LAW and ORDER, SVU. Olivia and Elliot are loudmouthed, over emotional, driven by emotion and ego, and should never have been allowed to be on the force. To laugh at Olivia and say that she is kind of "passionate" is saying that police persons are supposed to do their job based on circumstantial evidence, emotion, and ego. I can't believe the amount of lame lies that most of the detectives come up with on this show. The amount of abuse of power, lying and accusing innocent people who happen to know the actual criminal, using any trick or lie imaginable to trick someone into confessing. The fact remains that even the police psychiatrists call most police reports "the most elaborative works of fiction there are" and the amount of people who are convicted based on those reports is unconscionable. There used to be a saying about "innocent until proved guilty" that is supposed to be their attitude. Instead they should say "convicted unless proved innocent" because that seems to be the attitude of the police. The fact that they are trying to "make a case" out of nothing is the reason that DNA evidence has proved thousands of people innocent that have already been tried and convicted in the press and therefor in the court. After all, the idea that somehow convicting innocent people makes up for the ones who are guilty and weren't arrested is ignorant, but that seems to be the attitude of the police shows like this and in the minds of the average public, since shows like this teach them to be ignorant of the law. Innocence hasn't become more guarded since we have already found the court system to be consistently wrong by a steady percentage. For instance, how many people believe that O.J. Simpson murdered his wife years ago? He proved to the nation that in the United States one gets as much justice as they pay afford. Poor people or I should say anyone who can't afford large legal fees are going to jail unless a technicality happens. People, especially the police, complain that the criminals are released on technicalities. If the police did their jobs and didn't convict whoever was available at the time for trumped up charges, then, they wouldn't need technicalities of law. I hear the average conservative accuse the American Civil Liberties Union of being sympathizers with criminals, communists, etc. It would be fairer to criticize the police for being enemies of the constitutional law. "If they can get away with it" is not supposed to be jurisprudence. That is what criminals are accused of. The "ends justifies the means" ideology is what the bad guys are supposed to be rationalizing to themselves. When the police have to make up a crime in order to convict someone who they "believe" guilty of a different crime, and the judge and prosecutor let that happen, then, our system is corrupt. There wouldn't have to be rules to protect the innocent if the ability to go power mad and abuse the authority given them didn't happen on a regular basis. Anyone in the court system admits the idea of having a lawyer appointed to one's self by the court has been proved to be a joke since most people in the public defenders offices are overbooked and they merely make a pretense of actually giving the defendant a defense. Some of the police actually try to ignore of forget to read a suspect their rights from the card they are required to carry in their pocket and read to them. That card is called the Miranda/Escobedo warning. Most people don't realize that law came about from innocent people who were in prison who weren't read their rights, who weren't given proper jurisprudence and who, from a prison cell, changed our law and for instance, Ernesto Arturo Miranda, who was what is known as a "jail house lawyer", an inmate who goes to the law library and reads his actual rights, filed writs against the court and won. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Because of the police not arresting him using proper procedure, he not only changed the law, he was released from prison for several felony counts. He admitted to things under duress and was never allowed an attorney before questioning, the same way you hear the police on "Law and Order" act like they are angry when a suspect "lawyers up" and act as if it is a bad or wrong thing. That prevents the police from otherwise extracting evidence under illegal means. The thing that most police organizations don't want you to know is, that the inmates who do research the actual law in their case end up going free as the court system can't prove the guilt of that inmate without legal improprieties that get swept under the rug during their day in court at the whims of a judge or in the case of the police illegally arresting or questioning someone. Could it possibly be that hard to follow the law of the same court they are an officer of?


Can somebody who liked the movie please explain: - Okay so the military drops at least 2 smart bombs when they open one of the silo holes.... but at the end of the movie Dolph and Montel crawl out to greet the press and no visible damage??? - The bad guy is seconds from having his goal of blowing up Washington but for some unknown reason he uncuffs himself from the code suitcase and falls to his death.... thus allowing Dolph time to run to the lab and stop the bomb from exploding... gave me a headache trying to make sense of that - Dolph and one of the bad guys are fighting under one of the missiles when it launches and sprays them with superheated fiery compressed flaming exhaust ..... but Dolph picks himself up and fights on - the bad guy demands the poor President (that guy from Jaws)shoot himself on national TV in the graveyard.... but the gun on the headstone is full of blanks... so why not have a secret service guy bump off the President if it would save the country??? - I guess a nuclear bomb exploding in South Dakota was no big deal... just a warning... nothing real important - the rooftop car chase was interesting - at least have Dolph take his shirt off and show us his body


First of all, the Tokyo Babylon manga is one of the most amazing things I have ever read. The characters were deep, sympathetic, and non-clichéd, and the story lines were very original. Congratulations to the ladies in CLAMP for creating such a beautiful story.

That said, what on earth was this? Both of the Tokyo Babylon movies were more like bonus features - "Okay, you read the manga, here's some other cool adventures they got up to!" Which is a nice thought, but it really has no purpose. You cannot condense a series like this into a couple of movies - they tried it with X and it didn't work, they tried it with TB and it worked even less. There was none of the depth, none of the message, none of the character development - it turned into just another comic book, a collector's item.

It was also rather irritating (TOUCHY SUBJECT ALERT) that half of the plot was ignored. Let's face it, folks, Tokyo Babylon is, in large part, a homosexual love story, learn to live with it. In the first TB movie, it seemed that Sakurazuka Seishiro's romantic advances were targeted more towards Sumeragi Hokuto than Sumeragi Subaru, and in this one, they were almost completely absent. Without this major part of the story, Seishiro is worthless - he becomes another clichéd villain.

The animation was very pretty (as it always is in shojo) and the voicing couldn't have been better. Like I said before, it was a nice thought, but it simply isn't worth the trouble. 3/10.


My original review was mean. Yeah, this show is stupid. The farm animals do stuff when the farmer isn't looking. If you want something that might make you smile, watch the movie. The show has is moments. It has progressed with humor, but still cliché. Personally, I don't like the show or the movie much, but this is something you can watch if there really is "nothing on". Nothing special, that's why it doesn't play much. This isn't a show trying to be nominated for an Oscar, so just sit back and watch. Let loose and enjoy yourself. If you laughed, admit it. Just because the majority of the show may not make you laugh, don't be so negative. Think positve. If you laugh, at least say you did.


There are 8 letters to describe this show, H.O.R.R.I.B.L.E. It is not at all funny, and is just stupid. It seems like farm animals and 8 year olds made up this show, because it's really stupid and terrible. It's about animals on a farm that like to party and goof off when the farmer isn't around. Not a good concept, which is why I think an 8 year old is the director. I never, ever laugh at this show, unless I'm laughing for not good reasons because the show is so stupid and boring. You do not want to watch this show, trust me, unless you are stuck with one channel on your TV and this is what's on, and even then I'd just find something to do by myself.

1/10


I have an 8 yr old son whose TV viewing I monitor closely. I had never seen the movie version of "Back at the Barnyard", but having grown up on a Dairy Farm in WI, I thought the premise was cute and could see no harm in watching an episode with him, figuring it would be fine for him to watch.

I agree that the subject matter tends to be fine and the cartoon is harmless for him to watch, but I can't get past the fact that Otis has a male voice and female parts!!!!! Does nobody realize or care that steers &/or bulls (boys) DO NOT have udders?!!!!!! Cows (girls) have udders.

I realize that as a cartoon for kids this doesn't matter much, but it just irks me that we have become such a lazy viewing audience that we don't hold the creators of this cartoon to a little higher standards. Are we teaching our kids to be sloppy by not requiring minor things like the difference between boys and girls to be portrayed correctly?


Dear Jesus,

How could you??? How could you rip-off Claude Mulot's '75 "Le Sexe qui parle" in such a shameful manner, just switching from... "main entrance" to "back door" and think...you could get away with it? I can understand if, at the time you made this movie, perhaps you badly needed to make a quick buck to pay rent and bills but, at least you could try to do it with the style I (and many more) know you are capable of. I know it's "hard-core" but we all know you can do better then this. I can absolutely NOT forgive you for having "thrown" at us (audience), "our" lovely Lina Romay in tasteless and gratuitous gynecological poses and, to make things even worst, let her hide under that horrible wig, which made her look so cheap and vulgar. Where did you leave the atmosphere, the mesmerizing images, the erotic build-up and the style you got us accustomed to? Perhaps you tried to make it funny but, the only time I was able to smile, was when Lina/Lulú spots the "Oscar" statue sitting on top of a piece of furniture and decides quickly to put it...to use. First I thought this was your humorist way to give us your opinion about the "Academy Award" but, most probably, the statue was just found by the Prop-man somewhere in a box and he decided to bring it to the set, thinking that it may somehow fit in the plot.... Sorry Jesus, but this is definitely a NO-NO! I can only give a very merciful 3 out of 10 and, to get the bad taste out of my mouth, I'm going now to watch (again) "Les Avaleuses" or "Doriana Grey" and I hope it will help...


This was far too one sided to be called a "documentary." Really, it was more like propaganda! A little less "evil corporation" and a few more actual facts -- from BOTH sides -- would have made this a far more informational, effective film. After viewing it, I'm just insulted that the makers think I'm so lacking in intelligence that they can present this to me as a "documentary" with no questions asked. It is very obviously an opinion piece; label it as such! There are obvious appeals to emotion throughout the film; they could have been left out, and it would have raised the quality dramatically. There are several valid points made throughout the film of the problems that arise in corporations; it is disappointing that the makers felt the need to cloud those points with foggy emotional appeals. If they believe corporations to be so evil, present the whole story and I should be able to figure that out for myself.


Part of a disturbing trend in recent film-making where complex ideas are expressed as propaganda rather given a fair airing. The film displays a complete unwillingness to understand economics. It includes comments by eminent economists only to mock them. It fails to understand Adam Smith's age old point that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." The film does contain kernels of truth and does package the ideas in an entertaining way, but by allowing no room for dissent, it is merely preaching platitudes to the choir.


i was dragged out of my bed for this film and frog marched down to the local cinema where i paid my money and i intended to enjoy a film, which i was convinced would be in the style of Bowling for Columbine ... 3 hours later after i had sat through the same point being rehashed and retold to me by various people i ran outside with a splitting headache i had such high hopes for this film, the film had its heart in the right place but the director obviously didn't cut his film enough.

i really do want to say something good about this film, so i will - it made a good point - i just wish it had not made it about 7 times, i do honestly believe this film could have been better had it been scaled back - i realise there is a lot to bring to the attention of the viewers but not at the expense of alienating them


I guess we can thank Michael Moore for reviving the documentary, but it's unfortunate that I was sucked into paying to see this film.

Did you realize that a corporation's primary goal is to, above all else, make money? Did you know that corporations do cost-benefit analyses for everything, and make decisions solely based on the results of those analyses?

Is there a problem with that? I own a small company, and, yes, we are in business to make money. If we weren't making money, we would shut down the business.

The agenda of the film is to inform, and possibly shock, viewers about the deeds of "evil" corporations. It didn't win me over. There's nothing new or shocking here. Save your money, or, rather, use it to go see the interesting and revelatory "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry".


This movie was just another piece of Moore propaganda. It fails to properly explain corporate structure, corporate governance, and even what a corporation actually is. In fact, it appears Moore lumps all corporations together and never distinguishes from publicly traded corporations and corporations such as Goodwill or private family corporations. There is no discussion of the Business Judgment Rule or even derivative suits. Moore's unsupported beliefs. I am trying to figure out how someone who invests so much money into publicly traded securities can make a movie that is directly in conflict with his behavior. When it comes down to it is lacks little educational value and is fairly boring.


These people are so naive to believe that corporations are evil and that nationalizing everything is good.

in North Korea, USSR, the Warsaw pact and China, everything was state property, were they utopias? Not by a longshot.

In fact, the most deaths in the 20th century were caused by communism and the worst famines were in communist countries alongside the killing fields in Cambodia, persecution of the religious, the gulags among other things.

As for the makers of the documentary. i would leave them a choice: where would you want to live? North Korea (communist, no corporations) or South Korea(corporations, freedoms etc.)?


I like documentaries that point out the flaws with real world things such as corporations, but man, this movie pushed it way too far. I was intrigued at the cases they presented and the examples (such as the Monsanto dilemma), but this movie was unbelievably biased.

I mean, this movie paints corporations as the devil himself and they don't realize one thing. If everyone turned against corporations (all are not bad), then we have no economic system. They serve a purpose and without them, you wouldn't have the luxuries you have. I say luxuries because we don't need it, but want it. That's what they do. Not only that, they employ us (for the most part). This movie makes it seem as though corporations should be boycotted as a whole, and that is wrong. This movie misrepresents a lot of things, but at the same time presents many useful things.

I enjoyed the movie, except for the fact that it is way too biased for a documentary. It seems as though Michael Moore, who speaks in the movie, made it himself.


If you can sit through this mess without wanting to vomit, i would say you either agreed with the slanted view of the world (that corporations are EVIL) or you hadnt gotten any sleep the night before and passed out during the film. It didn't even try to be fair, it was so one sided and filled with the typical liberal elitists (Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, etc). The film winds up "proving" how evil corporations are by linking American corporations with Nazi Germany. Preposterous. Absolutely vile. It calls the organized anti-freetrade mobs that burned and looted "grass roots" - when they are anything but (you don't get 5000 people to spontaneously attack a free trade meeting without some sort of support, logistics, planning, etc). Bringing on a straw man conservative to "rebutt" their liberal agenda, only to have him say the most inane and moronic things, which are instantly crushed by the liberal propaganda spewers that dominate this film is shameful. It was disgusting, it was one sided, and it reminded me of the 1960's retreads that come out every now and again to rally people to their cause only to fall apart again once they realize no one is listening. It was just a pile of junk. Look at the writer and director, he has done nothing but make films with agendas time and time again. don't expect a fair fight, but please don't try to laugh when the nazi flags are paraded around and "evidence" shows IBM, the evil corporation, somehow helped kill millions of Jews. Give us all a break already, you aren't fooling anyone.


Don't expect a balanced view from this movie. It is a highly biased propaganda piece, although there is some counterpoint scattered throughout. Micheal Moore comments that corporations are only after profits. The narrator announces that the corporation is bound to place profits of the stockholder above the public good. Noam Chomsky, throws in his radically left ideas as frosting on this bitter cake. He paints with a broad brush that even though the people working in corporations may be moral, the institution of the corporation is inherently evil.

The movie points out that a corporation will move into an impoverished country and are hailed as a hero for providing opportunities for workers. When the pay rises and the workers start making additional demands upon the company, the documentary states, the corporations leave those workers behind in search of more worker to exploit. There's no denying that there is some truth to that. The balanced point of view is that those exploited workers have had an improved standard of living as a result. It is clearly not up to the standard of living in the first world, but it is an improvement.

The movie progresses by creating a psychological profile of a corporation as through it were a person. The premise being the corporation is an amoral or immoral person. They even interviewed an FBI employee that profiles psychopaths. If course, they only look at the negative aspects of corporations.

I know one of the experts interviewed, although I won't mention his name because he is tort-happy. I know his motivations are less than honest. He is out to make a name for himself.

I am the CEO of a corporation. I am also a life-long Democrat. I have a blog on political moderation that advocates, among other things, reasoned debates on things of importance to our culture. There is absolutely no doubt that there are corporations whose culture is oriented toward the exploitation of people. There are also corporations, like mine, who have a corporate culture toward providing a service to customers. I am well compensated for the service I provide, but I enhance the value of companies I serve and I can serve them with honesty and integrity. Corporations have served to enhance the standard of living for all Americans, although at times in unethical ways. I was looking for a balanced review of the value that corporations have brought as well as things that need to be changed so that pure greed and unethical behavior in some corporations can be held in check. There was an opportunity to present some legitimate concerns about the affect of corporations, both positive and negative, but the producers passed on that opportunity. Ironically, the "What Do We Need to Do?" Segment on the Q&A bonus materials is a lot closer to the reasoned debate that I had hoped for in the movie.

If you believe that corporations are inherently evil, this movie will be preaching to the choir. If you are looking for something other than propaganda, you will be disappointed by this film.


Having just seen the terrific Fahrenheit 9-1-1, I was looking

forward to this film. Alas. "The Corporation" is not really a film; it's

a seemingly endless parade of monologue snippets with pathetic

graphics in-between. In short, this is not a film. It reminds one of

mid-20th Century "educational" films, but is not nearly as

interesting. Ninety-five percent of this film is common knowledge

(and if you don't know that corporations have taken over everything,

then you are part of the reason why we have the evil government

we have). Five percent contained new information. Alas, this film

had no editor worth his or her salt. It was dreary beyond belief and

after two hours, my friend (who reached the same conclusion as I

did, but totally separately, since we do not talk during movies)

looked at me, we got up and made our escape. Michael Moore

has proved over and over that politics and information do not have

to be dull. He knows how to use images to make his point. This

documentary-maker doesn't.


Irene Bedard looks great as she smiles through parochial school, which is described by Mary Crow Dog like this in her book: "When I was a small girl at the St. Francis Boarding School, the Catholic sisters would take a buggy whip to us for what they called 'disobedience.' At age ten I could drink and hold a pint of whiskey. At age twelve the nuns beat me for 'being too free with my body.' All I had been doing was holding hands with a boy. At age fifteen I was raped. If you plan to be born, make sure you are born white and male." The worst we see of school is the cutting of the braids and louse powder. Mary Crow Dog described hellishly turbulent times in the book, yet the movie glosses over them. Racism, brutal living conditions, drunkenness and poverty, are all addressed in detail in the book, but sanitized for the viewer's protection in the film. All we see is Mary smoking cigarettes and refusing beer in the back seat of a car.

The happily-ever-after ending of the film fails to address the many years and thousands of dollars it took to get her husband, Leonard, out of prison following the events. Oh, wait, the film didn't even show her marrying Leonard Crow Dog! Just a vague hint that he might be the father of her child.

The book also describes many tribal customs and rituals that the movie glosses over, which makes it look like so much mumbo-jumbo, "oh, look, they're dancing around in a circle," without any understanding of the significance to the Lakota people of the Sun Dance and Ghost Dance, which are covered in detail in the book.

Although I like Irene Bedard and think she's a fine actress, I just don't think she conveys the rage and anger that leaps off every page of Mary Crow Dog's book. Ultimately, though, that rage isn't in the script for her to convey.

Read the book.


This flop never stood a chance of succeeding without Elizabeth Taylor's involvement, and if Liz ever saw this script she probably read 10 pages and winged it out the window with a noxious chuckle. What is meant to be a continuation of National Velvet, one of the best movies of the 1940's, is really a typical piece of slapdash 70's cinema. Any ties this story has to the original National Velvet, you feel, were contrived in re-writes to try and cash in in on some kind of marquee recognition. A film about equestrian riding starring Tatum O'Neal circa 1978 was only going to appeal to horse lovers and 12 year old girls.

The story is hardly even or focused. The running time of 127 minutes could have been trimmed by at least a half hour to get rid of a pointless would-be romantic subplot, a potential gang rape, and about 15 minutes of endless riding shots (supposedly set at the Olympics of 1980, but the producers use footage from the 1974 opening ceremonies in Munich).

Nanette Newman is adequate as Velvet Brown but her involvement in the story offers little more than comforting moral support for the first half of the film. She and beau Christopher Plummer are pretty much left behind when trainer Anthony Hopkins comes on the scene. Hopkins does a decent job with his role but still doesn't manage to breathe into the production more than a flicker of life. O'Neal is utterly cold and unsympathetic as the plucky teenage heroine. And like the pseudo-named author he creates in the film, Plummer phones his over-cheery performance in from long distance to collect a pay check.

The only thing this film has really going for it other than Hopkins is the scenery.


This movie has just been on UK BBC TV.

When it started, outside it was snowing and the flakes were small and shardy. But, as time went by, they turned into quite large fluffy ones. There was quite a fair breeze too, blowing from the west. The weather forecasters have predicted that the flurries will be short-lived and followed by warmer weather with rain. So I don't think it will lie for long. It's a pity because we haven't really had any good snow in these parts for many a year.

Must be something to do with global warming.

Scotland, I believe, is the worst affected by the weather  it must be nice up there in the hills at this time of year.

Then the film finished.

I think it had horses in it.


I noticed that the IMDB classes INTERNATIONAL VELVET as an American movie , this despite the fact it`s filmed in Britain , has a British director and an almost entirely British cast . Mind you it is funded with American money and produced by an American studio so by definition it is technically an American movie

I guess that`s why INTERNATIONAL VELVET has such a typically American ethnocentric view of the English . Another reviewer has stated that everyone talks in ridiculous and posh accents etc and I totally agree , it`s laughable the way the Brits are portrayed in this movie though perhaps not as laughable as Tatum O`Neal`s " English " accent which is every bit as bad as Al Pacino`s " Scottish " accent in REVOLUTION . I guess if the heroine was played by a genuine English actress an American audience wouldn`t be able to relate to her

INTERNATIONAL VELVET is a rather drab movie that`s best viewed on a boring Sunday afternoon which was when I saw it . I will give the movie credit for the scene where the German rider falls off his horse because for some unexplained reason I found this rather amusing in a movie devoid of amusement


Guys, honestly - who rated this a 10? It was shocking and horrendous and as much use as a chocolate teapot. Such an awful storyline, shallow characters, poor plot development - I could go on and on.

This is the first movie I have not liked Dustin Hoffman in, and Natalie Portman's performance is also poor.

I hear you self-righteous b*stards from the back shouting "But it's for the children..." - er...if my children were on LSD, having eaten 2 spacecakes each, then perhaps this would have entertained them...

I urge you not to watch this. Do not even waste your time - you will be begging for it to end. I can assure of that!


Twenty five years ago, the young son of my theater directing professor, Mr. Valeriu Moisescu, while watching at the TV an extremely boring and tasteless comedy, remarked: "Daddy, this movie is sorta stationery" (in Romanian: "stätätor", as he said). "I mean, it's not climbing up, like the beanstalk... It's missing a marble." Exactly the same is true for this completely unwonderful, unwondrous and unwondering "emporium". The script seems written by the worst dilettante (it's chaotic, messy and totally unconvincing). The direction is primitive and static, lacking spirit. Dustin and Natalie are as good as two junior high drama instructors playing next to their pupils. As to the kids themselves, they look amorphous and robotic. The only quality of the whole production is the colorfulness - rich, tasty, endearing. Don't you think it's a bit too little?


i thought this was a truly awful film . Nothing in it made any sense , even by horror movie standards.The premise wasn't too bad but it just fell to pieces after the first 5 minutes its an Australian movie and the male actors have Australian accents but the women have these terrible fake American accents and one of the womens accent is so appalling i have no idea what country she is supposed to be from . the ending made even less , i presume it was to set it up for a sequel but there is no way this dog of a film would get the funding for a sequel . i was surprised it got the funding at all sense than the rest of the movie. after watching this movie i tried to find a way to get in touch with the director to sling some abuse , no other movie has driven me to that point before don't watch it unless your video store has a ' didn't like it? get your money back ' policy


Silly cheesy horror movies, man how they make a Saturday night. You can pretty much tell from the box it comes in whether it's a dud or a gem in hiding. This one was of the former persuasion. The actors were capable and the overall production quality was good. But the STORY - that's where this falls into the toilet. It's not scary in the slightest, it's just a ripoff of that classic short story "The Most Dangerous Game" where a guy is trapped on an island trying to avoid some killer (there's even a pit trap just like in that story). In this case it's six people trying to avoid a killer

---Spoilers follow ---

who is revealed to us pretty much at the beginning of the movie in a flashback. They spend the rest of the time doing the stupid things people in every horror movie do - split up into smaller groups of 1 or 2 to make it easier for the killer to do his thing instead of staying together. You expect this in this genre but you at least want some tension, drama, or at least a "boo" moment or two. There's none of that here. Each person is dispatched very matter-of-factly without the slightest scare. The ending is incomprehensible and makes no sense - I didn't understand what happened to the two who got away and I didn't really care. Pass this one by, folks...


Six former reality-TV stars (three female & three male) from 'Castaway Island' are whisked away to a seemingly deserted island for a reunion show. Once there, they're hunted and killed one by one. Could it be this Wesley guy that everyone thinks is crazy or someone else entirely? The better question is will you even care to find out one way or the other?

Proving that America doesn't have a monopoly of unoriginal, hideously contrived, badly acted and scare free B-horror films, this Australian travesty rears it's ugly head to further trivialize and dumb down fans of the horror genre. This relatively blood-free, heavily clichéd mockery is deathly boring on top of all that and to add insult to injury, the ending doesn't make a lick of sense

My Grade: F+


Truly one of the worst movies I have seen in years. There is absolutely no tension, shocks or scares. The cast members are despatched in an entirely perfunctory and unimaginative fashion.

The story and scripting is stupid beyond belief. At one point a character falls off a cliff and instead of trying to help him the girl he is with runs miles back to the camp to tell the others that he has fallen off a cliff. They don't actually decide to do anything about it and then seem entirely unsurprised when he shows up again with what appear to be only minor injuries (a bit of a cut on the side of his head). And how come the female actors have American accents (sometimes in some cases) whilst the males speak with Australian accents? And don't get me started on the ending. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I have seen infinitely better low budget films produced by students.

Avoid this at all costs.

A pretty good cast wasted.


It takes a long time for the film to get going. Not at all gripping, exciting or scary. I was very glad that there was nothing else on TV to watch. If you have seen The Breed then you have seen the better version of this film. If you have not seen it then watch it rather than this film. It is the type of movie that you watch to the end hoping that it will get better.

The film actually gets going after about fifty mins, not that it's to going. The sound track is typical early nineties and the acting matches the soundtrack, Although this review is very negative, if you do watch this film for more than forty mins then keep going you may see a little blood...... Typical low budget cast and low budget effects.


This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama.


I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear.


What a horrible, horrible film. The worst collection of cliches I have seen in a long time. Not that I saw much. I left the theatre screaming after about 40 minutes in search of a stiff drink to soothe my nerves. Meryl Streep was awful as usual. How many hurt and tortured expressions can 1 person have? Aidan Quinn's talents were - as so often - totally wasted. And who told Gloria Estefan she could act? Trying to be polically correct this movie still enforces racial stereotypes. (Brave inexperienced lonely music teacher teaches underprivilegded kids violin in poor neighbourhood school). The kids weren't even cute! Just written in to suit the appalling script. Aaargh! Wes Craven really made me cringe for once. real horror this one!


After seeing how so many critics have raved about this film, and how several put it at the top of their "Best of 2002" lists, I was looking forward to it. Unfortunately, I was pretty disappointed. The story poses an interesting concept. I won't spoil it, but basically, two men are in love with two women who are in comas. One man is obsessive, the other is "the other man," but does not know this until after she is out cold. They develop a sort of friendship, which is complicated when one of them acts inaproppriately out of his obsession.

There are also some creative "surrealist" moments in the film (particularly during the shrinking lover b/w portions), but I found them to be more flashy and "oohh look he's being different" than intelligent and thought provoking. The film also contains an abundant amount of female nudity, which after a while became gratuitous. It's greatest weakness however is a slow plot. It takes nearly half the movie until an interesting plot point hits-- not to mention that the cuts are far too slow. The images might be pretty, but that doesn't make them entertaining.


What a disaster! Normally, when one critiques a historical movie, it's always fun to point out the inaccuracies that slip in, usually added by the writers to create more "dramatic" situations. However, "Imperium: Nerone" is a whole 'nuther kind of animal. In this movie you strain to find ANYTHING at all that is confirmed by the historical record amidst the farrago of nonsense and fiction presented as the life of Rome's bad-boy artist-emperor.

And it's a pity, because Nero is one of the most fascinating of all the Roman emperors. His life was filled with enough tumultuous events and interesting people to make a really good movie. The producers of this mess chose another route, which leads only to head-scratching on the part of any informed viewer.

Just a few examples:

1. Nero is depicted as an 6-8 year old boy when Caligula has his father killed for treason, exiles his mother Agrippina, and sends the boy to be raised by slaves in the countryside. "Ten years later," the story resumes just before the assassination of Caligula. Facts: Nero was born about six months after Caligula began his four year reign, and was only three when he was assassinated; Nero's father died of natural causes; Agrippina was briefly exiled for bad behavior, not treason; and Nero was not raised among slaves, but had the typical upbringing of a young member of the imperial family.

2. Okay, according to the writers, Nero is now about 16 when his great uncle Claudius becomes emperor (in fact he was about to turn 4); Agrippina engineers the downfall of the empress Messalina and marries Claudius, who adopts Nero. Then he goes off to conquer Britain, and is poisoned by Agrippina soon after his victorious return. Nero is declared emperor, although he's still perhaps only 18 or 19 years old. Fact: Claudius conquered Britain in 43 A.D., two years after beginning his reign. He lived until 54 A.D. Nero should have been 31 years old by then by any normal chronology, but in fact succeeded to the throne at age 16.

History tells us that there then followed the "Five Good Years," where Nero ruled wisely and well under the tutelage of the philosopher Seneca and the Praetorian commander Burrus. This is shown -- sort of -- except that portraying the Roman Senate as opposing Nero's good measures is false. Senatorial opposition to Nero only commenced when he started to show signs of insanity and began killing Senators for real or imagined treason.

3. Nero's mother Agrippina is the controlling sort, who murdered her uncle-husband to make her son emperor. After a while, Nero tires of her meddling and decides to kill her. In the movie, he sends his henchman Tigellinus to stab her to death. All true enough, but the reality was so much better! Agrippina was a survivor, and didn't go easily. Nero tried three times to poison her, but as an old poisoner herself she was savvy to all that, and he failed. Then he tried to crush her to death by collapsing the ceiling of her bedchamber, but that also failed. Next, he sent her on a voyage on a ship that was deliberately constructed to fall apart and sink; as it went down, she jumped into the sea and swam to shore. Finally, he had her stabbed to death. Now showing all THAT would have definitely improved this movie!

Other errors abound: Nero's lover Acte was not a childhood slave-friend, she never repudiated him, and there is no evidence that she became a Christian. Nero did not commit suicide by slitting his wrists while sitting beside a lake. Etc. etc. etc.

The sources for Nero's life are primarily the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom were of the senatorial class hostile to him and his memory. But the evidence indicates that he remained very popular with the common people, unlike one of the final scenes where he is pelted by the mob with vegetables as he leaves the city to commit suicide.

WHY did the writers and producers take an inherently interesting story with plenty of good stuff for any movie, and make THIS piece of crap? Oh, and did I mention how cheesy the sets and costumes were? Lol.

One star, because there's no way to rate it lower.


Perhaps, we are too much attached to great spectacles when we hear of antiquity brought to screen. Perhaps, we expect too much from these films. However, if we, as viewers, are offered far too little, what happens then?

That is what I thought after seeing IMPERIUM - NERONE by Paul Marcus, a part of the production series on the Roman Empire. AUGUSTUS by Roger Young, the first IMPERIUM movie, included at least Peter O'Toole but what does this movie include?

Hardly anything accurate. The historical errors are so serious that the movie changes facts and constitutes rather a distorted image of the Roman Empire than the true history. Throughout the movie, we see Nero young: young man during the allegedly long reign of Caligula, young man during the reign of Claudius and finally during his own (historically 14 year long) reign. And...he dies the same. According to the movie, Nero, born during the reign of Tiberius, lives for more than 40 years but looks to be in his late twenties when he dies... Continuity combined with made up history is the biggest problem of the movie, which makes it hardly logical, not to say reliable. Nero loses his father, is raised by slaves. At that time, his mother, Agrippina, is exiled by Caligula. Later, however, she suddenly marries emperor Claudius who already has big children with freshly married to him Messalina. At these moments of the movie, we see Acte (Rike Schmid), Nero's mistress. All right, it is historically "accurate"; yet, no source proves that she played such a decisive role in the rise of Christianity in Rome. In the film, she is not only a devoted Christian but even a witness of St Paul's miracle (he brings a young girl Marzia back to life). Besides, there was, historically, nothing like Nero seen on the court of Caligula since Nero was born in Caligula's 4 year long reign (A.D. 37-41). I understand that movies may change something but such an error makes the script absolutely unreliable! And many, many other shortcomings concerning content that are hard to enumerate but after 30 minutes of watching this film, I doubted whether I was watching a historical movie or a total fantasy.

As for its artistic features which supply us with entertainment, they are equally lame as the history here is. The performances are artificial, the cast simply have beautiful faces but weak acting abilities. Perhaps, I am too much attached to Peter Ustinov or Charles Laughton in the lead, but Hans Matheson does not fit as Nero at all. He could have some of the good moments as an actor but never as the infamous Roman emperor. Is he an artist who burns Rome for a song? Is he a cynic who disguises the love to his relatives? Is he a cruel ruler who sacrifices the lives of thousands of innocent people for the sake of "alleged justice"? None of these. He is just a young man who does not know how to rule and, in the long run, begins to release the fire burning within himself... John Simm is out of place in this film as Caligula and absolutely inferior to other portrayals of the character. Elisa Tovati is only sexy as Poppaea; yet she could have been much much better. The costumes are inaccurate and the sets do not amaze. Low budget results in low effects and, consequently, low entertainment.

But what made me most angry in this movie and, as a result, I give it 1/10 are some moments that are absolutely unacceptable:

- the death of Poppaea and St Paul's talk with Nero at her dead body,

- Claudius' mention of the current conquest of Britannia on the feast and soon his death (he conquered Britannia while Messalina was his wife much before his death),

- Tigellinus killing Agrippina (Laura Morante), Nero's mother,

- Nero's arguments in the speech to the senators,

- finally, Nero's death - a calm day at the lake and an indifferent suicide that leads to a moral said by Acte "Let us forgive him"

All in all, this film is a waste of time and is absolutely unneeded as yet another production concerning the Roman Empire. It's better to make one good film in 30 years than ten minor little ones in 5 years. 1/10 - should not have been made at all.


"Nero" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in "Quo Vadis!" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.


For a good take on the Roman Empire watch the excellent BBC produced miniseries "I, Claudius". This just sucked. The acting was pathetic and you could almost see the actors looking at the camera. Hans Matheson was irritating. Cheese factor was so high that it promotes constipation with repeated viewings. Even Caligula was tame. I think this film was silently supported by "religious" groups who shall remain nameless ;). The overt tones of Christian favoritism and persecution were blatant if that gives any hint. Stay away what ever you do - the running time is so long that I was able to read Harry Potter's first book faster than the time it took to view this tripe.

Italy has done better - don't let Hans cute face fool you. He is not a great actor...he is a great bore.


"Imperium Nero" is the second movie of the series of six productions named "Imperium". I have already unfavorably commented the first one: "Imperium Augustus". This second TV movie produced and broadcast last weekend by the Italian state owned network has the same defects. In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors. Some examples: Nero is a child and Agrippina calls him: "Nero, Nero". At that time is name was Claudius. He was named Nero after his adoption. Nero did not meet Acte when he was young as in the movie but after his marriage with Octavia and his nomination to Emperor. When becoming Emperor his sons where not adults: Britannicus is one month old and Octavia one year old. And many many more. If you are fond of ancient roman history you can find yourselves other examples. "Imperium" series will continue with four more movies : "Titus", "Marcus Aurelius","Costantinus" and"The Fall of the Roman Empire". Finally!


Sorry if I disappoint anyone about what I am about to say to this made for TV movie. But, I paid money for the movie and turned out this movie is disaster. The directing is really awfully bad. But, after I looked up its information here, I realized there might be reasons for the low quality of directing and producing. Maybe they don't have budget, but anyway, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility had little money too but it turned out a hit. The director in this movie did really bad job in telling the story and the movie couldn't even keep up a rational continuity in itself. It keeps pulling me outta scenes. Maybe someone need to work hard on story line/ board. The dubbed sound is also awfully bad. My god.... Normally, I would appreciate every movie because behind it lie ideas and imaginations of an individual. but, this time I am just mad , "I really wanna hit something HARD." ...Just don't do the job if someone can't fulfill it to its best. Bad arts (its' not even art, what is it? )really hurt people.


I cannot comprehend how this picture was allowed to be made. It is mostly, if not completely, inaccurate so much so that the main character does not even resemble how history has him look physically. This movie made me go on the internet and go through my books to make sure I remember Nero's personality correctly. For God's sake, I have a book that lists Nero as one of the most evil person's of the world and the movie made me feel bad for him. I must say Aggrapina's character seemed close to my understanding of her, both physically and psychologically. Although, the actors all did a good job, the movie was terrible and I'm sure I will not watch any others made by this sorry team.


The Blue Butterfly is 'inspired by a true story.' The true story involves a young boy apparently ill with terminal cancer, who goes to the South American jungle with a renowned entomologist in search of a blue butterfly. When they return, the boy's cancer has disappeared.

The facts of the true story are dramatic and emotional moving. There is no need to embroider them. But that is just what the filmmakers do.

I'm guessing, but my feeling is that what we see in the movie that is not in the original story is: (1) The scientist did not have a long-lost daughter (2) There was no romantic connection between the boy's Mum and the scientist (2) No little villager girl actually connected with the boy, or caught the blue butterfly (4) The scientist did not fall down a hole, forcing the boy to make his own way through the jungle.

A boy goes to the jungle and comes back cured of cancer - but the story is deemed not 'dramatic' enough by the idiots who pose as story experts in Hollywood. This film is a schmaltzy, overblown insult to the intelligence. Great stories are not about ticking off the boxes in some script reader's manual. There is a genuine, uplifting tale buried in this film, that somehow got lost as each executive decided to burp out a script note after lunch. The end result is an unedifying, distasteful meringue of a film. I was insulted.


It was terribly boring. The soundtrack was woeful - some shots would have come to life much better with dramatic and more moving scores.

The dialogue was predictable.

Were they targeting an adult audience or kids? I was lost. It was not entertaining.

The only reason I kept watching was that I ate dinner late and I needed to let it digest before going to bed. Otherwise I would have been in bed 60 minutes ago.

They must have had a shock after the edit. "Gawd, how are we going to sell this?"


I thought the film even with the dramatization was compelling, but unfortunately the scriptor and director forgot or ignored the end of the film by simply ending the story with a cute Voice Over, and tracking shot of the young boy running into the fade out. There were basic errors in story telling, and some times you have to give the audience what they want or perceive to want. example: It would have been good to see the doctor meet up with his daughter. It would have been good to see or read a bio of the young boy's life in 2004 as the story was written about his life in 1987.

The audience is always right. . .hence the film's pitiful 1.7mill box office.


terrible. probably one of the worst movies i've ever seen. we figured that they got william hurt to act in this turkey by either paying him buckets full of money, or he wanted to go to the jungle and figured this would be a free trip, or he's part of the cult. because it must have been a cult that financed this movie. i don't know the cult of the healing power of the blue butterfly, or the jungle, or the big hole in the ground that they fall into. we watched this movie imagining if the guys from south park had written it and cartman was the little kid faking his lines so he could get a free trip to the amazon. there's one scene where they're swimming by the waterfall that's almost like nambla. jeez, have i written enough lines yet?


This is one of the most unconvincing, most terribly directed movies I've watched in a long time. It's so unprofessionally done, it's almost like a student movie. The story has some potential, I admit it's not the most predictable plot line, and some actors are quite good in their roles (Walken & Schlatter have some good chemistry), but scenes which are supposed to be scary are so badly done they come across as hilarious. Some scenes are so out of place and so unconvincing you find yourself thinking it's going to be a dream scene and the character will wake up, but no, it's for real. Then you just can't believe it. Background music is terrible. Character motivation is dubious. Many people's actions simply don't make any sense. It's basically C-production.


Christopher Walken: what was he doing in this movie? What was he saying? The only thing this movie succeeded in, besides making me lose faith in Anson "Potsie" Williams filmmaking career, was making me feel sleazy. Everybody in this movie looked too cleancut to be involved with all that sex and I don't think there was a "Blue Velvet" double meaning of looking beneath the surface either.


Another movie with Christopher "There's a clause in my contract that says I have to be in at least one scene of every movie" Walken where he wastes his talent.

All-American Murder is a pretty pathetic movie, especially the ridiculous ending. I would compare it to 'Blue City,' the Alley Sheedy/Judd Nelson "thriller" about some fast talking cocky kid who wants to avenge his father's death. But, he never stops with his cocky, mouthing off, even in the face of a mafia and corrupt government officials. And his adversaries only react with stupid, empty threats. Where's the action? Where's the suspense?

Like it was in 'Blue City', the main character (Schlatter) and many of those around him react too unbelievably, given the situation they're in, making it one laughable, ridiculous movie.

The story centers on Schlatter, who plays a similar fast-talking, cocky kid, but a well-meaning one. A student a college, he tries to sweet talk one of the sorority girls into going out with him. But, unfortunately, he should've just settled for 'no,' because when he shows up one night, she bombs out of the building and burns to death. And since he was the only one around, he must be the culprit. Well, surely a misunderstanding such as this calls for ample chase scenes, as Schlatter tries to prove his innocence, especially with a cold cop breathing down his neck and giving him a deadline, basically, before he hauls him into jail, his patience wearing thin.

But, neither the killer's identity, nor the motives, nor the finale, are all that interesting, and the end is just plain stupid. At least if the rest of the movie were just simply mediocre (it is actually worse than that), than a strong ending might've saved it. But it didn't. Not at all.

I can see why Schlatter was in this movie. This is basically his schtick--the happy-go-lucky charming guy who tries to get the girl (see 18 Again!), and he's good at it, except this kind of story doesn't call for that kind of character throughout the whole movie. Everybody seems to be too passive in situations that require emergency, making the whole thing seem pretty stupid. Schlatter's good nature humor may've worked if there was anything really going on in the story. But there isn't. And of course, just because Christopher Walken is in a movie, doesn't make it a good movie. Here, he is a good actor in a bad movie.

If it's thrillers you're in the mood for, even cheap ones, I'd recommend looking elsewhere.


This movie was generally watchable as long as you kept in mind that it was a CHILDREN'S movie. Even so, I found some problems with it, and it certainly did not stack up to the original. First, the special effects were not quite as good as in the original. Second, the majority of the main characters were young, inexperienced, and naive. Only Goeff seemed to have some sort of interesting background, but he never elaborated on it. Lastly, the ending left much to be desired. At the last moment, the bad guy reveals a secret that was never even hinted at during the rest of the movie. The king is never shown to come out of his stupor. It's no surprise that the dragon saves the hero's life (that was telegraphed from the beginning). Nobody gets the girl (in fact, they never show her saying goodbye to the hero). All in all, the movie was a disappointment.


I enjoyed the first Dragonheart very much. This new one was certainly inferior to the first, but I found it worth my time. It was released straight to video and that is a obvious sign of lacking. It was short and the plot was fairly shallow, but it did have it's moments especially comedic ones.

It doesn't do the original justice, but its still fun


Hmm... it doesn't follow the story very well. Guys don't lay eggs. Draco's death was significent because it was to be the last dragon's. And, the content of A New Beginning deserves a G rating.

Seriously, the dialogue was simply childish. Like, "Wow," and "I don't wanna leave!" So yeah, this was pretty fake in and out. The first one had a serious storyline and was awesome to watch. But watching a baby dragon spit fire out his butt, spit on someone from a mile away, to be taught to breath ice, you can't possibly be thrilled by that.

Next thing, the special effects were miserable. When Drake breathed "ice," it was was like seeing a bunch of kindergarteners throw chunks of styrafoam as a wall!


Severely flawed sequel to an amusing and beautiful original. The CGI dragon is very well animated but the lighting is all wrong and the voice acting is pitiful (not to mention the regular acting). The original film relied heavily on the charisma of Sir Sean Connery's voice(!), so it is no wonder that this film lacks the charm of its predecessor. The film seems aimed towards kids and possibly young teenagers who tend to be somewhat underdeveloped in the intellectual department. The whole production has the feel of a 'Young Hercules' episode (especially the campy martial arts sequences), which is not a compliment...

NeofreemaN out.


This is one of the movies i really, really hate. The plot is so generic and clichéd, it made me cringe in embarrassment. Stableboy ascends to hero and, with the help of his dragon and a few Chinese Kungfu-fighters (who looked like they were outfitted in a bad costume shop), overthrows the evil usurper, who happens to be another dragon. The twists were highly predictable, the ending disgustingly saccharine. To make a bad movie worse, the PG-Rating took the last drop of seriousness from the movie, leaving a witless comedy for handicapped toddlers. What can i say, there are no redeeming qualities in this under budgeted, soulless mess, except for the score which was a rehash of Randy Edelmans magnificent work.


It caused me physical pain to watch this movie. Not only was some of the acting terrible, and the effects were cheap, but Drake was ugly (C'mon, he's essentially Draco and the Scarred one's kid, and we all know how lovely Draco was). The plot was sub par, and the dragons were terrible. The FULL GROWN dragon was about 1/4 the size of Draco.

This movie MAY have had the possibility to NOT SUCK if it had a bigger budget and a better script. I wouldn't let my kids watch this. I'd watch the first one with them. Honestly this shouldn't have happened. Don't even get me started on how many shots they took from Dragonheart, and they bastardized the old code. The Dragons looked very very fake, and the fact that the first movie was made in '96 and had much much better effects shows the lack of care put into the sequel. I gave this movie a chance, against my better judgment, thinking "It can't be THAT bad." But it was. The Bad guy was too cliché, and not the kind of bad guy that David Thewlis was in DH. It was a travesty, and nothing can be done to save it. Children should not be allowed to watch it.

Oh, and taking the music that Randy Edelman wrote and using it throughout it not going to save it. Yeah. I'm sorry but I could not STAND this movie.


I loved the first Dragonheart.

I threw a party last weekend, and saw this movie for sale in Wal-Marts "$5 and under movie" bin. I regret I ever took it out.

The story goes that after Draco. "Last of the Dragons" died, he reveals a gift to Bowen before he dies, a dragon egg. If Draco was last of the Dragons, where the H*** did the egg come from? So the young Dragon, named Drake grows up in Brother Gilberts monastery basement/dungeon area thing. A young boy, Geoffery, goes down into the dungeon, where he befriends Drake.

enter the generic bad guy who toys with he boy's dreams and convinces him to become a knight. Enter the two stereotypical Chinese old Kung-Fu master and apprentice who turns out to be a girl sent to kill the last evil dragon, who is in the form of a man.

Guess what, the bad guy IS the Dragon! SHOCKER! He and Drake fight i the air, despite the above-average special effects for its time, it was rather boring. the evil Dragon, Griffin, breaths fire. Yhen, out o nowhere, Drake masters the ability to breath ice and freezes Griffin, who shatters into a million pieces when he drops 30 feet from the air. One of the ice shards hits Geoffery.

Huess what, he gets half of Drakes heart, they become heroes, and everyone is happy.

WAY TOO HAPPY! The first Dragonheart was an action-fantasy epic, this movie is just a dull kids version. 2/10

Three people left he party during the movie because it was so horrible. Let your younger siblings see it, you just wont love it


*MAYBE POSSIBLE SPOILER* Sorry, but I'm afraid to say I disliked this movie. I've seen Dragonheart many, many times (which isn't really a children's movie), but when I saw this one, was surprised to see that's what it is. A children's movie, I mean. No appearance by Pete Postlethwaite doesn't help, either. And since when did dragons breathe ice? You'd think the fire and ice would cancel out or explode or something, but anyway, If you liked Draco in Dragonheart, see this one because Drake (The young dragon) is the only similarity to the first film. And even then, only marginally. 1.5 out of 5.


This is a bad, bad movie. The original Dragonheart was no Oscar winner, by any stretch. Not a bad movie, but certainly not great. In truth, it did not warrant a sequel. Yet, despite this, A New Beginning still manages to do the original no justice by being a total flop. The plot, acting, and directing are all bad. Don't bother with this one.


For those of you who saw the first Dragonheart, which was a WONDERFUL MOVIE and I suggest you see it, you should know the second one makes VERY LITTLE SENSE.

Point A. If Draco was the LAST DRAGON, how are there other dragons now?! There's like a million of them running around in China or something! Point B. After Draco died he completed the constellation Draco, so tell me if it's completed because the last dragon is there how are there other dragons?!

I thought this movie was lacking plot, good acting, and it made little sense prior to the first movie. I give it two thumbs down.


Four years after original Dragonheart movie, which I liked a lot Universal released on video this cheap and rather pathetic sequel. I saw it a few days ago and it was far below my expectations, although it wasn't completely a bad movie. If you don't expect too much and don't take it too serious it can be at least watchable and even entertained. But that's all about it.

There is no intelligent story and no true atmosphere of medieval age as it was in Dragonheart. Actually, the story is poor and it has the certain lack of emotional appealing. The characters development was totally forgotten and with pathetic villains, Asians and Kung-fu in the middle of medieval Europe, ice-breathing dragons, silly jokes and worst of all with ridiculous ending A New Beginning was unable to bring to its audience a memorable and well-constructed story.

The same was with the cast in the movie. It looks like the studio was counting every buck making the movie and no one actor and no one character from the original movie didn't return for the sequel. Even if I mostly liked Chris Masterson in his part in Malcolm in the Middle TV series, his choice for the lead character was totally ineffective. Maybe because of his lack of acting experience he was very unconvincing and unable to wake up the audience. Even visuals were unoriginal and poor. It's a case when the term "unnecessary sequel" instantly and unintentionally came to mind without any invitation. Dragonheart: A New Beginning is a typical example of making cheap, uninteresting movie sequel and burying the franchise.

Grade 4 out of 10.


Well, given that the first Dragonheart was no Citizen Kane - heck, it wasn't even an Excalibur in itself - my expectations were low for this movie. And those expectations were met in full. Dragonheart: ANB builds on the contrivances of the first and offers its own; now there's a new semi-evil ruler guy (you'll love his beginning speech decreeing that citizens must always speak the truth), a new convenient dragon (whose 'ice lung' ability is just a little too powerful) and a wimpy hero who learns to deal between the two, sort of.

One of the more humorous things about ANB is its unnatural PG rating, which means swordfights and such must be bloodless. It makes many of the fight scenes more laughable than they are naturally, which is considerable already. And it gives no particular creedence to the inevitable dragon-heart-changing-sequence, which you know must be coming - you just don't quite know where. Sigh. I shouldn't waste much more time on this. It's a fun dumb movie, but don't expect much more from it. At least they didn't contrive a romance between the hero and the 'foreigner' bodyguard, who is quite clearly female but at whom every character seems surprised to discover this fact.


Seriously, when I first saw the styling of the new baby dragon, I expected it to swallow a turtle any moment on the way and sprout angel wings. It looks too much like Yoshi, like a baby and the sad thing is that I have yet only talked about the dragon.

Christopher Masterson and Robby Benson are spectacularly out of talent during this lot, a spineless cast trying to bare the weight of complete and utter failure. The underdog recipe has been tried honestly for over a thousand times, on twenty different types of movies, but in most cases, this one included, it does not inspire pity nor does it add something to the experience of watching this.

Then there are the brace of peeps that watch this thing for its special effects; trust me when I say that they are quite bad. So... is there anything at all making it you worthwhile to watch this?

No.


This "movie" is just AWFUL! Sequels like this should be forbidden, because such movies are just made, because the original Film was a Blockbuster. I hate movies that destroy the spirit of the first film. Highlander 2 is another good example for that. Bad Animation, ridiculous Actors and Story (Asians in the medieval Europe...). To the middle ages: Where the original did a great job creating an quite authentic atmosphere etc. this thrashy rip-off felt more like an pumped up version of xena or this absolute horrible new adventures of robin hood series which should also be forbidden.


Don't be fooled by anything that you have ever read about this movie, no matter how good someone has said it is. There is NOTHING good about this movie. I won't bother getting into the story, but I will say that the story is horrible, the end makes you say "who gives a crap?", there is barely if any gore at all in it, and this might very well be the worst movie ever put on film.

I bought the DVD for $3 (US), and I feel as though I've been ripped off...that alone should give you an idea how bad it is--and it's not the kind of bad horror movie that is so bad it's good. This just goes beyond bad. I could never explain how horrible this movie is.


Don Julio Madariaga, affectionately called the centaur, spoke this word of wisdom.

The movie which presumably boosted Valentino's career or something definitely belongs to the silent trash. It seems uninspired and insipid in the extreme; it might have his fans but there are plenty of sick people nowadays. But it did some service, it brought me back on earth by reminding me that the silent masterpieces I used to digest are not the whole silent cinema. The silent garbage, as this Valentino flick proves, was as vile and unappealing as the later one.

FOUR HORSEMEN has one of the ugliest casts ever. Most of the performers are ridiculously ugly.

Rudy Valentino was perhaps a moderately goodlooking boy; the rest of the performers in the FOUR HORSEMEN's cast are extremely unappealing. The movie is clumsily made; I have forgotten how bad a silent movie can bethe Valentino vehicle reminded me. It might of meant something in Rudy's career; but it's ugly and mishandled. The caricaturing of the Germans is absolutely sickening.

I have seen mostly masterpieces of the silent; this one belongs to the garbage league; a piece of anti-militarist and antiGerman propaganda, insipid and uninspired.


I watched this movie for two reasons--Robert Mitchum and Zachary Scott. Now for anyone who loves classic Hollywood films, there's really no reason to explain in depth my reason to watch a Mitchum film--after all, he's Robert freakin' Mitchum--a wonderful actor who made everything (even crap) quite watchable. As for Zachary Scott, while he's far from a household name, I loved how slimy he could be--and when I read he was playing a guy who's selling guns to get rich during the Mexican Civil War of the 1910s, it sounded like a role PERFECTLY suited for him. Sadly, however, both actors were pretty limp here--particularly Scott. And, on top of that, the writing really was pretty sad.

The film starts with Scott making a deal with the Federales (troops of the Mexican government). His wife (Ursula Thiess) obviously doesn't like him very much and seems to be biding her time with him. Robert Mitchum, another American, wanders in--apparently to scout out the situation. Soon, he leaves and walks right into a nearby battle between the Federales and the Revolutionaries. Now this part of the movie is really, really dumb. Seeing Mitchum casually strolling about the town with thousands of whizzing bullets flying about was really silly. How could he avoid the bullets?! I guess Mitchum must have been wearing bullet-repellent underwear. In a fit of boredom (or perhaps it was because the bullets broke his bottle of booze), Mitchum decides to stop merely watching the fighting from his balcony and tosses out a few grenades--endearing him to the Revolutionary leader (Gilbert Roland).

A bit later, Mitchum and Roland hit on a scheme to kidnap Scott and his sultry little Wiener Schnitzel (Thiess). At this point, you'd think the film was going to improve following the dopey scene where Mitchum is taking a stroll through a war zone, but it actually will eventually lead to the film completely falling apart for me. Mitchum is supposed to be a self-centered mercenary....yet he throws it all away to spare Scott's wife from being killed. This made no sense at all, nor did Roland's decision NOT to shoot Mitchum in the face for doing this (in direct opposition to his orders). And the last portion of the film was pretty much all action and by then I was ready for the next film! By the way, while Miss Thiess is NOT a household name and only made a few American films, this German actress caught Robert Taylor's eye and they married--and remained married until his death in the late 1960s.


How can a movie be this noisy and still put me to sleep? Is it the writing, which would have me believe:

o An adventurer with seeming inexhaustible amounts of money would risk life and limb to GIVE away tons of arms and ammunition to `the revolution'? o That rebels would ride off and leave machine guns and light artillery pieces behind? o That Robert Mitchum, a prisoner scheduled to be shot, could hide two hand grenades in his jacket? o That Ursula Theiss, held hostage by seasoned rebels, would be allowed to keep a gun in her purse?

 Ursula Theiss (Mrs. Robert Taylor) is pretty, but her love scenes with Mitchum lack spark. Far better is the interplay between Mitchum and Gilbert Roland, as well as his scenes with Zachery Scott and José Torvay (Gonzalez). In fact Mitchum's scenes with practically everyone but Theiss are better than his with her. Not very smart when the plot devices hinge on the Mitchum / Theiss relationship.

Dull, dull, dull, and LOUD!


I've been frequenting YouTube a lot lately in order to search for various movies I'd like to see that happen to be in the public domain (and many that aren't that haven't been taken off). Many of these movies are shown in segments that last little more than ten minutes each though there are some exceptions like this one that was shown in its one hour, seven minute entirety. It's one of the few surviving films of Theda Bara who is a pioneer as an alluring sex symbol of the movies. Here she likes to take happily married rich men and play with their emotions for the fun of it. Having said all that, while I found Ms. Bara's vamping pretty entertaining near the end, the first 30 minutes of A Fool There Was almost put me to sleep since that time mainly concerned the man she was fooling with's family. It probably didn't help that many messages that were shown on screen were mainly blurry. So for that, I'd only recommend A Fool There Was for any silent movie buff out there. P.S. This is the one with the famous inter-title card "Kiss Me, You Fool!"


Watching this today is akin to taking a trip in a time machine. That is, to a time when a snub or a peccadillo had serious social consequences, when an exposed ankle was suggestive and daring, and when the presence of an assertive, sexualized vamp had power to shock us.

Sadly, however, this scores low on the scale of cinematic value; whatever luster it once had isn't evident today.

The story itself is a simple, if lurid, morality play, and nothing more. The intertitles are designed to lead us to the inevitable "see what happens!" conclusion. Nowadays, we expect a bit of irony, a degree of ambivalence.

Likewise with the cinematography...all quite straightforward storytelling, with no narrative games. The filter color changes don't denote anything. In short, this is a depleted asset.


Before I even start I have to tell you that I had to stop watching the movie before it was over because it was THAT terrible. there's a bunch of people in ireland, and there's a puppy that's about to be drowned, and all of a sudden they move to africa, and the same people are all there, and people whip their servants, and dogs fight with imprisoned baboons, and oh there's a love story, too. and lots and lots of animal violence. you know those family-type movies they show you in elementary school that are all about the sepia tones and the people on farms who do senseless things? well, this is like those, but worse. far, far worse. family movie my toe.


Scorpio was a film Burt Lancaster didn't think too much of according to a recent biography and after viewing it I can certainly see why.

On the plus side Lancaster got to work with former co-stars Alain Delon from The Leopard and with Paul Scofield from The Train, both films considerably better than Scorpio. Too bad he wasn't given something better than a warmed over espionage story.

Lancaster is a CIA agent suspected of being a double agent. Word has come from on high to terminate his existence. Not an easy task by any means. Lancaster hasn't survived in the spy business by being a dummy for thirty years.

From French intelligence the CIA borrows hit-man Alain Delon who has worked and trained with Lancaster. He's got the title role as one nicknamed Scorpio because of the way he strikes.

Lancaster has an ace or two up his sleeve also. An old friend with the KGB, Paul Scofield, is willing to help up to a point.

Here's where there is a real problem. Both Lancaster and Scofield are identified by the script as having served in Loyalist Spain with 'volunteer' groups. Of course in the Soviet case I'm sure volunteering was strongly urged.

In America however that would have been the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. And during the post World War II McCarthy era that was one of a group of organizations past and present that was considered a Communist front.

I'm sorry, but there ain't NO WAY that Lancaster with that in his background would have ever gotten a job with the Central Intelligence Agency. And if he did, he would have been found out and dismissed back then and there. The whole story falls apart knowing this.

There are some nice location shots of Vienna and of Washington, DC in Scorpio and acting honors if any go to Paul Scofield. But the film is one colossal waste of time.


Michael Winner must hold the crown for Most Successful Awful Director in film history. With a string of pedestrian Charles Bronson action films to his "credit," and really godawful pictures like FIREPOWER, THE SENTINEL, WON TON TON, THE DOG WHO SAVED HOLLYWOOD, and that astoundingly misbegotten remake of THE BIG SLEEP, I've never understood how Winner kept being allowed to make A-budget pictures. Now I've seen SCORPIO, and I can't understand why he was allowed even to keep making home movies! This is a painfully amateurish film starring several fine actors in what must have been an humiliating experience all around. Every line of dialogue in the movie is looped (dubbed after the fact), destroying any sense of authenticity and verisimilitude. The plot isn't complex enough for one of those comics that comes wrapped around bubble-gum, and technically the film looks like one of those local used-car dealer commercials in a small town. I've been studying Burt Lancaster's career lately, trying to catch up on every film of his I hadn't already seen, yet I couldn't stick this one out quite to the end. If that's being unfair to a picture that turns into a masterpiece in the last few frames, forgive me. There was nothing prior to those frames to indicate even basic competence on the filmmaker's part, much less a potential masterpiece. I've only quit in the middle of three movies in my whole life. This was the third.


And I guess it will be me... This is a plodding film of dysfunctional characters that bored me with their dull, pathetic lives. Every part of this film is at fault here, from the endless anachronisms for 1979 (houses with vinyl siding not available until the 1990s, references to the Falkland war in 1982, Princess Diana style puffed sleeved party dresses from 1981...) to the Alec Baldwin Long Islander bad dad character he has pulled out of his hat on several B movie occasions. This film does not have the depth or pathos of American Beauty nor the intelligence or humour of Juno - two films it is commonly held up to. I have no idea why there seems to be a small but enthusiastic following for this film as I only felt relief when it was finally over. I gave it 2, only because there weren't more Caulkins in it.


Derick Martini's direction here is adequate and the actors pour their hearts in some of the roles but the story the Martini brothers came up with fails to compel. As a result, this is just yet another bland indie entry mixing social criticism and coming of age stories.

The story is down to earth but lacks visceral qualities and is rather forgettable. Character development is nowhere to be seen. It's even worse as far as the story is concerned. This one brings nothing new despite being well-made.

One would be better off picking an old classic such as The Ice Storm in this case.


If you like Bullit, well, you'll find the same stuff here : a good cop doing his job whose colleagues are often corrupted. Great. I remember how Steve McQueen used his gun in "Bullit" : he didn't shoot even once. Here, the actor and director Fred Williamson kills quite the whole city, to get evidences of stuff we don't understand clearly. The bad point is that it is a bad movie. The good point is that it's so low budget that takes are not done again when an actor reads his script on paper or when others start to laugh in a crucial moment...


Nothing original in this film. All these bad scenes have appeared in movies for years. The plot is bad, the acting is bad, the timing is bad. Even Gary Busey, who usually gives a good effort, seemed to be sleepwalking through this one. The good guys and the bad guys were so alike that the only person you feel confident cheering for is Bubba Smith.


It's craptacular!! More of the same from Fred Williamson. He's the renegade cop, somebody is dead, and now he's out for revenge. Too bad he couldn't track down a decent story while he was at it. Instead we're forced to watch while he charms the ladies, smokes cigars, and holds his shiny gun. If you're looking for anything beyond cliche'd characters, flat acting, and blaxploitation rehash, this film is not for you. But if you're up for Bubba Smith's toupee, a pack of geriatric cops "chasing" good ol' Hammer, and more plot holes than you can shake a stick at, this one might be right up your alley.


I am a firm believer in watching an entire movie before you render an opinion. I almost had to break my own rule while watching this atrocity. I don't know what the point of this movie was, other than to make sure Williamson had one more rogue cop, one man army, thumb your nose at whitey, movie under his belt. Final summation: avoid this like the plague!


The only thing "slick" about this film is the video box cover. The movie is strictly Grade B material, although there are some nice special-effects and color to it. The lead actor is probably what gives this movie such a lower-grade feel to it. Kevin Sorbo, who has not exactly become a household name among movie actors, shows why as he plays "Kull." He doesn't look and he doesn't sound like a man from the medieval ages. Only his acting is medieval!

The stupid dialog didn't help him, either. The sorcery with stupid doses of political correctness made the whole thing ludicrous. The leading lady wasn't any better: a broody, unlikeable Karina Lombard. You'd be better off with the horrible Steve Reeves Hercules movies of the 1950s - similar sort of thing.


Some films are mediocre, some films are bad, but still other films are so misconceived and poorly executed that the film-makers should be embarrassed of themselves. "Kull" is exactly that film, and it's more fun to laugh at its unintentional idiocy than to make any attempt to take it seriously as fantasy. At any rate the film-makers also took care of that possibility by filling the sorry affair with so much contemporary humor in a pathetic attempt to imitate the formula of the "Hercules" TV show that starred the same "actor" who appears in this film, Kevin Sorbo.

It didn't have to be this way. King Kull is one of the more interesting characters created by the legendary 1930s pulp writer Robert E. Howard, famous for Conan. Howard's writing has been mostly insulted and degraded by these film versions -- but this one is so awful it makes "Conan the Destroyer" look like "Lord of the Rings." It makes "Red Sonja" look like "Jason and the Argonauts." And it makes "Conan the Barbarian" look like "Citizen Kane." I actually paid to see this in the theater because I'm such a big Robert Howard fan. It was so disappointing that I had to give it a spin on DVD just to see if it could really be as bad as I remembered it. It's far worse than any memory can convey. Right away, you have probably the worst music I've ever heard in a film, a combination of mock-Wagner and mock-Megadeth. Electric guitars on the soundtrack are an especially poor harbinger for a film supposedly set in ancient history. Then you start to notice that all the characters look like roadies for Spinal Tap, and the main villain dude has a mullet that would make Billy Ray Cyrus jealous. So maybe it all makes sense in a twisted way... apparently this was a demographic they were shooting for; perhaps they even advertised this film on WWF smack-down.

There's no getting around what limits the movie the most -- basically the entire cast is wrong and incompetent. Kevin Sorbo always seems like a nice guy, and little else. He's all wrong to play a sadistic barbarian, but the film-makers have solved that problem by removing all traces of Kull's personality and all signs that he was created by Robert Howard, or you could say all signs that he was created by anyone other than a market research survey group. He's polite, soft-spoken, respectful of women, and he wants to free all the slaves. He's a hero -- a character who has no business in a Robert Howard story. Just once I'd like to see this great writer's stories rendered in a way that isn't just to turn all the characters into generic knights in shining armor. Doing that to his world and his characters is like making a Disney movie about the Donner Party. I can understand why a lot of people look down on writing like his, because they assume it's actually junk like this movie.

It doesn't stop there, but I get too tired of thinking about it to go on. Sorbo is the least of our worries in the cast actually, considering that Harvey Fierstein is painfully hammy (and his character seems modeled on a dull character from the TV show), and the director seems to have thought it was a good idea to give all the heavy acting scenes to Tia Carrere. Her misbegotten performance lends the movie most of its laugh factor. This movie is cheap and ugly looking -- I would guess that they spent more money on the lame "Merlin" miniseries in the 90s than they did on this movie which was foisted on theater audiences. Not only that, but the director has no taste and no talent for cinema at all. Everything is shot in a bland and generic way so that none of it seems infused with any kind of power or majesty. Whatever the faults of Milius' original Conan film, and there are many, at the very least he attempted to get the dark atmosphere of Howard's world right and to convey some fraction of the characters' fatalism. Unless the new "Solomon Kane" film is a huge surprise, it will be the only example of somebody even attempting something different of this type in a fantasy movie for a long time.


My Dear. What has happened here. I am one of the greatest fans of Sword & Sorcery films ever (I can enjoy almost all of them). I have seen all the sword and sorcery films I can. I even liked Wizards of the Lost Kingdom! ALOT! But this movie was a complete waste of my time. I bought it for $2.00 at a local video sale and after watching I felt ripped off (and went out and sold it) The main reason for me getting it was that the script was by Charles Edward Pogue, a man who I have alot of respect for after "The Fly" and "Psycho 3" But I could'nt see a trace of his usual good work here. Was it producer interference??? I wont bother with the plot or the acting or lighting and direction except to say that they are all terrible. This feels like a movie done by a bad commercials director (e.g No understanding of narrative or character). But I guess what I find most objectionable about this film is that there was no entertainment value or originality whatsoever. Even in some of the very worst films there can be weird or inventive or hilarious sequences just due to experimentation. But there was nothing here. Im sorry to be so critical but really please avoid.


This is a text book example of how not to do a fantasy movie. Sorbo is wasted..and its a sad comment that the writing for his hit show Hercules is 20 times better than this dreck. From the cheesey rock music sound track at the opening credits you realize they are not going to give the genre any respect..and great movies like Army of Darkness..can make fun of the genre while still respecting it.

Kull is nearly devoid of any intentional humor. Though you will find yourself laughing out loud at various points due to the incredibly lame dialogue and ridiculous performances. I think this is also a film that clearly had no art direction and it offends the chronological senses even worse than Hercules and Xena to the point at which you began to think the entire thing took place in a world of cheesey movie sets instead of some time in our distant past.

No effort is made to build any characters or make us care about anyone..and no one is likeable or cool enough to care about them at first sight.

I'm not even sure this would be good WITH the MST3K crew riffing on it. When its not being stupid ..it just drags.


I saw this movie twice, and both times I just sat there and wondered why they even put this movie in to production. It's totally a brute force type movie with tiny bits of emotion, and Kevin Sorbo is not a great actor, he's just strong and has a good voice. Tia Carrere (who is Miss I-have-no-career-since-I-am-no-longer-in-Wayne's_World) does not give a very good performance either, and is not good for a mean bitchy character. The movie is so typical of most action movies these days, and the only thing that sets it apart from those is that it is set back in time. Kull the Conqueror is a wannabe movie of Hercules. I'm guessing they didn't have the rights to make a Hercules movie, so they took the same premise of sorts (big strong guy kicks the crap outta bad guys in medieval times) and made this awful movie. I just laughed at it's mediocrity. The lines are so typical, and so are the fights. I give this movie a 4, only because the special effects weren't too bad.


I just watched this movie on Movie Time and not even Kevin Sorbo could keep me watching this waste of film. All this movie is is a lot of testosterone mixed with pretty women. Jesus if I wanted to watch a pretty boy killing people off I'd watch The Legend of Hercules not this atrocity.

Please ladies if you see this movie in the stores RUN. RUN hard, RUN long, and RUN fast because I wasted about 10 minutes of my otherwise active life watching this movie and I feel like it was a really big waste of 10 minutes of my life and 3.5 hours of their film.

It was really stupid and machismo stuff aimed at 15 year old boys and if I had a 15 year old boy I certainly wouldn't let him watch this.


i wasn't too impressed with this movie.it is in the style of both the Conan movies,but i didn't like it anywhere near as much.there was lots of action,but i still found it to be slow and boring.it becomes a bit more interesting from the halfway point on,but barely.i didn't find the acting very good,although Kevin Sorbo was good as the title character.but it was Tia Carrere who i thought was very impressive as the evil Queen.however,the only real reason i stuck it out was i noticed that the beginning credits listed Harvey Fierstein in the movie.he doesn't show up until about halfway through,but i liked him in his role.otherwise,the movie is tedious and very hard to get through.for me,Kull the Conqueror is a 4/10.


In the very beginning of the movie, Kull (Hercules) is attempting to join an army, but fails. This is odd, because he seems to be a foreigner since he seems to know nothing of the local culture. Therefore, why would he try to join an army of a country he's never heard of? The King has gone mad and is killing all his sons, and Kull stops him by killing him. The army I already mentioned were all made up of men of royal blood (I.e. the King's relatives) so, since all the Kings direct heirs are dead, there is some confusion as to which one of the soldiers is the rightful heir. It's most likely one of two of the soldiers, and of course they themselves are somewhat bias as to which one it is. However, the King, with his dying breath, decrees that Kull is the next King.

And that's the first three minutes of the movie. (Or might have even been the first MINUTE).

This is basically a low-budget sword-and-sorcery movie. The culture isn't established enough, Nothing's really explained about Kull's motives other than liking axes and not liking slavery, and basically the whole movie is alright but not great. See this movie if you just wanna see some low-budget sword-and-sorcery, or if you like to watch movies for the purpose of laughing at them. If you like GOOD movies, I suggest Lord of the Rings.


Viewed 28.3.05.

I know nothing of the literary provenance of this movie, Sword n Sorcery not being my thing. But I do have the necessary ability to switch off reality and overlook the silliness of all the made-up names and fake mythology. This particular foray seemed glossy, glamorous and to promise much.

Especially when the wizard shows us the cave full of ancient mummies of dead demons that one imagines are going to come back to life later on. For a starter he resurrects the boss-witch who passes through some great metamorphoses before wisely settling on the form of Tia Carrera. as ever, ineffably gorgeous dominatrix diva. Alas, she didn't get to torment men much and that orange hair-do was a total distraction.

Lot of scrapping, well choreographed but not my cup of tea, passing by way of an ice-God's magic breath to a fiery showdown. Then I realise, where are the demons? Mashabasha or whatever her name was had kept harpy-ing on about her Hellish court on Earth but she just didn't deliver. a pity, because the static mummy-dummies in the cave looked very promising.

There is one ape-man-thing in a very minor role. Not even a villain, so much as an incidental character.

Maybe they mis-spent the special effects budget putting demons off the carte.

Is "Kull" meant to sound like "Cull", as in, killing surplus livestock?


Well, I didn't really expect much from this film but I found myself watching it all the way through. The whole feel of the film is a culmination of a typical Conan rip-off and the Hercules TV series that Kevin Sorbo starred in, and as much as he tries old Kev will always be Hercules. Though I have to say, there are a few features to this film that rescue it to just above watchable. Number one being the soundtrack, not only is there the typical orchestral score behind every dramatic scene and/or plot revelation but we are actually treated to some rock music during the occasional fight scenes. Now, being a man who believes that the soundtrack is integral to any great movie (Come on, you all remember the theme/soundtrack to all your favourite films) I felt uplifted to hear some heavy guitar music over the fights. What a great idea, it works well and I wish we'd hear more of it in bigger Hollywood productions. But on to the rest of the film. Performances - average to just above average. A little disappointed with Tia Carrere but to be honest I doubt there was much more she could have done in the role. Maybe someone else would have been better for the job. Everyone else was OK except for Thomas Ian Griffith who absolutely blew me away. To start I was kind of annoyed with his character but as he got more and more evil I found his time on screen to be entertaining. His lines and performance were delivered perfectly, best performance in the film. There were some OK-to-low scale special effects in this but nothing that can't be forgiven on something of this calibre. Most of the fight scenes I found to be very entertaining making you follow each swing of the blade/axe, and they were carried through the film by the rock music I mentioned earlier. Better fights that I expected. Lastly but not least, even for a fantasy film the costumes were just bizarre and I think I should leave it there. The less said about them the better.

Overall, a surprisingly entertaining movie but I wouldn't recommend you to go out and buy it unless you are a fantasy junkie or really enjoy seeing Kevin Sorbo on screen a lot.


Why!!! It has to be illegal to do this with one of Robert E. Howards characters. This movie is totally crappy. It's even too bad to laugh at. Do not see this movie.


I never had such a good time making fun of a movie until this feature-length Hercules episode came along. Everything seemed to have been fished from the bottom drawer: lame flaming swords (gosh, could those be their attempts at light-sabres?), scrap-metal artifacts, second-rate hell-beasts, and an ensemble of clowns. All thrown in with that wannabe fantasy-epic intro. My friend and I were left with eyes watering and bellies aching from almost non-stop laughter. One of those flicks which are so bad they're actually good.


As an avid fan of fantasy and adventure, I had extremely high hopes for Kull. I went in, with the thoughts of Willow (Arguably the best fantasy film ever made), and discovered two things. One, the theatre charged way too much for crappy movies and two, the movie's horrible. Kevin Sorbo plays Kull of Atlantis who joins a noble army and ends being King and also ends up being part of an intricate plot to revive some ancient demoness. I read somewhere that Kull, before its release, was edited countless times from a new director. Well that basically destoys the movie. There were more holes in the plot then there are in the Moon and none of the characters really develops in the movie. Tia plays an unconvincing villain, with little depth, and with cliche lines. The rest of the cast just drags along with the boring and overused plot. The only redeeming quality of the film are its sets. Otherwise I would give it a 1. The movie more than deserves my 3 rating.