When an ancient Egyptian tomb is found in a North American park, a group of scientists and students of Egyptology arrive to the site to study the inscriptions. Meanwhile, the four thousand years old evil high-priestess Aneh-Tet (Claudia Lyns) awakes and seeks six offerings to revive her legion of mummies. Then she needs the blood of a virgin to bring her father back to life, become immortal and rule the world.

I bought this DVD based on the name of Bruce Boxleitner and the wonderful art of the cover of the DVD. However, the story is very disappointing, and I particularly liked two scenes: the nudity of the gorgeous and sexy Claudia Lyns, and the funny line of Sheriff Jones, when he says to his skeptical assistant: "- Just because a chicken has wings doesn't mean it can fly." My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): Not Available


I really do not like being harsh but this movie is awful! I mean sometimes I find at least one good thing to say about a movie but there nothing good to be said about this one. There is a a lot of senseless action in the movie that has no flow, people die needlessly and repeatedly, there is scary music when there is no need for it, importance is placed on certain roles and then they are removed from the movie by being killed off, and the action scenes involving the lead actress is like watching a Barbie doll trying to defend herself. Especially at the end when she plants the ankh in the neck of the woman! It really looks like she does not have the strength to hold the ankh let alone drive it through someone's neck. Also let's not forget how she evades the mummies at the motel. She can play an intellect in front of a camera but someone put this actress in a class that teaches how to act out action scenes.

I usually keep a copy of all my movies but not of this one. I am deleting this one just like I deleted Gargoyles by Jim Wynorski.


I know these movies are supposed to be stupid--but they must always provide marginal entertainment. Unfortunately, this movie is worse than just its formula plot, commodity script, laughably sad production values and stupefying nature (brain cells will be lost). It is a FRAUD.

You CANNOT give Bruce Boxleitner and Gremlins-boy billing on the box as the featured actors, and have both of those characters die, complete with perhaps 20 minutes of worthless screen time for both combined. I do not give one Piece of Cr*p about the no-name actresses who become the heroes of the mentally challenged story. The marketers behind this film, and any knowingly involved in this scam should be ashamed--and they owe me money!


Legion of the Dead starts as a young & attractive Egyptology student named Molly (Courtney Clonch) pulls up to an extraordinary find somewhere in California, apparently there's an Egyptian tomb that's been unearthed out in the sticks somewhere. Dr. Ari Ben-David (Rhett Giles) & Dr. Swatek (Zach Galligan) are in charge & they are both very excited, however a great evil has been awakened in the shape of the re-animated Egyptian priestess Aneh-Tet (Claudia Lynx) who needs 6 souls to bring her 6 zombie mummies back to life & take over the world with the aid of a big slimy monster thing which can only be brought into this world by a virgin sacrifice. Molly discovers whats going on & it's up to her to save the day!

Apparently shot under the cheeky title of Unravelled, written & directed by Paul Bales I thought Leigon of the Dead was an OK time waster although many may feel I'm being too generous with that description. The script obviously uses mummies & ancient Egyptian mythology presumably to try & cash-in on the huge success & popularity of Universal's two recent Mummy films with Brendan Fraser, unfortunately the budget didn't stretch to any location filming so in flash of inspiration the filmmakers thought to themselves if we can't go to Egypt Egypt will have to come to us in California! Hence the absurd notion of an ancient Egyptian tomb in the middle of rural California which isn't where the silliness stops but since Legion of the Dead is just a low budget horror film I doubt anyone involved was aiming for authenticity, if you know what I mean. I wasn't convinced about the unlikely notion that if you make a groundbreaking discovery like the one in the film the only people you bring in are young, hunky teenage students to assist you. The character's & dialogue aren't great but they suffice although what saves Legion of the Dead is some reasonable gore, the fact it's a little bit different, it has some good looking birds in it & it moves along at a fair pace. As I said it's an OK way to pass the time, just don't expect a masterpiece because this ain't it.

Director Bales does OK & keeps the annoying MTV style nonsense down to a minimum, it actually looks like a professional film which I guess I should be grateful for on it's own considering some of the low budget horror crap that's floating around out there. I wouldn't call Legion of the Dead particularly scary & the action scenes lack a certain spark although the zombie mummies are quite cool. There's some decent gore here, there's various melting faces, a ripped out heart & a couple of really cool bits where people have their spines ripped out which is novel (if you haven't played Mortal Kombat) if nothing else. There's some nudity as well if that sort of thing interests you.

I have to say I'm pretty impressed with Legion of the Dead considering the supposed $500,000 budget, it looks alright & while the special effects aren't going to win any awards they're not too bad. For what it is it's reasonably well made & the acting is OK as well although it saddens to see decent actors like Zach Galligan & Bruce Boxleitner reduced to bit-part roles in films such as this.

Legion of the Dead isn't a great film that's for sure but I found it a mildly entertaining way to pass 90 odd minutes although I wouldn't be able to argue with anyone who called it crap, not as bad as I was expecting but still far from what one might call a good film.


My friend is on a quest to watch all things Bruce Boxleitner, and I, being a good friend agreed to watch this with her. Words cannot ex press how poorly this was acted, produced, edited, and written. I understand all the no name actors in it, no shame on them for taking a paying gig. But shame on Bruce for sullying his good name! The worst part was the concept...spoiler alert! that the Egyptians had a trans-Atlantic trade route...to Southern California. I am hoping the writers were forced to change the location due to production costs, but there could have been some sort of compromise that didn't involve stupidity. Bottom line: NEVER RENT THIS MOVIE OR WATCH IT ON TV!!!


Of course I already knew at advance that this movie would be a bad one but in a way the movie was even worse than I could had ever anticipated.

Real problem with this movie is how amateur like it got made. Bad directing, bad editing, and bad camera work. It also doesn't help that the movie is very cheap looking, this lets the movie look all the more weak and ridicules.

The sound also got messed up pretty bad. The one moment some of its sound effects are too loud while the other things and dialog are too soft. This is also variating and at times you can't even hear some of the characters, while the others are clearly understandable, even when they are in the same scene's at times.

Also the story is just plain ridicules. I mean, an Egyptian mummy buried somewhere in the good old USA? It's just their way of saying; we want to do a mummy movie but we don't have the money or resources to go for Egypt for it or try the recreate it somewhere else. Also the way the entire story progresses results in the fact that nothing in the story just ever works really out. It makes the movie boring and real tiresome to watch. And of course the story needs to feature a couple of teenagers in the main lead but oh well this always had been the case in these sort of genre movies since the '70's on. The movie and it's story really start to get out of control as it heads more and more toward its incredibly poorly done last 20 minutes.

The scare effects of the movie just don't work out and they try to enhance it by adding some gore but instead it works out all the more ridicules since it's just not very convincing looking. The special effects are just too lame. The movie also doesn't exactly get scary due to the fact that the mummy is a beautiful, young, half-nude, Arabic girl.

The acting in this movie is all in all not that bad, especially considering the genre but of course the actors aren't exactly helped by the movie its incredible weak and silly script. What's even the main point in the movie its story? The movie really isn't going anywhere with its story. There is mummy on the loose who kills a lot of people in an horrible way but yet no one seems to be worried about the fact that their friends getting killed. The cast mostly consists out of young unknowns with the exception perhaps of Bruce Boxleitner who is a well known in certain circles.

Well OK there are worse movies to watch out there but that doesn't make this movie a good one. The fact that the movie has such a tiresome story is the foremost reason that this movie is a completely dull one that certainly isn't recommendable, not even for the genre fans or lovers of 'bad movies'.

2/10


Another brain dead selection from the production company Asylum. LEGION OF THE DEAD attempts to mix mummy movie with sexploitation flick. The result, hardly a first, looks like an inferior remake of the much-maligned LIFEFORCE. This time, instead of a naked space-vampire chick that sucks the lifeforce out of entranced males, we get a naked mummy-vampire chick that sucks the lifeforce out of entranced males.

Calling this movie a rip-off would be a compliment, however. It would ignore how really bad this film is. Unconvinced? Think about this: the best feature of the movie is the bad acting.

So what are we left with? There's laughable CGI. A "legion of the dead" that amounts to a few badly made up mummies. An Egyptian tomb set that appears to have been made of cardboard (but perhaps that's how California's ancient Eyptians once constructed them). I kid you not, people. This tomb was discovered in the woods of Southern California. And don't make me start on the script. Please. I don't want to think about it in any kind of detail.

Worst of all, I saw this damn thing on the Sci-Fi Channel, so the main reason for its existence (the nudity) was edited/blurred out.


From director Paul Bales (who is known for absolutely nothing) comes this typical mummy thriller involving a major archaeological find. As it turns out, the Egyptian's had a secret trans-Atlantic trade route which surprised diggers when a burial tomb was discovered in America. They find the mummified remains of a 4000 year old High-queen who is unintentionally summoned back to life by a professor's student. The (incredibly hot) queen goes about stealing souls from those who run into her and she ends up taking control of the professor (played by Mr. Rhett "my career is damned to go straight to video forever" Giles), whom she uses to help resurrect the Six - a gang of warriors to assist her in conquering the world. The end seems to re-cap every other movie dealing with resurrected mummies (The Fallen Ones comes right to mind) in which a virgin is about to be sacrificed and is saved at the last minute... Very boring and unoriginal movie.


The movie itself was pretty dull, and most the acting was a little cheesy. I did think that the girl who played the lead character, Molly, was great! She gave this movie the only real depth it carried. I hope she will continue to pursue her career, and that others will see what an incredible talent she really is. As for the plot, you could drive a semi through the wholes in this movie. It was so completely unbelievable that it was hard to watch. None of the characters were written with any depth and only a truly talented actor could bring any believability to it. I think that the majority of people in this film should give up hope of ever doing anything besides cheesy C rated movies or maybe porn. Everyone except the lead actress whom I mentioned before.


There are five combat sequences that make this flick worth your ticket--maybe 20 minutes worth seeing in the entire film. The CGI is excellent, especially the Gotha bomber. Wow. And the Zeppelin ain't bad.

Having said that: It's riddled with factual and historical errors, ALL of which were avoidable had the writers/director cared to pay attention. (It probably would have cost nothing to do it right.)

A short list would include: Nonexistent aircraft in 1916 such as the Fokker Triplanes (all of them red except the black one!), Sopwith Camel, SE-5, and Bristol Fighter.

The concept of training pilots to fly in a combat squadron is of course absurd but the director apparently thought it necessary as a plot device.

French airmen learning to fly in a British airplane (Sopwith Strutter) is equally absurd.

For the real hair splitters, the Gotha and some triplanes have the straight-edged Balkan crosses that appeared two years later. Other fingernails on the blackboard include "9mm Spandau" machine guns (they were 7.92 Mauser) and "canvas" covering on the wings when cotton or linen were used because canvas was much too heavy.

But beyond that, the script takes a pedestrian approach to what could have been a more evocative, even inspiring, film. There are no standout performances, and the syrupy, chaste romance goes nowhere. The only reason for including it probably was to draw in more of an audience as a date flick (not quite a chick flick.) For those of us who truly enjoy aviation films, this one proved a major disappointment but hey, within limits, almost any WW I flying flick is better than no WW I flying flick.


If you want to see a movie in which the CGI flying sequences are cluttered and unconvincing, where the hero takes no evasive action at all as the nasty guy in the black Fokker sits on his tail taking careful aim, where airplanes continuously fly through the camera, where bullets make holes as big as pie plates when they hit fabric instead of punching though it, where our hero cannot lift the fabric-covered wing off his friend's hand, where a girl learns English in two easy lessons, where the Squadron CO gives the hero a medal for disobeying a direct order, where the hero is out of uniform half the time, and where nobody at all says a damned thing worth listening to, then by all means go see "Flyboys".

But if you'd like to see a movie about the same subject in which the action sequences are actually exciting, something is said about war that is worth thinking about and the characters are well-played, go rent "The Dawn Patrol", made in 1938.

Twenty times better than this.

No, on second thought, fifty times better than this.


Talk about ineptitude (among other things), this supposed homage to an actual WWI squadron perpetuates just about every conceivable cliché imaginable, furthermore effectively stealing elements from nearly every aviation flick ever devised, including Blue Max, the Dawn Patrol, Dark Blue World, the Tuskegee Airmen, and even that age-old silent flick from 1927, WINGS. Furtherome, the battle scenes themselves reflect the most cheesy elements of propaganda war flicks, culminating in the endless ranks of snarling villains, the cheering crowds on the ground below as our heroes intercept the strafing Huns to save the day, and even a veritable race against the proverbial clock to destroy a German airship before it supposedly "obliviates" the entirety of Paris.

And as of the various manners in which this film blatantly exhibits its readily apparent lack of prowess for historical and technical accuracies, let me count the ways.

For starters, let's consider the countless manners in which the on-screen aircraft repeatedly defy the laws physics. Admittedly, some reviewers have pointed out Tony Bill's part-time profession as an aerobatic pilot, which in essence appears to compromised his interpretations of World War I combat, as he seems to have derived his perception of first world war fighters from having logged too many hours in Pitts Special as opposed to having derived genuine insight into the performance capabilities and limitations of such elaborate contusions of fabric and wood. For one thing, the aircraft exhibit speeds twice in excess of the actual performance capabilities of World War I fighters, culminating in a host of physical implausibilities as overly efficient climbing characteristics as if instigated in the absence of a stall barrier, low-level maneuvers that would have invariably either stalled the aircraft or resulted in considerable wing shear, not to mention that these biplanes and Triplanes exhibit phenomenal roll-rates which no multi-winged aircraft on the planet could possibly emulate. Evidently, Tony Bill exhibits an accurate conception of three dimensional space, but not of the actual performance characteristics of World War One aircraft.

Furthermore, the movie's glaring affinity for historical inaccuracy reflects the presence of numerous aircraft that never existed during the Escardrille's 1916 escapades, including the SE.5, Handley Page 400, Gotha IV, and of course the Fokker Dr. 1 Triplane, which brings me to another issue that drives me out of my mind, culminating in one of the most trivial misconceptions about World War I aviation. Bottom line, the above depiction stems from a childish conception that by default associates World War One German aviation with countless formations of red-coated Triplanes, as if the Germans had somehow managed to perpetuate endless clones of Von Richtofen, to say nothing about the fact that the Fokker Dr. 1 was ultimately produced in insignificant numbers, culminating in an actual production run of only 160 examples.

In fact, the Lafayette Escabdrille fought the majority of its pitched-battles against outmoded Fokker E.III Eindeckers and two-seat Albatross and Aviatik observation scouts, the superior equipment of the Amercans frequently offset by their readily apparent lack of experience.

And another thing, the average life expectancy of a World War I pilot is actually confined to the space of a single week, unlike the film's more optimistic projection of 3 to 6. Furthermore, somebody should remind the screenwriters never to emphasizes the virtues of German aircraft by citing the presence of all powerful engines, as the rates of horsepower which the Germans managed to conceive lagged considerably behind that of their allied counterparts.

Furthermore, pilots were indeed NOT permitted to instill their own personal insignias, considering that, unlike World War II, pilots were rarely assigned individual aircraft, often dispersing their ranks among the types available and typically sharing planes out amongst each other. Furthermore, as depicted within the closing scene, there is simply no such thing as rejoining one's formation in the event of finalizing an aerial skirmish, as aircraft frequently fought pitched battles at length, scattering miles away from each other, thus relaying each pilot with the burden of utilizing landmarks and navigations skills as the sole means for finding their way home on an individual basis.

Reverting to the film's one and only redeeming feature, the various aspects in which the Flyboys attempts to model battle damage in conjunction with the various behaviors of shedding wings and burning engines bear a more accurate depiction than the remainder of the film. However, given the all too elaborate staging of such sequences through an over use of Green Screen techninques in conjunction with an overabundance of CGI effectively renders the overall appearance as reminiscent of, as one reviewer stated, "playing a really cool video game" as opposed to providing a genuine "in the cockpit" sensation for piloting such frail machinations.

Most offensive, however, is the gratuitous manner in which the movie concocts the entire spectacle within a fanciful dressing of glamour, all the while pedaling it's pretensions for historical and physical accuracy.

In all fairness, perhaps I should lend Tony Bill an additional bone by citing the best moment of the entire movie, in which the guts of that blabbering Christian fanatic splatters the entirety of his instrument panel.

Ultimately, the photograph at the end of the actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille seems like a cruel joke, as if the preceding spectacle of cartoonish escapism somehow culminates in an authentic tribute to the squadron in question.

Considering the shear sparsity of world war one related aviation flicks, it doesn't take a genius to brand this endeavor as by far the worst ever conceived.

For more informative and productive viewing, I can suggest virtually every other aviation flick on the market, from the veritable classics like "Blue Max" and "Aces High" , to some of the more lukewarm efforts of "Ace of Aces" and "Von Richtofen and Brown".


The first problem I have with this film is in it's opening titles claiming to be based on a true story. This sets you up with anticipation that the filmmakers have developed this film aiming for authenticity, recreating what it was like to be the first fighter pilots in the first modern war. For the first time films makers have the tools with CGI to truly accurately portray the visceral effects of WWI dog fighting to put the audience right back into the thick shell smoked 1916 western front.

However they fall VERY short of the mark because through their obsession with their aerial money shots, they seem to have forgotten the human story of the true horrors of combat and what it does to the human soul. In the fact it's the human story that the director makes the biggest hash of. It's Horrors of war painted by numbers, lets have the veteran seen it all, lets have the fearless guy and then just so people know war can be nasty lets have a shell shock guy. But this is done so distastefully it truly mocks people who have actually been traumatized by war.

This films claims to have the most authentic aerial combat footage ever put to film. The CGI shots are also no where near as good as the film makers think they are. In many cases they come across as in game movie footage from an Xbox360, cartoon like and unreal. The filmmakers have also made no effort to research their period, without creating any spoilers there is some truly ludicrous almost James Bond like action set pieces that take away all sense that you are watching a realistic war film. The bi-planes might as well have afterburners and laser beams and fly into space, the film wouldn't be any less believable and probably a lot more interesting.

This is nothing more than a boys own story; where the first casualty is truth or realism. It has a TV movie feel and the acting is so bad you couldn't care less who lives or dies by the end of it. This film could have offered so much but it seems the director and the produces bottled out and aimed for an arcade computer style shoot em up with shallow acting and a big helping of cartoon CGI.


OK I love history and war stories, good war stories. This isn't one of them.

Don't know why I'm posting this as it coming this late no one will be reading this, but I've got to get this off my chest because I've heard so many people say great things about this movie and I'm not just a little disappointed. The heavy use of the Folker DR1 Tri-planes was just too much. Those came in later in the war and not used in such large numbers, and why so many were made to look like the most infamous one of all was just bad taste. I'm glad I didn't go see this at the theaters, but I'm still disappointed I paid to rent this movie.


I really wanted to like this film as the rarity of WW1 epics in today's Hollywood is noticeable. In the end, I was left disappointed at a movie that meshes CGI action with a Pearl-Harbor-ish love story and cliché characters that have reunited from most every other war film here. There's the brash cowboy lead, the minority figure (whom I though could have been used a lot better than he was), the "religious guy", the hardened veteran ace and his nemesis (whom flies his own black-and-white aircraft so we can distinguish him from his red-colored henchmen friends) - gosh.

The first 20 minutes starts out honest enough, but the disappointment followed shortly thereafter. How is our hero allowed to FLY A PLANE OFF OF THE AIRBASE to visit and woo his French girlfriend - whom by the way picks up English in a surprisingly short amount of time? A scene where our hero lands his aircraft, runs through the middle of an ongoing battle and tries to lift a paper-mache aircraft off of the hand of one of our other heroes - are you kidding me? Anywho, the plane is too heavy for me to lift so I'll just have to CUT YOUR ARM OFF! Are you kidding me? It had me laughing it was so pathetic. I thought we'd seen the end of the one-armed pilot but on no - they've affixed a hook for a hand so he can continue on with the sub par script. Again - laughing hysterically now as I watched the film. The hook isn't even CGI-ed in there, it's just an obvious cover for his existing hand - making his one arm to what looks like a foot longer than the other.

To add insult to injury, they give this poor chap some hokey battle cries like "Knights of the Air!" and "Beware of the Hook!".

By film's end, all credibility is lost. Jean Reno's prowess is sorely underused in this film. Some French is spoken in the beginning and adds credibility, but by mid-film, the production must have moved back to LA or something cause it's all English from there.

What we need from an attempt like this is something more along the lines of history - make all of these young me who they really were! I was saddened to see a picture of the real Escadrille at the end of the film, as if this film is some kind of testament to their sacrifice and service. Yah - just like Pearl Harbor was for the sailors of the Pacific Fleet.

The ONLY thing one can take away from this is the four or five semi-respectable dogfight scenes, though the aircraft are filmed with what seems to be turbojet power aircraft and fly-by-wire control. Stalling only seems to occur when the script calls for it. Our hero makes several dead-on shots from a six-shooter from HIS PLANE at ANOTHER pilot. No wind resistance is taken into effect mind you, otherwise our hero could win this war all by himself if they keep him in the trenches.

Get it from your library for free if you can or watch it on an inflight plane trip. Otherwise, pass on this...


Poor Jean Reno. Stuck in cinematic farce like this. That bored, suffering look upon his face throughout the film can only be his French impatience waiting for this stinking film to end! Technical inaccuracies, historical inaccuracies, inept special effects -- there are so many things here to compete with the film's sophomoric script in motivating the viewer to hit the "eject" button long before the actual end. The wonder of the thing is that you do occasionally find yourself caught up in some subplot that seems to have generated itself amidst the bounteous tripe. If you want to see a well-made movie in this genre, better to rent "The Blue Max" (1960s) and enjoy an hour and a half of real cinema.


I just bought this film for my dad, a big history and war film buff. I thought it'd right up his alley with some historical facts and right up my alley with some exciting air battles. Boy was I wrong! The story was a complete drag! This clumsy, plodding script unfolds slowly and predictably. James Franco and Martin Henderson were horrible. Really it took all my strength to not shuttle forward to get to the battle scenes. The battle scenes were horrible as well! According to this film there are never more than 12 people on the frontlines of WWI and almost nobody bleeds. Granted I didn't see the film in the theater but the air battles were totally phony looking. My 72 year old dad with his bad eyes turned to me and said "this looks like a video game". There was no point where this film was able to grab my interest. Sure the design on the planes were cool but that had nothing to do with this film. So are you gonna see this film for the hokey unexciting battle scenes or the plodding script? There were two pros for the film: Lucienne the love interest is beautiful and it was nice to get a glimpse of what happened with the Lafayette Escadrille.


Seriously, this movie is just a piece of expensive trash.

Only thing really worth looking is probably the beautiful scenes of nature and nice places & people around. Photography is simply gorgeous! But wasn't this movie about WAR?

Well, computer-generated war, without real dialogue or matter to discuss, idea to present, etc. Just 3D models and characters suitable for girly Sunday soap opera, not hard-boiled war movie.

Even if it tries simply to be digital form of art and nothing else (I wouldn't call this a thriller or typical war movie of any kind), it fails also. I won't start with factual errors, they're clear to anyone ever opened history book. But the CGI... It's horrible.

First, the CGI scenes don't look that good at all. For a 2006 movie, they seemed to use technology from year 2000 or so. The plane models don't have really any complex shading or any other modern light simulation applied, so everything looks even worse than a typical PC video game from same year. There's also heavily noticeable lack of realistic shadows. But this is not the worst part.

Planes are extremely overpowered and feel like something Man hasn't built yet. Like superb aero-acrobatic devices even our modern technology can't do. It looks nice, but hey, wasn't this movie about WWI? Shouldn't those... things be a pieces of wood and cloth with a small engine applied? Simply motorized kites? But even that total mess-up in CGI and directing department isn't the worst part.

The worst question is... where's PHYSICS? If CGI department would have recorded a demo from early 1994 flight simulator and used movement capture of game planes for ones seen in movie, they would get at least half of it believable. But in this movie, planes float. They have no mass or friction, no speed nor gravity. And in era of motorized kites, tiny amounts of speed and angles defined by physics law was what really decided who won the dogfight. It was all about pilot playing on the edge of plane's capabilities, milliseconds and laws on nature to gain this tiny, almost invisible advantage over enemy. No pilot had 360-degree freedom in 3 dimensions at constant speed. In this movie, it doesn't matter if pilot rises or drops plane, it doesn't lower or raise his speed a bit.

And there's a terribly stupid scene with protagonist's gun jamming while enemy is at gunpoint. Just look at this: When enemy notices the problem, he speeds up and flies away. Why in the hell was he flying at gunpoint until then? Weren't German planes much faster and more maneuverable? Doesn't EVERY damn historical air battle-related book describe this?

I won't even start with "romance" and "drama" portions from the movie. The unbelievable fights (to any sane man) and pretty actors already defined the target group of the movie: early teenage girls. So it's needed by default, even if it sucks in this movie. But why is the chosen topic war and why not skip all that lousy plane thing, just make another movie about nice nature and love?

And why, oh why did director do strange attempts at discussing something serious, like racism, social classes, mourning, war refugees, etc? Either one of them... failed miserably.

It's simply difficult to blame a movie for being bad if it's actually idiots' fault who made it.


What a shame. Rife with historical inaccuracies, and mired with a phony love subplot, this movie misses the mark on many levels. The screenwriters should had based their story more on "Falcons of France," written by Charles Nordoff and James Norman Hall (famous later for writing Mutiny on the Bounty), about their experiences training and then flying for the French in the famous Lafayette Escadrille. This narrative is rich in detail and there would have been plenty of room for cinematic development. Instead, we get a superficial treatment, with flying in the fight sequences that ignore the laws of gravity and physics, and most amazing, all the German pilots are in Fokker D1 triplane, a type of aircraft not introduced to the war until April, 1917, and most of these planes are depicted in red paint, the color used nearly exclusively by Baron Manfred von Richthofen! The writers did manage to get some things correct. Abdul Salis plays a character based on the real person of Eugene Bullard, the first African-American combat pilot. Bullard enlisted in the French Foreign legion at the start of WWI, and after being wounded at Verdun in 1916, he transferred to the Lafayette Escadrille. The commander of the squadron, Captain Georges Thenault, is correctly named and well played by Jean Reno. The squadron did have a lion as a mascot named Whiskey (the other lion cub was named Soda).

I think that more could have been done with the portion of the movie dealing with pilot training. The description of the "Penguin" roller trainers in Nordoff and Hall's book was very droll, and it would have made a good sequence for the film.

The aerial sequences are very well done (in CGI) and as long as you don't pay any attention to the lack of real flight dynamics, the fights are exciting to watch. The finale, a set piece battle involving the squadron against multiple Fokker D1s and a Zeppelin, was very exciting. If the rest of the film was done in such a tight, well paced manner, it would have been much more fun to watch.


I didn't care for the music, which looked as if it were going to be a dominant component of this movie. I stuck with it a little, though, and I'm really glad: Pat O'Brien is very funny as a variation on Oscar Jaffe from "Twentieth Century." He's demanding and devious. When crossed, he faux-accidentally breaks a watch he tearfully says was given him by his late mother. Toward the end of the movie, thought we already know it is a ruse, he does this and his secretary -- Penny Singleton in mousy costuming -- says his mother is on the phone. And she wants a tip on the next race at Saratoga.

John Payne as the bandleader is OK. The rest of the cast is OK. Jimmie Fiddler plays himself, in a sizable role and that's a nice touch.

The writing is the star here, though. And it is a great role for O'Brien.


The friends Donald made in Saludos Amigos send him several gifts for his birthday. Eventually he hooks up with Joe Carioca and Panchito and they sing the title song before the film turns into a song filled series of travel stops.

Over the years I've watched this movie in pieces as the bits showed up on various Disney shows and compilation tapes but until recently I never watched the entire movie together. I had heard that it was quite good. Unfortunately who ever told me it was good never really watched it or hadn't seen it in years.

The problem for me is that after a good opening segment of cartoons about birds the film becomes a music and dance fest. Joe Carioca and we get a song on Baia. When Panchito shows up we get surreal animation and some musical travels through Mexico. Its nice but any hope of it being anything more than "music video" is washed quickly away. Perhaps its just a dislike for the images that have been married to some nice songs, but I really don't like this movie.

The mixture of live action and animation doesn't really work. Disney had been doing that sort of thing for twenty years prior to the release of this film and I expected more. Mostly the problem is that once the animated characters leave the foreground they look like badly done rear screen projection with all the color washed out.

If you must see this, rent it. Actually rent it for the first half, but be prepared to dislike the second.


Sort of like an extended Three's Company sketch, except made in the 1930's, 'Misbehaving Husbands' stars Harry Langdon as an overworked oaf who forgets his anniversary and winds up working through the surprise party is wife has organized. What's worse, he gets caught in silhouette with a department store mannequin by some town gossips who are on their way to the party. Soon, rumors spread like wildfire, and one complication leads to another until the wife wants a divorce! This is all put together very nicely, thank you very much, and Harry Langdon does his befuddled Benny Goodman impersonation quite well. There's a few laughs here and there, but this is nothing extraordinary.


Though there are some sporadically nicely shot scenes and of course an interesting score by Ennio Morricone, this movie doesn't offer anything new or interesting to the genre. The story is all over the map, too much so. You also get the impression it was written while the film was rolling; it's too fragmented and there isn't any character to identify with. There is also a blatant lack of suspense and there's nothing really thrilling or frightening occurring on screen. Essentially though watchable, there's nothing really compelling to follow. The "explanation" thrown in at the 11th hour is slightly ridiculous and too complicated and nonsensical for it's own good. I guess the best that I can say is that it's certainly an interesting mess but by no means compulsory viewing.


Either I wasn't paying enough attention or the plot was too smart for me, but I just couldn't understand what was going on in this movie most of the time. Problem is, it's not good enough in other aspects to warrant a second viewing by someone just to get everything straight. Long, muddled and unengaging. (*1/2)


- After you've seen giallo after giallo, you begin to think you've seen it all as far as a convoluted plot goes. But then you stumble upon Autopsy. It's got to be the King of the Bizarre Plot. I'm not going to even attempt to go into it in detail because it's so twisted and things come out of left field that I could never do it justice. Just try to enjoy it for what it is.

- But the plot isn't where the majority of my problems with Autopsy lie. Instead, I have a real problem with the cast - specifically Mimsy Farmer as the female lead. Unlike Suzy Kendall in Torso or Edwige Fenech in All the Colors of the Dark, Mimsy Farmer and her character are not sympathetic figures. In order for a giallo to work and work well, the viewer must care about the characters who are in danger. I felt nothing for Mimsy. In fact, I was hoping she would be killed off very early in the movie.

- Other things I didn't care for were Mimsy's visions of the morgue patients moving around. It didn't really serve much of a purpose and didn't really go anywhere. Also, the director's decision to show up-close shots of solar flares over and over was totally unnecessary. Again, it didn't really serve much of a purpose and didn't really go anywhere.

- There are a lot of good gialli to track down if you're new to the genre. Autopsy, unfortunately, isn't one of them.


Armando Crispino's "Autopsy" begins deliciously enough with a two minute montage of solar flares and grisly suicides over the orgasmic moaning of a woman. We then find ourselves in the city morgue where we're introduced to the protagonist - a young, beautiful (is there any other kind?), and bra-less forensic pathologist (Mimsy Farmer) - who begins hallucinating that the mutilated bodies of the suicides are rising from their slabs. Regrettably, the remaining eighty-eight minutes illustrate that Crispino didn't have a clue what to do next. The stylish and intriguing opening is a bait-and-switch to lure us into a substandard drama about family blackmail, treachery, murder, and the 70's mindset that all a troubled woman really needs to feel better is to be roughed up and screwed. Farmer, who spends most of the film in shirts opened to her naval , is a sexually repressed woman who teams up with a priest with a past (again, is there any other kind?), to investigate the apparent suicide of his sister, and together they uncover a scheme about... well, I'm not really sure. There is lots of gratuitous nudity, bad dubbing, and lousy foley. Don't bother.


I tried to watch this movie on VHS years ago, but found it too boring to get through. I decided to give it another chance in a real theater, because I'd heard that it's such a classic. It definitely improved on the big screen (well, not that big), but the good things about the movie are undercut by the unsatisfactory story. The film starts out like a biting social comedy, on the order of "La Ronde", but strangely changes tone partway through, turning much darker. But because of the light opening, the characters are not three-dimensional enough to support a serious story. The actors, especially Darrieux, are good enough that they almost make it work, but they needed a better script. The abrupt, unexplained ending was especially frustrating to me.

The film is beautifully shot, but the camera-work was a little too hyper for me in places--a dance sequence made me literally dizzy. (Probably most people wouldn't have a problem with that.) Also, the rich, somewhat claustrophobic production design showed a few too many 1950's influences for my taste.

On the positive side, I admired the way Ophuls created (on the surface) a believable world of the rich, and yet had an awareness of the poorer people that surrounded it. That was something I did not expect.


Sorry people, but I really hated this movie. I found it dull and I found the characters incredibly banal. It's not unprecedented. I also disliked Ophuls La Ronde, made three years before this film. The next time I want to see a well made French romance, I'll go slumming with Rene Clair. And, people, the next time I say I want to see a movie, and you know that there is a climactic pistol duel, kindly tell me to avoid that one.

I have no sympathy for Madame de, none whatsoever. If I were her husband, I too would have cheated on her. I mean, we're supposed to judge him for having a mistress, but when Madame de cheats on her husband, we're supposed to find it romantic? Only in movie logic. She apparently goes off with Vittorio de Sica's character because she finds her husband boring and inattentive. Who would attend to her? She's utterly brainless herself? What does she have to offer? Nothing besides breasts. All of my negative judgement was concentrated on her, and, while I wasn't strictly allowed to sympathize with her husband, I tended to, anyway. I mean, yeah, Vittorio de Sica is a stud. I agree totally. He deserves a better mistress than Madame de. Think about it: if she were married to De Sica, life would be just as dull and she'd probably be cavorting with Monsier de. I can recognize the great camera work, and there are a couple of fantastic moments. A dance that fades into another dance, a letter torn to bits transforming into snowflakes. Beautiful moments. Too bad they were in the wrong movie. Someone should steal them. 4/10.


This was yet another weak video game based anime like Fatal Fury. The plot had more cliches per minute than almost any other anime I have seen. The animation varied from really quite nice to absolutely terrible. Even the action sequences boring. Only watch this movie if you really have nothing else. I give it a 3.


Okay, this is a rather bad movie. I'm sorry, it just is. However, it's hilarious in that way! Anyways, on with the plot/summary. The big action hero "John Blade" is a cop, and he's one of those "mean" cops but does it to be nice (you know). And then there's the evil corporation, SiNtech. Which, apparently no one thinks they are evil... Even though they are called SIN and they operate out of a GIANT EVIL looking black TOWER. So it turns out SiN is making crazy monsters to take over the world, and of course Blade is the only one who can stop them. Also, all the other cops are apparently on SiNtechs side, so there. ANYWAYS, this movie is worth watching for the lines "cut him off!" (sounds hilarious) and my all time favorite dialog exchange that goes something like this... "Your hand's cold... Why is it like that" "Well you know what they say." What do they say? They don't tell you, the next line does not allude to it at all. I personally know of no such phrase... Any help is appreciated. One last little observation, all the cars/planes/what-have-you belonging to the cops are all marked 66. Probably making it hard for them to contact each other...

I personally have not played much of the game this is "based" on, but I'm sure it is not as bad as this was. Good for a laugh if you have a few friends and are REALLY tired (seriously). This movie is just over-the-top, but in a ludicrous way, things happen that don't make sense, and not in the "smart" or "scary" or "cool" way, in the "what the f... HAHAHA!" way.


One of the dumbest animes I've seen, ever. And one of the worst movies overall to boot. Not as bad as "Dude, where's my car?" but that's probably only because this one is quite short (the only redeeming quality of the movie).

Stupid "plot", boring animation, horrible voice overs and bland action. Not the best recipe for a successful anime in my book.

Avoid.


This has got to be the worst anime I have ever seen, and I've been watching all the anime I could get my hands on for the better part of a decade. The animation was smooth, but poorly drawn and unimaginative. The narrative of the story had no logical progression, it was just a bunch of cliched action movie scenes played in a random order.

There are no real characterisations, yet parts of the movie hinge on the depth of the characters.

The funny part is that I hired this because it was based on a game I'd played years earlier that had a great story and great characters! Whahappen?

Neither the English or Japanese dub matches the characters mouths - always a sign of something thrown together too quickly.

I reiterate, THIS IS THE WORST ANIMATED FEATURE OF ANY DESCRIPTION THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN. I want that hour of my life back.


I haven't checked my reviews for all the other Crime Doctor films, so I hope I haven't said any of the rest of them were worst in the series. But, I think after finally seeing this film (the final one for me to see), I can safely say it's the worst. Now this doesn't mean it's a terrible film--heck, this is a generally nice B-movie series--but its standards are noticeably lower than the other films in the series.

Warner Baxter returns as 'Dr. Ordway'--a psychiatrist who specializes in criminals and forensics. He's very much the smart and likable guy, though oddly, in this film he seems to be "made of money"--throwing around money like a millionaire. He never did this in other Crime Doctor films and spends money haphazardly. Sure, it only amounts to $700--but that's a huge sum of money for 1945. In one case, he buys a painting by an unknown artist sight unseen for $200 and later in the film he pays a man $500 for information that he was willing to give Ordway for free!! I really think Ordway was the one who should have been consulting a psychiatrist!! However, this is only a minor gripe about the plot. The biggest problem I have is how confusing and convoluted it all was. Plus, in the end when you find out who the real murderer is, it really makes no sense at all--nor does his bizarre statue in the basement. In fact, the whole thing makes my brain hurt despite a good performance by Baxter despite being given a script written by pre-schoolers.


I'm a passionate advocate on behalf of German Expressionist films, especially from the silent era. I'm still bitter about an incident at the 1982 World Science Fiction Convention in Chicago, when an audience full of idiots (jaded by high-tech S/FX movies) laughed at the cardboard sets in 'The Cabinet of Dr Caligari'. Those morons didn't care that the high degree of originality and imagination in 'Caligari' more than made up for its tiny production budget.

'Shadows', however, while firmly within the Expressionist genre, is too arty for its own good. While this film does have some merits, its flaws greatly outnumber and exceed its merits.

All the actors perform their roles with hand-to-brow histrionics of precisely the sort which have given silent-film acting a bad reputation. Several of the actors in this movie have given good performances elsewhere, so I assume that director Arthur Robison deserves the blame for their mannered theatrics here. During one scene, when a swain aims a punch at his rival, the actor cannot simply throw a punch: he must put his fist up against the other man's face, and then shove.

Alexander Granach, as a showman with a shadow box and shadow puppets, demonstrates some extremely deft hand shadows, apparently with no other props supplementing his hands. But, when the puppet-master isn't performing, Granach lurches across the screen like Igor the hunchback. Ruth Weyher is pretty and graceful but is given no opportunity to behave like a human being.

This silent film was originally released with no intertitles. Several other silent features also eschewed captions -- 'The Last Laugh', "The Old Swimmin' Hole", 'The Last Moment' -- but those films had linear plots which the audience could easily follow. The plot of 'Shadows' is deeply confusing, made even more confusing by the arty pretensions, and the story would have been far easier to follow with some captions. A curator at the Murnau Archiv has told me that 'Shadows' was given intertitles by several exhibitors when it was released outside Germany.

The plot -- such as it is -- vaguely reminded me of Renoir's 'Rules of the Game' and Bergman's 'Smiles of a Summer Night': in a swank country manor, some people with more money than sense amuse themselves at each other's expense. But here the cast members are introduced in arty tableaux that are more alienating than edifying. After the final tableau, we're treated to the odd spectacle of a single upraised finger casting a shadow on the screen. What does this mean, please? Later, in hindsight, we understand that this signifies the beginning of the drama's Chapter One. (I saw this film in London, where the audience burst out laughing at the start of Chapter Two, symbolised by a hand with TWO upraised fingers: in Britain, this two-fingered gesture has obscene connotations.) The finger device is confusing, and adds nothing to the story ... nor does the decision to divide the narrative into arbitrary chapters.

The production design is impressive: judging by the furniture and clothes, this story takes place somewhere in Europe (probably Germany) circa 1830: again, some titles would have helped. But Robison considerably weakens the effect of these wonderful costumes and sets by obscuring them with elaborate shadows, and by gimmicky effects such as raising and lowering a proscenium curtain in front of the actors. (As if we need to be reminded that this very artificial story is merely a story!)

Considerable talent, effort and expense were put into 'Shadows', to little effect. Rather a lot of today's movie-goers are sadly prejudiced against silent films, misperceiving them all to be crude and laughably overacted. Sadly, 'Shadows' is precisely the sort of movie which would convince such people that all the negative stereotypes about silent movies are true after all. My rating for this failure: 2 out of 10, mostly for the production design.


I've seen many slow movies in my days. Some of them are among my favorites (Stalker, I You He She, etc.). However, this movie is so boring it has to be seen to be believed. Actually, ignore that--don't waste your time. This movie was so ridiculously boring that I fast forwarded through the sex scenes. Terrible, terrible stuff.

There is zero plot, nothing interesting happens, the acting is, well, uninteresting (how can one comment on the acting it takes for characters to sit in a car or have sex). It truly has nothing to recommend it except for some nice scenery--and any movie that's not a nature documentary that has me commenting on the scenery (especially a movie where the main couple is naked for 40% of the film (no, that's not the scenery I meant)) doesn't have anything going for it.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this one.


POSSIBLE SPOILER (If further spoilage is possible) It should take longer for directors to go into decline. A great disappointment after Pola X. He got much more out of Golubova in that film --- maybe her characterization, such as it is, and ultimate fate, in 29 Palms reflects a deterioration in their relationship.

Contrary to many comments, the dissatisfaction is not about the slow pace  we still love L'Avventura, Bergman, etc., but when there is nothing to look at in the frame, things become very boring. Narcissists are boring, and neither the director nor the actors (nor the Hummer) show us any complications of interest. It may be news to this French director that the California desert is harsh, the roadside strip malls soulless, but it shouldn't be news that sex can be soulless. No, I don't expect the director to make it erotic, but he shows nothing new about sex or violence to those of us over 10 years old.

Some have called this a horror film. Is it the horror of kitsch, of Disneyland, of TV,celebrity culture, of corporate America, of present day politics? Seen it all before. The horror of nothingness?: Been done much better before. This film telegraphs the upcoming horror leadenly --- 15 minutes into it I thought "Deliverance."


Not shocked. Not surprised. Not unable to get it. This is genuinely a mediocre cinematic work. A hopeless film empty of any respect for the dignity of the human being. Many shots of the beautiful So. Cal. desert as contrast to a meaninglessly horrific/pathetic humanity. A base (I would use the word puerile if the content weren't so explicit) view of humanity. The pacing of the film is rather art-school generic. The framing of the shots is unexceptional, their beauty lying in the landscape not the direction nor the cinematography. A poorly made film despite my opinion of the content. Comparisons to horror films are appropriate as a reference to quality. All 'shock', no content (well, not quite, Joshua Tree National Park is beautiful). Watch as you will. Peace.


It's not even enough to blame this on warped French sensibilities. There is no movie here - no plot, no story, no theme, no characters, no cinematography, no soundtrack - just boring shots of the desert inter cut with boring shots of awkward sex - until you finally and mercifully get an ending that is apparently from a different movie entirely. I think it must be a perverse joke by the director - some kind of statement on the absolute banality of our lives if we are willing to sit through something like this - and the fact that the best we can hope for is a violent end to our empty existence. The director should never be allowed to touch a camera again in his life.


sorry people: no amount of pseudo-intellectual drivel can justify the dog's breakfast. a horror movie with no actual horror? that's not experimental, that's crap. whoever said movies about images and not story is totally, completely, wrong. Paintings are about images. Movies are about story, plot, characterisation...these things a movie make. if images are your thing, go to a gallery. don't try and excuse self-indulgent cinematic vomit. this film takes an hour and a half for nothing to happen; when it does, it's out of the blue, out of context and out of proportion. the preceding ninety minutes do nothing to build suspense, they are merely boring. nothing about the characters is explained, no back-story is given, and when the inevitable violence occurs, it's relief to know that these two examples of human excrement will not disgrace our screens further. i want my two hours back. rapid painful death to those who drive hummers.


Yes, reading the reviews is much more rewarding. By any measure.

This review contains spoilers. Read further anyway. It doesn't matter, even when you're intending to see the movie.

The film begins with two people in a SUV, David and Katia, driving to the Joshua Tree Desert. Despite all their misunderstandings, they feel attracted to each other, but regularly explode in quarrels and fights. That part of the film was logical and understandable. The film is a study in how relationships can go haywire. One can have look at what they talk. Or you could listen to the silence when they should talk. In your mind, you could even speak up for them when they fail.

But why did they cut away the entire character development? Really, I could not care less about David and Katia. What they said and how they behaved was in the end meaningless. In contrast, I rather enjoyed their nude bodies, their physical exercise and the wonderful landscape of the Joshua Tree Desert. Wow.

The film ends with three hillbillies tailgating them on a desert road, stopping them, pulling them from the car, and raping David. Why and WHY did this happen? Out from the nothing, the film ends with a sudden conclusion, and you'll never get to know why they were targeted.

It has been said that Bruno Dumont, the director of this film, translated a life-negating state of mind into a film. David and Katia were already outcasts in the beginning - he speaks only English and French, Katia only Russian and French - and they were rejected by the desert, a place where you have to rely on your fellow human beings in order to survive.

"Twentynine Palms" is an ill-fated parable. I don't say Bruno Dumont is a bad filmmaker. But as a filmmaker, he forgot to counterbalance the philosophical, psychological and the tardiness parts with a credible and suspenseful story.


If you put a video camera in the hands of someone with little experience who has no idea what to photograph and why, you might come up with an effort similar to "Twentynine Palms." There's nothing wrong with allowing development of a film to take its own course. Some interesting results may emerge in the hands of an experienced photographer who understands his subject matter, has a good eye for composition, lighting, and action, and who is a genuine artist attempting to communicate something about the human condition to his audience. That goal is not achieved in this film, which the director pretentiously advertises as some sort of minimalist artistic enterprise investigating "the myths of America." One might be reminded of "Deliverance," but that movie attempted a grander subject involving not only the dark side of human nature but Nature, itself. We see here a supposed photographer who painfully tries to evoke John Lennon and who with his French/Russian girlfriend attempts to explore the Mohave Desert in Southern California, supposedly scouting locations for a future shoot but strangely without any cameras along (some photographer he is). He's specifically interested in a section of the desert that is reputed to have some real nutjobs roaming around looking for trouble (a few of whom hail from the local Marine Corps base). Despite the stringing together of numerous interminable takes, nothing of interest happens and the setting is not particularly inspiring, largely because the director doesn't seem to know where or when to shoot his indulgently wasted footage. The couple "enjoys" several sexual interludes in their motel room, in the dumpy motel pool, and in isolated places out in the middle of the desert. They drive around in his brand spanking new Hummer, the wheel of which he turns over to his silly girlfriend rather casually. Ultimately, their pointless wandering gets the two of them into a real pickle because they are doing it in a potentially dangerous place with no way of defending themselves. When they are bushwhacked out in the middle of nowhere and he is brutally dealt with by three wayward scuzbuckets who strangely leave her almost unscathed, we can't develop too much sympathy for him because he's a jerk who has been sexually exploiting her the entire time. We can't develop much sympathy for her, either, because she's obviously nuts and has been acting out at the slightest pretext over the course of this boring non-story. But when she saves his life and he responds by assaulting and brutally killing her before killing himself, we are left with even less than we had before, which is a big fat zero. The shocking conclusion has obviously been tacked on just as the gratuitous sex scenes were, to make something from nothing with minimal effort. This movie didn't have to be made, probably shouldn't have been made, and hasn't added anything to our appreciation of the new French cinema, much of which is brilliant, beautiful, innovative, subtle, and artistic. If this director would like some lessons on how to use all the money he obviously has at his disposal to far greater effect in the American milieu, I'd be happy to lend a hand. He certainly could use it, and frankly, were I employed by the Customs Department, I'd be going over his case with a jaundiced eye. The guy appears to be more than a little twisted.


It must have been a small-budget film and it shows. Sort of a travelogue with sex and violence, it meanders along the byways of Jumbo Rocks and Twentynine Palms, California.

Impressive, dignified scenery, and that's about it. Katia plays Katia, who speaks only French. David plays David, who speaks English and some French that falls just short of execrable, which is to say very much like my French. From some angles she looks a bit like Michelle Pfeiffer and from some angles he resembles Harry Dean Stanton. It's difficult to comment on their acting because, aside from some memorized exchanges, it seems that most of the time the director simply aimed the camera their way and said, "Okay, make something up." There's a good deal of playful poking and laughter, like that in John Cassavetes' films. People chuckle and giggle because they can't seem to think up anything else to do.

The couple has squabbles and sex. The reasons for the squabbles? Let's see. He looks at another woman in a cafe. He buys her ice cream and asks if she likes it. "C'est bon," she replies, then, "Pas bon." (He sulks because she contradicts herself.) He hits a dog while driving the Hummer because she's blocking his window. Another argument, a serious one, occurs when she locks herself in the bathroom for reasons unexplained.

Is there sex? Yes, there is sex, simulated, and a lot of nudity. I had a sneaking suspicion that Katia and David weren't even married, yet here they are, stripping off in the desert, revealing themselves in all their hairy, angular, bilaterally symmetrical splendor. They lie on abrasive rocks, spreadeagled shamelessly. A couple of airliners pass overhead and any passenger who wanted to could look down on them from 37,000 feet and watch them rut and squirm like two javelinas. They don't care. They fornicate on rocks, in swimming pools, and in motel rooms. Oh, and speaking of animals, when David has an orgasm he makes more noise than Katia, although, to be sure, both of them overact in these scenes like porno superstars. What repugnant physicality.

The movie drags along for quite a while and when the climax comes we are totally unprepared for it. I don't know whether to get into it or not. I don't think I will, except to say that the scene seems to have been brought in from another movie entirely, some kind of slasher flick with a title like "Blood and Cactus". The heavies seem to be either Marines or skinheads, maybe both. The final episode of violence takes place for reasons that escape me completely.

Maybe I missed something. Could it be that life is like a road? It has its asphalt pavement and its potholes? Occasional stop signs? Long waits while indifferent freight cars rumble slowly through the crossing, sometimes stopping completely? And at the end you have a fatal traffic accident? This is a French movie so maybe I used the wrong national heuristic. The point of a French film might be that there is no point. That's the whole point.

In the end I found the film kind of sad. Not just because of what happens to Katia and David, but for reasons the producers probably never intended. At the beginning the couple stare in awe at acres and acres of energy-generating windmills arrayed across the desert. They find it splendid. I didn't. The ivory sand is dotted with Joshua trees and creosote bush, and littered with flowery paper wrappers, glittering aluminum cans and empty shotgun shells. The Hummer matter-of-factly passes a pile of half a dozen huge, black, discarded tires. If you fly into LAX there are days when you can see the smog as far inland as Twentynine Palms. The point I took away from the film is that if you treat a natural landscape as a garbage dump it becomes a garbage dump sooner or later. A desert ecosystem is a fragile one and, like a human life, can only take so much abuse before it is destroyed.


Come on... I watched Flandres before and thought it was pretty pretentious and halfhearted in his artsy approach but I could watch it... quite the opposite to Twentynine Palms which I could hardly watch without staring at the fast forward button of my remote control. This artsy production by Bruno Dumont is a joke of a movie and I can't believe anyone nominates stuff like this.... I get it, its not entertainment... its art, its a giant metaphor of lives endless repetitions, right? Thats why the movie is so damn boring in its 2 hours of nothingness, thats why the couple starring this movie is regularly fighting and having make up sex. Thats why EVERYTHING in this movie is depicted in atrocious repetitions or slow motions of random acts... the totally unerotic sex scenes with mechanistic thrusting and overacted orgasms that border between joy and pain? Is the sex a metaphor for the relationship of the 2 thats about as borderline? Or is it all just a metaphor for life itself? Or does it mean absolutely nothing and all those interpretations (I liked the one about Anti-americanism... thats even more insane than this idiotic movie that makes me ashamed of being European) are based on the great nothing that this movie is? And does Dumont have any problem with sex to paint such a bleak, boring, repetitive and at times rather disgusting picture? Is the knifing in its receptiveness and phallic metaphor with the ridiculous screaming that equals that of Davids orgasms not as cheap as the ridiculous and random rape scene? How often do you have to make a point that even the rape looks like it hurts the rapist more than ole David with his pants down?

Sorry, if you subject the audience to 120 Minutes of nothingness and then pound them with repetitive metaphors, pack all this with the same repetitive music (so what does it mean they listen to the same song throughout the movie when driving in their hummer ... ah, the same as the rest of this repetitive metaphor??) and a cinematography that couldn't make me care less... if these pictures are beautiful like some state everyone can feast on beautiful mountainscapes... besides the landscape this movie is ugly and lacking any beauty whatsoever. This is torture and the kind of self absorbed pseudo-elitism that makes me hate the word art. I guess Dumont sees himself as an artist and thats why it all feels so wrong, so fake and drenched in the reek of someone desperately trying to be different... and failing. I think this movie can be summed up with the endless train scene in the beginning... its repetitive, its without any beauty, its not entertaining and everyone can put in his own interpretations since an endless shot of a train+windmills must have a meaning, doesn't it? Or does it take endless shots of bored faces to be meaningful... or ugly sex on the border of rape? I don't care... watch irreversible, since that movie is shocking and has stunning cinematography and visuals and keeps your interest and massages your mind (although I think Noe has as little to say as Dumont, but he made a f***n MOVIE!). Avoid this by any means ...


Waste of film and time. This is an obscene exercise in the director's misplaced vanity. I have alerted readers to spoilers, but the truth is there is so little action, story line, character development or writing, there isn't much to spoil. A selfish, arrogant jerk goes on a trip with his super needy girlfriend from Russia. They drive the arrogant jerks Hummer through the desert and have sex in various places with the guy having some impossible, skull exploding orgasm every time. This happens continuously for the first 96 minutes of this 113 minute movie. In the last ten minutes they are pulled over by desert-driving thugs, who force them to stop, rape and brutalize the man, while forcing the woman to watch. In the last minute they are both killed and the movie ends. Just awful. I suppose the artsy pseudo-intellectuals will talk about these things I thought the director had included. The stark contrast of the Hummer in the desert. The less than perfect communications between the man and the woman represent the inherent differences of the sexes. And finally, it was not lost on me (no more than getting hit with a sledgehammer), was the male rape by the guy who had the bigger truck and as some king of insane plot thread, the rapist has a similar very vocal orgasm during the male rape. Look, I don't want to intellectualize over some anti-Hummer tirade by the director, but this movie sucked and the panoramic vistas (which some people think is the saving grace of this movie, kind of in the wide open style of Kubrick in 2001,but it simply did not work for me. For example, some of the shots are so wide, you have to scan to find the actors. Anyway, pass on this film, you have an hour fifty two minutes to do better stuff in your life.


From start to finish, the most boring film imaginable. You keep waiting for something to happen, but nothing ever does. Michele leads a very boring life, he is the kind of person I would never wish to make the acquaintance of. The film is a typical product of a certain left-wing so-called culture rampant in Italy in the Seventies, of which Nanni Moretti is a leading exponent. One thing puzzles me: why does Moretti so often cast himself as a person named Michele? Take a look at the list of his films! There must be a Michele in his past who left a lasting impression on him, After all, there is no lack of male first names in Italian; why not Mario, Alberto or even Dante?


Completely pointless film. At best, too regional for the rest of the world to understand. Nothing becomes clear, the director's intentions, whatever they may be (if any) don't come out. And worst of all: it pretends to be intelligent. What amazes me most is that this being his first film, Moretti was allowed to make a second one. Don't waste your time with this totally obscure film, life is too short!


Alright, I just found this game rather bad, and I'm only posting this because I was surprised not to find any other bad comment. And I can't be the only one who doesn't like this game.

First of all, graphics and music are fine, but unless they're awful, I hardly care about these when I'm playing a game. The scenarios and music get old after 5 minutes, and you have to stay there for like 10 hours.

Some people say no enemies beside Colossus makes this unique, I say it makes it boring and it's just the result of a lazy/cheap design. Even the Colossus are basically all the same, and really easy to defeat. I can't think of a way to make this killing Colossus more diverse, but I just believe it's a bad idea to make a game just about that. Oh wait... is not about that, is about looking for them, yes! For every enemy, you will spend about half hour looking for it, and 3-5 minutes to defeat it. Every part of this quest is plain boring and repetitive.

I'm the kind of guy who gets really fanatic with any game and goes around it multiple times, I can't get enough of video games, I never get bored. I must say I couldn't finish this game once. It is the only one game I own, I'm not playing and I haven't finished. And it's 1/10th time consuming of the average game I play... is that boring.

And also, the horse is really stupid.


In between "Love Story" and "What's Up, Doc?", Ryan O'Neal sneaked in this minor, forgotten western co-starring William Holden. It's one of those outdoor character studies which critics love to label 'picaresque' (i.e., episodic story of or relating to rascals or rogues). Two Montana cowboys plan to rob a bank and retire to Mexico, but life has other plans. Holden is restrained and easy, O'Neal very awkward, but the main culprit here is writer-director Blake Edwards (of all people), who sets the early pacing at such a slow drag that the picture never recovers. Supporting cast is unusually strong, but no one here is able to do much with this colorless script. ** from ****


Blake Edwards must have had a huge ego after the success of The Pink Panther. What else possessed him to try his hand at a genre that was beyond him in so many ways. This film is so self indulgent on behalf of the writer-director, you can almost hear him in every scene praising his brilliance. Brilliant it ain't. Though it looks nice and shows off some beautiful scenery, this film is slow, OVERLONG, unfocused, mostly pointless and very badly acted by everyone but maybe William Holden (still not stellar) and Victor French. Ryan O'Neal is as miserably out of his depth here as Edwards, a performance that never gets off your nerves. Holden basically carries him throughout every scene they share.

The story? Almost non existent. Two cow punchers decide on a whim to rob a bank (just about the dullest 25 minute bank robbery in history), then go on the trot to Mexico pursued by two characters played by Tom Skeritt and Joe Don Baker who really have no character development and have not much to do with anything. Along the way we're treated to endless tedious ambling over hill and dale and slow motion sequences that give you bad Antonioni flashbacks.

Forget the positive comments on here, this is one of the worst westerns you'll ever see unless you don't mind being bored senseless. Edwards has made a hash of most films he's directed (SOB and Victor/Victoria excluded), but this has to be one of his three worst. Ford or Peckinpah he isn't. A disaster all the way around.


It would be hard to make a film as witless as King Ralph without really trying. It's a shame, because the set-up (gauche, unclassy American takes over the stuffy British aristocracy) has good comic possibilities and Goodman is generally a fun actor to watch.

Most of the problems are directly due to the feeble script and weak direction. There are no surprises and none of the comedy set-pieces are handled with any wit or skill.

Avoid this film like the plague.


The best part about this movie is that we can now all use the movie's title as a clever nickname for fat people. For example, when playing a pick-up softball game back in 1996 Orens stepped to the plate and Baumann yelled from his first base position, "hey, it's King Ralph." This brought great joy to everyone who was lucky enough to hear the comment. That I feel is the greatest contribution of this clearly pathetic movie. I'll admit, I think I rented it when it came out on video, although I was very young so I will assume my mom rented it for me. Anyway, I remember little form the movie, maybe a part where some people get electrocuted during a photo, a potential fox hunt gone sour and a scene with a leader of an African country. I also recall King Ralph being a serious bowler. I do not recommend that you see this movie, however, I do recommend that you call fat people King Ralph for comedic purposes.


Oh my God!

I've seen a lot of so-so movies with John Goodman in it, but this one is definitely the worse. Thanks god, this wonderful actor later had good opportunities to show us his talent.

Such a waste of good actors (Peter O'Toole! John Hurt! Richard Griffiths! Oh no!!) is a shame. The direction is cheap, the script is cheap, the humour is cheap, everything is cheap, this movie is plain cheesy and its "humour" is on par with any Benny Hill show. No, really, heeeewwwww!!! David Ward is a honest writer sometimes, but as a director... NO!

If you have a brain, avoid this movie. If Benny Hill makes you burst out laughing, then go rent it. Personally, I do have a brain, so it was quite a disgusting experience.


King Ralph (1991) is undeniably one of the top five worst films of the 1990's. The script was obviously and only written to cash in on the rise of John Goodman hype & hysteria in the early 90's. Goodman needs to stick to "Roseanne" comeback specials, Saturday Night Live appearances, and "Babe Ruth" type characters from now on. King Ralph falls short in every possible way because it lacks proper foresight and planning, and the whole title, plot, and idea is quite "outdated" even for early 90's standards. This is a cheap rental if you're really, really bored, or just love to watch John Goodman parading around as a goofy King with absolutely no direction in life. I'd recommend "Brewster's Millions" with Richard Pryor instead...now there's a comedy that ages gracefully with time...and with a much better cast, plot and vision.


Okay, I must admit that I just saw the last half of this movie(I didn't make it in time for the start, as it just went on tv here), so I wont complain much about the movie, as there might be answers to my questions in the beginning of it.

I would just like to state that Finland does NOT have an royal family. The names they have used for the Finnish royal family are more typical in Norway/Denmark/Sweden, or at least I think so. (don't kill me if I'm wrong). Another thing is that if they were going to give the Finnish royal family heavy accents on their English, they might have gotten the accents to sound similar to the Finnish language!!! I get to often disappointed by this in American movies. WHY can't anyone just find an accent that is similar to the language they're supposed to talk????!

The main thing about this movie I cannot get is how the hell did an American get to be the 'only' one left to the British throne??? My older sister is really into the royal families in Europe, and she just found a list with around 600 (or was it 400?) people who would get the British throne.

Since I didn't watch the first part of this movie, I will probably sound stupid now, but was there some sort of an accident.... or several accidents all over the globe since all these people 'suddenly' died and left Ralph from America take over????

That would mean that most of the royalties in Europe (not counting the Catholics, as they have no claim for the British throne) were DEAD! Would there then be huge parties in Britain???

There were several things like these that kept me wondering during the movie. When I see something as unrealistic as this, I force myself to look at the whole movie as a big joke. NO ONE CAN BE THAT IGNORANT!

other than that, the movie was fairly ok. The singing/playing/dancing act of King Ralph was great, as I love that kind of music.

if you want to see this movie, watch it for fun, please don't watch it to look into the monarchy of ANY country, especially not Finland, which doesn't even have one!


This straight to video film when I was young was quite good because it went back to the original style of Scooby-Doo the TV series. The only thing that could put it down a bit was the songs. Scooby and the gang get lost and end up in a desert village outside a alien spotting station. Aliens are starting to appear and the gang decide to investigate. During the process Scooby and Shaggy fall in love with Crystal and Amber (a golden retriever). In the end (suprise, surprise) they find out the aliens are three people at the alien spotting station secretly digging for gold. They also find out there are real aliens, Crystal and Amber! Scooby-Doo was number 8 on The 100 Greatest Kids' TV Shows, and he was number 49 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Worth a look!


Fellini is for people who drink excessive amounts of coffee. (And if you're sitting there saying, "I drink coffee but not excessive amounts of it", you're deluding yourself.) Fellini is for people who would like to make the world a better place, but they don't know how, so they just avoid it and concern themselves with the absurdity of life. And drink more coffee.

When watching Fellini films I am infected with a violent desire to throw popcorn at the screen and quote Bruno Kirby from _When Harry Met Sally_ in the scene where he's frustrated at Sally's inability to convey her ideas while playing a game of Pictionary: "Draw SOMETHING resembling ANYTHING!!!"


The Duel at Silver Creek refers to the place where the final confrontation between the good guys led by Stephen McNally and Audie Murphy and the bad guys headed by Gerald Mohr.

Mohr heads a nasty group of bad guys who go around shooting hard working prospectors after they've signed over their claims. One of them is the father of gunfighter Audie Murphy.

Marshal Stephen McNally is also on their trail, but he's slowed up by a gunshot wound that's left his trigger finger a might unsteady. He turns to Murphy as an ally of convenience.

There's a lot of action in The Duel at Silver Creek even more than the usual Audie Murphy western. Unfortunately it's to cover up some really serious problems with the story.

I don't know about how you would feel, but even to the kid crowd for which this western was clearly intended, when someone shows up with title to those claims it's going to be rather obvious who was behind all the homicides. My guess is that Don Siegel's film got butchered in the editing. In fact you know there's a piece out of it because McNally just all of a sudden shows up in an army hospital being treated for a gunshot wound you never see take place.

Susan Cabot plays the good girl with first a yen for McNally and then for Murphy. Faith Domergue is the bad girl, bad as they come in westerns. She's in cahoots with the bad guys and shamelessly flirts with McNally and young gun Eugene Iglesias while all the time she acts as Mohr's moll in a more modern gangster film style. Domergue has the best role in the film, too bad the film itself is so weak.

Look for Lee Marvin in a small role as one of the outlaw gang, if you're looking at all at The Duel at Silver Creek. Definitely for die-hard Audie Murphy fans.


Well "Dollar Mambo" its a weird movie, its kinda of a musical, or experimental film, there is no dialog at all in the whole movie, everything its express through dancing and music. In the other hand the plot its simple, US soldiers invade Panama and they rape and kill a dancer. It was funny seeing roberto sosa dance, the acting its OK, and the music use its fine but in the movie there are a lot of thing that go from strange to beyond weirdness (like a soldier dress as a ballet dancer) but a i guess it was a symbolism.

Overall the movie its too "artistic" for my taste, it remind me "Frida naturaleza viva" another film by the same director.


Predictable, full of every soppy sad tragic story you've seen on the soaps. You know who is going to sleep with whom, you know they shouldn't, you know what the outcome will be. You could write the dialogue yourself, if you've ever seen even a week's worth of soap operas. You either want to leave the room, or turn the channel, it's so soppy and predictable. Of course they all turn out to be strong women in the end; it was written during that era. Of course 99% of the men are jerks; it was written during that era. Of course all the women are fantastically beautiful; you wouldn't put up with this movie if they looked like real, every-day women. The saddest thing about the movie is how beautiful Whitney Houston used to be before drugs and her husband ruined her.


So I finally got around to watching "Waiting to Exhale" on Encore the other night and I don't understand why this became a hit.

(Note: spoilers ahead) As far as I can tell, the basic premise of this film is that all men are insensitive, callous and unfeeling; especially towards women.

Okay, well and good. That is the storyline? Fine. Men suck, got it.

But there is a huge double standard here; two of the women are dating married men and clearly, we are meant to be sympathetic about their plight as they whine and cry about not having "their" man with them at night in bed.

How about this? STOP DATING MARRIED MEN! Maybe that's your problem in the first place.

Now, on the flip side, Angela Basset's character is abandoned by her husband for another woman. Yet, if you pay attention, even this character is not completely innocent. When her husband informs her he is leaving, the things she says makes it clear she's known about his lover(s) for years but ignored his infidelities. Why? Obviously, because he's so wealthy.

She liked all the "stuff" a little too much to have confronted him about it. Again, she's made her bed here, not as completely as the two who are actively cheating, but still. She spends the rest of the movie being so angry that he left her you never really grow to like her. Strangest of all is the man whose wife is dying of cancer; he sleeps with the Angela Basset character after they run into each other at a bar. With their clothes on, which apparently means it's oh-so-platonic and sweet. Then he writes her a letter months later, thanking her for that night and leading the viewer to believe that when his wife kicks off, he'll contact her again.

Did anyone else think this was more than a little sleazy? I would hope if I were dying of breast cancer that my husband wasn't out sleeping around (and I do mean just sleeping) with other women. Sweet, platonic, whatever; I think it's pretty horrible.

Bottom line; the characters you're supposed to connect to are unlikable and the ones you're supposed to hate are just pathetic. Not very enjoyable. However, I did give it three stars for the music, which didn't suck too badly and the clothes and style. It's a nice little snapshot of how things looked in '95. And the print wasn't very faded.

That's about it, though.


WAITING TO EXHALE

Waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting... you get the point. "Waiting To Exhale", Forrest Whitaker's take on Terry McMillan's popular book, had a rather popular following upon it's release in 1995. It was packaged brilliantly, crossing over into the popular music scene with a blockbuster soundtrack featuring it's star Whitney Houston. However, as Leonard Maltin said it so beautifully, this film ultimately reminds one too much of the easy listening jazz that plays under nearly every scene.

"Waiting To Exhale" had the potential to be an interesting movie. It features a nice ensemble that manages to have good chemistry while also allowing certain performers to step into the limelight and really dominate certain scenes. Unfortunately, in the end, the movie is a repetitive drone.

It tells the story of four African-American females (played by Angela Bassett, Whitney Houston, Loretta Divine, and Lela Rochon) as they struggle to find the men in life that can satisfy there needs. The only problem, in the world of this movie, men are nothing but complete ass-holes who wouldn't know the word "feelings" if they looked it up in the dictionary. How can this film possibly go anywhere when it's screenwriters has made men so incredibly unredeemable that nothing can change.

For the first 45 minutes, the film is slightly enjoyable. However, as it continues on into it's 2 hour and plus running time... it begins to feel like deja-vu. The women keep putting themselves in identical situations to those they've experienced in the past... and as much as they talk about it in slow/sultry voice-overs, they don't seem to learn squat.

It's like the soundtrack music. Slightly soothing, enjoyable, and easy to digest... but too slow and pointless to listen to for very long. "Waiting To Exhale" in the end is nothing more then a boringly pointless film that wastes the potential it had with the cast. Were the film given more of a focal point, and a more distinct narrative line, perhaps it could have been a good film. But everyone on board apparently missed the memo that... films are better when they have a plot and a purpose.

... D ...


This movie is awful! The caracters are shallow and almost ridiculous, especially Lela Rochon. It's a very, very, very bad soap opera. I was watching this movie with my wife and we were laughing almost all the time. It is much too long, with no rhythm with absolutely no emotions. It is only a poor attempt to manipulate the viewer by using one cliché after another. Skip it, it's a waste of time!


With all the hype surrounding "Waiting to Exhale," I was looking forward to renting it on video. It's nice to know that someone has made a movie with four strong, independent African-American women.

But when I saw it - and maybe this is me ranting because I, being a white male, am not part of the target audience - I was annoyed by all the whining, especially regarding that the men that these women were sleeping with/getting divorced from were leaving them for white women.

I can understand them being upset, even furious, with all of the philandering. But they act as if it would be OK if the men left them for other African-American women. Not to make light of the issues of racism, adultery, or divorce, but I can image Bernadine saying, "Hey, Savannah, I see that you're sleeping with my husband. Care if I join in!?" (Apologies to those who may take offense).

Speaking of Savannah, why is Whitney Houston complaining about finding the right man when she seems to be able to have sexual relations with any man that has matinee idol looks and a job - not to mention is *MARRIED*. I guess that any man who isn't married is a loser to Whitney.

Having not read the book, I realize that this is merely an adaptation - or, for Terry McMillan's sake, I hope it is. I'm not knocking any of the acting. Angela Bassett, Whitney Houston, Lela Rochon and Loretta Devine, as well as the supporting cast, are all talented and do commendable jobs. And Forest Whitaker proves himself to be a talented director. It's just that the lion's share of the characters come off as unsympathetic.

I realize that I'm merely scratching the surface, but I've wasted enough time on this movie. "Why Do Fools Fall In Love," the movie which describes Frankie Lymon's battles with the recording industry and liasons (sp) with three different women, one of which is Rochon, is a far superior movie and worth at least $5 of the $6 that I paid to see it.

I give this one 2 out of 10.


This film is simply about a bunch of women who pick men who's behaviors they claim to hate & then spend the rest of their time complaining about them. It seems that this view is held by many women & possibly accounts in some measure to the number of women who consider their relationships with men to be unsatisfying.


It had some laughs, but overall the motivation of the characters was incomprehensible. Why should they be mad at men for cheating when they sleep with all sorts of married men themselves? Very hypocritical. Their lives are messed up because they messed them up with stupid choices. I had no empathy for any of these women.


Waiting to Exhale is guided thoroughly by a hot soundtrack from beginning to end. It is also complimented by sharply shot scenes and attractive locales. However, much of this is wasted on poor character development. Without likeable characters, this plot sinks quickly and doesn't recover. What should be shown is complex identities that the women have, but instead viewers are shown superficial confusions of the women which makes them out to be dumb and non-rational leading ladies. While the movie is supposed to highlight the women, and have males as supporting characters, the plot so demonized the men that even the "nice" men such as Gregory Hines and Wesley Snipes seem entirely out of place and more token goodness than believeable characters.

Worst of all, were some vastly misplaced and undesirable scenes, which I honestly hope were either more deeply probed in the book, or not part of the book at all. For instance, why was the fact that Gloria's former man is gay/bi-sexual even remotely important to this script. Clearly the answer is that it isn't. Gloria's character did not need that type of nonsense to provide a background that she could work with. Why the director didn't see this, I don't know.

Weak film, waste of acting talent by wonderful actresses like Angela Bassett, and a brutal waste of an excellent soundtrack by Babyface.

4/10


Angela Basset was good as expected, but Whitney has no Range as an actress. The screenplay also neglected to portray, on film, the greatness of this novel. Instead of promoting sisterhood, they emphasized the canine-qualities of men. Read the book; rent Soul Food instead!


If you're a guy you better wear a teflon jockstrap before going to this movie. It is a non stop male bashfest.

Wear a fire proof suit to this drivel guys.

The acting was bad.

The story was ludicrous.

Every scene was basically the same.

A conversation among several women about how bad men suck.

So, if you're feminist or a man hater you will love this gem.

Whitney Houston was my favorite plastic statue in this one.

I like Hale Berry but she never should have got roped into this.

I'd love to have those 90 minutes back of my life.

Please.


do you read harlequin romances? danielle steel? do you in cessantly read women's magazines to find out how to please your man? do you hinge all happiness on having a man in your life? is your IQ equivalent to your age? then you will love this movie.


This series has its ups and occasional downs, and the latter is the case, here. There's an agreeable amount of spatter, with an inventive implementation of the Baby Cart's weapons, but the editing film is a seriously disjointed, the film-making itself rougher than usual. At times, the action slows to a crawl as the camera follows the wordless wanderings of the "cub," who nearly gets lost early on. All in all, disappointment.

That said, there's a spaghetti eastern quality to the music and action that may win the approval of dedicated viewers. This installment spends much of its time following the minor misadventures of the little boy, who begins to stare into the abyss of death his father opened for him.


Before I start this review, I must admit that when I saw this movie, it was the wee hours of the morning and I was slightly intoxicated. Maybe my judgment was a little off, but I doubt it.

'The Park' is a silly 3D horror movie about a haunted amusement park, which just happened to be built on a cemetery. After several deaths at the park, it was closed down. 14 years later, a journalist investigating the park goes missing (naturally). His sister, Yen, is determined to find him, but their mother, a ghost hunter, believes him to be dead already. Regardless of her mother's professional advice, Yen sets out with a group of ghost fodder (her friends) in an attempt to find her brother.

Where to begin with this film's faults? There are so many. For starters, the plot is a mess. Unoriginal and full of plot holes. There is nothing close to horror in this. Sure, there are ghosts and other such dead people, but no scares. The 3D effects on which the film was based weren't all that impressive - or even 3D - on the VCD I watched. The dialog (in subtitles) was rather bad. All the characters seem to have a problem in which they felt the need to state the obvious, with everyone saying several times "There are ghosts!". I think they got the point after that was said for the billionth time.

I will give 'The Park' credit for two things though: More proof that clowns are evil, and the fact that we have very little (to no) character development. It's a great way to determine early on who will die, and who will survive.

After thinking about it, this seemed like it was meant to be campy B-movie. The (very blatant) references to 'Mr Vampire' and 'Nightmare on Elm Street' prove that, but it still felt like the movie was taking itself too seriously. Sure, I laughed at some bad B-movie moments, but those few moments were surrounded by a whole lot of just plain bad material.

1/10 - 'The Park' was very disappointing. Maybe I'll try watching it again sometime, but not any time soon.


I've watched this movie in my country. It's uttermostly stupid movie. The story is bad, going on without reason. Some scene was copied from Ju-On. And the ghost capture by photo camera idea came from a game.

There are some bad 3-D scenes but it's just a cheap and cannot-frighten-you 3-D.

It's not worth watching. Try some movie else.

I give this movie an F grade.

PS. This is just my humble opinion. Thanks!


I've seen some dodgy HK movies in my time, but this has to rank pretty highly in the roll-call of stinkers. An unstructured, clumsily-paced mess from start to finish, with little in the way of a plot and so much thunderous noise and self-conscious 'scary stuff' that it never comes close to creating the quietly unsettling atmosphere needed to set up the viewer for a scare. The bargain-basement 3-D effects (a surprise considering CGI-fiend Andrew Lau's involvement) simply don't work on a DVD viewing (and providing only one pair of glasses is pretty cheap!) due to the poor colour balance. I will think twice before snapping up any more gimmicky films from bargain bins...


What a waste of time and money. I recently saw this film at the Philadelphia Film Festival and reduced my expectations so that I was only going to enjoy the 3-D effects. Not only was the film a complete mess of bad acting with a terrible screenplay, the 3-D effects were only used for about ten percent of the film, and the effects were barely noticeable, using old red/blue (anaglyph) 3-D technology. It seemed like the film wasn't even filmed to take advantage of the use of 3-D. This replaces Jaws 3-D and Amityville 3-D as the worst 3-D film I've ever seen. Next year at the festival, I'll have to avoid these gimmicky, low-end horror/action films. This film isn't even worth it for the curiosity factor. Stay away.