Here is an undeniable truth of movie reviewers: When you really want to promote a movie that's not that good, talk about the great performances of the actors. Then you can praise the movie to high heaven, feel you have done your penance, and content yourself with the ingenuity of your expansive insights. This is the case with 3:10 to Yuma.

So, what's wrong with this movie? Well, let's just look at the last 20 or so minutes of the film:

1. Apparently the bartender/hotel clerk in Contention, AZ, whom we've not been introduced to until this point in the movie, is in cahoots with the bad guys because he make a point of surreptitiously and eagerly directing the bad guys to the location of the incarcerated Mr. Crowe. Why does he do this? Who knows. The filmmaker never lets us in on the secret.

2. Apparently the Neanderthal menfolk of Contention, AZ, are a simple-minded lot who, at the thought of earning $200.00 by murdering the the folks holding murderous Russell Crowe in custody, just can't wait to start throwing lead. "Mabel, Whar's mah raffle? Ahm gonna keel me sum law-men an geet myselves $200.00 dollah cash on that thar barrelhead!"

3. Apparently no one in Contention has a problem with watching their unarmed police force viciously gunned down in broad daylight. After this atrocity, folks continue to wander the streets, go in and out of stores, and continue their daily lives as though nothing has happened. Except for, of course, the menfolk who are hiding in wait for a chance to earn that $200.00.

4. Apparently no one bothers to theorize that when you are firing dozens of rounds of ammunition at two men who are as close together as they can be without being Siamese twins you just might hit the guy you're trying to rescue.

5. Apparently, when Russell Crowe's psychotic gunslinging hero-worshiping gang member finally realizes the implications of the above, he figures he better start shootin' them menfolk he'd promised that thar munny to. Of course, none of the surviving menfolk think to start shooting at him.

6. Apparently--well, you get the idea. In other words, this excuse for movie-making is, quite frankly, stupid! In order to take this seriously, you must convince yourself that the type of behavior exhibited by many of the characters in this film is the way people really act. Whether it be the above examples, or Peter Fonda being shot in the stomach, at close range, having the bullet removed, and then immediately riding out into the desert on horseback as though nothing had ever happened to him, much of this film is just plain ludicrous! By the way, I'm no gun expert, but I do know this: If you are shot in the stomach at close range you ain't gonna be going' nowhere and you certainly ain't gonna be trottin' around on a horse!

The bigger problem with this movie is its message, which is this: People who do the right thing because it's the right thing to do are fools. Good people don't thrive. As Christian Bale says, "I've been asking God to help me for three years and he hasn't done it yet." For those who would attempt to live a righteous, honorable life there is nothing but despair and hopelessness. In fact, at the end of the movie the true hero of the piece is the psychopathic, vicious, murdering Russell Crowe character. And, by the way, this film does NOT retain the ending of the original, so if you were hoping it would, forget about that.

If you see this film, you might recognize material from other Westerns. You have an iron clad stagecoach, reminiscent of John Wayne's "War Wagon," quotes from the Bible, reminiscent of Randolph Scott in "Ride the High Country," the psychological bantering between the Crowe and Christian Bale characters, reminiscent of not only "Ride the High Country" but also of "The Tall T", an Elmore Leonard story with Randolph Scott and Richard Boone, and Christian Bales's cursing teenage son, reminiscent of Ron Howard in John Wayne's "The Shootist."

Your better bets: All of the other movies I named above plus the original with Glen Ford and Van Heflin.


Okay, first why steal the title from a classic western if not just to yank a few more bucks from their clients (us) when the so-called remake is butchered beyond belief. This effort should have been a standalone production just so it wouldn't drag down another production with it.

The main character played by Crow is quite happy to murder law enforcement and his own gang members with nothing shorter than that of a psychopath yet fluctuates back and forth in wanting to help and feel sorry for his captor and son. I won't waste time repeating a lot of the films other irregularities, but that run through town with the citizens and gang now trying to kill them, I mean let's get real. Was it a town policy only to sell guns to blind people? And were the town people who were after the money, who knew every nook and cranny of their tiny town, just terminally stupid as well?

As for the last scene - total in its absolute ridiculousness. Crow was a psychopath. Someone unable to empathize with any worth extended to others, so what's with the aw shucks I guess he's not so bad after all when he's been murdering those after him and his own gang all throughout the whole story.

I could go on, but I'll leave it with this. If this is the best the studios can do with Westerns then they should forget about making them. This movie wasn't even worth the time wasted making or watching it even if you got to watch it for free. I like the main actors, I like Westerns, but the potential for quality that these things offered was absolutely absent here.


Somehow a great Western story with solid actors and beautiful sets gets tainted by Austin Powers antics. All we need is Scott Evil to point out to us how Russell Crowe's character Ben Wade is going to escape AGAIN! I mean I get it. It's a movie, but boy, that guy Dan Evans with the wooden leg can motor.And PLEASE, someone tell me how the amulet or lucky charm engraved in the gun handle or carried by Dan empowers them all to mystically pause then, as Dr. Laura would say, "Now go do the right thing!"

Yuma ends in something so contrived it's laughable. You know they say movies are made for an eight grade educated audience and even with grade inflation no one in middle school will be insulted by this film.

All the killing was great. I mean I love bullets, especially the ones fired at point blank that don't blow the guts out of Peter Fonda's character. Was he wearing body armor or is he just so old and leathery that it stops the molten hot projectile from penetrating his subcutaneous fat and peritoneum. Pretty soon he's 'good to go' and up in the saddle and fighting Ben. And when he gets flung over the cliff his posse pales show great restraint. "OK Mr. Wade, that'll be enough, now get back on your horse, we have a train to catch."

When Butch in Butch Cassidy gets mad at his gang but only kicks the big guy in the nuts. Crowe does Butch one better by blowing them all to pieces. A nice parting gesture after they ride 80 hard miles to rescue him. The very last icing on the cake was Roy Roger's horse Trigger doing a cameo and responding to a whistle from Crowe.

If you loved this movie don't watch, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Unforgiven, Open Range or Dances with Wolves.

Filmmakers: PLEASE SOMEONE SAVE THE WESTERN!


This is a stinker of the Nth order. Nothing in this movie rings true. From the moment when the McElroy character played by Peter Fonda is shot POINT BLANK in the stomach, and not only doesn't die, but lives on to lead the posse after cold-turkey surgery THE SAME DAY, this movie lost me. From then on, all I see are its flaws.

They are countless.

The story is muddled and confused. There is dialog that uses contemporary vernacular. The end is SO COMPLETELY unbelievable that it isn't even worth spoiling for you all.

Smells like the old West, though. Like fresh road apples or cow pie.

In short, this was a remake that should never have seen the light of day. James Mangold, director, clearly let everything get away from him, as he did in Walk The Line, a movie that ended up being a really bad film vehicle for Ocsar nominees, but started out being a really good biography of Johnny Cash that NEVER DELIVERED.

Miss this train! The 3:10 to Yuma is garbage.


I sure got suckered into wasting time and money to see this turkey. If you like the Arnold Schwarzenegger genre of movies you would like this one. Russell Crowe plays Arnold. It's full of violence, cruelty, lies, treachery, profanity, sex and, worst of all, improbability. The good guys can't even deter the bad guys with a Gatling gun but one lone Mexican sharpshooter shooting from "miles" away, fells the good guys. When the bad guys see the good guys with a Gatling Gun they just laugh because they know the good guys can't hit the broadside of a barn with anything. The good guys can't even hit a horse with their Gatling Gun! And Ben Wade, the toughest, smartest, most ruthless outlaw of all times, remains in town, in a hotel room with a girl, with his horse tied up outside the bar until the Sheriff and his men ride back into town and easily take him into custody. (He has to be taken into custody early on in the movie in order to start this parody of getting him on the 3:10 to Yuma!) In one scene, toward the end, the gang offers the townspeople a $200 per person bounty on the Sheriff and each of the good guys and the townspeople go crazy in their desire to make $200 or more. And, in the end, Ben Wade, who, himself, or through his gang, has dispatched everybody who matters to their eternal rewards, is so impressed with the truth and courage of the opposition, that he voluntarily gets on the train to go back to the Yuma Prison for his third time and, most likely, to a date with the hangman. And then along the way there's some mention of the Bible, some Bible verses, and then some sort of cross or crucifix on Ben's gun handle. Yep, it's SOME movie. Recommend it to your friends who may have steered you to a similarly stupid flick or some friends that you would like to hear less from.


Well, I can look at all the outrageous contradictions, bad cgi explosions/scope effect/fake town effect/cloud effect, etc, numskulled goofs and sheer idiotic behavior from characters in the film, and idiotic continuity from film makers, except a few. The script writer, continuity supervisor, and director should all have been fired. 3:10 to Yuma (2007) is an insult to a film viewer's intelligence.

The gang, who does'nt seem capable enough to shoot anyone very well, is so dumb that they can't stop a slow stage coach? An armored coach (+3000 lbs), complete with a Gatling gun (+1000 lb) in the back (film for teen action fans)? Yeah right, it would weigh a ton so the horses could not pull it for long, plus the Gatling gun could not be fired while moving. Easy way to stop a slow stage coach, just shoot two horses. Wow, yeah, it's that easy folks.

Fonda (aside from his hideous acting) takes a .44 slug to the gut and rides out of it, then he rides out the next day without bleeding to death? Dumb dead white guys left on rocks, left by Apaches in front of their "camp area" so that everyone knows they (Apaches) live there. Not too smart script writer. Dumb white guys camp with an open fire in Apache country and live? Apaches, using rifles, are shooting in pure darkness, wearing "war paint" and traditional feather caps, while not moving around to disguise their location? It was also an insult to portray the Apaches as "cold blooded killers" while they were fighting for their tradition, family and lives.

For one, they would not use guns. They would wait, then surprise the camp (who was trespassing on their sacred land), and use arrows and knives. This was truly laughable and degrading to Apache skills as warriors. Wade, in cuffs, in pure darkness, guts 3 Apaches??? A stack of TNT is tossed in the air, then easily blown up by lead bits from shotgun, thereby causing extensive damage to a very secure "open" drilled tunnel that is very sound. This was truly laughable.

The last scene, which is badly edited (notice people walking about during gun battle, then gone in next scene, snow on ground in a drought season, etc), was absurd. A one legged man with a shotgun outruns everyone (thanks to shaky camera), then stops in the open to unfasten the train door and gets shot in the back? Well yeah, there was a gun battle 2 minutes previous. This was truly laughable.

3:10 to Yuma (2007) is an insult to a film viewer's intelligence, especially the insane ending where Wade shoots up his own gang who was attempting to free him. That tops the heap the most. It is degrading. For one, it doesn't prove Wade was "moral", just a schizo because he's yapping about escaping in the hotel a few minutes earlier.

The script writer has little in the way of intelligent reasoning.


This movie is terrible. One of the most important qualities that makes a movie good or not is whether the story, characters and plots are believable and realistic based upon what we know of the story.

Christian Bale and Russell Crowe are two phenomenal actors and I'm surprised they signed on for such a pathetic script.

How many times did Russell Crowe almost get away? They just kept giving him chance after chance after chance. These guys were not idiots. He was cold blooded killer. The way to transport him is to tie him up, gag him, and lead his horse for him. Not give him every chance to escape that they could.

And CB sitting RC at his dinner table to eat dinner with him family!!! C'mon, how cheesy is that. The guy can't be trusted and he knows it. Has he got rocks in his head. Sit him in a corner or in another room, with a gun to his head and then give him food.

All throughout the movie they treat him like he's their buddy, not their prisoner. It's poorly done. Letting him sit in the window of the hotel in Yuma and talk to his gang! That's ridiculous! This movie is poorly, poorly done and I was very disappointed in paying money to see it.


In the first and most memorable scene in this movie, 'Jackson', while wearing a hockey mask and meandering around the streets of London one night, and grabs a guy from behind and peels back the flesh from his face and then punches a hole into the guy's chest and then rips out his heart. Then, in the first of several changes in tone, we get annoying attempts at humour, where Jackson tries on cowboy hats in a store while still wearing his hockey mask, a cornball sequence where they go for a stroll on the beach one evening at sunset, while Jackson is still wearing his hockey mask(!) - is this supposed to be a comedy or a soap opera love story now? The movie changes tone drastically (again) and we plod through over a half an hour of crap about him and his blind girlfriend and their relationship problems, with Jackson walking around their bedroom wearing a pair of red underwear with 'Bad Boy' printed on them. *groan* Then if I remember correctly, towards the end we get a couple more semi gory killings, before Jackson collapses crying and screaming "No! No! No!" after seeing a marquee at a local movie theatre which reads something to the effect of "Coming soon: 'Unmasked part 26'" hinting that he still will never be able to stop killing, no matter how much he may want to, because the producers will keep bringing him back again and again in more sequels.

That joke about the marquee listing the title of the next supposed sequel being called 'Unmasked part 26' probably didn't make sense in the alternate version called 'Hand of Death' either, and it does make for a really anticlimactic (and abrupt) ending. This looks like home movies filmed on the streets in and around London on a pocket change budget in a few days time, while it might have had a valid point about the unoriginality of Hollywood, it was mostly brought down by the non existent budget and the dramatic changes in tone throughout the movie. It just ends up looking like a hybrid between horror, soap opera romance, and the kind of diffused look of a soft core porno video. It's one of the most memorable flicks you're ever going to see, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

** out of ****


It was probably a funny idea at one time to spoof the Friday the 13th films by making Jason a nebbish man full of self-doubt. The fact is that the FT13th films are unintentionally funny on their own, this film tries to be more satirical and the whole thing collapses under its own intentions. The gore is even grosser than most FT13th films, and the violence is rather cruel, especially the final murder. There are no funny lines here, or suspense, just another case where the special effects budget was more than the screenplay budget. Pass the hockey mask and give this a 1.


Like I said in my previous review of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie, this movie is horrid. However, unlike the original, I could not find a single thing worth laughing about in this movie. This movie is a disgrace. It hurt my eyes. In the middle of the movie I turned on my CD player and listened to Lucinda Williams. LUCINDA WILLIAMS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I LISTENED TO "RIGHTEOUSLY". RIGHTEOUSLY, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I started asking myself what had happened to the spunk, the interest of the bad guys that was with Ivan Ooze in the original. Why am I closing my ears whenever the Power Rangers speak? Why don't I just chop the film up and scatter its pieces into the wind in defiance of the piece of crap I rented? (Well, actually that's the reason I didn't harm it.) I wish I could forget this experience. But you don't forget a headache like that any time soon, do you?


First of all, Power rangers are themselves bad but this is unbelievable. The first movie should appeal to children under the age of 8 and had one decent villain followed by the worst $0.02 CGI transformation sequence in the history of mankind. However, compared to this, that movie seems like the Godfather. Nothing will make sense if for some unfortunate reason you find yourself watching this. It is pure and utter garbage and is'nt funny no matter how you try to look at it. Its disgusting. Its not a movie. Its not a show. Its guano. Most people wont watch it anyway so why am I wasting time writing this? I don't know. The only thing I don't understand is why this is'nt in the bottom 20 list? Make that bottom 5.


Just another bad sequel to a great movie. A Power Ranger fan's worst nightmare, which isn't really saying much so to speak. This really kills the MPG franchise. Why wasn't Billy in this one?, Why wasn't Jason the Gold Ranger? And what happened to The Machine Empire? There's nothing in this movie but very weak plot but that's about it! Even the series to this movie was lousy! To say the least! All though I liked Power Rangers in Space but the following Power Rangers series like Lost Galaxy,Light Speed Rescue,Time Force,Ninja Storm,Wild Force,Dino Force and S.P.D. where pretty crappy! Watch Voltron The Third Demention instead. Don't waste your time or money watching this disappointing no film! It just ain't worth it.


I am probably one of the minority of intelligent teens who liked the first movie (even though I have just turned 18).

So I watched the second one and I have to say it was as terrible as a sequel can get. They used CARS. That might have been great for any other movie but seriously, making the Turbo Zords CARS? That's something I cannot believe.

The movie concerns the Power rangers saving a wizard called Loriglot from evil being Divatox. And there were no fights. basically, it was a very disappointing movie. The only good point was the return of Kimberley. And the climax was exciting (albeit really really stupid)

Other than that, stay away from this film at all costs.


I was completely disgusted by this movie. It is just another example of how they butchered what used to be a great tv show. I loved the first movie, but this one is so horrible, you couldn't pay me to sit through it. The story line was dreadfully cheesy, the acting was worse than usual, and the "special effects" were definitely something to be laughed at. Take my advice, and don't waste your time.


Saw it once at 9-10 years old did not care for it although I was syked when I heard Jason (Austin St. John) the original Red Ranger and the greatest ranger of all time period! Saw it again yesterday and same thing did not care for it. It looks like the TV show the effects which for a movie of this supposed magnitude should have rocked the house with the then new improved CGI instead looked like LASER FLOYD anyone remember that one neither do I. The plot is really thin and the spoilers are given away almost immediately with the trailers and interviews the only part with the Turbo Megazord was too short 5 mins and face it if there was no zords the show would not have lasted as long as it did or less than that MMPR: the movie's Ninja Megazord had at least 15-20 mins of screen time and had impressive CGI at least at that time it did. The major baddie Mali...something was not threatening at all MMPR had more impressive monsters than this rubberized reject but I give it a four because of a hinted romance between Jason and Kimberly I mean who goes out with a girl solo and still be just friends plus they acted a little too friendly around each other flirting and whatnot and were hardly seen without each other and only fraternizing with each other if that doesn't say love I don't know what does. Even though we get the big three of power rangers I mean everyone knows these guys Jason (the compassionate leader) Kimberly (The heart of the team and she's pretty damn hot) and Tommy (the favorite and pretty boy of the group) the character development well face it there was none plummets this from movie to one overlong action kiddie show. I also give it a four because out goes Rocky Jason's replacement and the most annoying of the original MMMPR and then Blue Zeo Ranger YES!!!!! and enter Justin the other immensely annoying Blue Ranger NOOOOOO!!!!! All in all the return of Jason and Kimberly couldn't save this one from the pointless action sequences thin plot and annoying character of Justin it was better off with a direct to video release even Die Hard fans may want to steer clear of this one


I remember reading the Roger Ebert review for the first Power Rangers movie and above all else he hated the fact that the Rangers were, essentially, color coded clones with only thin streotypes as personalities. Well, I'm dying to know what he thought of this entry. It emphasises Ebert's point in the scene where a little kid who was allowed to stand in for an injured Ranger gets the magic armor on... and in the dissolve, we see him replaced with an adult sized armored stuntperson.

I'm what kids consider a cool adult. I don't hate boy bands, I can name all the Pokemon, and I enjoyed the first season of "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" as I'd enjoy an old Godzilla flick. This movie was when I started to get a tad disillusioned with them.


This is the movie that turned me off from power rangers. I really dont like how the kid, justin, is the blue ranger. it needs to be a teenager. however i did like the Cameo of Kimberly (pink ranger number 1) and Jason (red ranger number 1)thought it to be really cool that they still acknowledged that they were a part of this story. Needs to be a reunion Special or something of the Classic Power Rangers. it would so make me Happy. but other than that there are several problem i have with the movie Justin is just not a convincible power ranger. The Villians arent the greatest either. Ivan Ooze was so much more villianous in Power Rangers the movie. Of the 2 power ranger movies, this one comes in second. if Justin wasnt the blue ranger maybe id change my mind


I hated this movie so much i destroyed my friends tape, i only watched ten minutes of it and blew it up. I hated the t.v show's,this movie, and the memorabilia. the t.v shows got old the movie was gay and the memorabilia was like pokemon cards.


Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie (1997)

Starring: Johnny Yong Bosch, Nakia Burrise, Jason David Frank, Catherine Sutherland, Amy Jo Johnson, Steve Cardenas, Austin St. John, Blake Foster

Directed by: David Winning, Shuki Levy

Plot outline: The Power Rangers must protect an alien creature from a villain that wants to release a great evil imprisoned on an island.

My thoughts: I really don't like this movie, first off, it's not a movie, it's more like a 90 minute episode of the TV show, as a matter of fact, that's what the movie should have been, a 3 part season premiere, second problem: the title, why is it called Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie and not just Power Rangers: Turbo just like the show, also, why isn't this a sequel to the first film?, I mean, come on, can't you just at least make a more proper sequel, I know this was after most of the original cast left, but dang, also, the special effects were worser than the effects in the first one, they look like something a nerd would do on After Effects, the Justin kid was so annoying, he's not even worthy of being the Blue Ranger, the Lerigot character angered me, he looks like a cross between an Ewok and a troll baby doll, the villains are dumb, however, I did like the soundtrack, and there a few decent action scenes, but that's it.

Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie should have stayed on the IMDb bottom 100 list, 1.5/10.


I was eleven years old when this second Power Rangers movie came out. I know some fans had gone off the Rangers by the time they were that age, but I didn't mature as fast as them. So, I was still a big fan when this film came out (I was even still a big fan a year later), and remember watching it over and over for a while. Now, believe me, if I didn't see it then, I would NOT have bothered watching it ten years later, but because of the wonderful memories, I decided to do so. Obviously, it wasn't the same.

Divatox, an evil alien pirate, plans to go to the island of Muranthias on Earth, where she intends to release an evil creature named Maligore and marry him. In order to do this, she will need Lerigot, a good wizard, so she plans to have him kidnapped! Fortunately, the wizard manages to escape to Earth, seeking help. Tommy and Katherine go to find him in Africa, and teleport him back to the command centre. However, Lerigot soon decides to surrender after it is learned that Divatox has captured his wife and child! After this, the evil space pirate and her crew head toward the island, and it's obviously up to the Power Rangers to try and stop her, but before they set out, Zordon and Alpha 5 give them new powers called "Turbo powers"!

Where do I start in describing this movie? Well, first of all, there are some pretty poor quality characters. I would say the worst is probably Divatox, who was the Rangers' main enemy in the "Power Rangers Turbo" series. She basically acts like a bratty kid, and it seems her antics are supposed to be funny, but at an adult's perspective, they're quite embarrassing. Hilary Shepard puts on a VERY poor performance in this role! Nobody in the cast is very impressive, but most of them do a better job than her! Another character who brings the movie down in quality a bit is Justin, the new Blue Ranger, who is a lot younger than the rest. He's certainly not the only character with lame lines, but it seems his are often worse than most of the others. None of the characters stand out as really good, but clearly, some do stand out as remarkably bad.

As you can probably tell from the above paragraph, this movie has a poor script, and the acting generally isn't so good. If you're an adult who is at all familiar with Power Rangers, I'm sure none of this surprises you. Now, sometimes when a movie is bad, it can be unintentionally funny. A few months ago, I watched "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie" (which I had never seen before), and around the beginning, I found that it was mildly amusing, but was disappointed to find that the amusement soon went away. Watching this movie after that one, I was hoping for some more unintentional humour, but didn't really find any of that, apart from the scene where the Power Rangers have just gotten their new Turbo powers, and say things like "This is great!" (with a thumbs up) and "This is awesome!" As a straight male, there's one thing I got out of this movie that I wouldn't have when I was eleven, which was the looks/physique of certain female actors, including Nakia Burrise and Catherine Sutherland who play Tanya and Katherine (the two female Rangers of the time), and I guess even Hilary Shepard who plays the dreadful main villain, but this obviously didn't make the entire film for me.

Now, I must admit that watching "Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie" again after all these years wasn't quite the same as watching "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie" for the first time earlier this year. It didn't seem QUITE as bad, even though it's generally considered inferior to its predecessor. In fact, call me crazy, but I found that some parts weren't too bad at all, though I wouldn't say I exactly enjoyed the movie. However, I guess the fact that I actually saw it in my childhood is a major part of this, and if I just watched it for the first time, it probably would have been very similar to the experience I had with its predecessor, watching it for the first time way too late. For those who saw this movie in their childhood and are now adults, if you're curious to see what you would think of it now, I wouldn't say that's a bad idea, but not a very good one, either. For everyone else beyond their childhood, I think you know to just stay away. I may look like a fool watching "Turbo" at my age and then writing a long, negative review (after all, it is a kids' movie), but like I said, it wouldn't have happened if I hadn't seen it at a much earlier age.


I was a fan of the series even into '97. This movie made absolutely no sense. When I was 9, I thought it was cool to have a kid be a Power Panger...now I look back on it and cringe...they must've been desperate to keep people interested. And I do believe that we've already had a classic animated series in the '80s featuring cars turning into giant robots and it has a hit movie out now with Shia LaBeouf (Shia, if I spelled your name wrong, I'm sorry) called...I don't know...(cough)TRANS-(cough)-FORMERS(cough)! Bottom line, this movie would have a tough time surpassing Jaws 4...there I said it, as ashamed as I am to say it. (aside: I use Jaws 4 as a comparison to other films that are worse than bad to try and give an idea of how bad a film really is).


Without a shadow of a doubt, this is the greatest movie of all time! Forget The Godfather and Shawshank Redemption, step aside Lord of the Rings, there's a new show in town and they're kickin' some theatrical butt! THAT'S RIGHT! Go Go POWER RANGERS!!!!!!!!!


The original Power Rangers TV show was a fun, much loved, admittedly tacky, but often enjoyable series. The first movie was similar in description, but I think it surpassed the show in several ways. But by the time Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie came along, I realized that it was just going on nothing. The film has one of the stupidest titles I have ever heard, and from that, we get more bad things. The actors are bad, but they were bad in the show too. The villains are the lamest and blandest in the entire long running series. And the turning a boy into a ranger. Blech. Why did they bother? It has redeeming features. Tommy, Adam, Jason and Kinmberly, my picks for the best power rangers are in the film (Billy, who is absent, is my fifth pick). The monster Maligore is bloated and lingually challenged, but cool. And...well, that's it. See the first one. It's also on the bottom one hundred, but it's considerably better than this.


I don't know whether to love or to hate this movie because, despite it being a obvious ripoff or omen to "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" it wasn't all that bad. The one thing that it was missing tho was, female full frontal nudity, if there was some of that if the movie I would have rated it higher. The killer in this movie is a mentally challenged boy witch doesn't have anywhere close the the horror appear that "Leatherface does" and while running around he constantly makes pig noises which I thought was just stupid and didn't add to the scare factor of the movie. But it quite funny seeing how similar it is to the chainsaw movie. If you like horror movies you MIGHT like this. Give it a try


Not just your typical slasher flicks of the 1980s. No, this has something to say, and that is an anti-meat message. Saying people who kill animals for a living must be insane to begin with and that's just B.S. like the movie LARVA, SLAUGHTERHOUSE must have been written by a vegetarian or something. Second, why kill anyone who walks onto the property, that'll make it hard to sell pork, plus where was the sign warning people that "TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROCESSED INTO SAUSAGE." These are the questions that leave you scratching your head, wondering if you have a tumor or something for even wanting to watch it. Lastly, the climax or as I like to put it, THE OTHER SHOE ENDING. The last survivor escapes in the Deputy's car, kills Lester and just when you think it's safe, Buddy comes leaping out of the back seat and kills her. They don't show him killing her it freeze frames before that. But she's trapped behind the wheel of a car with that ax machete thing coming towards her so there is clearly no escape. THE NOOSE!


Even when I first saw it years ago, I wasn't too impressed. Now that I've seen it again, I'm less impressed but more forgiving of its ineptness. Once again, it's another horror pic inspired by "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but it doesn't understand why "Texas" was so effective. It substitutes Leatherface with Buddy (Joe B. Barton) a filthy fatso who runs a slaughterhouse and kills local interlopers. Despite a solid opening sequence, it is all over the place, and the scenes of violence have no quality control whatsoever. It's bloody, yes, but none of it is convincing, shocking or unnerving. If the film was half as good as what the poster art promised, I wouldn't be burying it with my literary shovel. I love horror, and I always want to love the next horror film I see, but a love of something doesn't imply you love all its children.


I can only imagine what those freaky hillbillys from Deliverance would think of Buddy, the 300+ pound mentally handicapped killer who grunts like a pig rather than speaking normally. He'd surely be an upgrade from poor Ned Beatty! The plot centers around old man Lester Bacon who gets his property, slaughterhouse and all, seized so a larger slaughtering factory can move in. Lester isn't going to take this lying down, so he lures the foreclosing son's of guns to his slaughterhouse so son Buddy can slaughter them.

Joe Barton, as the deranged swine-friendly killer, is the chief reason to watch this film. The soundtrack redefines abysmal, and the rest of the cast is standard.

"Squeal like a piggie!!!"


***SPOILERS***

I should have known this one was going to be bad just by looking at the cover. It wants to be cool yet wants to be scary and fails miserably at both. It involves a group of local bureaucrats who are trying to foreclose on a pig slaughterhouse which used to be the bread and butter of the town. The owner doesn't appreciate it much so he gets his son who cannot talk other than making pig noises to off each of the fat cats one by one. This is a very lame attempt at a slasher film, and anyone looking for a scare or a good time should avoid "Slaugherhouse" like the plague, for it is horror for the mentally challenged. 0 out of 10.


This uneasy, uncertain mix of brutal murder sequences (though the effects don't stand up to scrutiny) and a spoofy tone is a complete waste of time. It's the kind of film that has you constantly counting how many people are still alive in order to guess approximately how much running time it has left. The fact that it got a DVD release (and one full of extras, I hear) is more amazing than anything you'll see in the picture itself. (*1/2)


SLAUGHTERHOUSE is a terrible film. In fact, it's one of the worst films I've seen recently and this is after watching SILO KILLER and SCARECROWS. SLAUGHTERHOUSE is as bad as SCARECROWS. Everything about it is truly pathetic. Being a big TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE fan, I had hopes that this film would be a fun rip-off. It's not. It tries to be funny and scary and it's not even close to being funny (in a good way or bad way) and it's definitely not scary. The only thing scary about this woeful "film" is the acting. I've never seen such bad acting put on film! The acting in an Ed Wood movie is usually better than the acting in this dreck. There's a scene inside the slaughterhouse, when the fat killer is above one of the businessmen and taunts the businessman with a weapon. That scene is the most pathetic example of acting I've ever seen in a film. I regretted watching this horrible film. It's bad and to be avoided at all cost.


I thought this film was so bad it made Titanic look like a masterpiece. Weak plot, weak characters and I really had I hard time watching this film. Some Gangster films are good ie. Goodfellas, Godfather Trilogy but unfortunately this is not one of them. Absolute rubbish.


I do know that the Eurovision song contest isn't supposed to be taken seriously as a song contest otherwise the 1990s would have seen Blur , Oasis or The Verve as the UK contestants while Ireland fielded U2 with Air representing France etc . In short this contest is not supposed to be taken seriously but come on at least pretend you're voting for the song you liked best , but alas politics comes into it . All the countries of the former Yugoslavia voted for one another which can be seen as part of a healing process but be honest , do you think the ghosts of 278,000 dead Yugoslavs can be exorcised by a camp and cheesy song contest featuring more often than not Euro-trash ? Neither do I . All the Nordic countries voted for one another while Greece and Cyprus gave each other maximum points as they do every year much to the disgust of the gathered audience in Turkey . Talking of Turkey I thought their entry was probably the best on the night , a sort of ska inspired track played by an actual band , but the winner was The Ukraine which seemed to have stolen their style from that sword and sorcery show from New Zealand

A well staged and organised musical event but an event that is well past its sell by date and which should hopefully be scrapped in the near future


The scariest part of this movie happens in the first 3 minutes to a farmer's chicken. After that we are introduced to a dubbed Danish film with poor voice overs. The acting, the plot, the dialog and direction are like watching some poor Japanese Anime. I watched this as part of the "Ghost House Undergrouund" series and really felt like it was the poorest of the series. Most children will find Scooby-Doo scarier and more entertainning. All the little girls voice overs sounded like adult females trying to sound like a little girl. I honestly couldn't tell the difference between the little girls and little boys in this film without substance. I am really surprised there wasn't the cliché giant robot fight.


Dreadful sci-fi entry from Germany, which features invaders from space who want the emotion of love from the people of Earth, even if they have to kill them for it. So what better strategy to initiate this cosmic onslaught than to place the vanguard of the invasion force in a dead woman's body disguised as a substitute high school teacher--pretty clever!! This lady certainly intimidates the little brats into doing what they should do, as well as pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid parents in the community. She's on her way to conquering the earth, smashing every human in her path, maybe even becoming the high school principle! The kids know what's going on though, 'cause they've seen the invader eating live chickens in the barn. So, naturally, they have to plan on getting rid of the outer space boogie-sub by themselves. So it goes....not much in the way of a gripping plot or special effects either. And there you have it!


I really didn't enjoy this horror movie, in fact i don't even suppose it IS a horror movie or any kind. Though you have the chance to see once more how talented and breath taking Lauren Bacall is and her creepy portrayal in the film, the script is lousy, it lacks of plot and reason. The child players have an amazing performance. Their casting is very successful because it must be hard to pull of such characters. I think the production company wanted to make a different kind of adaptation. One that is not classical. If you think you're going to see a horror movie like "The Shining" or "The Pet Cemetery", I'd say you'd be disappointed. The movie gives you the impression, but it never actually answers the questions in the plot. Why do the kids hide their secrets or why Lauren Bacall's is so evil- you never get the answer. The ghost thing in the movie is never scary, maybe funny! Antonio Aloy who's portraying the father is the worst, I think. His character never really involves in the story. Nevertheless, some surprising scenes actually do exist like the kids' traumatic reactions and the sudden appearing of the mysterious ghost woman. The rest is dull, annoying and empty.. Waste of time!


How could anyone think of placing Cary Grant in a film and giving him practically nothing to do?! Well, even though it was relatively early in his career, he had plenty of charisma and star status that it just didn't make sense having him play second to Edward Arnold--who played an annoying and ridiculous version of the life of Jim Fisk. These two characters were also teamed with Jack Oakey--who was there solely for comic relief. All together, they had very little chemistry together and the film itself was dreadfully uninteresting. In many ways it had SOME of the appearance of films such as MANHATTAN MELODRAMA or SAN FRANCISCO (all had a pretty impressive budget and sets), except these films set in roughly the same period in American history were interesting! A poorly written script, too much comic relief and a complete ignorance of the actual historical facts make this movie a real chore to sit through and one of the few in recent months that I truly couldn't stand. Even "bad" movies (such as some of the 50s sci-fi flicks) can often be enjoyed for their campiness or your ability to laugh at them--this one is just dull.

My advice? See any of Cary Grant's other marvelous films--he didn't make that many as poor as this one and made so many classics that deserve your attention.


The Toast of New York, despite the lavish look, top-notch cast and occasional bursts of energy, is a ten-ton bore - chiefly, I think, because of the long-winded script and pedestrian direction. Others have commented on the production difficulties and personnel changes which may be responsible for the bland result. Early in the story we are treated to a colorful but talky exposition which sets the plot in motion: On the day the Civil War starts, Jim Fisk (Edward Arnold), itinerant peddler, and his partners in crime (Cary Grant and Jack Oakie) devise a scheme to buy cotton cheaply in the South, smuggle it North and sell it at a high price to New England mills, thus launching the career of one of the fabled financial speculators of the 19th century. But, instead of the whiz-bang, rise-and-fall saga laced with comedy which this introduction leads us to expect, we get 100 minutes of routine montages followed by more expository talk (mostly about financial deals), interspersed with boisterous crowd scenes and tepid romantic interludes with the exquisite Frances Farmer, who plays Josie Mansfield, an aspiring stage actress who is taken under Fisk's wing. None of this ever rises above the mundane. Edward Arnold gives his familiar robust, take-charge performance (see the 1937 screwball comedy EASY LIVING and the previous year's COME AND GET IT which this film resembles in theme and plot); Grant and Oakie are pretty much themselves as well, though the full impact of Grant's screen charisma is blunted in this non-comic role. Farmer is presented more as a comely production value than a full-blooded character. She spends most of her screen time in a series of splendid period gowns uttering banalities that barely suggest the emotional states of her character. She too played a similar role in COME AND GET IT, to far stronger effect. One would expect this kind of storytelling from a Warners assembly-line quickie, but it's terribly disappointing to encounter it in a 100-minute-plus grade-A production by RKO. I'll give it a "4" for Farmer and Arnold.


Dreadful 1937 film where three con men played by Cary Grant, Jack Oakie and Edward Arnold con their way to success. For them, the worst thing could have been was that the civil war ended.

They wind up with a fortune; that is, a fortune in confederate bonds. While they are worth nothing, the trio manages to parlay this nothing into a fortune. Here is a major flaw in the film. It is never adequately explained how they could get away with this. Sounds more like the junk-bond trade of the 1980s and so.

Frances Farmer, as a maid to a chanteuse, is elegantly dressed but does very little else here. Too bad that Miss Farmer spent much of her life combating mental disorders. Starring in this film was a disorder in itself.

Arnold has some moments especially when he allows greed to lead to his downfall. However, you didn't have to be a rocket-scientist to see this coming.

A very poor script certainly did not help this. Jack Oakie was traditionally a comedian of A-1 quality. How many times was he going to refer to Arnold as Yes Boss, Yes Boss.

Slavery ended with the civil war.


Sanjay Gupta's Aatish is a straight, shameless lift from John Woo's "Ying Huang Boon" (A Better Tomorrow).

John Woo's Ying Huang Boon Sik/A Better Tomorrow(1986) was groundbreaking when first released because of the stylistic depiction of the action scenes. Its success spurred a new genre in Hong Kong cinema known as Heroic Bloodshed. These films were usually gangster movies which were characterized by outrageous gun battles, heavy action, and high melodrama. Hong Kong cinema in the mid 1980s to early 1990s was in the midst of a gangster film craze similar to Hollywood in the 1930s-1940s, France in the 1950s-1960s, Japan in the 1960s-1970s, and Italy in the 1970s-1980s. A Better Tomorrow(1986) is to Heroic Bloodshed what A Fistful of Dollars(1966) was to the Spaghetti Western.

A Better Tomorrow focuses on the age old themes of honor and loyalty. The characters of Ho and Mark are honorable gangsters in an era of double crosses and mistrust. Ho and Mark are at odds with the changing value system and this puts them as people who are outmoded in their principles. Honor and loyalty in A Better Tomorrow(1986) is greatly emphasized as the marks of a good hearted person. Mark Gor is very honorable and loyal in his personalty compared to Shing who is the opposite.

John Woo's main concern is to place high importance on the idea of brotherhood. According to John woo in this film, the tight bonding between men is something that was lost among youngsters at that time. Brotherhood in the film is complex and emotional. The relationship between Ho and Mark is so strong that there is nothing that can smash it. The scene where Mark tells of his ordeals at a nightclub as a first time gangster is nostalgic and touching.

Famous for the clothes Mark Gor wears as for anything else in the film. Began a trend in fashion around Hong Kong when many people started wearing the same kind of outfit as Mark Gor. Quentin Tarantino loved the look of Mark that for weeks he dressed like him to feel and look cool. In John Woo films there is always focus on the fashion of his characters. Mark Gor was the Rick Blaine of the 1980s.

A Better Tomorrow(1986) changed the look of action films with the famous use of pistols by Brother Mark in the restaurant. The first of many elaborate gun battles that dominates the films that follows A Better Tomorrow(1986). Although John Woo would film many wonderful action scenes in the next few years, there never would be a scene like this one which is full of energy and freshness. I enjoyed it when Mark Gor places guns inside flower pots as backup because the idea is cleaver and original. This scene is parodied in the climatic portion of Just Heroes(1987).

Ying Huang Boon Sik(1986) gave stardom to an actor known for his roles in Hong Kong television named Chow Yun Fat. Before the film's success, Chow Yun Fat was considered box office poison in Hong Kong. His charismatic and suave performance as the tragic Mark Gor broke that reputation. Chow Yun Fat is the best actor to come out of Asian cinema since Toshiro Mifune and Jo Shishido. He is the most flamboyant actor in the world who is better than any actor that was nominated for Best Actor at the Oscars.

The motif of sacrifice for redemption is part of Woo's religious beliefs. The heroes in his bloodshed films perform sacrifices to purify themselves within. The death of Mark Gor is a big sacrifice because it makes Ho and Kit Brothers again. What's sad about the death of Mark is its the only way for Ho and Mark to reconcile with each other. This motif also plays big in The Killer(1989) and Bullet in the Head(1990). The story is simple but compelling. Ti Lung made a big comeback with his role after years of mediocrity. He gives a performance that is deeply emotional and mature. Leslie Cheung also performs well as the headstrong but naive and stubborn Kit Sung. Waise Lee is excellent as the pompous and two faced Triad boss, Shing.

Gunfight at the end of A Better Tomorrow is less high body count and refined than in later John Woo films. Still exhilarating and fun to watch. The shootout is filmed in the spirit of Sam Peckinpah and Sergio Leone. When Chow Yun Fat comes out shooting like John Wayne, the film is at a high adrenaline level. One of the reasons why I love this movie.

Plot becomes more emotionally intense and less melodramatic with the energetic direction of John Woo. What makes the film work is the large dose of sentiments given by John Woo. He films the action and dramatic scenes with much passion and thoughtfulness. He is good at directing Chow Yun Fat and Ti Lung in giving great performances. A Better Tomorrow(1986) made John Woo an action guru after years doing comedies and being known as the king of comedy in Hong Kong cinema.

However, the copying was done in an excellent way. Aditya Panscholi in Chow-Yun-Fat's role does a wonderful job. His best performance in his not-so-good career as an actor. Sanjay Dutt, as usual, is awesome. No credit to the Director, Editor and Screenplay-writer as all they did was shameless copying. The superb acting performances by Dutt and Panscholi make the movie to a nice watch but the makers make it a pathetic downer by stealing everything scene-by-scene in to-to.


Horrible Piece Of so called "Stylish" film-making from one of the biggest hacks in the Indian film industry " Sanjay Gupta ". Scenes are lifted from Scarface & Lethal Weapon & countless Hollywood flicks while the whole plot plus numerous scenes xeroxed straight from John Woo's classic Hong Kong flick "A Better Tomorrow". The only saving grace in the whole mess is " Sanjay Dutt " else everyone just hams it up. The basic story is of two friends "Baba & Nawab" ( dutt & pancholi =hamster no.1 ) working for the mafia boss "Uncle" ( Ajit = hamster no.2 ). Baba also has a younger brother in a police academy Avi( agnihotri = Hamster King ) who doesn't know about baba being in cahoots with the mafia so in the fashion of " A better tomorrow " he finds out eventually and a divide is formed between the brothers . However before that Uncle is overthrown by a bunch of clowns and Baba goes to jail . Nawab loses his leg when he tries to take revenge. Baba returns after many years in jail teams up with Nawab and takes revenge , sings love songs & makes up with his brother.If you want to have a healthy brain condition for the rest of your life just avoid it like the plague. Please do check out other "Sanjay Gupta" flicks to find out what an unoriginal hack this guy is!!!


Nasty, gory, ultra-violent modern retelling of the Frankenstein story featuring a scientist, Victor Franks(Rhett Giles), relating how he got to be named a murder suspect of several missing associates who were working with him on a privately funded project concerning how nanotechnology *resurrects* dead cells in a quadriplegic patient with tragic results, to a psychiatric doctor, Walton(Thomas Downey)pressured by detectives in getting a confession. It seems that the nanobots surging through the subject, Bryce's(Joel Hebner) system have dangerous side-effects..Victor's homicidal fantasies, desires & rage, programmed into the computer that operates the nanobots are causing Bryce to act on them without control over his actions. All of Victor's associates are targets thanks to his feelings towards them in one way or another. Victor is confronted by Bryce who has become confused and disturbed by his doctor's fantasies desiring for them to end. Victor, knowing that the project would cease if everything was ended, shoots Bryce, claiming to his fellow surgeon, Hank(Jeff Denton)that it was suicide. Together Victor and Hank resurrect his body using their nanotechnology creating a monster after their experiments cause great physical damage, especially to Bryce's face. Bryce kills Hank and escapes from their lab, going on a killing spree acting out those very feelings Victor fantasized about leaving quite a death trail. When Victor's love, Elizabeth(Eliza Swenson)was one of the beast's victims, he will perform the same procedure on her, with another innocent being killed in the process. That innocent was a babysitter and the child she was looking after befriended the monster, helping the police semi-identify that what Victor was saying isn't just the insane ramblings of a very disturbed man.

I certainly wouldn't say that this THE ASYLUM release adds anything interesting or fresh to the oft-told story of Frankenstein and his mad creation, but it does feature plenty of cheap thrills for gore-hounds such as limbs plucked from victim's bodies, a gruesome decapitation, Victor and Hank's bloody surgical experiments on Bryce's dead body, and a face is shot by the victim's own gun. We get a look into Victor and Liz's kinky sexual activity. But, the film basically is a slasher movie with the monster killing Victor's friends/associates in various ways. Nothing really original or exciting here unless you want to see some of the same gory violence one sees a lot in the slasher genre. I personally didn't think the characters were that interesting or the actors/actresses that portrayed them. Pretty cheap-looking as well. I'd say look elsewhere for better films based on Frankenstein.


The film was made in 9 days and it shows. In particular, the budget obviously wasn't large enough to cover a decent recording system. Through out the film in scenes of dialog (and for a horror film there are a LOT of scenes of dialog), the character in screen is recorded loud and clear and the off screen, second voice is inaudible.

Music video-style fast cuts and scene shifts that move backwards and forwards in time are not so much confusing as meant to try and downplay the lack of much plot or its illogic.

The cast is generally quite good and makes a good attempt to overcome the inadequacies of the script and production.


Where to begin? First off, most of the film is flashbacks. Second, the beginning was stupid, and third, a lot of boring dialog and bad actors. The monster is quite disturbing and so is his roar. They had small parts like when a woman is shown for 2 minutes and is killed. There was parts when i felt like turning it off but I had nothing else to do. After the credits end, there is a minute of the screen pitch black and the music still going. I bet it was to make the movie a minute longer. I gave it a 3, because I like b-horror films,i like Frankenstein movies and you have to give Leigh some credit. My recommendation: if you see it at the video store, tell a person working there that it is a waste of money for you to rent that. So stay away as far as possible. Don't say I didn't warn you.


"Frankenstein Reborn" is another of those direct to rental flicks that usually makes you hesitate before you rent. Just the fact that viewers are ready to shell out a few bucks in the hope that "this time" they'll be pleasantly surprised says quite a lot. Unfortunately, there are not many emerging Roger Cormans out there, and movies like "Frankenstein Reborn" proves that fact. Another poster on this title claims some connection to this dreary movie, defending it because the cast and crewed "cared" about what they were doing. I'm sure Kevin Costner "cared" about "Waterworld", but it was still a terrible movie. All the audience has to go on is the finished product, and to be blunt, most don't give a damn about how much work or money went into the effort. "Frankenstein Reborn" is a bad movie. Bad acting, bad script, bad effects, and obviously too bad to be released into legitimate theaters. The quickie shooting schedule shows, everything looks threadbare (especially the "nightclub" location which looks like someone's basement with a cardboard bar and some flashing colored lights bouncing on the walls. Check out the "nurses/lab assistants" with their meticulously polished inch-and-a-half long nails and nary a rubber glove in sight. See the monster with half a pound of Silly Putty on his face and yarn for hair! Ninety percent of this tripe is shot in close-ups, evidently because you'd be able to see the edges of the sets or the kitchen sink. Perhaps it's time to leave the poor old Frankenstein monster alone, this version brings nothing really new to the genre even though I'm sure the director thought he was being revisionist. While I do commend those who attempt making a movie, I cannot say something is good when it's plainly not. This movie isn't good...and when I shelled out the rental fee, I paid for the right to say so.


Very bad acting. This time i could not even laugh at the bad acting as it can be in other horrors sometimes , for some reason i felt sorry for the actors in this case. I also wish Rhett Giles (Victor) could speak more naturally , less drama in his nonstop half whispering voice maybe.

The characters was not interesting ,or believable in any way and i could not care less how the story will develop either . And what is it with the sound , that was really irritating. The sound is changing constantly between to quiet , so you can hardly hear it and very laud , so you can hardly manage to continue watch .

I did not.


when i see a movie review with such polarized opinion, i want to give it a chance. i bought this as a previously viewed DVD from a national video rental chain and only paid $5. not worth the $5. all the bad has been said already.

the acting is about on the par of a softcore film on cinemax. bleh. the only thing i liked about it (maybe didn't dislike is more appropriate) is that the actresses in this movie are pleasing to look at.

i didn't think i would be getting a great movie here and biy was i right. the worst movie i have seen a quite sometime.

this one's going in the garage sale pile.


I have seen this film and was expecting something quite good, but its the worst film I have seen in a long time, the acting is atrocious and wooden.

It seems as if the film was made just for showing gore and forgetting the acting bit.

Basically the storyline would have been good if they had picked decent actors and actresses, bringing it as an up to date story of Frankenstein.

The blood and gore were over emphasised and didn't look real. Just a complete waste of time and money.


This Movie is a BiG Mistake .

U Make all The Story about a Freak Doctor all What he Doing is just SeX & Drug ...

WHAT all about the sex .. what was the meaning of that ?? what was the purpose???

U Must See Frankenstein(1994)To How To Make a Movie... This film is quite simply spectacular!De Niro gives the foul beast a soul of his own.

But what are this Creature they had present to us .. its nothing..

The blood and gore didn't look real. Just a complete waste of time and money.

If you have read the book,see this movie. You will HATE what they have retained, And U Will Know what they've changed. this is not a Movie..


I could see where the director was going and what he was trying to express but it was a laughable attempt at conveying serious material. Yes, to a certain extent, people in London 'ghettos' do speak like the actors in the film but the dialogue was simply appalling. The actors, whether they were portraying a downtrodden or a somewhat more privileged youth gave such caricatured and clichéd performances that one could not empathises with a single character. It can hardly be compared to a British 'La Haine' because, unlike La Haine it is so lacking in aesthetic material, i.e. inspired cinematography, gritty realism, and a portrayal of philosophic ideas that it comes across more as a day time soap such as 'Doctors' (as British readers will agree). The material covered had a lot of potential but it was executed in such an uninspired and predictable manner that I have to say I was extremely happy when it ended. The only plus side is that it gave me some of the biggest laughs I have ever experienced whilst watching a film, something akin to inhaling laughing gas - strange for a film which is meant to alert viewers of the desperation of the youth in underprivileged London areas. If you watch it expect to be disappointed.


I saw this for the first time recently, and simply had to comment even though the film is a few years old.

This is the worst film that I have seen in years! Firstly, it hangs on the tails of the 'Broken Britain' tedious myth that is perpetrated and propagated by the likes of the Daily Mail. Certainly, all of the issues depicted by the film exist and are fully worthy of attention. But could they all exist at once? And do they all happen all the time? Is this what life is about in London today for the average teenager???? No! And that is only one of the reasons why this film is ridiculous.

As for the characters, the lot of them could have been put up against a wall and shot and I would have applauded. For instance, I was glad Trife was killed  and I don't think that was the director's intention unless he's far more subtle than I give him credit for. In fact, they missed a trick here. The characters are so horrible that had they killed them off one-by-one a la Final Destination - instead of messing about with a laughable Romeo and Juliet plot (Pffffttt! Like anyone would care whether those toerags got back together or not!) - it would have been far more enjoyable. I would have particularly enjoyed seeing Katie's dad die in a freak laptop computer incident. I could go on, but I don't think it's healthy....

Like I said at the start, I'm a bit confused about the 'Broken Britain' basket this thing sits in, and I really wonder what the intention of the director/screen writer was. Incredibly, an Asian director and a black scriptwriter seem to have come up with a propaganda film for the BNP that gets around the present hate laws. Here is my thinking:

i. The black and mixed race pupils beat Katie: a tall, beautiful, middle class white girl, forcing her to admit to being a 'virgin' (by implication a heinous crime according to their 'black ass' thinking) leading her to commit suicide. Trife  a black boy - then 'stands up' for Katie by declaring that he had sex with her  thereby clearing her of her 'crime'. Hopefully he wasn't asked to speak at the funeral.

ii. Then, after being given a day-off school for mourning and quiet reflection as a result of Katie's death, the black and mixed-race guys instead decide to go off on a spree of casual sex, violent confrontation, knife-wielding thuggery, drug taking and general mayhem on London's streets and shops  all set to various rap 'choons'. It is understood by all that the day will culminate in a 'well wicked party' where more of the same will transpire. Trife also finds a bit of time to visit his mentor: an uncle who (surprise) is a black, drug-dealing, murderous, violent, gun-running 'gangsta' who likes to carve his initials on people's faces with a Stanley knife.

(Wot d'ya fink so far, Mr Griffin?) Let's carry on for a bit:

iii. Encouraged by the example of the males, the late Katie's female classmates also opt for a contemplation-free day. Firstly, mixed-race Alisa kicks things off by announcing that she's pregnant in a mobile phone conversation. There is some confusion over who the father is, and this inspires the noble Trife  the recipient of the call and the father - to tell her to eff off. In order to help the tearful Alisa cope with this double blow of pregnancy and rejection, her friend Becky suggests a day of shopping, prostitution, casual sex and drugs. Alisa  after a bit of brow-furrowing - thinks this idea has potential. Off they go.

iv. White girls: the characters of Becky and Claire are carefully drawn to conform to Daily Mail reader stereotypes of the 'type of white girls who hang around with blacks' i.e. total sluts. Becky will sleep with anyone for nothing (at the end she wonders around the 'well wicked' party asking people to service her) but prefers to do it for drugs and/or money. Claire, who's a bit more middle-class than Becky, will give you a quickie after twenty seconds of chimp chat-up - if she can fit you in whilst her boyfriend pops to the newsagent for a packet of cigsand Claire's mum will provide the condoms with a cheerful smile. Sam, ever the gentleman, threatens to publicly reveal Claire's personal hygiene problems. So what conclusion can we draw? I know! Smelly white female pigs doing it with blacks, ugh! Do I get a star, miss?

v. Black misogyny: generally, black males in this film score poorly in aspects of courtly love. There are numerous examples but Sam's treatment of both Katie and Claire is pertinent, as is Uncle Curtis' slap of his girlfriend when she interrupts his cretinous musings and Trife's initial reaction to Alisa's pregnancy. Becky's boyfriend (a deliberately greasy/swarthy/foreign type) gloats over the fact that she's only fifteen and that he has such power over her. Trife charms a twenty-six year old white female architect (she being unaccountably attracted to him) but prefers to steal her purse. Etc, etc, etc. Sigh.

The plot lacks all maturity, depth and development. One would be entirely forgiven for thinking that the scriptwriter was himself fifteen  if not younger. In short: this film would be pleasing to:

 Some fifteen year old boys, who might feel disenfranchised by the way that the girls in their classroom are so very far ahead of them in maturity

 BNP members, for whom it would make an ideal stocking filler

Broken Britain, m'botty. One star for the teenage actors, and no stars for anything else.


Kidulthood has a good first ten minutes, but after that the film falls a part and is no more then a 2 out of 5 star film.

The plot of the film is it is set the day after the suicide of a 15-year-old girl from West London who was bullied by a group of girls and the evil Sam (Noel Clarke). It follows the lives of 3 boys and 2 girls who spend their day off doing drugs, having sex, use sex as currency and commit crimes, whilst also getting chased by Sam.

The first 10 minutes looks at the bullying of Katie (Rebecca Martin), who is attacked constantly by the girls and Sam threats he would kill her if she told her parents. To me this was the most interesting put of the film. Afterwards I felt the film lost a lot of quality and highly unbelievable. Don't get me wrong, I know a minority of teenagers do live in a world of sex, violence, drugs, you know, rock and roll, but not the majority. The film does set out a very negative view of teenagers. As well, too much happens in one day, its trying to be the British version of the film Kids. If the film was spaced out for about a week or two it would be more believable. They are other things to think about, such as why are all the parents unaware of what going on in their children's lives, or it seems that everyone is pretty heartless seeing that a girl killed herself and all the kids think great, they get the day off. The most hardest aspect for me to believe in is the character of Sam. He is meant to a hard-nut bully who strikes fear in the whole school. Firstly, people like that don't stay at school to do A-Levels, they normally don't do well at GCSE level and just get low level work or at best do something at college. Secondly, I just thought he was a f**king loser. All he does is he picks on a 15-year-old girl and his crew is just a bunch of year 11 girls and stread lies that he slept with girls: yeah, real hard. At the climax of the film he attacks Trife (Aml Ameen), there at a party, everyone is just watching in fear, but come-on, if you hate him so much why don't a group of around thirty just kick the living crap out of him?

Basically the film isn't well written. Some of the acting isn't good, a bit over the top, but Jamie Winstone and Rebecca Martin were decent. The film felt like a TV movie. The director, Menhaj Huda, tries too hard and ends up doing clichéd moves, like the flashbacks and the scene seeing Trife and Alisa (Red Madrell) drug and being upset at the same time. However, for it's small budget of £800,000 (very small for a film in London), it was professionally done. The soundtrack isn't too my liking, but its not the sort of music I am into. I know some people will like it.

Basically I didn't think the film was that good, but they is an audience that will like it.


What a treat this tough, realistic movie is. George Bancroft, Betty Compson, and Olga Baclanova are all great is this cynical yet tender story of the waterfront.

Director Josef von Sternberg fills a simple tale with pathos and great atmosphere. Tough stoker Bancroft rescues a girl (Compson) from a suicide attempt and "marries" her for a night of fun. But he gets involved in a web of murder, thievery, and drunkenness.

When Norma Desmond said "we had faces then" in Sunset Boulevard (and yes I know it was Gloria Swanson), Betty Compson was at the top of the list. With her big eyes and crooked mouth, Compson was expert at expressing emotion with a twist of the mouth, a flick of the eyelashes. She is wonderful here as Mae, the waterfront gal. Bancroft is also terrific as the big lug who falls hard for Mae. And Baclanova, best remembered for "Freaks" is a dynamo as the wronged wife.

Great scenes of water and fog and birds serve as a backdrop to the drama that enfolds.

Bancroft and Compson won Oscar nominations in the early days of the award and are pretty much forgotten now, but they serve up sparks here in this terrific film. A must see!


One could spend an afternoon of entertainment on IMDb reading all the reviews below for this excrescence and guessing which ones were written by a) studio plants, b) friends of the Hanks family.

This movie has "called-in favors" written all over it. Cronies of Tom Hanks, and anyone famous who owed him five bucks, from the looks of it, could have their debts forgiven if they appeared in this failed effort to launch son Colin Hanks film career. This is the tripe Hollywood produces when untalented people are told they are talented. To perversely underscore the movies unintended, super-amplified "danger of nepotism" message, it's directed by the son of Lawrence Kasdan.

The big ending where Colin decides to bail on college (the motivation you were supposed to care about for the duration of the film!) might seem like a viable message to someone who owes his ability to get the lead role in a film to the influence of his famous parents. Instead of being poignant, the switcharoo is a self-critique delivered by Colin Hanks about the worthlessness of achievements you didn't actually earn. That conclusion might make an undeserving shill feel swell, but after an hour and a half of pained "drama-dy" it's the final indictment of the cluelessness of all involved.

The genetic mix of Tom Hanks doughy average features superimposed over Mrs. Hanks horsey mandibles is the story of genetics struggling to appear photogenic. Colin Hanks has zero presence and his visual ordinariness is the constant reminder that he in no way deserves this tailor-made movie. No surprise that they chose to cover most of his face with oranges, on the poster. Maye you thought someone else was the star. As you watch this movie, keep in mind the throngs of talented unknowns, who might have deserved this much exposure.

Does Catherine O'Hara ever know what the hell she is doing on film? (See her heinous perf in Home Fries, the actual worst movie ever made) Jack Black became an official sell-out with this movie.


I rented this movie because (a) I come from Orange County, CA, and (2) I wanted to see how Colin Hanks did in his first starring role. For the thirty or so minutes I could stand of this film, I thought Hanks did all right, as did Schuyler Fisk and some of the rest of the cast. Jack Black was passable, although perhaps he got better later in the movie.

However, the writing and the characterizations were just dreck, the worst of TV sitcoms rolled up in a film canister. All of the supporting characters were one-dimensional (if there aren't any lower options), and only seemed somewhat familiar with human interaction on Planet Earth. As a result, situations that the writers must have thought hilarious turned out to be excruciating. I finally shut it down during the scene with Garry Marshall, after they were interrupted for the third time by some extremely contrived, embarrassing spectacles, culminating in Jack Black's entrance in his underwear. Maybe it becomes Citizen Kane from that point forward, but believe me, I don't care. I give it a 3 for continuity and the performances of Hanks and Fisk.


Banal story, absurd jokes and lame dialogues. The actors seem occupied avoiding the joke in this poor film but do not succeed in masking the large hole which animates it.

 Orange County did not even succeed to fill its role of simple entertainment. Frankly, it is to be avoided...


It took me about 20 viewings to actually sit through this stinker. It's that bad! What's worse, it seems like every time it was on, it was on the part I had already seen - the inhumanity.

Note to the Hank's kid: you're not Tom, so think about a different career.

This Colin Hanks kid has no chemistry or charisma. He's charmless, a real dope.

The movie isn't funny, badly paced, boring, a real stiff. I've seen wittier lines in porno. This one is an affront to real movie fans. Anyone that says different should be lobotomized. And there's the real truth, Jack.


This flick confirmed many lingering suspicions, and none too pleasant: 1) Jack Black is a great comedic character actor who can easily be strangled by a poor script (he's at his best when he can bounce off of comedy writers like David Cross and Bob Odenkirk); 2)anything produced by MTV pictures is destined to suck; 3) an all-star cast (John Lithgow, Kevin Kline, Catherine O'Hara, Harold Ramis, Chevy Chase, Lily Tomlin) should be a signal that the material can't stand on its own.

What else can we expect from a parent company whose idea of "music television" is softcore porn (_Undressed_) and _the Real World_ in a Winnebago (_Road Rules_)?

This is one of those rare cases where if you've seen the commercials you haven't seen the movie. You know how ads nowadays tend to give away all of the jokes? Not this one. And for two reasons: 1) there are very few jokes, and 2) most scenes in the ads aren't even in the movie ("I'm this guy...I'm not getting into your college...," "You have to make love to the camera, like 'Hey Stanford, what's up? You want some of this? You know you do'," etc. -- not in the movie!)

The ad campaign makes you think that this is a comedic romp about a kid trying to get into college, and the slacker brother who helps along the way. The two could have been a great team, Colin Hanks as the straight man, Jack Black as the character he is. But this was not a comedy. This was heart-warming pablum masquerading as entertainment.

Everything comes together in the end in the most predictable of ways. Everyone learns a valuable lesson, the sick are healed, the heavens part, and the soundtrack is on sale at your local record store. And that's what really matters, now isn't it? I won't give anything away though, because the plot will reveal itself immediately.

You need to know this, though: the movie was written by Mike White. At first you might think, "_Chuck and Buck_...critical praise...independent film." But he also wrote _Dawson's Creek_ and the film _Dead Man on Campus_. And it shows.

And as bizarre as this is, the song "Butterfly" by Crazy Town, was featured three times with no explanation. First you have a scene break and suddenly there are these "teen movie" cheerleaders doing a choreographed dance to the song, all looking into the camera like a music video as if to say, "I want you now, 15 year old in the audience. I was put into this movie to distract you from this films many faults."

Later, Colin's girlfriend is singing the song to herself with her headphones on, in a scene that was only put in the movie to introduce a dog (following the formulaic nature of the film, the producers must have said, "people loved the dog in _There's Something About Mary_... we need a crazy dog too").

And lastly Colin meets a new girl who invites him to the obligatory college party. Suddenly "Butterfly" begins to play and she and her friends go nuts screaming, "it's our song!" They proceed to do the same choreographed dance as the cheerleaders, looking seductively into the camera. And you watch this and ask yourself why? What does this have to do with the movie? It's clearly an attempt to sell this song as the lead single of the film.

I'm thinking of writing Jack Black to get my $6 back. He got $2 million for this pile of garbage. He can afford it.


"Shaun Brumder (Colin Hanks) is content to be a bright, talented, but unfocused Southern California surf slacker- until the day he discovers a novel by acclaimed author Martin Skinner. Inspired, he suddenly realizes his life's ambition: to leave behind mind-numbing 'Orange County' and study creative writing with Skinner at Stanford University. But, after being denied enrollment due to an admissions error, Shaun is forced to seek help from not only his girlfriend Ashley (Schuyler Fisk), but also his hopelessly dysfunctional parents, stoner brother Lance (Jack Black), and a host of hilarious circumstances, to make his dream of escaping his hometown nightmare a reality," according to the DVD sleeve description.

Typical dumb teen comedy with the usual over-the-hill youngsters - herein, the leading twosome being more famous as the son of Tom Hanks (Colin Hanks) and the daughter of Sissy Spacek (Schuyler Fisk). If you didn't know it already, friends and relations can be found running rampant around the cameras. Lesser known Lawrence Kasdan, since he's mostly found behind the camera, is the father of "Orange County" director Jake Kasdan. He gets Chevy Chase, Kevin Kline, John Lithgow, Garry Marshall, Catherine O'Hara, Harold Ramis, Ben Stiller, Lily Tomlin, Mike White, and Brian Wilson to participate. Not a bad lot. The veterans are fine, but the stars are less so; and, the film never really penetrates its boundaries.

**** Orange County (1/7/02) Jake Kasdan ~ Colin Hanks, Schuyler Fisk, Jack Black, Catherine O'Hara


This movie suffers from what many modern (post 2000) slacker comedies are stricken with: the "Anything Goes" syndrome. There are few bounds in this independent film directed by Jake "Son of Lawrence" Kasdan, featuring cameos from Chevy Chase, Lily Tomlin and Lawrence's own stock actor, Kevin Kline.

The story centers on a young man from... yep, Orange County, California, who spends his careless youth surfing and partying; then reads a book that "changes his life" and, along with a dream to become a writer, really wants to attend Stanford University to meet the book's author who works there.

Along the way this desire (i.e. the plot) is outshined by the wacky side-characters, including two Beavis and Buttheadish surfer pals; a drunk mother (Catherine O'Hara) married to a crippled old man; a selfish father (John Lithgow) married to a gorgeous young "trophy"; and a stoner brother played by Jack Black (who's not in the movie as much as is promoted) - all vying to outdo each other on screen.

When the main character - played by bland Colin Hanks, son of Tom - finally arrives at the college of his dreams, within ten minutes he's accidentally given the dean of admissions (a portly Harold Ramis) enough "X" to blind a horse, and to top it off, his zany drugged-out brother (using every stoner cliché in the book including the usual "WOW!") burns the admissions building to the ground.

Nothing really matters at this point, and yet we have another (drawn-out and totally useless) half-an-hour to go. All the things that should have been peripheral eccentricities, which end up leaping to the foreground of every scene, are symptoms of that disease I already mentioned: "Anything Goes"... Which can be, as in this case, fatal. That is, without that one cure, substance... Something this movie has very little of.


First off, let me point out that I saw this at a press screening, so I can't be sure I saw the final cut. What I did see, however, was maybe 10 to 15 minutes of good movie stuffed in an hour-and-a-half long film. "Orange County" isn't nearly as bad as the majority of teen movies out today, but that isn't a saying a lot - and that's about all there is to say for it.

I can sum of the good aspects of this movie in two words: Jack Black. He's very good at what he does, a kind of goofball in his own world kind of character, and he excels at it here. He steals every scene he's in, and perhaps the best scene in the film is between Black and Ben Stiller, in an inexplicable cameo. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Black reminds me a bit of John Belushi - not quite the same, but with the same comic mentality. He just needs better vehicles than this.

Colin Hanks isn't bad, but no one else really shines. I'm gonna go ahead and assume that the majority of bigger names in this film (Catherine O'Hara, John Lithgow, Lily Tomlin, Harold Ramis, and -say it ain't so- Kevin Kline) appear as a favor to Lawrence Kasdan, director Jake's father. They all seem out of place, especially Kline, and O'Hara's over the top caricature of a drunken gold-digger is too odd for words.

The direction itself is not bad - the film moves along at a brisk pace, and avoids some of the normal pitfalls of the stupid teen comedy cookie-cutter. All the same, the story itself borders on the utterly ridiculous - it was pointed out to me that the end of the movie works out in such a way that the lead character(Hanks) actually manages to hurt his chances of achieving his dream, largely because certain elements of this movie apparently exist in fantasy-world, where the right choice is always the one accompanied by cheap sentimentality. This is a shame, because with a little work and a different ending, this actually could've turned out to be an interesting film.


This is a totally by-the-number supernatural thriller that cannot be saved by the aura of its lead, nor by the exotic locales.

Le concile de pierre tries hard to hit all the buttons. Tensed atmosphere, amazing locations, some adventurous bits and action... but the wide variety of situations is all poorly thought out and the execution is even worse.

It seems the filmmakers were also under the impression that just putting the beautiful Monica Bellucci on screen with a more neglected appearance than usual would turn an Oscar-worthy performance that would carry the film. It is not the case and although Bellucci does have the star power and presence to carry such a film, she turns out an average performance at best. As for the other actors, the performances are even worse, including Catherine Deneuve who goes through the motion and looks like she wanted to collect a paycheck and nothing more.

I'd give it a 3 but since some shots are pretty enough, I'll go for a 4.


Monica Bellucci adopts a young Asian child. Years later Bellucci begins having nightmares and someone or something seems to be interested in her son, who it appears has a great hidden power.

I love the idea of Bellucci and Catherine Deneuve in a movie together. I only wish the pairing wasn't in a movie as dull as this. Its a been there and done that film (I mean how many films are there where the adoptive parents didn't know their kid was special?) that has nothing new to offer. Its such an "exciting" film and I was so "intrigued" by what was happening that I didn't bother to finish the film when the DVD I wigged out and wouldn't play, I simply put it into the returns slot and let someone else deal with it. I'm guessing that thats whats been happening all along with that particular copy of the DVD. Don't run the risk of getting the bad DVD thats floating around, don't see this film.

A snoozer.


I could not agree more with Frederica Boldrini in her comment. It has been a long time that I haven't seen such a bad movie.. I reach to a conclusion: Monica Bellucci is a good actress when her role doesn't oblige her to speak. For example, in the movie "Malèna" she was great because she didn't speak much, in "Irréversible" likewise, etcAs regards to Catherine Deneuve I never liked her very much but I was surprised to see her in such a bad movie and doing an awful acting More surprised I was with the German actor Moritz Bleibtreu. He is an outstanding actor, and during the film I kept asking myself what the hell is he doing in this movie?..Does he understand fluently French when he read the script?..Well, I hope that I'll never see him again in a movie like this. Please, don't go see this movie. I'm sorry for the director..but even me as a humble spectator I'm able to see that it's a bad movie with bad acting, so how is it possible that the rest of the crew didn't reach the same conclusion?...


Utpal Dutt is very good as a master sitar player in India who doesn't seem to get much respect or adoration from his own people, but soon finds himself saddled with two British students: a wide-eyed, worshipful young girl interested in musical and spiritual enlightenment, and a carefree pop superstar who doesn't care if he gets enlightened or not. Lots of incredible sitar playing (notice how many different pronunciations of 'sitar' there are!) and mod '60's fashions, but a meandering story that makes all its points within the first half-hour. Dutt is both compelled and repulsed by the pop star's decadent world, and their like-hate relationship becomes a spiritual tug of wills. Michael York, sporting a thick crop of cinnamon-colored hair and talking with a Limey accent, plays the visiting celebrity with a snide kind of casual indifference, which is perfectly right for the character, but it does nothing for the audience and he elicits little interest; Rita Tushingham (reunited with York from 1967's "Smashing Time") overworks her perky nature and large, round eyes, yet her character hasn't been given many dimensions beyond what we are made to quickly sense (that her aimlessness led her to India and what she really needs is a man in her bed). As directed by James Ivory and produced by Ismail Merchant--who would become long-time partners and filmmakers--"The Guru" isn't bad; the locations are great and there are intermittent bits of satire that are certainly fashionable (for 1969, especially), yet ultimately there is too much ambiance and not enough plot. ** from ****


This is a horrible apolitical McCarthy Era remake of "The Male Animal" starring Henry Fonda and Olivia DeHavilland. The original had Fonda as a professor standing up to regent Eugene Palette to read a letter by Sacco of Sacco and Vanzetti while simultaneously battling Jack Carson as the faded college football star for the affections of DeHavilland. This is mindless fluff. Reagan is to Fonda as an actor what Reagan was to Roosevelt as a President, a cheap imitation. The only interesting thing is that Dan Defore ("Hazel") is in both films. He is the half-witted football player suitor for the affections of DeHavilland's sister in the original, and the half-witted former football player suitor for Thaxter's affections in this film, reprising Jack Carson's role.


I watched this movie for the first time last year because I loved the first one. What a mistake. I agree with other comments about the plot. I don't understand why they took the parents from the first film, who were alive at the end, and made them dead in this one. I really don't understand why the sailor at the end who tries to rape Lilli looks the same as the one at the beginning who the mother kills by bludgeoning him with a spear rifle. I don't understand why if Brooke Shields, at the age of 16, wasn't allowed to bare her breasts or rear end in the first one, why Milla was allowed to, at 16 also, bare hers in the second film. I could go on and on. There are a few things I enjoy about this film though. I am a major environmentalist and I have often wondered what it would be like to live on a deserted island with only yourself and your lover to depend on for survival. I think it would teach everyone the meaning of life and help all come to grips with reality. There is beautiful photography and music, composed by Basil Poledouris (also the first film's musical composer) of course!


The Blue Lagoon was a silent success with the audiences of 1980, not to mention one of the most controversial movies of all time. So, I guess the director just wanted to have the same amount of success, so he used the same story, just different characters.

Unlike the way the first one ended, Richard and Emily are dead when they are found, but their son, Patty soon renamed Richard after his father is adopted by the only mother on the ship, Sarah who has another child, a daughter, Lily played by a new successful actress, Milla Jovovich. When the ship takes another tragic turn by getting torn down by sea, Sarah, Richard, and Lily land "coincedentally" on the same island that Richard and Emily lived on. The house has change a bit, but I guess it can't always stay the same, but Sarah raises the children more different than in the first film, Lily and Richard know the ways of nature and let their love blossom after Sarah passes from being ill. When civilized men finally come to save Lily and Richard they begin to question the meaning of what is truly civilized and what is not.

Over all, I wouldn't say it's a bad movie, but it was just an unnecessary sequel. Because of the fact like I said, it's the same plot. Some great actors got their start though because of this film. So over all, I'm not going to give it a terrible rating, but the director could have thought this out a little more.

3/10


I can only think of one thing more incomprehensible than making a movie from a bad script and that is for a filmmaker to base his idea for a movie on another movie that is terrible. Normally directors try to rip off good movies, like the guy who directed "The Italian Connection" based on the "The French Connection" (good thinking because sometimes Americans confuse the French and the Italians), or the other fellow who directed the porno "American Booty" based on Sam Mendes' "American Beauty." And if all else fails, do a sequel like "Jaws II" based on the good "Jaws" or "Exorcist II" based on the great "Exorcist." I could go on, except I will be going off track and forgetting to tell you about the time when they decided to make the terrible "Return of the Blue Lagoon" based on the terrible "Blue Lagoon" which must have had the makers of sequels and rip offs scratching their heads.

The problem with "Return to the Blue Lagoon" is the same as the last film. It is not about anything. It seems that the filmmakers felt, in spite of the bad critical reception of the first Blue Lagoon, that an exotic island and two teenagers discovering sex and then fornicating (though we see none of that) was enough to create an entertaining film. Of course, the filmmakers did a little tweaking for this film. There is the sad background story which explains how the two kids got stuck on the island, like the last two kids. Who says that Carl Orff's Carmina Burana does not have any influence over film-making. There is also an egg competition, an encounter with a native, a seductive English girl from the outside and a lascivious sailor. But other than that, Lilli (Milla Jovovich) and Richard (Brian Krause) go through the same motions as Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins as though they were destined to live the exact same lives as the previous couple on the island. What "Return to the Blue Lagoon" really is, if you think about it, is an unsexy pornographic movie for kids; a stage for kids to go through before they see the softcore and hardcore porn films. But even based on that sordid criteria, "Return to the Blue Lagoon" fails because even the sleaziest, worst acted pornos at least do something to your libido. "Return to the Blue Lagoon" does nothing because it has all the bad acting you would expect from a porno without any of any of the great sex (not least because the actors are underage). So if you are interested in a movie where a couple have lots of great sex on a deserted tropical island, watch Lina Wertmueller's "Swept Away by a Mysterious Destiny in the Blue Sea of August" instead. It has gorgeous pictures of a tropical paradise, far better acting, and you won't feel dirty and guilty by the end of the film because the actors, Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato, were both in their thirties (though they look like in the their twenties) at the time of filming.


The Good: - Scenery - Soundtrack - Cinematography

The Bad: - Disregards the plot from The Blue Lagoon - Sexual "overtones" rather than "undertones" - More an attempt at capitalizing on the popularity of the original than an extension of the latter's story

Comments:

There aren't many situations that manage to capture the imagination as does watching two children blossom into young adults isolated from civilization on a dessert island. The Blue Lagoon's charm was the unadulterated depiction of the purity and innocence of mind that "civilized" society deprives us. It was the forgotten image of what children are all doomed to lose as they experience life based on societal dictates rather than the nature we are all born with.

Return to the Blue Lagoon re-examines these themes, if under the somewhat greater taint of society's teachings. In this way, the purity of the characters of Return is not as pure, the innocence not as innocent. Although the opening sequence makes quick work of any attachment to the original, Return was a decent film in its own right. Fans of the original will inevitably find it difficult to resist the sequel. The trick will be mentally disregarding it, should it prove more unsettling than fulfilling.


I loved the original version, well, the 1980 original version, and I found this to be basically a copy which wanted to cash in on the success of the first. The theme was basically the same, with unnecessary violence added in.


Why did I even watch this movie? How good could a sequel to a Brooke Shields movie be? The original was no classic but it was bad enough to be enjoyable, had beautiful photography and plenty of sex and nudity.

This sequel isn't bad/good...just BAD!!! It has no nudity or sex (hence the PG-13 rating) but it does have nice photography. The plot is so ridiculous I won't even get into it--you can read the plot synopsis on the title page of this "movie".

Brian Krause and Milla Jojovich are good-looking and have nice firm bodies but are even worse actors than Shields and Christopher Atkins in the original! I know that's hard to believe, but it's true.

The low points of the film: the movie trying to teach the kids about sex; the kids discovering a native tribe on their island after SEVENTEEN years (!!!); the attempts at acting; the script.

The high points: there aren't any.

Avoid at ALL costs!!!


As with the sequel to THE GODFATHER, they all said it couldn't be done, but the makers of the RETURN TO THE BLUE LAGOON really managed to make a sequel that's even worse than the first one. Again some bland teenagers (one of them the son of the couple from the first film) strand on the same island, try to survive, fall in love, make love and so on. Essentially a remake, rather than a sequel, this is probably one of the worst "teen" movies ever made. Still, it has Milla Jovovich being young and pretty.


I just finished watching the original Blue Lagoon. Then, tuned in here to read about the sequel. I read the lines from the film posted here, and nearly vomited. I'm sorry, but not one of them seemed realistic. Then I watched the trailer.

Lines from the trailer:

"Remember what mother said would happen when I became a woman?" "Yes." "Well, I've become one."

I almost want to see the film to so how much worse it gets. In fact I very well might.

The original had a certain charm to it. It was not all about the nudity, and the lines were spare. It was about these two people having to get along while going through the growth process. That's what was interesting. When love and sex happened, it wasn't dirty in the original but rather a natural progression.