Haunted house films in general don't go down well with me at the best of times, but when the haunted house film in question is as boring as The Hearse, you can guarantee it's not going to be a winner! The film is absolutely what you would expect it to be - and nothing more or less, which ensures that the film is constantly dull. We get fed the common haunted house plot - basically, a woman inherits a house from her aunt but, believe it or not, her aunt was into witchcraft - blah blah blah, and then strange things start to happen. The woman starts seeing things, there's strange noises etc and someone in an old hearse begins 'menacing' her. This basically continues until we get to the end of the film. The film wouldn't have been quite so bad if we'd been provided with a bit of eye candy, but while she's not ugly - lead actress Trish Van Devere really didn't do anything for me. As you'd probably expect, the film tries to be a bit clever at the end, but true to form with this film it just turns out be a disappointment. I can't really be bothered to say much more than that about this lackadaisical movie - my advice is simply not to bother with it.


"The Hearse" is a low-budget, bottom-of-the-barrel little shocker. It's uninvolving throughout, and never terrifying. The hopelessly cliched story, with all the familiar "haunted house" tricks, would be enough to sink this movie, but the job is completed by the poor direction and the murky look of the film, which often makes it hard for us to understand what's happening onscreen. The ending leaves almost everything unexplained and is just as arbitrary and nonsensical as the rest of this film. The good performances can't save it by any means.


Before watching it, I decided to give the trailer a look and liked what I saw. But when it came to actually watching the feature. Well that was another story. Even with such a novel idea, it couldn't escape its roots that hang heavily in this old-hat haunted house format. No surprises or shocks here. The pallid story never grips or inserts much interest, as it becomes a wearisome tale of never-ending, suspicious tedium. The slow grinding pace doesn't help matters either. It seems to be all build up, but director George Bowers' predictable touch can't seem to raise much in the way of suspense and really overuses the usual scare tactics with miserable results. This even goes for Webster Lewis' generically telegraphed score. One or two effective surreal set-pieces (involving the hearse and its driver) and Mori Kawa's nicely atmospheric photography, just can't make-up for the lame, weak and overly boring presentation. Performances feel wooden and terribly uninterested, and it seems to show. Trish Van Devere fluffs about, and Joseph Cotton adds his two bobs worth. Put it under the very forgettable files.


I saw this film as a kid, and for the most part I remember not all that much going on in this movie. I remember it being somewhat boring and not really exciting or creepy at all. However, if I ever see this movie for sale someday I will buy it just so I can see it again and see what the story was about as that is something that for the most part escapes my mind at the present time. So I may be giving this movie a low score now, however, in the future I may give it a higher score or rewrite this review in order to incorporate more of the story in the review. I am writing one now though as I may never find the movie for sale or on television so I may never get that chance. Oddly enough, I always think of that scene with the hearse driver coming to get someone, but this scene was not even in this movie, but rather in the film "Burnt Offerings" another horror movie that for the most part was not exciting. Perhaps this one too was a book first and it just did not translate to the big screen all that well. In the end though I can not remember this movie all that well, it was not gory in the least and was more suspense than anything, but I do not really remember the suspense being all that suspenseful.


Anyone who used to watch Mr. Show may recall that sketch. It basically puts several stereotypical characters in a spooky old house. They quiver as noises crash all around them. But what are they supposed to be afraid of? The creature? It's ghost? The curse? The return of the creature? What then? It's pretty funny. Check it out on youtube. Anyway, this film is kind of like that. Which cliché are we supposed to be afraid of here?

The Hearse is simply a dull collection of about every old horror film cliché you can think of. A recently divorced woman moves into her late aunt's spooky old house in the countryside. On her way into town, and on several other occasions, a big old black hearse seems to be trying to run her off the road! A bad omen. The locals are outwardly hostile, since they hated her aunt and know the house is haunted. The only local who seems to like her is a horny teenager whose parents own the hardware store. And then, there's this weird gentlemanly dude who shows up to court her in an old-fashioned way...

The plot thickens (kind of) when the woman finds her aunt's diary and learns that she was about to marry a preacher, but then dumped him for a Satanist! Yikes. And then the spooky old house seems to come to life. Windows break for no reason. Pipes clang together. Music boxes play on their own and move around. And all the while this old hearse keeps showing up on the roads or in her driveway. What does it want? Who is the mysterious "Tom" who wishes to win her over? Honestly, you'll figure it all out pretty quick.

The film just can't decide what is at the center of all the strange happenings. All the writers seemed to want to do is add a bunch of supposedly spooky elements into a pot and stir until something watchable came out. The acting is passable. Trish Van Devere isn't bad at all. Joseph Cotten needed more screen time, but they likely only got him for a few days of shooting. The film borrows heavily from other horror films such as The Car, Let's Scare Jessica to Death, The Amityville Horror, and maybe even The Fog. There really isn't an original idea to be found. The hearse itself is just a plot point that isn't really explained. It looks menacing, but almost seems like an afterthought that could have been written out altogether. Not a drop of blood, or any real suspense to be had. Really no reason to see this one. I'm frankly amazed it ever got a DVD release. 4 of 10 stars.

The Hound.


I found this title in my search for good quality horror films. This one, obviously, qualifies into the "haunted house" genre where the scare factor is more in-direct. But there was a problem. This movie isn't good. I hate to say that, because i strive to find positive attributes in every film i see, but this film simply is badly made. How more contrived can a haunted house script be? The film begins with a woman realizing she needs to spend time alone because she's been having "difficult times" (so we can later explain why she thinks she must be crazy when she sees things), then the big house inherited from her dead aunt (low angle shots here, with blue lights behind dead trees, a la Amityville horror) and a bunch of bad acting locals who act unkind to this lady almost as if just because the script calls for it. But here's the biggest fault: The musical score. Sorry Mr. Webster Lewis, but your score took away any possible strength this film could have had. Not only have they re-used the the same 3 cues through out the film (which i can understand to some degree, considering recording costs) but each cue within itself is bad. They begin with this short piano lick which, everytime you hear it, you're supposed to realize that "something ain't right here". It becomes tiring, it becomes overpowering. In other cues you hear this Jaws' theme-like piano motif pounding away which is supposed to build the tension, but give me a break guys. And next time hire a composer who knows that writing original film music is more than trying to create suspense by using diminished chords or pounding low piano keys. By the time this film was over i couldn't figure out how or why it ended up on my "must see" list for interesting horror films. And the director should stick to his editing career instead (looks like, from his filmography, he's been more successful at that). And that's not a surprise, after seeing this bad film.


Just watched this on the double-bill dvd with "Birth of the Blues."

This one is far from a keeper. It is better than the companion feature, but that is damming with faint praise. Crosby is his usual likable self and Astaire saves the film from total disaster. Every time he does a number we get an inkling of this umpteenth Irving Berlin "songbook"could have been. Crosby and Astaire shine in a wonderful tribute to vaudeville, "A Couple of Song and Dance Men," and Astaire dazzles in the great "Puttin' On the Ritz." The reviewer who knocked Joan Caulfield's performance should have skewered the terrible screenplay, which requires Caulfield to shuffle like a dim-wit between Crosby and Astaire. With a part like that, we would have hated Ingrid Bergman. This was to have been Astaire's final film, but he came out of retirement a year or so later to co-star in "Easter Parade" and finally do a never topped Berlin "songbook" that includes "Steppin' Out With My Baby," one of Astaire's greatest moments. The great howler in this film is that Astaire is supposed to be drunk while doing two incredible dance numbers. Right, he acts soooo drunk. No wonder he retired. When-oh-when will "Easter Parade" be on dvd so I can jump to the musical numbers and skip the totally predictable story.


Fifteen-year-old Gary McCleery (as Bobby Lipscomb) skips school, hangs around with his older brothers, and dreams of flying airplanes. One evening, he makes the "Hard Choice" and joins drug-addicted Martin Donovan (as Josh Lipscomb) and trigger happy John Snyder (as Ben Lipscomb) in a "Food Market" robbery. Unfortunately, Mr. Snyder kills a police officer, who happens upon the scene. The three brothers are quickly apprehended. Mr. McCleery hopes to be tried as a juvenile; but, Tennessee judges rule he is to be tried as an adult. When things look bleakest for young McCleery, social worker Margaret Klenck (as Laura Stephens) steps in to improve his treatment in prison and the courts; she is only partially successful. Then, Ms. Klenck makes a "Hard Choice" of her own

According to the sleeve, this film got excellent reviews; and, the quotes are from reliable sources. Perhaps some of these reviewers will consider re-evaluation "Hard Choices"? It really isn't all that believable a story. McCleery doesn't seem much like a 15-year-old, and Klenck's character development is disappointing (to say the least). However, they, and the other performers, do as well as they can (with the story). It's great to see Mr. Donovan in an early role; strangely, he and Snyder are abandoned during the running time. Writer-director John Sayles is good, also, as Klenck's coke companion. The photography, by Tom Hurwitz, is a major strength.

**** Hard Choices (1985) Rick King ~ Gary McCleery, Margaret Klenck, John Sayles, Martin Donovan


I couldn't believe my professor assigned this movie for a class. Ugh.

The production values are not too great, and the score is AWFUL!

In general, it feels like a corny 80s sex fantasy drawn out for 90 minutes.

But without a lot of sex.

Some of the nature scenes are very pretty, and it's almost in the so-bad-it's-fun category.

But not quite.

Definitely not recommended, unless you're having a bad-obscure-80s movie film fest.

And maybe not even then.


I just saw this movie for the first time, and the last time. Now I wouldn't say I was a harsh critic, but this movie really reeked. The eigthies was a confusing era, and this movie was a fart of the eighties era of movies. It lingered around for a while and didn't smell too good. The whole idea of kids fighting monsters, is a idea out of some stupid saturday morning cartoon. What kind of an actor would play a "fish man." And even the idea of a "fish man" is staggering. So if you are thinking of watching "Monster Squad," think it over, and consider the year of 1987, and the crap that came out of the 80's.


OK, I gave this movie a 2/10 instead of a 1, for the slight twist at the end. This movie is horrible, do not rent it. I rented it based on the cover and blurb on the back and thought "Hey this could be good," because I like a lot of straight to video horror. But this movie is not worth any money. I won't really say anything else about it til a few more people post, I don't want to give away all that happens, or as you'll see, all that doesn't. OK so I added the spoiler warning, you only see how 2 people die, the rest you kind of just have to imagine. It's pathetic, the acting is terrible, and the camera work is supposed to add to the suspense, but could leave you nauseated.


To be fair, I only watched an hour of this flick. To really be fair, whoever made this piece of camcorder crap should refund my money I paid Blockbuster. I should charge them for having to sit through an hour of this "horror movie".....

Well, in the hour I did see......there was a scene in a classroom, with all of the students being 20 something Z list actors. The dialogue was laughable.....then there was a scene where they find a dead body in the school (everyone screams and then walks away).....then they decide to go to the teachers house so they can perform a sacrifice (?)...they get to the house....the lesbians get undressed and lay around on their bed.....one gets dream raped by the teacher (?)....two go into the woods to smoke pot....that was about it for me......Just a bunch of crappy dialogue you cannot hear half of the time and crappy rap music with mexicans screaming/chanting over it........

Maybe the last 15 minutes or so that I did not see were kick ass.......Seriously doubt it.....AVOID AVOID AVOID......makes the acting in Children of the Living Dead seem like Oscar worthy performances.


It's official, "The Dawn" is the worst movie I've ever seen! I can credit this complete pile of crap with only a singular attribute... The cover looks creepy. PERIOD!

Under the cover, I can only hope that this was made by starving, crack addicted, film school drop-outs with nothing else to do with their buzz. The dialog is obviously unscripted. Nothing but mindless banter accented with an overkill of screaming (at what!?) The characters were the lamest group of needy individuals however as a man, I was at first intrigued by the lesbians, but even lost interest in them within the first 3 minutes or so. As for the plot (plot?), I think if there was ever a shred of evidence of what this was supposed to be, it got swept off the cutting room room floor by the janitor. Which leads me to the director Linwood D Neverson. Here's a man with balls. He edited his own direction and was left standing alone with nothing more than what should be an embarrassment. It also happens to be produced by Linwoods brother Darryl L Neverson and Agustin. At least Agustin had enough common sense not to strap his surname to it. As far as the camera crew, the lighting is poor and there's a scene that must have been filmed by a drunk monkey with a cam-cord and a real bad case of the hic-cups. The soundtrack is poorly edited rap/hip-hop. Though I myself don't like the style of music(?) at all, those who do can reap the crap of rap here.

All in all "The Dawn" is by far, the biggest waste of celluloid I ever had the burden to witness. But I pays my moneys, I's gots to sees it.

But the cover is cool.


The movie wasn't as bad as i thought it was going to be. I Mean i went in thinking it was going to be the worst thing ever but the cast was pretty entertaining. It was just so damn boring and there was nothing scary about it. It could have been such a better movie if they didn't do anything but talk and scream the whole damn time. And you never quite know what they are screaming about! They didn't even show how anyone died. And the ending....so what exactly happened to Carmen? Are we supposed to guess? I can't believe i even watched it to the end. I seriously fast forwarded through the scenes to actually see where it was going and it seemed like i was fast forwarding through the same thing over and over. All they did was scream and shout which was pretty annoying! And the lesbians were driving me nuts! They kept touching each other.It was so annoying. I mean don't get me wrong i have nothing against lesbians since i myself am bi, but you don't have to be touching your girlfriend every 5 secs. And it wasn't even like sexual or anything. Plus one of the girls Spanish was so thick you could hardly understand her. Not to mention the only time they didn't touch was when you wanted them to! It was a waste of time but it just irks me that this had potential if you actually had a plot.


Well I just got done watching this film and all I can say is I wish I hadn't, with little info available about it I knew it was a risky film to watch but who knew it could be this bad?! The acting is quite simply atrocious, the plot and dialogue (when the cast remember the lines) is just awful and minimal in the usual way of teen horror flicks the story is just there to get to the next scary bit....sadly they seemed to have forgotten to put in both a story or any scary scenes.

I honestly can't think of anyone who would like this sort of movie, it has a fair amount of rap music and a largely black cast...but I can't see fans of 'black' cinema or rap music liking it. It's a horror film that won't appeal to hardcore horror fans or those just looking for a cheap thrill. Avoid at all costs.


If you are like me, you have bee to Blockbuster or any other video rental and have seen movies such as this on the shelf numerous times. These movies are terrible, but we keep renting 'no name' horror movies for whatever our own reasons maybe. My own reason for renting these types of movies, is hoping that maybe there will be one movie in the mix that will surprise me and actually be decent. To my surprise and liking I find a gem every now and then. This was not one of those times. Do I blame the makers of these films? No i do not, nor do I think anyone else should blame them for us spending our money.These films have very small budgets ,I would imagine. So lets not be so judge mental on these guys that don't have 30,50,or $100 million dollar budgets; instead lets hope that one day these guys will be somebody and be able to make good movies. I'm sure these filmmakers don't want to make bad moves but they don't have the money to make what they would like. Thank You


I was sadly disappointed with this movie. It wasn't a comedy, or even a drama really. It was "April" trying to make Thanksgiving dinner and the problems she encounters. This movie was basically the LONGEST hour and 20 minutes of my entire life.

Beware this movie unless you really want to waste your money on it. Even with all the big name actors/actress it was done rather poorly. Shaky camera, BAD acting and a lot more things I'd rather not get into made this the worst experience in my life. If it had lasted any longer than that hour 20 minutes, I'd have stopped it right then and returned it never to pick it up again.


Unfortunately this movie tries too hard to be a poor man's Coen brothers movie but doesn't hold a candle and goes nowhere. The low budget does not make up for an inadequate script that feels too much like an attempt to put as many oddball characters into this short movie as possible.

The story is about an estranged family going to visit their daughter/sister in New York and each is dreading the encounter because of all the past trauma. We don't really know too much about the past because it's only dealt with on a surface level and too many attempts at funny moments preoccupy the running time of this film. Katie Holmes plays the protagonist, a somewhat clueless bittersweet girl who needs to find a way to cook a reasonably good Thanksgiving dinner and hopefully to get her Turkey done in time to meet the family. Thus begins the long crazy nutty quest that will end when the twain shall meet.

This isn't to say that this movie doesn't have its moments. It really does have very good parts but it is as though the writer/director missed the boat entirely in spending so much time on the build-up and the climax ended far too quickly. Unfortunately the build-up is a bunch of comic moments with attempts at sweet humanity and a whole lot of obvious moments where the movie is merely a script where events just don't happen and people don't act a certain way. It's not natural. Like the Coen Brothers this film is all about the characters but unlike the Coen Brothers there is precious little real effort made to make sure that the characters act, say and do what the real characters would. Instead, the writing and direction goes more for over the top humor and an attempt at one punchline.

This film had a lot of promise. Some very good moments and Holmes does shine in her part, which actually doesn't delve very deep but saves the film. Most of the comments here are unfortunately shallow, the same people who just want a good Hollywood like feelgood movie with shallow "depth." The ending is predictable, preposterous and unfortunately resolves nothing and is a mere cheap tug at the heart strings which suckered in most of the reviewers here with "style" that isn't impressive. And they lived happily ever after. It's too bad this movie is completely forgettable and an opportunity missed.


This is the most ridiculously overpraised piece of crap of the year. First of all, it's only about seventy minutes long without credits -- not that I was complaining by the end -- which is pretty insulting in the era of $10 movie tickets. Second, the camerawork makes Woody Allen's "Husband and Wives" feel positively stable by comparison. It's truly headache-inducing.

There's a lot to hate about this movie, but most of all is that it takes place entirely in Movieland, where every character has one or more supposedly endearing or interesting eccentricities and ten times too much dialogue -- all of it screaming "SCRIPT!" --, every moment is laden with unlikely action and silly melodrama, and nothing anybody says or does bears any resemblance to the real world.

The baby-faced Katie Holmes as a druggie is only the beginning. Next comes the black woman whose initial response to Holmes at her apartment door rings completely false. Then the effete upstairs neighbor who behaves unlike anybody on Planet Earth. And the list goes on and on and on -- it's really amazing how much falsehood has been crammed into so little running time.

The stuff with April's family is just painful to watch and rings false from the first second to the last. Patricia Clarkson gets the one and only laugh in the picture when she has her husband stop the car, gets out, and without saying a word crosses the highway and sticks out her thumb to hitchhike in the opposite direction. The idea that this is an award-worthy performance is an insult, not least of all to Clarkson. Everybody else, you just feel sad for, including yourself.


Sorry if anyone actually liked this, but no. Just no. This is such a pathetic excuse of an action-packed cartoon. It also felt out of place (Meaning, the shouldn't have ever aired on Nick). Even if this was aired somewhere else, this would still be a pretty mediocre show. 3 Martians come to earth and become friends with ugly-looking corny kids. The other cast members are also so bland and boring. Whenever the martians go into their "BKM Mode", they just get suits, which aren't very creative.

I consider this piece of trash a pathetic combination of Invader Zim (Martians sent to take over the world) and Jimmy Neutron (It's computer generated and the martians have a Goddard rip-off.)It seems as though this show was scraped together after Invader Zim was released and when Jimmy Neutron was in production back in 2001.

At least Nick is still smart enough to know when they need to cancel shows. And thank God this show only lasted one season. But, as other reviews say, this should never have been aired on Nickelodeon, or probably on any other TV Channel.

So, PLEASE, never watch this show if you do happen to find it on TV or if you see a DVD for sale in stores. Nickelodeon fans saw this, and suffered through it when it aired. If Nickelodeon actually makes more shows like this, then they are screwing up the minds of the next-generation of kids. Nickelodeon used to have great shows most of the time (mostly during the 90's), but then all that changed with Butt Ugly Martians appeared. Stay away from this lame and stupid show.


I have to admit, I agree with most of the complaints about "Butt Ugly Martians;" however, I feel it did have one redeeming quality about it and that item was Robert Stack as the voice of Stoat Muldoon, Alien Hunter. In my opinion, the only reason to watch the show is to listen to Robert Stack as he does a take off of his old TV "Untouchables"character. In most of the episodes the over-the-top Stoat has his mind blanked after discovering the Martians. The mind wipe ends with Stoat folding onto the ground and saying something along the lines of, "I don't like the darkness, Mommie." I only tuned into the show because I learned Stack was to be on the show and continued to watch because of him, but I was not supervised to see it canceled.


I saw the film opening day with my botha's & sistah's.

There were funny moments but most of the time we were trying hard to find something worth laughing at. Maybe it was too close to the truth. The funniest moment was Cedric's mexican food problem. All the actors have done better work.

Great gag: Many missed the names of the little girls; Latonya and Lasonya !!!

It's not a bad film, it's just not that funny.


High Expectations-Lower than low results. Just another cute-family-movie that makes me wanna yell 'LAST REEL, PLEAAAAAAAASE' every couple of minutes.

I just don't get how people like Whoopi and Loretta could read, enjoy and accept such a script suffering of terminal cuteness. What is it all about? That african american women are born to suffer, bring babies to the world, clean up the mess their husband is doing and go to church and pray god, sing gospel (of course, every african american woman sings gospel). That african american men are born to be pathetic losers waiting for wellfare, prison or being unfaithful to their wives, being alcoholic,etc,etc... wait... is this being human? nah. The script doesn't know where to go so it makes every character having something bad to confess or to suffer from. Something's got to happen to them in order to keep the audience awake. Which I hardly did here.

So Loretta knows how to scream. So Whoopi can be pouty. LL Cool just looks at everyone, his face screaming "look, I can act like an alcoholic" but it still doesn't work. Toni Braxton is, well, Toni Braxton. And Jada is, hum,well, like what she's been doing these past few years...her best part being Scream 2, I guess. These characters are just one-dimensonial and caricatures of what human beings really are. And this happy end where everyone forgives everyone and all is good in the end, right? Yuck. I remember a time where a director such as Charles Burnett was really directing and having a point of view.

There is nothing wrong doing a family movie but a movie that looks like a tv movie should stay where it belongs : on tv. No swearing (that's BAD), no sex (that's WORSE), God is good, family is good, going to church is good, not going is bad : the character that dies wasn't going and keeping poor Whoopi out of it! No wonder he's considered so mean by almost everyone! That is, I guess, the whole point of the movie.

Being a believer -which I'm not- is probably a great thing. To give a moralizing point of view is sickening. To achieve such a low quality in movie making is beyond redemption. Go rent KILLER OF SHEEP or JESUS OF MONTREAL.

This movie is a just another turkey stuffed with so many clichés that the hoven is about to explode before Thanksgiving.

Superwonderscope says 1


I truly expected something wonderful from this movie. An ensemble cast of talented and funny performers should have boded well.

Words cannot describe how wrong I was. Who would believe that Whoopi is from the South with her dreads and non-accent? Who would believe that with all of their dysfunction that they could pull a funeral together in two days? Who would believe that Jada could be so awful in her role?

Toni Braxton was surprisingly good, and of course if Ced had been given more time, he would have been the movie's saving grace. The plotline was barely there, the characters were all overwhelmingly dysfunctional, and it tied up so neatly, I was perturbed. It's not what you think it is going to be, so go with your expectations firmly nestled in your shoe.


KINGDOM COME / ** (out of four)

By Blake French:

	"Kingdom Come" opens with a not so tragic death in the midst of a dysfunctional family. The husband of Raynelle Slocumb (Whoopi Goldberg) suddenly kicks the bucket while eating breakfast at the kitchen table. He leaves his wife not with wonderful memories but with only two adjectives to describe him: mean and surly. This incident triggers a family reunion to celebrate the life of their relative. Most of the family members hate each other and are not particularly happy with their awkward ruination.

The family members all appear to be spoof material from some stale TV soap opera. Actually, "Kingdom Come" is best described as a made for TV Soap Opera spoof. The script gives the variety of eccentric characters unique little quirks that replace development but establish their lifestyles. It's funny how the movie begins and ends with the Whoopi Goldberg character. She is the only person in the family with whom we connect. She realizes that her relatives are resentful fools, and provides us with a kind of wisdom that really benefits the movie.

	The film is based on the play by David Dean Bottrell and Jessie Jones, who also wrote the jumbled, unorganized screenplay. Director Doug McHenry does not provide the story with much focus or interest. There's about four subplots of equal importance, but we never actually care about any of the characters. Some of the characters are truly irritating, like a clueless Reverend, played by Cedric the Entertainer, who was so witty and edgy in Spike Lee's "The Original Kings of Comedy." Here he is simply a medium for the film to spew ungraceful humor; his speech mannerism and character development are painfully unfunny. No matter, the movie continuously stretches his stupidity, especially during a closing scene of obligatory fart jokes during a funeral reception. This scene may be somewhat funny, but its context, it is way out of place.

	A top-notch cast delivers a variety of situation characters, including Raynelle's alcoholic son (LL Cool J in a performance worthy of the Razzie Award), and his scolding wife (Vivica A. Fox). Her daughter (Jada Pinkett Smith) is married to an adulterer (Anthony Anderson). Another daughter is Marguerite (Loretta Devine), who tries hard to control her slacker son (Darius McCrary). There is also a rich loudmouth Cousin (Toni Braxton) and I already mentioned the gaseous Rev. Hooker (Cedric the Entertainer).

	"Kingdom Come" is a movie obviously driven by moral beliefs and powerful conviction, and while its intentions are noble and understood, it never manages to get its point across clearly. The film just cannot successfully display its message in context to the story on screen. It tires to be a warm-hearted, family-orientated comedy like "Soul Food," but does not hold the same standards for itself. What we end up with is a preachy but whimsical comedy that can't make up its mind whether it wants us to laugh or join the chorus.


I am not sure what that Dane fellow was talking about, but he obviously is not a family man. I rented this movie for my two children. My daughter (Four years of age) and my son (8 years old). Neither of them could sit still during this movie. My son actually left the movie to do his homework! The only positive outcome of this movie was that now I know how to make my son do this homework, just tell his only other choice is watching Ronald McDonald's Wacky Adventures. My daughter, threw her Beany Baby at the TV! She not only wanted me to shut the movie off, but she said that she never wants to get a happy meal for McDonald's again! Let me just say, that this movie was a HUGE downer. I recently saw the movie Dude Where's My Car? and I can honestly say that it was more entertaining. If that doesn't tell you something, nothing will.


I've seen both versions, 1939 and 1954, more then once or twice. The only saving grace for the latter is that the supporting cast is pretty good. I respect his outstanding war record, but Murphy was only a mediocre actor on his best day. Even when he portrayed himself in "To Hell and Back" his acting style is plodding and dull. Stewart could play a role low key and then show a range of emotions when called on to do so - he was a true artist in that regard. Murphy seems almost dull witted at times. Stewart had an outstanding military record that was, at times, used to lend credibility to some of his roles. It was unfortunate that Murphy was exploited just because his war record was deemed to be a box office draw, but he just couldn't act.


It's very hard to really answer this. Am I going to compare this to a mainstream slasher like Friday The 13th, or an independent such as Bloody Murder? The movie was more or less A fan film, in the vein of the Friday The 13th fan films. The movie is very well put together, the editing is surprisingly good and the directing is also pretty solid. The movie flowed really well, and the setting helped that out a lot. I loved the setting. Usually when you see low budget camp slashers, it's rarely set at an actual camp-- usually in the woods under a tent. The blood, gore and deaths were really good, somewhat bloody and very well executed. I applaud whoever did the special make-up effects. Lastly, I loved all of the homages to 80's camp slashers (mostly Friday The 13th). In a way it was a bit overdone for a practical slasher movie, but it was warmly welcomed.

There is a handful of things that either I disliked, or hit me the wrong way. First off the acting was about a 2/10-- even for a Sub Rosa picture. At times you could barely hear the people talk, I had to constantly turn the volume up for one scene, and then back down for the next. Again, it really doesn't take a lot away from the actual film. I really hated the twist ending, and the movie was just too predictable. The last 12 minutes of the film for me was a waste. The last complaint on my list is the "killer" Victor. He was not intimidating in the least, I hated his outfit. I can understand wanting to have a Jason-like killer, but please... no more hockey masked killers. Most definitely not in army fatigues sporting a mullet. I thought the killer was corny, plain and simple. The voice, the look, the entire scene where he is chatting with the local loon.

From minute one the movie for me was enjoyable, at least minimally. The movie was a bit too much like Friday The 13th. We have a counselor fixing up a camp, another who is an artist and painting (ala Alice in Friday The 13th), a camp cook named Pam (as in Pamela Voorhees?), who not only lost her lover, but the lover is the presumed killer. Then we have the local loon (just as Crazy Ralph did in Friday The 13th 1 and 2.) who warns the new counselors. Then we have the lake, the setting, and the killings, all very much like the aforementioned movie. This movie really should have been released as a fan film, and not a legitimate release. Not because it is at all bad, but because there are way too many Friday The 13th fans out there who really are stubborn and ignorant when it comes to movies using the "formula", not to mention psycho horror movie fans who spend every minute of their day on message boards crap-talking movies. I thought the movie was a pretty solid independent movie, and a really nice fit on the Sub Rosa Studios label. The movie was enjoyable, and I personally recommend it for people who have seen and liked movies like The Undertow, Bloody Murder, Camp Utopia, Memorial Day & Friday The 13th: Revenge fan film.


History veracity doesn't necessarily translate into cinematic virtuosity. The well-intentioned people that fought tooth and nail to produce the lackluster Civil War romance "The Last Confederate: The Story of Robert Adams," a.k.a. "Strike the Tent," are direct descendants of the protagonist. Co-director, producer, scenarist, and leading man Julian Adams, who plays his real-life great-great grandfather Robert Adams, deserves a modicum of recognition for this reverential independent film production that depicts one Southerner's view of the War Between the States. Indeed, Adams garnered several Indie film awards for this effort. Nevertheless, "The Last Confederate" qualifies as a tedious re-enactment with wooden performances by all except Mickey Rooney in a bit part as a bedridden Pennsylvania uncle. Although "The Last Confederate" looks respectable, I have serious reservations about it.

I had to opportunity to speak with Julian Adams, the individual who wore all the hats on the production, and he shared his experiences in making the film. Although I didn't like this movie, I have a great deal of respect for the trials and tribulations Adams endured to get it produced and distributed. Anybody who reads this critique can object with my criticism. Mr. Adams took issue with my criticism. Feedback isn't something that I often receive. Had Adams been a Hollywood mogul, I'd have laughed in this face, but he isn't a mogul. He admitted that his film isn't perfect, but it isn't perfect because he didn't have a budget.

As the descendant of a Mississippi Civil War soldier, I enjoy movies told from the Confederate perspective, but "The Last Confederate" conjures up little suspense and excitement, and it lacks quotable dialogue. Sadly, the actors and actresses could have been reading their lines off cue cards for all the conviction that they put into their performances. Remember, this is an independent production and quality talent doesn't come without considerable expense. Let's just say that they performed their parts as the late Spencer Tracy observed. They said their lines without stumbling and they didn't bump into the furniture. As the hero, Adams is no Errol Flynn, but then he did have his hands full with producing this epic, right down to sinking his own dough into the handguns and the muskets.

Technically, everything appears reasonably accurate. Dramatically, this period piece never generates momentum, even during the explosive battle scenes. Adams manages to stage one modest,close-quarters gunfight toward the end. Meanwhile, the epic scale combat sequences are simply re-enactors fighting battles with cameras set up on the periphery of the action. These scenes with hundreds of dutiful re-enactors parading around and discharging their black powder arms do contribute solid production value, but they don't enliven the drama. Adams shuns making judgments against either side, North or South, but he didn't design "The Last Confederate" to convey a moral message about slavery. Adams assured me that he was simply relating genealogical history. In any case, on his tight budget, adopting an attitude would have been more than his low budget could have accommodated. The romance between Adams and a Pennsylvania woman, Eveline McCord (co-scenarist Gwendolyn Edwards of "The Broken Hearts Club"), who came to South Carolina to teach school before hostilities, lacks any vibrancy. Alas, it's really a shame, but this stuff really happened.

Directors A. Blaine Miller and Julian Adams relate their yarn in flashback. Our hero, Captain Robert Adams, rushes to the aid of a wounded Confederate soldier and looks up to find a Union soldier taking a bead on him with his revolver. The remaining 90 or so minutes that ensues is devoted to events before and after the war, and there is a hint that perhaps the protagonist didn't survive this trial by bloodshed. Miller and Adams never make the protagonists seem sympathetic until the middle of the action when Adams and two of his friends engineer an escape from a Federal prison and a grudge-totting Yankee officer chases them. The filmmakers lacked the budget to develop the kind of tension that would make you fear for the lives of the characters. For the record, Adams survived the war, and Eveline and he raised four children and ran a school. What makes Robert Adams is important and essential as a Confederate patriot is never explained. Julian Adams doesn't provide enough insight into his character to differentiate him from countless other characters. He strikes a gallant figure, but we never get under his skin. Alas, the fortunes of low budget film-making prevented Adams from addressing this problem. The romance between the hero and the heroine is sterile. Some histrionics wouldn't have hurt this otherwise flat-lined drama. Shawn Lewallan's color photography makes the grade, but there isn't much subtlety in his lighting. If you suffer through the end credits, the producers reveal that they invoked dramatic license to make their history more palatable. Ostensibly, "The Last Confederate" boasts ambitious intentions, but delivers only a modicum of dramatic impact. Comparisons with the multi-million dollar "Cold Mountain" are inevitable. Initially, when I reviewed this film (which I bought at a Movie Gallery sale, I berated it as "Dull Mountain." I still think it is pretty dull, but I will be a man enough critic to applaud Mr. Adams for making this film. He invested his heart and soul in "The Last Confederate." While I didn't care for this movie, I appreciate it a lot more after having a conversation with Mr. Adams. Just because I didn't like itfor purely aesthetic reasonsdoesn't mean that you should ignore it.


For a movie made on a low budget, the cinematography is pretty good and has some very good looking scenery. Unfortunately, this one good thing is not enough to overcome the atrocious acting and bad storytelling. The story itself might have been better if told chronologically, rather than using a flashback of a flashback. It seemed like an unnecessary device to use. The lack of any emotion from the actors, especially the lead, led to the story falling flat and pointless. The lead actor just read his lines in a monotone voice like he was reading off of a cue card. It's virtually impossible to have a good drama without either an excellent script or excellent acting. This had neither. I have no doubt that the main problem with the movie is that it was produced, directed, acted, and written by the family. With the same amount of money, someone else could have made a better movie because they were emotionally detached from the content and could have seen the obvious shortcomings.


The Last Confederate is a dull, uninspiring spin off of the Robert Adams story. Nothing in this movie impressed me. The acting was atrocious. There was not one believable character in the film. It just didn't seem authentic and the cinematography was amateur at best. It reminded me of a late night movie that would come on the lifetime channel. The production values are low and there is hardly any action . If you are expecting a hardcore war movie, look elsewhere because this feels more like a lousy romance novel. After watching Seraphim Falls with Pierce Bronson, a hardboiled western set after the civil war, you can tell the difference in the quality of direction and writing, and it was just so much more fast paced. Leave this one on the shelf.


This movie lacked well...just about everything. Anything from the soundtracks to the acting without southern accents was enough for me to just simply laugh at this film during the whole dreadful ninety-six minutes. Mickey Rooney, I will admit was good and one woman actually had a southern accent, but otherwise it was a waste of money. When I look at a documentary type movie, like this, I think they should have historical accuracy, real acting, a basic understanding of some type of plot and emotion. This film also had flashbacks to scenes that either happened twenty seconds ago, had no significance, or weren't even in the movie to begin with. This movie is surprisingly dull for a 2005 release. The director and production company should be ashamed that they actually made something worse than the recently released Bratz movie, which I was dragged to see by my girlfriend. I guess this is why you rent a movie before you buy it, so you don't waste your money on something worthless. My ultimate idea is that every disk of this movie should be destroyed in a fiery grave, so that no one will have to endure its torture ever again.


You see movies all the time that are controlled by the flashbacks that show events not seen in the movie to explain the plot. But it is extremely unusual to have a flashback of someone actually having a flashback which is shown at least 10 times during this film. When i first witnessed the horror that was Strike the Tent, i was looking for a good film to watch with my friend, but what we got made a fourth grade spelling bee on film look exciting. From the costumes to the extremely bad dialoge, this movie just plain sucked. The only thing that kept me from throwing this disc into the fireplace was that it was funny beyond belief. There were no southern accents, and the soundtrack made me constipated. The one believable character had three lines and was a 70's comedy actor, but all in all, this movie made me watching my lame Cousins Barbe movies look like a life saving activity. Save yourself from this atrocity and if you can write your local critic and tell them of this bag-o-crap from a long line of bad Thinkfilm pictures.


I saw a few good comments on this and thought I'd give it a try. What a mistake. The movie started with a flashback within a flashback within a flashback, and just got worse from there. The outfits were unauthentic and looked like inexpensive costumes, the speech too modern sounding, the acting awkward, and the transition from scene to scene choppy. A crucial rule for me is that to enjoy a movie, I have to be able to get lost in the movie. When I can't get through two scenes without being shocked by mismatched outfits, speech, or photography, the movie won't get a good rating from me. Call me picky, or maybe it's just that I've seen enough movies to know what's expected in a historic movie.


Gilbert and Sullivan musicals.. err.. operas are not high art. They're not supposed to be. Somebody writing a masters thesis about G&S might tell you about how a G&S work like The Mikado was actually a critique of the Victorian bureaucracy or what have you, but for today's viewer, G&S provides nothing more than a pleasant way to spend an hour or two.

This 1982/3 "Pirates of Penazance" is basically the filming of some upmarket theater production. The theater troupe does a good job, but really all you get here is G&S without either the spark of live theater or that "something extra" of a film such s Topsy-Turvy. Indeed, since your intellectual mind will not be any the poorer if you put off watching Penzance, give this movie a miss until your child or neighbor's kid puts on "Penzance" at the local high school. You'll get better entertainment.

I want to emphasize that there's nothing wrong with the cast of this "movie", per se. They did a wonderful job- for theater. But this is not really a movie. The lighting is horrible, and the good theater quality sets end up just looking like cheap movie sets. This movie is dated and need not be seen unless you have particular interest in studying musical..err.. opera staging from the 1980s for some reason... or there is no high school within 100 miles of you.


The cover picture, shown, isn't that of the 1983 film, as it shows a photo of Patricia Routledge, who played the role of 'Ruth', in a stage version, which was televised in 1980. Angela Lansbury played the same part, in the 1983 film. I understand, from people who have bought this DVD, or a similar version, in the same packaging, that it is a recording of a stage version, which features Kevin Kline, Patricia Routledge, et al, but isn't necessarily the official one. Also, it has Dutch subtitles. The quality isn't good; it's grainy, the colour is insipid and the sound is very low. It's quite probable that it has been recorded from an original NTSC video. I think that IMDb should check this item out, as there's clearly some sort of mix-up, here.


This is very unwatchable stuff here. I used to like nick toons but now it's all about Rocket Power and Spunge bob. This is one of the worst cartoons I've ever seen. It's about a couple of skater kids that do tricks that's it and the cartoon is done in that unwatchable nicktoons way. Nickolodeon shouldn't of banned the Ren & Stimpy show. That was the only cartoon I liked on nickolodeon. Teen nick is even worse. So if you come across Rocket power avoid it because you will hate it. If you want to watch a good cartoon then watch the Ren & Stimpy show. It's much better then this slop. Rocket power is as bad as any nick toon out there these days. So if you haven't seen rocket power or any other modern nick toon then don't bother. My two year old brother could make something better than this crap.


Ever since seeing it when first released I have waited to find a worse film. The only value in having witnessed this atrocity is the retelling of the experience. It is a good thing to be able to say, "This is the worst movie I have ever seen."

Now IMDb is asking me to fill in at least 10 lines of text in order to meet the minimum requirement of review length. Unlike Dead Boyz Can't Fly, however, I know when to leave well enough alone. It's unfortunate that the solution to whatever problem the IMDb people are trying to avoid happens to infringe on the finer qualities of a succinct and pithy piece of writing.


I get mad every time I think about this trash. I watched it on late, late cable years ago and it was a horrible experience.

First, it has NOTHING to do with Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece "A CLOCKWORK ORANGE" I don't know why the producers and distributors of this crap compared both films. This film is sick in boredom, terribly directed, the plot is non existent, and the acting is just as horrible as the title!!! The director does not know a thing about film making! Terrible film, it shouldn't even be considered as a morbid flick. There is no excuses for this trash, it should be banned worldwide. It's almost impossible to find this disgusting film, but if you do find it just ignore it. DO NOT WATCH IT, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Crap stands out compared to this film.

I will give it a second chance when I find it because as far as I know, it isn't available on DVD. Last time I watched it was probably around 2000.

Bury it! And be sure it won't resurrect in the next 3 days.


The cover exclaimed "A Clockwork Orange for the 90's". I wish. I wish it was banned like Clockwork (Note: Clockword Orange was banned on video in Australia for quite some time because Kubrick received death threats if he released it on video) Anyway back to the dreadful film. This would have to be the most pathetic excuse of a film that I have ever laid my eyes on. It is sick, depressing, incoherent, and just plain old insultinig on anyone who sees it. Saying that, I urge you to see it, not because it's so bad it's funny, I wish it was like that, but it's so bad that it's woeful. I can't even explain the story.


It's a fact that all unknown movies aren't all bad. Normally you settle for these videos when the popular titles are gone. One night while in my local video rental outlet I settled for "Dead Boyz Can't Fly" because reviews touted it as the "Clockwork Orange for the 90's," one of my favorites, I thought it might be another "Warriors." What I saw was a movie that had no plot, no talent and apparently no budget. The whole movie looked like it was filmed in an abandoned government office building. It starts with a preachy Vietnam War Veteran, who you anticipate being the movie's hero. He crosses paths with "the gang," who wants nothing but trouble, fresh on a path of destruction and mayhem. Not only does our "hero" lose his final battle but no one else are matches against the Boys either. Luckily for the audience, the drugs finally kick in and the gangs' leader becomes a part of the pavement below, a crash symbolizing the awful story line. There were worst things I could have been doing instead of watching this movie like having a root canal or a cyst removed.


Stephen King's three short stories based loosely around the adventures of a brave alley cat would certainly have made better reading than viewing.

Lewis Teague starts proceedings on a reasonably good note with a story about a "Quit" smoking program which achieves results in rather unorthodox and unpleasant ways. James Woods and Alan King head up the cast in an unnerving and tense segment. Robert Hays follows as a retired tennis player who finds himself gambling for his life with the husband of his young girlfriend.

The third yarn sadly spoils things somewhat with the "children's fairytale" type story of a young girl who is visited at night by an evil troll intent on stealing her breath. Only "General" the cat can save her. Drew Barrymore gets plenty of chances to look cute, but this weak spooker has little else going for it.

Overall "Cat's Eye" is not highly entertaining and can be readily classified as yet another poor representation of Stephen King's literary compositions on film. Alan Silvestri's music is a bad copy of his superior "Back to the Future" score.

Sunday, May 1, 1994 - T.V.


Stephen King is overrated, period! What is so scary about his stories?Somebody please tell me.These stories (along with his other stories) are not scary. They are absurd and ridiculous, but certainly not scary. It's a joke he has obtained the reputation that he has. I would consider this material worthy for a comedy. The only good part in it was the cat. That little guy kicked butt. King sucks. Get a clue, people. He's a terrible story teller and he doesn't fulfill the purpose of the genre he writes for. Anthologies tend to suck anyways because they are always lacking in proper plot and character development. Bottom line, the movie is not very entertaining and not at all scary. If you'd like to see a ridiculous movie with harebrained ideas in it, by all means, this is the movie for you. Since the attention span for the general public is in the toilet, I would recommend it to people who wouldn't know a good movie if it hit them in the face, i.e. practically everyone.


"Cat's Eye" is one of the several Stephen King written horror anthologies, and quite likely the weakest. If you are looking for some campy thrills, there is little charm to be found with in this film, with the exception of the excellent first section.

"Quitters Inc.", the first of the three stories, is superbly acted by James Woods (but what doesn't he superbly act in?) and a pretty funny section at that. Basically, James Woods is a smoker trying to quit, and enlists the experts at Quitters Inc. to help him. Little does he know that he is getting a little more help then he bargained for... All and all a decent segment, it does fall a little flat in the shock department. If they had taken things farther (and I mean much farther), this would have been a really great and memorable section. As it is though, it is merely good King/Woods entertainment, but that ain't bad in it self.

The second segment, "The Ledge", is a pretty drastic drop in quality. The story is unbelievable, which is hardly a problem in a horror anthology, but it is also poorly acted and very dull, which is a major problem. Although I doubt it is much longer then either of the other segments, it seemed to drag on forever. There is no real suspense or humor, and in the end you are just glad it's over.

The final part of the film, "The General", is pretty bad but also entertaining. The obnoxious Mother is fun to get annoyed with and the troll creature is very awesome, although the blue screen scenes it is in are some of the worst I have ever seen. In fact, the special effects throughout the film are horrible and unimaginative; I enjoyed them for pure camp, but if you want any realism steer far away. A young Drew Barrymore appears and gives out a good performance as an actress, actually superior to both her parents in many ways.

The tie together story of the wandering cat is stupid and pointless, and only enjoyable if you love to watch cats. Id rather watch a real cat sleep then watch this stupid cat wander into another Stephen King short story though, so go figure.

The first segment is definitely worth watching for any Stephen King / Camp Horror / James Woods fan, and the third if you really like trolls or Drew Barrymore (they are basically the same thing). The second should be used for insomniacs or King completists only.

A star and a half out of five.


I may have heard of the two star rappers focused in this film, but I can't be sure. Anyway, this documentary by Nick Broomfield focuses on (for a while) friend rappers Tupac Shakur, murdered in 1997, and Biggie Smalls (Christopher Wallace, the Notorious B.I.G.), murdered in 1996. Both murders could have been connected by a shop called Death Row Records, as they were both involved with them. Or it could have been something to do with a rivalry that started after many death threats between the two stars. Nick Broomfield found some footage of the two stars past, but there is still the questions of who really committed the two murders, and were they connected? I actually went to LA where one of them was a murdered. Adequate!


Biggie and Tupac is a chronology of Broomfield's complete failure to unearth any interesting material on his subjects, totally overshadowed by his blandiose, wooden narration.

I found his attitude and treatment of his subjects to be insufferable, from his attempts at pidgin English (akin to reading Dick and Jane novels aloud) to his unprepared, incompetent interviews (showing up and ambushing people, losing sound files, etc.) Broomfield has a unique talent for getting in the way of the story he is purporting to tell. He was more interested in hearing himself talk, and following his own blundering, as he put up increasing barriers between himself and his subjects.

In addition, how does the director expect us to be engaged by the story, when it is clear he has no interest in hearing what people have to say? Ambush journalism fails when you are being aggressive without asking anything of import. He can't ask an interesting question, how can one expect him to spin a compelling narrative?

This movie was a pathetic attempt by a director worth ignoring.


This is a pretty routine crime drama involving narcotics in New York. The SS Florentine docks and unships a crate of medical dope but instead of dope there is nothing but sand in the crate. The purser has stolen it, with the complicity of one of the passengers, a Miss Toni Cardell. Two Treasury agents, Scott Brady and Richard Rober, latch on to the case and track the dope through a network of heavies and murderers led by Yul Brynner. They succeed with the help of the U. S. Coast Guard and at the cost of Brady's life.

Right away, though, I had a slight problem in that nobody anywhere is named Miss Toni Cardell. It's the kind of echt-schiksa name that somebody might dream up because it sounded right, like "Ellie Arroway" in Carl Sagan's novel, "Contact." But just try to find a name like Toni Cardell in a phone book, especially in Shanghai. I dare you.

Secondly, the crate carrying the dope is opened by customs agents. It's a big crate, the size of a wardrobe, and it's filled entirely with sand. A reasonable inference is that a LOT of dope is missing, yet when the box of narcotics is finally discovered in a locker at Grand Central Station, it's only big enough to contain, say, three dictionaries.

Those, of course, are minor things. Yet this is a minor movie. It's a routine track-'em-down mystery with T-men putting themselves in danger by posing as somebody else. Scott Brady is okay. He's an Irishman with Burt Lancaster's habit of sticking out his jaw in a defiant scowl when he's angry. It's rather likable. His partner, Richard Rober, on the other hand, has practically nothing to offer, a bland, acceptably handsome contract player. He's the one who should have been knocked off early on, allowing Scott Brady to continue the chase.

Best performance, hands down -- Yul Brynner with hair as the Vladimir Putin look-alike who heads the whole operation. What a background the guy had. A Jew from Sakhalin Island off the Siberian coast, a stint at the Sorbonne in Paris, a trapeze artist. "The King and I" brought him fame but left him socked into a domineering and unsubtle persona. Here, he gives his most earnest performance. He's suave, handsome, delicate even. And -- this being 1949, the year when the Cold War became an undeniable fact -- his Russian accent fits the temporal template. He's better here than he ever was later.

But, taken as a whole, what we have here is an inexpensive Eagle Lion crime drama with self-sacrificing heroes and ruthless villains. Nice to see the Coast Guard in action. Even if, to pump up the action, the writers and Lazlo Benedict, the director, have Brynner shooting his snub-nosed revolver at an 83-footer armed with a 20 millimeter cannon on the bow.

Diverting, yes, but not much new.


I first heard about this from my good friend, who told me to rent it. So I did. Wow! What a waste of a good film. During the Desert Storm, Sam Harper shot down in a helicopter by "Friendly Fire". Sam really believed in and respected the American way. On the fourth of July, Sam rises from the dead, and kills anyone who doesn't respect America. Thats right, anyone from flag burners and people who mock the national Anthem. Uncle Sam effects were fake, and I don't know why they consider this "Horror". My rateing is 4 out of 10.


I just rented this movie because of the video cover. It's very similar to the one on the IMDb site.

An awful film with some hilarious scenes, like when the family is on the table and enjoying their breakfast together, while the coffin of the dead Uncle is in the same room. I just waited for the family to take their food and chairs to carry it to the coffin for taking breakfast on the coffin. Unfortunately it never happened.

The actors were incredibly bad. The mother was always p issed about her son when he did something good and she was praising her son when he was doing shenanigans. The scriptwriter must be a beaver or a donkey or something and the director seems to be a six year old child. There wasn't even a second of plausibility in this picture.

In the end sequence, when Uncle Sam gets shot you can clearly see thick wires on his back reaching to the house. Everything about this film was just stupid. Everybody in this film was stupid. This director should get hung up on a flagpole.

1/10 with no comment.


the only thing to say about this movie is.... . good sex scenes and some where a little yuck when she f**k the dude with her high-heel shoe. . good action scenerio.

and on the other hand.. . bad movie, script, plot, and dialogue. . bad acting . just plain out bad because the movie is too slow and it has entirely too much talking just like, "Hannibal" and it's just a under estimated, bad sexual BASIC INSTINCT to me.

i rate this one a...

2 of of 5 (due to the lame sexuality and movie.. period.)


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** The movie had as much sexual tension as a dead frog on a highway. Actually, all the "sex" scenes made me laugh, especially with Loreena McKennitt's beautiful and rich musical scores and vocals played as the background for what must've been the cheesiest and most "tried to be ambitious but failed miserably" scenes I've ever seen. After the one when the main heroine withdraws from the encounter with another guy, and rushes home, I really expected her to reach out and turn a stereo off, or something. The whole action stops, and still the music continues till the scene is changed?? How cheap is that?? And this "Mystic Dream" song was way abused throughout the movie, appearing in every single intercourse scene (I can't bring myself to call it "sex", sorry!).

SPOILERS AHEAD, be warned.

Apart from the music, though, the characters were simply... dumb. A policeman sees a woman being literally run over by a car and runs to check if she is alive, instead of just telling someone to call an ambulance and starting the chase immediately, forgetting the basic police rule "NEVER EVER start a chase without calling for backup"?? He chases the black Thunderbird through a Chinatown parade, gets his windows knocked out and stuff, instead of just getting out of the car and running on foot which would've been way faster in that case?? Didn't he have a roof-mounted signal light or something, like most police cars do?? Earlier on, he has to do a full zoom on Jade's face on the tape, to recognize her? Come on, I saw it was her minutes before that! I re-watched this scene several times, certain that he must be looking for some tattoo, or something, to have to look this close at her face...

EVEN WORSE SPOILER to the very movie ending!!

In the end, it all comes to... nothing! The cause for all the killing was the governor's affair with Jade. So the overzealous policemen are killed, but the governor stays alive and well, and the main hero can do nothing to him... Great going, all for naught, evil still walks the Earth. Together with the woman's husband being yet another killer, and her still being trapped in a very uncomfortable marital situation. I understand bad endings all right, but there was no REASON for this here. It all just... happened. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end the main hero shot himself in the head, all of a sudden, just like that. Who needs logical reasons anyway?..

Generally, the movie was dump and cheesy. 3 out of 10.


This has to be one of the worst movies ever made. A low-speed car chase? Please. The dialogue is some of the worst I've heard since the Nixon tapes aired.


This is essentially Basic Instinct, but worse. The story is lame, Caruso's character is not developed at all, and Fiorentino is a monotonous mope throughout.

If you go back and watch Basic Instinct, you will be appalled at how similar the plots are in these two films. A previous user suggested that Ezterhaus was unhappy with the way the film deviated from his script. However, Ezterhaus should still be taken to task for writing yet another movie about a wildly successful and sexually adventurous female psychologist/author that lives in San Francisco and is under investigation for murder.


"The Flying Car" is a lukewarm redux of the infamous "Uncle Walter" scene from Smith's debut film "Clerks" (1994)--the one that takes place as Dante and Randall, a pair of 20-something convenience store employees, drive to the wake of Julie Dwyer, one of Dante's old flames, and get into some...unique...conversation en route. When introducing the short on The Tonight Show in 2002, Smith, in jest of using existing characters, told host Jay Leno he was "going back to the well." How right he was! Not only the characters, but the entire dynamic of the short and its dialog are derivative of the "Clerks" scene. Both involve the two in a car where Randall, the more wickedly sardonic of the pair, engages nebbish Dante in an absurd argument (his ability to suck his own penis in "Clerks," and weather or not he would allow a mad scientist to remove his foot in exchange for a levitating automobile in "The Flying Car.") Both pieces are anecdotes--a setup by Randall against Dante. And, in both cases, Dante falls for it hook, line and sinker.


So Randal is baiting Dante, till he finally gets Dante to say what he wants, then Randal does a U-turn and lambastes poor old Dante. Sound familiar? Yes this is a lot longer more drawn out version of the car scene from clerks, what makes that said scene a lot better is the fact that Randal never conveyed the fact that he had tried to suck his own dick, here he is constantly banging on at Dante, and the punchline is sort of a contradiction. very disappointing. OK so now I've got to fill out my comment on this short with a few more lines so it will pass for the good folks at the internet movie database, so ill say the other short on the clerks DVD "clerks lost scene" was a lot funnier and deserves lots of praise.... will that do?


this is an obvious case of kevin smith falling in love w/ his own dialogue and letting his words run wild. while at times the scene is funny, overall it's pretty drawn out and boring and the big 'reveal' at the end isn't all that funny and is basically a cop out to end the scene. kevin smith is a talented guy but not all of his dialogue is fantastic and this is an example of that. the delivery also gets real annoying after awhile. there's a reason these 2 guys never found success outside of smith's movies. i guess if you are a huge fan of smith's and clerks then you cant go wrong but there are tons of other comedic short films out there - most relying on dialgoue - that are a helluva lot funnier than this but never get any recognition.


This movie was way too long. It has left me so cold and disinterested that I struggle to even trash the damned thing!

There are some amusing scenes (not funny, just amusing) but some, like the one where bald man (I forget his name) says he has cancer, that seem to go on for an eternity.

I used to be a stickler for uncut movies but lately I've come around to the position that maybe the distributer and producers were sometimes right to reign in the excesses of wannabe epics, especially ones where so little actually happens that you can probably describe the whole 104 minutes in a few sentences.

This isn't so much a zombie picture as a character study that just happens to have zombies in it and the characters are a bunch of idiotic whiners.

If you want to see a good Asian zombie flick, go check out one called Bio Zombie. It's actually funny (not just amusing), has a better buddy sub-plot, and has real action and suspense.


I have to say... This is quite possibly the cheesiest and gayest movie I have made myself endure. Don't get me wrong... I can appreciate certain elements of the movie that were done really well, such as the story and the art direction, but, come on, a girl named Belldandy? Are you serious? It was painful to hear this name be spoken time and time again, and though the story was interesting, the script could not have had more cheese ooze out from every single word of it. Unless this movie was made for 8 year old girls, which I doubt because of the almost constant presence of a half-naked woman (get a real woman you anime perverts, or at just go ahead and show them naked if you're gonna do something like this), I would never want to put someone else through the pain of watching this... thing. Pretty to look at, +1, interesting love story, +1, gayest script ever, -100. You want good anime? Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust, Ghost in the Shell 1 & 2, Rurouni Kenshin, even Dragonball Z/GT and Afro Samurai. Belldandy?!?! WTF!!!!!!!!


Think of me as you will. My opinion is based on the film and it's message and not the Mr. Comes, just to make things clear. This film is supposed to show the traumaitzation of a man who was abused by a member of the Catholic Church when he was a young "boy". The problem with the whole story is, the stories that are being told are from men who claim to been abused at the ages from 12- 16. They say that they were unaware of what was happening to them and that they (the victim) would wake up and there was a man from the Church having their way with them. These story tellers say that at the time they weren't sure what was happening and that they let it occur. Right off the bat, I would say that those statements have no validity. In and around the age of thirteen, teenagers know about sex in way or another. You learn it from school, society, or family. To say you don't seems to be the way to cope with allowing your curiosity to happen. I remember I was in the fifth grade when we were given the crash course on sex, so at that age I was 10 or 11. Things that weren't taught (obviously) I learned from peers. So at that age I was aware of what sex was and would have some sort of idea of what may have been happening. What the story tellers also fail to mention is that they weren't coming forth about the abuse (if that's what they thought it was then) to anyone. Not parents of friends, or any one else in the Church. They allowed it to happen and happen multiple times. I mean, once they were 16 and the abuse was continuing, there was no excuse that they would still have no idea what was happening. They show a man referred to "John Doe" who remembers being drunk and naked and being in bed with a alleged sex offender and nothing else. He goes on how that experience disturbed him, but then he recalls experimenting with this man. How? First he said he didn't remember, but remembers everything else and was disturbed, but then allowed it to happen on another occasion. Why? This is only one small example, there are many other points that are trying to be made that get spun around based on the reactions and delays of the "victims" described in the film. Another example (a large one at that) is that even though one person in the film claims he is haunted by what happened everyday and that he is against the church (due to a lawsuit he's filed about 18 years later), the Church is still a big part of his life. He was married in a Catholic Church, sent his daughter to a Catholic school, and we see her receive her first Communion. And feeling all this bitterness and frustration with the church, he goes in and accepts Communion with his daughter. Once again, if this is all so traumatic and one claims to be abused or raped and lied too, why go back to this church? Why accept Communion, something sacred to this church? It's backwards. It's things like this that hurt the credibility of this film and it's story tellers. It rides the wake to a major controversy in America. It doesn't seem like a documentary, but like a movie of fiction. It tries to strike emotions with circumstances that seemed staged. The point and message of this film is lost with it's irony. I feel sorry for the story tellers not because of what they claim has happened, but because this film hurts what they have to say.

to the film makers, this is a bad film.

D- To all of you users here on IMDb, I stand by what I say. It's simple psychology since we are now being told a story decades down the road from what they claim happened. Over the years stories stretch and wear, till the very foundation has changed. I still find this movie to be dis-miss able. And personally to colorscheme, my review of a bad film was straight forward to the point using references from the film, therefore I am backing up my opinion so you can see for yourself. It's your review that has the wide array of emotions, not mine. I told you to think of me as you will, but truth be told and I'll say it again, this movie is awful and has a message lost in translation.


I can't believe how dreadful and boring this TV series is and am not surprised that ABC canned this show. Each episode wastes time in explaining how automan was created by some early tech geek played by Arnaz. Automan is a holographic creation played by a boring Swedish model. Along the line the same bad guys are hounded by the spectacular crime duo...yawn. Everything about this show is just tepid and dull. I can't see anyone staying up late at night and becoming excited about this predicable rubbish.


Just saw this at the Tribeca Film Festival - yipes.

It felt like the people at MTV wanted to make a film mythologizing the 'live fast, die young' rocker, but without any connection to reality or plausibility. A clichéd piece about the cliché of dying at 27, though really it's not like hundreds, or even dozens, of rock stars died at that age  it's only 5, really  Morrison, Hendrix, Cobain, Joplin, Carpenter. You might as well make a movie about a fictional rock star who dies in a plane, and try to tie it into some larger narrative.

Instead of simply reviewing the plot, which you can read on this page already, here's a PARTIAL list of glaring implausibilities and ridiculous plot occurrences that I worked up over drinks after the movie. By all means, feel free to see it for yourself and email me a few more of your own:

1) At the beginning of the movie, when Eliot needs someone to drive him across the country, he asks a kid in a very small-town grocery store to do it, offering him $10,000 cash (which he pulls out of his shirt pocket). The kid then goes back inside, deliberates over this with his parents for about 10 seconds, and the next scene is the family saying goodbye to him. They let their 16-year old son drive off with a completely drugged out junkie on a cross-country ride for $10,000. They live in the Heartland  surely they've seen America's Most Wanted before, no?

2) The guys pick up a hitchhiker, a 16-year old girl introduced to us in a scene which takes place in a cafeteria, where she sits at the counter and watches a wall-mounted television playing a pseudo-MTV which is showing a tribute to the recently fallen rocker. She mentions to the counter boy how sad it is. In the next scene, she is on the side of the road hitching a ride, and the car that stops has the other guy in the band SHE JUST SAW ON TV sleeping in the back seat. And when she gets in and sees this, she takes it in with complete equanimity. She doesn't mention to the kid driving that she knows who he is, she doesn't SMS any of her friends, and, in fact, she makes no comment regarding the fact that she's aware of the situation she's in until five minutes from the end of the movie, when she says, smugly, "I guess you know the words to this one" as she and Eliot share her headphones and listen to the group's song on her IPod.

3) The boy's militant father (in one of innumerable flashbacks) makes his son shoot his own dog after it gets hit by a car and breaks a leg, because he won't take it to the vet. The other boy has to dig the hole to bury it in while this is happening. Dad makes some comment about 'being a man' and 'killing to live'.

4) The boys, as teenagers, are running away from home to go to LA and 'make it big'and while they are waiting for a ride at the side of the road, Mom pulls up to give them a bag of money she's managed to sneak out of their father's bank account. This is not that implausible. But as they are standing talking with her, another car pulls up and waves them over to give them a ride  a car pulls up to two hitchhikers who are already talking to a driver and asks them if they need another ride. How hitch-friendly is this town?

5) Eliot gets knocked out by a gang of Nazi skinheads while symbolically throwing away his bag of prescription (and non-) narcotics and is then taken in for the night by a haggard homeless man casually toting a rifle. Eliot notices the man has no shoes, so he offers him his own boots, and then spends the rest of the film barefoot, even walking across cities and towns this way.

6) In the subsequent scene, the homeless guy invites Eliot to join his choir, where he goes to 'get spiritualized', but the two of them are 1) the only two white people in the choir and 2) the only two who look homeless, as everyone else is dressed quite decently. Add to this the fact that 3), Eliot's face is still covered in blood from the previous night's attack when he walks into the choir room, and no one in the choir expresses the slightest alarm at this.

7) The band has only one song. It is used at every key, emotive moment in the film. It is so stock that it seems as though it could have been made by computer program, like the 'hitmaker' they purported to have designed in Josie and the Pussycats (which I admit, unashamedly, I kind of liked). It may well have been.

and finally

8) not an implausibility, but yet another ridiculous inanity: When Eliot goes to Tom's dad's house to visit the old man (Mom died while the boys were in LA), they have a kitchen conversation during which the old man is framed by the camera standing in front of a canvas of the 'Our Father', and Eliot is framed in front of a canvas of Jesus on the opposite wall. Get the message, everyone? We thought you would. (But actually, Eliot's reason for visiting Tom's dad is to give him a note Tom left, which turns out to be a red Post-It which simply says "We are all a**holes"  the fact that Eliot would want to deliver a Post-It, and the fact that he would deliver one as utterly devoid of meaning as this one, counts as an implausibility, I guess).


This could easily be the worst film ever made. I had to force myself to watch half of it and even then I truly felt like killing myself. I have never encountered any such film in my life and hope to never again.

Not one part of this film was positive. The story was terrible, the acting was beyond terrible (You are likely to see the worst actress of all time in this film). I think its also safe to say that Mort Ransen should not be acting. Some of his earlier directorial projects were good, but what possessed him to make this film is beyond me.

What is even more shocking is that film industry funds, including from TeleFIlm Canada was invested into this horror of a film.

So if you really feel like convincing yourself to commit suicide then watch, or at least attempt to, watch this movie. If you do not enjoy torturing yourself then stay far far far away from this garbage, for the love of everything that holy.


If I was programming a "cringe" film festival Bastards would be my opening night gala. For the most part this film is a tireless tirade of anti-globalization sentiment and dirty dreadlocks. The trees in this movie are less wooden than the actors, it's shot on video in a kind of amateur porno POV style and fearlessly goes nowhere. The clumsy comparison between 9/11 and clear cutting in British Columbia was enough to make you toss your granola bars.

It is ironic that this film through some kind of miracle of globalization and free flowing capital got funded and found distribution on TMN, Canada's poor cousin to HBO. It does make you think though, about going to bed.


20th Century Fox's 1941 production BLOOD & SAND is a remake of the 1922 silent classic that established Rudolph Valentino as the greatest star of early cinema. Beautifully photographed in vivid 3 strip Technicolor by Ernest Palmer and Ray Renahan the elaborate newer version had the obvious heir-apparent to the silent screen star in dashing Tyrone Power. Written for the screen by Jo Swerling from the novel by Vicente Blasco Ibanez it was directed with a certain amount of flair, it has to be said, by Rouben Mamoulian who just the previous year had had his greatest success with Tyrone Power when he directed him in the classic "Mark Of Zorro"

BLOOD & SAND recounts the story of a young, ambitious and quite naive bullfighter Juan Gallardo (Power) who falls under the spell of a beauteous and attractive socialite (Rita Hayworth) wrecking his relationship with Carmen (Linda Darnell) the girl who has always loved him since childhood. The picture culminates with Juan discovering too late that he is only a toy for the manipulative socialite. And finally in the end when he is gored by a bull in the ring it is the forgiving Carmen, his only true love, that comes to his side to comfort him as he lays dying.

BLOOD & SAND was a very popular picture of the War years and remains a great favourite with Power devotees. However I have to confess to never being very fond of it. There is little doubt Ty Power is good as the aspiring Matador and Hayworth chews up every bit of scenery in sight as the alluring Donna Sol. But with the exception of Anthony Quinn and that memorable dance sequence he does with Hayworth I found the rest of the cast - particularly the young actor Rex Downing who played Juan as a boy - unconvincing and altogether uninspiring. In fact the whole picture for me was curiously uninvolving! Also Juan being gored by the bull towards the end is very badly done! You don't really see what happens to him. Was he gored in the back or the front? It is very difficult to decipher. And he appears very clean and unmarked in his ensuing death scene.

Nevertheless the great Alfred Newman saves the day with his terrific score. Besides his music capturing all the heat, dust and passion of the bullring the composer also incorporates into his score the sumptuous traditional Spanish guitar melody "Romance D'Amour". An engaging and totally ravishing piece that was used to greater effect in "Forbidden Games" in 1952 when it was played by guitar genius Narciso Yepes.

BLOOD & SAND can at least be enjoyed for its awesome colour Cinematography, Newman's great music, the star power and presence of Tyrone Power and the flowing beauty of Rita Hayworth.


Vicente Blasco Ibanez's novel "Sangre y arena", first filmed as a silent with Rudolph Valentino in 1922, gets the most prestigious treatment 20th Century-Fox could deliver, complete with Spanish music adornments, gorgeous color photography, and some outdoor locations which could certainly pass for Spain. Young boy growing up without a father dreams of becoming a matador, sneaks out at night to practice in a neighboring bullring; there he meets his future wife (the good girl), whom he throws over post-success for a fickle aristocrat (the bad girl). It's all fairly predictable, with a lackluster, by-the-numbers build-up to the inevitable conclusion. In a lazy case like this, certainly the costumes and local color should suffice--but with such an inert storyline, attention is more focused upon the performances given by Tyrone Power, Linda Darnell, and Rita Hayworth, which are uneven at best. Supporting cast (including the interesting Laird Cregar, playing a sort of bullfighter's critic full of hot air and flattery) is overtly-colorful and animated (particularly during the fight sequences), making Power's protagonist seem even more one-dimensional. *1/2 from ****


Even as at a tender age, I found the dialog in this movie pedestrian, mundane and even idiotic. I'll never forget the line Tyrone Power mouthed as the successful toreador who clawed his way to the top: "Now I don't have to ask the price of anything I want to buy" (or something to that effect). Well I have seen millionaires haggle to the last penny and that's how they became millionaires.

Sometime towards the end, the makers of the movie inexplicably and without provocation, delivers a punch against Catholicism and feminism. How? By putting lines into the mouth of Tyrone's mother that only befits a bible thumping hack and bigot. Urged by one of the minor characters to pray to the La Virgen de la Macarena for her son's deliverance, the bullfighter's mother said something like: "I don't pray to her anymore. She is but a woman. I now pray to Him!" These lines delivered in an acting style typical of an actress in a zarzuela on a provincial tour.


A bullfighting story. Something about Tyrone Power becoming a champion bullfighter and having Linda Darnell as a girlfriend. To be totally honest I only made it through 1 hour of this. I had to turn it off--I kept falling asleep! The story is very dull and the pace of the film is leaden. Also I have no interest in bullfighting so that didn't help. Also I saw a print with horribly faded color--that was REALLY annoying! So, maybe it was that which got to me. Whatever.

The two saving graces were Darnell and Power. She's just gorgeous and he is undoubtedly one of the best-looking men ever! Their scenes together did work and they were both very good actors. Still, it wasn't enough to save the film. If you like bullfighting you might get into this. Otherwise, stay away!


I'm in the minority on this, but I really disliked this film.

I generally like to watch Harland Williams. Typically, he's a fine straight man, but sometimes, his dry wit shows through. In Rocketman, however, he has allowed himself to be reduced to sophomoric antics worthy of any SNL reject (and I say that with all due respect) and appears to belong in a Rob Schneider movie.

Quite frankly, this was too painful to watch. The character wasn't funny. He was pathetically moronic...sad...not funny. This has been heralded as awesome, and hilarious, but neither is this funny, nor is it awe inspiring. It's just stupid, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I was not entertained, nor was I amused with this film.

It rates a a 1.2/10 from...

the Fiend :.


This movie made me want to kill myself. I loathed every second of it. The only reason why I'm writing anymore about this about this abortion is that IMDb wants at least 10 lines for a review. While watching "Rocketman" I was actually concerned my girlfriend would leave me. Anybody associated with this film should be exiled (if not shot). There is almost nothing redeeming about this film. The only part that was remotely enjoyable was Harland Williams losing it over gefilte fish space paste. Also, the movie ends with the unfunny protagonist getting up in the love interest through dancing upside down (because of artificial gravity). I'm nauseous.


This film is about a silly man who gets to represent America on a space mission to land on Mars.

The plot is really silly. The acting is so over the top. The punchline 'It wasn't me" is used to many times that it became so annoying. The jokes are not funny. The worst is that the props looks so fake. It can easily be seen that the space helmets are made of soft plastic. In one scene on Mars, the space helmets don't even have a glass shield on. I am sure the production budget of this film is even less than a typical B movie. I know this movie is aimed at young kids, but that is not an excuse for the movie being bad. This movie is an unfortunate embarrassment to the film studio's collection.


Jeffrey DeMunn and Beau Bridges are two names that I wouldn't expect to be connected to this farce of a comedy! William Sadler was great as The Grim Reaper in Bill And Ted's 2nd movie, so can be forgiven for this!.....But having heard great things I decided to watch it on British TV. Now apart from the odd piece of bathroom humour there was nothing really to laugh at that had not been attempted before! There are 6 full pages of positive testaments to this film, so I don't expect this to be a popular decision, but I've awarded one point for awful for the first time ever on IMDb.Someone actually compared this movie to "What About Bob"....Blasphemy! If you feel guilty about anything in life you could always watch this film for Lent.


This is not a very good musical. So much is lacking: the lead actor can't dance enough for the big production number, the lead actress can dance but is downright homely (there's a point in the script where she says she used to be the ugliest girl in such-and-such a town before Ray Walston turned her into a vamp, and one can't help but think, gosh, is this the best he could do? It makes the devil seem damn weak.) That young Tab Hunter is so pretty makes her uglier in comparison--just bad, bad, casting. (She no doubt looked leggy and good from a second balcony, but on screen--gah!) Most of the dancing is dull, shockingly enough to this Fossy choreography fan, until the big drunken production number. And the songs aren't good at all.

What's better about it is that the plot (until the illogical ending) is an engaging baseball-Faust, Tab Hunter is sweet and adorable as Shoeless Joe, Ray Walston is as terrific as he always is, and the wardrobe is quite good.

But since a major thrust of the plot is Lola's attempted seduction of Joe, and she's just so awfully homely, the plot is weakened. That leaves Ray Walston being devilish and Tab Hunter being aw-shucks cute--perhaps enough to support a straight comedy, but not nearly enough to support a musical-comedy.

The same group of songwriters, etc. did Pajama Game, which is a much better musical, with a couple wonderful songs. Knowing this one had run for several years on Broadway, I had hoped for something as good as Pajama Game but was disappointed.


I'm sorry but I don't understand why this film has as high a rating as it does. This is one of the worst films I've ever seen. The songs were lame, the dancing was horrible and the acting went beyond bad. Now, I really don't have anything against musicals, in fact there are many musicals I love, but this crossed the line between stupid and just unbearable. I don't suggest this film unless you enjoy dumb predictable stories, bad acting, boring dancing, and a plain bad movie experience. The only reason I gave it 2 stars is because it made me laugh once. Thats pretty bad. The rest of the humor was extremely stupid and unfunny. I don't get how it got all those good votes. It deserves much much lower. It was one of those film that while watching it you realize, oh my god, there was no effort at all put into this film


This movie just tries to create an atmosphere full of conspiracy, paranoia and so on. It simply tries to shock. It's not the way a splatter horror picture is shocking people, but finally it's the same cheap level. This movie does not deliver many explanations for the strange things going on in it. But it delivers a couple of unintentionally funny or implausible scenes like the boat explosion with only one survivor (surprise, surprise who the survivor is...), the stereotype bar brawl between the lead character and the sheriff's assistant or the plane scene with minutes full of....: nothing. One long shot after the other. You see stewardesses doing their job. It looks like you should start being scared about what's going on, but you aren't... and after that plane scene the overlong style is still killing this movie more and more, slowly until its end. Only because nothing happens or things happen very slowly a movie isn't exciting or creates suspense automatically. On the other hand the movie steadily tries to submit to audience there are some very SERIOUS things going on out there behind that what we call 'reality', but the problem is, the movie itself makes it difficult to take it serious.

I really enjoyed 'All the President's Men', but this one here is so hypothetic it can never work without a good style of narration which DOES deliver explanations and creates suspense in an interesting way but not with a couple of overlong scenes in a row. I liked the way Hume Cronyn and especially old Western veteran Jim Davis played their parts and the manipulative scene in which Frady is confronted with a collage of pictures and keywords, but this is nearly everything about this movie that was interesting to me. It starts quite well, but after the murder case which leads Frady into his investigations, in other words: after 15 or 20 minutes, the movie is getting bumptious. There are dozens of more informative conspiracy movies...after having seen this one you just ask yourself: What have I been told by this movie?


how incredibly depressing to watch such a brilliant man saying such ignorant things. maybe he could be somewhat forgiven if his new material was actually funny.

by now his trademark verbosity and mind-boggling referential skills are so well established they can no longer carry his routines like they once did... and so it comes down to the subjects of the jokes. and that's where the trouble really lies. a joke about the only problem with the war in iraq is the fact that soldiers are being forced to follow the rules of engagement? a series of jokes about his doubts on the existence of global warming? jokes about howard dean, robert byrd, and anyone else who hasn't toed party lines? has bill o'reilly begun writing material for him?

there was a brief period -- say, early to mid 90's -- when miller seemed poised to step into the stand-up pantheon and take his place among the greats (richard pryor, lenny bruce, bill hicks, et al), but apparently somewhere along the line the devil showed up early to claim his soul. now he's become a pathetic jester for the fox news set.

truly sad.


Now whats that distinctive noise you hear?Yes your right.It's the bottom of the barrel being scraped relentlessly one more time.Only this time we have reached the end of the line.NO MORE PLEASE! This years winners were Calum Best and Bianca Gascoigne.A man famous for being the son of a famous footballer and a young woman famous for being the daughter of a woman married to a famous footballer.Speakes volumes dosen't it?Really accentuates the celebrity bit in the title dosen't it? ITV are genuinely insulting the viewers intelligence by actually allowing this piece of meaningless drivel to be broadcast.What person decided this waste of time to be deemed fit for public consumption?Surely after the rock bottom ratings for the first series it would have acted as a dose of cold,hard reality to ITV and make them execute this monstrosity but alas it was unleashed on the poor public again. Please ITV do everyone a massive favour and end this once and for all