This movie was a little bit better than i thought it would be. Which isn't saying much as the Scifi Channel has a history of showing some real sulfurous stinkers.

But volcanoes are one of my most favorite movie genres, and wild dead horses couldn't drag me away from watching one i haven't seen yet. And i do believe i've seen just about all of them. Or at least those that i have been currently aware of.

As this was a Scifi Channel movie showing, i wasn't really expecting an outstanding movie, and in that, i wasn't disappointed. The screenplay seemed awfully, awfully similar in some places to a certain volcano movie that took place on the US west coast, on Wilshire Blvd. Apparently, some idea "borrowing" went on...

I was pleased to see Mike Ironsides still in the movie biz. Mike has been in good movies and in bad movies, and sometimes in the bad movies, he was the only reason to bother watching it. His character here is pretty amusing in its irresponsible ego mania and Mike plays it pretty well. The good doctor is not so good and maybe more than a little bit teensy-weensy frothing-at-the-mouth bat doodoo crazy. Ironsides' performance of the raving wacko got me snickering. I think he could have thrown in a few more drops of rabid drool for fun, but still, it was acceptable for a demented scientist role.

A note to film makers: a shouldercam is only to be used when using anything else wouldn't be practical or for trying to give a quick and temporary intimate "you are there" feeling. Wa-a-ay too much use of shouldercam here when a tripod-mounted one should have been used instead. Sometimes the too-much jiggly camera work made me start feeling seasick.

This movie did have one of my pet movie peeves. The characters were wasting precious moments futzing around when moments were too precious to waste. Apparently thrown in for "dramatic impact" when in real life, you know the characters would be hopped up on adrenalin and moving their butts like greased lightning.

Is this movie actually worth watching? Well, if you're a volcano movie aficionado like i am, you KNOW you're going to watch it anyway no matter how much it reeks of hydrogen sulphide. This movie is more dumb than bad, but it will be essential to have your Dramamine ready in case of seasickness caused by the jiggly camera work.


You want to look away, but you can't. It was horrible- absolutely Unbelievable FX (um, yeah, intestines DON'T glow in the dark!).

The CGI could've been better done by a junior high schooler with too much time on his hands!

The ending was straight out of "Volcano" (1997).

It's so clichéd:

people with histories being thrown back together; gov't involved conspiracies; a small group of people saving the day, with a villain trying to thwart the heroes.

And of course, copy-catting a bigger film.

You don't have to have a big budget to create a decent film. Tornado! which aired on Fox several years ago was a Twister copy-cat, but was still half-way decent. At least I didn't laugh my way through that one.


This made for sci-fi channel movie was so bad it was funny! Only watched it for Costas...and thank the Lord for Tivo allowing me to rush thru this campy B-Movie wanna be. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes had a better sub-plot than this laugh riot.

This movie used a lot of stock footage. What was disturbing was the shot of lower manhattan smoking....I am just SURE they used some 9-11 footage...and I HOPE they didn't...because that would be wrong!

The special effects were tolerable for a TV movie. Standard overacting by the extras in all the "disaster" scenes made this a watchable laugh...

Bet it's not what they intended though... (generous 3 out of 10)


Disaster Zone Volcano in NY is about a mad geologist that tries to harness geothermal power under NY to provide unlimited power. He does it under the disguise of a water tunnel and almost makes it. Instead, he unleashes the lava that starts destroying NY. Just like the original Volcano in LA, they find a way to deal with it. The acting just didn't quite make it for me, always a little too much or too little emotion. The characters just never became real to me. The effects were cheap, but adequate. Over all its not too much of a waste of time so I would watch it once just to say I did. Hopefully they will come out with one that's a little more original.


I have just seen this movie and I personally think it is the worst disaster movie of all times! **SPOILER WARNING** The plot was interesting at the beginning, but at the part where the supposed "volcano" erupted the plot became a kind of the film Volcano, specially the part where the plan to save New York was to "guide" the lava to the ocean. I was not expecting a super production as "The Day after tomorrow" if not a kind of 10.5 or something like that. The special effects were so lame that I laughed every time the "lava" appeared. In the part when the lava began to "burn" the city it looked like I was watching a cartoon.. To sum up I wasted 2 productive hours of my life watching this movie personally, this film may deserve a score of minus 4.


Over Actors Theater can be so entertaining. Every possible cliché for a disaster movie, you would think that someone would say "But wait, that's been done." But no, they just went right ahead. I just had to finish it to see how bad it could get, Good for mocking and a good laugh. The actors tried to do the best they could, the girl scientist was very earnest and sincere. Michael Ironsides has never overacted so enthusiastically. He committed to the part and just went for it. I know he must have been rolling his eyes but it was never in the shot. That says a lot for this talented veteran actor. The special effects were low budget but one could certainly tell what it was they were going for. Watch this movie with friends and have comment contests. It will be a hoot.


About what you expect of a TV disaster movie. Low budget effects, lots of flex hose and typical, ordinary dialog.

Best watched for killing time and mental floss. At least it is not aggressively bad so that you feel cheated if you watched it.

Characters are pretty standard, evil scientists taking short cuts, ex-lovers at odds with each other that must work together to save the world and so forth and so on.

Disaster warnings start small and build slowly so that the "man" is not aware of the problem until almost too late and then must turn to the "rebels" they have been trying to suppress because they don't want a panic or interrupt the annual picnic or whatever. Fill in the blank type plot. Only the details change like character names, actual source of the disaster, etc. but the plot is pretty much a routine formula you have seen over and over and over again.

Still for what it is, it is OK for a time filler and Paul is never hard to look at.


This was a very odd movie, it was a mix between Movie and porn.

It was most likely Steven Baldwins worst film, I also noticed that One time Bond star George Lazenby had a small part in the film, I thought he did really well considering the type of movie it is.

This is a movie that you could watch if you had Absulutely nothing else to watch, thats why I watched it.

There where some very nice nude scenes however.

Stephen Baldwin, What the hell are you doing? You use to do quality films, fire that agent of yours.

go to your local video shop and you'll find this movie in the B-grade waste of time section, it should be right next to Gladiator or some other crappy Russel Crowe Movie.


1st watched 11/19/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Paul Levine): Boring, slow-moving movie that eventually becomes about a couple of people trying to steal from one another the high-tech way(thru swiss bank accounts). It's a sad thing when the best you can say about a movie is a person's figure and looks. I'm sorry but I have to say it, the best thing about this movie is Kari Wuhrer's body. The rest of the movie was boring, worthless, and a ridiculous waste of money(for those who made it and for those who purchase or rent it). I waited, and waited, and waited for this movie to be over and guess what. it finally ended!! I guess I've pretty much said enough. Don't invest in this loser.


The movie was slow to develop if it actually ever did. I have seen better plots on cable soft porn movies. If you are into that sort of thing then this movie is for you. Don't waste your time just+6 take a nap.


A cheap movie - and not only because it is low budget. The action pretends to be about a cheating scheme in the high tech capitalist venture world. It actually is just confusing and predictable at the same time. Directing and camera work are close to ridicule, and acting does not get higher than low quality TV dramas. Steve Baldwin is shaming the Baldwin name by participating in this movie. Even the erotic scenes seem to be just there to fill in the time. 4/10 on my personal scale. Avoid it!


Chevy Chase moves to the country to become a farmer.

Chase plays 'Andy Farmer', a newspaper columnist who starts a new life in the sticks with his wife (Madolyn Smith). He meets with all kinds of zany experiences.... too bad none of them are remotely funny. Chevy is great at dry humor and modestly scores with a one-liner now and then, but the film just doesn't make it as one of those good comedies that you'd like to watch every so often with a big bowl of popcorn.

OK scenes include Madolyn's visit to an antique shop and Chevy tossing his hot coffee on a bird outside his window.... *snicker*.... that was funny!


The city couple Andy and Elisabeth Farmer, played by Chevy Chase and Madolyn Smith, leave the city life to move out to the country. He is going to write a novel, but things doesn´t go exactly as planned. Lots of disasters make their new life go awry and it seems country life wasn´t as simple as they thought.

In Funny Farm, all the magic that made the first Vacation-movie so great is missing. Even the silly sequel, National Lampoon´s European Vacation, seems rather fun in comparison. The jokes are predictable and rarely hit the spot. It´s difficult for Chase to do anything with this material, his acting skills definitely deserves better scripts. Madolyn Smith is not bad as his wife, and it´s rather surprising that she hasn´t done any acting since 1994.

With a pretty promising plot, the movie could have been a funny trip to the countryside, but Chevy Chase has done much better movies.

Sarah Michelle Gellar is seen in a blink-and-you-miss-her appearance, and this might be fun to check out for Buffy-fans. But this itself is not a reason to sit through this movie, it´s simply to dull.

* ½ out of * * * * *


Chevy Chase plays Andy Farmer, a frustrated writer, who moves with his wife, Elizabeth, to a farm in Vermont. Nothing seems to go the way the couple expected. The Farmer's bribe the township into creating a Norman Rockwell persona in order to sell the farm and return to New York.

This movie is more stupid than funny. Pathetic jokes that keep falling flat and missing their mark. Jay Cronley's novel was done a disservice. Madolyn Smith-Osborne holds her own with what she has to work with. This is no where near the caliber of Chase's "vacation" movies.


Having learnt of the author, I started reading her blogs which was very interesting. It got me thinking about wanting to read her books. But, me being me!! LAZY... decided to watch the film instead. And was I disappointed? And how. Well, there is nothing more to this film than what the posters have to offer. Sheer EYE CANDY. That is it!! My regards to the ever so beautiful Lisa Ray and also Sheetal Seth. An issue of being gay in sensitive religious families, as the director felt it should be portrayed seems to look very unimportant. The passionate scenes in the film, is far from being romantic. Expected a lot more romance from a director who is herself gay. Shamim, if you yourself do ever read this, do write to me and I will assist you in making better films.

my email id: rite2ron@gmail.com


I have one procedure with movies: they get 30 minutes of good will to prove that they are worth watching. With some films, when I'm not quite sure, this "probation" time is prolonged to 45 minutes.

So, I'll tell you what: "I Can't Think Straight" had me bored to tears in 20 minutes! The screenplay is dull and highly predictable, so don't expect any surprises. But it gets worse: the performance of the two main leads was gruesome. The question is not whether they should join acting classes - but whether they would be admitted.

What remains? Here are my recommendations: spend your time with something useful, maybe an evening walk with your partner in this early, mild spring, or watch an excellent lesbian movie like "Fingersmith", but not THIS movie.


...if this thing got four stars. I was really looking forward to this film, but it let me down in nearly every way imaginable. The plot line is improbable (no one could be as dumb as the protagonist seems) and jerky/rambling (no vignette really develops before we're on to another misadventure by our hero). The acting runs from forgettable (the best performances were probably by a couple of fellow inmates) to simply awful, as Muni simply gnaws on the scenery from time to time, especially in the final pathetic scene. Some details, like camera-work and costuming are nice, but not nearly enough to rescue this from the stink-heap.

I think what really irked me was this film's supposed commentary on America's penal system, when really it seemed like a snarky attack on the Deep South. If Hollywood wishes to perpetuate regional stereotypes, they really should produce a better film in which to do so.

4/10...watchable but certainly not memorable.


This film is hardly a "classic", nor is it a "social protest movie" that most of these misguided reviewers would have you believe. It falls into the realm of impressionable 'exploitation' films that attempted to substantiate struggling theaters with their wealthy competitors. Warner Bros. looked for "controversial" themes to release them from their box office slump and found it with topics like this, packaging emotional rubbish into the screens in the form of low budget B grade "content films". Anyone who thinks Warner Bros was a "redeeming and caring company interested in the plight of man" is deluded, they were merely out to make a profit, nothing more. Examine their union records, dictatorial management and abuse of rights at the time if you don't believe me. Surely, a film which pulls at your heart is only intended to pull at your wallet.

The film itself has a weak script, stale acting (bordering on dull to over anxious), B grade direction, poor dialogue and is tedious. It meanders through one half hearted empty skit after another, dislodging us from any sincere interest at all. Muni is a boorish actor, neither disguising his brusque acting method nor elaborating on any convincing emotion. Standard film shots are scattered throughout, of locations and events in history, a parade from WW 1, a real street scene in Chicago, and this further aggravates the authenticity of the whole subject, making the film look "cut up" because most of it was filmed on cheap Warner Bros sets in Pasadena. The chain gang scenes are unrealistic, exaggerated, and only attempt to garner instant condemnation from the viewer. I don't need a mediocre film to instigate that "chain gangs are evil", I should know that from my own knowledge, and further more, this film contradicts itself because capitalism itself is slavery and there is so much insane dialog about the "virtues of work" in the beginning. I fail to believe that there is a difference between a worker at a factory occupied for 12 hours a day like a slave and a man stuck on a chain gang! An average film reduced by film historians and buffs to a "classic" merely because they can not understand why films had to make a profit for the capitalistic and authoritarian film companies which produced them. Do not tell me about "social awareness" when only profit to powerful monopolistic companies was involved!


That Porky; just when you count him out - here he comes with the whole Angel Beach High gang to strike one final blow against a series that degenerated so far down the tubes that even Bob Clark wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Now, THAT is bad.

"Porky's Revenge", directed as it is by James Komack (yes, THAT James Komack, from "The Courtship of Eddie's Father"), tries to ape the original as much as possible in looks but just doesn't get it right; the material never finds the right tone of raunchiness nor one single scene that has as many belly laughs as the original (if you've seen the first one, you know what I mean).

And the "kids" in this one look just a hair shy on the ear lobe of collecting social security. Someone should have gotten a better makeup artist on the set, ya think? Jeez, guys; at least wear girdles or something!

But then there's Porky himself. Ah yes, Chuck Mitchell returns and is just as mean, nasty and... well, PORKY, as we remember. And when his little girl Blossom (Wendy Feign) falls for good old Meat (Tony Gainos), it's time for Pee-Wee (Dan Monahan) and the rest of the crew to kick into high gear and save their buddy from a fate worse than death - marriage.

Problem is, so much attention is paid to the plot (!!!) that there's no time for laughs, sight gags or even decent use of the foreign exchange student (Kim Evenson). What a disappointment; she even had a cute Swedish accent.

All in all, a big let-down, even from part II in the series (which was no great shakes itself, but at least kept Clark at the helm). This is one "Revenge" that just beats out Montezuma's for general discomfort.

Two stars. Hey, had to give them credit for the eventual fate of Miss Balbricker (Nancy Parsons). What do you know; those kids had a conscience after all.


Like the first two this takes palace in Florida in the mid-1950s. Those "funny" guys and girls are back to celebrate their senior year in high school with more juvenile humor, sexual humiliation and ugly "humorous" gags.

The first two were no masterpieces. The acting was pretty bad and the jokes were downright sick. However each one had some moments that made me laugh out loud. This one however has NOTHING! The plot deals with whether the boys (all on the basketball team) will throw the final game of the season or not to save their coach who owes Porky a lot of money. To put it mildly, that plot is as old as the hills. Also the entire cast of "teenagers" are quite obviously in the late 20s or 30s. NO ONE looks even remotely like a high school kid. Heck, they'd be hard pressed to get away as college kids! The "jokes" do have plenty of the expected female AND male nudity and have the kids laughing hysterically at someone getting humiliated. Also they play a very cruel and sadistic joke on Ms. Balbricker (Nancy Parsons). The thing is Parsons was such a good actress that it's uncomfortable to watch. Wyatt Knight also isn't bad as Tommy Turner. However Fred Buch as Mr. Dobish overacts to a truly embarrassing degree.

I will say a few good things about this--it was reasonably well-directed and all the "kids" have good bodies so the nude scenes aren't unbearable. But this has a stupid plot and unfunny comedy. This one (rightly) lost money at the box office and we were sparred any more Porky movies. Even if you're desperate this isn't worth watching. A 1 all the way.


Well, here it is... the last Porky's film. The lowest of the low. Does it actually get any worse than this? I hope not. The first two movies had some(albeit not an awful lot) value and were just above being garbage committed to celluloid... this one is different, worse. The direction is lazy and uninspired. Scene after scene is misdirected and lacks effect. The writing, since the first two films, has taken a turn for the worse, something I didn't think possible before watching this tripe. Characters are messed up completely, going in a completely different direction from what was seen in the first two films. Jokes and gags are incredibly forced and unforgivably poor. The humor is taken down a further notch from the first two films; again, a surprise for those of us who weren't aware that it was possible to go any lower. Acting is overplayed and uninspired. Unlike the first two films, this one doesn't have one single redeeming quality... it's just bad. Really, really bad. I couldn't give you one good reason to watch this film... not a single one. I recommend this only to people who loved the first two so much that they simply can't stand the notion of there being a film in the series that they haven't seen... no matter how bad it is. Everyone else should avoid this... at all and any costs. 1/10


Wallace Shawn, the author of "Marie and Bruce", who wrote the original play in which this film is based on, is a man whose work in the theater leaves a lot to be desired. I don't wish anyone the experience we had with a play he co-wrote with a brother and that was seen at the Mineta Lane Theater in New York about three years ago, in which the audience kept leaving the performance because it was insufferable. This same quality can be said about this adaptation of yet another one of his works for the theater.

Directed by Tom Cairns, who also translated the material for the screen, shows us a couple of misfits that have been together far too long and would have been better off dissolving their marriage some time ago. The main attraction for watching the picture was Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick, both great actors that put in a brave appearance to be in front of the camera playing these people. One wonders why hasn't Marie left Bruce a long time before? It's easier to see why Bruce has stuck to the situation because he doesn't have much to offer anyone else in her right mind.

The film can infuriate would be viewers who would not have enough patience to sit right through it.


Wallace Shawn wrote the very fine 'My Dinner with Andre', a talky but sensitive film that created a niche for conversational stories without plot. Sadly the qualities of that play to film result did not make it with his MARIE AND BRUCE. On paper it looks as though this strenuously boring film should be worth watching: Shawn's previous credentials, the direction by Tom Cairns, and the presence of Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick together with little feature appearances by the likes of Campbell Scott and Blossom Dearie should suggest investing time in viewing.

Unfortunately the film's premise is so dull that even the technique of having characters speak exactly what is in their minds mixed with dialogue seemingly more appropriate for human ears and adding dreamlike sequences including some rather randy voyeurism - stage worthy though these techniques may be - just can't make this dreary story of a day in the dissolution of a VERY bad marriage work. The only character in the film with whom the viewer can empathize is a friendly dog. Pass on this sad flop. Grady Harp


I can't believe I watched the whole thing. Characterization-stiff, standard veteran returns home, family murdered, standard very clichéd villains. Have seen similar characters in the bottom of a box of cereal. Action sequences-standard. No big action explosions, etc. Although that isn't really needed int his film. Friend of the good guy-standard, stiff, shallow character. Not like old days man, etc. I would have to say that this film is worth a miss. Even the lead character was somewhat unbelievable, he is hurt by the villains, does what is not expected. Don't want to say to much so as not to put any spoilers. I simply cannot believe I wasted an hour and a half.


Just horrible, horrible, horrible.

We didn't laugh - not once.

Just about every scene is set up to deliver a flat joke.

Honestly, we LOVE comedies, but this was neither comedy, or romantic. The plot about the Mum (Meg Ryan) whose son is in the FBI (Colin Hanks - who here acts as though he has a large plank inserted right up him especially in his scenes with Selma Blair) - starts with Meg Ryan losing 200lbs of fugliness suddenly becomes beautiful wealthy vivacious and sexy, much to the son's embarrassment, is just tooo much. When a suspected wanted international art thief (Banderas) falls for her and the son is on the case the so-called fun begins. But it just ain't fun. At all. What ensues is a comedy of errors and misunderstandings that is just plain toe-curling embarrassing.

This is one of the weakest comedies it has ever been my immense discomfort to see - nothing shines - and the target audience is what? Women in their 40s? - I suggest anyone would be just plain insulted by the lack of anything construing the most basic brain food here - there ain't one smart line or original scene - it truly is neither comedy or romance.

The only positive is that this is totally harmless and won't offend,but it won't entertain either, it really is lobotomy food...

This is seriously one of the turkeys of the year and deserves to not only go straight to DVD but straight into the DVD bin...

Does no-one's careers (Especially Hanks) any favours ... avoid like the plague...especially if you're fans of any of the actors...this will be, I guarantee, one they want to forget in a hurry.


Pretty awful! Only flat jokes, the movie does not make any sense at all. And Meg Ryan was supposed to be the hottest girl ever? What was that all about? That bot-ox face and that flat chest will even fool anyone? Stupid movie, stupid scenes, as someone once said, stupid scenes transitions (like Windows Movie Maker)...

I could not laugh at all. I only waste my time and money watching this.... this... well... i think u got the idea.

Please go spend your money elsewhere.

Poor execution...

Two thumbs down!


I'm usually pretty forgiving when it comes to romantic comedies, especially those out of Hollywood. They often are borderline insipid, clichéd, predictable, and dull-witted, but those that aren't completely inept still manage to entertain to varying degrees. Unfortunately, "My Mom's New Boyfriend" falls way below the grade and fails even at being mildly amusing.

First, it isn't necessary for a movie like this to be smart or particularly realistic, but it should have some integrity so that we can actually believe in the characters. Here, in the prologue, we see Henry Durand (Colin Hanks), who clearly has a close relationship with his Mom, Marty (Meg Ryan), leaving home and Mom behind to start a job with the FBI. Flash forward three years, and Henry returns home -- apparently, without even once having visited or talked to his Mom in all that time. Now I'm sure the FBI requires a certain amount of secrecy, but it sure doesn't require its agents to cut off all communication with their nearest and dearest for three years. Right off the bat, the phoniness of the set-up sinks any chance at viewer empathy with any of the characters.

Second, the characters themselves are about the most unlikeable I can think of in any romantic comedy I've ever seen. I'd rather spend a weekend locked in a cell with Barbara Stone (Bette Midler's character in "Ruthless People") than 15 minutes with the insufferably egotistical, vapid Marty Durand. Ryan is just awful here, and I usually enjoy her performances. She badly overplays Marty's zany qualities with ticks and vocal histrionics that are way over-the-top, and she seems to have lost whatever limited gifts she had for physical comedy. Maybe the knife slipped and the surgeons cut something else out when they were redesigning her face. She looks like she's trying to look like Michelle Pfeiffer and failing miserably. It has to be the worst performance of her career, and probably the worst of the year. Hanks, perhaps trying to counterweight Ryan's annoying performance, is as lifeless as a paperweight. He glowers and scowls through the film. Neither Antonio Banderas nor Selma Blair have enough to do to make much of an impression, though Banderas manages at least to be somewhat charming through the muddle of the storyline. Actually, the only genuinely funny performance in the film is from Trevor Morgan, in a small part as a young stud Ryan dates.

The film piles bad jokes one on top of the other and beats to death what wasn't particularly funny the first time -- the Italian chef who pines for Marty, the FBI agents' jokes about how hot Marty supposedly is, etc. I guess it does this because it has nothing else to do. There's just nothing going on here, no romance, almost no comedy, certainly no suspense, and we lost logic in the first five minutes. The only thing that can recommend this movie is seeing the crack-up of a once gifted actress. There's a certain fascination in that, Ryan's performance is a slow-moving train wreck. I hope she gets it together and comes back in better form next time.


i think this is the worst of Meg Ryan's movies, i'm really a big fan of her, she's one of the most gorgeous actress in Cinema, and she'll always be the queen of romantic comedy, and i liked most of her choices in the past, even the not so-good movies of her , she was able to make them worthy watching, but this film is just bad in every possible way?!

it's boring, not funny, flat and predictable . nothing in this movie is interesting nor original, it's not comedy, not romantic, not thriller and not action. i've never felt uninterested of completing watching a movie that Meg Ryan appears in before.

if you are Meg Ryan fans then i recommend to avoid this movie. if your not, then avoid this movie as well.


What a crappy movie. Can't understand how Meg Ryan accepted to participate on it.

Haven't seen Meg Ryan and Antonio Banderas in good movies for the past...4 years I think.

Fell asleep 15 minutes after it started. I thought it was going to be funny, a good comedy but it turned out to be excessively dumb. No plot, no script, no sense.

By the way Meg Ryan's makeover went really bad. That angel face is gone, her face is so inexpressive now. The botox doesn't allow her to move her lips anymore. How sad.

Avoid this movie at all cost, it's an awful waste of money and time.


My wife and I regularly watch romantic comedy's as end of week, child in bed, brain wind down, light fluffy fare. That said, I do like some quality of acting or comedy, e.g. 4 Weddings, Music & Lyrics, Bridget Jones, Notting Hill, Love Actually (oh god... is High Grant the only person capable of a decent Rom-Com???), Sleepless in Seattle, You've got Mail, etc.

This movie was just bland, unfunny, and so poor that we turned it off half-way through. Not a chuckle, not even a smirk.

As many other reviews here have pointed out, the characters seem forced and just don't work together. It's not even that they are annoying... it just didn't 'work' for mine which is very disappointing as the individual actors have proved track records of quality films.

Avoid, or if you must watch it, be ruthless and promise to turn it off after 15-20 minutes if it doesn't really grab you.


i don,t understand at all what has to do Albanian restaurant with Arabic music,,i saw the scene when they were in sk Albanian restaurant and the only thing Albanian there was the flag,,nothing else,,albaniens does nor have bellydancers in their places,,but i guess ,,someone when wanna make fool of albaniens did payed a lot of money to mix Albanian people with middle easy people,,probably it was Russians or Serbs who payed those money to George gallo for mixing albaniens with Arabic people,,nothing wrong ,,people are all same everywhere,,good or bad,,but AL least when you try to make something Albanian,,make that in right way,,not only lies there,,as an Albanian,,i feel humiliated by that horrible music,,pretending to be Albanian music,,but it was not Albanian AT all


Every time a Hollywood writer can't figure out a clever ending, he or she decides to turn the baddie into a CIA "agent" so he can get the girl and live happily ever after. In this trashy, waste-of-time flick, once again the thief becomes our man from Langley. Of course the CIA does not track international (or domestic) art thieves, but what the heck? We need an ending, let's use that old fable. Who will care? Only the brain dead will be able to watch this horror through to the end and learn the secret identity of Bandares. A waste also for fans of Meg Ryan, with or without Botox. And the weeping chef on the lawn only adds to this mish-mash of a film. Pity the people who paid box office prices to sit through it. Hope the popcorn was worth the price.


Just awful....... It doesn't make any sense at all...... It is not a comedy, not a thriller, not a caper movie... It is just nothing.... Why on earth do they make such stupid, inane movies??? I haven't any good or say, better, movies the two leads act in.. It is high time that ms Ryan cuts her hair, brush it and give it a good wash... She looks awful! Senor Banderas! Time to pack up and go back to Spain.. perhaps Pedro Almadovar will help you to rescue what's left of your once promising career.... I am glad I haven't paid any cent for this sordid affair... I wonder whether it has made any cent at all???? It puzzles me to read the few favorable lines on this film... I can not find one good thing in it... Just awful.....


I enjoyed watching Kolin Hanks in this movie. I found him quite convincing, what was not easy considering the lousy screenplay. Antonio Banderas was handsome as always. But those two could not help the rest of the movie. It was not funny, not romantic and very unnatural. The movie left me with impression that Meg acts with a thought in her mind "hey! I'm still here!". I believe she does not need this. She just needs to find a right project for her and she'd be great. The citations of "How to Steal a Million" (I believe this was the title of a wonderful movie with Odry Hepbern and Peter O'Toole), on my opinion, was too obvious and banal. I can't believe such good actors have agreed to participate in it.


About a third of the way through this terrible terrible film I started to look for at least one thing that I could identify as not annoying or not just plain stupid. I didn't find even a single thing. It didn't even end in a timely manner. Some of the dialog is so painfully bad it beggars explanation of how an actual human wrote it rather than a life-form or intelligence wholly ignorant of our kind. The scenes often transition using effects that remind me of a stupidly done youtube family vacation video made by the youngest spoiled kid using Windows Moviemaker.

Do not watch this movie please. The money spent on this production would have been better used investigating flaming poo bags.

Oh and they try to pass of Meg Ryan as The Hottest Milf The World Has Ever Seen. She looks like a mouse with two black eyes and a crack habit. Honestly. They even try to pass her off as artificially buxom. There's nothing there! This is just how dumb they think you, the viewer, is.


What an awful movie with a pathetic story line! This has to be one of the worst writing and directing jobs out there. The writer is obviously ignorant,uninformed or just plain stupid. The whole restaurant scene was the most bizarre thing I have ever seen. The portrayal of the Albanian restaurant with middle eastern music and belly dancers was ridiculous and inaccurate!!! Albania is one of the oldest countries located in Eastern EUROPE and has no such music nor does it have belly dancers!! To put it nicely the writer and director should be embarrassed of this piece of crap.

Don't waste your time on this! I gave this disaster a 1 because 0 was not a option...


Could have been one of the better romantic comedies, marquee actors, a somewhat clever story line and a stock but well played plot twist at the end. Could have been, but wasn't because Meg Ryan is a one woman wrecking crew from beginning to end. Her character idea is clever, but Meg Ryan plays her like a chipmunk on crank - constantly hyper-energetic, late sixties/early seventies cliché spewing, hippy-trippy-chippy. We're to believe this unbelievably annoying person attracts men of all ages to her like a mythical siren and women adore her as well. Reality check Hollywood; men run for the exits when they encounter women like Marty Durand who all but has a sandwich board sign declaring her bi-polar/border line psychotic personality disorder and women loathe self-centered attention seeking vapidness that she represent. Less than half way through the movie my wife said she was hoping for a plot twist that involved the gun toting FBI son shooting this insipid twit just to shut her up - I enthusiastically concurred! As bad as the Marty Durand character was, Meg Ryan playing her only made her more unbearable. Hot, she's so hot, so so so hot Marty Duran is so freaking hot or so every single character in the movie tells us, again and again and again and again and again and again please god make them stop - prompting me to ask is everyone from the casting director on down is utterly blind? Meg Ryan looks horrifically bad.

If she had attempted to squeeze one more droplet of collagen into her fat, drooping under their own weight, lips I have no doubt they would have exploded all over her botox hardened face the moment she uttered her first line. There are few things more disturbing than watching someone play chipper and happy when their eyebrows and forehead are frozen stiff.

Yes Meg you're thin and in shape and that's great, but do us all and yourself a favor by laying off the facial injections and try aging gracefully.

A truly bad casting choice and a horrible performance killed this thing out of the gate.


Banderas in the end is CIA and he was working undercover trying to prosecute the other thieves and it was all a misunderstanding and thats also how he got out of the jail in Paris. the movie lacked a sense of excitement and it seemed too predictable and the only unpredictable thing was the fact that Banderas was a secret agent the movie did not deliver as a funny movie but some times it was humorous but nothing too hilarious. So i would call it a average comedy.

This is one of the weakest comedies it has ever been my immense discomfort to see - nothing shines - and the target audience is what? Women in their 40s? - I suggest anyone would be just plain insulted by the lack of anything construing the most basic brain food here - there ain't one smart line or original scene - it truly is neither comedy or romance.

The only positive is that this is totally harmless and won't offend,but it won't entertain either, it really is lobotomy food...


As Keystone comedies go, this is a pretty dark and depressing little piece of work. There's an amusing moment or two along the way, thanks largely to Roscoe Arbuckle's physical dexterity, but the story is more harrowing than funny, with an ending that's like something out of Kafka. And if you know the details of Arbuckle's tragic life and career the distressing impact of FATTY JOINS THE FORCE is only compounded.

The story gets under way in a park. Fatty and his wife encounter cop Edgar Kennedy, who apparently tosses off a sassy remark (about Roscoe's girth?) en route to a flirtation with a nursemaid. While the cop and the maid are chatting, the nurse's charge, a little girl, wanders off and then falls into the lake. Fatty comes to the rescue and saves the little girl, who turns out to be the Police Commissioner's daughter. Fatty the hero is 'rewarded' with a position on the police force, but quickly gets into trouble. He falls afoul of a group of teenage boys who easily get the better of him. By the end, due to a misunderstanding, the one-time hero is mistaken for a dangerous "wild man," and winds up in jail himself, disgraced and sobbing with frustration while his wife flirts with the Police Commissioner.

How funny does that sound? . . . Not so funny, right? And when you consider that Arbuckle himself plummeted from a position of wealth and celebrity to genuine and lasting disgrace, due, according to the most credible research, to a tragic misunderstanding, the weepy close-up of Roscoe in his jail cell that concludes this film is even more disturbing than it might otherwise be. History buffs will be reminded of the infamous composite photo that ran in the Hearst papers at the height of the Arbuckle scandal in 1921, showing a grim-faced Roscoe supposedly behind bars in San Francisco, facing rape and manslaughter charges. (The charges were real, all right, but the photo was faked.) Even taken on its own terms, FATTY JOINS THE FORCE is short on laughs. Roscoe executes a couple of funny falls, and reacts strenuously to a pie in the face, but otherwise this movie is about as comical as Hitchcock's THE WRONG MAN.


Don't get fooled by the seemingly interesting plot, the movie lacks any action whatsoever. The plot also turns out to lack any depth. In addition, the movie is very inconclusive. The only highlight of the movie was Timothy Dalton's Inspector Rennie. My vote: 1


pretty rubbish. Timothy Dalton's Irish accent is laughable. The portrayal of the English soldier as some sort of hero is utter crap and after reading other peoples comments on this film its pretty clear that they are motivated by their political beliefs rather than how bad the quality of acting really is. In terms of the conflict in n.i, no one has their hands clean. By portraying the I.R.A as thugs and then the British soldiers and R.U.C special branch as the good guys takes away any impartiality and leaves you with the same unionist crap about how the British were impartial upholders of the law in Ireland and the nationalists were all terrorists.


Predictable story. Acting isn't very good but I've seen worse.

Timothy Dalton has done better. The fade-ins and -outs were really annoying. I regret buying the DVD.


Poorly acted, directed and written, "The Conrad Boys" is barely watchable. The main problem is Justin Lo, who assumes the role of writer, director, film editor and principal actor. Lo does not handle any one of his jobs well; his ability to create a believable character on film is seriously lacking. Watching Lo is akin to watching a beginning actor with no idea of what he is doing or saying. The script is quite clichéd and lacks any real imagination. The two stars I awarded this are solely for Nick Bartzen who is quite good as the young drifter, Jordan Rivers.

This film is to be avoided.


Imagine trying to juggle one ball. Even if you can't juggle, you can speculate that it's probably not that hard to do. Now add another ball. It's probably still pretty easy, right? Now, imagine someone that has never picked up a ball trying to juggle 5 balls at once. That's what Justin Lo attempted to do with "The Conrad Boys." The five balls I was referring to are writing, acting, directing, editing and producing. Even though it's a small low budget production, I can't help but feel that Justin Lo wrote himself into the lead role just so he could make out with whoever was going to fill the role as the attractive drifter. The story was so dull and the acting so dry and 1 dimensional that I couldn't watch this movie all the way through without taking breaks. Justin Lo, who was 23 at the time, and played a 19 year old in the movie wrote a script with dialog that read like a high school play. So try to imagine a few much older middle aged characters trying to deliver lines that sound like they were written by a 14 year old.

The directing and camera work was bland and the only thing that kept this movie from being a complete flop was the involvement of Nick Bartzen who filled the role of that attractive drifter. Nick was the real star of this movie. He was able to emulate real emotions not only by his realistic delivery of dialogue, but also by utilizing his body language and facial expressions. So while I didn't really care about this story, his acting in it makes me interested to see what other projects he'll be seen in.

The Conrad Boys was a nice try for first timer Justin Lo with good intentions, but I can't really imagine what kind of group this movie was even targeted to appeal to.


The Conrad Boys can be either a small or a big disappointment. It simply depends on whether the previous film of that kind that one has watched was just as cliché or perhaps (probably) better.

There are two main areas making the film weak. The first would be the fact that there is already a much better movie with a similar plot, namely 'Shelter'. What might stand for a defending factor for 'The Conrad Boys' is the fact that it was released in one year earlier which might have helped the makers of 'Shelter'. However, Justin Lo could do much better, at least making the film more believable for the audience to attach with. The other major problem of the movie is its cliché aspect, which unfortunately touches a number of the film's areas. The first would be the dialogues, which might sound original only for people who begin their adventure with cinema. What makes the dialogues even worse are the cliché characters played by second-class actors, with little BooBoo Stewart (playing the protagonist's little brother) at the top of the list. One cannot stop wondering whether he got the part only due to some family relations with the person responsible for the movie casting.

Summing up, but for the very nice face of Nick Bartzen (playing the protagonist's 'boyfriend') and his acting, 'The Conrad Boys' is an evening waste of time and it can hardly remain in the viewers' warm memories or heart.


This movie was a rather interesting first take for Director Sobel.The story is interesting, the comedy works,somewhat,and the characters are well developed.The biggest downside is in the technical aspects of the film. The sound quality is very bad at times.And, the lighting;Lee, one word of advice.TAKE A PHOTOGRAPHY CLASS!!The lighting is terrible,just terrible.Most of it is full frontal, sort of like the old 8mm movie lights,which were mounted on the front top of the cameras.If the director was trying to make it look like a home movie,then he succeeded.But, I think it detracted from the story, the characters,and made the film less watchable. I spent most of the movie complaining about the bad lighting,instead of watching the film.

Still, I have to give the film a 4 out of ten, if for nothing else, the killer soundtrack, featuring some of the best underground rockabilly bands ever.I hope that this director gets more opportunities to develop his craft, as his story was actually pretty good.Maybe, with some experience,and a bigger budget, he could come up with something really good.rp


...unfortunately, I didn't. ROCKABILLY VAMPIRE has really very little going for it. I'm a relatively big rockabilly/psycho fan, so I thought I'd dig this film - but honestly, it was so extremely dull that I could barely sit through the whole thing...

A vampiric Elvis reincarnate woos a local thrift store girl while a bunch of other boring sh!t happens...

Honestly - that's all I got from ROCKABILLY VAMPIRE. There are a few funny characters and a few decent one-liners - and the acting isn't completely horrible for this sort of film - but NOTHING really happens throughout the entirely too long run-time. At forty minutes into it, it felt like an eternity, and then I realized I was not even half-way through. The soundtrack is OK, and I guess if you're a HUGE Troma fan or are such a big rockabilly fan that you MUST own anything related to the genre, then go for it - otherwise, this is a bore-fest with only minimal redeeming factors. Even the over-abundant cheezy gore that you would expect from a Troma release is missing...skip this one...3/10


This one has quite an interesting cast -- Giancarlo Giannini of Lina Wertmueller fame plus loads of seventies dolls -- and nice decors, but it doesn't help. The script is bland, predictable and wouldn't have been accepted for any substandard TV show; the pacing is lame, and even the killings are boring -- a capital sin in a so-called "giallo", and another proof that director Paolo Cavara wasn't quite on a par with, let's say, Sergio "Torso" Martino. However, the opening scene is cool, clever and supersexy, including Ennio Morricone's perhaps most lascivious score: three minutes of style and foot fetishism that are unsurpassed in "giallo" history. After that, get ready for a huge disappointment.


I couldn't make head nor tail of this Euro-mess. Even with 3 of my favorite European beauties from the 60's (Stefania Sandrelli, Barbara Bouchet, and Claudine Auger) AND Barbara Bach, this gloomy Italian mystery tale has no value, story-wise. Some interesting locales, but went from bad to worse. Even Giancarlo Giannini seemed bored.

A 1 out of 10. Ms. Bouchet has a fetching derriere. I haven't seen many of this type of film, but it was pointless drivel at best. I hope the actors were paid well. This film is an immediate sleeping pill. I dozed off four times just trying to wade through it. Forget it. The director fell asleep at the wheel. Great music...


Story of Renaldo Arenas' life, a Cuban writer life during the revolutionary period in Cuba. Subtitled in parts, it is somewhat lengthy, and depressing. Renaldo is gay as well, which I didn't know going in, so some male gay love scenes weren't exactly what I had hoped for. He makes it to America during the 1980 boatlift, but promptly dies of AIDS a few years later. I think the book would've been better. D+


I've no doubt that the story of Reynaldo Arenas could have made an interesting film, but no one involved in the production of this offering seems to have had a clue as to how to go about telling the story in an interesting way. Consequently, we're left with a tedious mess of a film that rambles on for too long, and often seems to forget whatever point it was trying to make.

The plot is taken straight out of Arenas' book Before Night Falls, and follows Arenas from childhood, where his teacher notices his writing abilities, through his joining up with Castro's rebels, his days in college, and his adulthood spent being persecuted, and ultimately imprisoned for his homosexuality. Eventually, he escapes to New York City, only to contract AIDS, and be smothered to death by his friend.

It's not an uplifting story to begin with, but much could be done with the telling to make it satisfying, as is the case with films like Sophie's Choice. Instead, we get a confusing muddle where fantasy and reality are intertwined to the point where you can't tell which is which. Characters are not well developed, even Arenas is still something of a cipher by the end of the film, and the supporting players are not given any depth at all. Apparently, the writers thought the story would tell itself, and therefore do nothing to help it along. The end result is a script which fails to engage the viewer.

Likewise the acting is equally stilted. While visually pleasing, Javier Bardem does nothing to make Arenas an appealing, or even interesting, character. The supporting players do little to differentiate themselves, so it is often hard to remember who is who, and who they are in relation to Arenas. Sean Penn's cameo was horrible, with an embarrassingly bad Spanish accent. And while Johnny Depp plays his parts with gusto, they do little to add much to a film that was already a lost cause by the time he appears on the screen.

A person's life story could make a very interesting film, particularly when the person has had as much adversity to overcome as Reynaldo Arenas. Unfortunately, this offering does little to draw you into the story, settling instead for a confusing sequence of facts, which ultimately goes on for way too long. Hardly worth sitting through the first time, much less viewing again.


it sucks. Plain and simple. Why didn't the protagonist leave Cuba when he had the chance? Why was he so stupid as to go to the police in the era of hatred in which he lived? And why exactly was he so bent on killing himself?

These aren't problems with the story, which I'm sure is very true to the writer's life. They're questions I have with his life, which I doubt merited being retold in this film. I spent half the movie wondering why the hell he was still in Cuba, and the other half of the movie waiting for him to die or be killed or die. Really, a very bad movie. If you want hope or sorrow or laughter or tragedy or anything, don't watch this movie. If you want to suffer through a vague politico-serio-tragedy, then "Before Night Falls" will do it.


With some films, (records, football matches), it's a question of hitting the right note at the right time. They may seem awful now, but you were there, and it felt good. Sometimes it's all about who you sat alongside. Before Night Falls may have been good - it was certainly depressing. I couldn't take it.

Movies were our first outlet for fun. They weren't enough anymore. I'm sorry M. Please forgive me.

Ron (Viewed 18Jun01. Left in tears after thirty minutes.)


Kind and/or pandering reviews treat this film as "fantastical" or "lyrical" account of the life of Cuban writer Reynaldo Arenas, but this merely obscures the film's lack of coherent concept, writing and direction.

It might have helped matters if this film about life in Castro Cuba had been made in Spanish. Instead, the audience must struggle to hear and comprehend Latin American actors speaking poorly articulated English. Adding to the confusion, Sean Penn appears in a cameo role of campesino. Here's an American actor trying to play a Cuban actor trying to speak English. Yet, when Arenas' writings are quoted, the soundtrack switches to Spanish, translated into English subtitles.

I left before the film ended, just after director Schnabel shifted to the technique of reprising a scene with different outcomes. I'd just seen Stephen Frears do something similar in "High Fidelity", to great comic effect. In "Before Night Falls" the same technique is bumbling and ineffective. Affection and respect for a gay writer who escaped from Castro's Cuba is no guarantee that you'll make a good film.


BEFORE NIGHT FALLS / (2000) ** (out of four)

The most I learned from the recent biographical drama "Before Night Falls" was that the Cuban poet Reinaldo Arena was persecuted for being gay. Based on the memoirs of the same named and directed by the painter Julian Schnabel, whose "Basquiat" was innovative and harrowing. Here Schnabel is focused and artful, but cannot really accomplish much from the tedious script co written by Cunningham O'Keefe, Lazaro Gomez Carriles, and himself. Being a member of a screenwriting team of three, one would think Schnabel would have been more insightful and entertaining, but instead he helps construct a film that examines areas of the writer's life that should have been left out, and does not achieve clarity on the issue of Arenas' poetic talent. This production is a major disappointment.

"Before Night Falls" looks into the entire life of Reinaldo Arenas, but never actually introduces a character whom with the audience can relate. The story portrays the poet and novelist who was driven to homelessness and cruel persecution due to his art and sexual status. As a young man he ran away from home to join Castro's rebels, but was later imprisoned and punished harshly for his work and homosexuality. Javier Bardem portrays Reinaldo Arenas with a believable, convincing edge, but lacks the intensity and energy to bring the notable and potentially intriguing character to life. The supporting cast is not much help, concluding with several American actors, such as Johnny Depp and Sean Penn, with brief cameos.

If Julian Schnabel wanted to examine a picture about sexual freedom then he took the wrong path. The film is not suggestive, and does not tease us with the character's quaint homosexuality. Instead we receive various sequences of extended male nudity. There is nothing interesting about watching naked men and viewing genitalia; nothing timely or erotic, just graphic and explicit. There is also nothing edgy or controversial with such nudity; people are not shocked or attracted to films just because they are not afraid to photograph under the belt, literally. Such aggressiveness exploits audacity, but the whole concept of the character being gay is done way over the top.

"Before Night Falls" does have a few nice elements. The mood and setting of the film appear authentic and honest, although often tranquil and unsettling. The use of grainy archival footage is a successful touch. There are also some wonderful images and cinematography. I also enjoyed how the movie stays focused on one central character, and there are no obvious plot distractions by unnecessary sub-plots. However, those variables are not enough to rescue the awkward story; it is just not very involving. I did not care about any of the characters. A shame, because "Before Night Falls" should have been a real event.


I like Wes Studi & especially Adam Beach, but whoa is this movie a load of pretentiousness. Ponderously slow. Overly cryptic to the point of obfuscation, not because the plot warrants it but because there is almost no plot. Even less in the way of characterization. This is almost like one of those creaky old Charlie Chan mysteries (the cheaper Monogram studio versions) with lots of red herrings & oddball characters (like the old ex-senator with the checkered past who is now a recluse) & loads of people getting killed over objets d'art that you wouldn't look twice at in the mall. Great scenery, though. Pretty hair on the redhead, too, although I never did figure out what she was doing in this at all. Neither could my wife. Sheesh, at least the old B-movies had the decency to be short.


There is NO Esperanto in this movie

I watched this movie specifically because IMDb lists Esperanto as one of the languages used. But IMDb is mistaken about the languages used in this film. There is absolutely no Esperanto at all. It's almost all English with a couple of words of Navajo. Do not watch this film if you're looking for Esperanto movies. Other options instead are "Idiot's Delight" (with Clark Gable) which has a bit of Esperanto, "Incubus" is all Esperanto (although completely mispronounced), and there are some Esperanto street signs in Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator." There was supposed to be some spoken Esperanto in "Gattaca" as well, but I never heard any.

Aside from that, the other reviewer is right. This movie is a complete mess.

Spend your time elsewhere.


The action was episodic and there was no narrative thread to tie the episodes together and move the story forward. The plot plods along. With few exceptions (e.g., Graham Greene) the acting was uninspired, and pedestrian at best. The actors seemed to have something on their minds, other than the scene they were in. It is boring to observe a man driving a car through the semi- desert country of this movie's setting, whether he drives poorly or well. Such scenes are typical of the level of tension in the video. So there was nothing about this video to engage or draw the observer in, to make him or her care about the characters and the out comes. I am doubly disappointed because I rented this movie based on the reputations of the executive producer (Redford) and the writer of the novel on which it was based (Hillerman). I note that the jewel box reports that funding is provided by PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as Carlton International. I would hope that this video was as disappointing to them as it was to me and my wife, to the point that they will not fund any more disasters coming from the same source.


This movie opens by introducing us to Squanto and his fellow tribe members . We`re shown that despite being unsophisticated and non white European they are still capable of being noble , loving and caring members of the human race . I don`t dispute that white European doesn`t always = good anymore than non white European = bad but you do get the impression that if any white Europeans turned up they`d instantly be the bad guys . True to form a ship comes sailing into the horizon

Right away the movie becomes totally anachronistic as the ship hoists the British union flag . The act of union between England and Scotland didn`t happen until 1707 while the St Patrick cross of Ireland wasn`t added to the flag until later still so considering this movie is set in 1620 it`s totally wrong . There`s other anachronistic details when the action ( Inaction more like - This is a boring movie ) tranfers to England which I won`t bore you with since you`ll be bored enough without my help . Oh and Britain was the first country to abolish slavery in the early 19th century , just thought I`d point this out since A WARRIOR`S TALE really does seem to think all the evil in the world began and ended with The British empire even if in 1620 Britain as a country didn`t exist as such <br /><br />A word about the acting - It`s totally variable . Alex Norton gives a good performance as a one dimensional bad guy and OZ fans will notice Mark Margolis do a very convincing English accent . However nearly everyone else is totally wooden while Michael Gambon gives a truly ridiculous performance

Perhaps the best way to evaluate this movie`s true worth is for me to point out my local ITV network broadcast it at 1.40 am


The great Michael Gambon is totally wasted in 'The Last Great Warrior', an account of the settlement of America as one-dimensionally partisan as its title suggests. No-one is saying that the English did not do terrible things when they settled the American continent, but to suggest that the natives lived in some kind of paradisical bliss is equally absurd; moreover, the film supplements this simplification with a dangerously inaccurate implication, namely that the only good Englishmen were the ones who settled America! (bizarrely, the bad Englishmen kill all the natives with their diseases, while the Pilgrim Fathers live happily and healthily beside them). Granted, this is a children's film, but there's more depth and characterisation in an average episode of 'The Hoobs' than in this. But oddly, its flaws are no worse than those of supposedly sophisticated films like 'The Last of the Mohicans'. Smug liberalism may be preferable to the racist superiority of the John Wayne era; but how sadly rare it is to see a "Western" (to which genre this film essentially belongs, in spite of its east coast setting) that goes beyond a game of goodies and baddies. 'The Last Great Warrior' most certainly does not.


Although this film wasn't historically accurate as it seemed, I have to admit there was an honest attempt to making it historically correct. For a Walt Disney movie, there were some aspects to the film that tried to let the audience know that there was at least some truth to Squanto's story. However, I really think that this film would have been a lot better off if they made it in documentary fashion rather than making as a children's film. I really don't think children themselves care too much about Squanto and what he meant to the Pawtuxet people. If a child wants to see a Walt Disney movie, I think they would be more interested in watching Peter Pan, or Winnie the Pooh or Cinderella, etc, NOT a story about an actual Native person who lived a proud legacy for his people.

But ............. anyways......... that's why I gave this film a 4 out of 10.


My English is not so good, sorry for that. I liked the music in the film a lot and was searching for ages for that song with the words "january", "Journey" and "feather on the ground" in it. Now I was waiting and watching a second time just to get the music and well, I have it as a film snippet but don't know anything else about it. One of your comments was very helpful, thanks a lot. (also to the others of cause, smile)

I lost and sorry, I wanted to write a comment but so much English and register again and again...

Forgive me please and maybe one good soul may help me to find that song. Is it from Fisher too ? The Song is played while they had the party.

All the best and thanks in advance, really

cheers


Sometimes the best way to understand a film is to listen to the director's own words. With "La demoiselle d'honneur," even that may not aid one's comprehension. For me, this film appears to be too loosely constructed to provide much more than very casually related scenes which appear to go nowhere. For example, director Clausd Charbrol, in a written interview in the special effects section of the DVD, says: " In my films the plot is not terribly significant. I try to get it out of the way in the first reel." One is left wondering why there is a wedding anyway? Why is there a bridesmaid? Why so much emphasis on the bride's mother doing hairdressing in her kitchen? Charbrol wants the audience to identify with Beniot, but identify with what? Charbol claims Phillipe's character is 80% sex and 20% passion. From this, the director expects the audience (in his words)to be "strong enough or crazy enough to reject their whole mental makeup." Phillipe drives a new car in the film apparently because the auto agency delivered it to the set by mistake, so his boss Nadeau lets him drive it for six months until his own driver's license is reinstated, but he admonishes Phillipe to "bring it back in one piece." The beach scene is an clearly stated as being an illusion to FROM HERE TO ETERNITY. There is also a clear illusion to PSYCHO. Of course, the absence of plot as the film progresses seems to allow the story to go out of control. Chabrol explains: "You have to ask funny questions at times." The only funny question I can think of is "Why would anyone want to see this film?" I find no merit for recommendation.


It's not clear to me why the vast majority of the users of this web site give this film such a high rating. There wasn't much I could find of substance: The plot is somewhat thin, and not developed as it could have been. Senta presents four conditions for totally committed love, including two that would be rejected by most people. However, the protagonist only deals with one of these. It would have been far more interesting if he had dealt with both. At least there would be some progression of the plot, which eventually could reach its conclusion or unravel (I'm avoiding spoilers here). The character of Senta is not believable, in the sense of being an irresistible force. Her speech is too clipped and with little intonation. Perhaps this is the way of modern French speech. Further, there is little in the way of body language or eye movement to reflect the irresistible force. Or perhaps the protagonist is simply too messed up and seeks solace in whichever live female (not statue) that crosses his path.


About ten years before he decided to venture again in Ruth Rendell universe, Claude Chabrol had transferred to the screen "a Judgment in Stone" entitled "la Cérémonie" (1995). It was his last great masterwork although he somewhat betrayed the novel. The choice of Sandrine Bonnaire for the main role was ill-advised. Afterwards, his career followed a creative downswing with rather mediocre works such as "au Coeur Du Mensonge" (1999) or "Merci pour Le Chocolat" (2000). So, could a new excursion in Ruth Rendell territory boost his career again?

Alas no and the title of my summary should give you an inkling about my thoughts on the Chabrol 2004 vintage. However, there were some good elements to make the film compelling and to grab the attention. The first sequence showcases Benoît Magimel and his family in front of the TV news that reveals a murder. Perfect to weave an eerie climate. The big, imposing, eerie house in which Laura Smet lives seems to shelter dark secrets and the "bridesmaid" lives in the basement. Chabrol was also interested in the games of truth and lie that link his two main actors and real suspense lies in Magimel's personality dangerously attracted to the bridesmaid. The filmmaker's touch is also discernible at the wedding ceremony where he ridicules its crucial steps. See the church sequence and the feast which echoes to the one in "Le Boucher" (1970). While I'm evoking this meal, the gastronomy dear to Chabrol has three sequences devoted to it in the whole film. But let's come back to the bulk of the plot. Like "a Judgement in Stone", "La Demoiselle d'Honneur" was an exciting novel to read and again Chabrol skipped over some important points, notably the reasons which prompt the hero to steal the bust from Gérard Courtois (Bernard Le Coq). In the novel, he stole it because he thought that Courtois was a vulgar man, but here Magimel's motivations to steal the bust remain blurred.

The thrust of the novel and so of the film is a man who gradually loses the control of his everyday life facing a sensual, attractive disturbing young woman. However, things aren't looking good because there's an absence of unnerving climate and the scenario seems to have been sedately written, especially near the end. In another extent, I know what I'm going to write is questionable but I do think that Chabrol contemporary films suffer from the choice of the actors (see bland Jacques Dutronc in "Merci pour Le Chocolat" or Jacques Gamblin in "au Coeur Du Mensonge") and sadly "la Demoisele d'Honneur" isn't an exception to the rule. Magimel's character isn't credible at all. He should get bogged down in madness as he's deeply in love with Smet but it isn't discernible on the screen. Laura Smet (Johnny Hallyday's daughter) has a monotonous acting while Bernard Le Coq's part is underwritten. Michel Duchaussoy who was brilliant in "Que la Bête Meure" (1969) is relegated to a minor tramp role unworthy of his wide acting skills.

So, an absence of interest for this story of manipulation is surely due to its actors and also because like for "la Cérémonie", Chabrol made dull Rendell's novel. Mr Chabrol, let's put it this way: the best of your work is far behind you in time (roughly the dusk of the sixties and the dawn of the seventies) and you will probably never reach this scale again. How about contemplating retirement?


I have not read Ruth Rendell's novel, so I cannot judge this film as an adaption of a fictional work. On the other hand, I think the film fails primarily because Rendell's story doesn't work well in a French setting. If I'm reading the film correctly, I think that Rendell wanted to get at class distinctions as a central topos of the novel, and this theme would play out superbly in an English setting, where class differences are part and parcel of the social fabric. In Chabrol's film, such distinctions are so understated as to be lackluster, if not plain dull, a thematic failure that is only made the worse by characters who are lifeless and lacking in the telling character traits and hard-scrabble wisdom one expects of certain class types. Everyone in Chabrol's film is bourgeois, bourgeois, bourgeois, and therefore just plain boring. The acting is not so great and I felt that the casting decisions were flawed. Finally, Senta is a ridiculously deranged young woman (wouldn't you, too, hear the stylus skipping across the LP if someone said they loved you and that you were the person for whom they had been waiting forever, after one afternoon of sex?), so it's difficult to imagine anyone taking her very seriously. Let's not forget the absurdity of Senta's mother and the mother's lover, played by untrained dancers (it's very obvious) who spend their waking hours practicing the tango in awkward and clumsy moves. Why didn't Chabrol do something else with them other than film the pair practicing steps they can never hope to master? I would not recommend this film.


If the director wasn't Claude Chabrol, I'm not sure this picture would have been released. It's a mystery story with a rather common theme. Ordinary man meets strange girl with secrets and his values tend to change in dangerous ways, because of the passion.

But the acting alienates the viewer. The dialog and the facial expressions don't mix together and you can't take the theme seriously. That's a problem in many French movies and not at least those of Chabrol. Maybe it's because one is too used to American actor manners, but I'm not sure that's really the problem here.

Passions can be boring and this is unfortunately an example.


I remember liking this film as a child, so at least on that level Thumbelina is a success for it is a film aimed for the children, but whilst many Disney films can still hold some of their magic for the older audiences, that is where Thumbelina falls down for once the viewer reaches the age where they become critical, then this film will give them much to be negatively critical about.

I'd like to say that, visually at least, the film is just as stunning as anything I've seen Disney create. And even the story was enjoyable to watch. However, there were plot holes, the music never sounded original (even the main song 'Let Me Be Your Wings' sounded and looked like a rip off of Aladdin's 'A Whole New World'), and the passing of time was never clear, so you were never sure whether a couple minutes had passed or several months. The script was nothing special either, with very few laughs or witty comments, and all the characters felt like regurgitation's of previous characters, cartoon or not.

It is a sweet film, and I'll always be glad I watched it as a kid. I do regret however watching again now, many years later, and finally seeing the truth of what this film really is. I would have much rather be left with the magic.


I didn't have high expectations to begin with, but this movie was simply below all standards.. Call me old fashioned if you will, but I think part of the beauty in animated children's films is the innocence they portray, and in Thumbelina the constant battle for the girl was not after her heart, rather after her body! Huh, could you believe that!? The prince can't get his hands off her from 20 seconds into their first meeting, the dress which is supposed to be at her ankles shows as high as her panties, all the other male character are constantly smooching her and touching her against her will, while they discuss which of them will get to keep her to satisfy his needs. Not to mention the promiscuous toad-mom who flaunts her boobs and legs! Gosh, I never thought I'd be so appalled by a ****ing cartoon! Originally, I got this film to show it to my 5 year old niece, but who in their right minds would let toddlers see this camouflaged soft-porn with the pretense of being intended for children? My vote is to stay away.


Don Bluth has always been a good movie maker. His Disney movies and his ow hits like NIHM and Anastasia are sone of the best animated films of their times. I have lately decided to recap on all of my childhood movies and one I found online. I might have watched 1/3 of the movie before I couldn't take it anymore.

First the opening scene is BEYOND AWFUL. the sparrow character is poosibly the most ugly, worst designed characters ever. He is also a bad singer. flying over a horribly CGI's environment. And then... "Ooh I love the sound of my voice!" Did they think that was funny? Anyway to the actual story. Bluth's 90's movies are well animated, but it makes some of the characters look bad. ALL of the animals and critters look like they're out of a 1940's Disney cartoon. The "Thumbelina" song was hard to listen to, the mexcan frogs were stereotypical. WHO HIRES CHARO TO PLAY ANY ROLE.on second thought, she might have been one of the only good actor on the movie. "Marry The Mole" was the WORST SONG i've ever heard ever. I would rather listen to a cheezy song from a Disney direct-to.

Goods: Barry Manilow sang good, animation nice. THAT'S IT!!!


Based on other reviewer comments, I have probably not seen this film in its entirety. That is indeed unfortunate, as it does have some aspects which may have made it a pretty decent film. Based on a Japanese novel, the story tells about the evolution of a virus that mimics everything and anything and has the ability to multiply at astounding rates. This virus, in the opening scene, is lost in mountains of snow waiting for the thaw that unleashes it on the world. Soon the world's populations begin to die with sundry sicknesses(Italian Flu I believe being the most predominant). Whilst all this chaos is going on, we get to see the reactions of the president, Glenn Ford, his secretaries, notably Robert Vaughn, and his military advisers, Henry Silva really carved thickly. This section of the film is done reasonably well, but the budget strains here and there. The script is also way too taxed. An epic is needed and a regular film is delivered. The second half of the film detours to the only place that can hide from the germs - Antartica, where all the countries representatives have convened and set up house. Now, they must decide to divide up eight women with 800 men. Hmmm, I'm not to keen at math but I know the odds there are pretty bad. They deal with other problems and we soon get to know several of the people involved: a Norwegian woman(inexplicably played by Olivia Hussey), a Japanese scientist, head of it all - George Kennedy, an Argentinian representative - Edward J. Olmos, Chuck Connors playing a member of Her Majesty's Navy(Yeah right!), and Bo Swenson as a hard-drinking, two-fisted American. None of the roles is really developed, and to make matters worse, a romance of sorts is thrown in to make sure the viewer is really confused. Is Virus(or whatever title you have seen it under) any good? Yes, it has some good to it. I liked the pace of the film. Much of the story was very interesting. But there are many detractors at least for me. None of the acting is very convincing despite having such an established cast. Ford is pretty good in his role, but Connors is just ridiculous as a British naval man. Henry Silva's wooden histrionics also are just too much. As I alluded to earlier, the scope and breadth of the film is not conducive to a feature-length film. This would have been great as a mini-series broken down into several evenings. Instead, too much is crammed into too short a period and obvious breaks occur. And I haven't even gotten to the most ridiculous aspect of the film which is the ending? It defies even the logic that the film had been using. Interesting concept but flawed execution.


"Virus" is a earnest attempt to chronicle an apocalypse, perhaps for cautionary as well as artistic and financial intentions. Unfortunately, the producers made many mistakes which seriously undercut their efforts. The result is a boring, sometimes tedious 2 ½ hour movie about a very important subject, i.e., gene splicing and the possible consequences of misuse as a biological weapon.

This is doubly a shame, as "Virus" was especially timely, coming at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. Although the fictional virus functioned in a slightly different manner, had AIDS been an airborne, highly infectious agent, the disastrous consequences could have been exactly the same.

The first serious mistake was the use of flashback at the beginning of the film. Given that there is very little action in "Virus," the use of flashback undercuts any element of suspense, at least during the first hour.

The second serious mistake was placing the disaster so near in the future (1982-83). Had the movie been a hit, it would barely have been out of the theaters before it was out of date.

The third serious mistake was casting actors well known for action films. Casting actors such as Chuck Connors, Bo Swenson, Sonny Chiba and Henry Silva creates anticipation for action which rarely happens. Glenn Ford, Robert Vaughn and, to a lesser extent, George Kennedy are effective in their small, but pivotal roles. However, all three of these stars are as associated with dramas as with action films. The beautiful Olivia Hussey is decorative, but too matter-of-fact for a character who be troubled and conflicted. However, it was a special treat seeing a very young Edward James Olmos; he was effective in his few scenes. Just don't ask him to sing.

The fourth serious mistake was not hiring a skilled second unit director versed in English. Many of the English-speaking actors overact; and, when there is this much overacting, it's the fault of the director. Given the sensitive manner of the scenes in which the actors spoke Japanese, I'm guessing the director was not well versed in English.

The fifth serious mistake was the phony looking "Oval Office" set. Since much of the drama takes place in the "Oval Office," great pains should have been taken to create a more realistic atmosphere.

WARNING: SPOILER

The sixth serious mistake involved the "ARS". anyone even remotely familiar with US defenses would know Silva would not be able to activate the "ARS" alone. US "Fail Safe" systems always require two individuals and an activation code. This would have been a very simple fix, and the mistake is compounded by allowing Silva to cackle like a villain in a bad melodrama.

If the first two hours of "Virus" were simply boring, the last 30 minutes is downright tedious, despite a whole 7 minutes of mild action, the first since the first half hour. When a film this dull runs over two hours, all the earlier irritants become even more noticeable. Everything from the sappy music to Chuck Connors' terrible British accent and Bo Svenson's "Buford Pusser" haircut brings great irritation. Worse, the last 30 minutes is laughably absurd, asking us to believe an "above top secret" weapons control center can be breached as easily as an office building. Such a command center would have its own air supply and decontamination center, making it as safe as Connors' nuclear submarine. By the way, hasn't anyone ever heard of HAZMAT suits? After all, this movie was made nearly ten years after "The Andromeda Strain." However, the most laughably absurd element is expecting us to believe the Japanese scientist could escape on foot from "ground zero" of an all-out nuclear war and find, several thousand miles later, a colony of two dozen or so people, when he hasn't a clue where they are going to settle.

END OF SPOILER

Keep in mind, the dreadful "Virus" cost nearly as much as "The Empire Strikes Back," and all the producers have to show for the effort is some beautiful photography. "Virus" is just one more piece of evidence than good intentions don't necessarily make good movies. I give "Virus" a "3".


I can only assume that other commentators saw a different take from the one now serving as my coffee-coaster.

This movie is absolutely lamentable. Even now, I can still hardly believe how bad it really is. Created in Japan, it lacks any of the shocking or subtle nuances that we in the west take for granted. By any standard: script, photography, sound-effects, lighting, directing, set-pieces, dubbing; in any aspect of theatrical evaluation it is a disaster, a failed, amateurish disaster.

Quite a collection of ageing Hollywood movie stalwarts generously put their reputations on the line in the name of international co-operation. Well; they made a mistake. I hope they got paid for their trouble. Or maybe they did it for charity; it certainly looks that way.

The copy I bought was called 'The Director's Cut'. Believe me; the only cut he should have made was to his abdomen when he fell on his sword. If there are other variations, go for the one that is blank.

For the uninitiated: a virus is traded by dubious individuals. They carry it in a light plane. The plane crashes, virus is released. It's an end-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it situation. To the everlasting relief of rational viewers, everyone begins to peg-out. They just don't do it quick enough. A small mixed group finish up ekeing-out an existence in some remote research station or other. There are not enough females to go round, etc.

Don't expect any pocket philosophy. Don't expect any insightful commentary. Don't expect anything expect poor lighting, fractured continuity, amateurish dubbing, crap dialogue, etc, etc, etc. It seems rather telling that the only other commentator who levies the criticism it deserves, happens to be Japanese. He honourably apologises on behalf of his nation (and quite right, too). Perhaps everyone else is being diplomatically polite.

I have awarded one star for the most preposterously hammy death - Robert Vaughan's, I think (oh-yes, he's in it) - ever seen on cinema. It could have come straight out of pantomime.

This is my nomination for 'Worst Movie Ever Made'. Watch it for that reason only. But be warned; you might wish you'd caught the virus instead.

Fukkatsu No Hi? I couldn't have put it better myself.


There were a few interesting aspects, especially for the film's era. The scope was pretty (overly?) large - even if a lot happens off-stage. However, there were some pretty horrible bits of acting as well. PLENTY of material for the MST3K guys. For a while I kept thinking it was FAIL-SAFE but done as a subplot on the Love Boat.

I especially love the 8 women to 600 men left in the polar research station who get RIGHT to the obvious point. As morally distasteful as it is ladies, we have a planet to repopulate and lots of men with needs...

Short straw gets George Kennedy.


The Gallic pseudo-sophistication runs pretty thick through this wafer-thin comedy, featuring Miou-Miou as a woman who decides to make a profession out of reading aloud to people. What transpires, of course, is that her sensuality and life-affirming giddiness enter into and transform the texts for her clients. It all has a certain well-measured charm, even if the whimsical wordplay gets overbearing quite often, and ultimately it loses this charm when it is decided that the character Marie is maintaining her dignity when refusing to read aloud pornographic material by de Sade for a geriatric judge and his friends, while finding no moral objection in allowing herself to be seduced by another client. At this point, the movie, which had been discreet in its treatment of sexuality, suddenly whacks the viewer in the face with closeups of the actress's naked crotch, and the whole exercise starts appearing more conspicuously misogynist: ultimately one gets the sense that neither the character nor the actress is in on the joke. This is not aided by the gratingly winsome yet flaccid performance by Miou-Miou, who does not thrive in this kind of role - there is really nothing to play here. There is really nothing to watch, either.


The story isn't anything new. Keanu Reeves plays Winston, a guy who wakes up with a major headache and absolutely no memory of what occurred the 'Night Before.' But as he wanders around the sleazy parts of a Californian city, he starts piecing together clues as to what exactly happened to his prom date, Tara (Loughlin), and a dreaded showdown at dawn with a guy named Tito.

I usually like 80s teen movies and most of the time it doesn't matter how stupid they are. But I didn't like this movie at all. It was quite revealing of what a bad actor Keanu Reeves can be. If you've seen Prince of Philadelphia, the River's Edge, or hell, even Bill and Ted, then you know he can give a good performance. All the while I was watching him in this movie, I just kept thinking of the old skits on Mad TV where they used to do the Keanu Reeves School of Acting. "Get in touch with that empty space in your brain." And Lori Loughlin, also no rookie to 80s teen movies, delivered her lines like she was suddenly picked on in English class to read the parts of a boring play.

And the story, which reminds me a lot of the old Nintendo game, Uninvited, would've been better if the characters and their situations were much more outrageous. The synopsis for the film compares The Night Before to Scorcese's After Hours, which, for those who haven't yet seen it, is about a guy who gets lost somewhere in New York, and every time he tries to find his way back home, he gets involved in some awful situation with a bunch of complete wierdos. Well, in Night Before, sure Winston comes across some strange folks like the guy who just sticks his arm in his car and grabs his wallet out of his tux. But there lacks a lot of humorous oddities that could've made this movie much more memorable. With a nutty story like this, there's plenty of opportunity to do that.


I was intrigued to see this movie after I found out that it was one of Keanu's earlier film debuts. The novelty of Keanu's performance wore off quite fast once I realized how absolutely dreadful this movie was. It was truly a struggle to get through it. Actually I only saw the ending a week or so later when I caught it being televised again. Even the beautiful Lori Loughlin was unable to rescue this film from the depths of mediocrity and garbage. Avoid this movie even if you are a Keanu fan.


Avoid this movie like the plague! This stinks so bad it's like the worst thing ever put on film. It ranks "up" there with an Ed Wood flick.

However there is something that may make you watch it - it "stars" Keanu Reeves! Holy maceral! I wondered if there was another actor similar to Jack Nicholson who was completely untalented at the start of their career and later developed into a star... it's Keanu Reeves. (But his performance in "Bill and Ted's Adventures" was cool.)

Burn the master... they don't allow negative scores on IMDb.com... 1/10

-Zafoid

PS: Some real good music.

-Z


Silent Predators starts on a dark night somewhere on a lonely road in Southern Califonia where a flat bed truck is driving along carrying a wooden crate with the words 'Venomous Reptile - Handle With Extreme Care' stencilled on it in big red lettering (!). The driver (Dominic Purcell) stops & gives a lift to a stranded motorist (Paul Tessone), the motorist ask's what's in the crate & the driver says it's a huge snake. Shortly after a tyre on the truck blows & causes the truck to crash, after killing the two men the venomous snake escapes... Jump '20 Years Later' & the to the small American town of San Catalano & the new fire chief Vic Rondelli (Harry Hamlin) has just arrived to take over from his retiring counterpart George (Beau Billingslea). The town is holding some sort of fête so Vic takes the opportunity to introduce himself to the locals, while Vic talks lovers Lacey (Nathalie Roy) & Jake (Daniel Murphy) disappear into the nearby forest where Jake is bitten by an aggressive rattlesnake & dies almost instantly. More people fall victim to the deadly snakes that have been disturbed by housing construction as Vic & PR executive Mandy Stratford (Shannon Sturges) try to alert the town, however greedy property developer Max Farrington (Jack Scalia) & Mayor Parker (David Spielberg) want everything hush-hush to avoid bad publicity...

Directed by Noel Nosseck I thought Silent Predators was average at best. The script by John Carpenter (if you can believe that), William S. Gilmore & Matt Dorff is as clichéd, predictable & strictly by-the-numbers as is possible. The character's for instance, the selfish businessman who wants to keep everything quiet because of his investment, the Mayor who fears for the towns economy, the unflappable hero with personal problems who nobody takes seriously at first, the blonde female who falls for the hero & just tags along for no apparent reason other than to be put in mortal danger so the hero can save & 'get the girl' at the end, the disposable character's who are there to keep the body count going but add nothing else whatsoever to the story, the scientist expert who happens to be a personal mate of the hero & knows everything about the creature/monster (depending upon film) & the central threat itself, in this case snakes, that pop up occasionally to kill someone. They're all here, present & correct. Everything you would expect to happen does, the nest being disturbed, a few deaths, the hero figuring it out, the female getting into trouble & the hero saving the day. Silent Predators doesn't have an original bone in it's body, having said that I found it sort of watchable on a really dumb level.

Director Nosseck doesn't do anything special with the film, it has no real style or flair to it although it does look a little better than it's low budget made-for-TV origins would suggest. There is no gore, decent scares, excitement & the thing is rather flat. The film never uses the snakes to their full potential either, there is no tension during the infrequent attacks & they aren't scary. For some reason Silent Predators was shot in Australia even though it was an American produced & financed film supposedly set in America? Figure that out.

With a budget that probably didn't amount to a hill of beans Silent Predators best asset is it's nice Australian locations, the photography is above average for a TV film & I suppose it's generally well made if extremely lifeless & flat. The acting isn't of a very high standard which should come as no surprise.

Silent Predators doesn't do anything wrong in itself, it's just that it's so unoriginal & clichéd that you will have probably seen every part of this film or character somewhere else. Only worth bothering with if your absolutely desperate or can see it on TV (where it firmly belongs very late at night) for free. Oh, & one more thing why is this called Silent Predators when it features rattlesnakes? I mean rattlesnakes are probably the noisiest snakes ever, right?


Twenty years ago there was a car accident one night in a small southern California town San Catalano where a crate of tropical rattlesnakes escaped into the area. Now the area is experiencing a boom in housing development, and this has disrupted the nest of these deadly predators. Vic Rondell the new fire chief has just arrived, and when one snake attack after another occurs. He goes about trying to discover why the sudden attacks, but the greedy property developer Max Farrington doesn't want to start a panic and tries his best to get Rondell on the wrong side of the community. So it's left up to a tainted Vic and Farrington's business associate Mandy Stratford to put a stop to it.

Routine, repetitive and lame creatures run amok TV b-feature. Not that I think it's the complete pits, but everything that happens here has been done to death. Even in the film itself! It's always the same actions occurring over and over again. Not helping out is that it's not bad enough to be hilarious, of course stupidity fills nearly every moment and everything about it is clumsy. However it doesn't have that schlock presence or any sense of fun. The low-rent script (supposedly written by John Carpenter in the 70s) throws a bit of everything into the contrived premise, but in the long run it's a poisonous venture that's witless and incredibly textbook stuff. Director Noel Nosseck does a real nothing job with it, and makes sure you're in for something of extreme blandness, poor pacing and tired false jumps. While the deaths are mostly random there's no suspense, nor thrills. Nothing is sustained or delivered, because they are poorly staged and too goofy to have any sort of effect. While the obnoxious score gets in the way. A special mention though, at least they didn't succumb to digital effects for the snakes. We even get some snake vision, using a red filter. Strange the title actually makes no sense, since we're talking about rattlesnakes here. The no-frills performances are your standard mould found in these features and so are their stock characters. A dopey looking Harry Hamlin is here to save the day! Dominic Purcell and an animal loving Patty McCormack also feature in minor parts.

Formulaic and unexciting is what it ends up being.


1950's Sci-Fi had a bunch of movies based on the notion of giant insects that creep us out in the small version scaring the bejeebers out of us in the large version. There were some good examples of this, most notably "Them", about Giant Ants from the nuclear test ranges.

This was one of the less successful version. Essentially, the guy who played Jock Ewing on Dallas sends a queen wasp into space to see what atomic radiation would do to it, and it lands in Africa, where they grow to be as big as semis and promptly kill everything in their path.

So what follows is stock footage of African Wildlife as filler, bad stop motion animation as filler, endless trekking through the imaginary African Savana as filler. And in the end, the giant wasps are killed by a stock footage volcano that just happened to go off at the right time... Good thing those giant wasps could FLY like real wasps, eh?

What a total waste of time.


Sometimes numbingly mediocre movie about a bunch of guys and a gal in the jungle, punctuated by giant wasps who attack the actors. It looks like the only reason they dressed the hero in that ridiculous white dandy suit was so he would match the guy in the stock footage, which looks like it was lifted from some silent jungle adventure movie. Really a lot of laughs with a crowd. But, also a really bad movie.


I want to make this perfectly clear. I've heard lots of people talking about this Monster From Green Hell film. It's all the rage with the kids today, I know. Well let me tell you what you're getting into with this film. There is no single monster in the film, there are several giant moths, that might be construed as monsters, but that would make the title MonsterS from Green Hell. Also, this Green Hell is talked about, I think, hard to hear through the terrible sound quality, but we never see it, and I'm pretty sure these moths didn't come from Green Hell. Plus the film's in black and white, thus there's no chance of seeing anything green. The proper title'd be Monsters from Dark Gray Hell. But I guess that doesn't have the same ring.

This is a very bad, boring, long, repetitious movie. By general movie standards it's quite poor. Next to movies like Orgy of the Dead, it's damn near watchable. A bunch of scientists end up making giant wasps (Hate it when that happens) so they have to trek through darkest Africa to stop them or something. They honestly don't seem intent on stoping them, nor are they truly prepared to handle them when they find them (A good deal of the crew are slaughtered).

The effects are bad, but you won't notice since the big bugs only appear in a cameo role at best...they're there in the beginning once or twice, then disappear until the "action-packed" finale. The rest of the time we're forced to sit through a rather tedious walk through of Africa, complete with stupid narration, idiotic characters, and some rather racist stuff as well (The white characters get a whole bunch of Africans to do all their dirty work for them, it's really all quite racist). And the white characters, well they can't get much whiter. One of them dresses in white as well, like Tom Wolfe on his most white day.

Racial politics of the fifties aside, this movie isn't much fun, nor is it scary or even campy. In a word: bland.