pacing is PAINFULLY slow -but that does not matter! The acting is wooden at best and the characters all mysteriously speak English -but that does not matter either!

The opening scene with the skinny Asian woman naked in the hot spring turning to look coyly at the camera should be enough to tell that the only thing the filmmakers cared about was to give audiences some steamy scenes and another tale of the exotic seductiveness of Asia.

Even if that is your thing, I recommend that you skip this movie for better adventures elsewhere.


This movie was a complete train wreck, it seemed to be in shambles from the very beginning. The story was quite boring, the acting was mediocre at best, and the images were stale. Many people are saying the images were beautiful, but I would completely disagree. This film is trying to be overly artsy and ends up detracting from the potential of some of the scenes. If you are searching for a beautifully shot film, may I suggest something like House of Flying Daggers or Hero. As far as acting goes, even Keira Knightley's performance was disappointing. As seen in the Jacket, Knightley's American accent just does not seem to work and ends up being distracting from her performance, coupled with the weak script the film just begins to flop. This movie just falters on so many levels, has some serious plot holes and fails to connect on any level. I have not read the book and many people seem to say that you should read the book before watching this film, but purely as a stand alone movie this film just does not work.


This film might at least have been easier to watch if we hadn't been stuck with Michael Pitt as Herve Joncour, as the so-called romantic leading man.

Pitt looked as if he had been sleeping under a bridge for the last 3 months. His hair was unwashed looking, and he had that stubble that few men have the looks to pull off - and Michael Pitt very definitely doesn't.

It could have at least been romantic, if virtually plot less, if we'd only had an attractive leading man.

That aside, the film does have some pretty shots of scenery as the character goes to Japan, goes to Japan, and oh yes, goes to Japan, on his endless quest for silk worm eggs, along with the hope of having an affair with a Japanese woman he meets there. This is a woman who just happens to belong to a rather dangerous looking Japanese man. Now that situation should have come to some kind of head, but it never really does.

Keira Knightley plays his wife, how they managed to get her to look that plain and that boring I don't know, because she is actually a lovely, interesting, young woman. In this role, she could cure somebody's insomnia.

This entire movie could be used in the treatment of insomnia.

1 star


This is an "art film" narrative gone wrong. While I appreciated the cinematography, I am afraid that this element alone is not enough to succeed to make a commercially viable film. One needs a story that elicits some kind of reaction. It is as if the actors sleepwalked through this film. Keira Knghtly, while attractive and talented enough, was particularly ill - suited for this film. Michael Pitt was, well, kind of lazy - at best. I do not want to get a posting that says "spoiler" - but I truly mean that this film was simply surprisingly completely "vacuous." Even the 'period' town was inauthentic. These producers raised a lot of money and produced a very very dull uninteresting film. While this is not a crime -- maybe it should be. We wait and wait but nothing really ever happens . . . and throughout, I am afraid to say, the lead actor mumbles his way through about 109 minutes of profound pain for the viewer. SILK could be an insomniac's newest best friend.


This is extremely aggravating. Michael Pitt is a terrible actor, sorry, but it's true. I didn't even find him in the least bit attractive. He looks like a pathetic, greasy emo kid. He plays a man who travels out to Japan to obtain silk worms, while his beautiful wife is left at home. In the mean time, he somehow manages to fall in lust with a Japanese chick. They never really talk or screw each other, though. Instead, she offers one of her fellow Asian girls for him to sleep with.

He doesn't appear to feel guilty over his choice to cheat on his wife. Overall, I'd have to agree with what a lot of others have written. It's terribly boring and mostly about the Asian fetish stereotype that Hollywood loves to put out and impress upon Americans. He has a perfectly beautiful, smart, and loyal wife back at home, but all he wants to do is submerge himself into the sexual lust over the ever-silent, "love me long time" girl. This story has little to do with "love", but mostly just lust and infatuation. It just makes the movie all the more pathetic and uninteresting.

This was not worth the money I spent to rent it, even. I'd suggest another movie if you're looking to watch something in-depth and interesting.


The first thing one notices about this film is that Michael Pitt speaks in a verrrrry slow monotone. Then you realize that it is right in keeping with this dull, plodding, endlessly pretentious film. This movie is not only boring, it's exhausting. You're in Europe, then China, then Europe, then China. Someone's reading a letter, someone's playing billiards, then letter then billiards then flowers. STOP! Who is this film made for? The male lead is totally uninteresting. Even Keira Knightly suffers from the ennui of the script.It would seems that Mr. Pitt has a name and even a following. One can't imagine why. He looks like a thousand other Hans Brinker-type actors, has no discernible charisma and couldn't provide a single moment of depth to this character. But then everyone else was equally tiresome. I suspect that the director, not speaking English very well, encouraged all the actors to say their lines as slowly as possible. That's the only possible explanation for this synthetic fabrication.


What a sad flop, with the best of intentions. The message to the viewer is overly clear, it shouts: this is an artistic, slow and sensuous movie, contrasting Oriental philosophy with Western greed for speed and immediate effects. Well, yes, we get this rather soon, and then we suffer through the rest Perhaps slow movies are not exact equivalents of slow food, after all.

There are some redemptive traits, though. The film could be see as an illustration of Joyce Carol Oates's observation that "prolonged happiness is a prison from which the self yearns to escape at any cost". People cannot stand a prolonged happiness, and the protagonist says so much himself.

Another (attempt at) redemption: perhaps the movie is about the temptations of Orientalism typical for the era portrayed: the Western men, bored to tears, looking for any kind of adventure that the exotic Orient could offer them. Because if it is a love story, it is Hélène's love story, but if so, it is underdeveloped. The other "love story" is too ridiculous even to consider.

Finally: it is true that seeing it in with a full screen can help; I have watched it as DVD, and although it was a very good screen, it could not reproduce the immersion effect possible on a large screen only.


While I didn't expect action, I did expect something more than a slide show of boring travels. I wanted to like this movie, I really did. But it was self-conscious photography with nothing to recommend it except trying to be something it couldn't. The characters were poorly drawn and despite watching one scene three times, I was unable to determine which woman was taking off her clothes. The travels were monotonous and uneventful. I was not invested in the silk worm eggs in any way and should have been. Michael Pitt was badly miscast and Keira Knightly had little weight in what could have been a great role. When a movie contains as much narration as this one did, the viewer should not be left in the dark about important details. There was "trouble" in Japan. What kind of trouble? The Japanese trader's motives were unclear.


The novel could not be more faithful to the novel than it is. It's overlong, boring (as was the very short book) : junk orientalism could define it best. No interest whatsoever. I wonder why someone would think of making a full length movie of something was would not have been worth a half hour t.v. show (even in that format it would have seemed too long). It's a pity, Keira Knightley is a good actress, I wonder what she is doing in this doomed enterprise of a movie that has all the shortcomings of this sort of movie, including void aestheticism. The director wants the spectators to leave the cinema thinking "The pictures were really beautiful" hoping they'll forget how empty and boring the whole movie is.


that even my heart went down to 20 bits a minute.

But, lets not forget the score. The composer just played a few random cords for 2 hours and... voilá, we had a complete movie!

The best extras... the silk worms.

I give it a 2 because the photography was OK, though I don't think this is enough reason to make a film of this caliber.

If you feel like to have a very, very relaxing, boring movie session, by all means, go to see it.

Blessings!

ClearDawn*


Michael Pitt can't act PLEASE make him stop trying! He is absolutely horrible - if his last name weren't Pitt he would have been blessedly out of a job years ago.

And what's up with his bizarre diction in this film? What kind of accent is he trying to imitate? He doesn't even look natural simply sitting and for the love of God someone get the boy some lip balm!

The book was fabulous - the film is a waste of celluloid and only encourages Pitt to continue seeking work as an actor as opposed to something useful, like a job as a waiter... which I probably wouldn't believe him capable of either!


It was the worst movie that I saw at the Toronto Film Festival.

Yes, there was some semblance of a story but after the "there and back again" storyline, it kind of gets a tad repetitive.

I too find Michael Pitt quite a wooden actor. Kiera Knightley was better I suppose but she played such a minor role that you barely noticed her.

The only actor that I really absolutely loved in this movie was Alfred Molina - he was probably the only actor that generated laughs from the audience.

The cinematography was stunning though, that is in part why I chose to watch this movie. However like they say, it was all style but no substance.

It's funny, about ten minutes or so before the movie ended, there was a scene that looked like the ending of the movie. The couple right beside me breathed a sigh of relief until the "ending" scene continued for another ten minutes. The couple then let out a whimper, "Isn't this movie going to EVER end?!?"


This film would have been fun to fix as a Theatre of the Absurd. Otherwise, in its current Hollywood format, it fails. There's about enough material here for a good half hour.

The good visuals have little to do with the story. Story? There really isn't one, which is fine, except that the director tries to pretend that there's a story. Furthermore, no one buys that the main character's in love with the Asian girl or even Keira Knightley. If the audience is expected to buy this, then the main character's a nut job whose weird logic tells him to build his wife a garden while he plods along, ever ready to escape abroad.

Asian actors would be advised to choose juicy villain roles as Hollywood just doesn't know what to do with Asians on film. Alain Resnais adaption of Marguerite Duras' Hiroshima Mon Amour is an exception that is beautiful.

Why would Hollywood waste its time trying to prove their love to and for Asians who know better. It's odd. Asians in Hollywood film are not to blame when a picture fails like this. Muddled thinking led to the mess on screen, which must have originated in the script. Did anyone read the script?


This well known movie could produce a p*nese overdose.

The main concept is fair but somehow distorted with bad taste.

Anyway some scenes will fit perfectly in any film anthology.

The plot is simplistic, the porn is too raw, and the parody is weak.

The ridiculous subreal ambient created is the most hilarious thing in the movie.

The movie is creative in some ways, indeed, and has an artisctical and conceptual value, but the average is mediocre for me.

If yo are looking for something sexy, do not look this movie

(I wonder if sexiness could be found in any porn movie).


The movie has a good story line, the action is good in some parts, but not all of them. Some of the parts, I just felt like the bad guys wouldn't have dosed off yet, from my experience from taking Martial arts. Some are the actions are long, like always mostly for the boss, but for the least important ones, they were killed or dosed off with a few hits, but some where quite unrealistic or could have done a better job at.

The least important actors or stunt people were the right picks for the movie, my girlfriend started to have a crush on them that she started to watch the movie more than she spends her time with me.

The movie is good, that is all I can say.


This was touted as a sequel to Crash Dive, which was a very good film in the low budget category. I assumed this movie would be good also, but boy was I wrong. First, this movie has nothing to do with Crash Dive other than they both take place on submarines. Secondly, the plot can be slow, tedious, and in some cases, totally preposterous.

This movie will not hold most people's attention. (I remember reading a book during the slow, boring scenes.) There will be scenes that are supposed to be used for dramatic effect that will make the viewer laugh out loud. The corkscrew scene is definitely one. After I got over my initial shock that anyone would slip this in and not know people would not only disbelieve it but laugh at the sheer silliness of it, I was able to find humor in it.

If you want to see MD in a good sub flick, watch Crash Dive and leave this lame film on the shelf.


Story of an ex-Navy Seal who is now a combat medical officer assigned to a state of the art Russian sub with a nurse. This is to answer a call for help set off by a dying member of the original crew. The sub has been overtaken by terrorists who are bent on destruction. So we see the duo try and gain control back. And this happens with the fear of the US Naval Forces is about to unleashing everything it has got on the terrorist sub to prevent it from launching its arsenal. Be careful of the early explicit sexual scene in the first quarter of the movie. A couple of unexplained scenes towards the end. Watch it when you have the time. Nothing to miss out even if you let the show run while you go get yourself a cup of coffee: slow moving.


THE BACHELOR (1999) *

Starring: Chris O'Donnell, Renée Zellweger, James Cromwell, Hal Holbrook, and Brooke Shields Directors: Buster Keaton and Gary Sinyor Running time: 101 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some sex-related dialogue)

By Blake French:

	New Line Cinema appears to be on a losing streak this year with releasing flops and encountering narrow critical success with their productions. From "Drop Dead Gorgeous" to "Detroit Rock City," to "Body Shots" and now "The Bachelor." This movie is a romantic comedy that contains such a flat feeling and predictable plot, it is arguably the worst film released by this production company all year.

	"The Bachelor" accommodates a story centering on undeveloped characters and the one dimensional situations they are placed into. The male romantic lead here is played Chris O'Donnell, and his name is Jimmie Shannon, who is supposedly in love with the usually dependable Renée Zellweger, where here is Anne. Jimmie and Anne are developed within a brief three minute opening scene where one meets the other at a coffee house when they exchange about ten words with each other. Their conversation is of pointless proportions, and has no clue of preparing any romantic chemistry or witty dialogue for us. Thus there is no believable quality between Anne and Jimmie, and this is just the opening sequence. How can a romance be effective if we don't buy the couple as a couple from the first scene?

	We couldn't care less about the characters so far in the film, mainly because we lack knowledge concerning them. But soon afterward, Jimmie proposes to Anne at a fancy restaurant, where for some reason, she is offended at his verbal presentation. You see, the film is so hopeless for romantic tension, it uses the Anne character as a stubborn, unhappy brat in attempt to raise it. The film requires a delay in the engagement, due to an upcoming gimmick.

	Now we have Anne angry at Jimmie, hence taking a trip to some place far away in the very near future--business matters. These events are present is to increase what little dramatic tension there. It also requires Jimmie to clean up his act before Anne leaves. Then one of his old relatives die, whose will leaves Jimmie over one hundred million dollars, if his current life applies toward his requirements: basically he has to be married within a day.

	The conflict is introduced in the beginning of the second act, instead of at the start the picture. Not that it really matters where the problem is brought to our attention, because we don't care about the outcome of any relationship here. The rest of the film has Jimmie running from ex-girlfriend to ex-girlfriend desperately proposing to each so he can receive the cash promised. After a brief appearance by a popular pop singer, to an almost successful wed to a bitchy character played by Brooke Shields, Jimmie only finds himself deeper in love with the girl in his heart, Anne.

	I will not announce if Anne and Jimmie find true love in each other. Nor will I say if Jimmie inherits the millions left to him. The only thing we know by the trailers and posters is that somehow Jimmie will be trailed by hundreds of angry bride-to-be's down the streets of his home town. This scene is highly anticipated, and energetic, but never really funny. The way it is carried out wreaks of hilarity, but lacks slapstick quality, and believe it or not, it doesn't provoke any laughs. The supporting roles are overacted and exaggerated, but the main characters are greatly underplayed. The two romantic leads are boring, shallow, witless puppets of the plot. That is most certainly the reason why I found myself enjoying the side characters. Brooke Shields contributes an effective performance with a small side character. And James Cromwell, as a kind-hearted priest, is easily the most interesting character in the movie--the only thing is, he utters but ten lines throughout the movie.

	The performances from Chris O'Donnell and the Renée Zellweger come off as dreadfully dual, unimaginative and withered. O'Donnell doesn't bring any charm to his otherwise likable character, and ends up performing with conventional, utterly undertaken style. And Zellweger, who was so good in "One True Thing," has nothing to do here, beyond following the commands of the plot. What a colossal disappointment.

	Another thing absent in "The Bachelor" is laughs, which are no where to be found. The way the film is portrayed is not funny at all, mainly because after the gimmick is introduced we receive more and more of the same unfunny marital. This is due to the severe lack of concern for the characters. One of the viewers I screened the production with literally fell asleep during this movie. She says that this is because it is boring. I say it is because we care so little and know so little about the characters, we feel tired and slumberous.

Conclusion Statement: Half way through "The Bachelor" I still did not know the character's names. And personally, I never did care enough to learn them.

Brought to you by New Line Cinema.


In order to protect a $100 million inheritance, commitment-shy bachelor Chris O'Donnell (as Jimmie Shannon) learns he must marry before he reaches his impending 30th birthday. Naturally, Mr. O'Donnell proposes to the woman he loves, beautiful blonde Renée Zellweger (as Anne Arden). But, Ms. Zellweger senses O'Donnell's heart really isn't in his "(empty your intestine) or get off the pot!" proposal. Zellweger bails, with sister Marley Shelton (as Natalie). So, O'Donnell, with pal Artie Lange (as Marco) assisting, tries to locate a marriage-minded woman, who is willing to share $100 million, and produce a baby. Any takers?

Ms. Shelton is a sweet sidekick, and Brooke Shields (as Buckley) stands out among the unfortunately wasted supporting cast. Gary Sinyor's "The Bachelor" is a lesser re-make of a well-remembered Buster Keaton comedy ("Seven Chances"). No cigar and not even close.

**** The Bachelor (1999) Gary Sinyor ~ Chris O'Donnell, Renee Zellweger, Marley Shelton


Chris O'Donnell plays a young handsome man who is (sigh) afraid of getting married. But he's been dating Renee Zellweger for three years and she wants to get married. He tries to propose but fails. Then his obnoxious grandfather dies and leaves him 100 million dollars...IF he gets married before his 30th birthday. But his 30th birthday is one day away, Zellweger has left town and he frantically races around town asking all the women he's dated in the past to marry him.

O'Donnell doing comedy was a BAD mistake. For starters he can't act. Also this guy is handsome but he's so bland it's annoying. Doing a remake of Buster Keaton's hilarious classic "Seven Chances" was another stupid mistake. The script is unfunny and full of lines that are just groaners. Old pros Hal Holbrook, Edward Asner and James Cromwell are in this and manage to get a few chuckles despite their lines. The view of women is this film (especially at the end) is deplorable and there's a HUGE amount of swearing for a PG-13 film. Still it DOES have its good points (that's why I'm giving it a 4). O'Donnell's first proposal to Zellweger (and her reaction) is very funny. There's a good cast (save O'Donnell) and Zellweger is just great. There's also a cool soundtrack. Also Brooke Shields (almost unrecognizable) is hysterical in a segment towards the end. But, all in all, this was a REAL unwise career choice for O'Donnell. This movie bombed badly and got O'Donnell some of the worst reviews of his career. Hopefully this will steer him clear of ever trying comedy again. I give this a 4.


This was on TV, with a crappy rating (1 star); I recorded it, based on liking Zellweger (how bad could it be?), and wound up liking the film, but being disappointed in René Zellweger. At one point, she does something that told me "This is a character that was written for Jennifer Aniston, but there was a schedule conflict, so they asked René Zellweger instead." René does her job, but she doesn't bring anything personal to the role. Meanwhile, the cadre of elders surrounding The Bachelor himself( Hal Hollbrook, Ed Asner, James Cromwell and !Peter Ustinov!) has many of the best lines in the film. Towards the end, it veers into surrealism, with an army of would-be brides demanding "Criteria! Criteria" as if at a labor rally, then becoming an army divided into three battalions that converge on a single SF intersection in pursuit of the Bachelor. It's worth seeing, if only for the script.


This movie was critically destroyed when it was released, but it is not that bad, it is just a harmless little romantic comedy. The worst thing about it is that its view of male-female relationships is so backward - especially in a movie set in modern-day San Francisco!. Chris O'Donnell is not a great actor, but he is good portraying this earnest, somewhat shallow man. And Renee Zellweger is fine, even though her cinematic persona has by now overstayed its welcome. I haven't seen Buster Keaton's original movie, but I don't doubt it was vastly superior to this, but this. Still, this new version might be a passable time-killer in a rainy Friday night.


"The Bachelor"1999

Starring: Chris O'Donnell, Renée Zellweger, James Cromwell, Hal Holbrook, and Brooke Shields

Directors: Buster Keatonand Gary Sinyor Running time: 101 minutes Rated PG-13 (for language and some sex-related material) 1/2* 2 out of 10

Reviewed By Matt Doolittle

The Bachelor was a cheap imitation of a comedy that was ongoing and boring. It wasn't boring in a sense of nothing there; it was boring in a sense that you didn't know what was going on. The characters were never introduced and the plot was very uneasy because they weren't introduced.

	About the plot, it was uneasy because the film had no emotion. The actors/actresses said their lines with no charisma. They basically had a script and read it. In a good movie you can't do that, if you want viewers to like it they have to feel it. I think "Buckley" (played by Brook Shields) was a very good character. It's sad when the supporting roles are played better than the main ones. As a viewer I didn't know the names of characters and I didn't care enough to know. This whole movie is supposed to take place in two days but within two days Anne goes to Athens and back then goes away again with her sister. He asks 16 people to marry him in a matter of a couple hours. Mariah Carey really messed up upon taking the role of one of the woman. She had no personality or a sense of character at all.


one scene in this movie was worth watching and guess what it was the credits. this movie is a waste of time and money. i think anyone who sees this can agree with me. i do not recommend this movie for anyone, i would never hurt a person like that. 1/10 i can't say anymore because it hurts me to think about it. Aweful.


Never in my life have I watched a movie where I cared so little for the characters. Never in my life have I watched a movie where I guessed the ending so quickly (in the video store, looking at the cover!). And never in my life have I watched a movie where I actually could feel my IQ dropping.

I mean, what is this? Please!

1 star out of 5 and that is only because of Renée Zellweger. She's just so darn cute ;o)


Sadly, the movie was bad. That about covers it. All the developments can be seen from a mile away, all the jokes are kinda in-your-face and even the special effects weren't so special - actually, the movie could've done without'em. One of my favourite actresses - Renee Zellweger - does a poor job. Hope she did/does it better with Mr. Carrey. Bottom line - the $2 i paid for admission could have been put to better use. If you have to see it - rent it. Pointless to go to a cinema to see it.


While I'll freely admit that in many cases, watching a film as an in-flight movie is not going to give you the best from it, I'll make an exception for this film.

I watched this film at 35,000ft on a return flight from the Canary Islands, and this was by far the best way to see it. In fact I *recommend* this method.

Without even the benefit of the soundtrack, I had figured out within about 10 minutes what was going to happen.

The best points of the film are the reworking of the classic idea of chase scenes through the years that have been shot in San Francisco. I you watch this film for anything, let it be that. Otherwise, drop your hard-earned cash on something more intelligent.


In my humble opinion (IMHO), you should spend your money elsewhere !

I was foolish enough to think that this could be a funny movie. Big mistake, big mistake -HUGE mistake ! This movie is bad !!! There is no way around it. With the exception of Peter Ustinov, the actors all pretty much sucked ! Even Renée Zellweger whom I loved in "Jerry Maguire" was no good! None of the lines were delivered well, even the funny ones ! They all looked bored and tired, the actors, not the lines... :-) Whoever chose the music, managed to do a pretty bad job of it too. Some classic tunes were ruined in some truly awful scenes. It was just embarrassing to watch. I see about 60 movies in the cinema every year (I'm not a professional critic, I just love films!), and this is the first time EVER I have actually left the theatre 3/4-way through the movie. I stayed that long because I thought may be it would get better. No such luck !


I saw "The Bachelor" tonight with my boyfriend at the dollar theater tonight, and even though I loved the classic romantic story, and even got a few laughs out of it, I noticed some subtle messages in the movie that disturb me.

When it comes down to it, this movie seems to perpetuate a Hollywood stereotype: you have to be young, blonde and thin in order to marry a young, handsome millionaire.

I noticed that although there was a diversity of women represented in the hundreds of bridal extras, they were portrayed in a negative light as they bickered, shouted, argued, begged, whined and accused each other to get the bachelor.

Also, in a time when minority roles on TV and in films is actually shrinking, it was most disappointing to me that neither the bachelor character nor his girlfriend had anyone who was of a different race or disabled, etc., in their circle of close friends (people that stayed with them throughout the movie). Notice that none of the bachelor's former girlfriends were disabled, overweight, or of another ethnicity. I find this hard to believe as the movie is set in racially diverse San Francisco.

This movie has other flaws which have been pointed out by numerous other reviewers, but this is one that is a lot more subtle that I hope will be corrected in other films in the future.


A film reviewer said it best, "Chris O'Donnell has a nose for comic timing that should be pressed to the a** of a farmyard animal." I would only add that those who find this movie "cute" or "funny" should be forced to watch it over and over again with their eyes taped open a la "Clockwork Orange".


We should have been given a prize for sitting through this movie, especially the last 30 minutes. It started out as a funny movie, but when all the "glitches" started and went on and on and on, nothing was funny any more.


Maybe it was just the theater, or maybe the projector person didn't know what he was doing, but in 75 percent of the scenes the boom mike was just hanging there above people's heads! In the scene on the pond, it looked like the priest was being attacked by a furry bird, and you could see where the actors were going to walk next because the mike was leading the way. It was so bad it was hilarious. Which is good because there wasn't that much else that was funny in this movie. Renee Zellweger shone far above the rest of the cast, Chris O'Donnell still needs to work on his comic timing, and the entire plot was an insult to women. Oh sure, everyone has a wedding dress just sitting around, just in case some stranger wants to marry you with little notice. Overall, a horrible experience. My girlfriend and I fought for the rest of the day.


Do not bother seeing this movie. Life is short, and you'll never be able to reclaim the 90 minutes you'll waste at "The Bachelor".

The plot was absolutely predictable and uncompelling, and most of the characters were, quite frankly... annoying.

The only redeeming characteristic of this film is the performance of Artie Lang as Marco, O'Donnell's best friend and partner in crime. However, you can see the same performance every week on "The Norm Show", since its essentially the same character.

.


I was excited to see the movie. Then I was disappointed. Much of the acting, especially the "known" stars, was quite cheesy. The writing seemed disjointed and the characters weren't funny. I especially was put off by the nastiness of some of the dialogue. The reference to defecate or not to defecate was gross. Occasional humor but too sporadic.


It sounds like a nightmare - you should marry in next 24 hours or lose a mighty heritage. The problem might not be that big, but the best girl you know happens to be mad at you and she's moving to other country. You did propose to her but you did that in such a manner that you have to pay now a perhaps too high a price for it.

The Bachelor himself seems to think "no big deal" and he takes it all that calmly that it's no surprise if you happen to forget his grand problem. On the other hand the supposed-to-be-Bride (Zellweger) doesn't fail and she's the best part in the whole film. Even if the film hardly appears as entirely interesting you may want to see the crowd of brides chasing hapless Bachelor down the streets, but hardly anything else here produces great moments, though it doesn't irritate much either.


I got this DVD for free, with a chicken dinner, no less. The chicken dinner was not very good but it was way better than this movie. Actually, I don't think I've ever rated a movie a 1 before, but that's only because IMDb does not allow a minus or a zero. The cast, I can't believe they would even come within a mile of this horrendous bomb, but they did, many of them, all broke, I suppose. Ed Asner, Hal Holbrook (who has one of the most appalling jobs - a father offering his 15 year old daughter as a bride to the most absolutely appalling cad), James Cromwell, Renee Zelweger and on and on. There is no script, no development of character (apart from a tiny slice of the James Cromwell bit)so many clichés it should be shown as how NOT to make a movie. I did not see it all the way to the end, my gag meter had maxed out and I needed to take a breath of fresh air. Shame on all concerned. 1 out of 10 for those 1000 unfortunate bit player brides running through San Francisco.


I have to say, I'm really disappointed with this film. I'm a big fan of the Italian thriller known as the Giallo and while I went into this film knowing that it is not a Giallo; I was still hoping that director Luigi Comencini would be able to make the film interesting enough to at least be entertaining. The plot provides a decent base for a murder mystery flick and begins with a murder, which is promptly investigated by Commissioner Santamaria. Any chance of this being a good film is promptly cut away however by the fact that it's all so boring. The film contains practically no suspense whatsoever and while some of the exchanges between the lead characters are fairly interesting and there's a few red herrings thrown in; it really is very difficult to keep focused on The Sunday Woman. The performances are all rather flat too and most of the actors look about as bored as I must have looked watching the film. It's clear that the director wanted the film to be of high quality, and while the tatty VHS I saw it on does the film no favours, I have to say he didn't succeed there either. There's a score from the great Ennio Morricone and some Italian humour thrown in too; but I've seen better of both in other films. The Sunday Woman does have some favourable comments on it so maybe I'm just missing something here; but personally, I can't see much to like in this film.


She acts, she sings, she models, she produces! This is a live action movie based on a silly cartoon. Spy spoof movies are plentiful and generally don't have the best reputation. This one works as a takeoff of a popular cartoon. It is not, however, about the moose-and-squirrel. It is about Sally Kellerman. If you want to enjoy this lanky bombshell at her best, this is the place to be.


Enough!! Get over yourself! You seem to harbor the delusion that television is obligated to YOU to be honest and forthcoming. You expect truth and respect from a medium that continually demonstrates it is incapable of either. A medium that places cameras everywhere, and makes it known to the participants; a medium that terms it's programming "reality TV" when NOBODY is real when they know they are being watched, appeals to the stupid among us. You seem to be well-educated, yet not bright enough to simply ignore network crap. You clearly have greater issues to deal with than to waste your time railing against the superficial perceptions of a "give the public what it wants" producer of a formula TV series.

You fell in love with the series, and now you know better - move on. You were never part of the target audience; you simply thought you were. Learn to pick your battles - you can't win this one, because your opinion is irrelevant to them. As you must know by now, THEY DON'T CARE!!

I wish you well in dealing with the circumstance you find yourself in, and know that my prayers are with you. You have a bright mind, and you are better served using it to deal with what is real around you. Network television deserves no attention from you - you're better than that.

Focus yourself elsewhere; you're better than you think.


Anybody who thought the original "Deathstalker" (1983) was abysmal should skip its lightweight, lackluster sequel "Deathstalker: Duel of the Titans" with John Terlesky taking over the sword wielding duties from Rick Hill as the eponymous warrior hero. Indeed, "Deathstalker 2" looks like a threadbare straight-to-video sequel. This potboiler relies, much to "Big Bad Mama" director Jim Wynorski's chagrin, on footage from its superior predecessor as well as generic Roger Corman footage. Furthermore, neither scenarist Neil Ruttenberg nor dialogue writer R.J. Robertson makes any mention of Deathstalker's previous heroic exploits.

Wynorski states on the commentary track that they tore up the first screenplay and reworked it because it was so terrible. "Deathstalker 2" is pretty terrible as it is, so one can only imagine how egregious the preliminary script must have been. This cardboard muscle man adventure springs no surprises on its audience, except for the automobile tire that appears in the garbage dump where Wynorski staged a scene and candidly admits that he missed during lensing. The sword fights lack energy, and the amateurish acting, particularly by Monique Gabrielle, is laughable.

The first scene has our hero acting like Indiana Jones as he sneaks into a castle (the shot is lifted from Corman's own movie "The Terror," to steal a gem but then has to fight his way out. Since film boasts only the most minimal of budgets, lensed as it was on location in Argentina to lower costs, "Deathstalker 2" resembles a studio bound television comedy drama with our hero and heroine bickering with each other as they defend themselves from the adversaries. Like the original "Deathstalker," "Deathstalker 2" pits our hero against an evil sorcerer, Jarek the Sorcerer (John Lazar of "Scorpion") who has magical powers. He has made a double of Princess Evie (Monique Gabrielle), cast Evie out to roam the kingdom, installed the double on the throne, and rules the kingdom. Reena, ostensibly calling herself a seer, recruits the 'prince of thieves, Deathstalker (John Terlesky of "Vampirella") to help her recover her throne. Meanwhile, an evil female warrior Sultana (Toni Naples of "Munchie") is looking to kill Deathstalker, too.

Predictably, it's no picnic trying to slay Deathstalker as the nefarious Gen (Marcos Woinsky) learns. During one of the film's more spectacular moments, our hero and heroine ride a gauntlet of explosive arrows as Gen and his A-Team of miscreants try to kill him. The scene in the crypt where Deathstalker escapes a crushing wall and saves Evie from a crowd of zombies is about as good as this cheesy epic gets. The only other scene that matches this occurs when Jarek kills a henchman during a conversation using water fountains to communicate. Jarek shoves his sword into the fountain and kills his incompetent henchman on the other side. Later, a tribe of Amazon warrior women capture Deathstalker and force him to defend his honor in a trial by combat. The Amazons hate Deathstalker's reputation as a womanizer, and they square him off against a gigantic redhead who makes life miserable momentarily for Deathstalker.

Like the original "Deathstalker," the saving grace of "Deathstalker 2" is its self-effacing sense of humor. Unfortunately, there is not quite enough self-effacing humor to counteract the amateurish acting, formulaic script, and comic book bubble dialogue. The outtakes during the end credits are a bonus for anybody that hangs around long enough to enjoy them. Terlesky is more athletic than muscular. The horrendous hokum pays tribute to "Rocky," "Star Wars," "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Escape from New York," and "Goldfinger." Once is more than enough to see this forgettable fodder.


"Deathstalker" of 1983 was an incredibly crappy movie, but in its own way incredibly entertaining and fun to watch, simply due to its value as an unintentional comedy. The first sequel, "Deathstalker II: Duel Of The Titans" of 1987 almost seems to be a spoof of its predecessor. As the first movie, "Deathstalker 2" is again extremely crappy and therefore quite funny, but it seems that director Jim Wynorski as well as the actors and everybody else connected with this film were actually willing to do a movie as crappy as possible on purpose. While the Deathstalker was basically a brutal and invincible Barbarian cheapo version of Conan played by muscleman Rick Hill in the first movie, the title character became a skinny guy with a tendency towards stupid jokes. The dialogue is even sillier and out of place than in the first movie ("a cigar for the lady", "is that your sword or are you just happy to see me"...), the acting is (intentionally?) terrible and hardly anything in the movie makes sense.

The movie is set in some fantasy land and fantasy time that seems lie an in-between of the middle ages and the stone age. The fact that the people are clearly pagans, of course, doesn't stop graves on cemeteries from having crosses on them. At one point of the movie a warrior explains that he had fought under Attila The Hun's command, while his buddy has served for Ghenghis Khan. The fact that Attila The Hun died over 700 years before Ghenghis Kahn was even born is, of course, ignored. Scenes like these, and other oddities, should keep the viewer entertained. "Deathstalker II" also features an Amazon tribe and warriors with human bodies and pig heads (one of those was my favorite character in the first film). Some of the women are lovely to look at, especially Monique Gabrielle, who plays the female lead, and Maria Socas, who plays the Amazon Queen, are a treat for the eye. One of the main aims of "Deathstalker II" is to show breasts (although not quite as often as the first film), but sadly it fails to achieve the amount of gore featured in its predecessor. All said, "Deathstalker II" is an extremely crappy movie, but great fun to watch. I recommend to watch the first "Deathstalker" before watching this, and I personally laughed more during the first film, but I guess it doesn't quite make a difference. People with a sense of humor and able to bear a bit of awfulness should certainly have a good time, 3/10


If you know what are you gonna see it is half OK. The first thing that you are gonna think after you watch the film is: where is the warrior dress that Monique Gabrielle has in the cover box? And that is the only reason to pick that movie: Monique Gabrielle. Do not expect more.

"Deathstalker 2: Duel..." is a very bad movie, with a ridiculous acting, trashy explosions, horrible music, lamentable directing, dreadful dialogues, etc. But they know that they are not doing a masterpiece and knowing that you will not take the film seriously, so although it is a bad movie, it can be watched.

If you want to know how the serie Z movies are, that is your movie. Nothing else.


Nevermind my low rating. This is a really good movie.

While the first DEATHSTALKER movie played it with a straight face (making it a much easier movie to poke fun at), this second installment in the series is tongue-in-cheek all the way. It did make me laugh as hard (or perhaps even harder at times) as with the first one, though maybe the enjoyment I got out of DEATHSTALKER II might be a bit less, how shall I put it... satisfying? Because after all, we're supposed to laugh with this one, and when it comes to the humor, it is as dumb as it gets. But still, nothing too wrong with that, I suppose. And to make things crystal clear from the get-go, the fun already starts in a most verbal way, just before the opening credits, when evil sword-wench Sultana shouts "I will have my revenge! And Deathstalker too!", and then whoosh, the "Deathstalker two" title-logo comes on. Brilliant.

Part of the fun still comes from unintentional events, like scenes starting and ending abruptly, a chase-scene on horses were people just seem to be riding the same part of the road endlessly, stock footage from the first DEATHSTALKER (with a different look, easy to spot) inserted in this sequel for pointless reasons, etc. Another reason for incomprehensible chuckles comes from the movie's subtitle. It reads DUAL OF THE TITANS, supported by crackling flames... What titans? Who? Where are they? And like if the opening-credits weren't enough to make us reflect on this movie in a grinning or dumbly drooling fashion, then wait until the end-credits start to roll. They show us a handful of bloopers, at times even supported by silly voice-overs. Those bloopers are likely to kill off any braincells one might still have after viewing DEATHSTALKER II: DUAL OF THE TITANS! (Which titans?)

The performances of the whole cast, this time, are indeed deliberately campy. Most actors handle a contemporary language completely unsuitable for a swords & sorcery film. Especially our hero (John Terlesky) seems to be exquisitely enjoying himself doing so. Blond Barbie-doll Monique Gabrielle (in a double-role, no less) was as painful as she was funny, watching her deliver her lines trying very hard to strike the right comical note (or vicious note, for that matter) when called for. And has John Lazar (of Russ Meyer's BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS fame) ever acted so laughably idiotic before in his life? Fitting for these slapstick characters, is the fact that they all seem to run around on sets made out of cardboard or styrofoam. In other words: real works of art.

Of course, DEATHSTALKER II offers enough female eye-candy. Knockers and buttocks are displayed quite randomly in this one (thank you, Jim Wynorski). Sometimes they use stock footage from the first movie for this purpose, but thankfully there's new boobage to behold too. Especially the sex-scene between Deathstalker and evil princess Evie is as gratuitous as can be. The one naked girl dancing in that completely retarded bar-fight (at the beginning) was quite funny too. Her dancing skills were limited to 'wiggle waggle, bounce & shake' and 'duck' when a hurled brew-holder comes flying over her head. Now that we're talking retarded scenes anyway, the movie reaches an absolute lowest point in the middle during an embarrassing wrestling scene that goes on for way too long. It's Deathstalker vs Utterly Fat Growling Barbaric She-Thing. I think that says enough.

But you have to at least give Jim Wynorski some credit: He really watched and understood the first DEATHSTALKER movie. He took several elements of the first film (characteristics of the 'hero', the nudity,...) and enlarged, emphasized and mainly spoofed them (out of the many examples of this, Warthog-Brute returning for a silly cameo is one of them). So at least, he aims to please and for the bigger part also succeeds. Even that inappropriate western-vibe is, at times, again present on the movie's soundtrack. And will you check out that one, eardrum-piercing sound-sample, used numerous times throughout the movie. It goes "shreeeeeeeuw!!!"... What was up with that? Other highlights include scenes distinctively showing Wynorski's inexplicable ways of film-making. One scene has Stalker and Reena on a horse, trying to escape some villains repeatedly shooting exploding arrows at them. The villains just shoot without aiming and the scene is packed with seemingly pointless explosions. It's like Wynorski just said to the pyro-technicians "When I yell action, you guys go nuts, okay? I don't care how you do it, just make sure you blow the hell out of everything!". And so they did.

Another favorite scene of mine (and another pointless one it is), is the one with the zombies at the green cemetery. I don't know why or how this cemetery is all green, but it is. Just look at it: Green graves all over the place. Magnificent. I guess it's all just proof that DEATHSTALKER II is one in a row of many successes by a genius film-maker. So, watch more Wynorski films is the main message here. Thanks for listening, and I'm off to prepare myself mentally for entering the third installment, undoubtedly yet another epic tale of mind-boggling barbaric fantasy, called DEATHSTALKER AND THE WARRIORS FROM HELL. Unfortunately, it was not directed by Jim Wynorski.


I really tried to like this movie. And while it wasn't horrendous, I found myself getting more and more fatigued as it went along. It perked my interest enough that I was too curious to just turn it off. But it was SO SLOW MOVING that I felt like I was the one lost in a time machine. The acting was not bad, but the scenery was unchanging and boring. Although the ending was good, by the time it finally got there I didn't even care how it ended.


*Contains spoilers*

This is a most trying movie. The idea seemed good going on the DVD cover, but the reality is tedious and at time irritating.

It could have been OK if only the scriptwriter hadn't had verbal diarrhoea and if the female lead hadn't acted the part far too often in a fit of hysteria. We have to endure groups having arty conversations that have very little to do with the plot - at times nothing at all that I could see, and worse, are excruciatingly boring.

The heroine is irritatingly dim. She's had a history of loser lovers and when you watch her you aren't going to be very surprised about that. When her futuristic lover turns up, she's unable to listen to him trying to explain his situation because she's just too thick to understand anything much of what he's talking about. She doesn't have to believe him, but she could at least have some grasp of science and time so that the guy could feel he's talking to a woman with a brain. In other words, these two characters are totally unsuited - unless the futuristic visitor really wants just a bimbo? It's somehow not surprising that she has to keep visiting a shrink though she doesn't seem to improve from the visits.

The most worrying thing is why this futuristic guy bothered to come back to find Ruby, but I guess it must be that man thing we women hear about that men fall for a girl's looks, not her intellect. This girl doesn't have much intellect. I have to say this may be due to the frenetic way the part is played. Perhaps the actress could have interpreted the script with something more measured than that style which Americans call zany. Perhaps it was all meant to be hilariously funny but I love funny stories and I didn't find much in this movie that's really funny.

The hero tries, he really does. He acts the part pretty well. You can feel for him. It would have been good to hear more about his future time but we're told so little it's infuriating.

There are a few interesting touches in what's mostly pretty long-drawn-out and disappointing. I particularly liked it whenever we were introduced to other time travellers, particularly the shrink - yes, that was a surprise to me, very clever. But those intro's were so rare and so brief. Once I knew there were others around, I was waiting for them and a few more would have helped liven up the movie.

The solution to saving the hero from his problem re how to "stay" in "now" is one of those tedious ideas that "love will do the trick. It was so, so cheesy. For all we know, it may really be the solution to everything, but I hope not the way it's put over in this movie.

This is a movie based on a quite clever sf idea but the s has nearly all gone missing and it's very short on any interesting f.

Vaguely watchable if you are desperate for something to see and take a liking to the casting.

The issue of what happens if you change history by going back in time is always intriguing. A pity it wasn't treated more seriously in this tale, but I think this movie isn't aimed at sf fans.


I hate Frasier. It is without a doubt the most annoying sitcom ever made. It is proof that a spin off series can never work. Cheers was good and didn't deserve to have Frasier besmirch its memory.

I hate it when American sitcoms show characters who have such an easy life. I know sitcoms don't have to be ultra realistic, but come on, no one is like Frasier or Niles.

And what the hell is up with Daphne? I've been to Manchester and no Mancunian sounds like her. And she is nothing like any English person who ever lived.

The only good character is Eddie the dog. He should have had a series to himself.


I think that Frasier not good. It does not probably deserve a vote of 1 from me, I used to watch the show happily before I had taste. I just wish my TV remote control had a picture of Frasier with a line through it. I turn the TV on, it is Frasier. It's like my cable lineup is the all Frasier channel, all the time, then, when Frasier is over, Becker reruns. I almost miss the John Laroquette Show. Look, I can't afford them fancy Tivos, I hate turning on the TV and seeing that dipass Frasier. I want to kick him in the nuts. If I ever see him in an airport or anything, I swear to Christ I will kick him in the balls, then I will roar and beat my chest. I think that Frasier not good. Frasier... gay...ish.


The ten minute short film Between Showers is best seen, perhaps, as a historical document. More than ninety years old, it serves as a reminder that movies has both changed and not changed since that time. This is obviously a silent, which calls for a visual kind of humour. The plot is thus fairly straight forward and serves as an excuse for the characters to fall on their butts and fight in an overly theatrical manner, judged by today's standards anyway. However, it is interesting to see Chaplin's crude and early attempts at what he and others (Jackie Chan to name one of our contemporaries) would later perfect  well timed physical humour. No doubt intended as entertainment for the moment, Between Showers lacks the social commentary of the 22 years younger masterpiece Modern Times, but it contains a seed, albeit small, of the breathtaking acrobatics displayed therein.

Of historical interest.


In 1914, Charlie Chaplin began making pictures. These were made for Mack Sennett (also known as "Keystone Studios") and were literally churned out in very rapid succession. The short comedies had very little structure and were completely ad libbed. As a result, the films, though popular in their day, were just awful by today's standards. Many of them bear a strong similarity to home movies featuring obnoxious relatives mugging for the camera. Many others show the characters wander in front of the camera and do pretty much nothing. And, regardless of the outcome, Keystone sent them straight to theaters. My assumption is that all movies at this time must have been pretty bad, as the Keystone films with Chaplin were very successful.

The Charlie Chaplin we know and love today only began to evolve later in Chaplin's career with Keystone. By 1915, he signed a new lucrative contract with Essenay Studios and the films improved dramatically with Chaplin as director. However, at times these films were still very rough and not especially memorable. No, Chaplin as the cute Little Tramp was still evolving. In 1916, when he switched to Mutual Studios, his films once again improved and he became the more recognizable nice guy--in many of the previous films he was just a jerk (either getting drunk a lot, beating up women, provoking fights with innocent people, etc.). The final evolution of his Little Tramp to classic status occurred in the 1920s as a result of his full-length films.

Apart from one or two moments, this film has little to offer other than guys slugging each other and mistreating women. No laughs--just amateurish crap by today's standards.


The most manipulated, contrived show you're ever likely to see. HOW this man can sleep at night is certainly "Beyond" me! People like this exploit grieving families who are so desperate to believe that their loved one is still with them somehow, that they blindly swallow the info that he "tells" them, never questioning the fact that he does NOTHING! He asks questions, takes guesses, makes bland and banal statements that could be applicable to half the people in the room, and pretends that he is receiving the information from heaven! The saddest part is that so many people are taken in by people like this, and allow people like Van Praagh and Sylvia Brown etc to prostitute the memory of their loved ones, and make themselves very rich in the process. If you have ever paid to hear or see one of these people, or bought one of their books, then you have my deepest sympathy. Your loved ones deserve better, and so do you.


Christina Applegate put in a great performance in her interpretation of the role of Claudine. The rest of the movie did not support her performance, however. The plot was weak, with the only substantive storyline occurring in the first 15 mins., and the last 15 mins. The rest of the movie could have been cut, and the audience would not have missed much. Tibaldi's direction used a lot of close shots, and free camera work, that actually detracted from the story. In scenes where the audience might have wanted to pay attention, we were getting distracted by the edgy camera motions. There were a number of subplots that never played into the story, and ended up like flotsam on a beach, with no purpose.


The main reason I'm posting this comment is point out that there are NO NUDE scenes featuring the femme fatal Christina app legate so if you mistook the R-rating,and the cover showing Appplegate pole-dancing as an implication that you're gonna see a "money shot" then do yourself a favor, don't make the same mistake I did when it first came out and don't bother renting it. Its actually a really depressing movie, so if you're into soppy love stories then you might enjoy it. The acting was OK, I suppose, but frankly the overall wasn't my cup of tea. There are, however, love scenes although about as soft-core as a soap opera. Is it just me or should they start labeling what you get to see in a movie and who you get to see it on right on the box next to the rating?


The reason you have not heard of this film is that no one saw it, and that is the way it should be. Applegate is almost decent, but the accent seems variable, and she doesn't transition us through her mood swings, which probably is more the fault of the director, editor, and writers than hers. Somehow I did not get why she was as nutso as she was. Just a spoiled little rich girl all twisted by unhappy events? Persons of modest strength survive the traumas of life, why couldn't Claudine? It was a bit like destroying your life with drugs and alcohol because someone had a better senior prom dress. Wasn't that Valerie Perrine in the end as the stepmom? Where was her credit? Did she decline one when she saw how bad the film was? If so, she showed marvelous taste.


This film has been repackaged as an erotic picture [retitled Kiss Of Fire] with a very racy cover that implies one will get more than a brief exposure to Miss Applegate's talents. Well forget it. This is an idiotic "drama" with no point, little plot, and amateurish camera work. Disney has added the tagline "An Erotic Journey Of Desire!" to a movie that is really just a crappy chick-flick!


We pick up the story of "Karate Kid" Danny La Russo right where we left it in "The Karate Kid", with young Danny having just won the amateur tournament. From here director John G. Avildsen takes us in a slightly different direction. In fact we head to the far east, back to Okinawa, the birthplace of Mr. Myagi. Here Myagi must settle affairs with his dying father, and also face an old friend who holds a forty year grudge.

Part two tells the tale of traditional Japanese honour without much flair or freshness, with the plot heading down a very obvious path early on. It's satisfying to see the original director and cast returning for this sequel, yet they sadly fail to recapture the mood of the first film, and "Pat" Morita is not as impressive this time either.

Bill Conti brings his initial score back too, and the film is well shot, yet it fails to really uplift and entertain its audience. The opening flashbacks to the first "Karate Kid" are the best this movie has to offer.

Tuesday, February 22, 1994 - Video


The Karate Kid, Part II (1986) was unavoidable. You know after the success of the first installment there was going to be a sequel. The cash cow franchise wasn't going to be denied this time around (eventually the kitty would run dry by Part Three). Oh well, here we go...

Mr. Miyagi learns about an illness in his family and has to leave for his home island of Okinawa. Young (I use this term very loosely this time around) Danny can't bear to not be at his mentor's side and travels with him. While in Okinawa, we learn about the closet full of skeletons that Mr. Miyagi had left behind. His old friend/nemesis greets him upon his return. Sato (an Hawaiian playing a Japanese guy) is angry with him about something that happened to them many years ago (and I do mean many, I thought I can hold a long grudge). Not only that but Young Danny also happens to make a mean enemy (can't he ever get a break?). Will Danny and Mr. Miyagi over come the odds as they fight side by side? Will Sato takes something for that nasty constipation (watch the movie, you'll know what I mean)? You have to watch . The Karate Kid, Part II.

Okay, here's my big gripe with this movie (and others like it). How come whenever two character are "speaking" to each other in a foreign language, why must they speak to each other in broken English?

For Karate Kid fans only


I don't expect much from made-for-TV action adventures. But this film featuring the talented Noah Wyle had enough ingredients to make it a nice venture. The shooting locations, the cast and visual effects were indeed more than satisfactory. But its potentials were ruined by its laughable plot (though I understand the producers looked for something rather comic) and terrible screenplay. The actors must have laughed behind the scenes having uttered these silly dialogues.

Some reviewers here demanded a sequel for this film. I also do so, but to utilise the character of Noah Wyle in a more fruitful manner. Good family adventure films are scarce these days.


I was looking for a little light entertainment, and TNT's continuous plugs promised just that. But upon watching it I found it to be based upon a silly premise, with inconsistent problems and characters and pat solutions. Examples of the latter: our hero deciphers an impossible dead language during an airplane flight, and from then on can fluently interpret the book containing clues to the mysteries to come. Out of nowhere Nicole the wonder-woman appears to help our hero out of impossible scrapes he gets into. Another inconsistency is the presence of several other librarians, none of whom can do what our hero undertakes on his first day of work; and the previous librarian, who was supposed to be pretty smart, seems never to have had a clue about the answers our hero has uncovered. Noah Wylie was suitable as our hero, though I was most impressed by Sonja Walger as the brawn of the operation. Apparently Kyle MacLachlan just needed the money. In my opinion Bob Newhart would be funny reading the phone book, and he did his thing well here. But overall I felt I had wasted my time.


big budget(ish) and minor stars. felt sorry for bob newheart acting in this drivel must need the money to retire to Florida!. the funny bit's wern't funny. the plot couldn't have been believed even if it were written by god himself on stone tablet. the acting was diabolical especially from kyle mcclachlan, who can actually act he must need the money for his own production or something. noah wyle stank. the hot eye candy was a dog and pathetic at acting. the script and dialogue was awful as were the set pieces.. a total waste of 1 hour 45 minutes.. want the same experience but feel less cheated i suggest you put your head in a gas oven for that length of time but make sure the gas is off first.


It was one major pus-filled cliché. Indiana Jones, Hellboy, Men In Black, Lara Croft Tomb Raider (video game and movie) The Medalion, Monk, Witchblade, Kill Bill (with the music that played when the two girls started fighting,) Lord of the Rings, and countless of other films were constantly being ripped off by this piece of crap. It was beyond a waste of time. Also, if they were going to make a film based around facts and place them into fictional environments, get them right. Why is there snow on top of the mountains in Brazil and Mayans were never in South America; it was the Incas that inhabited that area. The Mayans inhabited Central America and southern Mexico


As a future librarian, I have to say the title is the wrong choice. Sure, he read a lot of books and could set up the RSS feed, but the true question is, "Did he have the MLIS degree?" Librarians don't play around with artifacts. They have books to catalog, websites to update, research to perform, and papers to publish. Archeologists study ancient things and classify them. They take an item, clean it up, and put it in a museum for people to study and learn from. Archeologists would not want to be called librarians.

For an Indian Jones rip-off, it's not too bad, but not really worth the 2 hours either.


A disappointing transition from the small screen for Noah Wyle. Although he didn't let himself down with his acting, playing a slightly more knowledgeable Dr John Carter - but without the appeal to the ladies, was never going to challenge our protagonist. Even the script was fine, including comedy, romance and adventure....which ultimately must have been the reason for Noah to accept the part; Genius Indiana Jones seeks stolen Biblical Relic from evil predecessor to save world. What more do you want?..Indiana Jones -GOOD, fashionable Biblical Relic -GOOD, save the world plot - GOOD. Realistic production and set-Goo...NO....rubbish! I found all the cheap sets and over indulgence on computer generated backgrounds far to distracting to follow film as keenly as deserved, I'm sure even Noah himself was cringing into his popcorn at the premiere. Obviously budget had an impact on this production, but some imagination would have been refreshing, and less of a kop out. Overall, one for the kids, and if keen on good production, steer clear. A definite missed opportunity for a good film.


Kid's adventure in the style of Young Sherlock Holmes, but without anyone for the kids to identify with. I really wonder what the target demographics were... possibly immature college students, I guess. The effects were pretty horrible, the computer graphics were ugly and stuck out like a sore thumb. I can't believe they're actually proud of them in the "behind the scenes" interview... (Gorges galore!) Predictable storyline without any real depth. Kid's stuff, as said. Also, not too ashamed to admit stealing lots from the Indiana Jones movies. Female lead is a dead ringer for Lara Croft (Sonya Walger).

Only for those who have a crush on Noah Wyle. Kyle MacLachlan and Olympia Dukakis only has a couple of minutes in the movie. Overall, terrible direction and over-acting.

I'm totally dumbfounded by the age rating of 15. One guy gets stabbed by the Spear of Destiny(TM), otherwise it seems very appropriate for 7 year old rating.


Should an African-American child be raised by Anglo-American parents? This is the perplexing question raised in Stephen Gyllengaal's tragic "Losing Isaiah", the story of the desperate custody battle between the white adoptive parents and the black biological mother of little four year old Isaiah. Khaila Richards has discovered that the baby she left in a cardboard box is still alive and lays claim to him, stating that he should not be raised by parents of a differing colour. Margaret and Charles Lewin will not concede without a fight though, and they enlist an African-American attorney to represent their cause.

Director Gyllenhaal fails (incredibly) to generate compassion for any of the characters involved, not even Isaiah! Naomi Foner's screenplay (from Seth Margolis' novel) has unfortunately underdeveloped its pivotal players, and thus we are unable to associate with them and get under their skin. The characters of Khaila and Charles Lewin are particularly overlooked.

Here we have a film that presents a shocking and challenging topic without (somehow) shocking or challenging us. Failing almost entirely to invoke the emotions, I was no more inspired than having read the story in the newspaper. Marc John Jefferies is cute, yet Gyllenhaal barely even plays on this, amazingly.

Both Director and screenwriter have skimmed over the top of all the sensitive issues and shirked all the antagonistic problems that "Losing Isaiah" raises. They never stir deeply enough nor give the movie a harsh enough edge. The soft ending is a major disappointment too, when this picture desperately needed a hard-hitting finale to drive home a point, one Mr. Gyllenhaal's film never had to make in the first place.

Racial issues throughout are intriguing yet sadly never fully examined. Should black and white mix when it comes to raising children? Can white folks raise an African-American child satisfactorily, so that he has a full understanding of who he is, his heritage, and so that he's sure of his position in society and is able to form and maintain stable relationships? Then again, is an ex-crack addict who threw her new born baby out with the trash fit to be a mother? The ultimate question is of course, what's best for Isaiah? With all this in mind, the whole movie just did not have the impact it required and will leave you untouched.

All the acting is of a good standard, though never to the height it could have been. Both David Strathairn and Samuel L. Jackson ("Pulp Fiction") are hard pressed to do anything with their limited roles, Halle Berry shows she's on the rise with a convincing portrayal of Khaila, while Jessica Lange is strong but she's been infinitely better. In fact the most disappointing thing about Ms. Lange's showing was her appearance! She looked dreadful, as if she hadn't slept in days, and her hair was awful. Certainly a far cry from the gorgeous blonde in "Tootsie".

It was great to hear another fine Mark Isham score.

Tuesday, June 6, 1995 - Hoyts Forest Hill Chase


You'd have thought a Carter-Spotnitz team up would be a good idea. It payed off later on, but not this time. From the opening scene of a man in the jungle bursting puss-filled boils on a dead elephant or whatever it was, right down to the end scene where a guy gets shot through the cheek, this episode is disgusting, absolutely revolting. It wasn't improved by the fact I was in a bad mood when I watched it, but still, they could have done much better than this. The thing is, we've seen this so many other times in the X-Files and seen it done a hell of a lot better. Even John Shiban's surprisingly mediocre Season Four entry El Mundo Gira was better than this. Still, as Season Two comes to a close, this beats a lot of other trash which surfaced during the course of the Season Two, but it's still pretty rubbish and is one of many X-Files episodes I wouldn't watch again if you paid me.


Well, this episode was so full of plot holes that I have to comment about it. So the great pharmaceutical company is using prisoners as lab rats. Ahem. Why would they use a prison, if they can do all the things they are doing in this episode, like burning bodies in a crematory (crematory in a prison?), lying to everyone that they are from CDC without any prison officers of anyone else caring about it.. the list goes on and on. Because if they told the prison that they are from CDC and the prisons officers would confirm this and the CDC would say they are from CDC but they in fact are from that big pharmaceutical company, then it would mean that the CDC and the company are both involved and they wouldn't even need to lie.

In one scene, there's U.S Marshalls and Mulder in a gas station where they discover a wounded clerk. Suddenly a yellow helicopter comes from nowhere, and 4 hazard-suited men grab the victim in a plastic coffin. No one does nothing, they just stare those 4 dudes packing their victim in and they don't ask anything, do anything, just stare like stupid rabbits. No one in law enforcement would EVER act like that.

This whole episode was so full of sh it that I can't stand it. Usually there's even some kind of connection to reality in behaviors of law enforcement in X-files, but this was so stupid episode that it made me angry.

OK, there is a good gross factor, but thats it.


This 'movie' is rarely discussed or aired on TV. There is a very good reason why, I'll explain.

Aside from the name in the title and a guy driving a car, this movie really has NOTHING at all to do with the 80's TV series 'Knight Rider'that most of us grew up watching. Instead this movie is more like a low budget Mad Max sequel with cyber-punk undertones. I'll try and sum up the movie for you: In the future earth is barren and polluted, there's this guy with a big truck who smuggles people into the clean air domes (makes ya think of Total Recall, eh?) he meets up with this scientist guy who wants to steal his organs using this soul-stealing crystal thing, the immigrant smuggler guy's girlfriend gets her soul trapped in the crystal instead, immigrant smuggler guy then puts the crystal into a car he built from scraps of a Mustang. The scientist villain guy is thwarted, a joke is made about doing some matrix-ish cybersex interface thing and our heroes drive off into the sunset.

The TV movie before 2010; KR2000 was crud but it at least had some relevance to the 80's series, Team Knight Rider was also terrible but still had ties to KITT and The Foundation. KR2010 is crap. Mr. Hasselhoff and Mr. Larson; if you have any sense, don't let 'Knight Rider: The Movie' be like this. Base it around the pilot ep where Michael Long is shot, please... We're tired of made-for-TV garbage. If Dukes of Hazzard can have a decent theatre movie, can't Knight Rider?


This movie was appalling. I expected a better looking car than the one in it, and where on earth was Hasselhoff? What is a knight rider movie without the star? It's like making return of the Jedi without Luke sky walker or simply having the emperor as the baddie and leaving out Darth Vader - it tears a story apart. It should not have "loosley" followed the original series, it should have followed closely and been a better more advanced version, given the time of its release. Apart from some of the music, (which was slow mundane and boring); nevertheless, the movie seemed more like a mid-eighties film rather than a mid-ninety's production. Shame on whoever directed it - and the ridiculous unnecessary innuendo at the end: Hannah's hologram says to Jake in the car, referring to the virtual world. "Three minutes before you flat line in there" Then Jake Mcqueen (why try and make it better by changing the name? - what the heck happened to Michael Knight?) says "Three minutes... That should be enough!" - what is this soft core erotica or something? Last but not least, the arch villain dies of a heart attack, they don't even finish the fight. His machine pumps blood around the body and attempts to keep him alive long enough to design a heart machine that will make him live forever. He dies by his own devices - I get what the director may have been trying to convey, but could it have been any less dramatic and boring, I don't believe that is possible.


How they can milk the classic "Knight Rider" series for this piece of trash is beyond me. The 80's series was a classic even though I do think that David Hasselhoff is an absolutely shambolic actor, which really comes through when he plays two roles in the episodes "Goliath" and "Goliath Returns". If you haven't seen those two episodes yet then you must, they are pure comic genius with Hasselhoff playing Michael Knight's evil twin brother Garth, with a ridiculously massive fake stuck on beard!, classic.

Regardless, it was a good series, and the makers of this movie have just used the title of "Knight Rider" to get a bigger audience. There is no doubt that more people would be interested in watching this film simply because of the title. It essentially hasn't hardly got anything to do with the concept and original idea of Knight Rider, until right at the end, (at which time I was falling in and out of sleep), when they build a car with armour and weapons on it. No K.I.T.T., no talking voice, no turbo boost, no molecular bonded shell & no incredibly sexy Bonnie (Patricia Mcphearson). Although there is one nice girl in it which is basically why I am gave this movie the rating I did, otherwise it would have been 0 or 1.

Here's a thing that the script writers didn't think of. If in the original Knight rider series, if Wilton had Michaels face constructed in Garths image then why is he as well as looking like him in the face, has he got the same afro hair, the same height, the same build??. The only thing different is a massive beard and Garth breathes and overacts more. Just thought I'd throw that one in. Now back to Knight Rider 2010......

Would not recommend this movie to anyone, it is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen and just like Jaws 3 and that awful Jaws: The Revenge, it puts the original films to shame.

Dreadful film, Rating 2/10. trash


It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back. It's time out from your life you will not get back.


If you're expecting the hairy chest of David Hasselhoff and the retro cool Pontiac of KITT then don't bother with this movie. Purported to be loosely based on the original series it has no character called Knight, no reference to the Foundation for Law And Government and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Knight Rider. In fact, it's rubbish. A bounty hunter operating outside the law gets caught up in a love triangle with his former girlfriend and her disabled boss. Somehow he turns down a Ferrari, an AC Cobra and a 1950's piece of American automobile history to rebuild an old hot rod car, coating it in bulletproof material and making a computer that can talk. Hence the ability to trade on the Knight Rider brand. Aside from that, it's nothing other than an attempt to keep the name alive until Glen A. Larson finishes writing the script for the new Knight Rider movie, due out in 2008.


Just to clarify the above statement quote"Michael Knight's evil twin brother Garth"

Michael Knight is in no way related to Garth because Michael Knight is an alias created by Garths father(cant remember full name) for Michael Long.

A cop who is nearly killed by a scandal that is outlined in the pilot and as well in later episodes.

I saw the movie as well and i thought it was mildly entertaining although i have to agree that it was overall a bad attempt to milk the TV series.


This film was shown here with the title "Metal Force - Apokalypse in L.A.", so I did not expect a Knight Rider film, which was good, because it is not one. Instead this is more like Mad Max.

I watched this film mainly to see what Hudson Leick has done apart from Callisto in Xena. She was very different here, mainly beautiful, and not much else.

The main problem I have with this film is that I don't understand the villains (another parallel with the original Mad Max). What are their goals, and how does killing the senior McQueen and Hannah help them?

I find one parallel with Knight Rider, though: In the pilot of Knight Rider, Michael Knight is almost killed, and then reconstructed with essentially a new body. Here, Hannah's body is killed, and she gets the car as the new body.


This movie is not what you think it would be. It was four in the morning and i was watching a marathon on the Sci-Fi channel and this movie popped up, and i had to watch it. At the beginning I thought this isn't to bad, but we do we get to see the car. Then the middle, got there and it was not what I expected. Though the movie isn't really a Knight Rider movie, but the action and somewhat of a story line make it a movie that if there is nothing else better on you might as well see it. If you are a Knight Rider fan waiting to see this movie you will know what I mean when you see it. My favorite thing about this movie would have to be basis of the story, it makes a great way to present a film. So if your not doing anything and aren't planning on doing anything, watch and see.


perhaps they already thought Katt. But no everyone up in idiotsville thought this one would fly

(spoiler? not sure but just a warning so I can let my mind wander without worrying about it)

I watched this when it first came out and recorded it for the heck of it later. This is tv gone bizerk. I'd heard about it before it was filmed. Kitt had a sex change. It was beyond that. It's more like First Knight. Take the basic storyline, move it to another show/movie and wallah, idiotsville. Heck the car looks like **** (enter 4 letter word that rhymes with our favourite little voice). Who'd want it? Hell the car in Knight Rider 2000 looked better than this junk heap. And somehow this crystal is supposed to be a human of sorts? You've got to be kidding. Sure it would have been passible for Knight Rider 2000 to be made into a series, but 2010 can be burned into a molten rock. Wasn't this the idiot who's got an amazing heart valve? I'll be the first to knock him out. Being an original Knight Rider fan this was both upsetting and morose. I believe this came out of the Action Pack crap. (the same thing that brought us Hercules..) you can take that to the bank, if it's along side Hercules imagine....... 3/10


I saw a comment on this movie that claims it is the one with the cameo appearance by TV's Scotty from Star Trek. This is incorrect. there were two Knight Rider Spin off movies in the 90s. Both were crappy. This one was made in 1994, knight rider 2010, without any people from the original TV show. It take place in a Mad Max style future where this guy either finds or builds a new kit. In many ways, a blatant and poor rip off of mad max... as the guy drives from place to place in this post apocalyptic future. The earlier one was knight rider 2000... from 1991... equally crappy, this one starred David Hasselhoff and yes... had a silly cameo appearance y James Doohan as himself. Avoid both.