It is hard to believe that THE DARWIN CONSPIRACY was made in 1999 as it plays like really bad TV of the 1970's; indeed, the director's earliest work was in 1970's TV ("Barnaby Jones" for example). This made-for-TV movie is totally predictable with a plot and script (which are the real culprits) so weak as to be funny. The pseudo-science is outlandishly foolish, and the whole thing is silly enough to merit viewing once, if you're game.

Best scene: a mentally-enhanced chimpanzee (it received injections of super-human DNA!!) steals a van - the chimp learned by watching how to start the vehicle and can operate the pedals by telepathy - but, alas, it apparently did not pay attention to steering and so plunges at high speed head-on into a tractor-trailer and, to the chagrin of government scientists, is killed.

This poor example of film-making makes NIGHT OF THE LEPUS (1972) seem Oscar-worthy.


Dr. Jason Ward (Jason Brooks) is a highly qualified geneticist. His brother Andy Ward (Robert Floyd) had problems during his birth and is mentally retarded. Dr. Jason is hired by an agency to develop some kind of experience with DNA. What he does not know is that this DNA belongs to the body of a very developed prehistoric man, and his findings are being used by another government laboratory to develop a kind of super-intelligent species. His brother Andy is used as part of this experiment. This movie seems to be a bad pilot of a possible television series. However, the screenplay and the performance of the casting are so foolish that probably the producers gave up with such an investment. However, although deserving a place among the worst 250 films in IMDB, there are movies worst than that. By comparison with other craps, my vote is four.


No other words describes this movie other than it absolutely stinks. The plot seemed interesting with a perfectly frozen man with incredibly advanced DNA, but for some stupid reason, this vital plot point was dropped and a relationship between this scientist and his retarded brother was brought to the forefront. The dialogue was hackneyed and trite. Another reason to know why this movie stinks is that the San Diego Padres were incorporated as an essential part of the "plot". If I could give this movie a negative score; I would!


Before I begin, I would like to warn that I am a fan - and I supposed a little prejudiced against this new batman series. However as a fan, I felt as though I had to watch it before casting a summary judgment.

First the good points: In terms of action and animation - top notch. I was impressed with the fight choreography and landscaping. Top marks for scenery and lighting - the use of shadows when dealing with Batman is nearly an art form and they did well here. An interesting side note: When dealing with two characters which use shadows as a motif, it can be challenging - almost like dealing with two sides of the same coin, but it was very well done here. The bat-gadgets: 6/10. They seemed pretty generic - however they did fit with the entire "stream lined bat-stuff" theme - they seemed a little too "a la Blade" - all that was missing was a sword.

Now here's where it gets ugly: The story. It seems almost impossible not compare it with the animations of the past. (Return of the joker (ROTJ), Mask of the Phantasm (MOTP)) It seems the animated movies are taking the same decline as the movie franchise did. As I warned, I am a batman fan and I cringe when there are blaring inaccuracies - as I did all throughout Batman begins - but when you have horrible errors like there are here... *shudder*.

It seemed like there was little to no research done on the Batman stories to produce something which at least tries to fit the original story. Accuracy aside, there has to be points lost for originality. Most other movies, take an existing villain, add a new element which causes the Bat-Family (in this case Batman and Alfred) an enormous amount of grief, pain and suffering and then get rid of him. MFTP didn't follow this, but the seams were nearly invisible and very well done. Here they could have easily used The Monster of Dr Frankenstein or the Mummy and it wouldn't lose integrity. Character development is nil. They threw in some native characters to remind you that this is still a Batman story  just on the off chance you may have seen Blade 1 and 3 and thought  "Hmm, this sounds familiar!"

In summation, this movie screams for the return of the old writers  Paul Dini and Frank Miller, and with the animation today, come with something which really gets your head twisted  like Return of the joker did. As much as I hate to say it  that movie set the bar for animated Bat-movies

*Steps down from soapbox*


They are ruining the whole Batman franchise with this new series. With each story, it seems to be getting worse. What are they trying to do, make a Blade out of Batman. They are going to lose a lot of hardcore Batman fans if they keep continuing with this new series.

And what is with this new animation, are they trying to make anime. The only place anime is entertaining is in porn. The animation is not just awful, it is flawed, so is the direction. In one of the scenes, they show vampires as being invisible in the mirror and then they show the Joker's reflection after he turns into a vampire. I hope they will get a grip and get the old series back in action!


this movie is corny beyond words. if they would've used a good writer to do it they might have had something here, but instead it's a complete travesty up there with the Schumacher franchise

*SPOILERS* i mean come on! Vicky Vale is a redhead? and why do they insist on dumbing Batman down? i mean judging by the level of blood and the fact that they talk about corpses, it's not clearly not meant to be a kids movie. i would think Batman would be smart enough to not try to fight Dracula hand to hand, he would know to rethink his strategy after getting kicked around a few times. and of all villains, he allies himself with THE PENGUIN? you can't be serious.

if you want to watch a good animated Batman movie, stay clear of this nonsense and pick up "Mask Of The Phantasm", or the uncensored version "Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker"

DOWN WITH FAUX PAS BATMAN!


I'm sorry to say, but Hungarian cinema (especially comedies) nowadays is really bad. Always the same old "stars" play in the "blockbusters" telling really bad jokes, but still, have really high reputation here. Hungarian film-making had glorious times about 50 years earlier, but it is just struggling now. But, there were a few exceptions, highly enjoyable films, like Kontroll, Üvegtigris, and Gábor Herendi's previous film, Valami Amerika.

I thought that he's standing in front of a promising career. Because of this very amusing picture, I had very high expectations about Magyar Vándor. But after seeing 10 minutes of the film, I started to feel disappointed. And it just got worse and worse. But the story is promising, most of us would have made an enjoyable film from this material. But not the "elite" of Hungarian film-making. Terrible jokes, each one of them is told about ten times, and the whole movie treats the viewer like a complete idiot. And this is what I really don't like. That film was a total waste of money. They should have donated the amount instead.


This is the biggest piece of crap ever filmed. I know Hungarian history and I didn't crack a smile. Not even grudgingly. The audience in the theater was either running scared or was stunned into silence at this enormity. There is no plot, only a loose set of extremely lame gags tied together by the wandering chieftains, whose main characteristics are mostly expressed by the bodily noises they produce. They go through history for no apparent reason, and meet similarly insipid, one-dimensional characters disguised as historic personalities, which we are expected to find hilarious, God only knows why. I don't know any reason why anyone would want to see this or, for that matter, make this truly tasteless, unimaginative, amorphous, poor imitation of a third rate parody.


The idea of the film is pretty good. Placing historical characters into anachronistic situations offer many opportunities of great jokes. Also the director's previous film was quite good, and he had a great chance to create a great job. Had the money and many big names in the cast.

Supposed to be a comedy, but it's just a pathetic struggling. Stolen jokes from great films adopted terribly and horrible musical scenes. It was the first case in my life when I left the cinema at the half of the movie.

It does not even worth the time it took to see, not to mention the cost of the ticket.


Unfortunately there is no zero rating, what I would gladly give to this film. It's not a "so bad, it's good" film. It's just simply bad. Don't be tempted to see it, even if you have an hour and a half of your life to be wasted. Believe me, compared to this rubbish the Bridges of Madison is an indie European cult film. The "Magyar Vandor" is pretentious, copying ideas from Holy Grail (and by copying I mean simply lifting out jokes and whole passages from it and putting them in Magyar Vandor shamelessly), Faust (or it's Hungarian version, the Ember Tragediaja) and many more. There are "jokes", you would understand only if you are Hungarian. But if you happen to be one, you won't enjoy them, as the filmmakers thought their future audience to be a bunch of retarded five year old. (a good example for this is the scene with king Matyas, an emblematic figure of the Hungarian history. If you wouldn't recognise the character after five minutes of shallow jokes the actor puts on his crown and the camera pans to show his long nosed profile - aka king Matyas' most recognisable picture). The film operates with the worst clichés you can find in a film - repetitive jokes, whose are not funny even the first time, very shallow dialogues, typical costume film eras - dark middle age, renaissance, Fitzgeraldoid jazz generation, Nazi occupation (with the mistake made by the filmmakers, as Hungary happened to be a Fascist country in the Second World War) and so on. As there is no plot, there is no real ending to the film either, just some shallow nationalism, saccharin sweet emotions, fireworks, 20th of August, The Hungarian Parliament surrounded by some terrible CGI, the list goes on. If you are interested in jokes chewed over few times by the crew to be understood by the "masses", one liners from the Hungarian film and TV "elite" and no laughter at all, then by all means watch this terrible sit-com. Otherwise steer clear from it. It says on the can, it's a historical comedy. It's not, it's a tragedy of the new Hungarian cinema. It's on pair with some other recent crap, especially Taxidermia. 0/10


If you do, you might be tempted to see this movie. First, I didn't know there were so many horrible actors in this world. Outside of a couple performances, I've seen better acting in grade school plays. I hope they keep their day jobs. But lest I offend them, I have to say that the dialog was beyond laughable. It was pathetic. Boring and bland conversation. Like watching oil dry.

The idea of the film was great. Not what is IN the film, but what the film jacket notes say it's about. It had all the potential of being a Hitchcock/Lynch-esque sexual thriller. I sat through the most boring movie I've ever seen. Then in the last 5 minutes, it looked like it might have some promise. Waited for the twist. Then the credits started to roll! The movie could have ended at any time and you'd never know the difference.

I've never had a "the worst movie I've ever seen" before. I do now.


The movie doesn't build up the main characters at all, They are just presented to you. No view into the main characters life at all.

Your perspective from the beginning of the film is that the Paul character is your stereotypical movie 'bad guy'. His character lacks substance and meaning throughout the entire film.

No insight into why the murders are taking place. No insight into his past, Nothing at all.

He is so stereotypical that he snugs his chin into his chest before going in for the kill, A typical horror film cliché. It used bleak lighting, typical music, and on top of that you have the AWFUL acting.

Unfortunately the acting is so bad that it kills any originality that could have been.

Maintenance completely lacks originality and substance even though the storyline could very well of worked out with a better cast of characters and better direction.


Having lived with only a handful of other tenants in a large building undergoing renovation in New York City (and on the same floor that Stephanie lived on), the subject matter of this film was a little too close to home. We also had ex-cons working in our building, and we had break-ins and crimes committed by maintenance staff, though no rapes or murders.

The film had a couple of mildly terrifying moments, but most of it failed to convey a sense of dread, or was original enough in its details (except for the setting, which was terrific) to be considered truly frightening.

The crimes committed were a bit too abrupt. As a previous reviewer noted, there was precious little exposition that would have lent a sense of suspense and depth. And with all the good (great) unemployed actors out there, it seems a better cast could have been picked. The film had a kind of amateurish/film-school project aura about it that was at once admirable and disconcerting.

***** SPOILER *****

Finally, what happened to the door leading to the outside? It seemed to have disappeared! Even if the writer/director had made the choice for Paul to chain lock the exits to the street or something, it would have lent a note of believability to the final scenes. But the victims seemed content to stay inside to play a deadly game of cat and mouse with Paul, and that made it hard for me to suspend my disbelief.

***** END SPOILER *****

I would like to see this film rewritten, shot with higher production values, and re-released. It has a decent kernel of a plot and a superb setting -- it just needs more vibrant characterizations, some connection to the outside world to keep it from drifting too far into the realm of disbelief, and more skilled actors. Music could have been more prominent and original, too.


What could have been an interesting idea was spoilt by the lack of any character development. We are given no insight into why an ex-convict, freshly out of prison and having been given a new start, would throw it all away by immediately commencing random and seemingly motiveless killings within the building.

Given that there were only FOUR tenants in the whole block, wasn't it verging on the ridiculous to start killing them all off - what was he planning to do when they were all dead?

The ending was a slightly unexpected "twist", and a minor payoff for making it through to the end this poorly acted, non-scary horror film.


The cover of the VHS edition features a film critic's remark that the movie is "Erotic", which gives you an idea of how far from the book this movie has fallen. In Branagh's defense, there are a lot of difficulties translating the original work into movie form as there are many long passages of time in which critical details are summarized, also there is a lot of introspection and conversation that would need to be translated into something more visually compelling. There were key details that Branagh changed, though, without good cause. For one thing, the monster was supposed to be 8 feet tall and somewhat demonic in appearance. Branagh opted for a disfigured Robert DeNiro, presumably to save on special effects (or to avoid hiring a basketball player to play the part). In the book, the monster was quite articulate and we have a better understanding of his wretchedness and his wickedness. Numerous comparisons are made between the monster and Adam from The Bible, also the monster and Satan, the powerful fallen angel. Mary Shelley succeeded in simultaneously creating sympathy and revulsion for the brute, but Branagh completely failed to pull this off. He also ruined the romantic relationship between Victor and Elizabeth, which in the book started as deep admiration and built with some suspense and tension until it finally culminated in their marriage and her demise, but Branagh decided to have them fondling each other more or less within the first ten minutes of the film. The viewer is also forced to watch very exaggerated acting from most of the main characters (DeNiro manages to avoid this) as if they're trying to make up for the poor screenplay adaptation by overacting. In short, the only sense in which this was truly faithful to the original work was in that Branagh took bits and pieces of the original, breathed life into it, and created an abomination.


I am a high school English teacher who is in the process of teaching "Frankenstein" to my classes. When I rented the movie "Mary Shelley's Frakenstein", I expected it to be consistent with the novel; hence, the reference to Mary Shelley in the actual title.

This movie makes me internally conflicted between anger and laughter. The actual novel was butchered. There are countless scenes that are just absolutely fabricated. The movie has consistent scenes which just don't make sense. If you're going to refer to the author in the title, how about actually honoring the poor woman? Make a movie that respects her story, instead of butchering it. Unfortunately, this woman isn't alive to defend herself and disassociate herself from this film.

-Victor's mother died of Scarlet Fever, not during childbirth. -Henry Clerval was a childhood friend; not someone Victor met at Ingolstadt (university). -During the whole novel Victor refuses to tell anybody how he created the creature, while in the novel we have all this detail. -Why the hell was Branaugh putting up a lightening rod in the middle of a field where he and Elizabeth are the tallest objects in the area? How is he able to count down perfectly to when the lightening will strike? Where did that scene come from anyway? -They played up the pseudo incestuous nature of Elizabeth and Victor way too much. -The monster cuts firewood for the cottagers; he doesn't pick fricking radishes for them.

This is only the very beginning of the movie and I haven't included nearly all the stupidity.

If you read the novel, you should be disappointed in this sorry excuse for a film.


There is simply no excuse for this film. If it is meant to be a stylised "melodramatic" version of the novel, then by any standards of artistic taste it should be melodramatic, not a disastrously badly written hotch-potch of cinematic ideas. The "melodrama" merely makes the viewer run to vomit in the kitchen sink. The cast is fantastic, stellar; but they are made to spew such insipid, laughable lines that I would not be surprised if not a single one of them doesn't regret being in it - excepting Kenneth Branagh, who is probably still in denial about blotting his brilliant career with this utter tripe. The 1931 version deviates seriously from the book, but is a quality film. This version sticks closer to Mary Shelley's story but is somehow much more of a deviation - a deviation away from a sense of style and wit, and the changes the writers have made (Justine/Victor/Elizabeth love triangle?!) are simply disastrous. I thoroughly enjoyed watching this movie - I laughed pretty much all the way through. If you want to watch a BAD BAD film, this is the one for you. It is the best, worst film I have ever seen.


THis movies is one of the most ridiculous movies I have ever seen. Brannagh or whatever his name is a hammy over actor. THis movie had some of the cheesiest overacting I've ever seen. The love between him and carter is flimsy and there chemistry is non existent. I had trouble believing any of the acting it was just a joke. THe movie also lacks consistency and logic.SPOILERS How does a doctor who can bring a creature to life for the first time in human history study it for a matter of minutes before mistakingly thinking it is dead, and then just leaving the body hanging from his ceiling. Later in the movie after he decides he made a mistake in "playing god", he refuses to repeat the mistake on someone he had cared for by turning her into the monsters bride. Yet this same moral reasoning does not apply when attempting to reanimate his murdered wife like 2 days later??? If you know it will make her a monster why would you do that to someone you truly love????just a stupid stupid movie don't waste your time


Wow, this film is so inaccurate on so many levels. I read the book in 12th grade, and I can't say I liked the story, but that is not my beef with this movie. Why call it MARY SHELLY'S Frankenstein if its not based on her novel? The inclusion of the author's name implies more accuracy, not less.

Okay, why is Frankenstein dancing on the mountains with his half-sister and a lightening pole? He was a medical student because of his mothers death, not a random science enthusiast. His mother also died from illness, not childbirth. Frankenstein's friend Henry was from his hometown, not his school. And why did Kenneth Branagh feel the need to slick himself up in goo for the monster-making scene? Also, there was no need for the sex scene, unless it was just to "spice up" the movie, as Frankenstein and Elizabeth never had a chance to consummate their marriage. And what was with the whole trial-gone-awry!?? It was supposed to be an unfair trail, not a mob-gone-mad and throwing the girl off a cliff. Why was the monster going to secret meetings in ice caves?

But the MOST ridiculous part was when Frankenstein tried to regenerate Elizabeth. She's DEAD and should stay that way! Why could he not make the one girl with the perfectly fine body come to life, but magically when he hacks off her head and stick's on his lovers, she sparks to life. And was it necessary to shave half her head in the process? The longer this movie went on, the more i just wanted to laugh. It went so far off base, it shouldn't have even been called Frankenstein, let alone dared to include the author's name as if she'd given personal approval. Unless of course, he knew it was so far removed, people wouldn't recognize and confuse it with Bob Smith's Frankenstein.


This was just the biggest pile of s**t i have ever seen and i'm serious. Kenneth Brannagh was frankly embarrassing - please God someone stop letting him direct, produce and act in his films because no one can tell him how awful they are. John Cleese's rabbit teeth were hilarious but by far the two most hilarious parts of the film were the look on Brannagh's face when the monster tells him to meet him up on the ice in a few days (he's thinking why not do it now????) and also the scene where Brannagh attempts to save the guy who taught him in the operating room (the camera work is absolutely classic!). All in all i would encourage you to watch this film but only as a comedy - if you do you will laugh for ages! Oh yes and also check out Brannagh's Hamlet - the guy slaughters every film he touches.


This film obviously has no understanding of the original plot (which is still current and worthy of discussion today), but the person(s) responsible did see "Bride of Frankenstein" and managed to screw up that plot as well when they tried to incorporate it into this film. The Mel Brooks film has more respect for Mary Shelly than this disaster. No wonder a discount chain sold this to me for $5.50. It wasn't worth it, even at that price! The concept of putting together body parts is a contemporary consideration because we are now able to achieve this. The fact that this was written so long ago (by a woman who was challenged by her husband and a friend to see who could write the best horror story) should give it the historic respect it deserves. This film ignores the historic significance and current relevance of Mary Shelly's work.


DeNiro playing Frankenstein's monster was great idea, and the performance feels true to the character in the book. Sadly it comes off as if he were cut out from another film and pasted into this farce. Seeing it in the theater back in 1994, I was embarrassed for everyone involved except for Branagh, who can share the blame with the producers in making this thing. Grown adults were pointing at the screen and laughing, and not just when John Cleese showed up. His scene was the first unintentionally funny one - Cleese's dour character was straight out of about twenty Python sketches. But the "birth" scene, dripping not just with melted jello but with shallow, pointless undercurrents of mother and child and homo-eroticism, was made more ridiculous with comically timed editing. It's one of the worst things I've ever seen in a Hollywood movie. You've got to wonder what people are thinking sometimes when making a horror film - did Branagh, or whoever had final cut of this thing, get chills up their spine at any point? Could they feel anything other than blind, empty sensation? "Yeah! That does something!" Yeah, it makes the movie really suck. This movie is a lot of things, mostly a really good lesson in really bad film-making, but it is not scary, nor does it carry any of the message or subtext of Shelly's book. One would like to think that Branagh approached this as an assignment with a big paycheck, which could cut him off from some of the blame, but from his blustery, overstuffed interviews at the time, he took it, and himself, very, very, very, very seriously, and I'm sure he thought he was adding something profound to the great cannon of the Frankenstein legend. What a pompous fraud.


I rarely write online reviews, but after reading most of the comments here my fingers couldn't type fast enough. Clearly, the majority of reviewers here saw a different film than the one I did. A masterpiece? Artful? Brilliant? Either that, or they just have poor taste in films. I still have no interest in really reviewing this film, but let me clear up a few erroneous statements from previous reviews:

1) Please don't trash James Whale's 1931 film unless you've actually SEEN it  all of it, because it's a far superior film to this, bolts and all. Whale may have changed the story quite a bit, but he captured the spirit of the novel and created one of the greatest cinematic icons of all time. (And Boris Karloff played the monster, not Lon Chaney).

2) Although this film is truer to the original novel, it is not faithful and makes considerable changes that alter the overall intent of the story. There is no love triangle in the book, Victor Frankenstein is a medical student of about 18-19 years of age (Branagh is well past the sell-by date for that), and he creates the monster entirely by accident. (No drama whatsoever in the book - he wakes up with the creature hovering near his bed. No electricity, no solar panels as in "The True Story", no amniotic fluid as in this film).

3) De Niro is laughable as the creature. He's completely out of his element and hopelessly miscast. As for make-up, Karloff is closer to original story (minus the bolts). In the novel the creature has weepy yellow eyes, skin like a cadaver, and is nine feet tall. Karloff's make-up was green because when filmed under proper lighting (on B&W film) green make-up looks deadly pale, almost pure white, not because the monster in that film was supposed to be green. Again, it's B&W folks!

This story will always present challenges for a filmmaker because it's not really horrific as a story by our standards, or by the standards of the 1930s for that matter, hence the bolts. It's was a novel of the Romantic Era, and the very premise was frightening in and of itself.

The real core of the novel is the on-going philosophical debate between young Victor, and his bastard child - the creature. Yes, it's a novel about creating life and playing God, but underneath that is a novel about both adolescent sexuality  Young Victor, alone in his attic, fooling around with nature  and also the consequences of creating a life and then not taking responsibility for it. Branagh's film is too caught up in hammy acting and nauseating camera moves to ever really get there. Yes, the debates are there, but the soul isn't. It's a vaudeville sideshow masquerading as art. For those with only a passing knowledge of the book, it may seem truer, but Whale's 1931 film is actually much closer to the novel's heart in its depiction of "the other", the outcast, the bastard than this ever comes close to.


As far as this film goes as a horror film, it's not that great. It was made more for entertaining the mind that giving you nightmares. The acting wasn't too hot, scripting was a little corny, and story was deliberately altered in some very serious ways from the book!

I wouldn't get so much on this movie's case if it wasn't advertised as "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." The story only resembles that of the book! Before you go and invest three bucks in this movie (or however much closeout movies cost in your area) please read the book. It is a beautiful piece of literature that has never been successfully portrayed on the silver screen. I expected truncations, sure, what story adapted for the theater doesn't. But it's not so much they removed portions, they incorporated segments of their own design! And bad ones at that! So bad it negated much of what the original story had to offer!

Please don't be fooled by the title "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" because it's not! Watch this as one of those "wanted to be dramatic, but didn't quite make it" movies. Please Branagh and Lady, spare us the grief and actually read the book before you blunder into putting someone else's name on your crap!


Finally I saw this movie and it's hopeless. It is supposed to be based on the book, I heard. Well, half of the movie is not to be found in the book. At some point it became so ridiculous I was actually laughing.

The only good thing in this failure is Robert De Niro, who was very touching as the 'monster'. His performance was very close to the book. He gives the 'monster' a heart, as it should be.

Otherwise, don't bother seeing this thing. It's a waste of time and not worth the title of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. This is actually Kenneth Brannagh's Frankenstein.


I don't know what movie other people who thought this followed the book were seeing, but it did NOT! The book is fresh in my mind, as I finished reading it a mere 20 hours before watching the so-called movie version, and the only thing this movie had in common w/the book was the fact that there was a creature in it! How to begin? Lesse...(1) Victor knew Henry from CHILDHOOD, not from school, as the movie would have you believe. (2) Victor's mother died from ILLNESS, not childbirth! (3) Elizabeth NEVER followed Victor to school and his Professor did NOT die! (4) Where was the creature's long, flowing, black hair?! (5) Justine's end was NOT via lynch-mob! (5) Too many of the occurrences took place in the wrong places! What happened to the hut in the small town, for instance? (6) Felix's family was all wrong; his fiancée did come from overseas, but the other woman was his sister! (7) Victor did NOT just decide not to make the female creature because the creature chose his mother's body! Victor was actually only moments away from bringing a female creature to life and he tore her body apart! (8) What happened to Henry's death? (9) Don't even get me started on the whole Elizabeth reanimated thing! (10) The ending was wrong! Victor died of bad health and the creature jumped off the ship, off to kill himself! (11) The beginning was wrong, too! The monster passed by the ship first, on a sledge. THEN Victor approached, also on a sledge, NOT on foot! (12-50) Just too much to name! Now, I know that movie's always take artistic license, but this one just took too much; it wasn't even recognizable as the same story as the one I had just read. Mary Shelley's name should have been nowhere near this tragedy! And if you loved the book, stay far far away from this massacre of a "movie"!


This movie presents the "human" side of the Frankenstein creature. Unlike other productions which portray the creature as a horrible, despicable monster, this movie attempts, with some success, to show the creature as a victim of circumstances. Although at some points in the movie the dialogue is ridiculous, Robert De Niro's performance as the creature is credible. What is not credible, however, are the performances of the other members of the cast. Victor Frankenstein is hysterical and his lady something of a shrill. They inspire little sympathy and the horrible acts perpetrated by the creature are almost glossed over to the point that one can reasonably ask: what is all the fuss about? The creature had a right to be upset. After all, he didn't asked to be manufactured. But plausibility is stretched to the limit by asking the audience to believe that such a foolish, emotionally labile man as Victor Frankenstein could actually have the ability to create life from death ... and then do it AGAIN?


Kenneth Branagh's poor attempt at making a film of Mary Shelley's 19th century novel 'Frankenstein' fails to give across the message that Shelley's world famous creation manages to do. The adaptation mostly follows the line of the book with the enthusiastic Professor Frankenstein who is determined to create life after his mother dies giving birth his younger brother. Despite the fact the film is based on the book it lacks the ability to "truly curdle the blood".

Isn't the film supposed to be a horror? Although the makeup done by Daniel Parker, Paul Engelen and Carol Hemming was pretty frightening, the film never really gave me that spine-shiver that is expected from a horror. It lacks that sense of darkness and suspense. When expecting an ending that was similar to the book's, it is very surprising to find that Branagh has changed it. The gory scene of the monster ripping Elizabeth's heart out is then followed by a laughable failure of the zombie-like Elizabeth running through the house in flames. Despite the effect's this is unrealistic and whole house is a blaze in less then a minute! There are many great actors in the film such as the multi-talented Kenneth Branagh who both directs and stars in the film, Robert De-Niro who plays the distraught creature, Tom Hulce who plays Henry Clerval (Frankenstein's closest friend) and Helena Bonham Carter who plays Elizabeth, but this still doesn't bring the film to life. Branagh's attempt of the science-obsessed professor Victor Frankenstein is first seen in the cold blizzards of the Arctic wearing a frosted fur coat. He is taken aboard by Captain Robert Walton (Aidan Quinn) and begins to narrate his life, first as a youngster and then how he came to make his hideous creation. His Frankenstein is dramatic and over-acted but doesn't bring out the enthusiasm of Victor Frankenstein described in the novel. Hugely contrasted to Branagh's attempt of Frankenstein is Robert De Niro's superb performance of the creature. His performance conveys the feelings that the creature is described to have such as hate for Victor Frankenstein and lots of sadness. The way he portrays the creature really allows the audience to feel sympathy for Frankenstein's creation.

The music seems to play throughout the whole film and is as annoying as Kenneth Branagh's loud and over the top acting. Patrick Doyle's music doesn't give the film any suspense, instead it leaves the audience trying to concentrate on the rest of the adaptation. Also it is hard trying to concentrate when the film is constantly switching from scene to scene, and it's jumpy camera is making you dizzy.

The book's sophisticated language appears very simplified as many of the words and some of the language from the book is not used, but this allows the audience to understand more of the story. However maybe if Branagh had tried less to change it and had used more of the original dialogue and narrative, the film could be more interesting and therefore hold the interest of the viewing audience longer.

In the scene after Frankenstein (Kenneth Branagh) has brought the creature to life. Frankenstein is lying in his bed, he awakes from a bad dream and the monster appears in a flash of lighting. Everybody knows this cliché from any traditional horror movie! Branagh should have paid more attention to the detail in the book and possibly produced a film much more true to it's title and not the farce that was created.

Despite the fact that there are many unimpressive sections of the film there is undoubtedly some parts which will entertain the audience, such as the making of the monster. When Frankenstein is stitching and bringing the monster together there is a sense of realism and anticipation. This bit was enjoyable but unfortunately this short interlude of excitement lasted no more then 5 minutes and soon returned to it's dull but laughable self.


This curious, good-looking version of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" was promoted as faithful to the original work - and, although is follows events much more closely than the familiar version, its changes make it a more different, distant work than you might expect. The overriding theme is not man creating artificial life, and the consequences of this action. Instead, this film is about Kenneth Branagh (as Victor Frankenstein) desiring Helena Bonham Carter (as Elizabeth). As he is unable to consummate their relationship, the sexually frustrated Mr. Branagh goes crazy and creates a artificial, monster man.

Both are drenched in goopy embryonic fluid, with Branagh displaying his chest most prominently.

The created Robert De Niro (as Frankenstein's Creature) wants to mate, just like his creator. But, when Branagh is about to have sex (finally) with Ms. Carter, Mr. De Niro interrupts. After a near encounter with De Niro, Carter expires. Then, she is brought back to life, with the same face gashes De Niro displays. By the way, why do the creatures have these face gashes? Anyway, now you have two sexually frustrated men vying for the same, once pretty "Bride of Frankenstein" - and, they don't care how she looks anymore! Will Branagh (or even De Niro) ever get to consummate with Carter? Two dizzying hours later, will you care?

**** Frankenstein (1994) Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter


When it comes to literature, Mary Shelley's Gothic novel Frankenstein is one of the more significant titles to appear. Not only is it memorable in the fact that it was written by a woman in a time when women were considered the lesser of the two sexes, but it also set up new standards for science-fiction and horror that were expanded even further with following plays and ultimately the 1931 James Whale film of the same name, which featured Boris Karloff as the mutinous, growling monster created from dead bodies fused with electricity. Most of the criticism of the 1931 film focuses on the fact that it is only very loosely faithful to Mary Shelley's original novel. This 1994 adaptation, directed by and starring Kenneth Branagh, is by far, much more adhering to the text, but that does not make it a better film. I didn't think the 1931 Frankenstein was a great film, but it was still twice the entertainment that Branagh's is.

The plot is the same one we're all familiar with. A young man (Kenneth Branagh) mad with the passion to create a living being in his own image recklessly instills life into a humanoid made from the bodies of dead men and creates a hapless, but unnaturally durable creature played uncharacteristically by Robert De Niro and before long, his mistake of playing God soon leads to chaos and people near to him fall victim and before long, he soon takes the responsibility of purging the creature under his own wing. But then there's the element that not all of us are familiar with. That the creature has a mind and a heart of its own and that it wants to meet its creator again, with some requests of its own.

I do appreciate director/star Branagh's will to stick with Mary Shelley's original novel, but what I did not appreciate was his failure at supplying us with an appreciable motion picture that ultimately turned out to be nothing more than pointless and forgettable.

Like Roger Ebert said in his television review of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Kenneth Branagh has a habit of going over the top with his movies and this is another example. There are many scenes in this movie that are way too explosive, way too loud, and way too graphic to satisfy us such as this rather bloody and fast-moving stillbirth scene early in the picture that did not serve any real purpose in the story than just to give us something to look at.

That's what this movie really is. Just something to look at. It's a good-looking movie. The cinematography is crystal-clear and beautiful, the set design and art direction is fabulous, the scenery is entrancing, it feels as if we were looking into an actual world far distant and different from our own. But what Mary Shelley's Frankenstein fails to give us is substance and story and development and in stead focuses on its visual impact, which again, goes way over the hill. In short, it gives us too much and not enough. And as a result, its two-hour running time causes it to overstay its welcome. There are scenes that go on for too long and were not necessary and there are scenes that go by too quickly, but were necessary. And with a movie like this, once the audience starts to lose interest, the look of the film doesn't amount to a hill of beans anymore.

Are there any positive aspects to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? Yes, there are. And some of them are quite powerful. Number one, Robert De Niro was fantastic as Frankenstein's creature. De Niro does not rely on his grotesque-looking makeup to give the impression of a troubled creature, but instead embraces and surpasses it with his performance and there were some scenes where I actually felt a little moved because he was so great in the movie. The creature, like in the novel, is not the big lumbering green-skinned monster with electrodes emerging from its neck and mindlessly attacking people in rage. Here we have a sympathetic and tragic living being with feelings and emotions and a mind equal to that of a man's. De Niro gives us the most impressive Frankenstein's creature we have seen yet, even better than the Boris Karloff performance from the original. And that was a classic image. Unfortunately, De Niro is not seen enough and Branagh is seen too much and unfortunately Branagh is playing a very dull Victor Frankenstein.

That's another thing I might as well mention. Apart from De Niro, we have no interesting characters. Gene Siskel noted that Helena Bonham Carter's character as well as the others were treated mostly as props in the background and he was correct with his criticisms. I did not connect with any of the characters except for the creature and in a movie like this, that is imperative otherwise you're quickly losing interest.

Bottom line, this is a real shame. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is a major missed opportunity. It's a well-acted, good-looking movie that I was still thoroughly bored with and unfortunately cannot suspend my disbelief and negative attitude toward the film to give it any recommendation except to those who want to see a faithful movie based on Mary Shelley's Gothic classic.


this movie is simply awful. i was forced to watch this piece of fecal matter cinema while taking an English analysis and interpretation class. we were focusing on Mary Shelley's brilliant, terrifying, and splendid novel, and our professor was introducing us to different modern interpretations.

why they called this movie "Mary Shelley's" Frankenstein, i don't know, since it veers off so wildly from the original book, it will make any literature fan's head spin. i know, even the original "Frankenstein" film wasn't close to the book at all, but at least it was done stylistically well and was merely "based" on the book rather than being touted as "the closest adaptation" of the book like this one was.

everything about this movie is bad, except the costumes and makeup. the script is awful, much of the dialogue laughable if nothing else, and even the most "interesting" scenes only inspire boredom. this film has such a great cast: de Niro, Helena Bonham Carter, Ian Holm, Tom Hulce, and director Branaugh...but all fail miserably here...mostly thanks to this monster of a script.

take my advice. stay away. read the book. the original 1818 version. rent the original James Whale masterpiece of the delightful parody "Young Frankenstein" by Mel Brooks. this creature is better left dead.


My guess is that the only way this film got made was because Lawrence Tierney was the uncle of the writer/director/lead actor of this thing. The elder Tierney sounded awful and it comes as no surprise that he passed away not long after this was made.

The whopper of a plot is a joke. Two slackers don't work and they are getting evicted from their apartment. They throw a lame party and trash the place. That is it. I mean...really, really it. The "script" consists of non-stop swearing, plenty of drinking and drug use, and bad parts culled from other bad films. In one scene a guy pours beer in his cereal instead of milk. Seen that before. There's also the part where beer is referred to as the "breakfast of champions". Seen that before. They even included the crusty old gag where some girl totally chews out a guy and the guy's pal says, "I think she likes you." Morons.

My guess is that the people who gave this a 10 were intimately involved with the making or distribution of this picture. I really can't even think of one nice thing to say about "Evicted" so that I don't sound totally negative. Shannon Elizabeth couldn't even be called a supporting actress in this. She literally only has a handful of lines and is barely seen at all. To prominently place her on the cover of the DVD is completely false advertising and the people at York Entertainment are crummy for tricking consumers. 1/10


I rented this so-called film just today from Blockbuster because there's a quote on it reads that it's a cult-classic. I was badly mugged.

Cult-classic?! Yeah, if you happen to be part a cult of drugged low-life zombie-like slackers. The idea for the film seemed OK, and that intent was to make like fireworks. But the film ended up an atomic bomb.

This is the worst film that's it's ever been my displeasure to see, and I'd have to be dead to watch it again. It just looks like the makers of this cheap trash got drugged, got a camcorder, dragged Shannon Elizabeth and filmed a couple of typical stoner-slackers around exposing their pitiful existences, and other idiots they encounter; including the father of the non-crippled slacker who has a more irritating voice than Steve McFadden.

Basically the two main characters have no life; no job and basically no money. All they do is smoke, take drugs, drink beer and milk (of which the label design just have "Beer" and "Milk", which looks like they raised the money for the film by going round picking money up from the ground), go around meeting other slackers, and speak like drugged zombies . Their speechlessly mad landlord evicts them from their apartment, so the two idiots decide to throw a party in the flat on their last night there by trashing it and being really noisy in the intention of annoying the landlord. That's it, really.

I couldn't finish this film because I got so bored and repulsed watching it, so I don't know how it ends, and frankly I couldn't give a bleeding crap. Practically no script which lacks progression, very deadbeat and pretty poor acting (Shannon Elizabeth was OK) and no entertainment. In fact, you'll get more entertainment by twiddling your thumbs over and over. Yes, it's seriously that bad! The people behind this "film" should receive a life ban on making films.

Don't ever consider watching this, even if you really like Shannon Elizabeth (she only appears briefly in a few scenes, anyway). And that brings me to the fact that she is on the front cover, this is obviously very misleading and deceiving, and that they've done it just to lure people into watching this long load of rubbish. Take absolutely no notice of positive reviews or quotes made about this film to save yourself 100 minutes; even though you'll most probably give up on this film before the end, if you ever pluck up the courage to watch it as a frightful joke (and even then I'm concerned for your sanity).

WORST. MOVIE. EVER.


The concept for the film sounded like an alright nights viewing; two dudes have party and take lots of drugs. But straight from the beginning i knew this was not the case. This film looks as though it was funded by money found on the floor and filmed with a camera found in the bin, but that didn't stop me watching it, i needed to know the point to the film, and by the end did i find one, let me think, no. It does present an image of Hollywood that is not portrayed in many films today, the seedy dirty side where the normal people exist. And its good to see that there are bum stoner's in the land of peroxide and silicone.

The director/actor/writer of the film clearly sees himself as some kind smooth new hotshot, but the fact of the matter is, his acting couldn't be any worse. he walks around mumbling and over acting his lines, trying to act super cool. Oh and Shannon Elizabeth, the tits from American pie, is in it for about as long as it take to say, pointless.

Watch this film at your own risk. Just make sure your not sober and you didn't pay.


Writer-Producer-Director (of only this movie) Michael Tierney, nephew of iconic film noir legends Lawrence Tierney and Scott Brady, and son of their much-lesser-known younger brother Edward Tierney, at attempting to make a purposely-pointless film ended up accidentally making a point: that if you purposely set out to make a film suck, it will.

The, uh, plot centers on two humorless slacker drone cousins, Micro (Michael Tierney) and T (Terence Tierney) who live in a crappy apartment, eat cereal with beer (seen that a hundred times), and take to the streets where they meet a homeless speed-freak (who resembles an extremely poor man's River Phoenix).

The cousins, about to get... yes, EVICTED from their premises, decide to throw a party. But the fun of hating this movie (that occurs while they're cruising around L.A. drinking generic beer, which becomes banally involving) withers when the actual party begins, and for the next (what feels like an eternal) forty-five minutes we cut back and forth to various people who look like they're all buddies of the director as they drink beer, swear, philosophize, swear, drink beer, snort meth like it's cocaine, quote classic films (mostly Apocalypse Now), and swear some more: while drinking beer.

Then Micro takes acid (from a guy who's part of a very confusing and completely pointless B-story involving a briefcase) while fully clothed in a bathtub and has a dream where he's starring in his own presidential campaign commercial: RAPPING in front of an American flag while continuously "flipping the bird". At this point, things get so downright insanely awful it becomes fun-to-hate again... But soon enough the party's over and so is the movie. The stale soundtrack consists of songs by the same (very annoying) band, The Weird, with an assortment of rockabilly-punk-rock jangles, all part of a fictional radio station's lineup (can you say Reservoir Dogs K-BILLY RIPOFF?!).

The only thing that's partially recyclable are scattered scenes with Micro's neighbor played by (the one and only) Lawrence Tierney, a crusty yet likable old codger who tosses such pearls as "Get a job", "Don't do drugs" and "Buy new shoes". Perhaps if the entire movie was about an aimless slacker conversing with a world-weary tough guy played by the toughest actor Hollywood's ever known (and with MUCH better dialog), this would be a cult classic - something Michael Tierney obviously tried hard to seem like he wasn't trying to do.

Oh and Shannon Elizabeth, whose image, and name, is featured on the DVD cover as if she's the main star, is in this movie for about five minutes total. Then again, if she were in it more, would it matter?


Threat is a lousy film. Childish dialogs, amateurish editing and in general a failed movie. That said, it's not a boring flick. I could not find any dramatic line leading to the violent ending, everything seemed to be just pasted, mixing all ingredients without a functional recipe, some of it worked, animation fitted in quite smoothly, in fact I missed more of it, soundtrack is again quite suited to the action. I didn't regret watching it, in all fashion is what this movie is really about, not a line of fashion, but many styles, not only in dressing but also talking and even walking. It tries to present another catalog of urban tribes, but it fails on that too. In general, watch it only if you don't find any other thing to do.


i just finished watching this movie, and i'd have to say that i am disappointed. i was expecting some grand social commentary portrayed through realistic depictions of real-life situations. but i came away with some babble from characters that was really nothing new, and a string of violence seemingly driven by coincidence, stupidity, rage, and hatred. i enjoyed the buildup of the characters, but other than that, i feel the movie did not do anything to depict real situations.

the characters were developed. that i enjoyed. but i did not enjoy the fact that they were portrayed as hopped up, revenge-seeking machines. there is a certain amount of senselessness here, and that is what drive this movie to a moot point. maybe the senselessness is supposed to help the viewer understand the way certain events play out. however, again, this does not strike me as anywhere near realistic.

shocking: yes. revolutionary in any way: no.

but i love the soundtrack. so check that out, at least.


As I recall this film was completed in 1995! I tried to watch it earlier tonight but it's so horrifically dated. Just because people throw the music you like into a movie doesn't mean it's a good movie. Please, apply some critical thinking here people. This is an absurd attempt to cash in by ex-scenesters who are, in all likelihood, now in nursing homes. I really wish that us xedgex kids, as a culture, who instead embrace things that mattered instead of things that pandered to our sometimes limited worldview. Call me crazy but Lebanon getting bombed is more important than your friend getting bombed. Open your eyes and pursue real art, not this drivel! P.S. WOULD IT HAVE KILLED YOU PEOPLE TO LIGHT THIS THING DECENTLY!?


'Threat' contains some of the lamest dialogue I've heard in a while. The acting is generally poor too. I got the distinct impression that the filmmakers thought they were doing something special. What a joke.

The only reason I saw 'Threat' was because I found out Slug (of the hip hop duo Atmosphere) is in it. But I didn't even notice Slug while I was watching it. Had to look closely at the credits and see that he was credited as 'Crusty punk'(!). Then I figured out who he was in the movie, but it doesn't look or sound at all like him. Moreover he was only on screen for all of 10 seconds.

The only positive thing I can say about 'Threat' is that the animation that is interlaced into the movie is not bad, and the editing is sometimes interesting. Despite the "real threat" alluded to above, I'm not entirely pessimistic about the next offering from the production group ('King's Mob').


The director John Mathew Mathan had gone into oblivion after his directorial debut 'Sarfarosh' that came in 1999. Everybody remembers the film simply because it was a fantastic film. As one watched the socio-political thriller unfold, not even once did the audience remind itself that this was a greenhorn director and perhaps if need be, not to be too harsh on him. So after 5 years when he decided to make Shikhar, it's not an exaggeration to say that the same audience expected the film to be if not more, at-last 5 times more powerful and impact making than Sarfarosh! But to make a film like 'Shikhar', seems nothing but a crude joke on the sensitivities and patience of the people. The memory of Sarfarosh is as fresh in the minds of people as it would have been after ten years, in other words, had Mathan taken even an eternity to bring to his loyal audience a quality film, they would have welcomed it with open arms. But Shikharjust seems like an execution in Mathan's worst nightmares! There is nothing redeemable about the film, except Shahid Kapoor who has a reflection of youthful Shahrukh Khan when it comes to projecting honesty, passion and dedication. So when you take portions of 'Swades', 'Bas Itna Sa Khwab Hai' and possibly scrapes of 'Guide' or 'Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman' and churn them together, you would have manufactured Shikhar! Not produced, created or even re-created, purely manufactured! The film has not even an iota of pseudo-realism in its theme, plot, characterization and is exceedingly synthetic. The music is uninspiring, dialogues are sloppy and even the premise of the film seems insincere. Story: Shikhar revolves around the issue related to builders, landlords and their tenants who are being pressurized under the superior people of society. How far can greed take a man? Ajay Devgan portrays the character of 'Gaurav Gupta' (GG), who is highly ambitious builder (not to mention-dresses like an MTV star) who wants Guruji (Jawed Sheikh) to evacuate Rishivan-the orphanage to build a magna city called Golden Gate. This shall have multiplexes, golf course, housing, amusement park etc. Guruji actually is an industrial magnate and believes that wealth means nothing if not utilized for the betterment of the society. He wants his wealth to be utilized for the upliftment for the tribal in the area. In the tug-of-war between GG and Guruji, Jaidev Vardhan (Shahid kapur) a fresh graduate and the only son of Guruji, falls in the trap designed by GG and his girlfriend Natasha (Bipasha Basu). Madhavi (Amrita Rao), who genuinely loves Jaidev observes her love being carried away by the world of wealth, wine and women. Will GG succeed in his vicious plans? Will Jaidev discover the fiend behind the mask of friendship GG wears? Wait for the DVD release to find out, this one is definitely not for tarrying away your time at a theater.


John Matthew Mathan debutted with SARFAROSH(1999) and people clapped and were amazed at how in his first film he did such a good job

Now he returns with SHIKHAR(2005)

We always say a second film is a judgement day for the director and John Matthew fails in it

The main problem is actually the storytelling, direction

The film has a decent plot but it's ruined

Ajay's role takes off well but his plan of making a city looks feeble also the film lacks the intensity because in between suddenly they throw in songs and other commercial ingredients

The comedy by Sushant Singh is poor

The film goes on and on endlessly in the second half and the climax spoils it further

Direction by John Matthew Mathan is bad Music is okay

Amongst actors Ajay does a cakewalk in a negative role but his role could be far more intense, the director wanted it to be on a lighter side mostly and even says he had cast Govinda for it before LOL Shahid too excels in his role especially in the second half Bipasha is okay, Amrita too is okay Javed Sheikh does well Sushant Singh irritates


I agree with last comment. It is formula movie with copy of western songs and dances in the hope of appealing to NRIs who may be nostalgic or those who aspire to be an NRI. This is obvious when Devgan talks in terms of $ instead of Rs to explain the exchange rate.

Every one seems to be overacting and insincere. Devgan is not only a builder but suddenly he is shown to be expert in every business so that he can send Kapoor to Thailand instead of Singapore for horticultural research. Thailand is shown to be a technologically advanced while India is still so backward.

You may watch it if you have nothing better to do.


In Los Angeles, a meteor bringing some sort of disease falls on a group of homeless and turns them into flesh eater zombies. Meanwhile, two rival gangs are dealing drugs with an intermediary in an old warehouse without knowing that there is a stakeout of the LAPD of the whole operation. When the policemen are ready to arrest the criminals, they are attacked by the hunger zombies in the beginning of a nightmarish night.

"Last Rites" is an awfully bad zombie movie. There is no originality in the story that is violent and never funny. In addition, no character is likable or charismatic; actually most of them are despicable. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Cidade dos Mortos" ("City of the Dead")


In a nut shell, Latino and black gangsters hole-up in a warehouse while homeless Zombies rage outside.

Too many gangster clichés, not enough Zombie action. Long, loud and repetitive periods of testosterone posturing coulda been spiced up by a few unique characters. I won't spoil it, but there was one potentially cool twist that came too late and fell flat when it was finally revealed.

This movie could have said something about Los Angeles, said something about about racism, or at least delivered some scares. It missed on all 3 counts. It's too bad, because a few of the performers brought more to their characters than the script gave them to work with.


Hi there. This is going to be one of my shortest reviews ever. Normally, I like to go into the plot, acting, direction of even the worst movies. However in this ones case I'll make an exception. You see, this film while being known as Last Rites in the USA is called 48 Weeks Later in the UK. There are lots of great quotes on the packaging like "DAWN OF THE DEAD EAT YOUR HEART OUT" and "THE BUMS ARE EATING THE COPS" (??) but these have little or nothing to do with what is contained within. Yes folks, if you buy this trash then you have been well and truly stitched up, as the only way it resembles Danny Boyle's original and its sequel is the final two words of the title. That's it. Thankfully I only borrowed it from a friend, I didn't make the mistake of wasting money on this rip-off.

There are hardly any zombies, no decent head explosions and most definitely no flesh eating viruses. No, what this you see is a modern blaxploitation film, and a pretty rubbish one at that. So, if you want to spend 90 minutes watching black actors running around a badly lit warehouse, shooting blanks at each other while talking like illegitimate sons of Shaft, be my guest. You'll also be giving the film company licence to mislabel any product in the future in the hope that they'll make an easy buck out of gullible saps like you. What next... Predator as a romantic comedy? Titanic as a ship navigational guide? Gigli as an Oscar winning masterpiece? Remember, it may be your money you're wasting, but it could have devastating implications for all of us. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

In the meantime, this waste of a perfectly good disc gets a 1/10 and a one way ticket to ebay. Starting bid: 1p. Hope my mate can find a gullible sap to take it off his hands. Oh, aren't I a hypocrite...


I saw movie called 48 weeks later, why have I never heard of this movie before?, So picked up thinking it was a sequel to 28 Days later and it even says on the DVD what happens after 28 days later which is a massive lie. As this movie is also called Gangs of the dead and like it says above Last Rites, if i knew that was same movie, I would never have picked up (What the hell did it give a different name in the UK.)I can believe i have wasted a hour and half of life on this pieces of rubbish that is called a horror movie.

The plot A meteor hit a place and then two gangs come to the same place and go to warn and then the people who should have died are backing attacking the humans.

The zombies are not scary at all and the make up effect are really bad and have zombie have no idea how act like a zombie and the acting from whole cast was horrendous. Some of gory stuff in this movie looked so fake.

Please avoid this movie.


What happens to a Hispanic gang and a Black gang when a meteorite causes the dead to rise? They don't exactly band together, and instead just yell at each other a lot. Oh, and Reggie Bannister shows up.

A better film than "Zombiez" and "Dead Heist," "Gangs of the Dead" is still a rather pedestrian urban horror flick that thinks racial stereotypes and bad dialog are better than actually giving the viewer anything good as far as horror is concerned.

Granted, the occasional action scene and gory moment tends to put this above the previously mentioned films, and Reggie Bannister shows up at one point (though his role is essentially an extended cameo) However, the whole thing isn't that different from other Direct to DVD zombie flicks that can be found at movie rentals. It also doesn't help that the majority of the characters are essentially uninteresting and unlikable (even though the actors for the most part are actually better than expected), and when they die, you don't feel anything other than indifference. The apocalyptic finale actually leaves things open for a sequel, but so far, nothing has come up. Maybe that's a good thing.

It's kind of a shame really, because while watching it, I couldn't help but feel that with a better script and director, this could have been an enjoyable little zombie flick, and that the Urban Horror genre could finally have had a good recent zombie effort. As it stands, "Gangs of the Dead" is pretty much just the same old song and dance you've seen before, and done better by other movies as well.


A stake-out drug sting operation is thwarted when the cops are interrupted by undead zombie bums whose condition derived from fallen meteorites carrying a type of infection. Two different gangs, a Latino group led by the unscrupulous thug, Caesar(Noel Gugliemi)and a black group led by tough-talking Mac T(Ethan Ednee)are meeting their drug supplier, Mitchell(Reggie Bannister, in a glorified cameo)whose home is within a massive warehouse. One among this group is a narc for the DEA, led by Campbell(James C Burns)and partner O'Bannon(Stephen Basilone)who bust in unannounced, causing quite the awkward situation as zombies run amok outside eating cops or anyone with the misfortune of being in the general area. Weatherman(Cazimir Milostan)is a television personality whose wife is pulled from his convertible by the zombie bums as he looks on in horror, abandoning his vehicle, intruding upon Mitch's warehouse as well, put to good use by Caesar when attempting, unsuccessfully, to retrieve his vehicle. Trying to ban everyone together, Campbell faces a tough task as these groups hate one another but must put aside their differences because of the greater threat. Soon, however, Caesar takes advantage(when Campbell saves him from being swarmed by zombies, risking his own life in the process)of an opportunity presented to him, and takes control of the group using his hand gun as a tool to do so. His tyranny will only last so long because his brother, Spider(Danny Martinez), has been bitten and is slowly succumbing to the zombie plague sweeping across the city. Despite being bound to a chair, developing circumstances will lead to his release causing an escalating series of events which will leave few people standing.

As expected, the Latino and ghetto stereotypes are present as is their colorful language and dangerous attitude. The film maintains a relatively volatile atmosphere as Caesar is your usual bullying antagonist, pointing his gun in people's faces, ordering them around to do his bidding. You know that with him in charge, the situation will only get worse because if the group doesn't work as a cohesive unit, tempers will flare and violence is certain to occur. Weatherman is the rich suburbanite who weakens psychologically, downing discovered booze, his behavior a mix of fear, paranoia and sadness. The zombies themselves have your typical facial discolor and drooling mouths, rampaging on fresh victims en mass. Rarely do you see visible flesh-ripping or cannibalism because the zombies form in massive packs hovering over their victims as we listen to the screams. The fate of Caesar is certain to earn a round of applause from the audience who watches a film like this..he is quite a despicable low-life who obviously gets his jollies from wielding his power with a revolver in his hand as those is fear for their lives do as he says. The most memorable death sequence comes at the end when a face is ripped apart from the mouth. I believe few will care for any of these characters and root for the zombies to tear them limb for limb. Despite the use of firearms and 2X4's, the violence towards the zombies is quite tame..lack of budget, I guess.


I love Zombie films, shame no one seems to know how to make them anymore

Black and Hispanic gangs go bang, bang, with a penis replacement and use words like hoe and other stereo typical so called black gangster related sayings and while they try, listening people? I said TRY to act,like gangsters, they just turn this into what looks like a low budget zombie? film, or is it a home movie made by a 10 year old using a single 1/8" CCD home video camera? Not sure hard to tell really.

The coloring was so drained it was almost monochrome most of the time. It's only when I saw so many credits at the end I realised the 10 year old directing the film must have a lot of friends, who also must have seen the Australian film called Undead which used similar opening well sort of, but was one heck of a lot better, in fact it was good.

Or did adults make this mess, I don't know, on the credits it looks like they had a large film crew, which makes me wonder how the hell this turned out to be such a load of pooh, 0/10 try again no gold stars for you. Films are Built on story lines people not just crappy acting and a few visual effects.


I'm not here to discuss plot or lack of it. I'm not here to discuss acting or lack of it. I'm here to say just a few things. This movie was so terrible. It was truly one of the most, if not the most, awful wastes of time I have ever had the displeasure of viewing.

I'm all about cult flicks that may or may not intend to be scary but have some value due to unintentional comedic timing or they may just be a good b horror flick. This movie was neither. THIS particular piece of crap was washed up skinemax players trying to act. This movie is beyond horrible and will never get to cult status.

I made an IMDb account JUST TO WARN PEOPLE on how crappy a film this is. Listen to me or not your choice but don't say I didn't warn you.


This movie is not just poor it is down right rubbish! At no time does the movie have you gripped with suspense or even bothered about what happens next to the characters, it's just not entertaining! On the cover of the DVD people are quoted as saying 'unmissable'! what are these people on! What makes this movie so disappointing is the fact that the storyline is a good one. Perhaps in the hands of someone else the outcome could off been different. A few of the actors in the production give good performances but these tend to be killed off early, for example the senior cop what a waste having him eaten at such an early stage! There is no reason to go into a major review of this film as it is utter rubbish, save yourself some dollars and re-watch your copy of Dawn Of the Dead for the 50th time at least you will enjoy it!


Why in the world would anyone want to watch a remake of Dawn of the Dead, when you can watch the original? Not only is this a bad remake with Black and Latino gang members in Los Angeles locked in a warehouse to escape the zombies, it is racist to boot.

It has been a while since I have see Mantan Moreland yelling "Feets don't fail me now," but I certainly expected it to come out of the mouth of Dayana Jamine, who played the sister of one of the Black gang members like Moreland.

Noel Gugliemi played Caesar, the leader of the Latin gang in a obnoxious stereotype of all ultra macho Hispanic. It was pure racism.

The zombie action was good when you saw it, but that was sparse as most of the action took place in the warehouse.

Janine Foster was the best character in the movie, and I look for more of her in the future.

Neat ending, though.


Not a true spoiler but does describe a scene late in the film.

I registered for this service simply to express my amazement that films like this can find financing. The plot is clichéd and ridiculous (a cop with a murdered wife and new partner, battling a vigilante?), there are numerous repetitive scenes, the characters are unsubtly written and generally highly unbelievable, and to top it off there is a clumsily-delivered religious message. Poor Mimi Rogers.

Are we expected to believe the scene in the parking garage with the vigilante scuffling down the side? The escape is so unlikely but that is conveniently ignored because the plot requires the vigilante to get away.

Last, it is difficult to imagine anyone unironically enjoying the song "Goodnight Erin" that plays through the credits. Utterly uncomfortable to watch/listen to. For friends of the film-maker only.


I suppose if you were 12 years old and lived in a lighthouse on a small island, you might be as naive as Mark Lester's character, "Ziggy," in this film. I suspect, though, that "not very smart" would need to be added, and I wonder if the correspondence to the comic strip character of the same name is more than coincidental. Everybody in this movie is a stereotype, but most irritating was Mark Lester himself who, after doing such a fine job in "Oliver!," here only gets to run around looking perpetually frightened out of his wits. I don't know for whom exactly this one was intended, but if you're not totally impressed by loud motorcycles with bad mufflers, I'd give it a miss.


Even thirty odd years ago when I first saw it. I tried and tried, but 'What's the bleeding time?' wasn't funny to an adolescent in the 60s, and the script hasn't improved with age. I even read the 'Doctor' books to see what it was all about, and they left me cold too. Having said that though, it usually gets a look-see whenever it appears on the box (this afternoon for example), just for the quality of the cast and a look at the fifties; and to remind myself of the crush I had on Muriel Pavlow.

It really isn't a relevant film any more, other than as a historical document of Britain as it was and of some of the finest British actors of the period.

It will be on TV again in a few months I suspect, and I also expect that I'll catch a few minutes of it then, if I can. 4/10.


Spending last night drafting my review of "Lord Of War" (only watched it the night before) and not really getting anywhere, I was distracted by the BBC who occasionally broadcast films that I have never heard of but still persuade me to watch. Sometimes, this can backfire as anyone who watched "The Ghost" will tell you but given that this film had several actors of note, I figured I'd forget about Nicolas Cage (momentarily) and instead focus on this strange mix of supernatural mystery and courtroom drama.

Sienna Guillory plays Julie, a young au pair working in Italy and still traumatised by the death of her mother in a fire when she was 15. Despite this, she works for a middle-aged couple (Derek de Lint and Alice Krige) looking after their infant child but before long, tragedy strikes when the baby is also killed in a fire. Accused of murder, Julie finds herself defended by Antonio Gabrieli (Mark Strong) but soon, it looks like there are far darker motives at heart than petty jealousy.

Despite being described as a "supernatural thriller" by the BBC, this was about as thrilling as watching grass grow. It never really got going and even though the impressive cast do well with a patchy script, you never really believe it because it's clearly bunkum. Take the actors - with the exception of Ms Guillory, every other character is supposed to be Italian but there is no way you'd know that watching it. The most European actor on set is Charlotte Rampling as a strange psychotherapist-slash-nun (some mistake, surely) who gets involved in the case. One other thing I really didn't like was the fact that the script obviously favoured the supernatural approach over a straight-forward murder - close-up shots of ravens, fog floating on the surface of a lake and other stereotypical images gave the game away pretty quickly. Nothing wrong with being "alternative" but at no point was the murder explained beyond some seriously dodgy nonsense about poltergeists and psychic powers. I've seen episodes of "The X Files" that were more of a "supernatural thriller" than this.

Unfortunately the film is filled with a strong cast, most of whom actually perform very well. Guillory is impressive as the tortured teenager and so is Strong, who I've only ever seen in one-off TV dramas on ITV (which is not normally a ringing endorsement of one's acting credentials). Both have adequate support from Francis Barber and a cameo from David Warner but given that everyone is supposed to be Italian, what's the point of these fine British actors being there? In fact, why set it in Italy at all - the film would work just as fine if it were set in Britain. It's symptomatic of a film that has plenty of ideas and heavyweight actors but little cohesion, imagination or enthusiasm. Personally, I'd rather watch something like "The Craft" or something with a bit of life in it. But I'm afraid "Superstition" hasn't much going for it. I knew there was a reason I'd never heard of it...


I really don't like with the woman whom is the main character in this film. Usually we like the female main character, but I really think that she is stupid, and very suck. She can't do anything without his lawyer help, and she's acting like crazy people.

This movie is not really good, because: 1. The scenario is weakness. 2. There is to much flash back which make me bored and confused. 3. One part and the other part sometime doesn't have clear relationship. 4. The ending is not finished yet, which make me hate this film. 5. Fool female main character which people usually don't like because too weak. 6. Very stupid create film about fire if even the main character problem is not known well.


I was hoping the story would have an exciting, real plot. "A man murders people during his sleep". "Someone murders people while another man sleeps and makes him believe he did it". I even agreed on buying hard-to-believe situations or coincidences, such as "he's a suspected runaway murderer BUT his house isn't even looked after by a cop". But what comes at the end of this film will really make you regret you stepped into this. At least, if what comes during the whole film doesn't, already, make you want to walk out the theater, or turn the T.V. off. Nonsensical event after nonsensical event, the director expects to raise some interest in the spectator with a bunch of dead fish, some "nightshot" camcorder pictures painted red, or the lame acting of all the actors (who, by the way, aren't even nice to look at). If it's too late and you have already bought the seats, or rented the videotape, well, you might as well watch it. But you'll be warned: the effort of going through this clearly stupid and ugly movie will not be rewarded at the end, it will be punished because watching it is VAIN and painful (for any serious film aficionado, that is).


This movie has a bunch of bad actors and the plot have a bunch of holes. The end is pathetic and people where laughing in their seats during the movie. It has some scary moments but in the end it doesn´t mesure up to a total for a good "scary-movie".


With a solid plot basis (William Gibson short story), two excellent actors (Christopher Walken, Willem Dafoe) and an interesting director (Abel Ferrara) this movie could have well turned out to be a real hidden gem. Dario Argento's daughter posing as the female lead doesn't have any other qualification for her role than an Italian accent and a nice body -- no screen presence, no femme fatale charisma, no "edge" -- and the budget has obviously been someone's lunch money for a week, but those things alone would not have done too much damage. However, there are some bigger issues with this film.

In the beginning of the movie there's way too much singing in the bars, and it's all bad. I've been to karaoke bars where the performers have been significantly more talented. All of them. No kidding. And near the end the movie falls apart, mainly thanks to way too many flashbacks -- they are not of just one or two key scenes, but of umpteen, in a peculiar "here's the movie again in case you missed it" fashion. They are annoying as such, and as a result you probably lose your focus and, consequently, your grasp of the plot. What you end up having instead of a real movie is a 90 minutes long artsy collection of insubstantial sleazy moving pictures with nudity.

In short, the first half of the movie does not get your hopes up too high, yet the latter half is disappointing. Kind of an achievement, I suppose. For better or worse, Walken's cool charisma and Argento's numerous nude scenes may still keep you awake through the whole thing. 4/10


The film never creates the tense, doom-laden atmosphere of William Gibson's short story about corporate espionage in a grim near-future setting, leaving the viewer to spend a numbing hour and half with unheroic and uninteresting characters doing not much of anything. The original story had little in the way of plot as well. It did, however, have a great overlying menace, set in a world where cutthroat corporate Gestapos kill to protect the technology they control. Here you only get a vague hint of that for the first ten minutes, at which point the film settles into a slice-of-lowlife study of its downbeat characters and loses all forward momentum. Watch DEMONLOVER instead for a similar story done right.


Everytime I'd tire of this boring junk and reach for the eject button Dario's daughter would start to peel it off again. So I'd leave it on and give it another ten minutes. I'd reach for the eject button again and off came the clothes. I feel that this film was perfectly timed and for that reason alone I watched the entire thing. I can understand actors (Willem Dafoe/Christopher Walken) accepting a bad role on occasion but the fact that they were involved in the production is beyond belief. The films conclusion couldn't have been more obvious and expected even after being distracted from any possible merit pertaining to script ect by the nudity which in a perverse way made the entire thing worthwhile. I've known a few people in the past who have disfigured themselves with sewing needles and indian ink and more often than not,after inhaling model glue. The dialog in this film worked on two levels... bad and worse. All in all I'd consider this film somewhat of a classic on par with Waterworld.


Corporate raiders use any trick conceivable to lure a genius into their fold...oh, and to win.

This was a rambling and unfocused tale with some mildly interesting plot elements, which suffer completely convoluted execution. Other than some nice camera angles and lighting details, there is nothing at all to redeem this work.

Not even Christopher Walken's wonderful performance could save this flop. Willem Dafoe comes close, but no cigar. I suppose it may be worth watching for their performances, but you surely have to be a connoisseur to derive a moment's pleasure, even from that. OH, they're good, don't get me wrong, but the screenplay is horrid. Simply horrid.

All in all? Don't bother.

It rates a 0.7/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Truly dreadful, slow, boring. Couldn't care less about the characters or the (nonexistent) plot. You must have read the Gibson short story to have any clue what your emotions should be.

Zero special effects, zero character development, zero cinematography, zero interesting anything (well, nude Asia Argento was okay). And the last act simply rehashes the dreck you've already experienced.

This thing looks like a film made by a 14 year old on his Mac. It makes Johnny Mnenonic look like Lawrence of Arabia. How *did* this "movie" get made?

At least there was one laugh: the shaky image projected onto a palm pilot, trying to make it look like some future device. Was that really supposed to be believable? Sheesh.

Stay away.


What a waste of film stock. Overly atmospheric. Dafoe and Walken mailed their performances in. Argento couldn't find a stamp. The dialogue seemed like improvisation, which I hope it was, because nobody should have been paid for it. Even the possible saving grace of sex and nude scenes were uninspired.


Though the acting was ok...I'm tired of seeing big name actors on the cover of B-movie video boxes(was this made for video or was it released in Japan?)...did they just need a payday? Not as bad as LAPD with Dennis Hopper but I still gave it a 1. I apologize to everyone who believes that this style of movie-making is art!


first off, I'd like to say that one of my favorite movies of all time is Abel Ferrara's _The Addiction_. I also loved _Bad Lieutenant_, and I'm a fan of William Gibson's writing. So, needless to say, I had high hopes for this film. The best excuse that I can make for this complete waste of time is that it was obviously low budget, since there are only about 50 minutes of unique footage, with the other 42 minutes being flashbacks of previous scenes (exaggeration? yes, but not by much.) So, without really analyzing the film (which I wouldn't do before I read the original 13 page William Gibson story, which incidentally has NO dialogue), I'd just like to cast my vote for using your 92 minutes wisely and viewing some of Ferrara's better films instead of this one. Or, go see some of Asia Argento's dad's films. You'll be happy you did.


Oh, this is such a bad movie! Not even the formidable acting talents of Walken & Dafoe can save this film. I've really enjoyed Abel Ferrara films in the past (especially Bad Lieutenant (1992) and King of New York (1990)) but this film just does not work. The film is both convoluted and boring, a lethal combination.


I don't know why Gibson's work does not translate well to the screen, but this is another example of a bad medium translation. In the short story, there is tension through the entire work. The film seems to center on the voyeuristic side of the sex scenes being played out on screen. These scenes have little or nothing to do with the plot. The main characters wasted their considerable talent in this very forgettable movie.


I have often imagined how the film of William Gibson's brilliant cyberpunk short story of corporate espionage and betrayal could be made. I pictured how I would do it in my head, but I didn't know if there was enough substance in the story for a complete two hour movie. After several directors tried and failed to get the film financed, Abel Ferrara was finally the one to make it. He succeeds in developing the gloss and style necessary to create the atmosphere of debauchery and intrigue at the heart of the short story, but style is skin deep and becomes a very weak means to an end. Once the movie moves out of the whorehouse and into the plot, it disappears into a morass of visual stylistics and a wasted half-hour of reiterated images that have no meaning and no impact. For a similar treatment of film-making, a viewer could avail themselves of Dennis Hopper's dreadful 'The Last Movie'.

I will give Mr. Ferrara credit where it is due with his film - he creates a very evocative and sensual Tokyo underworld, and gets a strong performance from Christopher Walken as Fox, the head of a syndicate that is going to seduce and snatch the world's top genetic biologist from one mega-corporation to work for another. The exposition, which is long and luxurious, also brings in the tool for the seduction - a young Italian harlot named Sandii (Asia Argento), whose pouty lips, sensuously unkempt hair and beautiful body will be the tool to lure the scientist from his 'ball-busting' wife and displeasure with his current position. She is trained well - the scientist Hiroshi is protected by his employer and it will take extra skills to earn his defection. Everybody will earn big bucks to bring this brain over. Walken effortlessly explains the plot and invites the girl in, although she has been sleeping with his associate X (Willem Dafoe). Dafoe is in on the deal, but is also falling in love with Sandii, even though he knows she is prone to lying about almost everything.

From the point their plot starts to go into action (about the 40-minute mark) Ferrara's instincts go all wrong. Rather than following Sandii into the heart of the seduction, we are kept at a distance - the information about their success/failure is relayed through an exasperating series of off-kilter video images which worked in the whorehouse environment but do not work here, flashing back to Fox strutting around crowing and $100,000,000 being put into their account for the success of their mission. But then, without adding excessive spoilers, there is a terrible betrayal, everything goes wrong, and they wind up on the lam, with X hiding out at the New Rose Hotel. He crawls into his tiny concrete berth in this Tokyo hotel at around the 60 minute mark in the movie and does not leave. At this point the short story ends with a perfunctory sentence or two, but here Ferrara's narrative goes all awry. He expendes another half hour explaining the roots of the betrayal for those daft enough not to understand it the first time. There's nothing like taking a 60-minute movie and then turning it into a 90-minute movie by replaying clips from the first 60 minutes for half an hour. There were so many fade-outs during this time that at least 4 times I expected to start seeing credits, only to drop my jaw as we get another scene of Dafoe in bed with Argento. It was flabbergastingly bad film-making of the sort expected from subsidized European productions, and Dafoe was simply not up to emoting X's desperation, fear and hopeless longing.

Ferrara's stylistics at the beginning of the film lead one to expect something much better, but his narrative sense fails him completely. I give it three out of ten - pluses for eroticism and bare bones atmosphere, a zero for anything past the 50-minute mark.


I have never read Gibson's original story. I can only hope, for his sake, that it was better than this piece of crap. This film amounted to a real life Bowfinger. I began to think part way through the film that the reason that they showed the famous Japanese actor only on video in the movie was because he was unaware he was being filmed. Walkens performance reminded me of a drunken man. The credits at the end of the film included a reference to Beck's beer. Clearly this may explain Walken's condition. He gave the kind of hackneyed over the top performance that I have to come to expect from once fine actors such as Al Pacino(please reference Devil's Advocate or Any Given Sunday). At least I understand Dafoe's motivation for doing the film. Please reference nude love scenes with Asia Argento. Miss Argento clearly became disgusted with the film and fled back to Italy halfway through the picture. This left the director with no option but to bore us nearly to death with an extended replay of those scenes they had already coaxed from the naive but now wiser Miss Argento. She obviously realized that she needed to try and save her career before finishing this celluloid debacle, but little realized they would attempt to finish it without her. This was possibly the biggest waste of 99 cents that I can imagine. No, I'm not talking about what I paid to rent this loser, but rather what they obviously spent to make it. They used the same 10 minutes of footage of that one round building about 11 times in this film. We had the same sunset at least 3 times. And then they reused Miss Argento's footage 15 or 20 times at the end(not that that is necessarily an altogether bad thing)I began to think that they really only shot like 8 scenes for this movie then edited them together repeatedly. Perhaps they just picked up the scraps off the cutting room floor from some other film and edited them together with Walkens incessant and annoying diatribe. Please, Please whatever you do don't rent this film. The suicide rate in this country is already too high. Remember, you have been warned!


Robert McKimson's 'A Peck O' Trouble' is a second attempt to break in the character of Dodsworth, a fat, lazy cat who debuted in McKimson's frankly dreadful 'Kiddin' the Kitten' (a cartoon every bit as terrible as its title). Dodsworth is clearly not fit for stardom, his comedy being based on an uneasy mix of slow-paced verbal gags and slapstick with the emphasis on the former. To make matters worse, McKimson resurrects the boss-eyed kitten from the previous cartoon as well. This pale, freakish little character has no appealing characteristics whatsoever. Perhaps the assumption that something could be made of Dodsworth is understandable (given the right script, which he never got, Dodsworth might have been a very effective character) but the return of this utterly repulsive sidekick is totally mystifying. 'A Peck O' Trouble' proves to be no more effective than 'Kiddin' the Kitten' and is ultimately perhaps a little worse. Thank god Dodsworth was abandoned at this stage, allowing McKimson to concentrate on the similar but vastly superior Foghorn Leghorn series.


I had high hopes for Kakashi. Much to my disappointment Kakashi failed to be scary. But it did succeed in being a bit boring. The director tries very hard to create a feeling of suspense but is unable to follow through. The movie does have several moments where the suspense potential is very high but the director seems to feel the need to rush through it. As far as the acting goes I thought that Maho Nonami & Kou Shibasaki did very well considering what they had to work with story wise. The music was good and much creepier then the story. The storyline also left me with more questions at the end of the movie. I just feel that more should have been explained. I hope that the comic was better written then the movie.


The thought of dead people being brought back to life through scarecrows really doesn't scare me at all. I watched this film in it's original form in Japanese and basically worked not to fall asleep.

The movie is predictable, boring and the premise is just comical. At times, I was thinking "why don't these people just carry some lighter fluid and a match." Here's the premise-this village of people bring dead people back to life through these stupid scarecrows. Of course, there's a bad apple-some freaky child ala Samara in the The Ring who was brought back or something like that. That screws everything up. This lady is looking for her long lost brother who ended up in this village. She finds him, escapes and of course at the end stays in the village.

When the scarecrows are chasing people, it's hard not to laugh. In short, the movie just sucked....bad. Add Jackie Chan and a flame thrower and you have a movie. The only scary part is the tunnel that you have to cross through to get to the village. Watch that over and over about 200 times and you may have a full length movie.


It's a story about villagers bring back the souls of their love ones who passed away into scarecrow bodies. It's based on the horror manga story of Junji Ito. This is the 4th horror movie I watched based on Junji Ito's horror stories. Don't know if it's made by the same director... maybe not, but they seem to mess up every story and make them boring (long time till get to the point, fail to create the horror atmosphere). I was prepared to enjoy the movie when I first got my hands on it. But instead I was bored to anger. The only thing I haven't done is to get the cursing out of my mouth, which it would be pretty meaningless for cursing at the screen.

Sums up: it's a movie to waste time and money.


Tsuruta Norio's "Kakashi" caught my attention because of the obscure mental association I made with the "Kakashi-Dori" festival held annually in the Kaminoyama-shi city in Yamagata-ken prefecture. I wonder if Tsuruta had this in mind when he made this film. If he releases a sequel called "Kase-Dori"... well, never mind. Besides being rather short and less-than-satisfying in its plot resolution, my primary complaint about this film is the horrid transfer on the Region 3 DVD which is quite good for the daylight scenes, but irritatingly pixelated during the low-light and night shots. And being a low-budget horror flick, this turkey has a lot of shadowy and nocturnal footage which I had a hard time following because my attention was constantly being diverted to the ever-changing patches of pixels fading in and out. Yuck. As for the movie, Yoshikawa Kaoru (Nonami Maho)is searching for her brother Tsuyoshi (Matsuoka Shunsuke), who has disappeared. A search of his apartment turns up an ambiguous and messily-scrawled letter from a girl in Kozukata-machi, a small rural village. Kaoru drives to Kozukata on the eve of their "Kakashi-matsuri" festival, where she finds the cliche "little town with a secret", along with her brother. Unless there is a longer version of the film out there, the character development is as thin as both the plot and the special effects budget. Perhaps the movie's budget was blown on bringing in HK actress Grace Ip to play the very out of place Kozukata resident who barely speaks any Japanese. She even has a Chinese surname in the movie, which does little to explain why she's there in the middle of the rural Japanese heartland. Shibasaki Kou (who reminds me of a short Esumi Makiko) plays the mysterious girl who lured Tsuyoshi to Kozukata, and does a decent job with the sparse camera time she gets. The one thing that impressed me about this movie was the excellent lighting and cinematography of the daylight scenes depicting the beauty of a small rural farming village. Other than that, let the renter beware and the buyer be laughed at.