OK, I must say, this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. Not because it was meant that way, but because it was really bad. The electric effects looked like they were put in with ''paint'', a standard windows program. A sword came from nowhere, and even in the final ''fight'' you could see a part of the shadow of the camera man.

But if you don't take it too serious, it'll be a funny movie. At times I really laughed my ass off. I've shown the movie to all my friends, and watched it myself about 3-4 times.

I just loved the hand. It was just too funny as it crawled around. The woman, can't remember her name, been a while since I've watched it. was hilarious too.

If you don't take things too serious, this is a movie worth watching, but don't watch it because you want good action.

note: some people might hate this movie, which is logical, but they shouldn't take it that serious.


Well what can be expected with zero budget. On the other hand the movie has some highlights and it turns out just like the movies we make here for zero budget. Fun to watch for those who understand the background and a complete waste for those who want mainstream. My best moment is when the "Butte Police" character is at home and wastes some time in the sofa and stares around thinking of something to do. I guess the script said "sit in the sofa" and he had to think of the rest himself. I recommend it for people who makes home action movies for fun. There are some good punch-scenes also and some that could benefit from some more timing..


There´s no words. This film makes TROMA films looks like Citizen Kane. ¿Where is Toxie when we need it? Take care of your hands, avoid the women with too much muscles and protect your eyes from the cheapest Bruce Lee impersonator. I swear that I saw it on TV while I was working


This movie without an iota of doubt, will prove to any audience that existential, or existentialist theorems/beliefs are the most alluring and exact sciences of our time and the future to come.

If anyone is at all skeptical about existentialism, or its credibility, Slam Dunk Ernest dissolves all negative perceptions prior to the viewer's critical opinions about the film.

Slam Dunk Ernest cancels our preordained concepts of natural realism, and provides us with the necessary trajectory on which we can launch films respectively into the next millennium.

Any less of an complementary outlook on this celluloid enigma would only be advantageous to those suffering from chronic bouts of depression or clinical dyslexia.


Esily, the worst of the Ernest line, but there are still lessons to be learned, and enjoyment to be had.

This should have been entitled, "Ernest and the Magick Shoes," however, Slam Dunk will have to suffice.

Ernest AKA Jim Varney, brings his usual charm and great redneck style to this work, in spite of the work's detriment of bearing ghetto-branded plot line, movie props, and message.

But beneath all that, there is another message...one you're familiar with if you read my reviews regularly: Hold Onto Your Dreams.

Ernest is a likable little fella, whose life is a noir work, and whose physical appearance is reminiscent of a living-breathing cartoon character. He enjoyed a rather large following while he was alive, and many still love him and his works.

This is the worst of the run, and as such, rates a 3.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Unfortunately the title of this movie isn't an invitation but a reference to the plot, in which the ever-annoying Ernest P. Worrell (Jim Varney) is given a pair of magical trainers and helps his city league basketball team win a tournament. Once again Jim Varney is so unfunny that my TV switched itself off in protest, and the brain dead script isn't any better, spouting half-baked 'be yourself' homilies and boring us with a clumsy sub-plot involving a scheming promoter. The already misconceived sequences in which Ernest uses his magic shoes are worsened by cack-handed direction that shows us shots of an amazed crowd to cover up the lack of ingenuity in the visual effects department but fumbles what little action we do see. Unbelievable that there's an audience for these films.


This movie is fun from start to finish. The idea of a rescue team being trapped inside a top secret government research lab that has unleashed an alien creature from another dimension is fun. Paul Koslo from Omega Man, Tara Buckman from B.J. and the Bear and Jan-Michael Vincent from numerous b movies lead the cast as the scientists who developed the device that opens the doorway. Jan being brought back after being forced to retire because he destroyed the last facility that the device was used in and once again opened a doorway allowing alien creatures to escape!! Nicholas Lea is the young LT. of the rescue team, an early chance to see the man who would become Krycek on the X-Files. The cast continues to drop off trying to stop the creature from escaping. The effects are o.k. but there is one very good death of a rescue team member by the alien through a wall. Overall the story is entertaining.


I saw this movie for the first time when I was a young teenager, and I actually liked it. I honestly couldn't tell that the acting was bad, the suspense was absent, the plot was non-existent. So, is it then safe to say that this movie probably was made by young teenagers, unaware of the different aspects that make a good sci-fi/horror movie work? I had the chance to re-watch it last night, so I did. Better had not done it, because it's another childhood memory shattered.

This movie indeed is a shameless ALIEN rip-off. There's a chest-burster-scene, there's a BIG gun attached to a soldier's body like in ALIENS, there are soldiers crawling through air-shafts with somebody looking at a monitor telling them the creature's closing in on them,...

It's a shame, really, because the 'other dimension'-concept had potential. The film-makers should have shown more of it. Like the soldiers scouting the landscape or them entering the dome you see in the distance. Actually, you don't see sh!t. Just some fuzzy transmitted images on a monitor. I guess they didn't have the budget to write all that in the screenplay, since they clearly used only three sets or so.

I'm still trying to figure out why I liked this movie back then. I think because there's some mild gore in it (chest- & face-bursting and an exploding dude at the end), but they cut away from it too quickly. So it must have been the creature, which looks reasonable (but still rubbery) and fairly dangerous when it shows its teeth, but it moves way too slow.

Anyway, I'm waisting too much words on this crappy movie. The important thing is: XTRO II: The Second Encounter is actually no sequel to XTRO (1983). The two movies have absolutely NOTHING in common. I even think the first XTRO is worth tracking down and watching it, 'cause it's a peculiar and unique little sci-fi/horror-gem. XTRO II is not. But if you want to see every possible ALIEN rip-off: Be my guest.


I have seen all of the "Alien" films. I loved the "Alien" films. But the one I loved best was "Aliens", partly because of James Cameron's brilliant writing and directing, but mostly because I loved the guns. Oh, the guns! The M41-A Pulse Rifle rocked, but even better than that was the mighty Smartgun. I am a "connoisseur" of Alien ripoffs. So naturally, when I heard that this movie had a smartgun-like weapon in it, my response was, of course, "where can I find this movie?" After searching I finally came across it, and popped it in my DVD player.

Wow.

This movie absolutely blew me away with its unrelenting "Aliens"-style tense action, but mostly I was pleasantly surprised to find not only a smartgun-like weapon, but a near perfect smartgun replica! I was practically vibrating in my seat when I saw that thing fire.

But aside from the gun, I generally enjoyed the movie. It didn't have a "feel-good" happy- skippy ending, but it didn't have a "everyone dies" ending, which I appreciate (though the ending does confuse me a bit...) The creature design was brilliant. In all the "Alien" ripoffs I've seen, (besides the later "Alien Lockdown", which is more of a PredAlien anyways) this by far had the best creature. It even did the famous "headbite", but with its whole head! Altogether, I enjoyed this movie more than "Alien Resurrection" and "Alien 3 " combined.

Overall, I recommend this movie if you are a fan of "Alien" ripoffs, and have the patience for a bit of wooden acting.


I love how people complain about the slasher part of this movie and their complaints are exactly what this movie was making fun of. These comments such as why didn't they run, why didn't they kill him, why don't they group together are all addressed in the documentary part of the film. This movie was genius because it shows you how the slashing will happen beforehand and the victims are victims because they are too stupid act properly against the killer's foreshadowing. That's the movie, that's what makes it funny. Although it's a slasher flick, it's not a serious slasher flick, at all.

Watch it again and you'll see why it's an awesome movie. It makes fun of the genre in a way that has never been done before. It doesn't steal from the Scream series. The Scream series made fun of the horror film in general, this movie pretended the killers in those films were real and makes fun of how stupid victims can be and how predictable the sequences are in a slasher situation.


I highly highly recommend this movie. It's a black comedy/mockumentary/horror movie that's bloody hilarious. I LOVED it. I can't recommend it enough!!! If you're a horror film junkie, or even if you're not (for example, my boyfriend doesn't particularly like horror films but is fond of intelligent comedy and was right beside me laughing for this one) you should DEFINITELY see this movie! It's so respectful of the genre at the same time that it plays with it... Nathan Baesel, who says he was inspired by Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter really pulls off charming and cheery -- not copying Lecter, but applying the influence to create a new and lovable serial killer (this is what makes him both funny AND creepy - it's impossible not to like him!).


It would be overestimating this movie to pretend it's the breath of fresh air that horror needed. However, in the saturated universe of slasher films, it is. It's not perfect like many enthusiastic fans claimed it was, but it sure doesn't suck and it's definitely worth a look for everyone who enjoyed the series involving Freddy, Jason and Michael. I personally thought it was a very clever, refreshing and surprisingly inventive slasher film. It makes fun of the genre like Scream did back in the 90s, with all due respect. Overall it's a very entertaining horror movie that can be viewed and appreciated more than once just for the fun of it. In my opinion, there are three underdeveloped aspects that made it fail to be a true masterpiece. First, I wish Robert Englund's character had a bigger part in the movie. Second I'd like to hear more about the mask and its symbolic. Finally the ''slasher act'' should have lasted at least 15 minutes more. Everything else is just perfect. I still strongly recommend Behind The Mask and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. If Scott Glosserman even plans to make a sequel, I'm ready to rock!!


A very affable Nathan Baesel plays the title character, an aspiring slasher aiming to take his place among the greats - Jason, Freddy, Michael. His every move is followed by a documentary film crew - Angela Goethals, Britain Spellings and Ben Pace - as he makes preparations for his first mass slaughter.

"Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon" is as clever and engaging a skewering of the slasher genre as I've ever seen. Superb dialog ("You have to do lots of cardio to make it look like you're merely walking when everybody else is running!") and situations do an excellent job at establishing a methodology behind murder sprees. Leslie plans everything down to the last detail, including expectations on how characters will act and re-act. He figures out who his "survivor girl" will be, and is delighted when he attracts an "Ahab" (genre icon Robert Englund, doing a funny riff on Donald Pleasence's signature role of Dr. Loomis). He also finds the time to hook up with his mentor, now supposedly retired, played by the wonderful and under-rated veteran Scott Wilson. Wilson's dialog is particularly solid as he talks about the act of murder and considers it both a business and an art. There are also discussions about the nature of sexual symbolism, both phallic and yonic.

Eventually, the movie shifts into another gear and reveals the grave seriousness behind Leslie's outgoing demeanor. Then we're in slightly more traditional slasher territory, but the movie continues to successfully subvert the genre's conventions, as Leslie is able to adjust admirably when his carefully constructed scenario seems to be going awry. There's a twist during the climax that is pulled off quite humorously. There's also an ultimate revelation to come although it doesn't come off as that surprising given the way the film-makers so gleefully play with us, and so well establish Leslie's cunning intelligence.

Throw in an enjoyably gratuitous breast shot, a fair bit of graphic mayhem, and a cameo appearance by Zelda Rubinstein of "Poltergeist" fame, and the result is a movie that provides a welcome deconstruction of the slasher genre. It's both smart and entertaining and should provide some amusement for the genre's fans.

Be sure to watch for the fleeting Kane Hodder cameo, and to stay through the end credits.

8/10


I saw this on the recommendation of a friend. I had never heard of it, but I was assured it was a good movie. Understanding the premise helps a lot, because this is a great movie and excellent concept. The beginning of the movie sets up the second half. In the first part, we see Leslie as human. He sometimes says creepy things, like when they begin to discuss his library of text books, mostly medical and anatomy. He makes a joke of this, saying these are necessary for the trade. He always refers to his need to kill as a profession and even has a mentor. Through them we see the world as if it were a game. The mockumentary parts are not only hilarious, we get to see the monsters side of things. The door that won't stay open? Probably rigged. Those ever-so-creepy newspaper articles the main character always seems to find at just the right moment? Those require more effort then the viewers might consider.

The second half of the movie is when we get to see Leslie in action. Because we have seen him as human in the first half, seeing him as a monster in the second isn't as scary as one might expect. It is not supposed to be. Leslie Vernon has become a person we know, who made us laugh, who keeps pet turtles. He is not some random resurrected guy with an axe to grind. He is a guy at work, albeit disgusting and immoral work, he is still a guy at work. Set up this way, it is a bit like watching two movies. The two parts play off each other very well.

This movie is darkly funny. No one wants to laugh as scary things happen, but when things work out just as Leslie predicts they will, even the "documentary" crew gets very enthusiastic.

Robert Englund (Freddy Kreuger) read this script and was impressed. being a big name in horror, he admittedly gets swamped with scripts. This movie interested him enough that he accepted the role. If you can't decide if you should watch it, remember that. And then rent it, with friends.

Everyone needs someone to look up to. Leslie realized he will never reach the fame of Mike (Meyers), Chuckie or Freddy, but he is trying.


This film rocks sports fans. Its Man bites dog meets Halloween. Brilliant performances, great direction, very funny, inspired film making! Nathan Baesel was especially entertaining as the "Michael Mires" style character, keep an eye out for him in the future. And with appearances from Robert Englund, Scott Wilson, and Kane Hodder makes this an absolute must for any old school slasher fan. the only reason it did not get a 10 from me was the gore, it didn't need it but some hard core, well done Peter Jackson (braindead) style gore would have made this film one of the all time greats and been the proverbial icing on the cake. if you're a Rami, Jacksoon, Carpenter, Craven etc. fan then you MUST SEE THIS FILM!


Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, is the take of an up-and-coming young man who see himself as a possible successor to the throne of Jason Vorhees, Freddy Krueger, and Michael Myers. It begins as a small group of grad students film & interview this young man as he lays out the groundwork for his rise to notoriety. But somewhere along the way, the grad students realize that this is perhaps a little more than they bargained for and they have second thoughts about their complicity in Leslie's schemes.

Now Leslie has staked out his prey, and he's divided the potential victims into categories, including the lone girl that has the distinction of being the "survivor". She's a good girl, she's a virgin, and she keeps away from the alcohol & drugs. Of course, Leslie has made one mistake in his assumptions but you'll have to see the film to find out why.

Leslie has also set up the location for the spree he's planning, and it's the old farmhouse where the young boy, who he is stealing the identity of, was dragged out & thrown over a waterfall many years ago, and now he's poised to "come back" for vengeance.

Leslie has made a lot of preparation for his rise to infamy, including plenty of cardio and training, for all those long chases through the woods. Leslie is also a former mental patient but he does play that down a bit.

There's also an "Ahab", a rescuer, a sort of adversary, in a character played by Robert Englund, of all people, who knows (or seems to) what's going on and is bound to stop it.

This is a very clever film and comes off as sort of a cross between "Man Bites Dog" and your basic clichéd horror flick. But it makes use of those clichés as though they were some kind of training course for the demented killer.

A fun, clever, and twisted little horror romp & some of it's genuinely funny. Well worth seeing, 7 out of 10.


For those considering if they should invest the 80 minutes or so to watch this film, allow a true horror fan to give you his ten cents. First let's talk about the bad...because lets face it...it's rare for a film to get something right.

BAD: 1.) Plot holes: There are a few plot holes in the film in regards to a few of the central characters: Leslie's background, Eugene is never explained, and of course neither is the doc's (sorry, forgot his name).

2.) The reaction of the film crew...at times they seem to be having fun with this whole, 'real life' slasher/movie guru, but there is a big shift at the end when the killing starts. This is odd, because earlier in the film someone gets killed too and nobody seemed that worked up over it...oh wait...it must have been because she was some short, old woman.

3.) Acting: This is hard to classify seeing as this is a low-budget B movie, but sometimes the actors do a great job and then other times it didn't work for me. Some of the lines seemed forced and the acting, here and there, a bit stiff and wooden. Especially all the teens, oh man, they sucked! 4.) Gore hounds will be disappointed in this movie because most of the kills aren't shown or are shot at a distant. This didn't bother me in this day and age where gore is constant in films (Hostel/Saw). However, when making a parody of 80's slasher films, gore was everywhere. I mean hell, it was the rise of the splatter flick! How can you make a movie like this without having gore? Feddy, Michael, and Jason created the slasher/gore genre in the states! If they were going to do this part of the film better they should have made the gore over the top in a kind of Peter Jackson/Sam Raimi style. Oh well, maybe it wasn't in their budget.

4.) The last five minutes of the movie was a bust. Things happened so quick I couldn't help but think--oh no, they're running out of money. It was either that or the editor made a few too many snips. I won't point anything out, because it spoil a few kills, but you'll see it when it happens.

GOOD 1.) Extremely funny! I wasn't sure about this movie when I got it--went out on a limb after hearing some decent reviews. This movie hooked me from the start with its campiness, black humor, and twist. A lot of people point at Scream as being the movie that turned the horror genre upside down by playing with a particular genre--but I think BEHIND THE MASK did a much better job.

2.) Great lines and for the most part, good performances. The main characters, Leslie, Reporter chick, Eugene, etc. where all acted really well. Sure they missed a few spots here and there, but over all, they were good. Leslie really sold his role well, better than some of the leading Hollywood actors these days that's for sure.

3>) Fun story! This is what the horror genre needs, people who make fun camp movies. In today's sick age where we got all these stupid TORTURE PORN movies, it's nice to sit back and just enjoy the story. Sure, as I mentioned above, the gore was missed to an extent, but at least it wasn't in my face the whole time, replacing good storytelling with some cheap splatter effects.

4.) This movie is great for drinking games! Man, there are so many symbols, inside jokes, and references that I want to see it again just to see what I missed during the first viewing.

Okay, overall, it's an enjoyable film--especially for us guys from the 80's who grew up with the movies referenced in this. For those looking for something scary or full of gore--skip it. You'll only be disappointed, but if your looking for a fun flick, check this one out.


Hypothetical question time, peeps. Let's say you're a budding collegiate journalist, and you are looking for the scoop of the century. Something way outside the box. Something that doesn't involve covering rush week parties, local charity bake sales, sports events and the usual bland 'human interest' stories.

Let's kick it up a notch, even. Fred Krueger. Michael Myers. Jason Voorhees. Charles Lee Ray, aka "Chucky." What would it be worth to you to be able to interview these guys BEFORE they started their careers in stalking, terror and mass murder, and then have the rare opportunity to be able to follow them, step-by-step, as they outlined every trick of the trade, every detail of how they create their 'legend' at the very beginning?

You will finally find your answers in Scott Glosserman's blackly funny docu-satire BEHIND THE MASK: THE RISE OF LESLIE VERNON. There have been very similar movies made in this vein, such as MAN BITES DOG and in some respects THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, but the best and most effective examples of this sub-genre have always come from overseas. BEHIND THE MASK is the first independently-made American feature that finally gets it right.

Nathan Baesel is a name you should be watching for in the future, because in his film debut as the titular 'hero' of the piece, he's funny, charming, self-ingratiating and as focused, dedicated and meticulous as any up-and-coming, hard-charging young hopeful should be. Too bad his biggest dream in life is to become the heir apparent to Mikey, Freddy and Jason. He's like Jim Carrey with a sharp implement fetish...only scarier!

Angela Goethals is also very good as Taylor Gentry, the aspiring on-camera reporter who gets sucked into Leslie's disarming charm when he agrees to allow her and her film crew to document every aspect of his first major endeavor: the selection, preparation for and actual execution of a bunch of drunk, horny teens. At one point, the crew even get roped into becoming co-conspirators of sorts.

Taylor and her team are even introduced to Les' doting mentor, Eugene (a great turn by Scott Wilson) and his lovely wife. It's all a good time until somebody gets a post-hole digger shoved through their chest...

There are really so many things I want to blab about concerning this great deconstruction of the slasher horror genre, one of the best since the first SCREAM installment. But the delights go over better if you know nothing about what's coming, so as far as saying anything else, I love the fact that horror icons Robert Englund, Zelda Rubenstein and Kane Hodder all lend their considerable presences to the film. (I won't say where you'll see them...just pay close attention.)

And I also want to mention the best part of the flick - when it makes its startling transition from "faux horror documentary" to out-and-out horror film. Don't worry; you'll pretty much know when it happens.

Glosserman and co-writer David J. Stieve have done a great job in finding an imaginative way to recharge the batteries of the slasher flick on a low-budget, using clichés in a manner that nobody has ever thought of, rather than simply giving in to the temptation to simply use them like every other 'FRIDAY THE 13TH'/NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET/HALLOWEEN knockoff.Gorehounds will find the relatively light blood-letting a little disappointing, but there's so much more to enjoy here than the raptures of evisceration and dismemberment.

I'm excited that this is Glosserman's first feature, because it makes a great calling card, and gives us fans so much more to look forward to from him.

So if you are a fan who's become a little jaded with the horror releases of late, go rent BEHIND THE MASK immediately!. You won't be sorry, I promise. And DO stick around for the credits, if just to hear the Talking Heads' original rendition of the great (and fitting) song, "Psycho Killer"...you'll be glad you did!


A group of filmmakers (College Students?) decide to make a documentary on how the most infamous serial killers of all time (Jason, Freddy, Michael, who all exist in the movie's universe) do what they do, so they meet up with one Leslie Vernon to see how he does his work. A Simple premise that takes off from the moment Leslie steps on the screen. The thing that makes this movie so entertaining is the fact that it dosn't take it self seriously in the slightest. Even the last quarter of the movie where it switches from documentary style to the standard stationary camera is very tongue in cheek. The way Leslie explains the little details and sleight of hands that are necessary to being a serial killer is very convincing and funny. He does it very enthusiastically and you actually believe that this is hat hes devoted his life too. He shows how all the "magic" that serial killers perceivably achieve, including walking when the victim is running("Cardio every day"), and the different terms ("Ahab" "Survivor Girl"). There are some shortcomings though. Robert Englund's Doc. Halloran feels like he was just added in for the star power, the slasher segment is lacking compared to the rest of the film. Overall, though this is a very entertaining mockumentary/slasher that is a must have for any slasher fan or any horror fan in general. Also watch the credits for a good usage of flame repellent gel.

***1/2 out of *****


First off, the opening we see a "news reporter," a woman who looks about 19 with bad teeth who wouldn't be able to get a job as a news reporter in Walla Walla, let alone anywhere else - and in the first ten minutes she actually compares herself to Diane Sawyer - now that was laugh out loud funny.

It's supposed to be for "channel 12" yet the "cameramen" are holding Cannon xg1 consumer cameras. Pretty amateurish.

So the idea is she's interviewing a serial killer in the vein of Michael Myers and Jason, he's kind of funny and has personality - for about ten minutes. Then after the joke is played out, it just drags on. More "set up" of stereotypical slasher film plot points - yeah, we get it. It's a five minute skit dragged on for a whole movie.

By this time you're allowed to think too much about what's going on and any rational adult is going "why is she promoting this as he sets up killing a bunch of people." Then it turns into a real slasher film - bad acting, overdone music, not scary - unwatchable. I had read good reviews about this and now I'm just officially never trusting reviews anymore. That was the last straw. This movie sucked.


This was a original and satisfying treat for horror buffs. The film works like a documentary where they are interviewing this horror buff guy that has a lot of knowledge in the horror genre and is on a journey with him to create a real horror movie, which is the horror buff guy or Leslie Vernon's fantasy. With Freddy, Jason and Michael all being real characters in this movie, and talking about them during the beginning of the film was a nice touch. And it's humorous and entertaining to watch as he goes about doing it and Leslie is charismatic and likable. What I think would have been better is if they made every scene hand-held camera style cause it makes it seem like the event really happened. The people that are making the documentary is shocked during the final showdown cause like Leslie said, it's really going to happen the way he planned. Than the crew grows a conscious and the hilarity and the fun keeps going with it's turn of events. The first 2 thirds of the movie is more on the fun side of things with the actual horror thrown in at the end which works pretty well with the build up with it's dark humor. The main flaw I can see is that only horror buff will get the maximum enjoyment out of this film, but it's still a fun low budget and original film, I really liked the concept. The blond of the crew got annoying near the end though, but there was a reason behind it. Some people maybe also turned off by the lack of blood and gore, but that just means more people can enjoy this film. It's a well done mockumentary, but may not be as good the second time around.

8/10


This movie is almost like a parody of the horror genre, in a sense in the same way as the original "Scream". It's also just as enjoyable. The interesting twist in this movie though is that you are presented with the side of the killer and his preparations going into the night of killings. It's so funny when he freaks out (in a good way) when he gets his own physcologist/doctor following him around in similar fashion to the Halloween movies and when he talks openly with his parents about his plans (his father is a retired "killer"). He goes into extensive detail ensuring that when he strikes, the killings go off as planned. Original concept and a fun movie to watch.


Hey Scream, you have a visitor. And his name is Leslie Vernon. Slasher movies, at least you can say you got two movies that manage to be slasher and yet parody your hilarious clichés. Just like in the movie scream, you have this movie that basically mocks slasher films but at the same time is categorized as one of them. While it is a parody movie, it still adds its own terrifying elements. Just like Scream..am I being repetitive here? Let's first start off with our crazy man. Nathan Baesel plays the character Leslie Vernon. While adding a slight dark humor in there, there is also something so unusual about him. The rush he gets before slashing away a victim, his desire to do what he was "born to do." In more ways or less, he is like Patrick Bateman in Psycho. The acting is no where near a Christian bale performance, don't think I would compare the two. The whole idea of his character is to really mock serial killers. He let's a journalist group go with him through the process of planning a "slasher night." He can be funny and chilling at the same time.

This movie pulls off what scream did o so many years ago. They made a movie which is terrifying and humorous at the same time. That's why Leslie could plan everyones moves..the clichés. But the twist to the movie was nothing I would have expected. We no longer are watching a documentary here, we are watching a real slasher situation. So it goes from mocking a slasher to turning into a pretty scary one! This movie just kept my eyes glued to the screen and I would recommend it to all. If you enjoyed scream you will like this as well.

It is one that you definitely shouldn't miss. Give it a chance and ignore the naysayers.

Rating: 8 out of 10 stars


This movie was not what I had originally thought it was, and I mean that in a good way, I thought that they would show Michael, Jason or Freddy but they didn't, however they did not need to. This movie would probably be the best horror satire since Wes Craven's Scream. The film follows a documentary crew who tapes the preparation and the sadistic ways of Leslie Vernon, who is a serial killer inspired by Michael, Jason and Freddy. I'll say for the record, this movie was scary at points, some good laughs, and an all around good mannered pseudo-horror-documentary.

The way that this movie was executed was genius. The documentary portion of the movie is acted and shot like Blair Witch, and had the feel and humor of Spinal Tap but when the movie transitions out of the documentary it leads into you typical horror film. Leslie, our anti-hero, goes through typical serial killer preparations and how he will play off his Halloween-like killings. He lists things like the Survivor-Girl, how he gets into shape for the kill, the cliché "door-closes-behind-cute-girl" thing is played off and the Ahab. All of these great elements make for one great satire. The film even makes mention to the sites of some of the most grisly murders like Elm Street and Camp Crystal Lake.

The acting is hard to compare or even criticize for that matter. When the documentary parts of the movie play out, the acting and the dialogue sound real, as if there was not script or rehearsal. When the documentary stops and the actual movie plays, the acting is so cheesy, but I don't think it was done on purpose, from what I see it's another element that adds to the satirical reference of old slasher flicks. As you can see, I can't say the acting sucks because in some way it was intentional.

However, there is always one bad egg in the dozen, or in this case maybe two. A minor thing that kind of bugged me was that this movie promotes two big stars (Robert Englund and Zelda Rubinstein) as if they were the greatest things since sliced bread. Of course, they are very well established for what they did in the 80's but they are hardly in the movie. This kind of thing always bugs me when movie flaunt a B or A list actor, when they are only in there for 5 minutes.

Another minor thing that bugged me was the lack of brutal killings. I was hoping for the camera crew to catch a glimpse of it and then pull out in utter disgust. I was hoping for something brutal or a least a slash, but they hardly show anything. Maybe I'm being cynical but it just bothered me a little.

Despite those two minor flaws, this film was a great mockumentry, ranking up there with Spinal Tap. It was humorous, scary at points, a great satire and very well designed. Those elements make up for the small things that irritated me. I would strongly recommend this film not just for horror aficionados but for those who want to know the ropes and quarks of 80's horror films. But I would watch this after Scream. All in all, it's a great film.


Documentarian/Journalist Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals) along with her two male camera crew. They are making an documentary about an rising Serial Killer, who called himself Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel). They decide to follow his every move by how he's going to find ways to outsmart his prey, setting up traps, stalking his future victims, scaring his potential victims for fun and more. Leslie wants to be the next greatest psycho/horror/slasher/serial killer who ever lived like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers. But Leslie isn't what he seems to be, especially when his ex-psychiatrist Doc Holloran (Robert Englund) looks for him and Taylor tries to uncover Leslie's real hidden agenda.

Directed by Scott Glosserman made an modestly entertaining, sometimes clever mockumentary horror film with some dark humour. The movie it is at best when they focus on Leslie's bizarre character and when it is shot as a documentary, the picture is really effective and sometimes very original. But it's loses any real flair during the third act, when the documentary style is over and when it's becomes an slasher movie like any before is the real letdown in the film. Baesel is actually terrific in the picture. Goethals is also quite good but she shines, when she shares scenes with Baesel. It is nice to see Englund playing against type but sadly his role is a bit short to be enjoyed. Scott Wilson's role as Leslie's only friend Eugene is a hoot as a career killer in hiding. But co-writer/director Glosserman does keeps the horror fans happy by adding in-jokes to your favorite slasher movies and he is not afraid to make fun of them in a good way as well. This could have been a really good little picture but loses its way in the final act of the movie. It's above average fare with enough intelligence, humour and strangeness to keep you interested. It is worth a look. (***/*****).


I think that the previous reviews I read on this site must've come from friends and relatives (or paid shills) of this horrifically bad movie.

The producers of this dung heap probably had the great idea to load up the initial pages with fake positive reviews (no one who knows squat about film making could entertain giving this more than 1 star) therefore, all the negative reviews are towards the last few pages. Their hope was that people will just scan the first few pages of these suck up commentaries and proceed to pay their money and get ripped off. The movie was so poorly acted, that it was hard to take just from that fact alone. The girl who played the reporter was especially annoying. I've never seen such a petulant puss before. Following this serial killer guy around like a desperate puppy. BTW, the serial killer has the physique of Pee Wee Herman. But, the funniest aspect of this movie was the fact that these actors seemed to take their roles so seriously and spewed some really awful dialog. The entire movie had an "Intro. to Movie Making" feel to it, as if this film was made as a class project. Shot digitally, with a hand held camera to give the viewer a feeling of "real time," this technique failed miserably (unlike a well done movie such as Cloverfield.) With soap opera production values, this expose of a serial killer just tanks and will leave you with that "I just wasted my money" feeling.


Thanks, now i know how to kill somebody and be a good serial killer.

I strongly recommend this film to idiots who want to be a killer and don't know how already. Everything covered in this movie is mind blowingly stupid or things we have heard already.

It basically ruins the fun of horror movies to begin with.

First of all saying that Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers were ordinary guys who made a reputation for themselves. NOT a good idea if they were planning to make this movie successful. All 3 characters had intricate back stories.. they shouldn't ruin that.

Secondly i didn't think the use of a hand-held camera was a particularly good idea. Even though the characters were filming a documentary i think they should have used it for the whole film it would have given a better perspective on things. Other movies have made better use of this for instance "Diary of the Dead" and "Cloverfield" which i recommend. Anyway why would these people volunteer for filming this in the first place they must be screwed up. What were they doing in the first place anyhow? Giving a step by step killing guide. Okay it may look fun..you think it'll hold up in court?

I did like the twist near the end when they discover who the real virgin survivor girl is all along. You could blatantly see it was coming but made the movie that little bit more entertaining.

Overall An Awful movie, with the bad acting adding to the disappointments. Worse than Friday 13th Part 7! Yes, that bad.


Behind the mask:the rise of Leslie Vernon had the potential to be great.The idea was right up there with the best of horror movie concepts (Elm Street,Friday The 13th,Scream,Etc.).A reporter and her camera crew follow a slasher around as he prepares and sets into motion his master plan so to speak.They are with him as he picks out his victims and prepares his traps.Along the way he explains the do's and don't's and the why's and what-for's of being a psycho killer.

Sounds great right? But alas the execution of these ideas falls short.While the actors and actresses do a fine job portraying their characters, the story becomes rather predictable and a bit silly. especially near the end.All in all this is an unique film with some good ideas that just were not thought through enough.So much more could've been done with this.Maybe a remake with a bigger budget and some better writers could turn this into one of the all-time greats.


I might be one of the biggest horror fans you have ever seen. And I am just INLOVE with slaughter, slasher, frightening, great horror movies! Though, I state my self as a "Fan" so as any other horror fan, I hate the movies this year like, jennifers body, the haunting in Connecticut, Sorority Row. You know, the *beep* in movies, that are terrible. No, no, no I like REAL horror movies. Some of my favorites would be: Slither The Devils Rejects The Shining The Hills Have Eyes. Halloween(John Carpenter's) And the highly anticipated "Trick r' Treat, to be hopefully released straight to DVD this October.

But out of all the great horror movies, there's only one thats my 1# Favorite. And of course that has to be Behind the Mask. The acting is refreshing, because the characters aren't unaware of the situations. And the under-rated actors + actresses, make the movie nice. The filming is what really lights the spark; most of the movie is filmed with the technique of a cameraman's point of view. But when it transists to the over-fantastic directing of Scott Glosserman, made it to my 1# horror movie. Scott is so ingeinus when it comes to his directing. Overall, I love the writing, acting, and overall production value of such a amazing under-rated film. This is truly a great horror movie.


Behind the Mask takes place in the parallel world where scary movies live, and a team of young filmmakers set out to make a real life documentary about a serial killer at work. Such is their dedication to capturing realism that they are willing to follow the killer around and allow the murders to happen so that they can capture it all on tape. The movie is a fascinating and clever analysis of how the mind of a horror movie slasher works.

More than anything else, the movie is a brilliant horror comedy in which Leslie Vernon, the main character, leads our film-making team through the whole process of how he pulls off the vintage horror-movie murders. It's basically an exploration of how those horror movie scenes are constructed. How the doors slam shut at just the right moment, how the perfect weapons are always available to the killer while the victim can't seem to find anything to protect himself or herself, and how the killer manages to let all the other promiscuous teenagers in the vicinity know that there is a killer on the loose and yet still manage to pick them off one by one.

It also explores the history of the slasher genre, because Vernon is, of course, an avid horror movie buff, and idolizes all the great masked murderers. At one point in the movie, he claims that having Michael Myers and Freddy and Jason come back from the dead was a "radical change in philosophy. Changed the whole business."

Nathan Baesel gives the perfect performance as Leslie Vernon. He's obviously disturbed and is also the product of a rape of his mother, but the most startling aspect of his character is how incredibly NORMAL he is. He laughs and jokes and talks to the film-making team as though they were making a documentary about his collection of rare toy cars than about his habit of brutally murdering large numbers of people. He's far too casual and easy-going to really be able to accept him as a serial killer (he even drives a Prius!), but that is the heart of the movie's charm.

In the second half of the movie, however, the team decide that they were not as dedicated to their film as they thought they would be, and they decide that they can't just stand by and allow the killings to happen. In one of the movie's best scenes, Vernon stands there in full masked slasher get-up, mask and weapon and all, and scolds them like a babysitter scolding a naughty kid.

It's hilarious the way he is so clearly offended by their behavior as he tells them that they have "that 'we can't just stand here and let this happen' look on their faces" and says that now they have to leave.

Unfortunately, this is where the clever horror movie analysis ends and it turns into a more conventional slasher movie. The acting falls off a cliff and the killings stop making sense. But worst of all, having lost all of her footage, the remaining member of the documentary team at the end of the movie makes the bizarre and senseless decision to burn Vernon's body, I guess to destroy any remaining evidence of her crazy story, just in case she later had to explain any of this.

But other than that, it's a unique and fresh look at the horror genre and a fun exploration of its history and methods.


Watched this movie last night and had a great time with it. When's the last time anyone was able to say that about a movie with Robert Englund in it? The flick takes place in a world in which Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers are real and (in some places) admired for their killing sprees. Leslie Vernon is either a wannabee killer or a killer who's looking for some fame. He invites a film crew to come document his life, his friendships (including his now-retired mentor and his wife) and his plans for his next developing murder spree. All is not what it seems and there's some surprises as well as a great deal of the kind of tongue in cheek humor("So would you say you're pro-life, Leslie?", "Mikey, Jay and Fred, those guys redefined it, turned it into an art') that I like.

The acting is good from the two leads, less so from some of the other players. In particular, Zelda "Everyone must cross over" Rubinstein provides a terrible performance that is almost distracting enough to have made me turn the movie off: her one scene, based on how the director keeps cutting away, I think they must have been feeding her lines one by one.

Englund is given a decent role, basically playing Donald Pleasance from Halloween and doing about as well as Pleasance did.

This is a very clever low budget movie, one that turns its shortcomings into assets and, tongue planted firmly in cheek, it entertains. Well worth catching on cable.


Behind The Mask / The Rise of Leslie Vernon is an exceptionally well written horror-/ slasher-film / mockumentary. I did not expect very much, because I was watching a lot of movies lately and 50% of the movies that get a high rating on IMDb actually are crap (seems as if a lot of people have bad taste, ungh...). BtM/TRoLV is low budget and for sure you can see it when watching it. Also the actors are not totally on top, but all play at least acceptable. The one thing that really kicks it for me is the story-line, although it is very reminiscent of Rémy Belvaux's "Man Bites Dog" from '92. It's been some years that I've seen Man Bites Dog (omg! 15 years!!??) but I remember MBD being much more cynical and dark, so: Leslie Vernon actually is a little bit more moderate; nevertheless it has some really good twists and subtle humor. Please note that I wrote "subtle". This is not "Scary Movie", so you will not laugh until the beer you've just sipped squirts out of your nose because you can not hold yourself laughing. It's also not a real "slasher" film, because you do not see much slashing around, there are not many horrifying close-ups (besides some ripped out larynx that looked rather artificial) ... it's generally not very gory, it's not laugh-out-loud-funny, but all in all I highly enjoyed watching it.

Don't ask me how I came to my (relatively high) rating, because there was no real highlight beside the well-written script, actors were good (not more), camera-work was really good (nothing special though), editing was fine (but nothing special), sound was fine (but nothing special), but nevertheless I would highly recommend watching it together with a girl, a big bag of popcorn and a beer. Not perfect but great to watch! 7/10.

 SPOILERS  PS: I hope Leslie will rise again from the death for a second part x_0 PPS: If you are disappointed by this film then go and rent Man Bites Dog... it's much more dark and cynical as I mentioned before. This movie is more a bastard of Man Bites Dog + Scream


Yeah i just saw this movie, and like the summary says, i REALLY think it was crap! I don't think i've ever seen actors act worse. I don't think i've ever seen a movie that is this sad.. I don't really know what to say here, but all i can tell you is- this movie is NOT worth spending your time watching.

DON'T READ ON FROM THIS POINT IF YOUR GONNA SEE THE MOVIE, SOME INCIDENTS IN THE MOVIE Reveled..

I mean, there are these college students or whatever, and they follow this guy in his quest, if you want, to become a killer like Mike Myers (Haloween), and he's a completely normal guy in the whole movie (maybe a little psycho). And then, all of a sudden he goes to boobietrap a house where about 6 kids or so are gonna have a "party".. And then he just kills them all.. And they tape how he sets all of his "boobietraps".. so basically you know everything that he's gonna do when he's gonna kill them, as he first shows everything on tape. (Still the random college students filming here..) And he's all normal. And then he just ends up killing everybody, all the guys filming, too, because they decide to stop him, apart from the girl, of course, that is one of the two, i guess, main characters in the movie. Anyways, i think this is one of the most stupid ass movies i've ever seen, but hey, if you think you might like it, by all means.. Only reason i didn't give it a 1 in rating is that i wont do that until i see myself on the screen flying in a movie, or something like that.. Haha (I mean, until there's a movie that's so stupid it's unbearable...) Alright, that's my thoughts.. Thank you for your time.


Name a slasher since the big three that has added anything new to this genre...more graphic gore is not setting a trend...blair witch was absolutely a yawner...and i am guessing the same people yapping at this movie loved Blair Witch...what an awesome idea treating it as behind the scenes documentary for the first half...sure it was predictable....name a slasher or any other movie for that matter that isn't...sure there were movies that have shocked us but they are few and far between...as to protecting people...relax those protector's also love the nanny state and probably need people to protect them from things like horrible flicks. We all have different tastes and I never expect anyone to agree with my assessment of movies, books, or even food. As to a clerk laughing at a customer's choice; a nice simple comment to management will reorient the employee's attitude, one more in line with providing a more enjoyable customer experience.


I have never been a fan of Scream, but I'm going to give credit to it for being a semi-original idea in it's time. Now over ten years later, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon does the exact same thing that Scream did and everyone thinks it's oh-so-original because it copies the same formula. That's about the equivalent of saying: "If you were nonconforming too, you'd be just like me." The premise of interviewing a slasher villain is nothing different from Man Bites Dog, then the movie just uses the exact same jokes and plot points as Scream. EXACT. This has to be in one of the top 250 unoriginal movies of all time because there is not a single thing that Scott Glosserman thought of himself.

If unoriginality is the first major flaw of Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, the second major flaw is just as annoying. The predictability. About 15 minutes in I already figured out the remainder of the plot, including what some people will loosely call the plot twist in the middle. It's just paradoxical that while this movie tried to make clichés laughable, it falls into every one of them at least once without noticing. Now that is something to laugh at, not the lame jokes.

The acting is iffy. Leslie himself, as some have mentioned, it a total pansy and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the villains he compares himself to. Some of his jokes are smile-worthy, but that doesn't take the edge off the utterly boring moments where the camera sits and stares at a wall with nothing happening. Or the boring conversation scenes.

Another thing that really bothered me was the lack of any gore whatsoever. Every scene when something even mildly violent happens, the camera is looking at the floor or the wall or someone's face. I've seen countless PG-13 movies with more blood. This is supposed to be a parody of the slasher genre, yet it shows no slashing. Am I really the only one who has a problem with that?

Overall, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon added nothing new or original to the better parodies out there. It can't stand on it's own two feet, so to speak, and it has the entertainment value and thrill of watching a dead tree rot. What a sad waste of movie rights.

1/10


This movie is a burlesque attempt to ridicule the slasher movies. Using a reporter (blond of course lol) who's trying to produce a documentary on slasher killers and manages to get the consent of one to film him ''working''.It was quite a good idea ruined by....everything else! It could be great but there's a total lack of substance on the whole picture, on the killer itself, on the way the story is told, on the dialogues which are totally plane, and i hated, it started with the concept of one ''crew, one camera'', and was suddenly changed in the middle. The script (that could have become a pretty deep,disconcerting and realistic view over the original idea the movie starts on), was totally dashed by a deficiency in keeping any fact believable or sustained on any grounds, in total gaps in the story that make absolute no sense like:(why the crew stayed to the killing night and didn't warned anybody?wouldn't that make them accomplices?...why would they think the killer would let them go away clean, if by his own statements on the documentary, the idea was: No witness?, etc, etc, etc.....). I think this movie was just a copy of ''scream'' but without the fun. Watchable for the, yet kind of predictable, twist in the end,and the idea it starts on but that's it.


I watched this movie twice, once late at night after my kids were asleep because I knew it might be a bit scary. That first time I was a little bit disappointed and bored, but wasn't really 100% paying attention because I was tired and using the computer while watching.

OK, so I watched it again the next day because I didn't really see the ending the first time, and I knew it wasn't even close enough to being scary to bother my kids. And the second time, doing nothing but watching the movie and understanding what was going on, I found the movie to be a lot better than I thought the first time.

You start out thinking it's a "mockumentary" like Blair Witch and a little monotone, but with a bunch of classic jokes that jab fun at the Horror genre. But that's just the movie's way of completely dropping your guard and fooling you into thinking you know what's going to happen, and it's particularly effective with long-time horror fans like me.

Then the mockumentary melts away into a horror movie where you *think* you know exactly what's going to happen even though every time you think you know what's going to happen you're wrong, then every time you guess and you're still wrong.

Sure, there are some cliché horror movie parts that are predictable including the very end of the movie during the credits, but this IS a horror movie ABOUT a generic slasher horror movie story, like an examination from the other side, so where else would it lead? There are key turning points in the story where you realize what's going on and sudden realizations of how the characters really fit into this story.

So, it ends up being a standard little slasher movie like the classics (Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street), but it's surprising and incredibly smart when you think about how the movie got you to that point from the beginning.


Can't Believe it never came to theatres around my City! Can't Believe Blockbuster only has one in stock as a new release!

Scream deconstructed the horror genre and then used the fact that we all new the "rules" to find new ways to scare us. In much the same way, only using a documentary feel, BTM jokes about the "rules" and Clichés. Leslie and his mentor joke that some things are inside secrets of the trade.

The story is well thought out and crafted; a team of documentary film makers are following Leslie as he is about to make is mark on the sleepy town of Glen Echo. The film crew set him up as a peer to Myers, Jason and Freddy. Leslie takes them on a tour of the would be crime scene, fills them in on the "motivation" for his soon to be killing spree, introduces them to his mentor, and even solicits their aid in setting up the events yet to unfold. On the way he explains the process of slashing. He breaks every aspect of it down: from, sabotaging possible weapons, waiting for the sex to start, using bodies as diversions and time management, to having a good "Ahab" and "sole survivor."

For me, these leading up to events were the best part of the film. In In last part, Leslie shows just how much of a manipulator he really is and we find out that the film crew, was part of his plan from the get go. This change works well because it satisfies the question of why the film crew would actually agree to document such a nightmarish evening without trying to stop it.

Nathan Baesel steals the show for sure. A powerful performance.

Great cameos, great references (even little girls skipping in white dresses as on Elm Street).

Make sure you stay for the end credits as well. You know what is coming, but you still can not wait till it does.


I don't understand how one cannot "get" the plot for this episode. Agent Reyes had been examining numerology when she hears of a recent murder, it allows her to connect this murder with previous ones. Scully, who is skeptical of numerology, notices that all the women have a particular mark, which ties the cases together.

We then see our killer, he is inside a bar where he kills another woman, and nearby is a strange man(Burt Reynolds). The next time we see the killer, he approaches Mr. Burt, who is playing three card monte, having recognized him from before.

Reyes goes to see a numerologist, who just as she finds something, is killed. Eventually, this leads to Scully, Reyes, Mr. Burt, and the killer all inside a parking garage. Mr. Burt convinces the agents to play checkers, which leads to Reyes noticing that their colors are red and black, which fits into the pattern of the serial killer, he had been killing women by patterns of hair, the last victim being blonde. Mr. Burt asks Reyes if the numbers are helping the killer, or if they are helping them catch him, which certainly hints at something about Mr. Burt, as well as his love of music, having seemingly every CD in the trunk of his car, and his viewing everything as a game.

The killer corners the agents and is about to shoot Reyes when Doggett, who had found the killer his own way, by recognizing a pattern in the locations of the victims, shoots him dead. Mr. Burt is nowhere to be seen.

The end of the episode shows to old Italian men singing a song as the body of the killer is hauled out of the parking garage, some kind of festival is going on, as the camera zooms out you see the face of Mr. Burt made from the lights of the city far below, and then the screen blacks out to the credits.

I took Mr. Burt as being God, who, although not directly, stops the serial killer by making his actions into a pattern that could be recognized, using numbers and other coincidences. Basically saying that God is looking out for people, albeit in a strange playful way, if the people are open to everything.


Although this had nothing to do with the story line of the season or series, I found this to be one of the best distractions (sidebars, segways, etc.) they made. I'm not really sure if numerology was the main topic, but on other hand just a minor. The plot is not "impenetrable" nor "impossible" to understand, it just took a little deeper understanding. Perhaps it was "improbable".

One thing I will add, was the clue of the colors of the Checker's game and the players. Everyone picked up on the agents corresponding hair colors, but I pose one of a few questions. What color was Mr. Burt playing with?

While I can play with the idea of him being God, Fate, or even Death. There is only one conclusion that keeps clicking all the right buttons for myself. There is a very old name for him, being 'Pitch' (funny also because of it's musical reference).

For those jumping up and down screaming "Mr. Burt helped the agents catch the serial killer", I ask back, did he? Or was he just really trying to collect on a damned soul? Or was he defying God's plan of each victim's death, by interfering? Hell, was he just having fun at our expense?

For those wanting a little more, I submit a few more overt clues: the cards used in the con game; the domino numbers shown and not shown; the ring on the killer; the Doggett map that led him; the count of the lead agent's (Fordyce, James) hand. I'll leave that to the numerologist's forte.

For the rest I submit a few more things, you should polish up on your french and Italian. There were quite a few jokes in there, but there was some very old songs also, passed down from age to age through lore. It's about the age old struggle between 'good and evil'. It's hard to translate. One is about "I of my Mother, and You". Another is "S**t Happens).

Please refer to 'Dante Divine Comedy' for more references.

despite below reviews, this was one of the best of the "XFiles", it's to bad that the minds out there couldn't understand (wave to AZ)...


I had only seen this episode once when it first premiered, but it came on tonight and I saw it again. This was a very fun episode, too bad Duchovny wasn't involved. Burt Reynolds makes this one, no question. And the various musics & songs...great! It is a true X Files episode in that it's confusing and makes you think, but it is also extremely lighthearted and comical at the same time.

One thing confusing is who Burt Reynolds' character truly is. It appears he has the advantage of knowing the patterns people make and can thus draw conclusions as to what they're going to do, but at the same time not to give the appearance of knowing this. I wouldn't say that he's just a man, but it could be argued that he's Fate or God. The discussion Scully & Reyes have about God playing checkers would be very ironic if his character somehow was God. Either way, a stand-alone episode not to miss!


So Reyes is really into numerology. And because of this she is able to make connections to a number of unsolved murders and tie them all to one serial killer. I love the part where she makes a total moron out of herself by explaining to everyone her numerological profile of the killer. And then answers her phone all proud of herself completely clueless that everyone there now thinks she is a total moron. It is kind of a shame too because numerology and this sort of thing actually are quite interesting to me. But this episode takes an interesting topic and turns it into filler material for the series.

I don't really like this episode. The main reason is I just am not a fan of Burt Reynolds. Everyone always rants and raves about how great he is but everything I've seen him in he just bugs the crud out of me. Another problem I have with the episode is that it is not very obvious what the crap Chris Carter is trying to say with this episode as he explains in the commentary. Apparently Burt Reynolds is supposed to be playing God. This makes the episode make a little more sense but doesn't exactly improve my liking of the episode as Burt Reynolds is the exact opposite of what I would imagine God to be. And I'm sorry Chris but I doubt God would wear a bunch of tacky clothing just because he likes nature. And I doubt he follows serial killers around trying to teach them how to gamble.

I have one good thing to say about the episode but even this is kind of bittersweet. I like the music used. The problem I have is the part where Burt Reynolds does the lip sync. This entire scene could have actually worked really well without his terrible attempt to lip sync. He looks like some dork in the car trying to pretend like he really likes a song but he's not even sure of the lyrics. And at the end although the whole Italian festival is kind of humorous to watch it seems like Chris Carter just didn't have any idea what else to do with such a lame story because this honestly has nothing to do with the episode. Oh and of course if you ever want to make a character mysterious just have them be able to disappear out of a parking garage. How predictable was that? Oh man what a bad episode. 3 out of 10.


Severely lacking in seasons 8 & 9, was some fun. Chris Carter finally discovered that and gave us Improbable before the end of the series. What captures your attention right away is the music in this episode. It is so catchy, and fun! I just can't help moving my feet to it.

This is Reyes' first chance to do comedy, I guess Doggett's as well, though it doesn't feel like it because of all his clever one-liners we are used to hearing.

I like the cinematography at the beginning of the episode as Reyes is walking through the FBI as people are passing her left and right. Very creative.

The FBI finally upgraded the x-files office overhead projector. Reyes uses a very sleek-looking hi-tech one.

Burt Reynolds is perfect in his "Role". Very enjoyable. The garage segment is just classic. I like the message that Carter is trying to get across in this episode, although Wayne-O never gets it, unfortunately. Ray McKinnon also does an excellent job as Mad Wayne or Wayne-O, as Burt Reynolds calls him.

I also like this episode because it offers a different combination. Instead of Scully and Doggett or Doggett and Reyes, it's Scully and Reyes for the most part. Power to the women! I found it very interesting that Carter uses a brand new A.D. to run the case instead of A.D. Skinner. I was hoping that Carter would explain why he used a new character instead of Skinner in his commentary, but he doesn't. Also an interesting note from the commentary: Ray McKinnon, who plays Mad Wayne, won an Oscar for a short film he wrote and directed while filming this episode.

Reyes' theory on numerology gets a little tiring, but not enough for me to drop this episode a point. The music is catchy and contagious, the dialogue is funny and entertaining, and though it seems "improbable", Improbable is one of the best episodes of season nine.


I didn't like this one. It's based on a very interesting idea, that the enormity and complexity of the universe can be reduced to a single, simple equation. Nowadays they'd build a whole series around that concept. Unfortunately that idea got lost in an impenetrable storyline that left me decidedly flummoxed by end credits. Let me admit right here that a big part of my attraction to the X-Files is its plot contrivances and normally vague resolutions. I think anyone who really likes the show must feel the same way, especially if you stayed tuned in through the last couple seasons. But this episode takes the usual confusion associated with the program to another level. I would wager anything that none of the actors, Gillian Anderson, Annabeth Gish, nor Robert Patrick (and certainly not Burt Reynolds), could make heads or tails of this mess if you asked them about it, even as they were shooting it. In fact, I would challenge even the writers of the show to articulate exactly what's going on here. You see, I cannot give any concise summary of the episode because its impossible. Of course I did rather enjoy the playful tone of the episode. However it would take a lot more charm than Mr. Evening Shade could ever offer to distract from the inanity of the plot. Actually I don't know if I should even call it a plot. And I doubt anyone disagrees because to this point no one else has posted anything about 'Improbable'. For fans willing to sit through the episode it's hard to acknowledge how bad it is.


Watched the world premier at the Toronto Film Festival.

You are drawn into this dark movie and cannot turn away. The performances by Jannik Lorenzen, Jesper Asholt and Julie Kolbeck are spellbinding. The movie is shown from the point of view of 10 year old Allan (Jannik), giving a very unique perspective on this messed up family. Director Peter Schønau Fog really pulls this together.

Jannik Lorenzen is an incredible actor. This was his debut film, and I think that he's is equal most other child actors today. I really hope to see him in more films.

Jesper Asholt plays a challenging role, the evil and disturbed father, with incredible conviction.

The cinematography and directing are first rate, this is not a low budget or low quality film.

Apparently based on the life of the book author, which is pretty disturbing too.

It's too bad this Danish movie (with English subtitles) will be unavailable to most North American's...


Based on an autobiographical novel by Erling Jepsen, this drama/black comedy of a dysfunctional family takes place in southern Denmark close to the German border in the early 70'es. Jesper Asholt plays the family patriarch, a whining grocer, who has a hard time coping with changing times and family patterns. As a result, he constantly threatens his wife and kids that he'll commit suicide. While his wife escapes reality with sedatives, his young son Allan is determined to keep his father from killing himself. As his dad is only truly happy when he gets to deliver tearful speeches at local funerals, Allan sees no other option than to make sure there are plenty of funerals for his father to attend... If you think you know where this is going, watch this movie anyway, as it's got plenty of surprises and twists, changing from black comedy to heartbreaking drama, with some shattering, almost unbearably intense, albeit discreet, scenes of child abuse. Made with care, a genuine feel for time and place and destined to become a modern classic. Truly unforgettable, and an impressive feature debut for director Peter S. Fog.


I had the privilege of watching this at its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Fest, and it's always great to discover new talent. Here, it's not just the discovery of Peter Schonau Fog, but also of the tremendous cast, especially young Jannik Lorenzen, who plays 11-year-old Allan to perfection with his cheeky bewilderment, and eventually with a heavy disappointment that accompanies his loss of innocence. The film reminds me of Schlondorff's The Tin Drum with its rather disturbing, yet comical theme of children growing up entirely too quickly, although The Art of Crying is, in my opinion, far more beautifully poignant as it is told through Allan's eyes.

Henry (Jesper Asholt) is a milkman whose nightly suicide attempts and constant hysterics have driven his wife to taking sleeping pills every night to avoid him, and his son to university out of their sleepy rural village in Denmark. Henry's young son Allan (Lorenzen) adores him, and begins performing a series of bizarre acts in order to win his father's happiness, seeing nothing wrong with his father's manipulative actions and dysfunctional family dynamics.

I enjoyed this portrayal of the tension between the rural and the urban, seen in Henry's interactions with his educated son Asger, his daughter Sanne's boyfriend the "moped rowdy" Per, and his neighbour the Buddes, who have introduced self-service at their rival grocery store. It's a compelling tale, grippingly suspenseful as you wait to see what Henry and Allan will do next, yet disturbingly funny as you watch Allan delight in the most unpleasant things (just as long as they make Henry happy). Strong performances all around, and a neat debut for Schonau Fog!


You cannot. Of course not. Still what I find brilliant and special with this film, is that all though child abuse is a main theme, it is still a film where you laugh. That Schønau Fog can make a film about such a horrific subject and still make you laugh. Not that this is a comedy, but because the situation is grotesque. In a child's view the situation in HIS family is normal, and that's (obviously) the point of view from which he (Allan, who's narration makes quite a lot of the "dialogue") tell us what happens: "Sanne makes Dad happy"...

And is the only child abuse in the film what the father does with Sanne, or is Allan a victim as well? That the mother is abusing him by her escapistic use of sleeping pills? She actually leave the responsibility for the family's functionality with Allan, who then tries to "make Dad happy", whether it's by acting as a pimp ("Sanne, Dad is crying! You must go downstairs to him!") or by "pushing coincidence"! By... No, you must see this film!


Ever since I first heard that the book by Erling Jepsen was being put into a movie I have been anticipating its release since I have read the book with much pleasure and since I have actually worked on that mental institution Sanne is committed to.

It's a story of a family of five, where the oldest brother has left home to study, who are being manipulated by their father who is a neurotic Patriarch. He is the hysterical type, loaded with feelings of inferiority. This combination makes him go on a constant search for reassurance and comfort in a very egocentric fashion to a point where his wife simply gives up and instead either takes sleeping pills or challenges him to commit suicide. His youngest son, Allan, tries to help his father as he has not yet reached a point of maturity that allows him to see through his father behavior and understand it as manipulative. In doing so he becomes just as manipulative but we symphatize and forgive him as we understand that he does it out of innocence and loyalty to his father. As the story develops so does Allan and finally the alliance between him and his father is broken as he becomes more aware of the consequences of his father's actions.

The movie takes place in the 1970's and there has clearly been put a lot of effort into making the environment typical of it's time with great success. The acting is flawless and I think it was a wise choice to let young Allan play his part in a very subtly and restrained way. This also makes the sinister themes more bearable to watch as Allan seems more or less unaffected.

I would really recommend this movie; it gives a humorous portrayal of some very important themes without ever betraying them.

Mojn Simon


This was the third Larraz title I've watched after VAMPYRES (1974) and THE COMING OF SIN (1978)  and will be promptly followed by another, THE HOUSE THAT VANISHED aka SCREAMAND DIE! (1973); it's his second best-regarded effort after VAMPYRES itself and, in retrospect, a reputation that's fully deserved.

Even so, the film is hardly the heady brew of erotica and visceral thrills that was the latter (though it contains similar lesbian undertones and the occasional outburst of shocking violence) but rather a deliberately-paced mood-piece  in fact, it might best be described as REPULSION (1965) in the countryside (with all the inherent eeriness that such a remote setting entails)! In any case, relying as it does on fleeting frissons (the subtle appearance of a 'mysterious' woman roaming the mansion), admirably-sustained tension (the connotations involving Peter Vaughn's character and, of course, the various murder sequences) and a carefully-deployed central puzzle (which keeps us guessing down to the very penultimate shot!), the film is surely a testament to Larraz's versatility within a genre which had all but turned stale by this time (even more so vis-a'-vis the then-crumbling British movie industry).

Interestingly, the lead role is played by Angela Pleasence  daughter of horror icon Donald; just because she's his spitting image, the actress' odd looks are perfect for her mentally unbalanced character (though I doubt Larraz intended it to be a serious case history, there is the singular fact of SYMPTOMS being one of the competing entries at that year's Cannes Film Festival to consider!). Equally thoughtful was the selection of the other principal cast members: the aforementioned Peter Vaughan's burly and stern handyman could, at first glimpse, have been played by just any heavy-set person  but there's no denying that the part benefits immensely from his experienced presence; and pretty Lorna Heilbron (from THE CREEPING FLESH [1973]) as Pleasence's housemate, with short-cropped hair suggesting the then-fashionable androgyny. Affable character actor Raymond Huntley, a veteran of many a British comedy, plays the owner of the village drugstore in what proved to be his last film.

Incidentally, this was yet another picture  bafflingly M.I.A. on DVD as we speak  which I recently acquired on DVD-R i.e. I've had to make do with a full-frame edition culled from TV with forced Spanish subtitles to bootbut which is appropriate in this case, since the director actually hails from that country!


First of all I love pretty explicit and audacious lesbian vampire flick "Vampyres"(1974),but more rare and obscure "Symptoms" is even better and certainly different in tone.It's a very subtle,calm and restrained horror film with plenty of mysterious atmosphere.Helen Ramsey arrives back from Switzerland to her old-fashioned family home,accompanied by a friend Ann West.It quickly becomes clear that Helen suffers from a nervous disposition.At night both Helen and Ann hear voices in the house and Helen seems convinced that there is something in the attic,a trap door to which is in the ceiling in a corner of her room."Symptoms" is a genuinely frightening horror film about a woman slowly slipping completely into madness.The cinematography is striking,the interior sets are terrifyingly dark and the acting by Angela Pleasence is fantastic.I fell in love with this film and can't praise it enough.


"Symptoms" or "The Blood virgin" is the favourite movie shot by Joseph Larraz, the catalanian director of such horror movies -Whirpool, Deviation, Scream and die or masterpieces as this "Symptoms" or "Vampyres"- that nobody did with their particular sight and their personal style. "Symptoms" is a very traditional horror tale with vampiric reminiscences and a very special study of a crazy lesbian woman obsessed with their dead mistress. The phantom of Cora, their lover is in the middle of this sensitive story and the reason of their crimes around the movie. The atmosphere and climatic shots are superb and the music score by John Scott are wonderfully executed with gothic images and dark places. "Symptoms" appeared in 1976 in british theaters and received cool opinions, specially in "Monthly Film Bulletin" and other prestigious movie magazines in United Kingdom. Twenty five years after "Symptoms" is a disturbing masterpiece of the horror movies and one of the most romantic studies of crazy love that other prestigious directors in the seventies, for example Truffaut, De Palma, Rivette, Richardson or Losey, did in this past prodigious '70 decade. Joseph Larraz, 70 years old now has a clear head yet and a great sense of humor. He is one of this rare spanish directors that made movies in United Kingdom or Demmark. He has their particular obsessions about sex, horror and movies and he showed us their talent in fashion magazines, in spanish comics or erotic pictures of beautiful women as Marianne Morris, Anulka, Lorna Heilborn, Teresa Gimpera, Helga Line, etc. "Symptoms" is a rarely piece for collectors and fans of darkness dreams and inmoral tales. The film has their soul and force in the face of Angela Pleasence as Helen Ramsey, the predator woman that kills everyone around her and use the people to take to their mortal manor where occurs all the drama. The movie is great in the beginning and in the end and offers to the audiences a clever entertainment that intelligent people will love with passion.


Confused and stuttering comedy in which Eve returns in Vichy France to work for the resistance and falls in love with the same man all over again.

It's one redeeming feature is that the very lovely Diane Franklin is on screen for most of the film


I wanted to record something from the TV recently so I pulled an almost forgotten VHS tape out of the storage area I originally got off of cable more than twenty years ago to decide if it was a keeper or not. Sadly, it wasn't and I was very glad to tape over it. The plot is almost nonexistent, although I must admit naked breasts were a real treat to find in the early 1980's and I did appreciate them at the time. If that's all you want nowadays go to Google and search under "images" for them but please do not spend even a minute of your valuable time watching this horrible waste of celluloid. Even the late lamented Robert Morley playing the part of God couldn't save this stinker.


This is another Jean-Claude Van Damme action flick, but a definite notch above many of his other films, at least in production values. The photography and stereo sound are excellent.

Actually, this is pretty simple stuff and old storyline of a low-key good guy rescuing the girl from local meanies. Here, Van Damme defends Rosanna Arquette and her small kids.

In another respect, the movie is just another avenue for the two stars to show off their incredible bodies. Neither has ever been shy about doing that and certainly aren't in this movie. My only objection is having one of the kids make a sexual remark, which is done in here. There is no excuse for that.

Ted Levine, who has turned nice guy in the hit TV series "Monk," is an effective bad guy in here. He played a lot of villains before "Monk" came around.

Anyway, it's fairly low-brow entertainment, but at least it is entertaining and fun to watch.


Nowhere To Run is one of Van Damme's better films. It has a nice storyline and some good acting. The direction is tight and I lked the score also. Not bad, but will probably be overlooked because it's a Van Damme picture.


This is probably Jean-Claude van Damme at his sexiest. The best thing is that he's a prisoner, and there's no suggestion that he was wrongfully imprisoned. He starts off as a bad boy, but of course his tough exterior melts away to reveal his inner sentimentality when he meets a widow and her two children, one of which is played by one of those hideous Culkins.


Having recently revisited my old Van Damme collection (my wife has developed a bit of a crush on JC), I have made my way through all the classics (Bloodsport, AWOL, Kickboxer, Death Warrant, Universal Soldier etc) and hugely enjoyed revelling in the guilty pleasure of watching a short, white Belgian dude kick the living snot out of everyone else on the screen. Why else would anyone go to see a Van Damme picture?

The last film I came to was Nowhere to Run. Having not seen it in a good ten years, and remembering it as slow-paced, indulgent and severely lacking in arse-kicking, I was not really expecting to be at all impressed. It's funny, looking through most of the reviews here, that two groups of people have clearly emerged. The first group, the Van Damme fans, are all complaining that this is not your average VD film and bitching about how they were cheated into watching a serious drama.

The other group are all up in arms at the fact that anyone would make a serious drama and cast Van Damme in it. I have a name for this group, but I doubt IMDb would publish it. Let's just call them w*nkers. Why the w*nkers, who clearly have an abundant dislike for the Muscles from Brussells, would go to see a film with his name above the title is beyond me. Cinesnobs have no place at a Van Damme show. I'll leave it at that.

The reason I felt compelled to write this review is that I am, admittedly, a bit of a Cinesnob, but I'm also happy to take a film for what it is. I like James Bond, I like Sonny Chiba, I like blaxploitation and I also fricking like Van Damme movies! What I did not expect, was for "a serious drama starring Van Damme" (trying saying that out loud without snickering) to be so Damme good! (Get it?)

The story is pretty simple, JC is an escaped con who happens upon a sleepy little town which is about to be pulverised by a nihilistic land developer (not surprisingly, a British one, played with appropriate menace by Joss Ackland). He befriends a little boy (not in the Michael Jackson way, though the boy in question is, ironically, Macaulay Culkin's younger brother, Kieran) and consequently gets rather chummy with the boy's mother. Happily, she is both widowed and incredibly hot. As if her being a still distraught widow weren't enough, she is also being harassed to a rather unreasonable degree by Ted Levine, who is hilarious and brilliant and the land developer's chief henchman. Cue Van Damme.

Sounds like the ideal recipe for another typical action flick, so I am willing to forgive those VD fans who felt cheated. What we actually end up with is a genuinely moving, well paced and hugely enjoyable action drama. It may sound unthinkable, but JC actually pulls his character off perfectly. Sam is mistrusting, awkward but ultimately striving to be a decent person. Director Mark Harmon made a very savvy decision in keeping JC's dialogue to a minimum, leaving him the task of creating a believable character with his face and body language alone. Don't believe the naysayers, JC delivers a truly surprising performance.

Rosanna Arquette also handles her role well, even if the character is flying dangerously close to stereotype. Her performance grounds the whole story, and we both care for her plight and admire her determination (the men in the audience will also admire her perfectly formed semi-naked body). The two kids were bound to be annoying, but they're certainly nowhere close to being as bad as they could have been.

The real star of this film is the consistently beautiful cinematography by the relatively unknown David Gribble. With scenery like this, you'd be hard pressed to go wrong with the external stuff, but the interiors are equally well shot.

The big let down, both in terms of cinematography and the film as a whole, is the truly lame action. There are only a handful of action sequences in the whole show, but they're easily the dullest moments in the film. When you have a good story, solid characters and a really well-cast group of fine actors, do you really need to throw in a bunch of crappy fights? Sadly, if you're selling this as a Van Damme picture, the answer is yes. So they had the courage to put JC in a serious role and give him the chance to prove that he can actually act, but they didn't have the balls to actually sell the film on this basis. The trailer says "Van Damme, as you've never seen him before" and then just gives us a bunch of poor action clips. Is it any wonder that nobody who actually bothered to see this film liked it?

If it weren't bad enough that the action scenes are badly shot and clumsily edited, they're also punctuated by really poor one-liners from JC ("Strike 3, you're out!" and "Au revoir, f**ker" are among the worst). One gets the feeling that there were differences in the opinions of the director and the star and the opinions of the producers and studio folk. Presumably, someone thought they had found a happy balance. Someone was wrong, and the film really suffers as a consequence.

If you can overlook this, and you're not watching the film either to complain that it's not a solid action flick or to complain that Van Damme is in a drama, you'll probably find yourself surprisingly impressed with the film.


I enjoyed this movie very much. It had a good, easy-to-follow story, some good action and good humor. Van Damme give's one of his best performances to date, and for the first time use's his brain and fist's instead of his martial art expertise. The chemistry between Van Damme and Arquette is very believable and you can tell that Van Damme's character really does care about the family. A very enjoyable film and believe it or not, an A+ performance from Jean-Claude Van Damme.


I must have enjoyed it I stayed up until 2 am to watch it. I thought it showed a softer side of VD he should make more films of this kind.I liked the story line and was not too much kick boxing,the young boy (Kieran Culkin) played his part very well I thought. I really enjoyed seeing VD in a movie without so much blood and guts


Plot Synopsis: Sam, a convicted bank robber, is freed when the prison bus he is on is hijacked. On the run from the law, he comes to the aid of a woman & her two children who are being pressured to sell their land to corrupt developers.

"Nowhere to Run" is one of the numerous films featuring Belgian martial arts legend Jean-Claude Van Damme. The film, like many of Van Damme's work, does not rank too highly when it comes to things like acting, script or even direction. Director Robert Harmon, who helmed the excellent "The Hitcher", manages to keep things from going out of control. The script is simplistic, bordering on clichés  the good guy convict, the embattled single mother, the shady developers, even the corrupt sheriff. As usual, Van Damme makes a meal out of his role, while the two kids should have been taught a serious lesson on not to talk to strangers. Joss Ackland & Ted Levine play the villains quite well.


This Van Damme film is pretty good.I don't agree what the video box says "The best Van Damme movie!" The film is different and has a good story and Van Damme has a different role here.The movie has Ted Levine as a good villain!Joss Ackland performed well.Also The film has special appearances by Thomas Rosales Jr. and Sven-Ole Thorsen!The music by Mark Isham was good and the music in the beginning sounded similar like his other work in Fire in the Sky.Like I said before this is not Van Damme all time greatest but its good and different.If you haven't seen it yet check it out!

Movie Nuttball's Note: I Also recommend Hard Target(which I believe is Van Damme's best!),Bloodsport,Cyborg,Lionheart,Street Fighter,Sudden Death,Kickboxer,The Quest,Double Team,and Double Impact.


Essentially an episode of 'The Fugitive' with cobwebs on, 'Nowhere to Run' sees escaped con Jean-Claude Van Damme getting comfy with widowed Rosanna Arquette's family and defending them from ruthless property developer Joss Ackland, who wants to tear down their farm and put up a huge development. While it's a competent movie, and doesn't suffer as much as you might think from Van Damme's complete lack of acting ability, it's weighed down by its hopelessly threadbare plot and a split personality screenplay that can't decide if it's a drama or a beat-em-up. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets, and Arquette's role is amazingly thankless.


Joe Eszterhas co-authored this screenplay (from an original treatment by he and Richard Marquand) about a convict (the able-bodied but colorless Jean-Claude Van Damme) who is on the run from the law after a prison-bus breakout. He takes up with a small town single mom (Rosanna Arquette) who seems ready to love him no matter what his crimes! Vehicle for action-star Van Damme begins quite well but quickly degenerates into sap and silliness. Eszterhas' plot is thin and derivative, not to mention ridiculous, and Arquette is pretty much wasted. There's a surprisingly minimal amount of visual excitement after the opening bust-out; that's all well and good, except that nothing of interest takes its place. *1/2 from ****


I know many people do not like this movie, because they are used having Van Damme in action movies with martial arts and shooting scenes. This is NOT an action flick, instead it is a drama with an action touch.

I really enjoyed the movie. Kieran Culkin was excellent and also Ted Levine. There is a scene where it would have been good some tears from Van Damme, but I bet this wasn't possible because of the "macho" he always portrays in all his movies, and... boys don't cry.

If you like action you will enjoy the fights and the chase, but do not expect fireworks. There is also the typical "show butt" scene, but what is somehow misplaced is the scene where the kids talk about Van Damme's penis at the dinner, actually unnecessary.

All in all I recommend this movie for everyone. You will have a good time.


Now, we are moving into what I consider a good Van Damme flick. The story has been told many times. It is similar in many respects to Romeo Must Die - evil developer wants to put up a kitzy development and needs to run off small landowners. Clydie (Rosanna Arquette) resists and her deputy dawg boyfriend (Edward Blatchford) is playing both sides. In comes the hard-ass to get things finished (a very young Ted Levine) and, at the same time our hero breaks out of prison and camps on her doorstep. It seems Van Damme is always either breaking out of prison or going AWOL. Relationships with her two cute kids begin and then things really heat up with mom. Boyfriend is jealous and it all comes to a head, as expected, between Van EDamme and Levine. Smaltzy ending, but great chases. fights, and lots of passion.


Van Damme was on a role in the late eighties, early nineties, making some of the most fun, simple action movies of the era. His ability to always get a laugh, and being renowned for his nice-guy qualities have ensured his continued success, even if most of his movies now are straight-to-DVD capers.

In Nowhere to Run he stars with an established cast as another misunderstood nice guy, an escaped convict who decides to help a young widow and her family who are struggling against a local developer who is forcing them out of their home. There is a good amount of action, some strong performances, and some very funny moments. Van Damme plays Sam, a mysterious convict who has escaped from prison. He sleeps in a tent outside a small town where two local young kids find and befriend him. Eventually their mother Clydie, played by Rosanna Arquette finds out and invites him into their home cautiously. Of course they fall for each other, much to the distaste of local Sheriff and love interest Lonnie, who decides to look into Sam's background. Franklin Hale, played with typical evil by Ackland is the main bad guy, but his side-arm Levine is the main threat. Sam helps the family, foiling Hale at every turn, but the past is catching up with Sam...

Arquette, Culkin, Levine, and Taubman as the daughter are particularly good, and the story tries to be light-hearted and moral. It may be another attempt to achieve a wider audience for Van Damme, and it is definitely one of his most accessible, thanks to the good cast and humour. The various discussions on Van Damme's naked body are always humorous. Overall another good Van Damme film which will please fans, and may interest a few others.

7.5 out of 10


This is a brilliant absolutely brilliant Van Damme film, with an amazing performances and a very emotional ending!. This Is one of Van Damme's absolute best, and in my top 5, plus this may be Van Damme's breakout performance as an actor in my opinion (although he is always amazing). I really liked how Van Damme tried to do something different here, and in my opinion it worked perfectly, and Van Damme and Arquette have amazing chemistry together, plus it was awesome to see how well Van Damme bonded with the kids!. I can't believe critics called this embarrassing, and if you think Van Damme can't act, you have to watch this movie, plus Joss Ackland is pretty menacing as the main villain!. The character development is outstanding, and the kids are surprisingly very likable, plus the movie has a couple of good scraps!. This is a brilliant absolutely brilliant Van Damme film, with amazing performances and a very emotional ending. The Direction is fantastic!. Robert Harmon does a fantastic job here, with fantastic camera work, good angles, creating some nice atmosphere, and keeping the film at an extremely engrossing and very fast pace!. There is a tiny bit of blood. We get a couple a very bloody gunshot wounds, and minor wounds. The Acting is AMAZING! (in my opinion). Jean Claude Van Damme is AMAZING as always, and is AMAZING here, he is extremely convincing, extremely likable, kicks that ass, had amazing chemistry with the kids and Rosanna Arquette,and gave one of the best performance in his career! (Van Damme Is quite simply the Man!)(my favorite actor). Rosanna Arquette is wonderful here, she is beautiful, had amazing chemistry with Van Damme, was very likable, and like VD's character i was rooting for her all the way!. Kieran Culkin is actually very good as the kid, and was very likable, and was actually quite funny, go figure!.Ted Levine is very good as one of the main villains, and was very menacing. Joss Ackland is also excellent as one of the main villains, didn't have much screen time though. Tiffany Taubman is great as the daughter and was adorable. Edward Blatchford is good as the weasel sheriff. Overall this quite simply a must see period!, don't waste any more time!. ***** out of 5


Jean-Claude Van Damme is back! And this time he's got the hots for a petite little southern gal played by the ever gorgeous Rosanna Arquette! Some evil men are out to take her land, but Jean-Claude, and escaped convict on the lam, is here to be her savior! Full hot explosions, hot girls, and plenty of Van Damme kicks and punches! This film is sure not to let you down!


I had heard that this movie wasn't typical Van Damme, but I still expected it to be mindless action on the whole. I was shocked when it turned out to be truly well done, and not just for a Van Damme movie. The acting is great, especially Rosanna Arquette's performance, and the story is not cheesy at all--it's actually compelling. The (sparse) fight sequences don't involve any weird Van Damme midair split-kicks to the head; they're straight-ahead brawls. This is definitely Van Damme's best, focusing on story and not action, but I guess his presence makes a lot of people overlook it. My rating: 8/10.