I'm a GIANT fan of the original story by Clive Barker and I think the first two Hellraisers were the greatest horror films ever to be produced. But, ever since Hellraiser 3, untalented directors wear out the name and use the villain-icon Pinhead as a marketing instrument to tell lame and inferior horror stories. Hellseeker ranks as the sixth episode in the series and it is - along with Inferno - the weakest effort so far. The original charm has faded away completely and the tone and atmosphere doesn't come near the morbid and raw originals. The story of Hellseeker has got nothing to do anymore with the original characters Clive Barker created and they might as well could have given this movie a completely new surrounding. Heroine Ashley Laurence is dragged into this film for no particular reason. She doesn't show any resemblance with her original character and even Pinhead himself has gone through a complete metamorphosis. He once was a true symbol of all that represents evil but, after 6 episodes, he merely looks like a lame philosopher who prefers to plea instead of to kill. Hellraiser:Hellseeker is an extremely boring experience with only a few remarkable scenes. And those particular scenes are in fact just a shadow of the ones in the original Hellraisers. It's nothing more than a mediocre attempt to build up a mystery tale. The first hour of this film is a series of hallucinations and illogical dream-sequences. Director Rick Bota constantly tries to fool the audience with plot-twists but, actually, the audience doesn't give a damn! The last 15 minutes of Hellseeker are the only ones worth seeing. Both Kirsty's and Pinhead's screen time are entirely in those minutes and it's the only time the script actually makes a bit sense. If you manage yourself to struggle through the first hour, you'll see a more or less satisfying ending. If the rumors are true, there will be two more sequels coming out in 2004 . Knowing myself a bit, I'll most likely see them...but my expectations have never before been so low!


Why does it seem like the Hellraiser films are slowly becoming morality tales? I am starting to think that. Inferno was mostly morality and i could deal with it because it was something different but in hellseeker, we have "Lets make a deal" Kirsty and a cheating spouse and also a tale of greed. Cmon now. This movie basically said in only a few words, if you cheat or your greedy you will go to hell. To top it off, not enough of Pinhead. Ugh. Definitley wouldn't suggest this.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Oh boy. Okay. Where do I begin? Oh, yeah. It sucked. It was awful, horrible, etc. Especially for me, being that I've been looking forward to this movie since they began talking about it. I am a huge Hellraiser fan, I own the first 5 on DVD, but I somehow doubt that I'll be purchasing this one, maybe ask for it as a gift (but only to complete my collection.) So what else can I say about this movie? Well, I have to tell you, just seeing Ashley Laurence as Kirsty helped me get through the film. I always thought she was a talented and attractive actress, and I can see even 15 years later, she is still talented and beautiful. For the VERY limited screen time she has, she made me smile. Especially the sceenes in which she holds the puzzle box and talks to Pinhead...almost made me forget how much the rest of the movie blew. Almost. Let's see:the guy who played Trevor, Dean Winters, can not hold a movie by himself. He's not a terrible actor, but come on, he has no emotion. At all. But he was not the thing that pissed me off the most. What did that was the plot. This is NOT a Hellraiser movie. This is Dimension's way of trying to make some quick cash off of a once noble series. Come on, 1 and 2 are classics, 3 was average, 4 (though it got terrible reviews) was kinda fun, 5 was depressing but smart, but this: I can hardly describe this mess. Cenobites randomnly show up and disappear, Pinhead talks from in a puddle (?) and Kirsty is second billed in the credits, is in two scenes and about seven flashbacks. Amounting to about 10-12 minutes of screen time. (Also, the back of the box says she is trying to stop Pinhead, when she actually is very civil with him, in one whopping flashback.)*Spoilers Ahead* I have to admit, one of the reasons I kept watching this was to find out if Kirsty was really dead. I kept doubting it, and I guessed the ending (mainly because a flashback in the first 20 minutes showed it)and was happy she lived. But am I really supposed to expect that she killed those people? Is that even what did happen? It was all very confusing. *End of Spoilers* In conclusion, this is a movie you might (but probably won't) enjoy if you are not a fan of the early Hellraisers. I give this 2/10, just for the smile that Ashley Laurence brought to my face.


Atrocity is the one word definition for this film. I dare say even Hellraiser: Bloodline and Hellraiser: Inferno are better than this film. While Pinhead's greater presence in this one than in the last is a welcome change, the Hellraiser movies were never originally about him or the Cenobites, even though they seemed to have evolved in that direction, which, with proper directing and writing, could have been a good thing.

Where to start? The acting is subpar at best, even compared to B-movies, even Ashley Lawrence, who did an excellent job in the first two films, delivers an underwhelming performance, let alone the job done by the protaganist Trevor. (I'm sorry I've made no reservations to learn any of the names from this film.)It's not to be blamed all on the actors, though. Sometimes a great actor or actress is hindered by the writing (i.e. Natalie Portman by George Lucas' dialogues, see her in The Professional or something else). And a warning, the writing is indecent, jerky and unnatural. The movie also doesn't feel quite at home carrying the Hellraiser title, aside from Pinhead and the Cenobites' presences and the occassional flash of the Lament Configuration. It doesn't possess the masterful storytelling of Clive Barker's imagination. Warning to the die-hard fan, your nit-picking will be far worse than this general, though wordy, comment (such as Pinhead's costume, if you're very observant, you'll know what I'm talking about). If you're hoping for a return to the roots, prepare for disillusion. I've loved all the Hellraiser movies, thus far, except III, which I've yet to see, but even this one wrenches my gut. Save your money and your time, go to the movies and put down the eight bucks for "Red Dragon" or whatever else floats your boat.


Where to start? This is my first "review" here, so I apologize if I start to ramble. I saw that SOMEHOW this movie was receiving good review scores and had to come put a stop to it. All in the deed of saving your souls, of course.

First off, this movie is even worse than Inferno. For those of you who follow the series like I do, you'll understand just what this means. Yet again, the movie has nothing to do with hell, demons, pain, or psychology. Like Inferno, it again POORLY relies on some kind of "inner mind struggle." Granted, this might be a cool concept but it is just done so wrong.

The movie is almost impossible to watch too (not just because it sucks). It's one of those ridiculously stupid "flashback/dream sequence" flicks. You know, where you're watching for 10 minutes, the character wakes up, takes a couple steps forward, then wakes up again 10 minutes earlier. It then tries to piece together the amensia of the main character through flashbacks, but these scenes never add up to any kind of plot/insight because yet again you don't know if the character is dreaming or if it really happened. The flashback never really progresses futher either. Let me just reiterate: I know that previous statement might sound like a good concept (and it could be) but it just was not put together well at all.

Gore? There really isn't any. You get a pretty cool lobotomy scene at the beginning, but that's about it. A couple more people die, but it's not violent, gory, or interesting. And yet again, since the character decides to keep dreaming the whole darn movie, the people that die are alive in the next scene.

Concerning Pinhead, I really have no idea why Douglas Bradley still does this crap. Like Inferno, he's reduced to nothing and has no thought provoking lines at all. What ever happened to his perfect speeches in Hell on Earth or the best scene in movie history: the mock crucifixtion? To be honest, I turned off the movie with 15 minutes left, so maybe he gets something out of his mouth at the end, but I really didn't see it happening.

Cenobites? Again, unless they come out in the last 15 minutes, you see one in a 5 second flash sequence and the other for about .2 seconds.

Well, I'm probably running out of space, so I'll sum it up. This movie sucks. It is a blasphemy to anything the Hellraiser series was. The Lament Configuration opens hell and you die, not you open the box then have a headache for an hour and half. It is OBVIOUS that the writer and director of this movie had only seen Inferno when they made this garbage. The only two lines that hearken back to previous flicks I'm sure was just told to them by Ashley Laurence. I mean, there's even little things like Pinhead pulling out one of his nails and there's no maggot at the end (sorry to keep referring to 3, I love the series up to 4). Pinhead has no decent dialogue and the Cenobites are inexistant. The story is stupid, utterly confusing and being smart does not help piece it together any better. Ashley has the leading name in the title credits and is in the movie for about 5 combined minutes. Getting her back really could have made a great movie, but they completely wasted her (she's only in those damn flashbacks which are pretty much the same scene over and over). Shame on all the people that made this movie and I plead all of them to have nothing to do with the next 2 that have been greenlighted. If you possess any intellect at all, do not even rent this movie. If you're one of those people that would give nonsense like this a 10/10, then I just feel sorry for you.


I had the opportunity to watch this movie as a screener and was not shocked by its disappointment. This movie reunites Kristy Cotton(Ashley Lawrence)and Pin Head (Doug Bradley) for the 4th time and hopefully the last. The plot revolves around Kristys husband Trevor and his abnormal life after a car accident. Flashes of the cenobytes and pinhead and the fact that he cant remember the previous month causes Trevor to go insane. No one has seen Kristy for since the accident and the cops are thinking that foul play was involved and Trevor is their main suspect. Later on you start to realize what pain and anguish you have to go through to get "all problems solved".

The problem with this film is that its lacking in what made the first 2 films popular. Pinhead and his cenobytes are rarely seen in this film and it lacks the hellish looks. The film starts to resort to nudity to help keep interest in the plot. The series would of been better if the creators would of stopped at bloodlines. It seems like the produces are milking this for all that its worth by coming up with plotlines that have almost nothing to do with the original film. There are no morals to the story and there is nothing you can gain by watching this film. One thing that this film can be praised on is the used of special effects and the sound track, which is a rarity in most direct to video releases. In conclusion I would say watch this film if your a huge fan of horrible rip offs of great 80's horror movies. If you liked this film I would suggest Texas Chainsaw Massacre 4 The Next Generation.


The original two Hellraiser films are absolute classics, and while I quite liked the boisterous third part - I'd really rather they stopped making sequels after Hellbound. You really can't go into any post-Hellbound sequel expecting anything resembling a good film, and that is truer than ever when it comes to the ones directed by Rick Bota. The first film I saw from him was the eighth part, Hellworld, and I don't rate it too highly - however, it's certainly the best one he's done. Hellseeker sees the return of Ashley Laurence to the series in the role of Kirsty, and the good news is that she still has the charming good looks that made her role in the first two films so good. The good news stops there, however, as just like the rubbish seventh part; Hellseeker sees Rick Bota in dull mystery territory once again. The plot sees Laurence killed in the first few seconds, and we then follow her husband (played by someone called Dean Winters) as the world around him is turned on its head. He's surrounded by slutty women, and the cops think he killed his wife...maybe he's in hell...

What's really annoying about this film is that buried somewhere beneath the messy screenplay, is the grounds for a fairly good plot. When the film finally reveals itself in the final ten minutes, the short sequences that put everything together are miles better than the rest of the film, and it makes me wonder why the writers decided to make the film work from the standard hallucination filled plot when there's was a far darker, much more interesting and, most of all, far more relevant to the series, story waiting in the wings. It's obvious that whoever's in charge of these new Hellraiser films doesn't give a damn about the series and the fans...but what doesn't make sense is that, if a good one was made, word of mouth would get round and more profit would eventually be made. It's a massive shame really, as the original Hellraiser deserves better than crap like this. Anyway, the film is boring, features hardly any horror and even the best part of the film - namely the last ten minutes - is dogged by the fact that the film could have been a million times better. Overall, unless you're a real hardcore fan of the seriesthis really isn't worth ninety minutes of anyone's time.


I'm a fan of Hellraiser, my fav was Bloodlines, and it should have been the end. All the spin offs of the new hellraisers are a big dissapointment. It's no longer fun to watch. I recommend seeing "the devils backbone" instead.


I like zombie movies, and I like Japanese movies, but this one was just too amateurish. The acting went from bad to worse, at times getting so bad you couldn't concentrate on the movie - you had to stop and marvel at a line delivered particularly badly, wondering why it wasn't edited out and if that actor was possibly a funding source for the movie. To be fair, the Japanese actors, in general, did a much better job than their American counterparts.

For a better example of the Japanese zombie movie, see Bio Zombie. That at least has a decent level of humor. Junk had little to no humor, indicating that they took the movie a little too seriously. It wasn't so bad that I couldn't finish watching, but it was so bad I knew I'd never watch it again.


Junk

Before considering with you should give 91 minutes of your life to junk you need ask yourself why you watch zombie movies. If you love the Romero zombie movies for there sly commentary hidden in a nightmarish vision well don't bother. If you are a splatter fan that doesn't really mind little things like plot, acting or a budget on a film Junk is your ticket! It all comes down to what you are looking for in a zombie film.

In fangoria the director stated that From dusk til dawn was a big influence and you can see that in how the film is structured. The plot starts off with little to do with zombies but with Japanese gangsters and thieves involved in a jewelry heist. To bad they intend to sell the jewels on the site of factory where Japanese scientists and the U.S. military develop Herbert west's special sauce for undead making.

Boy this is one bad zombie movie. Of course that maybe exactly what you are looking for. I can respect what was done for the money that they had. Some moments are sorta effective.

****spoilers****

On to the spoiler comments. Naked zombies, only the lead woman zombie. If she is intelligent enough to turn off the nuclear warhead(connected to a pretty chaeap-ass looking PC) I think she could have mastered getting some attire. When the Japanese scientist realizes the intelligent zombie is his wife I understand why the director choose to flash to pictures of them happy. I am not sure why he continued to after she started trying to eat his flesh.

The character Akira, had his foot stabbed but after 20 minutes it seems to have healed. And the American `actors'Christ. How wooden could they make dialogue. All that being said Junk is ok considering what amount of money it was made with.


this movie was awful and boring, and this is said from a person who loves to watch many what other people would call 'boring' sundance films. first of all, i was expecting way more gore. there was barely any. it didn't start out to bad at the beginning since there were yakuzas acting sort of funny but then it went downhill from when the main characters went into the factory.

this movie was dull. i hate to rate a movie so low, 4/10 but i just had to. out of all the asian horror cinema i have seen, this is by far the worst.


Throughout the late 18th century a grand Japanese-fever swept the regrettably not vaccinated western nations like a swarm of African killer bees from Irvin Allen's archetypal classic of the same name, leading, among other things, to myriad French impressionist art works and Gilbert and Sullivan's `The Mikado', which is for all intents and purposes about as Japanese as Shepard's pie - and for that we shall be forever be indebted to Mr. Gilbert's and Mr. Sullivan. Now, with many of the Japanese's recent imports, the unabashed scrounging of the other culture's art technique has come full circle. So enthralled are the pitiable, deluded fools by our lowest common denominator pop culture orts that they expend large amounts of their time and energy on plagarizing what is already watered down Tarantino, Romero, and Zimmer, by which I mean that this movie has in fact more in common with Paul Anderson's awful adaptation of the `Resident Evil' games, in themselves a tribute to Romero's classic `Living Dead' trilogy, Roger Avary's almost equally awful `Killing Zoe', needless to say a very second-rate imitation of `Reservoir Dogs', and the musical excretion of Klaus `The Uncomposer' Badelt, who has become rich and famous by simply imitating his only slightly superior and in general grossly overrated mentor Hans Zimmer.

The fundamentals that make up this movie's meager `plot' are recognizably familiar: The Avarian bank heist, the bickering gangsters, the Yakuza double-cross, the James Whalian ersatz-Frankenstein who crosses a line man was not meant to cross in order to reanimate his beloved dead wife, the Bay-esque macho military men with their Sam Elliot moustaches and Manuel Noriega-like skin, as well as the hilarity and wackiness that ensues when these forces clash. However, the imitation is not of a very high caliber, lacking the flaire and technical skill of a Tod Browning, a Romero or even, and this is particularly embarrassing, a Michael Bay or Roger Avary (I suggest the people responsible, especially the director, graciously commit harikari immediatly). Even without understanding a word of Japanese, the overacting and awkward, at times even idiotic, scripting is painfully obvious, as is the film's complete lack of original or memorable visuals. The pseudo-Badelt score is possibly the film's worst single aspect, full of hyperkinetic, depth-free, poorly synth-orchestrated, ultra-simplistic power-anthems of such a monumentally turbid, desiccated lifelessness that even if it fell off a junk, in this case not referring to the movie but to a Chinese flatbottom ship with a high poop and battened sails, it wouldn't be capable of rehydration.

Still, one does have to give credit to any movie that has the guts to call itself `Junk'.


Very obvious nods to "Vertigo", but that shouldn't distract from a very good film. This is a film of beauty and comedy. You whirl through the streets of Hong Kong, and catch a very real sense of modern life in that part of the world.

If you like Wong Kar Wai then catch this.


The true story of Anne Sullivan, the teacher of Helen Keller, and her struggles to teach a deaf, mute, and blind girl. Set in the south on an Alabama tobacco plantation the story combines elements of family life, psychology and persistence. The movie teaches not to pity or treat someone as a lesser because of a handicap. The acting was good. The script writing however was mediocre and lacked elements of excitement. The plot line at times became uninteresting, but the ending was dramatic and captivating. I found this movie to be of mediocre quality. I would not consider the movie extremely entertaining, but would suggest watching it to learn more about Helen Keller.


My students clamor for this version of The Miracle Worker, insisting that the modern filming techniques (like color) make it a better film. I insist that we read the original play and watch the 1962 version first. Most students are then quickly disappointed by the 2000 version. The only thing going for Hallie is that she looks closer to the age Helen actually was at the time, and she has a slight resemblance to Helen's childhood pictures. Otherwise, she is much too presentable to be believable as Helen. The remake also tampers with the original script. Too much attention is given here to the internal conflicts of James Keller---the jealousy of Kate and Helen and the need for his father's approval. The 1962 screenplay is more faithful to the original Broadway play, which is understandable since William Gibson wrote both. In short, the only purpose this film serves is to demonstrate, through comparison with the original, the power of the classic and the weaknesses of the remake.


This story is just screaming to be a fine movie. What is better subject matter for a presentation by signs, than a story of presentation by signs. And there has been a moderately successful film made in 1962, at least it had the weight of trembling actors.

This version has been Disneyfied in predicable ways: dumbed, cleaned and sweetened accordingly. But oddly enough for a film about blindness, it is blazingly bright and colorful. I think this is a simple accident of what Disney knows about how TeeVee bleaches colors.

And it has two actors who have done well in fine films. Nominally, they are supposed to have a huge metaphysical tussle, here more of a staring contest. David Strathairn's presence in 'Limbo' is really something you need to see. Any one of tens of thousands could have done what he does here.

Alison Elliott just blew me away in 'Wings of a Dove.' This woman has enough power to suggest what is suspected of the 'real' Anne, that much of the intelligence of her student was imposed. This would have been fertile stuff for an intelligent film. Oh well, at least she does something.

That can't be said for the Helen here who is little more than the dolls in this story. Would have made more sense if that Anne redactor layer was mined.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.


At first it might not have seemed like such a bad idea to remake this movie again. Afterall the story of Annie Sullivan teaching Helen Keller communication is timeless and the 1979 version does prove that remakes can still work. So, if they had to do another one two decades later, why cast the Pepsi Girl in the coveted role as Helen?? I read a review that said her emotionless performance should be nicknamed "Frankenkeller", because she does indeed walk around like a robot! The only good thing about her performance is that she doesn't talk in the film! She is also too graceful a Helen. Patty Duke, and even Melissa Gilbert had a more wild animal like energy to their performances, while Ms. Pepsi seems bored as Helen (or is it that we are just bored at watching her? Would someone give her a Pepsi, please?? I was totally shocked that she didn't start singing at the pivotal water pump scene "The Joy of Wa-Wa"! However, she didn't say anything at all! Where is the emotional wallup that that scene has always brought to us?!

On some postive notes: The sets are grand and so are the costumes. Ms. Allison's performance as young fiest Sullivan can almost stand proudly besides Anne Bancroft's Oscar-winning turn as Anne Sullivan and Patty Duke's Emmy-winning interpretation of her. Do yourself a favor and watch the 1962 and 79 versions, ones that didn't rape such a gorgeous tale. My score: 3


Where to begin? I bought this in a double feature with the cheesy but entertaining Freakmaker, with Donald Pleasance, and wasn't expecting too much. Even though I went into this film with very low expectations - they weren't met. This flick plays like a housewife's fantasy with a Fabio looking dude (Dallesandro) tending to Houghton's garden. He spends the entire film topless while the visiting females of the area gawk at the stud.

The movie is poorly directed - the scenes do not effectively blend with one another. The scenes seem to be cut and pasted, like a sketch show, with no continuity. And the dialog! Lord have mercy! When Houghton's husband laments to his pal at the golf course about the stud gardener at his house, his friend tells him, "as long as your garden looks fine and your wife is happy, why worry?" Yeah, his wife is happy alright! With the flowers and with the strapping hunk mulching her flowerbed.

STORY: $$ (This has an interesting plot, with a mysterious gardener who brings flowers to bloom out of season. Houghton's Hispanic maid warns her that Dallesandro might be a witch - or warlock for you perfectionists out there - but she believes her maid to be crazy. However, the back story for Dallesandro's character isn't well developed and there isn't any character building before we plunge right into the plot).

ACTING: $ (Terrible on most accounts. Rita Gam and Congdon do fine in supporting roles but the leads aren't very talented. Houghton's naive housewife character is a test in endurance. She is a poor lead. As for Dallesandro, he does little beyond flexing for the ladies. He makes Ah'nold seem like Cary Grant).

VIOLENCE: $$ (Houghton hacks Rita Gam's hand with a gardening blade when Rita is engulfed in vines. Dallesandro also gets shot and we have a semi-mutilated cat in the garden. Quite a bit a violence for what is essentially a Lifetime Channel female fantasy).

NUDITY: $$ (You get Dallesandro's bare backside on a few occasions).


Katherine Hepburn's niece, Andy Warhol's biggest superstar, and a plot right out of Dario Argento...sounds great? It's not. Unfortunately SEEDS OF EVIL aka GARDEN OF EVIL aka THE GARDENER is extremely boring. While well mounted and with dialog that's not altogether horrendous, the movie never gets going. Katherine Houghton is a well to do American living in the tropics with her wealthy husband. She hires mysterious gardener Joe Dallesandro and soon has the most envied garden imaginable. It turns out that Dallesandro, who wears skin-tight hip-huggers and no shirt, has a history of working for employers who are now dead. We never see any of their deaths, instead we get Houghton uncovering them via phone calls and visits to the dead's survivors. For some reason, the writer/director of this botched horror film forgot to include any horror at all! Houghton is pretty good and seems to be taking the film very seriously and Dallesandro, who has virtually no lines, manages to remain as enigmatic as he's been in his Warhol/Morrisey films. Rita Gam plays Houghton's catty and ultimately unlucky jet-setting best friend.


Worth seeing for the unique, catatonic performance of Joe Dallesandro, the strange Warhol poster boy whose fascinating credits include "Black Moon", "Trash", "Heat", "Blood for Dracula" and "Flesh for Frankenstein". Joe, well cast, is The Gardener, a peculiar, often shirtless, infantile fellow who comes to work in Katherine Houghton's garden, a garden so large Joe is able to hang out in it without being seen. Although the trailers suggest a horror film, the actual horror is that there really is none. Aside from one scene of a limb being hacked, nothing horrific happens. The lighting is flat, the performances are forgettable, and the direction is awkward. A plus, however, is the film's wonderful poster art, faithfully reproduced on the new DVD cover and all old VHS's. The film's conclusion confirms The Gardener's supernatural credentials, so it is all the more disappointing that the filmmakers were too chicken to exploit the premise's potential and make a real horror film. The 'Lost in Space' episode 'Attack of the Monster Plants' is a much more memorable attempt to demonize the creatures at the bottom of our gardens.


So you are in this movie-rental place with a horror section that is just miles wide and furlongs in length, and you are, just imagine, scanning the rows for anything that catches your rather jaded (maybe from too many low-budget or low-brow horror flicks, too much mockery, or stilted dialogue, too many effects or musical stings) eye in that special way that only a truly mongoloid flick can do--and what do you see? of course, a really chintzy colored pencil and pastel picture of this tree/man graft that has women trapped (mayhaps metaphorically) in his "roots," but the really bad part is the complete physiological inaccuracy of the picture (witness, in your mind's eye, the nipples of this bare-chested "evil" tree/man placed in the exact (okay, semi-exact) orthocenter of his pectoral muscles--just plain zaniness from look one!), and it has this tag on it that reads, "He does bad things to them...in the Garden!!" and what can you do or say (except fall in love with it on the spot and say "I love you," respectively associated, right there in the orchard of neon horror that is the movie rental place)--and then so imagine your heartbreak when you get home, undress it from its plastic case and discover to yourself the fact that it is completely: affectless, toneless, actionless, heartless, penniless, paceless, plotless, heartless, and, perhaps most horribly, humorless--you and your best bud cannot, for the glory that the world holds, come up with a single joke to combat the ceaseless waves of offense to your senses and sensibilities that this offers--not to mention devoid of a) evil and b)seeds of said evil...there are no effects: it features untold minutes of floral footage, which cause the actors to expire at completely surreal and random moments--with which occasional happening you can utterly sympathize...I went looking for a movie too bad to be believed, and I found it. It broke my heart. It has the power to tear yours out and lay it bleeding on the table before you, and it won't even give you a maniacal chuckle to which to expire. This is the worst movie I have ever seen with maybe the sole exception of "'Manos':The Hands of Fate." But, hey, you're the one in the horror section--you roll the dice.


I picked this movie up in the USED section at my local Record shop and I have to say, by the cover artwork and synopsis on the back, I was excited to take it home and pop it in. The whole project is really well-done in that way. But that's about it. The film was very 70's, which for me, is a good thing. For most viewers though, this would prove to be a cheesy example of an era that might be better off forgotten. The music is pretty bad and so are the clothes. It's not stylish, its like the Brady Bunch.

There is no good gore in this movie. The acting is decent and the guy who plays "The Gardener" is semi-creepy, but the plot just fails. It's not scary in the least bit and the only good scene in the film is the very last one.

I had high hopes, I really did. I wanted to like it more, and I still do. I've watched it three times now and I still fail to see how this is a horror movie. It's more like an off-beat romantic drama with a twist. If I had to compare it to something else, I'd say a mix between "Rosemary's Baby," "Play Misty for Me," and "Alice in Wonderland" (the live one) but not as good as any of those films.

4 out of 10, kids.


James Caan must be wondering why he agreed to the project... his eyes seem to mist over every time he has to exhibit a reaction to the laboured twists and turns of a preposterous plot. Jeanne Tripplehorn is wasted too as his daughter, merely being asked to establish the premise that (a) she loves Hugh Grant, and (b) she can't marry him because her father's a mobster. Grant saves the movie with his likeable performance, especially with his attempts at a mob accent. Sopranos this ain't.


Hugh Grant reprises his old moves in a film that reprises old themes for laughs. Recent (noughties) Hugh Grant films have had a knowing respectability about them. Before these were films like 9 Months and this one - recycled, market driven nonsense.

So we're given the cast of The Sopranos (apparently), a ratpack soundtrack and endless, feeble mobflick parody that's not funny but black, stifling and cringeworthy by turns.

Even Jeanne Tripplehorn is miscast, bringing too much gravity to her functional love interest. It's surprisingly difficult to pull off black comedy - applying the funnies to the wiseguys is no different and this one pretty much fails. 2/10


A romantic mob comedy. Hugh Grant. James Caan. What went wrong?

Well, an absolutely predictable script is the main problem. Uninspired, predictable, bland, boring, and only mildly amusing at best. Grant and Caan struggle mightily to elevate the material to something approaching passable mediocrity. Sadly, the script is unsalvageable. In fact, I'm writing this as I'm watching the end of the movie. The only virtue that I can see in having seen this movie is the chance to save someone else from a similar two hours of drudgery.

The result is two hours of thinking of better gangster movies. Better romantic comedies. Better Hugh Grant movies. Better James Caan movies. Better movies about art auctioneers. And so on.

Easily Grant's most unenjoyable film. Pass on it if at all possible.


Hugh Grant in the more recent film with Sandra Bullock is mildly amusing. With Julia Roberts, okay. Paired opposite Jeanne Tripplehorn, playing with a terrible accent (cannot tell what it is; it's not NY or Italian!) This film fails on so many levels. "Married to the Mob" with Michelle Pfeiffer was better, and though her accent was off, at least she can act, unlike Tripplehorn.

Hugh Grant can be good, but this is not one of those times. Also, I think I may speak for quite a few people who are tired of his boyish, foppish grin- that doesn't play into your late 40's and early 50's, Hugh (someone, please inform his talent agent!). James Caan is miscast once again.

If you want a good NY comedy, with this theme, try "Moonstruck" or "Married to the Mob". 1/10.


I wanted this movie to end very soon. Hugh Grant is the same person in every movie he's in. I was tired of him in the first 15 minutes and i was tired of this unoriginal plot. All through this film there was this illogical maze od complications that made me want to say, "Enough already!" There were a few funny moments but it did not make up for the tedious pot that was a retread of so many other films.


It is getting harder I fear for film makers to come up with new plots. This film has its moments, having Hugh Grant with his English accent trying to learn how to talk like a mobster was very funny, however the rest of the movie was very predictable and could have been a made for TV movie instead of a feature movie. I'm afraid I paid money at the theatre for this one and it should only be considered a renter.


The basic plot summary for Mickey Blue Eyes showed a lot of potential: mild-mannered English auctioneer gets sucked into the mob business of his future bride's family. Unfortunately, the story line, casting and direction leave most of the potential unrealized, simply because the whole story is so ridiculously implausible. The movie suffers from trying to mix parody, romance and drama.

The intrinsic problem is that certain genres lend themselves to being parodied much more easily than others, e.g. horror and action/adventure are easy and concentration camps are tough. It is very hard to balance the ruthlessness that is the basis of mob life with the light-hearted antics one wishes to see in a comedy. Analyze This, which was quite good, and Married to the Mob, which was pretty weak, are more successful than Mickey Blue Eyes because everything in the movie played for laughs.

Burt Young does a good job as a humorless mob boss but Jeanne Tripplehorn is totally miscast as a mobster's daughter (Michelle Pfeiffer and Mercedes Ruell are far more convincing as mob wives than Jeanne Tripplehorn is as a mob daughter.) Hugh Grant is fine playing the role of Michael, the befuddled English romantic, but Michael's attempt to portray "Mickey Blue Eyes" is ridiculous and tiresome. Who can't imitate Brando playing Corleone?

I'm glad I didn't pay to see it in the theater.


This is a movie about an English auctioneer who proposes to the daughter of a Mafiosi. Unfortunately this collision of two to three different languages and cultures was sadly neglected in the movie. The few times it considered it you would wish it had rather not. Just remember the painful scenes when Hugh Grant tried to speak American/Brooklyn/Italian slang. Or when Jeanne Tripplehorn laughed about the way Hugh Grant runs.

Hugh Grant was occupied to deliver his usual acting in his main character. When watching it you can almost forget that he is able to be really funny and is able to deliver respectable acting as well. When an actor is only able to do one kind of character, who cares when it is done well? Did anybody blame Cary Grant for just doing this? Everybody who saw Maurice knows that Hugh Grant is able to act. He is also able to be funny as he proved in Four Weddings and A Funeral. So what was the problem with Mickey Blue Eyes. I reckon it was the script.

Who can fight against such a story. And the Co-actors where at a loss as well. James Caan was vague and Jeanne Tripplehorn could also do better. Maybe it was not only the script but the director too.


This film has been made dozens of times in other forms. This "Disney Original" idea is a complete laugh - if this is considered original, then I'm Abraham Lincoln. And I can't be Abraham Lincoln because I believe he is dead.

Trevor Morgan (you may remember him as the annoying kid from "Jurassic Park III") plays a complete nerd and mathematical genius who basically lives underneath a school ice hockey stadium. It is there that he constructs magical potions using science and math.

However he realizes he's not exactly catching any ladies, so he adopts the persona of "Chaz" (his real name is Charlie) to woo the ladies - enrolling in school again and becoming a "bad boy" who talks back to teachers and looks "cool." News flash: Kids stopped wearing Fonzie-style leather jackets to school in the 1960s. If anything, it's retro. It doesn't make you look cool. You don't gain instant respect by showing up at school with a leather jacket, a comb and a smirk and talking back to teachers. Today, in the age of gangsta rappas and emo, you would be laughed at and ridiculed. "Chaz" would become an instant outcast and his plan would backfire.

But in "Genius" all the kids are friendly white suburbanite offspring and they love The Chaz. They fall victim to his evil ploy to get some girly-action and even the bad boys at school respect him.

It would be kind of funny if it weren't so sad to actually think some Disney TV executive greenlit this and thought the concept of a 12-year-old high school graduate living in an underground lab who adapts a new persona of a leather-jacket wearing freak would be successful.


Eric Rohmer, the great filmmaker, tries his hand at the kind of film that is everything that a Rohmer film isn't. Gone is the New Wave Modernism; the natural settings, hand-held cameras and dialogue that captures the quintessential nature of being human. Replaced instead with dowdy costumes, unmoving camera, and formal sets. Perhaps the original German flows with eloquent charm, but the English subtitles seem to have been translated by school children.

Merchant Ivory this isn't, and neither is it Rohmer.


Sayles makes an all-star cast film? Yes and no, because they were all unknowns when this was made. Still you can still see that Cusack was destined for bigger stuff. It takes a typical and historic American tale, but adds a bit of the Sayles influence. Silent heroes and put-upon men being exploited.

Not quite a "Limbo" or "Lone Star", but this is still entertaining and involving stuff.

And finally, what is it about baseball that produces such good films? A seemingly boring sport, but "Bull Durham", "A League Of Their Own" and especially "Field Of Dreams" are all decent films.


If not for tired clichés, I don't think Sayles would have had a script. "Make way for the Clean Sox!"; "Ya gotta pitch them one at a time." - spare me. Seems like all he did for research on the era was view old Hollywood baseball films and read anecdotes about the Black Sox. Another bad decision on the director's part is acting in his own film. His sarcastic singing in the train scene is the low part of the movie. The part about the selection of Landis as baseball commissioner is a farce. Could have been a great period piece about the times and America's early infatuation with the pastime. Instead, a cartoonish version of the story is presented. Sayles strikes out.


A plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm--including the CEO's daughter--goes down in thick forest in the Pacific Northwest. When the search and rescue mission is called off, the CEO, Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. But just what is Knowles searching for and trying to rescue, and just what is following and watching them in the woods?

Oy, what a mess this film was! It was a shame, because for one, it stars Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite modern genre actors, and two, it could have easily been a decent film. It suffers from two major flaws, and they're probably both writer/director Jonas Quastel's fault--this film (which I'll be calling by its aka of Sasquatch) has just about the worst editing I've ever seen next to Alone in the Dark (2005), and Quastel's constant advice for the cast appears to have been, "Okay, let's try that again, but this time I want everyone to talk on top of each other, improvise non-sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible".

The potential was there. Despite the rip-off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib The Blair Witch Project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing Predator (1987)), Ed Wood-like exposition and ridiculous dialogue, the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. The monster costume, once we actually get to see it, was more than sufficient for my tastes. The mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if Quastel and fellow writer Chris Lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. The monster's "lair" had some nice production design, specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive Jeepers Creepers (2001). If it had been edited well, there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective.

But the most frightening thing about Sasquatch is the number of missteps made: For some reason, Quastel thinks it's a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene A, then a few lines of scene B, then back to A, back to B, and so on.

For some reason, he thinks it's a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue, whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway.

For some reason, he doesn't care whether scenes were shot during the morning, afternoon, middle of the night, etc. He just cuts to them at random. For that matter, the scenes we're shown appear to be selected at random. Important events either never or barely appear, and we're stuck with far too many pointless scenes.

For some reason, he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there, or it needs to just be cut out, because it's not that important (the monster's intelligence and "humanity" could have easily been shown in another way).

For some reason, there is a whole character--Mary Mancini--left in the script even though she's superfluous.

For some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft-core porno scene, even though the motif is never repeated again.

For some reason, characters keep calling Harlan Knowles "Mr. H", like they're stereotypes of Asian domestics.

For some reason, Quastel insists on using the "Blurry Cam" and "Distorto-Cam" for the monster attack scenes, even though the costume doesn't look that bad, and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog, a subtle filter, or anything else other than bad cinematography.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I really wanted to like this film better than I didI'm a Henriksen fan, I'm intrigued by the subject, I loved the setting, I love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level--but I just couldn't. Every time I thought it was "going to be better from this point until the end", Quastel made some other awful move. In the end, my score was a 3 out of 10.


Lance used to get quality support work from James Cameron. Heck, he even had his own tv show (Millenium) for a coupl'a seasons. Why is he doing this? Couldn't he find some better way to pay his bills?

I love a good low-budget movie. Some of them you can laugh at simply due to their ludicrous premise, their textbook stereotyped characters, or often times because the actors are related to the director/producers. But, this movie has no redeeming value. I didn't laugh. I didn't cry. I only had this sick feeling in my stomach. That feeling was quickly identified as pity. At one point, Lance Henriksen was an A-list support actor. He's been in Terminator (he was going to BE terminator before Arnold showed up), Aliens, AliensIII, classic B-movie Pumpkinhead, among so many others! I wanted to send him money after this. Maybe we should start a support Lance fund or something.

Then again, for making this thing...maybe not.


(r#64)

Unredeemable, merit-less, and above all dreary trash. You know a movie is going to be bad when its sole star power is Lance Henriksen. The French title for this movie says it all: "Inexplicable". How can you possibly make a movie this unbelievably bad in this day and age? Whatever Jonas Quastel's trick is, it worked. This is über-trash, I'm talking 'Manos'-level crap, meaningless, unwatchable, not-even-so-bad-it's-good, cinematic bile of the highest order.

Lance Henriksen IS Harlan Knowles, a character who could have been interesting if he wasn't so utterly devoid of characteristics or personality. He, along with a bunch of morons, goes on a field trip to search for an evil Sasquatch which is believed to have attacked a plane which crashed out in the woods, or something. Not much else happens. There's some soft-core (meaning: Teletubbie level) nudity and some blatant rip-offs of "Predator". After 92 minutes of utter pain and another ripped off scene, this time from "Blair Witch", the movie finally staggers across the finish line and ends. As a bonus, we only see the monster itself for about one or two scenes in the entire movie.

There's really not much to say about this film. All you need to know is, this is a very bad movie and not even worth viewing as a "so-bad-it's-good" flick. "The Untold" is to entertainment value what Orlando Bloom is to character acting. Avoid it like arsenic.


Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen) brings a group of people to a mountain to help find his missing daughter (Erica Durance). What they don't know is that she was killed by a sasquatch (Taras Kostyuk) and it's still out there... waiting for them.

It was a late night when I poped this into my DVD player. I seriously wish I could go back in time and stop me. Most people will tell you that films like "House of the Dead" or "S.I.C.K: Serial Insain Clown Killers" will be the movies you wish you've never seen. Wrong. This will be.

I've seen a lot of crap, but this is the only crap that's haunted me. How I wish I never watched this! The acting actually isn't so bad. It's just the writing and the directing and the pacing and everything! I am actually a fan of Sasquatch films. But not this one.

Please, listen to my warning. Don't watch this!


Developing movies that are based on actual events involving cryptozoology or the supernatural has always been a challenge for directors and screenwriters. You have to mainly reconcile reported testimonies, conflicting info sources, and Hollywood creativity to produce something the audience can get into. Unfortunately, for SASQUATCH, none of these things seem to take place.

The movie starts out in typical film noir when a research team crash lands somewhere in the Cascades via airplane. From there the research team disappears, and despite attempts from law enforcement officials and local rescue parties they remain missing for some time. While one of the passengers is walking, infra-red-like images are splashed on the screen (a la Predator) which subtly hint that the legendary Sasquatch is the cause of the passengers' fates.

Cue Harlan Knowles (Henriksen), CEO of BioComp Industries and father of one of the crash victims. Knowles puts together his own search & rescue team with the explicit mission of finding his daughter and the rest of the research crew, along with the invaluable technology lost during the crash.

After Knowles' tailor-made rescue team is put together, the entire movie traverses down the path of uncolorful characters, dizzying cinematography, and a totally unoriginal plot line. I literally had to keep myself from falling asleep during this movie as it attempted to frighten me out of my wits. The only member of the cast that held his own was Henriksen, which doesn't make up for the lack of depth presented in all of the other characters. The over-done sound effects were annoying as well; basically, I didn't know if I was watching a movie about Bigfoot or grizzly bears.

Neither was the plot line all that great. It was too underdeveloped as the viewer is mainly subjected to typical fright music found in anything similar of the genre. Obviously you didn't have to be a genius to figure out who would be pulling off all their clothes by the middle of the movie, or who'd be the first unlucky soul to get mauled by Mr. Sasquatch. As far as good points, there are none, and therefore I gave this movie a 2 out of 10.


One minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say " It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris "

Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?

THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind


The Untold... Is one of the worst films I ever saw. The story really seems original, but it was badly bestow on screen. Lance Henriksen, a good actor, ended up in this crap. But, hey he made a lot of low budget films... you need to pay the bills, you know? Kidding. Lance is a great actor, but he ended up with this bunch of silly actors. Seriously, Andrea Roth was there just to have a nudity scene, and other actors... well they were just there. There was constantly a fade out-fade in editing, and that makes me sick! That was the most horrible move that just keeps on coming and it really makes you angry. It was also very predictable, boring and slow. It has a bizarre tempo that goes just... wrong.

Can't say more... don't rent it, or buy it. You can watch it, if on TV.


This looks decidedly like "the amateur" hour. How this piece of trash was ever released is beyond me: the acting, the story, the characters, the supposedly special effects, etc...it's ALL wrong. Why Lance Henriksen accepted this will remain one of the great mysteries of cinema. Maybe he was in dire need for money or maybe be was under the influence of some illegal drug.

It is pointless trying to explain you what this movie's about. It deals with the big foot legend but done in the worst possible manner. In fact, this stinker smells like a direct-to-video release.

Avoid at ALL costs! 0* out of 10*


Hey all, I just wanted to give you all a few crazy facts about this movie. I was actually one of the Make-up FX artists that help create the "beast" for this movie and I have to tell you the original creature looked absolutely amazing. I remember when we got the first photos back from the set we were all talking about how much of a shame it was that this creature was in a movie that would probably be pretty poor.

What actually happened though was that Jason Palmer did the original make-up for the Sasquatch, but for some reason they had to go back and re-shoot much of the creature. The sad part was that Jason passed away a few weeks before that and so the re-done creature was no where near as awesome as the original one.

For me it was quite sad because this was Jasons final movie, and he sort of got cheated out of his final fame due to the bad re-shoots. Anyway, I thought you guys may find that a tad interesing, and if you would like you can head over to mmmyeah.com and check out some "behind the scenes" photos.

Later, Jeff


I think that this is one of my top ten worst movies I have ever seen! There's like fade out every two minutes. If this was on TV, they would have a preview every 2-3 minutes. But there is a seen I personally enjoyed: which is when the blonde goes to take a bath in a pit of boiling water with a man watching and for about 10 seconds you see her whole body with no towel on! That was the best scene in the whole film because you see sasquatch starring at them but the last 10 minutes is when we see his whole body. Plus, most of the deaths are off screen and just the scream or roar. And I was expecting the Sasquatch to die. But he dosen't shoot him and only 4 or 5 people die in the whole film I was expecting 8-10 people to die. Don't watch this movie. I give it an F-. Don't waste your time.


Bigfoot movies tend to be bad, so I'm not inclined to watch them. However, there were some good commercials on The Sci-Fi Channel, so I decided to watch. A climbing expedition heads into the Pacific northwest to find a a fallen airplane carrying the daughter of the expedition's leader (played by Lance Hendrickson), and have brought a revolutionary DNA detector that could be used to prove the sasquatch's existence. And it actually generates some suspense at first. The sasquatch is unseen, but sees the mountain climbers' body heat (like the alien in "Predator"), and I did wonder when it was going to strike. The acting is passable, as is the background music. The dense wooded location is well-used. And when the creature is finally seen, the costume is not bad, though nothing great. But as the film grinds on, it becomes increasingly annoying and absurd. Most of the characters are unpleasant people, rude to each other and only in the expedition for money and publicity (except for Lance Hendrickson's character), so that it's impossible to care about what happens to them. And their behavior become increasingly stupid. One man shoots the creature (not fatally), then gets drunk and sits alone in the dark. One female camper puts on a slinky silk negligee before crawling into her sleeping bag, then barely escapes being dragged into the woods by the sasquatch, without getting her hair and make-up messed up. Then, the survivors conclude that the sasquatch is really after the DNA detecting machine and will let them live if they leave it behind ("a creature knows what threatens it"). Obviously, the instinct doesn't apply to these actors, or they wouldn't have appeared in this movie. And the ending is so stupid, you'll want to kick the TV screen. If it weren't for the script, it would have been a decent horror film.


A plane carrying a rich scientist's daughter goes down in thick wilderness. He assembles a group to go and find her and the others, but the rescue party soon suspects that something is stalking them. Then ulterior motives for the expedition are revealed and that only adds to the already existing tension.

The movie is a decent idea and a take on the popular Sasquatch legend was bound to wind up on film sooner or later. However, the film's direction breaks a fundamental rule of horror/thriller directing and that is showing too much too soon. Of course the audience knows there is something stalking the characters, just read the title! But showing what should have been the film's kicker that early just ruins most of the suspense and, as a direct result, much of the fun. The film also lacks a good atmosphere and there are almost no landscape shots that show the expanse of the wilderness, but there are plenty monster point-of-view shots that add nothing to anything. They actually knock off 'Predator' quite shamelessly. The low-budget horror film 'Wendigo' did what this film tries to do much better.

Some of the character tensions and a non-cliché ending manage to make up for this rise above the crap pile, but it is still poor and given the premise and potential, very disappointing. --- 4/10

Rated R for some violence and profanity, but it's pretty tame compared to most R-rated horror.


Well, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive?

So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable.


A big waste of time is all you'll get out of this bag. I rented this hoping for a suspenseful movie with maybe a few believable scenes, but boy was I ever dissapointed. I think the title should've been "Camping 101", or something to that effect. Well, anyway, stay the hell away from this film. It numbs you to death. Don't be afraid of big foot, be afraid of this crap!!


An airplane transporting some scientists and a prototype of a DNA machine, a powerful and revolutionary invent, fall in a jungle in Pacific. The insurance company sponsors a rescue expedition, commanded by Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), the owner of a huge corporation, which owns the prototype, and father of one of the scientist. There, the group finds the rests of the plane five miles far from the expected location and the machine and the remains of the persons. Further, they realize that a Sasquatch, a kind of Big Foot, is chasing them. This movie is so ridiculous that I do not know what I am doing, spending my time again in this garbage. The direction is awful, the actors and the lines are horrible, copying parts of `The Predator' and even `The Blair Witch Project'. To summarize how bad this movie is, its best scene is when Marla Lawson, the character of Andrea Roth, is wounded, and the guide of the expedition says that she needs to have an injection of tetanus vaccine. Andrea undresses her jeans, and the guide says: 'Nice butts, but the shot needs to be in your arm'. Ridiculous! My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): `Sasquatch, O Abominável' (`Sasquatch, The Abominable')


This is Jonas Quastel debut as a director and to be honest, it shows. It looks like he threw in every type of camera trick that he learned in film school to try and add some style to a badly written script, which he helped write! Film has Lance Henriksen and a group of others searching the pacific northwest for a plane that crashed that his daughter was on and also a special machine his company has built that he wants to also retrieve. The first 5 minutes of the film is either blurry or shaky or out of focus! Quastel tries to capture the "Blair Witch" mode with these type of shots and they grow tiresome very quickly. And there is also the POV shots that are right from "Wolfen" and "Predator". These shots are from the point of view (POV) of the Sasquatch. The editing is very choppy at times as a scene seems to shift right in the middle. I have heard this film was shot in about 12 days and I suppose instead of "Starting back to one" they just restarted without stopping and edited the scene together. And the rest of the film is fade-outs from one scene to another. They're are so many scenes that fade-out that I lost count. Now, the nude scene with Andrea Roth. Its not her. you can easily see its a body double. And you know your watching a bad "B" movie when in the middle of the pacific northwest a hot chick decides to go to the nearest hot spring and bathe! ********SPOILER ALERT********

And the Sasquatch himself is not bad when you don't really see him and he's just a blurry image behind some trees or bushes but when you finally see him at the end your of course disappointed. First of all, he's not that tall. The actor who is playing Sasquatch is only hairy in certain spots on his body. Its a partial suit! And he's bald! I have heard that a make-up person died during filming and maybe that explains why the costume looks hastily made. Some of the sound effects that are coming from the Sasquatch are nothing more than the familiar lion roars that we have all heard in other films. I do have to admit that Henriksen is not to bad. Yes, he's working with bad material but he has one of those interesting faces that can actually enhance certain moments of the film. People keep saying that a good Bigfoot film has never been made but I disagree. I have always said that "The Creature From Black Lake" is a good film and I highly recommend that one. I'm a sucker for a Sasquatch film but this one is just to amateurish.


This movie has everything wrong with it: overdone plot, terrible dialogue (which is full of cliches), poor acting, and ridiculous camerawork. The only thing that was decent was the acting job by the dead daughter, which although tried to copy Blair Witch Project acting, was very good.


Oh God, there is nothing even laughable in this Godawful film you are probably about to see. It was a large mistake, a large MODERN HORROR film mistake. It has no plot, only the story of people in the forest, involving the sasquatch. And here's a spoiler for you: YOU BARELY SEE HIM! and that's really the only reason why you would want to see the film. Blair Witch Knock off, someone should really make fun of this. First of all, we have a GOLD lead actor here, Lance Henrikson You KNOW!!! From PUMPKINHEAD and ALIENS and THE TERMINATOR, a great actor. But sadly, he's acted in a LOT of B-Flicks, and this is the BIG one, BIG-FOOT one, that is. I'm sorry this ruined your career, Lance, but I know you'll do better in the future. Anyway, avoid this AWFUL movie. Long Story Short: It won't make your hair grow up. There's just a LOT of HAIR in it


Always a joy too watch Lance Henriksen.

Crash down, his daughter, now must the director and father(Henriksen) find his little girl.

This is "based" on true events. The movie wants to be scarey, but is not.

I can not remember when i watched a movie about the "abe" and got touched, or even scared. Probably never.

This movie has its moments but it is quickly forgotten.


I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both "Legend of Boggy Creek" (1972) and the first film entitled "Sasquatch" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. "Harry & The Hendersons" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did "Bigfoot" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of "Jaws" or "Predator". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said "bald!") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between "Swamp Thing" and Chaka from "Land of the Lost" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in "Predator", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of "In Search Of" 3/10


An untrue script ruins a tale of a young Persian husband & wife dealing with issues surrounding bossy in-laws and having their own children.

LEILA is set in conservative Iran. Woman dress in black outer clothing head-to-toe. A man may marry more than one wife, although a wife can have only one husband. Reasonable viewers will make allowances for cultural differences when it comes to what extent the bossy in-laws are tolerated. However, the having-children plot in LEILA is played out in a completely implausible manner.

For one, the film's audience must accept that adopting a child or inseminating a young wife are less harmonious actions to a newlywed's continued happy home life than the notion of pushing a husband (who truly does NOT desire to remarry) to marry an additional wife for breeding purposes with the resulting children to be emotionally commandeered by the first wife while the biological mother (second wife) remains living in the home with no deep attachment to either children or husband.

Second, there is a scene at an orphanage brimming with cute little children without mothers and fathers to care for them. The children are irresistibly cute and seemingly no young married couple with a speck of maternal-paternal instincts could leave without adopting at least two or three. However, Leila and her husband are utterly repulsed and uninterested.

The husband is often as confused as the audience and Leila seems to have anxiety disorder and depression. As the movie progresses, the viewer starts to wonder if perhaps neither of these characters are fit to parent children.

Leila and her husband are financial well off. They drive a new car, have nice new appliances in their home, and there seems to be no want for money. Reference is made to Leila's husband being employed in his family's business, however, not once does the viewer see the husband or any family member at work or mention one single aspect of their thriving business. Again, realism is lacking.

Repeatedly, Leila's husband drops Leila off at the side of a busy street or random highway to aimlessly wander about the roadside until the husband drives back after his afternoon errands and picks her up. These bizarre occurrences are never explained, but seem to serve as a plot device to give a setting for discussing the personalities of potential second wives as each spousal candidate is interviewed.

The audience in the movie house was laughing in the wrong places, shaking their heads and making murmurs of disbelief as the story was being revealed.

Thanks to this film I learned that Iran has falling foliage, homes with modern Western-style kitchens, and that it is OK to give a conservative Islamic woman a pearl necklace. Watching the movie I also wondered, dressed in black from the top of the head, to toe, a string of white pearls would really stand out. Why have I never noticed such a thing on an Islamic woman ever before? Thoughts wander about easily when the mind is unable to embrace the story.


Ok, I just managed to stay awake through this film, hoping for some emotional jolt at the end to make up for over two hours of tedium.

Oh, yeah--late 80's to mid 90's films are considered more sophisticated if left without a meaningful resolution, "Cause that's like life."

Strong willed witch of a mother-in-law, spineless son, sweet wife with too little self-esteem. Three people I wouldn't want to know in person, or spend another minute watching.

Was it just my DVD or were all the scenes in Leila's home supposed to have the same red lighting as submarines in emergencies?

Avid feminists might enjoy this. Avid film-lovers...beware.


An untrue script ruins a tale of a young Persian husband & wife dealing with issues surrounding bossy in-laws and having their own children.

LEILA is set in conservative Iran. Woman dress in black outer clothing head-to-toe. A man may marry and keep up to four wives. Reasonable viewers will make allowances for cultural differences when it comes to how bossy in-laws are tolerated. However, the having-children plot in LEILA is played out in a completely implausible manner.

For one, the film's audience must accept that adopting a child or inseminating a young wife are less harmonious actions to a newlywed's continued happy home life than the notion of pushing a husband (who truly does not desire to remarry) to marry an additional wife for breeding purposes with the resulting children being emotionally commandeered by the first wife while the biological mother (second wife) still lives on in the home with no deep attachment to either children or husband.

Second, there is a scene at an orphanage brimming with cute little children without mothers and fathers to care for them. The children are irresistibly cute and seemingly no young married couple with a speck of maternal-paternal instincts could leave without adopting at least two or three. However, Leila and her husband are utterly repulsed and uninterested.

The husband is often as confused as the audience and Leila seems to have anxiety disorder and depression. As the movie progresses, the viewer starts to wonder if perhaps neither of these characters are fit to parent children.

Leila and her husband are financial well off. They drive a new car, have nice new appliances in their home, and there seems to be no want for money. Reference is made to Leila's husband being employed in his family's business, however, not once does the viewer see the husband or any family member at work or mention one single aspect of their thriving business. Again, realism is lacking.

Repeatedly, Leila's husband drops Leila off at the side of a busy street or random highway to aimlessly wander about the roadside until the husband drives back after his afternoon errands and picks her up. These bizarre occurrences are never explained but seem to serve as a plot device to gave a setting for discussing the personalities of potential second wives as each spousal candidate is interviewed.

The audience in the movie house was laughing in the wrong places, shaking their heads and making murmurs of disbelief as the story was being revealed.

Thanks to this film I learned that Iran has falling foliage, homes with completely modern kitchens, and that it is OK to give a conservative Islamic woman a pearl necklace. Watching the movie I also wondered, dressed in black from the top of the head, to toe, a string of white pearls would really stand out. Why have I never noticed such a thing on an Islamic woman ever before? Thoughts wander as the mind resists the story.


"Leila" is so awful it's painful to watch. The DVD I rented had all the zits and dust of the original film. The video was contrasty and grainy as if the film was "pushed" for speed as most indoor scenes were poorly lighted like a really bad noir. The color was off, the English subtitles were poor translations and blurry, the sound was awful and the voices on the "other end" of the phone conversations sounded like they were standing next to the person on screen, etc. The story was simple and didn't have to be any more than 1.3 hours but the film ran for a boring almost two hours owing to dawdling and filler. The plot was a no brainer which is blown way beyond any common sense with characters who are so stupid they do things like have a "fast of speech" which seemed like a euphemism for "not talking because I'm upset" which, of course, would create relationship problems and does which is why it's factored into this stupid film. Etc. Etc. I could go on. Long story short, don't waste you time on this awful film. If you're into Iranian, there are many better flicks out there from Iran. (D)


Having watched all of the Star Trek TV series episodes many times each since the 1960s, most being quite good to superb, and only very few being mediocre, my opinion is that this one is the worst of all.

In fact, I think it's so poorly executed as to be an embarrassment to the series. It's not that the story is so bad, although it's not particularly outstanding in any way, but the acting is just abysmal on the part of the two lead characters, meaning those other than the regulars in this case. Barbara Anderson gives her weakest performance ever as the daughter of a mass killer, and who is on a mission of a sort. She practically calls in the role from a phone, and shows no real emotive abilities here. Although usually she's never used as more than a pretty face in most of her film/TV roles,usually small parts, she has done much better.

Arnold Moss as her father gives new meaning to the term 'Ham' and is the only actor ever on a 1960s Star Trek episode that outdid William Shatner in this area, and actually makes Shatner look superb by comparison. And he gets to play a Shakespearian actor no less, which gives him more impetus to overact, and he does so.

Other than these two leads being so weak, the story is such that anybody with any sense at all can tell who the killer is within the first 15 minutes. I say this because I told my brother the whole plot ending at the first commercial break when we were watching the original 1966 broadcast as pre-teens. His reply was, Yeah, you're right.

Skip this one and watch the much superior Menagerie episodes which were originally televised right before.


So pathetic its not even funny. From the first scene in the movie I knew I was in for a bad time. Thank goodness I only saw this movie on tv. The story line was terrible, not to mention the acting. It was horrid. Very unreal and unusual things happened in this move such as. The lady sticks a whip under the door and whips the guy a little and he just hands over the keys. I'm like, GET REAL. The creators lousy attempt to make a futuristic city even deepened my dislike for the film. To tell you the truth the only good thing in this movie at all was the fighting, which was in itself pretty lame. All I could ask myself when watching this movie was "when is it gonna go off!"


Everybody loves to see a really bad movie sometime. You watch it, take a good laughs and forget it in the next half hour. But this is not one of those. It's the worst thing that will appear in front of your eyes for a while.

I would like to see someone to take responsibility for Dante - he's really the most stupid villain you can think of: a guy in leather pants that speaks with a voice over and has a victory laugh like a 50's Dracula. How can someone came up with this guy?? And the hero..."The Dragon" or whatever...my cereals box has better acting skills than him (maybe than all of them), it's unbelievable. But the worst are the fighting scenes where you would think there could be something in it. They're so lame, it's beyond any kind of description. There's no shame, i just can't believe how this movie was allowed by any studio. But i'm just thrilled it was. Watching this is a self-mutilating pleasure. See this only if you're in a movie quest for pain, and in that case, this one is a sure winner.


I actually liked this movie. Sure, the acting was flat, there was no plot, and the villain was the lamest that i've seen. Michael Bernardo as Dante is worth laughs in his own right, with an incredibly funny catchphrase and evil laugh. But its worth seeing, just for the WORST explosion you will ever see outside of the Power Rangers TV series. You'll know it when you see it. Honestly, this movie must have the budget of a low grade porno. I almost stopped watching after an hour, but i recommend watching through the whole thing; at the very least, there's plenty of eye candy for all to enjoy. Recommended for viewers with a high tolerance to poor movies.


Why is it that virtual "x-rated video game" women can speak through their mouths but virtual fighting game champion Dante has to use a combination of telepathy and over dramatic facial expressions? I feel that either they needed to cast someone who looked more villain-like (Michael Bermardo's big brown doe eyes don't exactly strike fear in the hearts of well.. anyone except for maybe casting directors who consistently cast him as either a villain or a heroic 'bad boy'.) OR they needed to just let him use his real voice (and move his mouth), and maybe give him a costume that would not make him stick out like a sore thumb when walking down the street. (but of course this is the future and we must assume that bad fashion taste is considered the norm.)


If movies where virtual reality characters come to life and they are all either male tough guys or female eye candy sounds good to you, then perhaps this movie may not be a total waste of film. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of people will find this to be an absolute bore, with little acting talent, and even less of a script. Yes, Athena Massey is nice to look at, but that is the only positive thing that I can say about this disaster.


I have watched this movie on and off since it started playing about 1 hour ago, and i have to say, thats an hour of my life i wasted and will not be getting back, The acting is crap and the scripts need a serious look at, and whoever wrote them needs to be slapped, perhaps the TV will explode and put me out of my misery..... The only good thing about this movie is that for guys and girls it has some good eye candy in it, though, most of which i wish would disappear, as far as the movie is concerned, the special effects as sh*t, Dante? who thinks a guy dressed in skin tight leather pants and half a leather jacket is scary, he looks more feminine than most of the women in this movie, the voice of Dante is pathetic, nobody finds it threatening or scary AT ALL..... please TV i beg you to blow up!!!!!!!!!!


This movie has got to be the worse movie i have ever seen. I only watched about a half an hour and i just shut it off. The cars in this movie look like two geo metro's front ends smashed together. This movie isn't even good for laughs. The only time i laughed was when Dante kept saying in funny voice, "Nobody can beat Dante, Muhwa hwaa." I said holy god and shut it off. Bad, Bad movie. 2/10


Don Wilson stars as a cop who enjoys the occasional virtual reality fighting game, however things go wrong when the people behind the game decide to take virtual reality to a new level by making real people from the video game, okay actually they make the cybersex models as prototype but the main bad guy from the video game awakens and starts killing people and now the only man who can beat the guy is Don Wilson, who in the mean time falls in love with the cybersex model. Actually with all things considered my biggest confusion was trying to understand if the people brought over from virtual reality land, were robots, human, cyborgs or just some type of unidentified computer program. It doesn't matter since this is all just an excuse to watch one of the worst actors ever butcher dialog as if he were running a deli. Don Wilson's complete lack of charisma is the film's biggest flaw since one just doesn't like the guy, he's too goody-goody, his voice is too high pitched and doesn't look very impressive in the action sequences. What saves this bore-fest from my lowest rating is Athenia Massey who looks super hot in high cut outfits and who gets occasionally naked. Also on-board is Loren Avedon (A good martial artist), Stella Stevens and Michael Dorn as the main voice of the bad guy but their efforts are in vain as they are all concealed by the very bad acting of Wilson. Another flaw which is the film's biggest mistake is a lack of action, as we are asked to watch the story unfold but aside from Massey's nudity and maybe some unintentional amusements due to laughably unconvincing acting, there really is nothing of interest. This also extends to the action sequences in which are flatly choreographed, badly directed and completely drained of all possible excitement. Making this virtually unwatchable.

* out of 4-(Bad)


Peter Sellers died in late 1980, just as he was on the verge of getting another Clouseau flick off the ground. The film was to be titled Romance of the Pink Panther, and this time Sellers was writing the film, with Blake Edwards nowhere in sight. Upon Sellers' death, UA offered the film (which was originally to be helmed by Sidney Poitier, then later Clive Donner) back to Edwards. Rumor has it that the studio wanted Dudley Moore to replace Sellers. Moore and Edwards passed on the same grounds: that no actor could possibly replace could Sellers. A sensible move. Unfortunately, Edwards had other ideas....

This is the result.

There's seldom been a film that's felt as simply, utterly wrong as Trail of the Pink Panther. With this film, Edwards attempted to make an "all new" Panther escapade using deleted footage of Sellers from the previous three Panthers, with brand new scenes filmed around him to make it appear as if Sellers was really involved. For a little while, it almost works (the joins are at times seamless) despite itself. But then you see a sequence lifted wholesale from "Strikes Again" (Clouseau's mishap with a bag of groceries) and things go rapidly downhill. The Sellers footage is of course very amusing, but it's painfully obvious which Panther films the scenes were cut from (especially the "Strikes Again" footage, where a number of that film's supporting characters suddenly appear for no good plot reason) and the flimsy plot does all manner of convulsions to fit the scenes in.

Then, 40 minutes in, Clouseau vanishes, his plane having "disappeared". Suddenly, what plot there was (which was nothing hot anyway) evaporates and the film wanders into would-be Citizen Kane territory. From here on Joanna Lumley (quite lovely with a French accent) wanders in as a TV reporter determined to track down Clouseau. With her arrival, the pace grinds to a halt and so do the laughs. It's certainly nice to see some of the early Panther notables again (David Niven, Graham Stark, Capucine) along with an amusing contribution from Richard Mulligan as Clouseau's even battier father, but even this doesn't really work, outside of padding the film to a releasable running time.

Even worse is that Niven, who was gravely ill at the time, is dubbed by C-Grade impressionist Rich Little. Little can be hilarious impersonating celebrities (his Howard Cosell on Futurama is a blast) but his attempt to seriously imitate Niven is just painful, with his own accent frequently creeping in. It only gives Niven's scenes a bizarre, otherworldly quality, in a film that already feels mighty creepy. Little is also roped in to imitate the voice of Harvey Korman (more successfully) and Sellers (excruciating), which only makes things stranger.

This second half of the film mixes Lumley's interviews with Clouseau's contemporaries with heavy doses of flashback footage (from earlier Panthers), all of it so much better that the new stuff. Even when it attempts to be funny on its own, Edwards resorts to stealing these gags (as opposed to the footage) from earlier triumphs. Witness Dreyfus's barely concealed laughter during his attempt to eulogise his former nemesis...And then remember that he did the exact same thing in "Revenge"...

If there is one shining light in this misbegotten dud, its the peerless Herbert Lom. He's a truly underrated comic presence who manages to rise above the material with all his facial ticks, pratfalls and explosions of rage.

The final shot of the film, with Clouseau standing on a cliff face, looking out to sea (only to get pooped on by a seagull) manages to sum up the whole enterprise. It's a blatant stand-in (how could it be anything but?) and when he does speak (cursing the "swine seagull") it's clearly Little's voice doing a bad Sellers impression. Having passed on "Romance" because he believed no one could replace Peter Sellers, Blake Edwards only went on to prove his point.... In an even less dignified way!

Maybe the final comment should go to Edwards and his dedication at the beginning of this misguided, shambolic but possibly well-intentioned fiasco..."To Peter. The One and Only Inspector Clouseau"


Cut 45 minutes of filler material and this would make a nice little hour-long network retrospective and a decent tribute to Peter Sellers. It mostly plays that way anyway, with a "plot" which is simply dropped halfway through, serving only as one of the framing devices to introduce the Sellers clips. The other framing device, a reporter's series of interviews with Clouseau's associates, is so inanely written and obviously "tribute-y" that it's shocking to remember that this was a theatrical feature film.

And that was Blake Edwards' major mistake. Some of the unused footage is amusing, but if it had been up to Sellers' usual hilarious standard, it wouldn't have gone unused. And the flashback sequences are made up of, well, flashbacks--scenes which we already saw in the previous movies. On a TV special, that would have been fine. Here, it just makes you wonder what Edwards could have been thinking.


This film would have made a triumphant documentary or T.V. Movie tribute to one of the screens geniuses, Peter Sellers. As a 100 minute comedy movie it doesn't quite work. The best scenes are the ones that feature Inspector Clouseau, other than this, and there isn't even alot of them, the film as lukewarm, being neither funny nor entertaining. However if you put to the back of your mind that this was a patchwork film made from material filmed before Sellers, and indeed Inspector Clouseau, sorry Chief Inspector Clouseau died, you may enjoy it. Edwards tries his best but the whole thing seems forced. Granted some scenes are funny and Henry Mancini's score does work, but for more fun watch another Panther movie.


I still can't figure out why they made a Pink Panther movie after Peter Sellers died. This one features someone stealing the diamond and Insp. Clouseau getting sent to find it, only to disappear in the process. So, most of the movie features interviews with other cast members about how they met Clouseau (and featuring many of Clouseau's mishaps). At the beginning they say "To Peter, the one and only Inspector Clouseau", but I would agree with Peter Sellers's widow that "Trail of the Pink Panther" dishonored his memory. Maybe it is good for a few laughs - namely the airplane scene - but it otherwise just seems unnecessary. And then there was another Pink Panther movie after this.


Well, Peter sellers has died, yet this movie posthumously "stars" Peter Sellers. There are deleted scenes from the older works of this franchise, and they have brought back Sir. Charles Litton (David Niven) from the original, and the actual Pink Panther makes a return. It's really too bad they didn't do this in the Revenge. Maybe that would not have equated the proverbial, "Too Little, Too Late," adage.

I've always been puzzled as to why they would do this. I mean...okay, he's dead, so what can you do? You can end the franchise on a low note, you can hold a world-wide search for the next Clouseau, you can quietly seek someone to take his place, or you can make a regurgitated piece of crap from the old footage lying on the cutting room floors, slap a new title on it, bring back a few favorites, and call it a day. Obviously, they chose the last one. Bad choice, in my opinion. Actually, even if you're a collector, you can completely dispense with this installment, forget about the deleted scenes, and feel confident that you aren't missing a THING.

Although Harvey Korman's performance was hilarious and inspired, it is painfully obvious that NO ONE else cared about this film, including Blake Edwards. It is also painfully obvious this was a clear milking of the franchise fans.

It rates a 3.3/10 from...

the Fiend :.


The final surviving footage of Peter Sellers is played, then there's this "Inspector Clouseau has gone missing" thing, which is played out not with a missing persons search but with a TV reporter preparing a special on him, doing some strangely irrelevent interviews with Panther stock characters. Each of these interviews are merely excuses to play clips from past Panther movies.

It starts out as a curiosity - seeing Sellers that one last time. This pleasure is hampered by the fact that Sellers was really struggling - he was close to death, after all. Once he "goes missing," it turns into a labour of love, with past Panther characters serving as the mouthpiece of Blake Edwards, getting very sentimental about Peter Sellers, through discussing the missing Clouseau.

But then it gets decidedly ridiculous, and after a while you feel very cheated - Edwards has booked bums on seats in theatres without giving us any kind of movie at all. Sorry, but stringing clips of actual movies together with some really poor, unfunny and poorly acted linking material does not equal a movie.

1/10. I don't even classify it as a movie.


For the first half of the film, as it actually attempts to make some sort of a story involving the theft of the Pink Panther, this movie almost works. However, when there are no more outtakes, or even scenes to steal, from the other films, the movie fades quickly as the entire story shifts to a memoir of Clouseau's life.

Some have noted that they found Richard Mulligan to be hysterical. I thought the role was boring and very unfunny. Joanna Lumley, on the other hand, was a treat. She did not have much to work with, but made the best of it.

I saw this film after I saw 'Curse', and I was shocked at the number of scenes played out in 'Curse' that were in this film. In some ways, 'Curse' is almost the same film as this one, with Ted Wass playing the Joanna Lumley character.

Again, if you need to see the whole series, then watch the film, but it is nowhere near any of its predecessors.