There's been a lot of yada yada yada about the "Seinfeld" curse, so-called, because none of the cast of that beloved show have found successful vehicles since it ended. There are reasons for this. The most obvious is that much of what they've produced has just been crap. Look at Jason Alexander. Aside from the wonderful "Duckman" cartoon, his two live action series, "Bob Patterson" and the recently canceled "Listen Up" (which was unwatchable, formula treacle), were both ratings duds. This is a guy who, on Broadway, was practically George M. Cohan! Same with Michael Richards (Kramer). His lone attempt at solo fame ("The Michael Richards Show") was mystifyingly terrible. It seems that all of the "Seinfeld" cast have made bad career moves since the show ended. At least, Julia Louis-Dreyfus has tried to be conscientious. She's been in some duds, sure, but her previous attempt, "Watching Ellie", was a good show, that just needed a little retooling. The cast was sharp, it was well-written and she was bubbly and easy to watch. The major problem it had, was that it felt like some of the later Laurel and Hardy movies, the plotting was a little trite. I understand she had a lot invested in that program, her husband wrote it, they both produced it. So when the nincompoops at NBC decided they weren't going to give it a fair shot, it must have been a bitter pill to swallow. She's been on hiatus for a few years; I suppose, just to let the smoke clear. Now, she's back with "The New Adventures Of Old Christine", and believe me, this one is complete junk. For starters, she looks terrible; wan and sickly, with circles under her eyes and primarily, she plays a punching bag. If Elaine Benis was rife with insecurities, Christine's insecurities are eating her alive. Here's the premise: her husband (a lackluster milquetoast of a man) and her were having marital difficulties, so they went to a therapist, who, we find out, episodes in, is a nasty incompetent who was having sex with the guy. Like everything on this program, the shrink is a broadly drawn cartoon. If this woman were your marriage counselor, you'd be looking for a new one mid-way through your first 45 minutes. But, okay. So, when the series begins, Christine's spouse has already walked out on her, for a younger, NICER woman, who is also named Christine; hence, NEW Christine. Brutal. She's moved into a not so great apartment, has trouble making ends meet, nobody likes her... . I mean, how do the producers think that anybody who's EVER lived through a divorce (what- 75% of the USA now?)could find humor in this? Mostly, Old Christine doesn't even have suitable responses to the group of sharks around her. The supporting cast either doesn't care, doesn't have any use for her or they simply want her gone. None of this is even mildly amusing, let alone witty but worst of all, there's simply nobody to root for. Hamish Linklater, as her odd, clueless, immature brother, is the closest thing here to funny, but his part is written in such a peculiar way, that I wouldn't be surprised if, in a future episode, we all find out he's a serial killer. Her ex-husband is a shadow, her young son is one of these kids who was hired on cute quotient, not ability. The 3 rich, snobby mothers at her son's school are beyond contempt, but compared to Dreyfus' mewling, neurotic, battered, apologetic Christine, I almost feel sorry for them; at least they can stand on their own two feet. This is a show about how a decent woman who's made some mistakes, gets smacked down by life at every conceivable turn. It's painful to watch and it needs to go. As for that "Seinfeld" curse, I'm beginning to think it's on us.


Before I start this review, I must admit that when I saw this movie, it was the wee hours of the morning and I was slightly intoxicated. Maybe my judgment was a little off, but I doubt it.

'The Park' is a silly 3D horror movie about a haunted amusement park, which just happened to be built on a cemetery. After several deaths at the park, it was closed down. 14 years later, a journalist investigating the park goes missing (naturally). His sister, Yen, is determined to find him, but their mother, a ghost hunter, believes him to be dead already. Regardless of her mother's professional advice, Yen sets out with a group of ghost fodder (her friends) in an attempt to find her brother.

Where to begin with this film's faults? There are so many. For starters, the plot is a mess. Unoriginal and full of plot holes. There is nothing close to horror in this. Sure, there are ghosts and other such dead people, but no scares. The 3D effects on which the film was based weren't all that impressive - or even 3D - on the VCD I watched. The dialog (in subtitles) was rather bad. All the characters seem to have a problem in which they felt the need to state the obvious, with everyone saying several times "There are ghosts!". I think they got the point after that was said for the billionth time.

I will give 'The Park' credit for two things though: More proof that clowns are evil, and the fact that we have very little (to no) character development. It's a great way to determine early on who will die, and who will survive.

After thinking about it, this seemed like it was meant to be campy B-movie. The (very blatant) references to 'Mr Vampire' and 'Nightmare on Elm Street' prove that, but it still felt like the movie was taking itself too seriously. Sure, I laughed at some bad B-movie moments, but those few moments were surrounded by a whole lot of just plain bad material.

1/10 - 'The Park' was very disappointing. Maybe I'll try watching it again sometime, but not any time soon.


I've watched this movie in my country. It's uttermostly stupid movie. The story is bad, going on without reason. Some scene was copied from Ju-On. And the ghost capture by photo camera idea came from a game.

There are some bad 3-D scenes but it's just a cheap and cannot-frighten-you 3-D.

It's not worth watching. Try some movie else.

I give this movie an F grade.

PS. This is just my humble opinion. Thanks!


I've seen some dodgy HK movies in my time, but this has to rank pretty highly in the roll-call of stinkers. An unstructured, clumsily-paced mess from start to finish, with little in the way of a plot and so much thunderous noise and self-conscious 'scary stuff' that it never comes close to creating the quietly unsettling atmosphere needed to set up the viewer for a scare. The bargain-basement 3-D effects (a surprise considering CGI-fiend Andrew Lau's involvement) simply don't work on a DVD viewing (and providing only one pair of glasses is pretty cheap!) due to the poor colour balance. I will think twice before snapping up any more gimmicky films from bargain bins...


What a waste of time and money. I recently saw this film at the Philadelphia Film Festival and reduced my expectations so that I was only going to enjoy the 3-D effects. Not only was the film a complete mess of bad acting with a terrible screenplay, the 3-D effects were only used for about ten percent of the film, and the effects were barely noticeable, using old red/blue (anaglyph) 3-D technology. It seemed like the film wasn't even filmed to take advantage of the use of 3-D. This replaces Jaws 3-D and Amityville 3-D as the worst 3-D film I've ever seen. Next year at the festival, I'll have to avoid these gimmicky, low-end horror/action films. This film isn't even worth it for the curiosity factor. Stay away.


Whoops I forgot my 3D glasses to experience those mind-popping images (where we are informed when to put them on or take them off), but I doubt that gimmick would have saved this already below-average, if bizarre supernatural/slasher tale from Hong Kong. It looks like it had a bit money behind it, but it feels second-rate when compared to others of its field and that ending is a complete wimp out.

At least it has going for it some stylish visual brushes by Wai-keung Lau's frenetic direction and an imposingly eerie setting (an abandoned theme park, which has some freaky looking clown dolls on a hanging tree) with some sensational art direction (like the opening entrance of the clown face). Too bad that it's senselessly penned with an messy same-old, same old structure (even though the concept showed more promise than your copy-and-paste 'Ringu' clone) of cheap jolts, typical thrills (that steals its thunder from other films) and lazily constructed characters. Even throughout it demonstrates some unwelcoming camp qualities, where the witless script and self-knowing humour just don't come off. It irritated, but not as much as the performances do. Bobo Chan in the lead role never convinces and her screaming/crying gave me a splitting headache.

Yen along with her friends are looking for her missing brother, despite the warning from her medium mother that he's dead. It leads them to an amusement park, which closed down over a decade ago after a horrible accident involving the death of a young girl. Instead of finding her brother they come across restless spirits who pick them off one by one.

The computer effects are well-done and never distracting, as there's one memorable decapitation sequence that's brilliantly executed and there's a little bit of blood 'n'gore in the traditional style. Sound effects hold an atmospheric grip, but those constant whooshing noises and whispering voices could've been toned down. The music score wasn't all that effective, even with some jaded cues.

Pretty much like a foreseeable, underwhelming haunted house theme park ride.


Let me start by saying this movie tries way too hard. What's with the long haired ghost and powder white boy at the start, who have nothing to do with the rest of the movie? I guess it's called pandering to the masses.

But seriously, the scares keep coming and coming, but there's one problem. None of them are the least bit scary. Some are unintentionally hilarious, but nothing scary. Considering the greater part of the movie is supposed to be frightening, this is a major flaw.

I don't particularly care about the characters either. Sure, they throw in some 5 minute subplots, but none are interesting. The plot is pretty basic as well. I mean, how original is a haunted theme park? There are some positives however. There are one or two death scenes, including a beheading, which are pretty cool. And they managed to find the official ugliest man in the world, who is fun to laugh at.

Still, this movie isn't good. Pass it up for other better Asian ghost flicks.

4/10


Chinese horror film about an abandoned amusement park where a bunch of kids go looking for a missing family member. Years earlier a series of accidental deaths caused the park to close and for people to stay away. It transpires that an evil clown like entity is taking and stealing the souls of the people who died there and holding them.

Good looking but unfrightening and dull movie that really isn't worth bothering with. If it wasn't for the fact that the film has some ghost sequences in 3-D this movie really wouldn't have seen any play dates out of China. There has no tension since much of the spooky action consists of the characters stumbling around looking scared while in the dark amusement park with nothing scary happening. This films ideas of scares or interesting ghost imagery is to trot out every long haired and small child ghost cliché and use it. If you've seen Juon/The Grudge/The Ring you've seen it all before.The film also uses people with physical deformity for frightening effect for no good reason other than the film makers have broken through the bottom of the barrel. The clown ghost stuff is interesting but because of lousy 3-D you really don't get a good look at it. Its not even worth discussing the illogic of the plot, its twists, or how good the amusement park looks after being abandoned for so many years.

Clearly this is going to be the made just for the cash turkey in director Andrew Lau's closet(he did Infernal Affairs and Initial D among others).

Stay away from this, even as a rental.I picked this up in Chinatown for five bucks on DVD and feel I was over charged (and ripped off since the DVD only had one set of 3-D glasses in it- then again the 3-D didn't always work) 3 out of 10.


... And this film is good for only that. At an amuzement park a little girl falls from one of the attractions, and dies. This shots down the park, but some year later a boy goes out to the shut down amuzement park. Who he is, or why he really wants to go there, noone knows. He goes missing. Who takes him or why, noone knows. Then his annoying sister wakes up, and decides to go find him. Why noone knows, he´s been missing for quite some time. Who she is? Well she´s the sister ofcourse. She teams up with some friends, and from here on the movie steals from every single film, that the writer could think of. Small kids with dolls, themepark built on cemetary, DV cameras that can record what isn´t there, evil clowns, and a mutant and his son, who´s just basicly up to no good. Oh yeah. It even has a "Surprising ending".

What a piece of garbage. This and "Mutant Dog" must be the worst I´ve ever seen. 1 out of 10.


Whichever way you approach this movie, you can't escape the fact that it is downright awful!! Anyone expecting something along the lines of the standout far east films such as the Ring, the Eye, the Grudge etc is in for a massive disappointment when viewing this effort. In fact, it's difficult to find any redeeming features about this movie - storyline is flimsy in the extreme, acting is atrocious, screenplay and script are diabolical and, for a supposed scary film, it just isn't in the least bit scary. In addition, the few 3-D scenes are quite simply not in the least bit 3-dimensional! The whole thing is an utter mess from start to finish, and its 90 minute duration seems more like 90 hours! All in all, a quite dreadful experience!!


First there was dragonball, then came DRAGONBALL Z which showed(I don't know if it was a first run or a rerun) in my country in 2000. I was 11 going on 12 that year and having loved Dragonball, i immediately grew to like its sequel. Oh how I enjoyed the toys, the keychains, the trading cards, even my water bottle which had pictures of both young and grown up Goku.

I was enthralled by the awesome action and captivated by the vast array of cool looking characters.

But that was a long time ago. Watching it now, 9 years later, the series does not hold the same amount of appeal as it used to. It's a "frog in a well" syndrome. Apparently I only thought Dragonball Z was that great because I was never exposed to anything better.

For starters, the characters I once thought were "cool" are still cool, but nothing else beyond that. There isn't really much character development to speak off as the stories are more focused on the plot and the characters are just pre-set anime stock characters, put in place to advance the plot from one fight to the next. There are a couple of instances where the characters get some development and really shine as being remotely likable, but those come rarely and tend to get buried under all the action.

The story is split into a number of distinct "sagas" but each of them progress slower than a sloth/snail hybrid. The pacing drags to the point of being unbearable only to the most patient and devoted of viewers. The horrendous story progression is not helped by the fact that every episode features lengthy rambling monologues, badly timed close-up shots that linger for too long, unnecessary dialogue and other cheap amateurish tactics just to fill up 25 minutes for an episode which contains no more than 15 minutes of actual story material. What starts off as an interesting premise soon falls into a set formula that goes from unoriginal to just painfully boring. The director's decision to follow different groups of characters on different adventures was a poor one and just made the convoluted plot so much more confusing.

The fights are intense, epic and would please any action junkie out there. However some exceptionally poor animation and an over usage of animation short cuts give this whole show a very cheap look even for its time.(Some of the worse episodes of G I Joe were better animated than Dragonball Z). Thankfully, it makes up for that by providing some stunning and highly detailed artwork.

So many anime fans extol the fact that Dragonball Z was so influential in making anime as famous as it is and influenced a whole generation of anime and manga creators. They cite Dragonball's numerous spin-offs and products as a testament to its greatness. Guess what, Adam West's Batman was influential too but I would hardly call it a good show.

A popular show does not mean a good show

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. To kids who are not exposed to greater world of animated series and graphic novels, Dragonball Z would no doubt be one of the best shows around. People's minds tend to get clouded by the fact that Dragonball Z was so influential or might have been one of the first anime they ever watched(and thus introduced them to anime in general) that they remember only the good points and overlook the numerous jarring flaws of the series.

Objectively speaking, Dragonball Z definitely does not deserve its current rating of 9.0/10. It is like a hot air balloon. It is beautiful to look at and even grand to behold, but look any deeper and it's just an empty basket and whole lot of nothing inside. This show has his moments like some good character progression, but nevertheless, it has too many flaws to speak of.


If you think this is how America truly is, then you're so naive. Where do the issues about poverty, the economy, deficit, high taxes, inflation, and racial injustice come in? Surprise, surprise it's never featured here nor is it EVER talked about!

We see some amazing direction followed by actors acting like real Joe schmoes reading from a script who display their pleasure with this grand country as if we don't have problems, because this propaganda would rather have us ignore the problems because it's much better to just watch this comedy and forget our misery.

Smart people will really dislike this and will see right through its act, as I did. Is it UnAmerican to see right through this propaganda? It's Unamerican to pretend we have no problems.


Obviously this film was made to counter the negative criticism of Michael Moore's films and any sort of criticism of America. Ideally, a documentary about America should be balanced. It should talk about the positive aspects as well as the negative aspects, but these days, everyone is polarized either to the positive or the negative, depending on which political team you're rooting for this election year. Go team go!

Personally, I find this film to be nothing more than a recruiting film for cheap foreign labor to enter the USA, legally or not, as well as a reminder that you shouldn't question America's actions, no matter what it does. What about the other free countries out there? Canada allows gay marriage, The UK has lower driving ages, lower alcohol consumption ages, and lower legal sex ages. The Netherlands permit limited marijuana use. Those countries have more freedom than the United States. Just because America pioneered democracy doesn't mean it's the best at embracing it. Just because America has the most money, doesn't mean it's the most loveable country. When taking this into account, all the flag waving means nothing more than rooting for your home team.

As an American, having no patriotism means stating that America and all its inhabitants are a negative aspect in this world, and leaving it vulneraable to enemy attack. Michael Moore and other American liberals, although critical, don't go this far, but the blindly patriotic assume so because they can't stand any criticism of their home team.

Being blindly patriotic means to love America no matter what it does. If America did something evil, the most patriotic citizens would cling to it as the right thing to do. This is dangerous. The Nazis were patriotic to their country in the 1930s. Plus, the inability to criticize means never improving, even if other nations surpass you over time, which is precisely what happened to America. Now other countries are advancing faster than us because the cowboys are still riding the same dead horses.

People should be equally critical as they are patriotic, and as patriotic as they are critical. Without balance, there is fanaticism. This film encourages fanaticism.

3/10


I watched through 8 of the 10 episodes and couldn't handle anymore. All of the episodes were boring, and I think even if I appreciate The Ten Commandments, I'd still hate The Decalogue.

Each episode pertains to one of the ten commandments. Well, that's nice and all except that the editing and direction of each episode was slow and boring. I wasn't sentimental to any of the characters, and the guy who keeps appearing in every episode was utterly pointless. I'm pretty sure he is supposed to represent something, but I don't even care at this point.

It'd be great if there was some sort of depth in the script, but there weren't any. Overall, a major disappointment. Don't bother watching this unless you want to be bored out of your mind.


Simuland misses the point me thinks. 'K tries to add to the Bible' but fails! In an interview with Kieslowski, he tells a young student of film, that he wasn't trying to moralise but to ethicise, as moralism is too monolithic and closes down dialogue. He felt that to move to an ethical stance, it opened up a dialogue with the viewers. This I don't think is an attempt to add to the Bible, but in truth registers the fact that the trace of history - to allude to Ricoeur - is such that we have to realise that this is a different age. And Biblically of course a different dispensation, having moved from Law to Grace. Not that I'm a theologian, so hey shoot me before it happens! Nor do I think it peters out. It stands as a 'tour de force' in film-making, which rejects the temptation to moralise and tub-thump and is wonderfully aesthetic, allusive and after all gets us talking.

What more can you ask for, in a film or 10?


I watched the first episode and couldn't believe my eyes. How could anybody, Catholic or atheist take this story seriously? I was watching it and praying: Please, Kieslowski, don't trivialize the matter!

Here's the plot: A nice intelligent guy raises a gifted and sensitive son alone. They relationship if filled with love. But the hero has one flaw, he's an agnostic, even though he was brought up in a Catholic family. What's worse, instead of trusting God, he happens to trust science--in particular his computer. God has no choice but to teach him a lesson. And what could best drive God's point if not killing the person the hero loves most--his son?

Having grown up in Catholic Poland, I can attest that this is how most people there understand religion. The loving God, who--like a Mafia boss--kisses you before stabbing your heart. This is the kind of God who doesn't stay Abraham's hand.

There is no subtlety in Kieslowski's story. No questioning of faith. The commandments are rigid rules--you break them, you pay. And the competing god--the technology--is viewed in a superstitious, parochial, way.

I'm glad Kieslowski didn't present his views on the intelligent design vs. Darwinism.


This came at the end of a long weekend spent watching really bad films. Don't think for a second that adds to its credit, though. I can't list everything I hated about this movie because a) it would take too long and b) I'm sure it killed a few of my brain cells, and my mind is blocking some of my memories out of self-defense. This movie contains: terrible acting, a horrible screenplay, lousy camera-work, way too much red lighting, occasionally no light at all, really bad makeup, plot hole upon plot hole upon plot hole, the least effective villain ever, a mind-numbingly bad soundtrack, and THE strangest sex scene I have ever encountered in my life. The director admitted in the commentary that he gets teased a lot for the "parking lot of death" scene, and I would say "teasing" is a generous word. I would like to throw feces at the man responsible for that scene. Also, when we got this movie it was listed as "Street Zombies", not "Ozone". It's a fair indicator of a bad film when there's more than one title involved-- alas, we had no warning. Here's what I can say to this film's credit: watch it with a bunch of friends and you just may get some good laughs out of the schlocky awfulness. In a scene in a bar involving zombified patrons, the director mentions that he'd been buying all the extras beer and they were all rip-roaringly drunk by the time filming was through. Watching this movie, I really, really, really wish I had been, too.


I would not advise anyone to waste their time with this movie. Its a dull, unmemorable and lame little film. A wealthy banker kills women with his crossbow as part of some hunting ritual from South America which is never really explained or given any elaboration whilst the police investigation headed by Robert Forster tries to get to the bottom of things. I've probably just made the movie sound more interesting than it is. The movie padded out with subplots about a pimp blackmailing the titular banker and Forster's annoying and shrill reporter girlfriend baiting the banker on her news show so she can be kidnapped by him for the predictable finale and also with some pointless soft core sex scenes. Most of the killing scenes are dull and unmemorable and most the movie is by the book padding. The only high points to the film are the presence of Robert Forster, who is still good even in dreck like this and gets a few good lines and one scene later in the movie when the banker deals with his blackmailer. Its such a nifty little scene it doesn't seem to belong in this movie. However, it is not enough to recommend this one.


The main reason this seems so unfunny to many younger viewers is that a lot of the humor was topical, and topical humor becomes unfunny as soon as the topic is no longer "current events"--how funny will "Dubya" jokes seem by around 2084, when they'll be about as old as the jokes in "Boo!"? I'm twenty-some years younger than "Boo!", and the only reason I got most of the topical jokes is that I'm a big fan of 1930s movies thanks to having grown up when TV stations showed movies late at night instead of infomercials (yes, kids, they really used to do that!) You miss a lot of the humor in older movies if you can't time-travel between the ears.


When I first learned of "The Bribe," I was very impressed with the cast. What could go wrong with a film featuring the talents of such actors as Robert Taylor, Ava Gardner, Charles Laughton, and Vincent Price? Lots.

The film starts out with a flawed premise. A federal agent named Rigby (Taylor) is sent by his superior (Hoyt) to an island off the coast of Central America where war surplus aircraft engines are being illegally acquired, refurbished, and sold on the black market. The problem with this concept arises when it is stated that the engines were acquired as scrap. If I understood this part correctly, then why would the government care? There is absolutely no hint that they are being provided to a hostile foreign power so would it be proper to endanger the life of an agent for such a mission?

Okay, most viewers would be willing to overlook such triflings. However, the film has much more tangible problems. First, approximately the first half of it is told in flashback with near-constant narrative by Robert Taylor. Rather than let the man act, the screenwriter and director had him verbalize his every thought. The result is very chatty and abrasive.

Finally, the film commits the worst crime any motion picture can commit. It is intensely boring. There is little action and the entire film is driven by endless dialogue. Although I must admit that the climax is good, the viewer must wade through the entire film to reach this point. For me, the payoff wasn't worth it.

It really pains me to provide a negative review for a film that employs some of my favorite actors. However, I believe that most viewers would want to dodge this one and check out the filmographies of the various performers for much better material. Die hard fans of film noir or of individual cast members may nevertheless want to see this, but if you're one of these, don't claim you haven't been warned.


David Carradine shows off his lack of depth as an actor.

Hollywood would have been better off if Barbara Hershey had never been discovered.

Martin Scorsese shows off his penchant for violence without any reason whatsoever.

If you want to see an inane film, in which bad guys wreak havoc and men who chase them are completely inept, this is the film for you. No one could believe this garbage. The beginning is silly and the ending is just stupid.

The crooks escaped from a chain gang, which didn't have any chains(???), and then the crooks are captured and put on a chain gang again(???). Of course, the crook(David Carradine) escapes again so of course, there can be a big shoot-'em-up at the end. This summary does not do justice. The plot is predictable and is unrealistic.

The other problem I had with this film was that the characters don't care what damage they do to other people's lives. In fact, they enjoy hurting whoever they can. Furthermore, Boxcar Bertha is never brought to justice. The film says that it is okay to kill and steal as long as you get away with it.

All of the actors are inept. Scorsese didn't add anything with his directing even if the plot is vapid. Avoid this waste of time and watch Raging Bull for a period piece. This is a complete disappointment.


I respect both Corman and Scorsese, but this early effort by Scorsese is not up to even the average work by either. Poor performances by the leads (including Carradine, who simply can't act) and the phony-sounding dialogue don't do justice to this depression-era piece.

Another problem with this film (and one that Scorsese would learn to avoid in his future work) is that everything looks too clean and orderly. Everyone is well-washed (unless they've just been in a fight or fallen in a puddle), the camps are neatly laid out, and the interiors of the boxcars are almost spotless, with just enough nice, clean hay spread around so you won't see the actual floor of the sound-stage.

The IMDb "Trivia" section includes a comment to the effect that the sex scenes between Carradine and Hershey were not simulated. You would never guess it from the film itself, since they are some of the most tepid you could imagine. They would probably get a PG-13 today, for brief frontal and rear nudity.

Finally, the credits are up to the best Corman standards...hokey.

This film was a disappointment, but I can suggest it as a curiosity for Scorses fans. All others need not waste their time.


i had wanted to see this film for MANY YEARS! well Mainly cause John Carradine was in it. & it was a movie that i was curious to see? & no need to say who's 1st film it was! :) well one of his 1st films i mean. & i was QUITE bored watching it. the acting was as BAD as it got! & i

actually almost bought this piece of crap of a film on DVD a few years ago. & NOW I'm glad i did NOT! so anyone who hasn't seen this film, watch it only for curiosity, NOT cause people have said it's good. & the 2nd reason i forgot to mention was the #1 reason i watched it off Cable was it's an Early film that "Roger The Man Corman" produced when he had NOT long before had quit directing films.


There were a lot of bad movies made in the 70's.

This one was almost at the top of the list.

I did not read the credits, but I'm sure that they did not list any writers for this movie. It appeared to me that the players (I'll not call them actors) were making up the dialog as they went along. Maybe this was filmed during the writer's strike.

One of the funny scenes was the one where they held up the people attending a dinner party, including the sheriff played by John Caradine. The music in the background was the William Tell Overture, the theme for The Lone Ranger. "Who was that masked man?"

The lead"actors" were bad enough, but the support players were just horrible. After saying their lines, if they had any, they just stood with blank expressions, sort of like asking themselves "What is my next line". I guess they used a lot of "locals"

Barbara Hersey did make it somewhat easy to stay through the entire movie, but that's about it.

I think this movie took place in the early 30's or so, but there was a '39 model car being used several times.


70's movies were a crap shoot at best. "Bonnie & Clyde" was a decent movie that dealt with the same subject ,depression era crime, as "Boxcar Bertha". Scorsese has given his fans and the general viewing public a lot of great films this isn't one of them. He can't be held responsible for the lack of any kind of interest holding screenplay. However the characters seem to be stumbling through their lines & the action equals that of a grade school play. None of the characters are believable. Most every line spoken by every actor is as if they are reading them. Boxcar Bertha is a poor script & screenplay acted by normally good actors with no direction from a normally great director. All this boils down to bad cinema.


Yes, it missed the mark big time. I've always felt that reunion shows of this ilk (i.e.,old 30-minute sitcoms) should be done in the same 30-minute time-frame. And, in this particular case, should have been done on similar sets as the TV show instead of filming outdoors in real settings. Because the producers and/or writers chose real-life settings for this reunion show AND stretched it to two hours, the look and feel of the show was completely alien to the original series. For me, that was the first glaring mistake. They should have stuck to the cheap indoor sets and made it a half-hour long. Maybe then they could've used the money they'd have saved and spent it on better writers, because the next glaring mistake was the bad writing. It stuck out like a sore thumb. I give this movie two stars instead of one, because the only endearing aspect of this "mistake" was seeing most of the original cast together again.


How about a movie that is directed and written by the original director who directed all but 3 of the episodes? Introducing, Mr. Richard Bare!!!!! This should be filmed by August of next year for a 2011 release. Are you excited??? We are in the works of pre-production. The script is written, and boy howdy, is it good. The context will be set in the original time-frame. The cast will be famous and look alikes. Which A list actor do you think looks the most like Eddie Albert? How about Eva Gabor? Who should play Arnold? How about Mr. Kimball? We already have a Mr Haney! You must stick to the original values of the TV series. Especially in a movie as important as Green Acres as it has a HUGE following! Let's get er done.


This is probably the second-worst TV reunion show ever. While the honor for the worst goes to the Beverly Hillbillies reunion, this one is only marginally better. First off, the show begins by explaining that Oliver and Lisa had moved back to New York and had been living there many years!! This NEVER could have happened in the TV series and in many ways makes the show irrelevant--after all, what's funny about moving to Hootersville and then leaving because it DID suck after all?! Secondly, like the Hillbilly TV movie, a lot of the cast was dead or near-dead. Fred Zipfel was dead and Mr. Haney just looked dead (he was very sickly and died soon afterward). And the rest of them just looked old and tired. It was pretty sad watching this mess, as it just wasn't the same. It's true you can never really go back.


Okay, I watched this just now, many, many years after seeing The Big Chill. Maybe my expectations were too high, maybe I've seen too many other good movies by Sayles. I have to say I think this movie is seriously overrated.

I understand why people would prefer this over TBC. The script is not bad, the camera work is not bad, the editing is not bad. A lot of the dialog is smart. Unfortunately, when the dialog isn't smart, it's downright smarmy, completely off the mark. But what makes this a truly inferior movie is the ACTING!

Jon Lovitz's "It's ACTING!" came to mind no more than ten minutes into this movie. I couldn't get past the atrocious delivery, intonation, pacing, and fake emotion of just about every actor in this movie. Just really, really bad. There's no way to soft pedal. Even the (now) reliable David Strathairn will make you wince. I couldn't help thinking that this is one movie Sayles could remake and greatly improve upon just by using good, professional actors.

So, if you're like me, someone who actually thinks TBC is a good movie, and you've heard The Return of the Secaucus 7 praised as infinitely superior . . . lower your expectations. Perhaps you won't be quite so put off like I was.


Are there really 30 people in the world who think this appallingly acted film is a 10? Are they allowed to vote and drive cars? John Sayles has written and directed some of my favourite movies, but his head must have been in the toilet (along with that plunger in the tedious first scene) for this one.


The terribly slow moving plot and embarrassingly difficult to watch scenes may have been easier to stomach had the acting not been so sub-par, but as it was, it was a struggle to watch the entirety of the film. Perhaps this film may have been humorous circa its production date, but taken out of the context of the eighties, the movie feels outdated, nonsensical, and even (dare I say it!) student-produced. If given the chance, I would never watch this film again, as it was easily one of the worst films I have ever seen.


OK, I realize that this film predates the Big Chill, but comparisons abound here. In BC, you have a group of seven successful former college friends who get together and realize how much they sold out to get where they are today. In S7, you have seven former college friends who are all miserable failures and seemingly never had their values challenged at all.

Not much conflict there; basically, who cares?

In BC, you had a great soundtrack filled with some of the best music of the characters' college years. In S7, you get yodeling. Lots of yodeling. And a bar scene where the singing makes you nostalgic for the yodeling.

Not much entertainment value there, either.

In BC, you have seven excellent actors who are at the top of their craft, proving that being in your 30s and 40s does not disqualify you from being funny, sexy, and smart in film. In S7, you have six people you'll never hear from again and David Straithairn, who although he is a fine actor, doesn't deliver here.

So, although I love John Sayles (Matewan and Eight Men Out were unbelievably terrific movies), and although this movie did come first, I would avoid it like a dead skunk in the middle of the road. If this was his first movie, it is a tribute to Sayles that he learned many important lessons from it. And never repeated his mistakes. If you want to see a movie like this, stick to the Big Chill.


At some point in the next century, the last of the baby boomers will die and the rest of the world will no longer have to suffer from their bizarre notion that the 1960s was the most important decade in Western history, or films like "The Return of the Secaucus 7". The film focuses on a group of sixties-activist college friends who gather together for a weekend (at least I think it was a weekend, this film seemed to drag on for months) to talk about themselves. Too bad they're such uninteresting, one-dimensional people. See the women lean against fences, crouch next to streams and play board games while they talk about their interpersonal relationships! Watch the men play basketball, skinny dip and chop firewood! Laugh as the characters trash Lacey's wooden performance in bad summer stock, uttering criticisms equally applicable to this film and their own clumsy, mannered acting! Cringe at the lengthy bar scene, where bad songs are sung badly, and Maura and Jeff have the kind of fight that usually only happens in amateur theatre! Wonder at what may be the only bad performance by David Strathairn captured on film! Weep with relief when no one accepts Katie's offer to extend their stay even longer!

*quote from script


Late night at the IFC. The Return of the Secaucus 7 pioneered the "get together" movement of eighties cinema. This movie should be misplaced or evaporated from any film restoration. I'm afraid this movie would be the only piece of life from a nuclear disaster of mass proportions. Future generations would be lead to believe that past generations had no interest but to socialize about nothing. Imagine this..........lotion, yes Johnson and Johnson hand lotion was never created or thought of. Our hands, of course would be dry and chalky sort of like this dry trip. Was this movie perhaps countering the movements of the sixties or seventies? Perphaps the filmmakers were hoping of a return to simpler times. WASP playing a game of volleyball and discussing how much they've learned from their misfortunes. Ron, the outcast of the bunch works at the local gas station! Let him be! The basketball montage is great. Not to mention, the out of breath voice-over. Nude diving at a eleven. "Oh June I'm home."


I am not sure what the movie Defiance is all about, not sure if it is a western, a post Civil War era story or a comedy....but one thing is for sure, the makers of Defiance didn't know either.....the movie is a compilation of scenes that are spun into a plot that continuously creates a sense of "where is this going?" In essence the movie has scene after scene that does nothing but emphasize and embellish hate over and over....someone gets out of line...BANG...someone spits the wrong way.....BANG.....someone talks out of line....BANG...then the end of the movie comes and guess what???? BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG...a bar room shoot 'em up that looks like it was filmed one time without editing..... Some of the saving graces of the film are some of the scenery where the movie was shot, details to the guns for the era, costumes that appear to mirror the times and Ric Dark's performance as Owen...the reckless gun for hire that looks like a cross between Ulysess S . Grant and Clint Eastwood....very powerful and someone to keep your eye on in future films. Craig Hawksley brings comic relief to the film when everyone is about to be massacred in the films final shoot 'em up scene. Thumbs up for a cult classic, thumbs down if you are wanting anything else....


This movie was likely one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen. It quite seriously looked like a high school class project, though the actors were a bit too old to expect in to be in a high school class project, the script and dialog were rank, and it was delivered about as poorly as it was written. The production values were non-existent. Character development was extremely limited. Some of the makeup looked as if it was applied by teenage girls. The music was completely out of place with the time period and the action on the screen. And the comment in another review that the ending was good if predictable almost had me wondering if the movie had been re-edited so I saw a different ending.

At no point in the movie did I care about a single character on the screen. At no time was there a single image that caught my interest. At no time did anything happen that surprised me.

If I had paid money to see this in the theater instead of renting it on disc, I wound have been one very unhappy camper.


There was a great gaping black hole where any skill that could have been was lost entirely. I am at a loss for words of how terrible the direction in this film was. In fact, this goes for everything in the film. The filmmakers' had spunk, I'll give them that. It takes a lot of guts to let someone put your name on the credits of a movie like "Defiance." The acting (with a partial exception) was exponential horrible. It sucked harder than Mega Maid. (It is an absolute torture to watch Tony Twist in the role of Nathan Cross--he brings the same boring nothingness to the screen that he spurted for Blues on the ice!)

And another thing, the villain was the worst in the history of cinema, that's including all B-movies. You couldn't take the guy seriously. I admire the actors who didn't crack up just by watching him act. At first, I thought this film was a comedy, then I realized they were trying to be serious. That made it all the more hiliarious, if you add, 'under the sheets' to every line that the horny old guy, the villain, and the narrator said. My friends and I had a good ol' time tearing every line apart, limb from limb, adjective from noun. Speaking of lines, the dialogue was some of the worst ever written. It just fused together with the terrible acting to create a great busty beast of performances where it felt as if they were just quoting memorized lines with no emotion whatsoever.

Only complaint: I saw this movie. From the first scene, it felt like something I would see if I handed a camera to a couple of horny old men and watched them go into my backyard and starting filming something which I cannot put into words. That's what this film means to me.

All in all, frustrations and failings aside, this indie sucked.

-7/10


I'm a big Western fan but have you ever seen a video box that says: "Don't rent me?" Well, the box for Defiance said just that, but... it was a free gallery weekend (Movie Gallery.) I thought to myself "I'll take it now b/c if its a mistake it won't have cost me anything." Well, I'm not sure if it was a mistake or not. There were some aspects I really liked. The action and costuming were two (even if the costumes didn't quite look right for the time, being too clean and too new.) Tommy Cross, the vigilante, struck me as very cool. He had a lot of potential but was terribly undeveloped. It didn't help that he couldn't act. Then someone decided that Tommy should just up and die. He was the main character damn it! You're left wondering what the hell just happened and why. Whomever wrote this story just couldn't maintain their focus. In the acting department, the rest of the characters are just as bad as Tommy. To top that off, the movie looked like it was filmed with a hand-held video camera. The last gunfight, however, is the highlight of the movie. It is violent, bloody and exciting. Being a Western fan, I feel a little more forgiving towards this film. My suggestion is, if you see Defiance on the shelf, the feeling you get from the box is probably right. You must love Westerns or just walk away.


When I saw this western on the shelf at the movie store I grabbed it and ran to the counter. A new western, they don't make many of these anymore I said to my self. But as I watched it I realized how really bad it was. You know it's a bad western when all the actors are wearing new clothes like they just walked out of a western clothing store! They all had crisp new clothes and firm hats. Very believable. I love westerns and even I wished it would end! Granted it did have a few good characters like the bad guys at the start (who died early on) and some of the other bad dudes later on. Lucky it was short or did I just block out all the bad scenes making it seem short? The end gun fight was the highlight of this movie!


I tried... I really did. But after 20 minutes, I couldn't stand the torture any longer. I would rather pluck out my eyes with a wooden spoon than watch any more of this horrid, waste of time movie. The makers of this film should consider themselves lucky, as I doubt that too many others would last even that long. From the very first scene, less than 10 seconds into the movie, you know that you're in for a wild time of melodrama, overacting, bad script, and really bad set design/location and costume.

One of the cabins featured prominently in the start looks like something you might see as the backdrop in a J. Crew catalogue. Beautiful stone tiles and kitchen counter tops. Not exactly what one would expect from a film that supposed to be set in 1874 (or thereabouts). Most of the costumes looks like they just came out of the clear plastic bag from Walmart.

At least I know now that Blockbuster isn't playing favorites - they rent good and absolutely horrible movies alike.


I couldn't decide from the first few minutes of the film - is this a trailer for a movie or a very long flashback sequence?

The movie listed itself as 71 minutes and became a shade over 60 (on DVD)

All the action sequences changed POV so quickly it was impossible to latch onto the story. Character development was practically non nonexistent and the final scene was over so quickly it was a surprise to see the credits. Acting ranged from appalling to not so bad. I should have known in the final fight scene that it was the main bad guy who was killed - that was the most realistic makeup of the entire move !!! And that's saying something...

Give me my hour back :)


Make sure you are rested and had lots of coffee before watching this one.

It may be a little slice of reality, but even my life isn't this boring. The witty banter turns your stomach after a while. You really want to give all these guys a good slap to shut them up. The movie is full of so-so 'stars' who are all capable of better than this piece of work. The dialog and acting are so weak Levinson must have dozed off just in time to yell 'cut, it's a wrap'. What was he doing while all this was going on? What was he thinking when he wrote this? The clothing looked as though it was from the 60s not the 50's. The music, though good, seemed to be inserted as just a device to try to save a bad movie. The camera work and sound were actually very good but there's no substance to this movie.

I'm glad to see that Ellen Barkin has done something to improve her looks. She looked awful, no, ghastly in this movie.


"shabulia" writes my opinion of "Diner", exactly - except I think my opinion is worse.

Is this REALLY how young men act and feel? Deliver me !!

Everyone to their own tastes, but I found nothing to get excited about ( and nothing entertaining) while I was watching KCET's "Saturday Night Movie", and Martin Sheen promised me I'd see a hilarious film - I'm still waiting to laugh. It isn't the first time I've been disappointed in HIS opinion - or what he's paid to say.

Since almost all users say the actors in this film have regressed in their careers, I can see no reason to mention even one. I lived through that period and didn't know ANYONE like these air-heads. Maybe it's because I never got to Balitmore....did I ? If this is Barry Levinson's best direction and writing, I don't think I'll bother to watch those other films some suers mention. I'm not one to worship any "star's" performance, but I'm going to make a point to remember how I kept waiting for something to happen in this "great" film. I think I was mesmerized by the total inanity of "Diner" - and I LOVE the Food Channel's program "Diners and Dives".

I still am pleading STORY, STORY, STORY, please......


Ugh, I hated "Diner."

A group of college twerps who don't want to grow up sit around and blather on incessantly. I believe we're supposed to think they're cute and lovable, shaking our heads in mock disapproval of their pesky antics. Give me a break. Nothing's more boring than watching a movie about people who want to avoid all of the responsibilities you accepted a long time ago.

Maybe when I'm years older and further away from my own passage into adulthood, I will find this movie nostalgic and charming. As it is, I find it unbearable.

Grade: D


If you like modern-day soap operas, you should like this critics' favorite. It's simply an ensemble of 20-ish young people who hang out at the diner and give us - or so the critics think - witty and profound statements. To me, most of them just sounded obnoxious, profane (blasphemous (especially in Steve Guttenberg's character) and unappealing. It didn't do much for me: kind of like another "Big Chill" but with a different cast.

That was the only interesting aspect for me, seeing a young Kevin Bacon, Daniel Stern, Ellen Barkin, among others. I saw this on tape in the '90s instead of when it came out in the early '80s.

This is probably too talky for many people today, and they aren't missing much. It's overrated.


Although the aforementioned film is not without its OWN hiccoughs as far as I'm concerned, (I rated it one notch higher than this) THAT'S the post-war lifestyle I wanna go back to and experience vicariously! Consisting of 'hot-roddin' and juvenile japes with your mates; and not - as "Diner" offers us - a bunch of wastrels lazily sprawled around a table spouting cod-philosophy and acting like the lost aristocrats of their youth. (That's when they're not projecting an 'earthier' vibe as an act to try and get laid, of course... !) The only historic thing about this movie, to my mind, is the number of players that this proved to be a breakthrough for. Sad then, really, that some of them have regressed only to parodying aspects of their personality in this. (Reiser, Guttenberg) Mickey Rourke, however, gives the most natural and vivid performance of his career - and so early on, too! The Diner is the gang's own little retreat; unfortunately, it seemed 'Closed Indefinitely' to people like me. That is - in cinematic terms, at least - someone who prefers to see people try and face up to their inadequacies, rather than perpetually running away from them...


There is long tradition in Italian cinema in which the hero is a thief or a pathetic loser or a criminal or, like in "Romanzo Criminale" all three. Part of the tradition is to humanize the beasts, to give them feelings, to make us feel for them. Here we're giving an endless romance based on the real life Magliana band, a bunch of heartless, violent thugs that dominated the Roman gangland in the 70's. Michele Placido and his script writers concoct a confused and confusing document that is as annoying, tedious and opportunistic as it is long, endless really. There is, however, one big plus in its favor, the actors. They are given a sketchy draw of their perverse characters but they go for it with body and soul. Kim Rossi Stuart's tormented Freddo exudes a cutting pain that makes you think he has a conscience. Claudio Santamaria projects danger without even trying and the "Libanese" is played by an actor totally new to me, Pierfrancesco Favino, that gives the best performance by an Italian Actor in many, many moons. Riccardo Scamarcio has a face to launch a thousand ships but unfortunately no character and Stefano Accorsi is totally unbelievable in a character that is nothing short of absurd. Explosions, production values, American style editing, but very slow pacing, a brilliant dirty photography by the great Luca Bigazzi. What a pity that with all of this talent available the end result is so mediocre.


I went to see "Romanzo Criminale" with very high hopes. Michele Placido made one of the best Italian films of the 90's "Un Eroe Borghese" with a superlative Fabrizio Bentivoglio. There he touched a delicate real life story and treated with the vigor of a vintage Costa Gavras. I regret to inform, none of that is evident in "Romanzo Criminale" The great bunch of young Italian actors assembled in one film! A story of friendship and betrayal, paralleled to the turbulent 70's. But something, definitely, went tragically wrong. The film seems rushed and thoughtless. Kim Rossi Stuart, one of the best of his generation, is wonderful to watch but his character swings from gloomy to gloomier and we're ask to feel compassion for him - although we're not allow to grieve for his victims. Half way through the film I started to get impatient and glancing at my watch. I felt detached, unmoved. The last nail in the coffin of this unfortunate venture is the casting of Stefano Accorsi. It may have been a commercial decision, Accorsi is a big star in Italy, but the idea backfired in a big way. His story is as convoluted as it is unbelievable. He doesn't have the strength or the power to transmit the ambiguity of his character. The women are treated as virgins or whores and what else is new. This time, I don't think, nobody can complain of lack of funds. I suspect they went for a commercial operation with fast cutting and a popular score with several well known hits from the 70's on. All together a disappointing experience.


michele placido, who has always been a very very mediocre actor himself, not to mention director, made this movie out of a book which is out of a very true story... The book was quite good, the movie is NOT. The real Banda della Magliana mixed up with mafia, camorra, secret services, terrorism, and whatsmore. They were quite coldblooded people who acted only for their interests. These guys are part of many of the most infamous chapters of the Italian history. What do we see about that in the movie? nothing. We see some very insipid love story, some more insipid gangster story, we are even supposed to feel sorry for some of these guys... because they were supposedly men of honour... and not one word about why this bunch of people was so notorious, feared, and protected by the powerfuls. Shame to the horrible placido. He didn't even gather the courage to portarait half of the real story... I can't understand why he was given the money to make this piece of garbage... or maybe andreotti paid? LOL that would be the cherry on this tasteless pie.


There is little humour in this otherwise ridiculous film, except for the one that arises - I suspect unintentionally - from the hotchpotch of conflicts of life-sworn friendship and love interests between the characters. The tearjerking that tugged though was uniquely caused by suppressed hilarity - when I wasn't yawning, that is. The guys look mean and moody and handsome enough, or just handsome and moody, or just mean or just, in the case of the inspector - plain ludicrous - and in the case of the art gallery girl - plain hilarious. Ha Ha - I would sooo love to see some Roman gangster - however darkly handsome and with an unlikely past - fall head over heel in love with Amelie Poulain ha ha ha - I'm still laughing. Why not give the part to Paris Hilton fogossake - would have been so much more convincing. And what about the Whore-who-falls-for-the-otherwise-useless-inspector because - wait for this - he treated like : not once, not twice but three times A Lawdy! ha ha ha ha - I'm still laughing. And what about... I could go on obviously


Decidedly off-beat, farcial, incomprehensible story about Countess Dracula(an Elizabeth Bathory type that keeps young bathing in the blood of young, female virgins - or as she says "wirgins")and her two vampire sons who run a clothing story called Vamp and have enlisted the aid of a young, American professor of blood. While there is no denying that the film is really going for your funny bone rather than your jugular, much of the humour is hit and miss(mostly miss) akin to a nurse with poor eyesight trying to find a vein with a needle. Academy Award winning actress Louise Fletcher plays Mama Dracula with subtle humour, grace, and charm and looks quite stunning in much of the fashion, but she has virtually nothing to work with in this Belgian horror comedy that relies more on two vampire son boobs for much of the film's motivation. The Wajnberg brothers, Marc-Henri and Alexander, are two strange men indeed. They look quite ridiculous, act even more so, and, despite such elementary things as gaping and running about like two school children much of the time, have glimpses of talent. There is one scene with them doing a pantomime which I rather liked, but the story, the rest of the actors, the less than inspiring direction make this film a far more arduous thing to sit through. Much of the failure of the film must be squarely put on the shoulders of director Boris Szulzinger and his adolescent prowess at showing virtually nothing resembling horror. We see a quite impressive castle with impressive sets, but maybe total three shots of any blood at all - all nothing more than a prick-size bleed. No one is bit on stage so to speak. There are lots of girls showing us their breasts but no action otherwise. The humour is pretty stale stuff too. I like a good horror parody...OK, this is nothing like a good horror parody...but Mama Dracula just doesn't mange to do what a good horror parody does: blend comedy and horror together so as to create something that could be labeled as both legitimately. this film has only Dracula in the title and some scenarios that revolve around the concept of a bloodsucker - beyond that it is nothing more than a mild European sex comedy. Poor Louise Fletcher - she really does and did deserve more than this.


Unless the comic idea of heavy mid-European accents (mostly pronouncing the letter "v" as "w" and vice versa - "wampire" instead of "vampire", "vant" instead of "want", etc.) strikes you as hilarious, avoid this utterly awful "comedy" - it's the best idea that it has to offer! The script sucks harder than any vampire ever could. It's hard to decide who's more annoying - the nerdy scientist or the vampire brothers? (the brothers probably win). Maria Schneider is also in this, and it's easy to see why she's been described elsewhere as a "non-actress" - she doesn't even try to act. At least Louise Fletcher manages to keep her dignity (the makeup artists have done a marvelous job on her). A few beautifully natural breasts get bared, but I still cannot give this anything higher than 0.5 out of 4 stars.


What a bomb! Another example of how trying too hard to be camp just doesn't work. If you can imagine a bunch of stoners trying to make "The Three Stooges meet Countess Dracula" and loading it with bare-breasted women you may get an idea of what this is like. Unfortunately the many pairs of boobs make it unfit for 5-10 year old boys who would otherwise be the best audience for this. One pair of boobs just right for the little boys would be the idiot twin sons of the Countess who do a rather intriguing mirroring-each-other pantomime, getting out of bed and starting their morning ablutions. But mostly they're just two stooges in black capes and bad "Transylwanian" accents.

Louise Fletcher manages to glide over this morass, ever elegant and charismatic. Watching her shine so magnificently over the ordure that is the rest of it is rather amazing to see, and the fashion show in the last 15 minutes has some fun costumes. Maria Schneider just looks like she's waiting to get paid. One hopes that she and Ms. Fletcher were getting plenty. Given the production values, either their pay ate up the entire budget, or they were blackmailed into this disaster.

This may rival "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" for worst vampflick ever, but at least "JC" was clearly an amateur production. There is no excuse for this abysmal waste of time.

And no, it is not even Ed-Wood-so-bad-it's-good. Ed Wood, bless his soul, took his work seriously enough to give it a quirky charm. Even "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter" was compellingly weird in its gawd-awfulness. I like quirky bad movies, but this was just pointlessly vacuous.

Poor, poor Louise... I'm sure she's done her best to forget this trainwreck, and so shall I!


Louise Fletcher is Mama Dracula. Actually Elizabeth Bathory the long ago wicked queen who bathed in the blood of virgins to remain young. Here she's re-imagined as a vampire in modern day trying to deal with the dwindling number of virgins.

Its strange off beat films like this that kill many an award winning actor's and actress's career. Nominally a comedy this is a strange little film that is humorous but never laugh out loud funny. The plot careens along in odd directions and can be somewhat disjointed. Its the type of movie you watch and wonder why anyone thought to make since its neither good nor bad, it just sort of is. Clearly there was something in in the mix that made Ms Fletcher take the role, though it might have been only money.

Frankly this is a hard film to describe. worse its a hard film to remember, partly doing to its disjointed nature and partly due to the the film not being worth remembering. Is it worth seeing? not if you have to search it out. If it falls in your lap, I ran across it as part of a multi movie set, it might be worth trying, assuming you have something else to go to if it doesn't catch your fancy.


The book the movie is based on -- Burglars Can't Be Choosers -- and the whole Bernie Rhodenbarr series by Lawrence Block are simply marvelous books - must reads! This movie does a great disservice to the book. The casting choices are odd, given that Bernie is a male character -- and is played by Whoopi Goldberg -- and Carolyn (Carl here) is female, played by Bobcat Goldwaith. This effort to be clever is really a smokescreen for a badly written adaptation. The book is delightful and a joy to read, the movie is heavy handed and dark, with none of the light charms of the original text. My advice to you is simple: In this case, avoid the movie, read the book!


This is a movie that doesn't make sense, but the viewer is not supposed to notice that. It is hoped, apparently, that Whoppi Goldberg's hip and nasty mouth and behavior are reason enough to watch. Not so.

Even smart asses need some kind of logic, and here we have Whoppi once again assuming that just being herself is sufficient. Again, not so. Plus, it is somewhat irritating to watch a "cat burglar" (didn't Cary Grant make this variety of thief chic?) sitting down, lighting up, and almost blowing the job. Come on, aren't there Union rules? Then, of course, she has to go into a comedy routine the second time around, with the same results.

As a "What's Up Doc" fan, I am profoundly offended that the hackneyed San Francisco chase scene was stuck in. If you're going to do it, do it right.

Bobcat Goldthwait is wonderful. The scene in the police interrogation room is one of the best comedy bits I've watched. Bobcat saves the movie. Use a remote and turn the sound up whenever he's on. If that could be done, I'd rate this movie a 5.


The story line of "Burglar" starts off well. It shows Whoopi Goldberg, dressed as an elderly fat woman, ripping off a house. When it appears that she is caught, she becomes hysterical, leading the owner and his friend to think that she saw who did this.

She is next referred to a dentist, who wants her jewels back from her ex-husband. Trouble is that while Whoopi is in the house, the ex returns and is soon murdered.

It is at this point that the movie goes downhill rapidly. It is unclear how Whoopi tries to clear her name. In other words, you don't understand how she got the leads to pursue the real killer.

Lesley Ann Warren plays the dentist nicely. Unfortunately, her part disappears for most of this picture. Too bad that the writing didn't go away as well.

We do have somewhat of an exciting car chase with the resulting crackups, but this is too predictable. As always, beware of those crooked attorneys.


BURGLAR is a stupid outing for Whoopi, who plays a cat burglar who witnesses a murder and becomes wanted for it. Now she has to find the person responsible for the murder before it's too late. Everyone seems wasted in this film, and not even Goldberg is any help this time. At least her role in JUMPIN' JACK FLASH was interesting. She took the money and ran on this one, resulting in a film with poor acting and lack of direction. A near-total waste.

1 out of 5


Terrible. This is not a funny movie, nor is it an action movie. This movie just reeks of mediocrity. This movie was an early sign of how terrible Whoopi Goldberg can truly be. Luckily, I'm pretty sure most people avoided this movie from the start.


I'm a huge fan of Whoopi and have seen all of her 80's action/comedy films and while this isn't as bad as Fatal Beauty. This is still pretty appalling. Its problem lies in the very grim,limp script and the character she plays is not all that likable or interesting; nowhere near as endearing as Terry Doolittle from Jumpin' Jack Flash. Last but not least, this just isn't funny, no matter how hard Goldberg tries, this grim comedy falls flat in every possible area. Jumpin' Jack Flash is still the best of her early big screen comedies. See it if you must but take my advice, avoid Fatal Beauty at all cost, it's shocking!


I saw this film back in 1989 and bought it at a video store for $1.00. I feel the same way about this film as I did back then: it's craptacular!

The SFX is crappy (ESPECIALLY the make-up)and a lot of the plot is garbage (If Vanessa was so much in love with her husband, how could she not know that he was dead?)and the acting is just HORRIBLE!!! (Sylvia Kristel is just BAD!!!).

Still...

It makes for a fun evening! Just great for a horrible horror movie fest!


I didn't expect a masterpiece in "Dracula's Widow" of 1989, but I was still somehow disappointed. Directed by Nicholas Cage's brother Christopher Coppola and starring 70s sex icon "Emanuelle" Sylvia Kristel, "Dracula's Widow" may not look like a promising Horror film as such, but at least I expected an entertaining sleaze and gorefest. My humble expectations were not reached, however, since the film features hardly any sleaze and the gore is existent, but not to an extent that would make the movie worthwhile. The performances are amateurish, of course, but that was to be expected, so I don't regard the lack of acting talent as a flaw. Nothing in the movie really makes any sense, and it is only the joy of seeing Sylvia Kristel as a lady vampire, as well as some pretty funny parts that make the 86 minutes endurable. My favorite character is an old antique dealer who happens to be Dr. Van Helsing's grandson. In the funniest part of the movie, the old fellow, who looks like a friendly grandpa, takes out a hammer in a morgue, driving a stake through a corpse's heart with the words "In the name of my grandfather, I destroy you". Moments like this (and Sylvia) make the movie bearable, but it is definitely quite tiresome, even though it's not even 90 minutes long. This was the first "Dracula" attempt by a Coppola family member, Christopher's famous (and usually brilliant) uncle Francis came along with a kitschy and over-hyped mainstream Dracula film in 1992. As far as I am considered, the Coppolas would be well advised to keep their hands off the Prince Of Darkness in the future. "Dracula's Widow" is only recommended if you really have nothing better to do.


When a film is titled "Dracula's Widow", and we see the title character seducing and killing a guy within the first 5 minutes, what's the point of having nearly half the running time taken up by a police investigation that can only eventually lead to what we already know from the start?

Also, I thought that getting bitten by a vampire wasn't enough to make you a vampire, you also had to drink blood from the vampire that bit you. Ah, never mind, it seems that every movie in this genre is making up its own rules.

Sylvia Kristel is pretty bland in a role that a better actress could have done MUCH more with, wears an awful wig, and doesn't provide any nudity either. The special effects are mostly terrible - when Kristel is in full-beast mode, she looks more like a werewolf than a vampire! The lovely Rachel Jones, as the hero's girlfriend, is one of the film's few bright spots. (*1/2)


Fast-paced crime drama loosely based upon James Cagney's `Picture Snatcher (1933).' Richard Travis plays a photographer ex-con trying to go straight. He lucks out by being at the scene of a bank robbery, takes photos of the shooting of a cop, and is rewarded by a job in the professional paparazzi. When offered a raise, a $1,000 bonus, and a writing assignment (vice getting fired) to take pictures of his old gangster friend's execution, our hero talks his parole officer into getting him into prison where he takes the picture. On the way out, he is discovered and has to struggle to get the film to his editor. En-route back to prison for violating parole, our hero rescues his captor who has become embroiled in a shoot-out with another gangster from Travis' old days.

OK, this plot is somewhat convoluted, let alone trying to do it all in 51 minutes on what is obviously a very low budget. Not much time for character development and the cast comes and goes with great speed. Continuity is provided by the interactions of Travis and Wade Boteler who plays Police Lieutenant Riff Malone (a.k.a. `Irish' and `Lucky'). The policeman alternates between hounding the ex-con and supporting his escape from crime. Boteler had nearly 400 films to his credit  typical of a number of the cast members. The `Great One' Jackie Gleason has a small part as a con in the beginning of the movie but is never seen again.

Themes include: crime does not pay; the inability to get a job after being released from prison (Travis was not guilty of the first crime); overcoming adversity to do the right thing (the hero must and does get rewarded for his efforts); and loyalty to friends vs. duties to family. Not too bad to try to do all this in 51 minutes. Perhaps a little longer might have been better.

One good scene uses shadows to depict strapping a man into the electric chair.

The film is worth seeing if only to witness 12 shots fired into what obviously is a bulletproof trash can  not harming our hero hiding behind. They don't make them like this anymore.


I see no one has reviewed this flick here since 2007. I saw it tonight for the first time, but just wasn't very impressed. We're the Brits really that blasé when confronted with terror bombings, destroying their homes? It appears everyone just took it all in stride.

This flick has no plot what so ever, just a series of scenes that apparently are recollections of the boy, principle character.

I guess, this tells us, if indeed these are his memories, all the real terror and sorrow must have been over the decades entirely suppressed.

Although joining a gang and seeing his sister behave as a slut, must have made impressions, we just can't quite ring out what the boy is really thinking.

Over all a well filmed series of nicely acted pieces, but hardly a winner of an Academy.


Don't bother with this movie. From a talented but wildly inconsistent Boorman and a good cast comes a poorly written, directed, acted, unrealistic, predictable and sappy movie. No matter what bad things happen to this middle class family in a London suburb at the start of WWII, they always come out smiling and happy.

To be honest, there are hints at some depth to the story, but they never come to fruition: a teenage daughter's coming of age and related escapades; an unhappy marriage; etc. If you're interested in some fluff about WWII England and don't want realism in any form, you might enjoy this slice of life from the view of a young boy. Otherwise, don't bother.


As with most films that "miss", it almost always comes down to a bad script...as it does here. The subject matter the movie tries to deal with is potentially interesting, and could have had some real emotional impact, but the slow, meandering pace and some goofy dialogue undermine what could have been a good psychological Western. It's really a shame because the directing is actually pretty good, the score feels just right, most of the actors hold their own, and the sets actually look remarkably authentic considering what an extremely low budget this movie clearly had.

Throughout the entire movie I kept thinking that it reminded me of another project, but couldn't put my finger on it...and then it dawned on me that the whole thing has the feel of a 1950s TV Western...it especially reminded me of the way the first season of "The Rifleman" was shot. Not sure if this movie was meant to be the second part of a drive-in movie double-bill, or (based on the quality and running time) if this might have actually been shot as a potential pilot for a TV series...Bronson looks fantastic here...he is young, fit, handsome, and would have made an excellent TV star had he been given the opportunity. This project might have passed as decent enough TV watching, but it misses the mark as a feature film, which is a shame considering its potential.

Not only did the film have potential, but you can see the potential Charles Bronson had if he'd chosen to become an actor instead of a silent-but-deadly action hero over the span of his career. His early work gave him some really good opportunities to emote, but I guess the other direction he went in paid a lot better. I suppose one can't argue with success, but it is interesting to think of what might have been.

"Showdown at Boot Hill" is certainly not worth paying money to rent or buy, but if it comes on cable, it is definitely a harmless enough way to spend an hour and change.


I have always been a fan of John Carpenters brand of cheap but original horror films but this one was the exception to the rule. It should have been good, I like Carpenter and I like John Wyndhams books. "The Midwich Cuckoos" was arguably one of the Sci-Fi writers best novels. It was certainly more thought provoking than his better remembered "Day of the Triffids". The book was filmed as "Village of the Damned" in the early 1960s and within the limitations of its low budget it was pretty faithful to the original novel. This version however seems to have thrown both the novel and the 1960s movie out of the window and opted for a virtual re-write which adds nothing to the story and instead loses most of the subtlety of the book. The narrative flow of the book and earlier film are replaced by a disjointed mess of unrelated scenes. The acting was wooden, the script inconsequential and the direction? Did Mr Carpenter even read the book? What was the point in "saving" David, unless it was for a, thankfully, unmade follow up? Virtually every other Carpenter film has simple yet memorable music that matches the mood of the movie perfectly but not this one. I've just watched the film and yet I couldn't hum a note of the theme, if it had one. Oh, I could hum music from "The Fog", "Halloween" or "Escape From New York" etc, etc but they were memorable movies with memorable music this, by contrast, was better forgotten.


If you haven't seen the original 1960 film, or read Whyndham's 'The Midwhich Cuckoos', then you might possibly like Carpenter's remake. It has degrees of suspense, and passable acting (perhaps most surprisingly by Christopher Reeve in his last performance prior to his paralysis), but these qualities are inconsistent throughout the film and it frequently falls flat.

If you've seen the original film then avoid this one, especially if you have read Whyndam's novel too, you will only come away from the experience with a sense of disappointment and feel cheated of the time you invested in watching it. This film lacks many things that the original had - great and consistent acting, tension, and suspense to name but three.

There seems to have been a conscious effort to add gore and violence, and that decision is perhaps the main reason this film fails so miserably compared to the original. The gratuitously graphic nature of the violence directly detracts from the suspense and tension so evident in the original. Whereas in another carpenter remake 'The Thing' the effects and violence enhanced the sense of dread, here they are responsible for destroying it.

There are other reasons that this film is quite dire, one of them being the narrative compromises made to attempt a recreation of the visual style of the original film e.g. the children all wear matching clothes which, in the original, was logical since in England children do indeed wear school uniforms. However Carpenter's US town sees the children uniformly garbed with no reason, other than to draw attention to their uniformity in a massively clumsy and illogical visual device.

Take my advice, watch the original and avoid this. It's one strictly for carpenter fanatics, not people who are simply fans of his work.


Although the most prolific of those directors who rose from the ranks of exploitation films in the 70s, John Carpenter's flame may have burned the brightest but it also burned the most briefly before he descended into lifeless hackwork. Even the more promising projects floundered when confronted with his increasingly pedestrian handling. His 1995 remake of Village of the Damned is a classic example. Ill-advisedly relocated to a California coastal town inhabited by Superman, Luke Skywalker and Crocodile Dundee's girlfriend, the special effects are more prominent and the body count is multiplied more than ten times as villagers burn themselves to death, impale themselves, doctors blind or perform autopsies on themselves, all staged with remarkable flatness and a complete lack of atmosphere or foreboding. A few good ideas are thrown in, but aside from one schoolroom sequence and the foolproof "brick wall" ending, it's desperately dull and under characterised stuff that feels like it was made by a wage slave reluctantly punching a time clock every day. More like Village of the Darned, the most mysterious thing about it is just how Michael Pare managed to get such prominent billing when he doesn't even make it past the title sequence.


What made the original version of this film such a classic horror picture? A sense of understatement, of unspoken horror. John Carpenter has never been a director to master the art of understatement, and maybe that's why this movie is such a pale shadow of the 1960 version.

The best parts of this film are those that mirror the original. But since the remake was made in the 1990s, Carpenter could throw in grueling childbirth scenes, boiling arms, barbecuing heads, a grisly shootout, an alien baby that looks like one of those 1960s troll dolls in a bottle, and of course, the option of abortion for parents who don't want to go through with their strange pregnancies. In 1960, the idea of an alien "virgin birth" was left understated; Carpenter gives us pregnant women in white robes reaching for the heavens. What happened to the original eerie emphasis on how fast the children grew? I don't recall any mention of that in the remake; in fact, Alley mentions how long she has been observing the children.

The most misbegotten idea of all was the addition of Kirstie Alley and the subplot involving government agents SUPPORTING the alien children. And out of nowhere, in a town that seems vaguely Episcopalian (with emphasis on the 'alian'), a wild-eyed bunch of torch-waving fundamentalists appear to confront the children. All we're missing is a fat burgomeister in lederhosen.

The eyeball effects are good, adding color change to the original glow (which effect, by the way, still stands up in the B/W version). There are no glaring problems with casting or acting either; this was just an unnecessary and uninspiring remake of a classic film.


The original "Village of the Damned" was a taut, lean black-and-white story of some telepathic alien kids growing up in an English village, causing grief and anxiety before being collectively extinguished by their professor, the only person in the village whom they needed.

This film, 35 years later, sticks more or less to the same narrative path, based as it is on the novel and the earlier screenplay, but is louder, splashier, and gorier. It's not nearly as original or powerful as the first version.

I'll just give one example of what I mean. Almost at the very beginning of the 1960 film, we see the professor (George Sanders) drop unconscious to the floor while speaking on the phone. Wolf Rilla, the director, cuts to other gray village sites and shows us bodies sprawled in awkward positions on the ground, the floor, the furniture. A bath runs over. An iron burns a shirt. There is no musical score, no sound but running water from the bath. We get the complete picture. Everyone and every thing is knocked out cold, and the spell lasts for an hour or two.

In this version John Carpenter, the director, gives us a livelier opening in full color, presenting the cast of characters, which is an okay choice, but when the spell descends on the small town and scenes show us unconscious bodies all over the place, the visuals are accompanied by an irritating assemblage of electronic noises that, one supposes, are designed to be "eerie" or "spooky" but simply don't compare to the matter-of-fact but ominous silence of the original. And here, too, a bath runs over. But instead of a shirt burning, a man burns. Another man, struck unconscious while driving, has his pickup roll off the road and collide with an object. Does the truck explode in a fireball? Are you kidding? This sense of the endlessly conventional, of excess run amok, continues throughout the movie. The original was not a profound work but it did raise some interesting issues, illustrating them without directly addressing them. Here, the issues are spelled out in pompous speeches -- "You are not HUMAN if you don't feel emotion!" Of the performances, I could only credit Linda Kozlovsky's and Chris Reeve's. The others are either forgettable or, worse, unforgettable. (The kids all speak with a lisp.) The original was not aimed at a highbrow audience or even an especially adult sensibility but it succeeded in reaching everyone. This one aims lower and flunks. Nice location shooting, though. The comedian Mort Sahl used to joke that the residents of Marin County were always trying to get the toll raised on the Golden Gate Bridge to keep out the riff-raff.


The original 'Village' from 1960 is a wonderful, eerie slice of British sci-fi. This utter nonsense starring superman does not deserve the credit of being seen. Go and rent the original, remove any preconceptions you may have about old movies, put yourself in the mindset of a cinema goer from 1960 and revel in the quiet charm and ultimately chilling experience that this film delivers. Or you could read the book by John Wyndham 'The Midwich Cuckoos', in fact do anything other than watch this contender for 'Worst Remake Ever'. At least IMDb voters seem to agree - 7.5 for the Brits, 5.3 for the Yanks - this time go with public opinion!


Very inferior to Children of the Damned. There's no mystery in this movie. Plus, the townspeople and the Feds figure out pretty quickly what's going on. This doesn't seem to help, though. Everyone KNOWS that the children can read their minds and are capable of forcing them to kill themselves, but this doesn't seem to improve their planning. The general attitude is, "Hey...they may have made five other people kill themselves, but that's not going to happen to me." Of course, it does.

It's a shame that this was Christopher Reeve's last movie before he was paralyzed. He deserved much better than this.

Rent the "original", which is lot creepier. It doesn't spell everything out for the hard of viewing.


"From the master of suspense, John Carpenter, comes a chilling new version of the sci-fi classic. Something is terribly wrong in the tiny village of Midwich. After an unseen force invades a quiet coastal town, ten women mysteriously find themselves pregnant. Local physician Dr. Alan Chaffee (Christopher Reeve) and government scientist Dr. Susan Verner (Kirstie Alley) join forces when the women simultaneously give birth," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis, "and the reign of terror begins."

Mr. Carpenter doesn't evoke either the other "master of suspense" (Alfred Hitchcock), or even Wolf Rilla; although, he does include examples of his own abilities to startle. Still, this is a curious and uninspired re-make. About the only thing that works is some added characterization for "David" (Thomas Dekker) and the feminization given "Mara" (Lindsey Haun). The original "Village of the Damned" (1960) is the one to see; return to this film for the curiosity, an embarrassed cast, and a few laughs.

*** Village of the Damned (4/28/95) John Carpenter ~ Christopher Reeve, Linda Kozlowski, Kirstie Alley, Thomas Dekker


How about it's just not funny I don't see the genius that everyone is speaking of I didn't laugh once and to learn that it was made my two white guys "supposedly" making some kind of brilliant social commentary on intercultural exchange didn't make it any more funny or acceptable. on another note, they need their asses kicked for writing, producing and distributing this hatred masked as "creativity" or "comedy". To be comedy, shouldn't it make me laugh? Genius? Come on! Are we using that word like folks used the word "ghetto" when they didn't know how the hell to describe something? Genius implies something special, something uncommon, something groundbreaking. Any idiot could've written this. Let's reconsider our use of English words and stop adding words like "bling" to the dictionary.

What a disappointment. The biggest waste of six minutes I've ever spent in my life thus far.

Besides, how do Kuntz and McGuire still have a job in America after writing this blatantly hatred-based "comedy"? Oh, I forget, America is still a breeding ground of racist folks. They just wear suits instead of sheets now. Geez Louise!


This short was awful. I don't think there's anything offensive about it, the whole premise was stupid. First of all, hip hop is very popular in Japan and there are plenty of good Japanese rappers. There's nothing unusual about Japanese dressing in hip hop fashion or trying to emulate African Americans. Go online and listen to MP3s of Kick The Can Crew and Rip Slyme. The directors of this film are two unfunny white guys who thought it would be hilarious to have a Japanese family say Whas up ni**er every 5 seconds. The acting was horrible. People who like the FOX show Banzai probably thought this was funny. It might have been good if they set it in a country where hip hop is unknown, like Saudi Arabia.

PS: Congratulations on The Onion Movie going straight to DVD. Kuntz and Maguire will never work in Hollywood again. They're probably down at the bus station begging for change right now. Karma, ain't it grand!


you can be fooled by your first impressions. as in, initial reactions to a movie, for example. as in, the first time i saw this movie i was bedazzled by the idea of it (first of all, i love black comedies). could even - despite being male, myself - empathise with the feisty girls' fervor to see their husbands deceased without delay. was tripped up by my own face-value (and, i do mean "face-value") response to nicolette sheridan and a couple of the other delicious dames in the picture. it just goes to show you that you've gotta step back from a situation sometimes and see that it's bad (and not "bad good," either): the reason i'm giving this movie a "4" rating is because of ms sheridan and her gams (the rest of 'er is pretty good, too); but this movie has all the hallmark TV movie characteristics - which means you'll be disappointed if your a lover of movies made for the big screen. the story contains plot holes you could run a tunnel through - and i'll generally overlook holes in a plot if the overall thing does it for me; and i just experienced an incredible letdown the second time i saw it. i don't think it's a total waste of time, but....


DEAD HUSBANDS is a somewhat silly comedy about a bunch of wives conspiring to bump off each others husbands`. It`s by no means embarrassingly bad like some comedies I could mention but it never fufils its potential . Imagine how good this could have been if we had the Farrelly brothers directing Ben Stiller in the role of Carter Elson .

Oh is Carter based on Jerry Springer ? Just curious because the catch phrase on Dr Elson`s show is " look after each other and keep talking "


When I rented this movie, I had very low expectations......but when I saw it, I realized that the movie was less (a lot less) than what I expected. The actors were bad (the doctor's wife was one of the worst), the story was so stupid...it could work for a Disney movie (except for the murders), but this one is not a comedy, it is a laughable masterpiece of stupidity. The title is well chosen except for one thing: they could add stupid movie after Dead Husbands! I give it 0 and a half out of 5.


Yes, I'm aware that Hal Hartley is an acclaimed independent film maker. I like most of his films myself.

Yes, I'm aware that I'm supposed to like this film.

That having been made clear, I want the $1.50 it cost me to see "Amateur" back! (Hey, it's been eight years and I'm not asking for interest or emotional damages.)

I suppose it's only fair that I give some reasons for thinking that "Amateur" is a bad film. 1) It is too long. The story could have been told quicker. 2) Owing, in part, to the first reason, it is boring. 3) It keeps faking you out, making you think that something exciting is about to happen and you, the weary viewer, keep giving it that chance. It's kind of like an abusive relationship: despite being hurt time after time, you can't break it off.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that I could do a better job or anything like that. It's just that I had really high hopes for "Amateur" and those hopes were crushed.


"Amateur" -- Beautiful titles, title music, actors, actresses, sets and locations. But that's all, folks. If only this were a simple noir film! When movie dialog is so flat, so much less than ordinary speech, and so affectedly slow that the viewer hears each line 3 times mentally before it's actually spoken, something is wrong. I kept thinking, "Art, Art, Art, and plenty of it!" When the Avenging Angel fires his gun into a demon's body over and over, it's a perfect example of more is less.


In story, cinematography, and acting, I see the strong influence from Jean-Luc Godard's films in the 80s, especially arty-and-pop "amateur" crime movie First Name: Carmen. The behavior of Edward (Damian Young) after being tortured is reminiscent of Godard's acting; it cracks me up.

However, I have to say this film is terrible for the following reasons: student film level of acting, full of meaningless dialogues (e.g. "I'm sorry" "For what?" "I don't know"), and an abrupt ending. Please no more clichéd amnesia gimmick to make a plot. Please no more "latest" technology gadget--I'm talking about that pathetic floppy disk joke.


I kept waiting for this movie to make sense at some point, and it never happened. I looked at the IMDB rating hoping to get some kind of an idea how many people saw the film and how many people gave it a rating higher than 7. Boy was I disapointed. What a waste of celluloid!


This is the worst movie I can remember having watched! A sort of "new violence but not really" type of movie. Bad acting, stupid plot, going nowhere, ending nowhere. The only thing I liked was the Edward-character.


Maybe Isabelle Huppert rubs me the wrong way, maybe trying to do European work in an American context confused the crew and writers, maybe the cast and director realised that this just wasn't going to connect for most people, but it proved unwatchable for me. I'd try it for a while, and then go back to channel hopping. The DVD, which I bought at a liquidation store, sat in the player for three months, watching a chapter here, a chapter there, until I got into the eighth chapter. I elected to bite my tongue and watch the rest, finding myself pushed away further by acting that just did not seem to be trying or allowed to try, from actors that I have seen do much better. In the end, the player would no longer open, possibly fearing that others may have to see the movie.

Much of the cinema I seek out is European, not in English, with writing and concepts of depth. I watch and enjoy art movies, great films that explore people, concepts, relations, but that is not what this was for me.

It reminded me of what someone trying to live the concept of The Producers would do - irrelevant and unbelievable dialogue, a gunfight that belongs in Police Squad, and characters that are almost universally unsympathetic - except the missing persons officer who aspires to make up for all the rest. I laughed at the production that seemed to have been asking the cast to weaken their performances, a presentation that increasingly seemed like theatresports without the humour as the rendition gave up in even believing the movie would work. I'm sorry, but this is closer to Plan 9 from Outer Space and Spaceballs than it is to Kolya or L'Ennui.


Wonderfully aloof writer-director Hal Hartley hits a speedbump with this heavy-handed comic oddity about eccentrics, losers and assorted misfits. Isabelle Huppert plays a former nun who is trying her hand at writing sexual fiction; Martin Donovan is an amnesiac (groan) she picks up in a diner. Hartley, who had his biggest success with this formula via 1991's dryly goofy and charming "Trust", is too self-conscious this time out, and the results are twee. Several funny lines cannot compensate for an ugly look and an overall lack of interest in these characters. Supporting cast of crazies includes Parker Posey, but "Amateur" skirts a dead-eyed blandness at every turn. * from ****


Completely flat, unfathomably long, completely unwatchable. Nondimensional characters deliver trite deadpan lines and it I'm supposed to think its brilliant and funny? This movie had almost nothing in it that was genuinely amusing. It had anti-stereotypes like accountant-torturers that wouldn't sustain a SNL sketch let alone what felt like a 16 hour movie. It wasn't sexy or smart. There wasn't one likable character (if you could argue that this film had characters), and for the most part there was no plot, nothing at all to keep you interested. If I hadn't agreed to watch it, I would have turned it off during every scene. I just don't get the joke. Is the film-loving community so desiccated by ennui that they adore a film that shakes its angry fist at the concept of being entertaining?


Characters and story dreamed up by an auteur without imagination. Fake to the bone. No relation to life. Dialog pretentiously abstract, meant to be funny but isn't. Caricatured characters can sometimes be fun--see Dr. Strangelove--but the caricature has to grow from a sense of life. This is so airless, so film-schooly, watching it is like trying to breathe in a vacuum. An ex-nun nymphomaniac, so she says, who has not had sex because "I'm choosy", and a porn star, some gangsters, etc., adds up to a labored, dead, badly acted pseudo movie. I watched it because of all the good comments, so I'm warning those with ears to hear.