When THE TERMINATOR came out, it spawned a flood of films using the basic theme of killer androids / cyborgs (some films classify their robots as "cyborgs" when they are just androids). But the sci-fi genre received another completely original robot film, ROBOCOP, in 1987. So the makers of many science fiction / action films were spoilt for choice. In Texas, novice filmmaker Cullen Blaine created a film that can (in all honesty) be considered one of the worst films ever made. But at the same time, R. O. T. O. R. is not just bad, it is absolutely hilarious.

Police scientist Barrett Coldyron is working on the R. O. T. O. R. (Robotic Officer Tactical Operations Research) project, with the aim of creating an invincible android police officer to combat the rising levels of lawlessness for the Dallas Police Force. Coldyron quits when forced by his superiors to activate the prototype within sixty days, an impossible timeframe. But in his absence, the android is somehow activated by accident. Soon the police are forced to call Coldyron back in to help when the robot begins chasing a female motorist across the Texas countryside.

Most fans of classic 'bad' films usually consider films like ROBOT MONSTER & Ed Wood's classic PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE as the definitive 'bad' film. But I can add R. O. T. O. R. to this list. Unlike many other bad films, which can either cause you to end up feigning amnesia or rouse you to unintentional laughter, Blaine's unintentional masterpiece (to use the term loosely) will cause you to possibly die from laughing so hard.

Everything about R. O. T. O. R. is hopelessly inept, from the script, which is chock-a-block full of ridiculous technobabble, to the dialogue (which is inane to say the least), to the visual effects, with a classic scene featuring a badly-made robot skeleton being animated by stop-motion (just watch it do karate!), to the titular android motorcycle cop who comes with a porn-star moustache. The weirdest thing I've seen in this film is the "Sensor Recall" device, which basically amounts to the robot being able to see into the past, something that belongs more into the realm of magic rather than science fiction.

The acting is stilted to say the least. Richard Gesswein goes through the proceedings with a macho attitude & a poker-faced determination that proves to be very funny. There's even the rather inexplicable addition of a police lab robot which acts as a comic-relief (although we don't really need it since the film has enough comedy), even reading comics & being interested in a colleague's fries. But my favourite part is where the android cop takes on a trio of tough men, the first being a drunk who gets swept aside easily, the second being a karate expert who is outmatched by the robot, before leading to a real tough man being walked on by the robot.


http://www.jabootu.com/rotor.htm (spoiler link)

I just watched this on THIS channel (see what I did there?) and being from the D/FW area I did an internet search for links to this "movie" and found this in depth review which spells out most of the faults with the film.

The most obvious one was the fact the main actor/director Richard Gesswein had his voice dubbed in to the film by another actor, which is a major "what the heck" is going on here moment once the viewer realizes this.

Add to this the bizarre fact this "actor/director" never made another movie and dropped off the face of the Earth into obscurity, which then begs the question, who actually funded this robotic disaster epic, and why? It's clearly more ambitious than a freshman college film project, yet it's lack of good continuity and gaping holes in the script would have surely gotten the film student a failing grade if it was made by one.

The movie was amusing in a "bad is good" kind of way, and certainly brought back some fond and not so fond memories of that 1989 period when I was roaming over the Dallas area looking for excitement. Unfortunately, going to a bar in 1989 and getting hammered was way more exciting than watching this weird cross between Terminator and Robocop.


Brace yourself! If you decide to watch R.O.T.O.R., you're in for a unique and once-only journey into an obscure dimension of unequally bad B-cinema. This movie is awful beyond all known definitions of the term. People with a low tolerance for inept cinema are likely to faint or even die from a stroke during the first half hour already and even experienced bad movie fanatics will, in fact, face severe difficulties to sit through R.O.T.O.R from start to finish. Imagine everything  and I do mean every slightest thing  that can go wrong in a film, and you pretty much have an apt description of R.O.T.O.R. We're talking basic story ideas that desperately attempt to cash-in on previous blockbusters ("The Terminator", "Robocop") abominable acting performances from a largely amateur cast, completely incoherent narrative structure (with flashbacks within flashbacks etc), errors in continuity that are as large as life itself, miserable dialogs and pathetic attempts at inserting comical elements, a soundtrack that makes you want to rip off your ears, "special" effects accomplished without any budgetary means and hands down  the most pathetic depiction of a cyborg ever. The guy has a naturally grown mustache, for crying out loud! Scientist slash witty copper Coldyron is working on the ultimate mechanical policeman; the so-called Robotic Officer Tactical Operation Research or, as you guessed, R.O.TO.R. Due to an overload of complaints and work pressure from his superiors, Coldyron abandons the project (how devoted he is) and his incompetent assistants take over. Needless the say the incomplete android breaks loose and goes on a relentless killing spree. Although "killing spree" might be a bit exaggerated since he chases a girl in a car most of the time. At some point, still early during the production, I presume the cast & crew realized R.O.T.O.R was going to become a gigantic failure and so they started adding ridicule self-parody and even hugely irritating jokes about everything resembling a "Bad B-Movie". Especially the stupid android  behaving as annoying as C3PO from "Star Wars" and wearing a police cap on his metal head  ought to shut up! This is surely one of the dumbest movies ever made but, as several of my fellow reviewers already pointed out, it's almost impossible to really hate the film. You mostly feel sorry for all the people involved and continuously hope they got psychiatric help afterwards.


In the future humanity is on the verge of destroying itself which leads to the scientists at ROTOR to make a cyborg policeman who goes berserk and starts killing people for speeding, now it's up to the scientist to destroy him while (in the film's most laughable moments)he waxes philosophical about the robot's place in the universe. I'm not sure if I remember the opening credits but they read "We wanted to create the perfect cop, but along the way something went terribly wrong!" Irony has never been so abundantly clear. ROTOR has gained the reputation of one of the worst movies ever made. I can't disagree either because I think that this craptastic thriller is so ineptly made that you can't help but laugh. Indeed it's hard to keep a straight face when the acting is this universally horrid and that our would be hero (Looking like Gary Busey without the sex appeal)starts waxing philosophical questions such as "Is it really his fault? He's doing exactly what we programmed him to do." or "To face him is like facing yourself. Your failure is his failure, to win you must use pure illogic" (Obviously the writers of this script did)Indicating that this film is made with such leaden seriousness that the movie is perfect for anyone game for a laugh. The production values are also woeful with some of the worst dubbing ever imaginable. Surprisingly ROTOR didn't sweep the Oscars that year but i'm still at a loss at why this camp classic has yet to get a DVD released. I mean if Date Movie can get a DVD release...

* out of 4-(Bad)


You've heard the phrase "so bad it's good!" Well, most of the time it isn't true. It's so bad, it's just bad.

But this movie truly IS so bad it's good. The dialog is horrendous and sometimes nonsensical. And they really did try to be clever with it, for instance, there's a scene where the hero is giving a presentation on his robot to some scientists - each scientist's last name, along with the name of the place they work, is the name of a Beach Boy, and the dialog in the scene is full of really labored Beach Boys song references.

Once the robot starts following one woman and she calls the police, none of the decisions made by the hero make any sense at all.

Truly a prize turkey.


This movie is the "Showgirls" of science fiction. It's so bad, it's like a universal constant. Like mathematics or physics or something. There's not even any nudity to balance things out. No good acting, no good story, no boobies.

Suffice it to say, the writer/director ripped off all the bad parts of both "The Terminator" and "Robocop". This thing makes those godawful films from India look like high art. At least Bollywood flicks have good dancing. If you MUST see this movie, see it with a bunch of your friends. You might want to consider voluminous amounts of alcohol or possibly a few bong hits to stay interested. There's no reason to torment yourself alone with this thing unless you're a complete masochist.

After you watch it, sit and think about the fact that someone actually put up MONEY to shoot, edit and release this thing. On top of that, some poor slob had to sit and watch all the footage and edit something interesting together. Imagine the crap that wound up on the cutting room floor. The mind boggles.


Okay; I'm not a director; I'm not a producer and I may not be a good actor, even, but I could have done everything on this movie better(including sweeping the sets afterwards)!

R.O.T.O.R. seems caught in a cultural time warp; see, it's set in the "not-too-distant-future", but was made in 1989, while all the actors look like they're livin' like it's 1979 (even feathered hair makes a comeback! AAAGHH!!); and the technological advancements still haven't gone beyond 5 1/4" floppies.

And speaking of floppy, the story's pretty floppy, too. Seems an android created to fight crime (gee, what an original idea - someone call Paul Verhoeven...) gets dis-combobulated and goes around shooting everyone in sight. Meantime, our hero of the movie hunts him down. Our hero is a real cowboy, pardner, right down to the leather elbow pads on his jacket (does ANYONE wear those anymore? Oh well...).

It looks like the future is mostly made up of malls, small rooms, quaint restaurants, one other police robot that someone must have got as a Heathkit do-it-yourself jobbie and BADLY stop-motion animated R.O.T.O.R.s. But the SOUNDTRACK! Someone's been spending a little too much time around the synthesizer, ya think?

The dialogue, when not delivered with brain-numbing monotonality, is just too stupid for words. Indeed, I was so zonked out by the stupidity of it all, I'm lucky my brain hasn't blotted out this experience all together.

It's not just that "R.O.T.O.R." is merely bad, mind you; it's dumb. Dumb in a harmful way. "Touching the electric fence TWICE" dumb. "Sticking your hand down a garbage disposal" dumb. SO dumb that it's no wonder you've heard nothing about any of the people involved in it since.

In closing, let me just say that if any of the people who made "R.O.T.O.R." happen to read this, let me ask you: did you clear this with the "RoboCop" people before making it?

No stars. Bottom of the barrel is still too high to reach for "R.O.T.O.R."


I have never been compelled to write a comment about a movie before this, and in fact, the very first comment I ever saw on IMDB for this movie (at the time, it was the only comment and is now the last comment) was pretty spot on (the one where the person saw it with Finnish subtitles). However, now that his comments have made it to the back of the queue, and since I just saw this movie AGAIN on TV (on the Action Channel) a few days ago, I thought I'd chime in. The comments about this movie having the feel of a bad porno are spot on.

I have not seen Gigli, and probably never will, but I can't imagine it is NEARLY as bad as this movie. Like the subject says, I have seen A LOT of movies, and none have been even CLOSE to this bad.

That said, this movie is like a trainwreck. It's so horribly bad, you can't turn away. I even encourage my friends to see it. It's horrific on every level, yet somehow compelling!


This movie is pure MST3K fodder. How they overlooked this "piece of Texas trailer-park trash" is beyond me.(Please understand that in no way am I criticizing the State of Texas, just this bucket of rancid garbage that came out of it.)

Anyway, my main complaint is that this "film" tries to do too hard to live up to the basic "renegade robot on the rampage" genre. Also, it has too much of EVERYTHING. Dialogue, bad effects, movie genres, and by far the most god-awful acting since "Laserblast". My advice: only watch this if you suddenly feel the need to be depressed.


This movie exemplifies the best features of bad sci fi. It starts out really bad. I mean *really* *really* bad. But where other bad sci fi movies fail, ROTOR succeeds... because IT GETS WORSE. If you graphed it, the stupidity of this movie would move up and to the right as it runs its course. That is amazing.


After watching the first fifteen minutes of this "festering bowl of dog snot," I longingly wished that I'd been hit by a truck on the way to the video store. After suffering with fading hope through several excruciating minutes of a movie none of which was even 0.1% as cool as the videocassette box cover art, I watched the last 4/5 on fast forward, and it was *still* the most bash-your-own-head-in-with-a-brick, brain-numbingly, agonizingly *awful* piece of trash I've ever seen. (I make a special exception for Alien3 [WARNING: SPOILERS of series-spoiling elements in Alien3 & 4 FOLLOW], which, though not bad overall, will forever be my choice for worst movie because of the GLARING PLOT HOLE and contrived, character-killing plot devices at the start of the movie that COMPLETELY DISREGARD the plot, characters, and story lines that Cameron et al. developed in Aliens. I mean, really. There's an EGG on the Sulaco? How did *that* get there? The escape pod ... *broke* on landing, killing two of the most important characters? Everybody Dies? Argh!!! *sigh*) (And don't get me started on Alien4 and the whole Ripley-clone-automagically-recovers-the-dead-Ripley's-brain-contents thing. Sheesh.)

Anyway, back to ROTOR (but why bother?!): Completely devoid of "acting" - it was more like watching those animatronic dummies on the stage at Chuck E. Cheese writhe and jerk around after they're 1,000 hours overdue for their scheduled maintenance. As for dialog, imagine the same jerkiness translated into speech. Now conceive of a "plot" written by selecting random snippets from twenty seconds of Gumby dialog (a la Monty Python), and you'd still be imagining a less torturous movie than ROTOR. Even the "special" effects (think "special" as in "the short yellow school bus") were worse than the worst special effects on television. Transitions into "robot view" or "design view" or whatever they were trying to do were abrupt, discontinuous, and more amateurish than showing a spaceship waving around on the end of a stick. I'm still trying to figure out how to collect compensation from the production company for the hour of my life they wasted... and concurrently how to involve them in some appropriate form of torture. The existence of ROTOR makes a solid case for adding the "0" rating, and perhaps negative numbers, for movies at imdb.com.

But hey, I could be wrong! :-).


My 11th grade Student's Against Drunk Driving awareness video shot with a five-year-old betamax camera and edited between two vcr's was better quality than this. It is so unbelievably, astonishingly bad that I can't believe it was broadcast on any form of television. You will not believe your eyes. The quality of the story, the acting, the dialogue, the sound and the music are inferior to any 70s porn movie ever made, only without the nudity to keep it interesting. You show me any movie, including any wedding videos or barmitzvahs, and I will bet you any amount of money that R.O.T.O.R. is worse. It is the worst thing ever committed to film. Excuse me while I pluck out my eyes.


OK, most of the idiocy here is obvious, but here's what I want to know:

How could anyone be so dumb as to think a robot cop who is programmed to act as judge, jury, and executioner would catapult its sponsor to the White House, even if it worked perfectly?

Now, I can see how a talented demagogue might be able to whip up a temporary popular enthusiasm for such a thing. However, party apparatuses have a great deal to say about who gets nominated to run for President.

The intellectuals, activists, and theoreticians of *both* major parties would be horrified at the prospect of such a vigilante robot army; the Democrats on left-libertarian rights-theory grounds, the Republicans based on conservative suspicion of the Leviathan state and the concentration of power. There is simply no way that the ROTOR project would boost its sponsor's political career. If anything, rather the opposite.

So how is this guy going to become President?

Yeah, I know, I know; if *that's* what bothers me about ROTOR...


This movie gave me some hearty belly laughs when I saw it on cable recently. A must see for all those connoisseurs of cinematic sludge. It has awful dialogue and atrocious acting(that's just for starters.) One of the best "huh?" movies of the eighties.


Everything is terrible about this movie. The robot is just some guy in a cheap police outfit. He has the ability to see in the past somehow with a "replay" mode. Script, acting, lighting, effects, ..... I mean everything is horrendous. However its a good movie for a laugh.


DEADLINE - U.S.A.

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1

Sound format: Mono

(Black and white)

Humphrey Bogart plays a hard-boiled newspaper editor in Richard Brooks' drama in much the same way he used to play hard-boiled detectives and gangsters in the 1930s and 40s. This tough-talking drama from 20th Century Fox emulates the gritty Warner Bros. 'style' of its day, though it's hard not to be cynical about the script's high-falutin' insistence on the nobility of the press (!). Ethel Barrymore plays a matriarchal publisher with the kind of effortless dignity that distinguished her entire career, and most of the supporting cast are solid. Elsewhere, Bogart's marital woes are unconvincing and don't add very much to the narrative, despite the obvious (and genuine) attempt to provide the characters with some kind of emotional depth.


A big disappointment, this "save the newspaper story with one big expose against a corrupt politician" was boring - the ultimate sin in a film. Also, I found none of the characters likable: no one to root for, despite the presence of some famous actors I like. The cast includes Humphrey Bogart, Ethel Barrymore, Kim Hunter, Ed Begley, Warren Stevens and Jim Backus.

Most of them simply talk too much and do too little. It also has a blasphemous scene early on when they hold a "wake" for the paper and smugly use Christian terms (i.e. "saved") irreverently, just to get some cheap laughs. I'm surprised they got away with this since the Hays Code was still very much in effect in 1952.


The cover for this movie is one of the biggest pieces of bull**it I've ever seen. I saw the cover, and figured, "Oh, it's got Jim Carrey, it must be at least marginally funny." Boy was I wrong. This is even more bull**it than the movie, "Going Overboard," in which Adam Sandler in his early days brings us a crappy movie that you wouldn't expect to come from him. "Rubberface", however, is 1000 times worse! Not only is Jim Carrey (or anyone else in this movie) not even remotely funny, but he's not even the main character. He's in the movie for a couple minutes!

Just to show you how execrable this movie is, I'm one of the few people that gave good reviews to movies such as "Meatballs III" and "It's Pat". I'm a pretty tolerable person when it comes to movies, even ones that the majority of people consider to be terrible. But "Rubberface" is sh*t. Pure, 100% sh*t. Actually, it's even worse than s**t. I can't explain to you how robbed I felt by this worthless entity beneath a pile of feces!


... is what the box for "Rubberface" promised. It looked interesting enough - A picture of Jim Carrey riding a bike with an aviation cap and goggles, and another of him making a ridiculous face. I didn't expect much , however, as the plot synopsis on the back made this film sound similar to the Adam Sandler flop "Overboard". If only this film were that good.

It turns out Jim Carrey is not the protagonist of this film. We don't even meet him until about 15 minutes into the story. Even then, he's not that funny (which is more of a script problem than an acting problem). I wasn't even able to laugh at how bad the film was. I was just angry and wanted my $1.95 back.

This movie reminds me of a project I had to do in junior high school. We had to make a five minute video about an issue that affects teens. It's too bad the creators of "Rubberface" didn't have the same sense of pacing, because this movie runs about 43 minutes too long.


Yes, I agree with everyone on this site this movie is VERY VERY bad. To even call this a movie is an insult to all movies ever made. It's 40 minutes long.

Someone compares this movie to an after school special. B-I-N-G-O! That describes is perfectly.

The packaging for this movie intentionally is misleading. For example, the title of this movie should describe the movie. Rubberface??? That should be the first hint. It was retitled with a new package of some goofy face Jim probably made in his stand-up days. I was hoping for more stand-up from Jim. If you like Jim now as an actor. You would love him in his stand up days. Still trying to locate the Rodney Dangerfield Young Comedians Special from HBO that featured Jim in his early career days. It isn't even mentioned on this site. I'd love to find anything Jim did stand-up wise.

Also Jim Carrey is a supporting actor in this movie. The main character is VERY VERY annoying. She is some girl lacking self confidence but yet wants to be a stand up comedian. Jim is there to say lines like "That's Funny Janet" and "You really are talented". And honestly she is terrible really terrible.

And the movie is terrible. Beware of false advertising and a really bad movie.


In 1995, I rented "Introducing...Janet" (aka "Rubberface") because it showed Jim Carrey on the cover. It turned out to be a total zero, with no determinable plot (apparently there was one, but I couldn't figure it out). I can forgive Carrey for having starred in something so crappy early in his career. But really, if you come across it, don't get fooled; there is absolutely no reason to watch it. Even Carrey's atrocious "Man on the Moon" had some semblance of a reason to exist; this has none. It stinks.

So, you understand: this movie sucks. Avoid it. AVOID IT. AVOID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


this movie is one of the worst ever, do not watch it, it is total crap. Nothing makes sense, it's only 48 minutes long!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carrey shows no talent in here and why does it say introducing Janet, that's stupid. The quality was bad and the audio was bad, we all just laughed during it, for shame!!!

I can't understand why someone would want to make this movie, or watch it. This is a slap in the face to anyone who is a Jim Carrey fan, his talent is absolutely no where to be seen here.

If I had a choice of watching crap float around in a toilet or sit through this, you can bet your ass that I pick the crap.

There is nothing in this movie that gives it any mark, Just as bad as BELLY, ENVY or House of the dead!!!!


I don't even remember when or where I picked up this turkey, couldn't have been more than a buck. Thank goodness for that, because this finally beat Godzilla 1985 as my pick for the worst movie of ALL TIME ! Not only is it incredibly not funny, the plot is incredibly idiotic, and had to be made in one day tops. I don't know who wrote the material for this stench bomb, but it couldn't have made a 5 year old laugh, although I wouldn't dare subject any 5 year old to this. Jim Carrey is portrayed on the box as the star, but oh no, he is in it maybe 10 minutes of the 40, only to fake a throat ailment so it would force the worst actress of ALL TIME to get up and do some stand up. I am not sure if my life will ever be the same again. I can't even give this thing away, I might as well toss it in the trash.


well, this isn't a good movie by any stretch of the imagination. i honestly think that they gave it the title of rubberface and put a picture of jim carrey on the cover with a distorted, rubber face to get people to buy it thinking it is a totally different movie. i admit, that is why i rented to movie; to see a movie about jim carrey having a funny face. but it is really about a troubled, heavy-set girl that lets people walk all over her, and has a mother that wants to help her. then she meets jim carrey's character: a failing comedian dish washer. she's a talented writer, so she helps him beef up his stand-up because he's just awful. then the climax. he fakes laryngitis so she has to take his place on stage and she kills. ooh, surprise Hollywood! yeah, not the greatest, but the cover of my box is funny.


The only thing funny I found about this whole movie was reading the video box AFTER I watched the movie, and seeing how incredibly GOOD the box tried to make an incredibly BAD movie sound! This movie is an insult to future Jim Carrey movies!


This movie wasn't horrible. I read the reviews before buying it and decided to get it anyway because it's Jim Carrey.

The main character in this movie is a high school girl named Janet who puts on an act in front of the other girls at school to make them laugh...when really she's dieing inside. For a class assignment, she must write a paper on "Why people ____?". She chose "Why people laugh". I'm telling you this for a reason.

Jim Carrey doesn't appear until about 15 minutes into this 48 minute movie, but stays in it for the remainder. He plays a man named Tony Moroni, who works and performs at a comedy club. Needless to say, his material sucks. Janet goes to the club to do research for her paper when she meets Tony (I told you what I said had a purpose). From there, Janet helps Tony create better material for his bit. The storyline of the movie is how Tony gets Janet to come out of her shell.

It's not a really bad movie, especially for a low budget, independent Canadian film. You still get to see Jim Carrey do his quirky and funny impressions, so that's a plus. Also, the title 'Rubberface' makes no sense. At no point in the movie does anyone talk about making or having a funny looking face. 'Introducing... Janet' makes more sense because of what the story is about and the ending.

Hope you like it! -italyboy


Actually, I finally broke down and watched this film the other night after passing it by for years on the rental shelf. I have to be honest and say the movie was pretty bad. Despite that, there was one good reason to see this movie. JIM CARREY. You really see what a sweet, soulful person he really must be. Rent this to see (in my opinion) another deeper side of the real Jim Carrey. But hold on to your remote. This movie will bore you to tears if you try to watch the whole thing (even though it's relatively short...it's THAT bad). I recommend fast forwarding through most of it, excluding his scenes. The people who made this movie really missed out on using his talent more adeptly in their film. You can see only brief glimpses into the depth of his talent. Oh, random comment...renaming the movie Rubberface? Stick to your vision people! I give this flick two stars. I give Jim Carrey in this film 6 stars.


Each time I see a movie like this one,I think about the exterior conditions required for making a standout.When Pierre Grimblat made "Lisa",he did not lack,on an exterior plan,anything that Welles had when he made Touch of Evil ,or that Fellini had when he made Ginger e Fred ,or that Fuller,Kitano,and a few others had when they made their movies.It's not about budget,sets,etc.,external conditions,that is.

"Lisa" is self-complacent and pedantic mediocrity.The director has nothing to say by this boring film.I am quite annoyed by the kind of stuff.Why make a movie that says nothing?

Mrs. Moreau sings something in this movie,thing that reminds us of "Jules et Jim";the song is fine,but the resemblance does not go any further.The song here is very short,and the lyrics are average.

Mrs. Moreau takes hold of every scene she is in,her strength is stunning.She DOES her scenes,which,unfortunately,are neither many,nor long.She struggles to make something out of this movie.The movie does not work at any other level,except Mrs. Moreau's appearances and very intense acting.

I was turned off by the movie's story.Gradually,the movie became,for me,rather a source of unfavorable comparison with the GREAT Mrs. Moreau movies.She deserved better than this "Lisa".

The dialogs are fake and conventional,the lines are insipid and displeasing.


This TV special started me on my "assassination conspiracy phase" and had me buttonholing friends and acquaintances with the "secrets" behind JFK's killing. Over the course of 2 years I spoke with authors of conspiracy books, read and watched everything I could on the case and even met Jean Hill, the "lady in the red raincoat" from JFK's motorcade, who told me straight-faced that "the truth is out there." "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" accepts at face value the dubious accounts of various "witnesses" to JFK's killing, whom photographs of the grassy knoll and nearby places show were not there at all or whose vision would have been completely obscured. This 6-part program was an attempt to show some of the conspiracy theories current in the late 1980's and it resembles Oliver Stone's "JFK" in the way it postulates so much speculation as fact, presents the word of so many unreliable sources as "the truth," and even names a French/Corsican as JFK's killer. Everything in this program has since been debunked by far more knowledgeable sources.

My first real acquaintance with the truth came with Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed," which debunks conspiracy lore with modern science and far more accurate and detailed information than was ever available before. Posner's book uses such irrefutable evidence as Abraham Zapruder's famous film of the assassination and photos of the so-called "pristine bullet" to throw new light on the true positions of Kennedy and Connally in the presidential limousine, the timing and trajectories of Oswald's bullets and the fact that said pristine bullet isn't so pristine.

"Case Closed" educates the reader by examining at great length Lee Harvey Oswald's bizarre life and the psychology and movements of Jack Ruby on the weekend of the assassination. The book makes a frame-by-frame examination of the Zapruder film and uses computer modeling to render the accurate positions of the relevant people and vehicles in the motorcade. "Case Closed" makes it clear why Oswald made the perfect killer, why he needed no accomplices and why no one with a brain in his head would trust unreliable misfits like Osward and Jack Ruby to be part of the crime of the century.

Another recent piece of work which may open conspiracy buff's minds is a revealing History Channel video entitled "The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy." This documentary completely negates the 1976-78 Senate Select Committee on Assassinations' contention that a conspiracy was involved. The senate committee relied on acoustics "evidence," which "Beyond Conspiracy" shows to be completely bogus (the motorcycle with the microphone stuck in the "On" position was nowhere near where the acoustics "experts" claimed).

Conspiracy buffs have an agenda to follow (as I once did) and it isn't easy to shake their convictions, which they cling to like a cult religion. The facts of the JFK case, however, point straight at Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone killer and only at Oswald. Chasing ghosts on the grassy knoll is no substitute for the truth, which the book and video I've mentioned will bring you much closer to than all the conspiracy lore in the world.


I made the point of approaching the film with an open mind considering "The Basketball diaries" was one of my favourite novels when I was a teenager. First of all, good points. Great performance from Di Caprio. The scene with the four boys playing basketball in the rain, set to Jom Carroll's "people Who Died" on the soundtrack, was for me the one scene that truly nailed the spirit and attitude of the book.Hence the two good points.

Bad points. The film reduced its wonderful source material to just another preachy, moralistic, stating the obvious 'kids, say no to drugs' diatribe.It also didn't have the guts to push it main character's decent into the hell of drug addiction further. Example:the scene where he meets his first client in the public toilets. If,according to the film,is that how bad it got for the main character, it rendered the film completely unbelievable and reeking of boo-hoo self pity and Catholic guilt.

In short, the film needed a strong sense of non-compromise if it was to get anywhere near the compelling vision that Jim Carroll depicted in the novel. Simply put, it fell into the trap that a great number of films about drugs and drug abuse fall into. They either glamourise, like "Dogs in Space" or "Less Than Zero, or preach, like this one.

The three best films about drugs and drug abuse for me would have to be "Drugstore Cowboy" and "Trainspotting";"Requiem for A Dream", by Darren Aronofsky, would without a doubt be the finest film about drug abuse ever made,full stop.They neither glamourise of preach. They simply show the damage, both physical and emotional and in a candid and truthful way, that drug use can cause and they never judge. "Requiem for A Dream" especially.See that film instead, ore read the book of "The Basketball Daries".


Heroin is bad. Quitting school is bad. Do heroin, and quit school, and you'll end up a hopeless loser. If you understand those two points, then you already know everything The Basketball Diaries is trying to tell you. If you think the drug issue is any more complex than that, then prepare to be disappointed by this movie.

The movie started off somewhat promisingly, with a look at the lives of Jim Caroll and his friends (as interpreted by the moviemakers, of course). The first part is in turns funny and sad, and is generally realistic enough to be poignant.

As soon as Leonardo diCaprio is forced to play someone spiralling into a nightmare of addiction, however, everything goes downhill. If this movie has any subtle or interesting point to make about drug abuse or society, it forgets it here. It just goes back and forth between silly drug-induced dreams and numerous scenes of petty crime, filthy rooms, and Jim looking increasingly corpselike.

The main reason why this part of the movie seems so absurd is the performance of diCaprio himself. The scenes where he tries to get money from his mother, and where he goes through withdrawal, were so hammily overacted that I stopped being shocked and started laughing. Then I stopped laughing and started wanting to hit the mute button. There is one scene where he seems like he does nothing but moan "maaaaaaaaaa... wahhhhh" for minutes on end. There is a difference between drama and melodrama. It's clear that this movie can't resist portraying the latter at the expense of the former.

Anyhow, if you want a movie that will challenge you to think about the drug issue, watch Traffic. If you want an after-school special, watch the Basketball Diaries.


Apart from Dicaprio's performance this film was so awful. Its up there with Honey and Cheaper by the Dozen. If you are thinking of watching this film please don't, its simply awful. Its melodramatic and the script is messy and unrealistic. Why would Dicaprio become a junkie all of a sudden? At first he was a bit of solvent sniffer and then just hours after trying a bit of coke he is raiding a medicine cabinet just to get high. I'm sorry but addiction is a gradual progress. It doesn't come out consuming a few lines of cocaine to aid sexual performance. Waste of time. What is sad that this could've been a decent film. Bloody crap


UP THE FRONT

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

During a series of unlikely misadventures, a First World War army recruit (Frankie Howerd) ends up with vital military information tattooed on his backside, and he struggles through enemy territory in a desperate attempt to reach the British forces.

The third and least effective of the theatrical features inspired by TV's "Up Pompeii!" (1969-70), starring camp British comic Howerd, whose penchant for gossipy asides to camera was well-served by the first two films (UP POMPEII and UP THE CHASTITY BELT, both produced in 1971). However, whereas "...Pompeii" and "...Chastity Belt" loaned themselves to Howerd's brand of comedy by virtue of their colorful locations (ancient Rome and Medieval England, respectively), UP THE FRONT is scuttled by its resolutely unsexy wartime setting, which sits uneasily alongside the 'Carry On'-style bawdiness of Howerd's trademark humor. As a consequence, despite the star's best efforts (and a screenplay co-written by Eddie Braben, the celebrated scriptwriter for Eric Morecambe and Ernie Wise, arguably the finest comedy double act in UK TV history), the movie falls decidedly flat. Bob Kellett directs with the same faceless efficiency that distinguished the first two movies, and Howerd is ably supported by guest stars Hermione Baddeley, Stanley Holloway and Zsa Zsa Gabor (as Mata Hari!), sharing screen space alongside Bill Fraser, Lance Percival, Madeline Smith, Peter Bull, Vernon Dobtcheff and many other familiar faces. Co-star Dora Bryan sings the jolly theme song, and there's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameo from young Bob Hoskins! Despite the movie's many failings, Howerd makes the most of some riotous double entendres (his scene with Gabor is a delight, reworked from a similar routine in one of the best TV episodes of "Up Pompeii!"), and the pace remains busy throughout. The real star of the show, however, is art director Seamus Flannery (REPULSION, THE WICKER MAN, FLY AWAY HOME), who works miracles on a microscopic budget, from the vivid colors of Gabor's boudoir to the war-ravaged landscape of No Man's Land and the main square of an occupied French village. If nothing else, the movie is a visual treat!

Unlike its predecessors, the movie wasn't a popular success, and Howerd - who favored stage work over any other medium - made only sporadic film appearances from this point onward, most notably THE HOUSE IN NIGHTMARE PARK (1973), an odd blend of comedy and horror, and SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND (1978). At the time of his death in 1992, he was slated to appear in the unhappy CARRY ON COLUMBUS, which opened later the same year.


I have to say this film is a big disappointment especially when you see the actors in it. Frankie Howerd was always better with a live audience to bounce catchphrases off (he could make three jokes last over half an hour like that). This film also features stalwarts of the British film scene such as Stanley Holloway, William Mervyn, Bill Fraser, Dora Bryan and Lance Percival with early bit parts for Bob Hoskins and Mike Grady. Madeline Smith provides the love interest for most of the film as Fanny, loved by both Lurk (Howerd) and Groping (Fraser). Zsa Zsa Gabor turns up as Mata Hari which says a lot about the film and the state of Gabor's career at the time. Jonathan Cecil gives one of his best performances as the twit son of the family who becomes a spy and Hermione Baddeley is marvellous as the brothel madame. Gertan Klauber and Stanley Lebor play almost exactly the same characters as they play in Soft Beds, Hard Battles as slightly sinister but ultimately comic heavies. The story is basically about the spy stealing the German master plan for the war and the efforts of the Germans to get it back while the Brits try to get it to the General at HQ. It ought to have been a lot better. I do have a big soft spot for this film despite its failings.


Don't waste your time on this film.

Some films are so bad they are fun. This is just so bad it's boring.

From a Wittgenstein scholarship perspective, it doesn't get worse than this. It's a mix of rumors, inaccuracies, falsities and "fun-facts" that lack all respect for its subject. Since Terry Eagleton and the other writers have chosen to give the story what I'd imagine they will call a "subjective" or "personal" slant, you wold expect them to at least make it fun! No such luck.

Here what's wrong: 1. Andrew Lloyd Webber costumes. 2. Every eccentricity is exaggerated. 3. Horrible actors. 4. Wittgenstein was afraid of being misunderstood and only create a jargon self-proclaimed disciples would propagate. This film is what he had nightmares about. 5. Wittgenstein lived at a time when categories like "homosexual" weren't as firm as today. This films premise that "he was gay and therefore weird and a great philosopher" shows lack of respect. 6.It's a case study of why psychologising your subject leads to disaster. 7. They made an interesting person into a fraternity joke.

And, no. It's not bad in an interesting way. Do you're self a favour. Really.


"Street Trash" tries so hard to be a cult movie with it's nonsensical storyline, the over the top gore and violence and the weird characters. That's the main problem with this film. Instead of being a charming little b-movie it turned out to be a somewhat annoying and seemingly endless obscurity. Example: there's a scene where a bum gets his penis cut off and a bunch of other guys start playing Piggy In The Middle with it. Do you get the picture? This movie is begging to be loved by people who love the gross and the absurd and it's all too obvious. Besides, "Street Trash" never seems to get anywhere. It starts of with a guy farting in another guy's face, then some guy's literally melting away and we think, okay, that's what the movie's going to be about. Then this storyline is completely abandoned and for hours and hours (or so it seems) we witness the everday life of a bunch of bums who live in little self made flats at a car dump. Obviously, for most parts this movie isn't meant seriously (there's a hilarious Robert DeNiro-like character called Nick Duran who curses in a ridiculously rude manner and who even gets to sing his own little song when the credits roll) but on the other hand the makers also seemed eager to gain the respect of horror audiences. As a horror movie "Street Trash" falls flat on its face. The gore effects are nicely done and there's interesting steady cam work to be found here (I hear the director went on to work for James Cameron), but the epic length and the stupid plot of this film prevent this from being a success. If you just have a casual interest in the genre, avoid "Street Trash" at all costs and even if you're a die hard-fan think twice about watching it. Sitting this one through really is a toughie.


First off, if someone would go out of his way to such an extend as the main character Veil in Freeze Frame to get himself a life supply of alibi, wouldn't it be a lot easier to just plant a chip somewhere in his arse? Without going into the elaborate details of such a plant; Yes! it would! (And with the famous words of Frederick Forrest in Falling Down: "Think about it!")

So much for the premise...

What have we got left then? Let's see. We are stuck with a flick in which truly horrible acting is a virtue leaving no exceptions. Besides the premise we get served a storyline which has been done better in any average episode of Scooby Doo and we get to see an ending which has been done better in any lesser episode of Scooby Doo. I'm not kidding nor am I exaggerating!

Didn't this movie have any redeeming qualities at all? yes it did, it ended at some point.

If it wasn't for the plot, one would think he was watching a children's-picture. It all fits: the deranged bad guy, the crooked detective and his nutty aid and the female reporter! Even the cardboard acting would in that case work as children wouldn't mind overplayed stereotypes. They love it!

To list all the implausibility's in this movie would require me to see it again and take notes scene by scene. As u no doubt have guessed, I'm not going to.

If it wasn't so painful to watch, it might have been good for a laugh or two.

0/10


This film starts off well (although the makers clearly 'borrowed' a lot of their ideas from Darren Aronofsky's 'Pi') - it looks gritty, cold, suitable for a film about paranoia.

The problem is, Lee Evans can't act, and neither can the rest of the cast, and even if they could they'd have to be superhuman to make a script this dreadful sound good.

Overall, it's an interesting idea let down by awful production. The frankly awful plot feels like an afterthought, almost as if someone really, *really* wanted to make a film about a guy who tapes everything he does but couldn't work out where to go with the idea - so they watched an episode of 'Silent Witness' and made some notes on the back of a fag packet.

Verdict: rubbish. Better films, please, British Film Industry. And stop giving Lee Evans work. He acts like a Frank Spencer who's eaten too many blue Smarties. Ooh, Betty, the cat's been filming my secret murders!


Utterly absurd thriller, though original in some ways. From the beginning I knew that the cop and/or the shrink were in some way hiding something and I was right. It turned out to be a pretty shaky motive for hiding the identity of the killer. And how about the killer's daughter going on a bit of a rampage herself  and that first murder (manslaughter) of hers! Oh, sorry, I just shoved you a bit and now you're dead! Well, that's a bit of jolly bad luck, old sport, ey? I've seen dumber thriller, far dumber actually, so this one doesn't even rate as being THAT silly on a silliness scale for thrillers. Still, the film isn't dull, although a bit slow here and there.


...but it ends with a uneasy feeling.

The characters aren't sympathetic and everyone seems to have a kind of neural disorder. But hey, what would you expect from a dark thriller like this. Especially dark because of the lighting and colors used during daylight.

The scenario attracted me to this film, and the first half definitely was worth the time. Somehow the dialogs are too long and too "deep" to keep the thriller feeling alive. A few small twists at the end, and you've got a perfect mix between memento, twisted and the fugitive.

As the movie started, I was alerted by lines that made clear it was an Irish movie, and a lot of quite unknown actors passed by (notice the one with the double under chin...) It wasn't bad, but just don't have too much expectations!


This film is extremely poor in every manner, the special effects were probably done on an atari, e.g. laser scenes and miniature bombs, the acting is abysmal, an in my mind there wss no need for gratuitous sex scene half way through, i mean would u like to see a pizza face 50 year old man having sex with a woman half his age (who repaetedly changes her clothes in the back of a van without a van). it appears that the 50 year old star's grandad acted out the fight scenes due to the slow pace and all round crapness of it.


This film has possibly got the worst special effects i have ever seen. The laser scenes are the funniest, also watch as THE TERMINATION MAN throws the worlds tiniest bomb which is also completely invisible. The story is about a super human 50 year old who can run miles in seconds but has no other decent powers and his fight against 'russian terrorists'.

The final fight scene which comprising the worst fight choreography ever seen in a crappy straight to video film is also a highpoint of this brilliant movie.

This is a film which makes blair witch's budget seem massive and is the well deserved worst film of all time


'Hello Steve, it's Larry.' 'Larry who?' 'Larry. Your agent!' 'Oh, sorry. Hadn't heard from you in a while.' 'Well, have you thought about the two offers I mentioned?' 'Uhhhh. Would you refresh my memory.?' 'Well, there's the Troma version of 9-11, 'Alladin and the Forty Mullahs'. You'd play.......' 'Forget it Larry. What was the other one again?' 'Its working title is 'Serbian Avenger' and you play the lead. A kind of super 007 but it has contemporary political significance. I know how important that is to you. It's a Corman-Woods-Slavicfilms production so it'll be shot in Bosnia.' 'Oh yeah, I remember now. I asked you to get me more money. Were you able to?' 'Yes. I've got you up to $500 a week. No medical coverage but there'll be a retired Bosnian War medic on the set except on Sunday.' 'Sunday! We're going to shoot on Sundays?' 'Well, to get you $500 I had to make a few concessions.' 'Yeah, like what else?' 'Uhhh, it's a seven day shooting schedule. But the picture is only a ten day shoot. A 16-hour flat. (Pause) You'll no longer have your own tent. Will have to share it with the sound mixer and his boom man. But I made the line producer swear that the guys will not be eating garlic' 'I guess I can live with that.' 'And you'll have to take a freighter from New York to Dubrovnik. But they'll send a taxi to pick you up there.' (Silence on the phone.) 'Look. It's going to be a first class production. The director got a Goovna Award last year for 'Kielbasy, Me and Dravnik' from the jury at the Second Annual Grzonik Film Festival'. 'Who else is in it. Is there a broad?' 'Best news for last! It's Athena Massey!' 'Athena Who?' 'Athena Massey! Athena continues to show her range and versatility as an actress with her two most recent films, 'Groin's Portal' and 'The Labial Monologue.' You'll love working with her. And they already told me they've reserved a fog machine for the tasteful and romantic dusk lovemaking scene they've planned along the beautiful Slobodan Creek .' 'Larry, does she, uhh, is she.....' "Steve, I knew you'd ask that. I made some inquiries and I've got it on good authority that she's got a set of tits on her that won't stop!' 'Well, o.k. I'll do it then.' 'Great. I'll get them to prepare a deal memo as soon as I get off the phone.' ' Great, see you soon.' 'See you.'


Agent Pope (Steve Railsback), the star of Termination Man, teams up with Agent Shane (Athena Massey) to complete a secret mission in Serbia. Neither of the them succeed in making us believe that they are in fact secret agents. Railsback looks stiff and old, and his fight scenes are over within seconds because he obviously can't fight. He even has trouble running across a road. Massey is trying very hard to act, but without any result. This is partly because Railsback doesn't give her any response at all. He just keeps on smiling like he's having the greatest time of his life. He looks like he's brain-dead and then suddenly remembers that he's tough and cool.

The script is very bad and almost noting that happens is explained properly. For instance: Pope has to go to Serbia to check if he'll die from a gas that has been produced by the U.S. government. He has been genetically enhanced so that he is immune to the gas. Couldn't they have done this all in a lab instead of roaming the Serbian woods for no apparent reason?! The acting is quite bad, but it's Railsback's "performance" that ruins the movie completely. He must have thought Termination Man would be a comedy. The bad guy is just a sad guy with only about fifteen soldiers under his command. The way it is filmed is mediocre, lots of standard shots, bad editing, direction seems to be absent.

As a vehicle for Railsback Termination Man fails, because he's by far the worst actor in the movie. I give it 3/10 simply because it was amusing to see how far this thing could get out of hand from the start on. And it got pretty far.


Just when you think you struggled yourself through all the lousiest and most pointless slasher the 80's decade had to offer, you allow yourself to be fooled by yet another one. One that may even be lousier than all the others. "House of Death" is a totally sordid and fatigue effort, and the worst thing of all involves having to acknowledge that the whole premise actually had potential and a handful of sequences were even marvelously staged. The opening sequence, for example, is close to genius as it seems to be a clichéd situation but turns out surprising and original. It's almost depressing to watch a movie that never at one point succeeds in surpassing the quality level of its very own prologue. We're in a random little American town, inhabited with stereotypical teenager and dumb overweight redneck coppers, and there's a vicious killer at large. The only problem is that nobody seems to care about the menace of any killer. Teen boys and girls vanish without a trace, but the whole town is too busy attending the annual carnival or trying to score with the hot new coach of the junior baseball team. But why should they care about a killer, honestly? The script never once reveals any clues regarding his/her identity, let alone hint at his/her motivations for prowling around town with a machete. There's zero tension throughout the entire movie, the lamentable attempts to insert comedy elements fail miserably and all the characters are uninteresting and empty-headed losers. One notable exception, though, is one of the teenagers' grandmother. Granny hates everything in town and makes cynic remarks about everyone who approaches her or her granddaughter. Too bad even granny can't save "House of Death" from complete boredom and irredeemable stupidity. The last 15 minutes are good, stuffed with gory massacres and explicit make-up effects, but it's too late by then. Besides, why the hell is it called "House of Death"? Did you see a house? I sure didn't.


Despite the mysterious disappearance of a teen couple, Ted and Angie at the riverside in north California a group of the nearby-town teenagers goes having ghost story in the local cemetery. However the unnaturally sudden rain forces them to movie into an old wooden house in the cemetery. Then the not-well-motivated murderer begins to kill them one by one, and the cemetery becomes their own... I think the only one uniqueness this post-Friday-the-13th-Part2 film has is its expressive way of the first and silliest two victims, Ted and Angie who originally tried to have a woodland-****-on-a-motorcycle in the middle of the cold night. They are not simply cadavers; they are strangely cinematic bodies who have their own ongoing flowing expressiveness, and intermittently show something about their cadaveric existences. Although I find this coupled-bodies-with-their-coupled-expressiveness interesting I have to say the most of the elements of this film are nothing but those of a bad B-movie; Dee Barton's old-TV-movie-like easygoing music is entirely unsuited to the 1980's horror film especially to its horror scenes, and Worth Keeter's special effects are not only cheap but also unnatural, and so forth.


--Death Screams, or House of Death as it is known here, is one of the most absurd horror films I've seen next to Drive-In Massacre. I had friends over while watching this movie, but afterwards I think they considered me their worst enemy after putting them through this trash.

--The first 40 mins. are so boring, I felt like ejecting the tape. Nothing happens, just some stupid dialogue at a carnival scene. The agony of sitting through this is too great. The most annoying character in this film is the grandma, she should have been the first victim. The true "suspense" starts in the last 10 mins. literally. Before that, just some cheesy killings.

--House of Death has the most funniest death scene that is the only "plus" side to this movie

** IF you get pierced in the shoulder with an arrow, go and scream for help. Surprisingly this girl with an IQ of 1 just moans and groans, falls down (you know the rest). She ventures onto an abandoned carousal and surprisingly, it starts moving. If a plastic bag is then put over your head, and your hands are free, poke a hole so you can breathe (or take it off). This one just groans until she is suffocated, yet never attempts to save herself. Someone that stupid just made me laugh so hard. I know most characters in horror flicks don't think... but c'mon!

--I do not even know who the killer was, it was revealed, but House of Death has more holes than a fish net I was confused. Do me a favor...avoid this one. Do something more productive than wasting your time.


Death Screams or as i rented it under House Of Death has to be one of the worst horror movies ever made. the first 2 min are ok then the opening credits come on and are about 5 min with the worst music i ever heard in my life. the movie is so boring like the 35 min carnival scene. then there are like 7 kills in like 10 min too much too fast. they don't even show the kills. the back of the box makes the movie sound cool but don't be fooled like i was. Death Screams aka House Of Death is so bad and boring i give it 0/10. skip this one if you don't you will regret it big time 85min of my life was wasted on this trash


Ha ha he he he. This is laughable. There is NOTHING worth watching in this pile of badly made cheapo trash. Even if you enjoy a good 'bad' movie (which I am partial to) this should be avoided. The only truly special thing about this film is the incredible soundtrack. Even random music plucked from a library catalogue would have occasionally hit the mark, this is so way off you may think that the guy writing it knew he wasn't going to get paid!

The 'story' as such revolves around a typical stalk and slash formula without the benefit of an explanation as to why he's slicing and dicing the 'young' folk.

Nudity and cheap effects just don't cut the mustard even in the straight to video days of the 80's.

Avoid!


A group of teenagers attending a carnival are stalked by a mysterious, hidden in the shadows psycho who proceeds to stalk and kill them after they leave the carnival and party at an old run down farm house.

The identity of the killer is very easy to figure out in this not very surprising slasher film that features an over the top finale that will produce unintentional chuckles instead of having you shiver in your seat. So poorly made it went unreleased for quite some time. Not to mention a rotten script and ending. I laughed in the last 5 minutes of this movie. So, Please. I hope this never comes out on DVD or VHS. Horrible.

Rated R for Nudity, Profanity and Graphic Violence.


I have no idea what I was doing watching this film. I purchased it from Family Video for $2.99 to add to my already impressive horror collection, and I ended up suffering through the worst "horror" film in modern history. The movie takes over an hour to even get to the "House of Death", the characters are under-developed and not memorable, and - not to give away the ending - I was staring dumbfounded at the screen for a good six minutes after the credits rolled. Let's not even get started on the music, because I wouldn't know how to characterize the noise I heard. The only credit I can give this film is... no, I changed my mind, this film is worthless in every way. You'd be better off watching "The Beast Must Die."


We recently screened this film for our English class and I found it to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. There are WAY to many closeups of this actress, the plot was very weak, the props were poorly manufactured, and the sound was unbearable.

DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM.

The film shouldn't have been released to the United States and should have just stayed in Bollywood land where it belongs. This film is neither shocking nor riveting. I can't believe how many people liked this film. A group of normal college kids from Chicago all unanimously agreed that this film was complete trash.


Careful -- there could be a comment here that maybe a spoiler.

I only mention the spoiler as I believe this film should carry the "buyer beware" label as I believe some scenes have been edited out so it could show in Chicago (where I saw this film). I am unsure of the print that showed as I think I never saw the entire film. Scenes appeared to be "blacked out" -- scenes that were probably important to the film ending. Yet let's press on (caution: spoiler comment in forth paragraph).

This could have been a good film but the sound editing is terrible. The sound of water and breathing distracts you as it dominates in almost every scene. It becomes annoying; however, the music sound track is very good. The story does has movement and is helped along by the music score as it builds to the climax. Yet be prepared to be left..... hanging. (spoiler comment below)

I can only guess what was edited out (my guess was a visual destruction that Chicago audiences may have found disturbing). The editing, in fact, ruined the film for me as the black outs came at the climax. If an American viewing (or Chicago) was going to be a problem for the film they should have inserted a stock shot or kept tight on Malli's face.

It had potential as a good Indie but the poor sound recording and poor editing caused me to think "malo" instead of "Malli - si! - muy bueno".


I am surprised that so many viewers liked this movie. Let me make myself clear: I find the subject matter very interesting. Trying to understand why people (especially, young people, and even more so young girls) become terrorists (or freedom fighters; the terminology is heavily dependent on your alliances) is quite noble. So I was really eager to see the movie, but unfortunately was disappointed beyond the normal expectations. What was good about it? Well, the actors were not too bad (especially, given the fact that they were mostly non-professionals). That's about it. What was bad? Let's start with the premise: a girl (freedom fighter/terrorist) becomes impregnated by a wounded "brother in arms" while they find themselves hiding from the government troops in a ditch (and the latter are still raiding the area, might I add). Are you kidding me? I admit, I've never been shot in a battle, so I cannot tell what a person would normally do under these circumstances, but my wild guess is that having sex with a comrade (while the enemy soldiers are searching around) would not be the first item on the list. Well, may be I am wrong here... Next, who was in charge of the soundtrack (and sound in general)? This was probably the worst movie sound, I've ever heard: the same bad composition played on a cheap synthesizer over and over, so by the middle of the movie, you have an urge to turn the sound off and just read the subtitles. Who was the director? Almost every scene (with exception of the scenes involving the old man, his goofy friend, and the paralyzed wife) looked exceptionally fake: fights, killings, pull-ups, etc. Anyways, this could've been a decent unprofessional movie, but for a professional motion picture (especially, given the amount of positive coverage), it falls quite short.


Other than seeing Pink Floyd play together probably for the very last time ever, this whole fiasco was a gigantic waste of time. I'm sorry, I know we all want to believe it was a great event helping people in Africa, that signing petitions online does something (I call this slactivism) but I'm afraid to say it wasn't and they don't.

What we have is a bunch of aging and not so aging rockers and pop stars patting themselves on the back and stroking their collective egos by playing for hundreds of thousands of people (live) and millions on TV and the web. Its a great big feel good fest, the musicians get to play for a large crowd, and the audience gets off the hook, they don't have to do anything but watch one of the most fantastic lineups ever. At least when the SARS-AID show in Toronto was going to help Toronto recover from the SARS epidemic. What did this event do? "Raise awareness" they say, well how many people really understand the issues in Africa? I do probably more than most, but I still don't really know why the hell Africa is such bad shape. I don't really know why the AIDS epidemic has hit Africa so hard. Is it just pure poverty? Was is the root cause of this poverty? Is it dictatorships? Foreign debt? That seems to be main focus of guys like Bono, but realistically what how does a concert help this? Do you really think that the leaders of the free world give a damn that bunch of people go together to listen to some music? I'm sorry, call me cynical, I do think music is important and effects our lives in a meaningful way but when I think Geldof has kind of lost his mind. He stands there so proud of himself, but is there any surprise that so many people would watch the most popular musical acts in the world? It could have had nothing to do with Africa, it could have been to celebrate sponges and people still would have shown up.

I am sorry, in 1985 it seemed magical, but it's a movie sequel, too polished, quite expected and simply a rehash of what we've already seen.


It was twenty years ago today ... well not quite but it was twenty years ago this month that the world experienced Live Aid that raised tens of millions of dollars for famine relief in Africa and Bob Geldof was the reincarnation of Jesus . What a guy , and as the G8 leaders got ready to meet in Scotland Sir Bob got a few friends together to have concerts all over the world to send out a message to the world leaders to end poverty . I won't be cynical here because even the harshest critic recognises Geldof is nothing but sincere and he'll always visit Africa to do his best regardless if there's TV cameras filming him or not , but Live 8 must be the most cynical concert event in history

First of the artist line up . Hyde Park had REM a band who have their best days behind them by about ten years . Are they really a big name act ? Same as UB40 . At least with Live Aid we had the biggest acts of the day take part even if most of them disappeared from the radar soon afterwards . I mean who are Velvet Revolver or Razorlight ? Are they off the stature Queen or U2 were in 1985 ? Of course not . Oh and what idiot thought The Who would be a welcome addition ? Pete Townshend was asked to perform ! No doubt Gary Glitter is upset his invite got lost in the post

Secondly the language . Bob swore live on air in 1985 but he organised the life saving world changing concert so he can get away with it , but here we saw Green Day swear in a pre recorded piece from Berlin while Hyde Park heard the F word come from Velvet Revolver ( I've still no idea who they are ) while Snoop Dogg continually ranted on about a " mother figure " or something . I'm no prude but all this took place well before the 9pm watershed . Robbie Williams too let out some colourful expletives but this was around 10.15 pm and is acceptable I guess . But even so the swearing shows a lack of maturity

Lastly my major gripe is what's the cause ? Live Aid raised money via the £20 ticket for the concert , and the pledges , tens of millions were raised but the concert goers for Live 8 attended via a text messaging system and this means the world wide concerts were effectively free , no money was raised for NGOs and the general public who unfortunately are ignorant on African affairs went home still ignorant on African affairs . One thing we did learn was that Velvet Revolvers guitarist used to be in Guns N Roses and that Mariah Carey has a new single out . Forgive me being cynical but aren't the biggest - Perhaps only - winners on Saturday 2nd July 2005 the artists who performed ? I see the record sales of some acts have risen by over 1,000 per cent

" Theo you're so cynical you disgust me "

Sorry that wasn't my intention but I did read in the press that all the artists at Hyde Park received goody bags with contents that cost several thousand pounds while the African children who appeared on stage with the artists got a free T-Shirt . Oh and seeing as there's all these kids dying in Africa because of lack of medical facilities or clean drinking water I wonder how much money the performers spent on drink and drugs that day ? Yup rock stars are the sort of people who can really empathise with the starving souls of this world . I won't condemn them all of course because as I said Geldof is a genuine living saint while other artists appearing are genuinely caring about the suffering in Africa especially Bono whose set with U2 was far superior to the performance seen at Wembly 1985 . But apart from that opening moment Live 8 is totally unfit to be compared to Live Aid


Overall, this movie was a disappointment. I'm a huge film noir fan but the plot wasn't enjoyable or interesting enough to make up for its complexity. I found myself not caring as things were revealed. None of the characters made an impression on me. There were a few good visual tricks (the question-mark shadow in a doorway, bullets through a doorway in a dark room) but nevertheless a weak effort by Lang. Distinct feeling of having wasted my time.


This may be the most outrageous rape of a good novel ever committed in the history of film-making. Graham Greene's original novel, set in a grey war-ridden England, is divided into four parts. The first part is titled The Unhappy Man - and in bounces Ray Milland with a self-assured Hollywood smirk! The other main character - a young, grave and desillusioned Austrian woman - is portrayed by Marjorie Reynolds as a flirty little thing. The central theme of the original novel is developed through the contrast between the first part and the second, titled The Happy Man. This second part has been obliterated in the film, and so has the novel's dialogue, its portraiture of characters and most of the plot, thus entirely robbing the story of its meaning. A cinéast friend tells me that the film has been credited for a number of inventive film effects, but then he has not read the book. It is no extenuating circumstance that the rapist has proceeded with a certain finesse in cutting up and disposing of the body. To anyone who has read the book, the incredible punchline closing the film is a sensational parody of book-busting films - only the parody is unintentional.


There's a reason this has never been a hit in the UK - because most of us have a sense of humour more developed than that of a three year old.

This is watched on new year's eve by many people in Germany - it's actually a tradition, and they seem to find it absolutely hilarious. I find this completely bizarre, as this is repetitious pap on a par with the Teletubbies.

I could barely watch it past the three-minute mark, and didn't laugh once during the entire sketch, so heavens knows how anyone can watch this rubbish every year.

It's popularity is utterly, utterly bewildering to me - avoid.


During preparations for Thanksgiving a few years back, my dad noticed that no one had made any candied yams. Fine, we bought a can, warmed them up and set them out. Nobody touched them, pa included. "Why," we asked, "did you insist on the yams?" Simple--tradition. With Thanksgiving you need candied yams.

And with New Years in central Europe, you need "Dinner for One." That people here love it, is clear. *Why* they love it is an absolute mystery. I honestly believe that it is enjoyed primarily because it is tradition -- it is beloved, so people love it. Being married to a German, I have now seen this short at least five times; I *have* laughed during it. Of course, I can pretend to like yams, too.

The film relies entirely on the clownish antics of the protagonist, Freddie Frinton, as he steadily drinks himself into oblivion. Purely pie-in-the-mush humor here, with gags that were old when the film was made forty years ago. Neither is Frinton a genius of physical comedy, his timing truly hit-and-miss in the skit.

If you are from central Europe, you have already seen this film. Otherwise, spare yourself the bother.


Am I the only person in the world who does not find Dinner for One in the least funny? The sketch belongs to a low, unsubtle type of slapstick, something that may appeal to some non-Anglosaxon audiences. A world apart from the best of subtle humor (as in Yes Minister), or the best of slapstick for that matter (as in Laurel and Hardy movies). Even if some of the incidents could be regarded as comical (for example, the butler's frequent collisions with a tiger's head on the floor), their very repetitiousness engenders tedium. All the 'comical' bits are contained in the first three minutes, after which they are repeated ad nauseam. Mocking the frailties of old age seems unworthy to me. The success of Dinner for One remains a mystery.


Saw it tonight; my take:

Casting: About the best I have seen of Ferrell since Minority Report. I was actually amazed that they made him look a lot like a young Don Johnson.

Barry Henley for Castillo though. God he sucked. The Lt I loved was 1/2 Ninja and 100% cold bad ass good guy of few words. And when he spoke, you would have thought God was talking. Sadly, this Castillo was in too tight a shirt and was about to choke half the time. How did he get cast for that part? Mann MUST have lost a bet.

Elizabeth Rodriguez as Gina had the best scene in the whole movie, when she shot the Nazi. And it lasted 10 seconds and she was the baddest character in the show. Too bad it was only 10 seconds... my hopes raised but got dashed. The movie never got back to that high point.

Foxx err I still cant get past his Living Color days to take him seriously. And there was next to no chemistry between him and Ferrell. I kept expecting him to tell a joke.

Setting: It was said before, the was not Miami Vice, this was "-anywhere- Vice" The movie could have been set in LA, NYC or heck, Cairo!

Presentation: Where was the great epic gun fight we came to love in Heat? It was too dark and I had not a clue what was going on. I mean Switek is in the middle of the bad guys and they barely even notice him when the shooting starts. Then in the middle he just sort of vanishes?? What gives?? Bad editing and bad filming. And where was Sonny's Brenn 10?!?!?

All and all I blame the Mann. I give it 2 out of 10 stars. Mostly because I have so loved MM in the past that this destruction of a beloved memory by bad acting, bad casting, and non existent direction really hurts. Mann had a sure fire block buster and he will doubtless make some money but as for me I want my $10 back. Mann, how could you ruin Miami Vice like that?


After reading a few reviews on some well known film sites i thought this was going to be great...but the totally opposite was true. What a huge disappointment. The plot was going from one place to another and at times just gave you one big headache. Poor red herrings and over the top sub plots were shown to us as believable (I think not!). The film was just one sub plot over another and a zig zag of labyrinthian proportions of where the film should be going. And how about this for corny dialogue...'probability is like gravity...'? er..yeah, like dog crap and cheese are identicial???

It seems Michael Mann is a one (HEAT) hit wonder, and simply adding a 10 minute gunfight lifted straight out of HEAT at the end of the movie is not going to save it.

If you want to watch a decent cop thriller check out the little known 'Dirty' a superior film by a lesser known director.

Avoid this Miami VICE and buy the TV series instead.


the movie was bad, couldn't understand half the words, movie was too long and contained random inappropriate scenes in an attempt to recapture the viewers attention.

there was fast cars, high class but, there were never really used , only 2 shooting scenes, and 1 car scene.This movie was a waste of money and time, i will like to see how much profit is made!

also, if you do decided to go to this movie, it would be wise to take a book with you ,as you will get bored.

The characters as well, need to speak more clearly.

.


When I first watched series "Miami Vice", with Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas, I was very happy because that was a hell of a show.The plot was good,actors was fine and of course Miami was here. After big success of that TV-series some people decided to make a movie. Movie was made, but that movie isn't that good.In the movie "Miami Vice" we've got lots of famous people,like director Michael Mann,actors Colin Ferrell,Jamie Foxx,Naomie Harris and lots more.Producers succeeded to hire big shot stars on this movie so they can replace actors from series.But they couldn't.Script of the movie is not that bad and we all know what Michael Mann is capable to do but it didn't work with this film.First of all this movie is too long.It is so long that I almost fall asleep in the cinema.Second,actors like Collin Farrell and Jamie Foxx are good actors but they cannot pull this one on their back.Collin Farrell is trying to be different from Don Johnson but he just can't do it.Don Johnson is so much better then Farrell in this role.Jamie Foxx played well,although I don't like him as an actor.And also I have to say that these two actors are good choice but why did they made this movie?To bring them money.There are lots of locations but why do they call it "Miami Vice" when the plot is not set in Miami.They could call it "World Vice" instead.I didn't enjoyed in this movie,but maybe my expectations where too big.I like Mann's camera and he really knows his job.The things I didn't liked where some scenes where Ferrell could do a better job and I also don't know why is this movie so long.It gets boring toward the end.Even though this movie has lot of famous people, it hasn't got some thing so I can say that movie is fine.It lacks of magic.


I will confess to being bored by this film. So much so that I am amazed that I actually made it to the end. There was nothing there to maintain my interest. Colin Farrell was totally wooden, as was Jamie Foxx. The settings were beautiful, but every internal scene seemed to have been filmed in semi-darkness.At least the actors didn't fall into that awful American habit of inserting what sounds like 'full stop' every 3 or 3 words, but dialogue was still slurred and on occasions difficult to discern. Thank goodness for subtitles on DVD! The entire content of the film was just about enough for a 40 minute TV episode, but alas the film lacked the humour and self-deprecation of the original TV series. This isn't quite the worst film I've watched in the last 12 months, but it's pretty close. In summary : Style over substance.


I've had a bad night.Firstly Brick and then Miami Vice.My daughter told me Vice was rubbish i usually follow her advice but i was a fan of the TV shows and Michael Mann is one of my favourite directors so i watched it.She was right this time,but not always,she did recommend Brick but thats another post. Question: who was the mole in the FBI?,where was the rest of the story,where's sonny's alligator Superfluous love scenes,villains that can't shoot eg:all those dead bad guys and one wounded cop when they do the exchange at the finale.Plus points:it looked glossy and Jamie Foxx nailed Tubbs . Why do the bad guys always fall for the pizza delivery trick?,do they not watch TV or movies


Boy oh boy this movie disappointed me a lot. Let me go over the cons which are a lot. The movie and the story is way to slow with barely any action involved and this is under the action section? The acting IMO wasn't that good at all and i like Colin Farrell. Pretty much the main stuff that makes this a bad movie is that it's too slow and the story is as well and doesn't make sense at all. It's it jumped from another area to the area with no detail explanation on the drugs other than the ending which is probably my favorite part but still that is not enough. So if i were you i would avoid this movie at all costs, even on free rental day. The only pro is the ending but that's it.


This movie was so dumb I actually walked out of it. I got bored, and kept wondering why the editing was so bad. There was no smooth segway between scenes, it was like *poof* we are here *poof* now here. Ugh The dialog also made no sense for most of it. I don't mean to knock what must have taken forever to make, but jeez. I guess I just hope they don't make a second one. I usually like the actors that were in this. In this case tho...not so much. I also asked people who had also left before it was over what they thought, and they agreed with me. When I walked out there were five other people in the lobby just shaking their heads. Too bad Miami Vice can't do a "do-over"


I had a chance to see this picture way before it's release date many times. Each time I felt as if it was never ending. Slow without pace or substance. I felt no chemistry between any of the actors and wonder if Jamie Fox or Colin Farrell would ever do another picture together it was as if they had a lack of chemistry between them. Although the academy award winning cinematographer is well known. The look of the picture was very flat with no depth or color. Shot digital only no film was used. I had the feeling I was watching a video game. Overall Li Gong tried hard with her acting part in the movie. But I could not feel the energy coming from her or Colin Farrell even when it came from the love scenes. sorry but I give this one 1 out of 10.


A professional production with quality actors that simply never touched the heart or the funny bone no matter how hard it tried. The quality cast, stark setting and excellent cinemetography made you hope for Fargo or High Plains Drifter but sorry, the soup had no seasoning...or meat for that matter. A 3 (of 10) for effort.


Most of the films I really like are art-house fare and seldom appear on the box-office top-ten lists. That said, I found "Northfork" utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what it was even about. Writing in the New York Times about a different film, Stephen Holden once observed that some people seem to think they can throw just anything up on the screen and have it work as a fairy tale. I thought of that review several times while watching "Northfork".

On a scale of one to ten, I gave it a two.


There is nothing I hate more in a movie than pretentiousness, and this is one of the most pretentious films ever made. It's self-consciousness is obvious in every frame: "see what a profound, sophisticated film we are making," the director and screenwriters seem to be saying to us, and to themselves they say, "lets's see how we can bore and confuse the audience even more." I would rather watch the worst film by Ed Wood or Edgar G. Ulmer than something like this. At least they were giving us honest trash, and at least their films, in their own atrocious way, were entertaining. This film is about as entertaining as a root canal without anesthesia, and thus is tantamount to torture.

Have these screenwriters ever heard the word 'story?' It doesn't appear so. They have a concept, they are able to create an atmosphere, and they were able to assemble an excellent cast and elicit good performances from them. And for what? To bore us for an hour and 45 minutes? Nothing really happens in this film. The only exciting part, and this lasts only about two minutes, occurs when one of the soon-to-be-evicted homeowners starts shooting at the state employees who come to tell him he has to leave. But nothing comes of it. Too bad he didn't keep shooting until he hit the screenwriters. The only redeeming features of this film are the acting and some beautifully photographed scenery toward the end. 3/10


This is one of the best looking films of the past few years. The fact that it was done on a virtual shoestring ($1.8 million or so they say on the DVD:they infer that they ended up with even less financing) makes it all the more impressive. Not simply the photography, but the design and particularly the locations (Eastern Montana) which are at once authentically American and otherworldly.

Too bad there isn't a coherent movie to go with it. An extremely promising setup of the last 48 hours of clearing out a rural town in 1955 before it will be flooded for a dam is washed away with pretentious mumbo jumbo alluding to angels and a dying child. And what is presented as the "real world" is hopelessly arch. Note to the Polish Brothers:the Coen Brothers are funny-you are not.

No doubt many cineastes will find "Northfork"'s abundant symbolism and inscrutability as marks of some sort of profundity, the sort that sophisticated types wrestle the night away with in coffeehouses while the braindead masses watch "Charlie's Angels" or something. (Sigh) If you insist....

In the meantime, recommended only as a case study for filmmakers for its' impeccable technical credits and photographic beauty.


If this movie had a point I never discovered it. A very depressing movie which supposedly is about the final evacuation of the residents living in a dam site area on the Northfork River in Montana. The problem is that there is no actual Northfork River in Montana. There are several north forks but they are branches of other rivers which divided into north and south forks.

	The opening scene of the movie is a coffin bobbing to the surface of the lake but the scene is never tied into the story and the viewer is left to speculate as to its meaning. But much is left to the viewer's speculation in the movie. Another example is when a team of dam employees responsible for the evacuation of the residents arrives at the dam headquarters, another group of people are departing. Some remark which is almost inaudible is made about these people which makes no sense whatsoever and there is no followup in the movie to explain it.

	The movie is butchered into several stories and the film keeps switching back and forth between stories which is quite disconcerting. And the stories are weird. In one of them the occupants of one property refuse to be evacuated because they are living in a home that is built like Noah's Ark.

	Another senseless story centers around a sick orphan who is dying and somehow he is sharing his presence with a house full of ghosts and in an orphanage with a priest at the same time. If anyone can figure out what the ghost story was about the author must have explained it to them.

	The scenery was stark and the sun never shines. There are snowy mountains in the far distance. I guess the purpose was to set the mood. The time period is set by the fact that the evacuaters all drove Ford sedans of the 1946-48 era although the events are supposed to have occurred in 1955. The acting was mediocre. When I saw the billing for this movie it said that Darryl Hannah was in the picture. If she was, I didn't recognize her but I surmise that she was the ghost lady.


I tried to be patient and open-minded but found myself in a coma-like state. I wish I would have brought my duck and goose feather pillow...I apologize to all of the great actors in this movie. Maybe it takes a degree from MIT to understand the importance of this movie.


The frustrating thing about a movie like this, with a true potential for greatness, is that it almost enjoys being heavy-handed. We speak of allegory, of metaphor...but the truth is, there's no getting around the fact that there is absolutely no plot or real character.

At a certain point, we most know who the people are...even if we never understand where they are going. The sheer pretentiousness wore me down every time I tried to grasp a truth in this film.

Call it beautiful, great and awesome...I just call it "cheating." All style and no substance. Sure, it's a matter of taste...but I would never take a confusing modernist pastiche of symbols and splashes over the spiritual clarity of Jean Cocteau or Renoir. But if it works for you, I'm all for it. Art is a personal thing, I guess.


"What symbolism!" exclaimed a woman as we exited the theater after viewing the Polish brother's paean to Ingmar Bergman. Some symbolism is there all right. But not much. "Northfork" adds up to some fine acting weakened by dreary cinematography that fails to make any coherent statement and a muddled story that irritates rather than enthralls.

Northfork is a town facing extinction after a new hydroelectric dam goes into operation. It's the early to middle 1950s and a squad of identically dressed state agents, all looking as if they had just answered a casting call for "The Untouchables," have the job of relocating recalcitrant dwellers who fail to appreciate both their immediate peril as well as the proffered bounty for moving. An exciting anti-development movie is always a possibility but let's get real: rural electrification is one of the greatest advances in bringing decent living conditions and a boosted economy in American history. Dams can be built without forced relocation? Not in this country.

But this film is less about the plight of homeowners than it is a fantastical creation of a dying young boy's escapist imagination. Nick Nolte is the priest who tends to the lad and much of what he says might have been interesting if the sound was clear enough to hear.

Alternating between the black-suited evacuation agents (working for "lakefront" land when the dam creates that valuable acreage) and a phantasmagorical collection of weirdos, the film develops neither theme coherently or even interestingly.

The cinematography is poor. A washed out, subdued and depressive color permeates the whole film to little dramatic purpose. There is no reason for this vast terrain to be depicted so bleakly. Indeed, a contrast between largely untouched natural beauty and the massive and grim solidity of the evolving dam and power plants would have been very effective.

4/10.


Pretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.

This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.

Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits.


'Northfork' is what is wrong with indie films. For all of their hard-edged commentary and attacking big subjects studios won't, this is the sacrifice we make. For nearly two hours I was subjected to the torture and pain of a film that starts by wandering like a blind man in a new place and ends without covering any new ground and thankfully dies.

There are parallel stories that detail a dying town and a dying boy. Two men dressed in black (one of them James Woods) must coerce the remaining inhabitants of Northfork to leave before a dam opens up and floods the town. The other story has a boy returned to the priest (Nick Nolte) that gave him to the parents. He is dying and is visited, I guess, by angels. Among them Anthony Edwards with bizarre spectacles and Daryl Hannah in a bizarre costume reminding me of the pirate shirt from Seinfeld.

Though this is the "plot," it is not what the film is about. The film is about nothing. It does nothing, says nothing, goes nowhere, and has nothing interesting to show. Perhaps by design, more likely an after-effect of the pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe - we're an important artsy film can't you see - style of direction. The entire movie is filtered through a gray, bleak backdrop that, I suppose, fits a film about death. Instead, it simply makes the film that much harder to watch.

If you want to see a film about men in black, see either 'Men in Black' films, neither too impressive but compared to 'Northfork' they are lifted to 'Citizen Kane' status. If you want to see a film about a boy dying watch 'Lorenzo's Oil.' If you want to see a film that has the destruction of a town through water watch 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' If you want to watch a film better than 'Northfork,' there are hundreds. If you want to watch a film that is worse, there are only a handful. 0* out of ****


This is the most boring, pretentious, and stupid film I have seen in a long time. I saw it at the Academy in Beverly Hills, and there were quite a few people in the lobby who had left the screening and were seeking refuge there. All were solemnly shaking their heads and looking as though they had been to a funeral. What a waste of time and money. Even worse are the critics who gave this pretentious blimp good reviews. What's with them? Are they just afraid they won't be considered "hip"? Were they bribed? This film is staggeringly bad. Don't take a date to it expecting to have an in-depth chat at the Cheesecake factory afterwards. If going to see this film was your idea, she'll browbeat you and hold it over you the rest of your life.


Usually I'm the one criticizing the twenty-something Neanderthals for not being able to appreciate a film unless it has plastic t*ts, gunfights and car chases. However, in this case the film might actually have been improved with a few of those additions. At least I wouldn't have gotten bored after an hour and changed channels.

I don't mind surreal, and I certainly don't mind having to pay attention to find subtlety or hidden meaning, but there should be some point to the whole thing. I didn't get the feeling that even the writer or director really had a broad vision of anything but were, instead, just so self-absorbed in their own pretentious visions that they became deliberately scattered. Or perhaps they just got confused themselves. Either way, I don't care. It bored the crap out of me for just over an hour with no saving grace.

Although a whole pack of other viewers have filled up this site with excited ravings about the alleged symbolism and masterful cinematography, I must respectfully disagree. Perhaps I didn't mince through enough film classes to appreciate some inspired techniques not visible to mere mortals ...

Or perhaps this movie was just crap.

I give it a "1" and file it next to "Ishtar."


First the easy part: this movie is pretentious crapola!

It put me in mind of "Magnolia". And then I thought "Wow-- somebody made a movie even dumber and more irritating than "Magnolia".

I know nothing about the Polish brothers, but this film seems to have been made by someone who learned a lot in film school but knows nothing about storytelling. The trite plot elements and sledgehammer symbolism are bad enough, but the dialogue is just pathetic.

Detailed comments would just be a laundry list of failure. The parts that are supposed to be funny or satirical are not; the "elegaic" parts are nice coffee table pictures with mediocre music; the "emotional" parts are simplistic.

The worst thing is that the movie shows no love at all for the characters, except for a little cornball dignity in the priest.

I still can't believe the respect some people have given this picture.


This is a good time to say how good I think of this site: it gives me the opportunity to feedback all the frustration I lived for two hours, awaiting for something to happens, for something to be said, to be shown, to be insinuated subtly, for a symbol, an idea, whatever. No, just long, endless violins, alternated by a tired piano. Tired voices, tired actors and bored characters and situations. Boring is the long death of the mind, and this movie is, from that point of view, a public enemy. How many thousands of live hours will be still stolen to another thousands of innocent spectators. I don't claim for my money back, just for my time and the time of persons I invited to watch this thing... oh God !