I was fairly lost throughout most of this film, and I am the one who usually understands the works of such enigmatic cinema greats as David Lynch (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi). Not to say that Northfork doesn't make sense on some level, it just doesn't combine to form a wholly coherent film. As time passes from watching the film, its themes and intentions become clearer, but during my initial viewing, I was really confounded, and I find that this is the major fault of the film...its lack of direction. The plot centers on the town of Northfork, Montana in the year 1955. The town has been emptied and will soon be flooded to make way for the creation of a hydro-electric dam. The major problem is that not all of its inhabitants are willing to be evacuated and relocated. A group of men are hired to coerce the remaining residents out of the town before it will be drowned, and for the most part they succeed amidst some fairly odd situations and townspeople. Simultaneously, the film tells the story of Irwin, a very sick young boy (or is he a fallen angel?) whose adopted parents gave him back, due to his illness, to the Northfork orphanage that they adopted him from. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) cares for the dying Irwin, but Irwin imagines (or does he?!) that a group of angels (including Daryl Hannah and Anthony Edwards) have arrived in the desolate and empty town looking for a fallen angel. Irwin has scars on his back and on his head, and he tries to convince the angels that his scars are where the humans amputated his wings and halo. Oh yeah, and during all of this there is a strangely surreal walking animal on stilts that roams throughout the backdrop of the landscape. There are a lot of other small events that happen in the film, but none of them end up amounting to much more than momentary intrigue. One can appreciate the artistic quality of the film (it's obvious that the filmmakers cared deeply about this film) and its rich cinematography, but the film still tries too hard to be different and then gives up and whimpers to an end without making much of a statement. Like I wrote earlier, it becomes clearer, long after viewing, what has possibly taken place in the film. Irwin is dying, and so is Northfork, and in coping with his own loss and death, Irwin has most likely created characters, from ideas he gets from the objects that surround him at the orphanage, to console him as he is abandoned and his life nears its end. But then again, maybe he really is an angel, and he has found his kind and can now return home. I must emphasize that there are some truly beautiful moments in the film, heartbreaking, vivid and full of loneliness and sadness. Unfortunately, the film as a whole just ends up feeling disconnected and somehow incomplete.


Peter Greenaway's film Drowning By Numbers certainly has an interesting and unique visual style and some very strong performances. However, in the final analysis I didn't really care much about the story on screen. The film opens with a young girl in a large, star-spangled dress counting out 100 different stars. The framing of the scene is compelling and curious, but ultimately pointless. Throughout the film, various things are numbered in sequential order. After the girl is finished jumping rope, an older woman passes by and proceeds to drown her husband in a tub after he has had an amorous interlude with a younger woman. He doesn't put up much of a struggle and there are numerous apples involved in the romantic escapade, and butterflies too. Eventually the film revolves around the woman's daughter and granddaughter also drowning their husbands with the complicity of the local coroner. Amid this, there are games with ridiculous rules; numbered cows; numerous insects; a self-circumcision; runners numbered 70 and 71 who attend a series of funerals and no compelling narrative. The interesting framing of many scenes held my interest for ten or fifteen minutes, for the next 100 or so I found myself wondering, "Why should I care?"


This is one of those films that the "artsy" crowd loves - a film that is just too "deep" for the average moviegoer to understand or appreciate. It appeals to the same crowd that calls a jar of urine with a cross in it "art." Cryptic numbers, odd eclectic characters, and fantastic settings substitute for any character development or cohesive story line. Any criticism, however, can be dismissed by the movie's handful of fans with derisive rolling of the eyes. You must just be too thick to get it, and obviously you're far too uneducated for them to even try to explain it to you.

If you have a PhD in philosophy and drink tea from a little china cup with your pinkie finger extended, this film might appeal to you. For the rest of us...well, watch something else. Better yet, stop by the local fast food restaurant and allow one of those pseudo-intellectual fans of this film to serve you a tasty lunch.


IT WAITS is a horribly disappointing creature movie about a young female forest ranger, still grieving over the accidental death of her friend, due to a car crash. While on-duty and at her post, she is visited by her boyfriend who tries to help her get past her guilt. One night they are awoken by something on the roof. When they investigate the noise, they find that their satellite has been ripped apart and their jeep rolled over. It turns out that they are up against a mythological, bloodthirsty demon that was released by a group of unsuspecting cave explorers who were torn apart by it. The movie has a nice look as well as a cool looking creature, sort of looking like the Creeper from Jeepers Creepers combined with Pumpkinhead, but it still seemed to be lacking in suspense and action. Very forgettable film...


Is this a horror movie or a soap opera? I don't know. It seems to want to be both, and it fails miserably at both. The movie starts off with some promise. A bunch of college students get killed by a daemon in a cave. But then......so much drama and angst and just bore. Sadly, it could have been good. But the focus was on the lead character being miserable over the accidental death of her best friend, which really had nothing to do with the monster in the woods. There are a few basic horror moments, bodies ripped to pieces and such by the creature. But you don't really care because the movie is so boring and so drawn out, it feels like it takes a hundred years to watch it. It's like the soap opera version of Jeepers Creepers only less interesting, more drawn out. And the ending is horribly unsatisfying. I don't recommend this movie. It's only redeeming quality is the actors were good, but they had such garbage to work with that it just didn't matter in the end. And what a waste of Native American mythology. It's like they only threw it in to get a few more movie goers. That story dies quickly and we never really get into much of it. The movie is a long drawn out waste of time.


Just wanted to say that this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. not only was there so many stupid holes in the story, like for instance that main character hoped the lighting would set a forest fire so she would get some help. oh wait, she had like a half week to do it herself but she didn't. I usually dislike it when the characters fail to do the most logical choice. at least when it happens too many times. I mean, if you drive your car over a demon. would you just park over it, stop the car and go out to see if its dead?

I mean, usually I don't care too much about effects, costumes etc. If the story is good, the film may be good regardless. but this film was damned predictable. in fact I thought the main characters was so bad that I only hoped they got what they deserved for wasting my time.


A creature of Native American legend is awoken and escapes from a cave to reek havoc on an unsuspecting bunch of forest rangers and forest trekkers. Hunting and killing it stalks forest ranger Danielle who is coping with the fact that she was responsible for the death of her best friend.

It waits reads like a great storyline and it is a good plot for a movie, I would says its just watch able, its a modern B-movie with so-so special effects and scenes which I could say where rip offs from other movies, i.e. Jeepers Creepers 1+2. The relationship between Danielle and boyfriend Justin bares no chemistry whatsoever and the sex scene just seemed like any other sex scene in a movie. In a nutshell the movie wasn't that great, and it was disappointing to see Cerina Vincent try to out act the bad storyline, after a first class performance in Cabin Fever.


"It Waits" inspires the same kind of fear that rice cakes do. Not only is it the same garbage as always, it's bad garbage. Rife with every standard post-"X-Files" pseudo-horror trope (look! it's a native American legend! honest!) but with the added bonus of having a soundtrack straight out of a 1992 romantic comedy/drama, this film is insulting to the viewer in every way possible. The only (and I do mean _only_) reason I didn't give this film a 1/10 is because "666: The Demon Child" is worse. I beg you, the viewer, not to waste your time watching this kind of thing. We can't keep settling for these bland horror-placebos. It's time that we stand up and demand that real horror film-makers have their chance to shine.

I had to buy "Deadbirds" from a video rental store that was closing, and "It Waits" gets international airtime on digital cable. There truly is no justice in the world.


Poor Danielle (Cerina Vincent). While she waits to return to the house on Haunted Hill, she is stuck in a ranger tower in the woods of British Columbia. Maybe she can pass the time with that weed they are famous for up there.

But no, she takes solace in a bottle of vodka and agonizes about driving drunk and killing her friend. In the meantime, there is an alien-like creature stalking the wood killing people.

We get lots of screaming and heavy breathing from Danielle while the creature attacks her. But It never kills her as it does every other person. Why? Who knows? The best aspect of this film is the scenery. I have to admit that it was absolutely beautiful. But, I wanted a horror movie, not a nature film.


Urgh. I got to watch this on the basis that Eric Schweig was in it. Let me tell you first that you see him for maybe 3 and a half minutes, so this is blatant false advertising.

I am kind of fond of bad cheesy horror, but this is not a funny bad movie. It's unfunny painful and boring. It's unfunny silly. It's unfunny badly acted. The beast sucks. I didn't even laugh.

Stay well clear, please! There are much better bad horrors out there, many many many more. Don't get conned by the fact that Eric Schweig is listed ....you'll barely see him (thankfully in a way).

3/10, because 1 and 2 star are reserved for real low-rated gems. This is too insignificant to deserve such.


The first five minutes we see some really bad actors go into a cave where there's a monster. The monster comes out quickly, we don't see him, so I'm assuming this might make a good movie.

The next half hour we get a bimbo, who we're supposed to believe is a park ranger, the only park ranger who never wears her uniform top. Instead, she prances around in a tight tank top displaying her large breasts. If this were real, every ranger in the U.S. would want to work with her. She wouldn't be believable as a mall security guard, let alone a park ranger.

For the next 30 minutes we get 100% soap opera. Really, really bad dialog and amazingly bad acting and the whole time I'm literally cringing wondering how in the world any filmmaker could start out what is supposed to be a horror film with this? We get thousands of flashes back to an accident she caused and a really badly dubbed bird that not a single viewer bought into (man, this is one of the most clichéd movie devices ever, in fact we get two: the blabbing, poorly dubbed bird and the "a bad thing happened to me so I'm an alcoholic" character).

Was this movie made by some junior high kids? Didn't I see Steven Cannell's name in the credits? I couldn't watch anymore. After a half hour I started fast forwarding, then skipping sections to see if anything would happen and there was LOTS of bad acting and still whatever I'd skip to was long and boring and finally I couldn't watch anymore. I don't know what the monster looked like or what he was up to because I couldn't take this unbelievably boring and poorly acted film. And looking at the lead actress's credits, she actually has gotten a lot of work. It makes me sad; very, very sad.

Note to idiot filmmakers who make these bad straight-to-DVD movies: bad acting and dialog to start out a movie (and throughout the movie) is not going to get your movie watched or any positive reviews (or more work for you). I absolutely cannot remember how this ended up in my Netflix queue but it did force me to go through it with a fine tuned comb.


This movie is BORING. It is slow paced and slow witted. The lead character is throwing a pity party and serves plenty of whine through out the length of the film. The movie does share some beautiful scenery, which is ruined by dumb dialog riddled with cliché, and a camera that is apparently attached to the back of a turtle, when not in the hands of a rampaging squirrel. The editing looks like the squirrel got a hold of it, too. The DVD doesn't include many features, and the one I miss is subtitles, as the dialog is often hurried or slurred. It had the overall quality of a 70's porn film without the skin and sex, which is even more pathetic that a 70's porn film with the skin and sex. I found myself fast forwarding through parts of it and even then the film was slow. I finally turned the thing off.


Yes this movie is bad...the only good part is that Cerina Vincent is hot...other than that....I cried when I watched this movie because it makes Jeepers Creepers look good...I watched it all the way...twice...only twice because I wanted to show my friend how bad it was. Turn your head and run from this movie, other than the "Attractive Female"...and the parrot this movie has no real value to anyone anywhere...I know B movies aren't always good...but this one, just makes me sad. Very very sad. "This part may be a Spoiler": We get no real closure as to what the "Demon" is, if it is dead, or if it will just continue to wait. I'd have to say the story and the way Danny St. Claire goes about calling her boss a 'Protoped' when she herself is still confused on the definition of said word. Also Indian Guy in cave saying "It's not Safe in here", really throws the movie into a, "What is going on" mood for the rest of the movie.


This movie misses it's mark in every way. It's tough to tell exactly what this creature is supposed to be. There apparently are no real rules governing it's behavior, as it comes out day or night with no aversion to light which makes you wonder why the characters feel so secure trampsing around during the day. It doesn't like rain but it doesn't hurt it and the creature runs around in it during the movie. Now to the two largest gaffs This creature is strong enough to rip out an engine and overturn a jeep as well as capable of pushing over the Ranger's tower but it cannot move the rocks in front of it's cave, and during one pivotal scene an expert on the monster gives the heroine a book of legends concerning our beast (which incidentally is never referenced again) saying it took shaman 500 years to bury the evil in his cave, must just be because they couldn't catch him home because all that was needed was a baby gate in front of the entrance and he was screwed. Lastly for those of us who also have seen Cabin Fever I'm sure a lot of the draw of this movie was Cerina Vincent. This movie butchers it's only selling point when during the "love scene" the wholly untalented miss Vincent stays covered, unlike in Cabin Fever when she is involved in multiple raunchy scenes. Ah, big stars and no nudity clauses, a shame movie might be worth ten bucks now it's a coaster.


I am really a frenetic horror movie picture fan, really, and the storyline of this movie sounded really interesting to me...awakened beast from recent American cultures......shiver....and I really got shocked from a lot of horror pictures in the past....but this one -It Waits- is a real shot at your rear panel. The most shocking something was the cruel acting due to the actors. Huaahhh. Please, Ms.Cerina Vincent, show mercy to us whenever you think about doing this again. Even more, I had the non-questionable luck to watch the German synchronized version, Jesus! The moment, the corpse fell down, the parrot yells, and it sounded like "Männeralarm", translated this means 'mens alarm'. Auch!! Please, for gods sake, next time rate such kinda work at 85+, or better 100+. Never mind.

And now something really spooky...I'm going watch the last 10 minutes left from this mind dazzling horror picture...and I hope I will survive!


Well, where do I start? Myself and many of my friends (all of whom work in film/TV/theatre with a fair bit of low/medium budget experience between us in terms of acting and crew) have learned more from this film than any other. Obviously what we've learned is what not to do, on every level of film-making. This film fails completely in every way. It's hard to summon up the energy to list why this film is such an unmitigated disaster, but here goes:

1. Terrible, terrible script. The concept could make an interesting film, but it's the concept only, none of the dialogue. The execution of this concept is genuinely appalling.

2. Terrible, terrible acting. Yes there's a couple of minor 'names' in it, but it seems that no-one acting in this film has been given the slightest bit of direction. Wooden delivery, bizarre facial reactions, rushed takes etc.

3. Terrible, terrible set dressing/locations. There is no sense that any of the office/studio locations are genuine working environments. It makes much of the film look like a bad student production. Not a limitation of budget, a limitation of talent and skill.

4. Terrible, terrible camera-work and lighting. No, I'm not missing the point that it's hand-held for 'realism'. I'm just saying that it's rubbish. It really is rubbish.

5. Terrible, terrible continuity. There's no excuse no matter how low your budget is. Just pay attention.

6. Terrible, terrible sound and music. Dodgy adr that's badly synced, over the top fx, cheap music that never fits the mood and sounds like it's done on a cheap yamaha sound module. Trust me, I've owned a few.

7. Terrible, terrible editing. The editing in this film is in fact so bad that a friend had to explain to me what was happening while we watched it. This film taught me so much about what you can do with editing, and how much you can screw things up. Truly opened my eyes.

8. Terrible, terrible special effects. It looks like someone's just bought a copy of premiere/aftereffects and spent half an hour learning how to use them.

9. Director's friends and family (and himself I suspect, under a number of pseudonyms) leaving reviews and trying to get people to watch this unbelievable piece of rubbish. Some of these complain of a vendetta against him. Some of them compare the film to Altman (or even Godard, from what I remember) THESE ARE ALL LIES. THIS FILM IS RUBBISH. If you want to check, just have a look at what other films these people have reviewed - surprise surprise, most of them are just films by the same director.

It's this dishonest use of IMDb that's caused me to write my first review. To be honest, everyone should see this. It's so funny due to its complete ineptitude that it's actually somewhat entertaining (if you're in the right mood and in the company of people who know anything about low budget film-making). Read some of the other reviews and see the director's and his friends excuses as to why the film doesn't work. Believe them if you want. Excuses are irrelevant, it's the final product that counts. And for someone that's actually made films before, AND GOT FUNDING FOR MORE, this is simply shocking.


This is truly one of the worst films that i have ever seen. I was going to write a sarcastic review of this film, so I sat down and summoned all the vitriol and bitterness inside of me, and found that there simply wasn't enough. The acting is terrible which is OK cos the script is terrible too. The premise is thoroughly uninteresting, "a guy kills some people" (ohhhh the scathing social commentary). The characters are one dimensional clichés. The film is well shot, although the comparisons to "24" are laughable (I won't even mention the comparisons to Altman). The problem with a film that is well shot is that one expects other production values to be good too. If this film was shot with two video cameras and submitted as a first year film school project it might make for an interesting watch but as a director's 6th piece it is baffling. How anyone can misuse a comic talent like Rik Mayall like this i dont know. But of course, you don't have to believe me, hire it if you must, but if you do, realize that it starts out terribly and it never gets better. There are no plot twists, there is no character development, and the "social commentary" goes as deep as some people aren't very nice. In fact, after writing this review, I have become convinced that I am deeply stupid and have missed something, so if anyone out there understands what i don't get, please let me know.


This is a musical with some marvelous Rogers & Hammerstein songs, but they are mere accoutrements for Agnes DeMille's sagebrush ballets. Every step is artistically perfect. The result is magnificent for choreography students and dance afficienados but tremendously slow for the rest of us. Rod Steiger is much too affected in his role. Gordon McRae is adequate,, but Shirley Jones and Eddie Albert come off as most memorable in an impressive, albeit overstuffed, cast. Altogether, this is great art, dance, and music, but a so-so movie.


Two English girls on a biking holiday ride through a rural portion of France, populated exclusively by sinister people. Somewhat too cleverly plotted film, with a huge red herring: one of the main characters acts in a completely irrational way simply to create confusion for the audience and lead into a kind of trick ending. Perhaps Cathy's extreme reticence is meant to be typical British reserve, but she eventually seems too self-possessed to be credible. And why bother to move the victim, when the entire location is so remote? Granted, it's well-directed and suspenseful throughout, but once it's over, the irrationalities undercut the accomplishment.


Moderately interesting but maddeningly slow and ultimately sleep-inducing thriller, set in the desolate highways of rural France. Starts off promisingly enough, but then it takes AGES for anything important to happen. The last 30 minutes are essentially a looooong, silent chase, and we are about 90% sure that the supposed villain is not really the villain. The remaining 10% is not enough to make the chase suspenseful. (*1/2)


Let me set the stage. I love well-crafted art-house dramas and romances from East Asia. Christmas In August (1998), One Fine Spring Day (2001), Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring (2003), Asako In Ruby Shoes (2000), Rules of Dating (2005), Art Museum By the Zoo (1998), and most of Yasujiro Ozu's films were very enjoyable to me. Add another 50 or so similar films to that recommendation list, and one could be forgiven to conclude that I not only like deliberately-paced, slow-burning art-house cinema, but I'm actually a big fan of the genre.

To date I've seen four of Sang-soo Hong's films and one thing is certain: the artistic merits of Virgin Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors (2000) was a fluke of sorts within Hong's otherwise unimpressive portfolio that treads dangerously close to mirroring something you'd see on Cinemax Late Night. A half dozen sex scenes? Check. Complete absence of character development? Check. Dull-as-dirt filler material? Check. In all honesty, there's very little (if anything) that distinguishes Hong's films from "tummy stick" fests.

Take Turning Gate as an example. A guy meets a girl, "bangs" her senseless, then stops seeing her. The same guy later meets another girl, "bangs" her senseless, then stops seeing her. The film ends. I'm not exaggerating when I say that this summary adequately covers any and all content this movie has to offer. You may wonder how on earth the running time clocks in at 115 minutes. I'll tell you. The characters walk around a lot, wait for cabs, and participate in some of the most boring conversations to ever grace celluloid.

The whole point of minimalization in film-making is to recreate the charming, intriguing scenarios that occupy everyday life while avoiding the uninteresting staleness surrounding those moments (watch an Ozu film if you can't get your head around this concept). For instance, the relationship with my first girlfriend could provide enough content for an interesting film, but a director is misguided if he thinks that showing me on the toilet for five minutes is going to provide any sort of entertainment value. Will someone please inform Tsai Ming-liang of this?

Now, Hong is not quite as bad as Tsai. He's close, but Turning Gate isn't quite the abhorrent "masterpiece" of trashiness that Viva L'Amour (1994) is. Both directors do make significant contributions to "Laundry" film-making though  which means that their focus on realism gives these hacks a free pass to make movies that are completely devoid of content or insight. For me personally, watching people pick each other up and "bang" is the equivalent of watching someone do their laundry. Hong's only good film  Virgin Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors  kept me interested in the "hunt" for two hours, which is something you can't say for his other, lesser efforts.

Let me offer a psychoanalysis of the type of person who will like this film, the title of which should probably be changed from Turning Gate to something like An Ode to a Meaningless Life. If you've had a dozen or so one-night stands and wish to reminiscence about the "good ole days", then you'll probably like this movie. I have personally tried to minimize the number of meaningless relationships in my life, so maybe I lack the prerequisites in experiencing sexual degeneracy to the point that I cannot appreciate the meaningless relationships presented in this movie.

If the director actually gave me some content to help me understand why these people live this way and how that lifestyle affects them, then I'd surely enjoy it more. One Fine Spring Day, for example, does a wonderful job of showing the emotional roller-coaster of a typical relationship from beginning to end. Unfortunately, Turning Gate (as well as most of Hong's other movies) is so devoid of content that the only people that will enjoy this movie are those who say to themselves, "Man, I yearn to remember the days when I banged a different person every week with no strings attached."

Don't misunderstand me. I love films with sex, but I need something interesting or intriguing to keep me engaged. Strange Circus (2005) had copious amounts of explicit sex, but it had psychological concepts behind them. Ardor (2002), The Isle (2000), and a few of the positively aforementioned films all had some steamy sex in them, but there was enough content that raised the experience above Playboy Channel trash. Hong ventures into that trashy realm far too often.

To close, I'd like to also communicate my displeasure with other reviewers who have imposed informative psychological content INTO the film when the filmmaker himself failed to do so. I read statements like, "It is a transposition of life, with all its ambiguities, its unaccomplished desires, its eternal quests" or "Every single spoken word has a special meaning" and think to myself, "How the hell was any of this communicated through this film?" It's a double-edged sword, I'm afraid. If someone is willing to project that much meaning into Turning Gate, then you surely must give a movie like Show Girls the same consideration.

After watching over 1,000 East Asian films I've been able to identify the types of movies that are a waste of time. The exploitation genre (e.g., The Untold Story or Kichiku Dai Enkai) is one example. Art-house cinema is full of traps, because amongst the many amazing films within this genre there are some truly inept flops that are so unambitious and mind-numbingly awful that one simply cannot avoid an occasional pitfall here or there. I resent directors like Hong who entice me with one good entry, only to then clobber me over the head with three steaming piles of pig manure.


Now playing is a polo match between "Movie Stars" and "Mickey's Mousers." On the stars team is Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, Harpo Marx and Charlie Chaplin. Playing for Mickey's team is Mickey, "The Goof," Big Bad Wolf and Donald Duck. Jack Holt is the referee.

In the crowd are such luminaries as Porky Pig, W. C. Fields, Minnie Mouse, Eleanor Roosevelt, Shirley Temple and a bunch of other famous people. That is fun to look at, trying to spot as many people and caricatures as you know.

The players are introduced. Those intros are funny. For instance, Harpo comes out on a ostrich, Chaplin uses a cane instead of a polo stick, etc.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the rest of the cartoon, the last 65 percent, is not very funny. We see some Laurel & Hardy bits, some Harpo stuff and Donald Duck get pummeled by everyone. None of it is very funny.

A good premise and a great start but overall, a disappointing animated short.


Brooke Shields is a spoiled little rich girl who decides she wants to enter a desert automobile race and since whatever Brookie wants, Brookie gets....

Streaking across the sand dunes in her favourite sand-colored scarf and cute little goggles with the wind blowing sand in her beautiful brown hair, Brooke gets kidnapped by a handsome sheik with a GQ beard who whisks her away to his pad and ties her up while Brooke pretends she doesn't like it.

Romantic Saharan adventure where the camels are more interesting than the actors.


I`ve never seen as many bad actors in a single movie, it seems that they have bought their acting diplomas - if they have one!Not even Brooke's beauty makes this movie tolerable. Unless you are a big fan of her, don't waste your precious time watching it.


Claude Berri's most disappointing movie to date. Perhaps Claude is surrounded by too many 'yes' people to take a truly objective look at his efforts. How some critics could extrapolate any glowing positives from such a tepid offering truly indicates that a career in film critique is available to just about anyone. Remarkably ALL the characters lacked an ounce of charisma (quite an achievement in itself),with the result that 60 minutes into the movie you really could not care where the thinnest of plots was heading. Quite sad to say that even the normally beguiling Miss Tautou could not provide a sufficient distraction either - perhaps the 'Da Vinci Code' has momentarily upset her ability to distinguish turkeys from true quality.


The role of the paranoid-mystic and abused soldier Wozzeck is a perfect character for Klaus Kinski. Herzog is right not to interfere too much with this portrayal (and Kinski is in almost every shot) by simply setting up the camera and standing back. Kinski is typically intense, but he manages to glaze this with a perpetual preoccupation with something else, something as if off-camera.

The problem is, there's nothing off-camera. The script is very close from Buchner's play but nothing in Herzog's production reflects it. There is none of the expressionism suggested by the DVD cover/advertising poster. The general look of the production is period-realist and close-framed. The action jumps, unmoderated, from one scene to the next, often losing a sense of dramatic causality. Herzog's strict adherence to the text eschews the opportunities afforded by film and left me feeling rather bereft...

The crisp, document-realism of this film has only one sequence modulated with music - the one addition that could really transform it. Clearly, a production of Berg's opera on the same material has music built into it (and what music!) and, notably, music inbetween the scenes, providing the breadth and rumination that Herzog has stubbornly refused. It's a satisfactory reproduction of Buchner's text but, Kinski aside, not much more than that. 4/10


I had previously seen Tom Waits version of Woyzeck in the theater which I love, read the novel, which is equally good. Watching this 'classic' was a disgrace to movie lovers across the globe. I found the film cheap and mainly bought it because of Kinski I must admit. He does a good job in this movie, which just ends out being dull and long (though it isn't that long!). The scenes are built up as if you sat in the theater - long shots from one side, only with few closeups now and then. It felt to me as a waste of time, as I had hoped to watch Woyzeck THE MOVIE, not another run of a theater play. If you like Kinski, watch the movie to see his grotesque faces, if not - leave it alone.


This show was so sad, however it really upset me because it was "ripped from the headlines" and at the time, the headline it was ripped from was my school. So even though I feel that it is an important topic, it could have been covered in a better way, or at least it should have had a Long message in the end. Because if anything it is merely suggesting to students a new way of accomplishing something. Also i feel as though the show cared more about the ratings and the number of viewers then they cared about the viewers that this would upset. At my school the kids playing this type of attack were arrested, but what about the other kids from the other schools that were not so lucky, how do you think they felt when the turned on the TV for their weekly does of One Tree Hill?


I thought that this show was a blatant rip-off of intense and profoundly tormenting 'reality news' turned to fiction. The offense here is not that the cast is at least, admirable, but rather that the writer and the writing steals from the pain of others. This is a script lacking in ethics with an abundance of lowest common denominator morality. Perhaps a third season was too much. Nonetheless, I feel sorry for the real victims in the schools of America. The second half of the first season and the second season were going somewhere prior to this stall.

All-in-all, where are some new ideas that are fresh and original?


I know that I am probably two decades older than the target audience for "One Tree Hill". I saw this particular episode by accident. I think the subject matter of school shootings is very important. I just wished that the treatment here was more imaginative and, especially the final plot twist at the end of the episode, not so contrived.

The only bright spot in this episode was the credible performance of Colin Fickes as Jimmy Edwards, the distraught student who held his fellow students hostage. I felt that the actor was on an entirely different level than the others. The stars and the supporting cast were very bland and uninteresting.

At least with this episode, I kept thinking about how "Degrassi: The Next Generation" did a much better job than "One Tree Hill". I noticed that the average age of the actors on "One Tree Hill" is around 23 or 24 years old while the actors on Degrassi is closer to high school age. Sometimes when it comes to television shows or movies about teens or young adults, it depends not only on the script but the casting and the talent of the actors.


Here's the problem I have with this film. It basically focuses in on one seemingly unrepentant pedophile priest and explains how he was put into that position and protected by the church. It is all stuff we've heard before and really offered me no new insight into the problem that has been made public before. Really, this entire movie could've been condensed into a 10-15 min segment on 20/20 or Dateline. But instead it is a long, drawn out affair that repeatedly bashes you over the head with the same themes and stories we've all heard before. The victims are constantly being thrown in your face so you can sympathize with them and understand the gravity of wrong doing by this priest and the church. Enough already, we get this. If I had watched this film in a theater, I would've definitely walked out on it after 30 minutes or so. Only reason I sat though it was because my sister and brother-in-law chose to watch it.

Don't waste your time unless you've been in the dark about this sort of thing for the last 20 years.


So lets get one thing straight, I've watched the first 7 years, many episodes more than once. Why? simple, I'm a 26 year old guy, and I like to look at the bosoms. Thats it. I'm a HUGE HUGE HUGE Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan, but not because of the plethora of attractive women that appear on that show. No, because of the writing, depth, and emotional resonance. Charmed will always be known as a Buffy clone w/o any of the good writing, acting, story lines, depth, and as i mentioned, emotional resonance.

let me sum up the first 7 years, since i haven't seen the 8th one yet (but ill watch it just so i know how the story finished)

I hate being a witch I love being a witch I hate being a witch I love being a witch I hate being a witch I love being a witch "maybe this is an innocent we just cant save" i love you *insert overly attractive male stars name here*, but i cant be with you because I'm a witch. i love Cole, i hate Cole, i love Cole, i hate Cole

the insipid writing is only topped by the blatant exploitation of Alyssa Milano, Shannen Doherty, holly Marie combs, and rose McGowan's sexy bodies. The show was never really good, i mean, it had SOME moments, brief ones, in episodes where things seem to have been written actually well, but is just lost when the inane writing truly shows its colors.

the show, unlike buff, blatantly exposes the hot women to scenarios, and situations to use their vast sex appeal to drawn an audience. have Alyssa milano as a half naked mermaid, a half naked mummy chick, a fully naked lady Godiva, naughty nymphs anyone? the show knows what it has, and it shamelessly exploits it. Think about it, if you've ever watched Buffy, can you name one episode where the show deliberately set itself up to be a sex grabber? every time something sexual happened it was usually within the scope of the show, and important to not only the story line of the episode, but of the greater arc. NEVER can that be said for Charmed.

This show is truly a pillar for which all unambitious, poorly written shows should strive for. if you can cast VERY hot women, put them in situations mentioned before, you can be on the air for 8 years, and have an actual core fan base who collectively have the intellectual level of a turnip. Now I'm not a hypocrite, seeing as how i mentioned I've watched 7 years of it, and will watch the 8th. I'm honest to myself, i watch it because Alyssa Milano is simply a goddess to be worshiped. But those of you who actually think you're watching good television, shame on you.

allow me to take an excerpt from encyclopedia Dramatica (google it) on the show. *note, i didn't write this:

"Since all Hollywood producers are unoriginal hacks with a single brain cell among them, BTVS was ripped off by Aaron Spelling who stole Buffy's premise and plots to make the series Charmed. He claimed he actually stole the idea from a movie by the same title but no one buys that bull****. Spelling put his creative signature on the show by costuming the lead characters as trailer trash whores and, to ensure verisimilitude, by casting actual trailer trash whores in the roles.

The clone has particular appeal for young women who wish to fight the forces of evil with their supernatural powers while wearing halter tops, stiletto heels, and glitter eyeshadow. The Charmed Ones official web site has announced their budget has been cut for the next season, meaning the stars will wear no clothing at all and will substitute old copies of "Bewitched" episodes for new scripts. This is expected to increase entertainment quality and viewer ship enormously. "

Retrieved from "http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer"

obviously a joking account of the show, but surprisingly spot on.

I wouldn't suggest ANYONE to watch this show, because it makes ME seem like a bumbling moron for even suggesting it.


I've been watching Charmed for a while now. At first, I thought the show was decent. Not brilliant, not the greatest show ever, and not even great. Just decent. The stories were rather well written, and the acting wasn't bad. Of course, I was also younger when I started watching, and my tastes have developed a good deal since then. In looking at the more recent seasons, and looking back at some of the worst parts of the older ones, I have come to this conclusion: Charmed is a rather bad show. The main reasons, I think, are:

1) The over abundance of campyness. Now, this was not as much of a problem in the earlier seasons. Back then, the episodes were rather grounded and serious. However, as time went on, the plots degraded more and more into campyness. Plots began centering around leprechauns and other such silly aspects of mythology. And they didn't even try to handle them in an interesting or original way. The leprechauns were simply short men with lucky gold. Story lines included characters' breasts enlarging several sizes or the characters turning into super heroes. All in all, things got increasingly silly, and not in any way that was funny.

2) The villains. They were the worst part of the series. All of the villains were one dimensional. They all had the same personalities. They never had any real motivation. They simply prattled on about how evil they were, laughed manically for a while, and then tried to kill people for no real reason besides the fact that they felt like it. They never gave a motivation for the characters. They never really explained why they were the way they were. They simply said "they're evil." Which brings me to another, related point. The villains openly admitted that they were evil. They gave that as their reasons for doing what they were doing. All they wanted to do was "spread evil." I heard such lines as "I'd never work with someone who was good." This, to me at least, seems like very simplistic writing. As Willem DaFoe said, everyone thinks they're righteous. No one does things because they're evil. Everyone has some sort of motivation. Even if they're so crazy that it only makes sense to them.

3) The mythology. The use of mythology in the show was just clichéd and boring. They made no attempts to put a new spin on the mythologies they were using. No attempt to make it into something at least somewhat original. Every mythological figure was a stereotype of the culture he or she originated from. Asian mythological figures all new martial arts and spoke with "zen" wisdom. Leprichauns, as I said earlier, were simply as every leprechaun has ever been portrayed. They never once tried to adapt the mythologies into something new or interesting.

4) Bad continuity. Things would happen, and never be referenced at all again when it was needed. One question that crossed my mind a few times was that, if witches can simply make something happen by speaking a rhyme, why don't they do it more often? Why go through all the trouble of hand to hand combat and psychic powers if you can kill people with bad poetry? On another, related note, there was an episode where they introduced "The Cleaners." Beings who rewrite reality so magic isn't exposed to humans (although I never understood why everyone was so afraid that humans would find out. I mean, it's not like we could hurt demons very effectively). And yet, there was a later episode where the Witches were exposed, and the cleaners were not mentioned once. Also, there was an early episode that said "blinking" (a form of teleportation) was a power a Warlock stole from a witch. And yet, in all later episodes, it said that blinking was a power inherent in all Warlocks.

All in all, the show kind of sucks. I think. But hey, if someone else likes it, that's their porogative.


The first year was new and fresh and sometimes funny. They should have finished at year 2. The stories became bad after the first years. Especially after adding the other sister The unwell undeveloped characters and bad story lines and the bad, bad, bad copying of everything -the last few years especially! - Harry Potter and all the stupidly unfunny movie spoofs. I just watched an episode were Leo is trying to hurt his sons through a dark side of his (so Star Wars one may say) but eventually one of the kids created this figure because who cares? Please tell me it didn't do well in USA. Please!

They could have it so much better!


After watching Charmed's 1st season I was interested. However after the third/fourth season, It just went downhill and it became apparent that the writers started to grasp for storyline ideas. They even ripped off a few ideas from other shows (that shall go unnamed), shamelessly. Charmed just ended up plain bad entertainment by the end of the show. It should have ended when it needed to, when it should have, which was Season 4. Then many viewers wouldn't have to have been disappointed and see this show go down in flames. I close by saying that Charmed set out as a great show. It had a strong storyline, good characters, however after 4 years the writers ruined the show with cheap ideas and ripped off story lines. Shame on them.


I attend the series everyday Charmed through the channel Sony, but the some months I discovered through communities of the Orkut that won't film more. I was completely satiny in knowing that the series didn't have a good audience, unlike Brazil, where we loved. The last season left a taste of I want plus, since the end was half vague. If it was necessary would mobilize the Brazilians to do low signed for the three more charismatic sisters return the screens. Lament with the end of the series, and some of the new series are imitating and following the same style, but they will never be compared with the quality and charisma of Charmed.


OK, lets be clear-I am not a fan. This show is way too derivative (think Buffy, etc.) plot heavy and poorly written. On occasions, the dialog is so silly that I can actually see the actors trying to stifle their smirks. Hmmmm-distracting. The plot lines are so outlandish that its difficult for a mere mortal such as myself to get interested. I hear tell that Shannon Doherty was pretty good in the earlier episodes (I'll bet she was, since she's a witch in real life too). But, you ask, you watch the thing! Of course I do--Aaron Spelling, the maestro of jiggle TV provides us with THE viable alternative to intelligent story lines--three nubile young witch ladies dressed-always-in (1) skin tight sweaters, (2) skin tight jeans, and/or (3) skin tight cute cocktail dresses (usually in black, let it be noted). The setting is perfect- San Francisco, then and now the actual witch capital of the world (I should know, I live one hour away from the vortex of arcane power). I see witches every time I go there. Now, back to the dramatic center of the show, those teeny little costumes. I notice that Alyssa Milano (the ring leader, I think)usually has the sexiest outfits. This is way cool, since she's one of the shows producers, too. This suggests to me that some of the back stage drama here is just as interesting as what happens on screen.


well what can I say about a show that had potential, but failed to deliver in the area of story lines and acting. I do admit that some story lines aren't that bad, but executed badly. Up and till season 4, it was OK to watch Charmed. Even with at times bad plots, you still could watch it and not kick yourself in the head later for watching it. If the show set out to entertain people, they could at least make an attempt at it. It would have been redeeming if it didn't take itself to seriously, which apparently they did. In that aspect, they didn't even deliver. Watching it, made me remember Power Rangers episodes because like the Power Rangers series, Charmed became increasingly formulaic over the years. In the beginning, you had demons, warlocks and on occasion a criminal and/or bad witch. But the redeeming side of it, was the relationship between the sisters and up till the first half of season 5, this was still present but severely diminished. I did enjoy the introduction of Paige to the show, but I got the feeling that they ran out of ideas after season 4. Season 5 and 6 was terrible. First of all was the death of Cole, who became indestructible. They killed him of in the worst possible way by sending Paige and Cole to an alternative dimension where he's still a demon and not a avatar. Than came the introduction of all sorts of magical beings: trolls, elves, gnomes, leprechauns, etc.... Instead of re imagining them and be creative. No, they used the popular vision of all these creatures and put them in there. After season 6, it didn't make any sense anymore and it felt like the producers and writers were so out of ideas for the show that it resulted in using cliché plots. Safe to say that Charmed wasn't always quality entertainment, but after season 4, it became quantity entertainment and I start to think that the producers and writers knew this. Otherwise, they were insulting its viewers and look like fools for doing continuing the show like that. In my opinion, they should have ended with season 5 lame ending. Sure the introduction of the Chris storyline seemed interesting, but was badly executed. Season 6 was probably the lamest season up to date and the only episodes worth mentioning were the reality show episode and the Barbas episodes. He's always fun to watch and interact with the sisters. Season 7 had a redeeming storyline throughout the season and should have been the perfect ending for a very mediocre show. The introduction of the Avatars and Zankou was handled nicely to my own surprise. The Zankou character like Barbas made the show worth watching, because there was a demon that stand out from the rest and was hard to kill. He even makes the Source looks lame compared to him. Although they could have done it better to set up the last two episodes where Zankou wanted to shake the sisters to their core. If that is all what it took to be shaking up, I'm surprised that the sisters survived this long. Than again, the demons were your typical run of the mill villain who attacks the sisters, plan to kill the sisters and end up being killed themselves. It reminded me of those lame action shows where the villain has nothing else to do than try to kill the hero. Unfortunately, the only demons worth mentioning is Zankou and Barbas. They were true demon and played superbly by great actors. Season 8 sucked. Even the acting went downhill. The introduction of Billie was terrible. I mean, it was laughable. The scene were Paige meets the demon in the theater and Billie crashes in to attack the demon was laughable. Not only the acting went downhill, the writing went first and it was visible. I'm glad they decided to cancel it. Too bad people prefer quantity over quality when it comes to entertainment. Shows like this, only show the stupidity of the masses at times, just like with the reality TV hype.


I've tried several times to watch this show for more than 45 seconds, just to catch a glimpse of my lovely San Francisco or Ms. Milano, to no avail. Can't make it through 30 seconds. Preposterously poor writing and dialog, absurd situations and plot twists. Takes itself far too seriously to be satirical. Simply horrible. Horrendous. Horrific. Perilously poor. Did I mention the acting? I think revolting is apt. Turns out Ms. Milano is a producer. She's not aged well and her production is a flop. I have NO clue as to how it remained on the air for more than a single season. Some of the cameos I've seen while flipping by the station have been hilarious. Awful. Sickening. Terrible.


Let me first start with saying I rather liked the first three seasons with Prue. This show was never supposed to be a pillar of extraordinary writing, but at the very least mildly entertaining. The characters were flat and the sexual exploitation of the beautiful actresses was very visible. After Shanon Doherty left the show went downhill. Rose McGowan had an even more restricted character, probably because the awful scripts gave her nothing to work with. She also didn't seem to have many facial expressions and her deliverance was wooden at best. The story also went downhill from here on out. The show started on a rather superficial base and went completely overboard with pointless en unimaginative story lines. Mythical creatures were introduces, the line between evil and good was all too visible. The only bad guy who ever came close to being interesting was Cole, seeing as he was evil but also loved Phoebe. All other characters were generic with them constantly reminding us that they were in fact evil (they would just come out and say it. That's just bad dialog) and the charmed ones were good (also just coming out and saying it out loud).

Needless to say, if you are looking for an entertaining show: watch the first three seasons only. The quality is terrible from the start, but at least it's watchable. After that it goes downhill until the point you ask yourself why the writers seem to have the idea that the viewers are either retarded or small children.


This is one of those movies that would have you believe that surfing is a mystical endeavor, allowing one to heighten awareness and become closer to if not one with the godhead nature. Instead of the leisure sport of ski bums w/ surfboards don't work and hang at the beach. Which is cool, but that doesn't make it some ethereal vision-quest.

Lori Petty can always be counted on to irritate without doing any acting and this is no exception. I think she wants to be feisty, scrappy, empowering - those things. She's done much TV and it shows: she releases her emotions by staring at the camera. She has 3 modes: self-righteous indignation when she's wronged; self-righteous indignation when someone else is wronged; self-righteous indignation with a little girl voice when she's willing to have sex. All by herself she managed to ruin "League of their own". Here, could there have been worse choice for a love interest?

The real shame is the plot & script. Kathryn Bigelow is way better than this: K19, Near Dark, Strange Days - all brilliant. But she was involved w/ schlock-/ fluff-meister Cameron then and he wrote the script.

Overall this was intended to be a heart-pounding, blood-rushing, edge-o-ur-seat action fest. This is accomplished by having Reeves jump out of a plane without a parachute and catch up to the bad guy. Where they macho-talk about who will pull the ripcord until they're just a few-hundred feet over the ground. They survive of course.

It's about surfer bank robbers. FBI agent Busey has figured this out and says "They're surfers. Look at the evidence: they rob in summer only."

The robbers are meticulous and perfect in execution, except for the last job where the leader changes the plan without telling the rest of the gang and of course this allows them to be shot/ caught.

But it doesn't even end there: There's the no-parachute scene about; then Reeves tracks his man all over; then there's a confrontation where he lets him go to die in some big weather.


Good directing and crisp editing can't save this mindless overwrought film. Keanu Reeves is his reliably wooden self as an FBI agent who maybe likes Patrick Swayze's bank robber/surfer character a little too much. I love Reeves line to Swayze near the end, 'You crossed the line. People trusted you and they died.' (sic) I'd add: 'And oh yeah, you broke the law a lot, terrorized a lot of innocent people, murdered a cop, kidnapped and almost had my girl killed and you've been generally an insufferable, pompous megalomaniac.' Then I'd have shot him in the knee and arrested him. But that's just me. Reeves lets him surf off into oblivion because the movie is really about the love/hate relationship between these two space cases.

All that aside, the story and dialogue is all nonsense and the acting ranges from adequate to bad tho Busey almost succeeds in making a character you could give a damn about. A nice film to look at but not to listen to.


I wish the movie had not been so ridiculous. An FBI agent going undercover, under his real name, AND doing raids on more or less the same group he is trying to infiltrate? Insane. A group of 13 year-olds would take more precautions than these FBI agents are shown doing. There MIGHT have been a movie here. The agent, Keanu Reeves, is shown getting close to a surfer gal in order to get 'in' with the surfers; he tells her his parents died (which is a lie--they are still alive, we later find out, in Ohio) to gain sympathy from her, because he has found out thru records that her parents died in an accident when she was a child. This kind of thing brings out a type of remorse in the 'best' of circumstances. It is HARD to go undercover. That's why J.Edgar Hoover didn't even LET his agents go undercover: no way, back then. But the foolishness in this movie is too, too much. Too bad, because some of it is pretty cool. Altho there is a slip-up: there are no football scholarships in law school.


aside from the visually stunning shots of the ocean and skydiving this film has some major fundamental flaws. the major problem was many of the scenes failed to make sense. for example when johnny is chasing the ex presidents in his car after they had robbed a bank why did he not call for backup to cut them off? thats the first thing any officer on any level would do. secondly i never understood how they figured out it was surfers committing the crimes. they claimed it was because of wax on their shoes? wax could get there by any number of ways. lastly, how did johnny know where the robbers were going after the final robbery? he was never told by bodie, in fact he deliberately kept it from him. don't waste your 2 hours on this, read a book.


Despite a great cast and a terrific book as source material, this movie is simply dreadful. The writing is flat, the characters muted, the direction stilted. Worse, like Mississippi Burning, the role of the Civil Rights Movement in Mississippi is virtually ignored. Some day, someone will make a great movie about the murders of J. E. Chaney, Mickey, Schwerner and Andy Goodman. This isn't it.


This is the worst film you will ever see, please stay away from it. i have joined this site only to tell people not to watch this film, now i have to write 10 lines saying how bad it is. Its stupid, its not funny, i hate it, i told all my friends it was good so they would watch it and now they hate me, Jennifer Love Hewitt is hardly in it, please don't buy, rent, borrow this. How Emma Woodhouse says this is good is, i kinda hate her a bit, i'm sorry Emma, i'm sure you're a great girl but for real, this isn't a good film, 94 minutes of badness, i know this film as love sucks, no, this film sucks. Only one more line to go, but i could go on forever hating this film.


Watch this movie, and you'll see why it didn't go nationwide. It just can't hold it's own.

Like most movies with young actors, yet no aliens or psychopaths, it was labeled a comedy. (Using stars from "Can't Hardly Wait" and "She's All That" doesn't help.) It's not. If you laugh aloud more than three times, you're probably drunk. I do agree with other reviewers that this movie would make an okay stage play, but as a movie, it's not targeting its ideal audience, assuming there IS one.

This movie looks as if it was being written as they filmed. How else would you explain their top billed stars, Jennifer Love Hewitt and Peter Facinelli, starting as main characters, then switching to comic relief. Meanwhile, the unknown Dash Mihok becomes the main character.

Not that he's a bad actor; his performance surpasses that of many of the others. Sadly, his character is so serious compared to the others that no chemistry exists to link them. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if we see him again soon.

As for the others, Hewitt and Matthew Lillard are the only ones cast in outright "bad" roles (and should be more worried about "The Audrey Hepburn Story" and "Wing Commander," respectively). This movie is too unknown to effectively damage any careers, anyway.

There were two things I did enjoy about this film. The first was how Mr. P (the hobo) turns out to be the hero from "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." Unfortunately, not all viewers of teen movies share my interest in literary allusion. The second was the song, Soccer Ball, written by the director. I am, of course referring to when it's played during the closing credits by professionals, not when Facinelli "sings" it during the rave scene.

Overall, the video is good for insomniacs, provided they can find it.

My rating: 3.


The english title for this Movie is "Love Sucks" and I have to say after sitting through this garbage I must agree with the title. This has got to be the worst movie I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. Even Jennifer couldnt save this movie as her role was badly written and somewhat annoying. On the whole a must miss movie.


I don't normally think twice about movies that are this nauseating, but after realizing just how lame this is, I am forced to share my opinions.

For the most part, three words can be used to describe 'Telling You', and I have already used them. Everything from the first word to the last scene was dreadful. Was this film trying to make a point about something? If it was, I totally missed it. I accidentally stumbled across this movie one night. After watching it, I tried to remember if I had ever heard anything about it before. I hadn't. This just goes to prove that it is not worth seeing.

The plot was a disaster. What exactly was it again? All I can remember is that it mostly took place in a pizza joint. The writing was so boring, I found it almost impossible to stay awake. Scene after scene was humiliating on the actor's part. Not to mention the crew's.

One thing that I found the most laughable, was the actors. Matthew Lilliard is able to handle more entertaining films. So why would he agree to take part in this? Hewitt, who is not one of my most favorite actresses, is "supposedly" talented, defeats that purpose for joining into this group of loser acting. I can't even begin to wonder why anybody would have the nerve to have anything to do with this film. I will commend them on one thing and only one thing. - They had the decency to not laugh in the faces of whoever thought up this garbage.

I could rattle on and on about how much I obviously despised this film. Instead, I will let anyone who reads this, read the other comments because they are all basically the same. DON'T WHATEVER YOU DO, MAKE ANY ATTEMPT AT TRYING TO SIT THROUGH THIS.


Even my love, Jennifer Love Hewitt, can't pull this one out of trouble.

This movie is a fence-walk between an intriguing independent film and a trendy, likeable Hollywood teen-flick (ala Dazed and Confused). But, unlike Dazed and confused, it's just short of intriguing and way short of likeable.

The movie contains scenes that are PAINFULLY drawn out and exaggerated, and the characters completely lack depth. Because of my age, I'm trying to picture these people as my peers, and I'm cringing.

The story develops too slowly and, because of that, the "climax" is such a let down that you can't even believe that anyone working on the movie could make a decision about where to end it. But you're glad someone did.


The original is a classic and one of my 50 favourite movies.

This 2008 remake... I just watched it tonight... it was up there with being a BAD movie... It is very disappointing... come on... its 2008.... SURELY they could have remade it better than the 1970 (ish) version ? The answer: NO

Its far fetched... has bad acting... bad special effects (the wave of virus washing across the land) and worse plot.

Its rubbish compared to the original, which gave you a little tingle down your spine as you watched it... this version makes you feel embarrassed to admit you watched it.

What made the original work is that it was 'confined'... the majority of the movie took place down in that closed off lab... you were trapped in there with the 'Andromeda strain' and the scientists. THATS what gave it its realism... All of the attempt at action... just shook the original plot all to pieces.

Thumbs down on many levels...


While lifting various plot elements from the original (nasty virus, Wildfire containment facility, odd-man-out auto-destruct canceler, etc) we get a whole pile of additional elements thrown in, and for no apparent good reason.

Ben Bratt's character has a substance abusing wife and an estranged son...this goes no where.

The Wildfire team is now composed of a more politically correct team including a black, an Asian, and a homosexual.

Wormhole? Virus sent from the future so we can save ourselves? Somebody's been watching too many Star Trek reruns.

The let's-crawl-up-the-central-Wildfire-tube-core sequence in the original was terrific and tension filled. In this remake it is labored and boring. It might have gained another score point if the wrong thumb had been cut off.

And then there's Jack Nash running around looking for Grace (oops, wrong series).

And then we have all the secret bad government daring-do, a predictable addition in these times.

As someone else once said "They should only remake bad movies".

You've been warned.


This miniseries was mostly a 7.5 or so for me, until the last half of the final part where they proceeded to:

- Basically ignore (they threw in a casual explanation) the two survivors of Piedmont sub-plot

- Ignore the sub-plot (even if it was a horribly clichéd one) of the estranged wife of Dr Stone, and rebellious son

- Ignore the fact that there were airborne rubber eating Andromedas above Piedmont when the helicopters flew over

- Turn the Andromeda strain into a visible on-screen entity

- Provide no clear reason for why Dae Kims character died upon throwing a thumb

- Flub the ending of the reporter sub-plot, so it became a total "Who Cares?"

- Give Andromeda an actual (and completely dumb) origin, rather than leave it mysterious like the novel

- Bore us all to death with environmentalist clichéd 1960s Star Trek-esquire moralising

- Bore us past death to "government conspiracy" plot line that's so horribly overdone

- Provide no reason as to why there was lots of rubble falling down the central shaft

But perhaps the most burning of the flaws with this miniseries was the action that occurred when the nuclear fail-safe was activated. Besides being motivated by a plot contrivance rather than logically occurring as it did in the novel, it was also horribly dragged out.

I recorded this and watched it back via Sky+ (Tivo-esque machine for those of you not in the UK) and I must have fast forwarded through most of that climbing and crawling sequence. It actually seemed to me like because they had a few ex-24 stars, they felt like the thing needed to happen in real time.

Do film-makers really think we need to see every excruciating detail of climbing up ladders, climbing down ladders, throwing thumbs, climbing into vents, climbing out of vents, crawling across a floor, crawling up a wall, struggling to remove a key-card, struggling to remove a thumb.

Just get to the point, we don't want to see 10 minutes of padding in a 15 minute "action" sequence!


Hard to believe such a great book and movie could be ruined by infantile, cheap, melodramatic, two-dimensional writing, directing and camera-work, but this is a great example of how it can be done. Unwatchable. Pointless love story. Robotic characters. TV-style, quick-take, short-attention-spanning, wannabe thriller movie-making. One hopes the director and writer never get another TV credit again. Crichton should sue. I could tell from the first 30 seconds of the film that it was going to disappoint and be as predictable and unimaginative as it was. Not even HBO for pre-schoolers. See the original ASAP! IT can be watched ten times and not be as boring as this remake.


36 years later, better CGI etc. so I had high hopes that this miniseries would be even better than the film from 1971. Unfortunately, it proved to be a big disappointment. The acting is bad, the CGI is worse and the story ...... Well, i guess a new word has to be invented to describe it properly. The original story, which had a big mysterious ring to it, has been altered for the worse. The story has been poisoned with paranoid idea's on the future, politics, governmental conspiracy's, conservation of the planet etc. etc. etc.. Flavoured with a little wormhole and spiced with a time paradox. And there you have it! A castrated remake of a superb film! This miniseries is worse than Plan nine from outer-space by far! I'm utterly disgusted with myself for having watched this ...... (truck-)load of horse excrement. Avoid this film, if you liked the '71 version!


If you've seen the "updated remakes" of Rollerball, The Time Machine, Planet of the Apes, The Invaders, War of the Worlds, The Haunting, Lost in Space, and Battlestar Galactica and liked them, if you like the contrived derivative science-fictiony mini-series "Taken", then you'll like this.

The novel "Andromeda Strain" by Michael Chrichton could have been updated to 2008 U.S.A. without doing the overboard nonsense as clearly demonstrated in the above-mentioned awful remakes.

I'm sorry Michael Crichton is still alive to see this hack job of his masterpiece.

For example, in the remake of "The Haunting", there had to be lesbians. For what reason, who knows? But, in this remake, guess what? Unnecessary homosexuals! Even though it was obvious in the original film that the female scientist could have been a lesbian IT WAS IMMATERIAL TO THE PLOT, so wasn't explored! There was child abuse in the new "The Haunting", too. Why? I dunno. Someone wanted to make a point, I suppose, but failed utterly in doing so.

In the "Lost in Space" remake, the relationship between Will Smith and his father is dysfunctional as all get out. And UNNECESSARILY SO. Well, in this remake, the various characters (and there's too many of them) all have some sort of dysfunctional relationship with each other, with baggage left over from previous run-ins, affairs, and incidents.

The "Planet of the Apes" remake and "Time Machine" remake both did something stupid and unnecessary with time-space travel. So does this.

Wanna not trust the government? Well, "The Taken" used that so much it wore a hole in it. And it's done to death in this remake, even though, in the original Andromeda Strain, it was done just right. Why? Because in the original the government was running a con on the bio-scientists who didn't figure it out until five minutes from the end. That was enough government conspiracy stuff for me. I don't need anti-government paranoia thrown in my face, overdosing me, from the first minute of the film! And don't get me started on the moronic, pandering introduction of a sensation-seeking "journalist" (who wasn't in the original novel or film) that just mucks up the whole works. The producers apparently wanted to base him on an Anderson Cooper-Geraldo Rivera hybrid. Like that's a good model for a fabricated journalist.

If you wanted to update the Andromeda Strain, why not do it by updating the computer tech, the genetics, the medical diagnosis tech, the biochemistry knowledge/tech and the biowarfare tech? Those were all in the original film, but could use updating to 2008 tech or even envisioning a bit beyond 2008 tech. It could have been done just like the original Andromeda Strain, which put tech there that was recognizable and believable and understandable for a 1970 audience, but, where necessary, took it a step or two into the future.

And why do we have to have a mix-and-match one-from-column-A-and-one-from-column-B gender/race/sexual preference scientific team? Because it's politically correct? Guess what? I just watched the Phoenix Mars Lander team get interviewed and there was no such politically-motivated race/gender/sexual preference nonsense on that team. That's because the Phoenix team was chosen on the basis of knowledge, expertise, and ability, just like the the original Andromeda Strain scientific team.

Sorry, Benjamin Bratt, Christa Miller, Eric McCormack, and Rick Shroder, I loved you in other stuff, but you sure got suckered into this.

I really hate "remakes" that are over-emo, angst-filled, self-involved, personality conflict bore-fests. Can you tell? Anyway, after watching this wretched thing, I put in my DVD of Andromeda Strain and actually enjoyed "The Andromeda Strain".


Save yourself a few tedious hours, skip this crap and see the 1971 original. This is another example of a movie that has nothing going for it but the good feelings a viewer might have about the original. (How appropriate that I first learned about it while waiting for the lousy "Indiana Jones 4" to begin.)

So, so, so much padding! (And even so, A&E managed to stuff in almost 80 minutes of commercials in the two night run.) Ridiculous plot lines that go nowhere (the Geraldo-style reporter, "vent-mining"), unnecessary time-waster shots of animals eating each other (all just to establish the infection vector of a rat dropped onto a group of National Guardsmen) family squabbles that go nowhere... all of these had the unmistakable feel of an effort to reach a predetermined running time. The problem is, when length is more important a goal than quality, nothing can be left on the cutting-room floor. Trimmed to two hours, this just might have been a watchable movie.

Even if decently edited to tighten up the pacing, there's then the problem of reeediculous plot devices that were added to this adaptation. For example:

- Telepathic germs (you gotta be freaking kidding)

- Messages from the future (I freaking wish I was kidding) --- Note to future guys: instead of "739528", maybe "hey, look on the space station" would get your point across a little better

- Orbiting wormholes (still not kidding)

- Blackbird attacks that kill soldiers in helmets and full combat gear (shades of Alfred Hitchcock)

- Endless blather about "vent mining", and even a terrorist attack on a vent mining platform. ----- (Oops! did we forget to explain what that had to do with the story?)

- "Pass the thumb"

- Andromeda racing across the countryside turning everything yellow.

- Dime-store CGI (we're talking "Sci-Fi Channel Original" quality) used even in scenes where the real thing would have been easier and more effective: flame throwers, dried blood sifting from a cut, the inexplicable falling debris in the core.

- Is the action dragging? Time for some Guardsmen to buy the farm!

- Hollywood leftist paranoia: the evil team of General Mancheck and Colonel Farris, military hit men, NSA stashing a final vial of the pathogen, and (my personal favorite) the company Enburton (Enron + Halliburton?) running the vent mining operation.

Michael Crichton wrote the original novel of "The Andromeda Strain", and the 1971 movie remembered so fondly by many was a quite faithful adaptation. You've heard of Michael Crichton because he has written lots of exciting and interesting science fiction, much of which has been turned into movies (of varying quality.)

This adaptation was written by Robert Schenkkan. You likely haven't heard of him, because he's been asked to write almost nothing else for the screen. Judging from this production, there would seem to be a reason for that. He has written a number of well-received plays, but apparently that talent does not translate well to television; what I recall of his 2004 "Spartacus" miniseries was on the level of "Andromeda". (Trekkie alert: as a C-list actor, Schenkkan is best remembered for eating an alien cockroach and then getting his head blown up, when he played Commander Remmick in the ST:TNG first-season episode "Conspiracy".)

If this is the best A&E can do, I hope that in the future they'll just stay out of the science fiction genre. At the very least they should produce original stories, instead of mucking up remakes of perfectly good predecessors.

I'll never get those four hours back, but you still have a chance to miss this movie. Consider yourself warned.


I can't begin to say all that is bad about this extremely long terribly boring mini-series. First off the script is terrible. Here is one of the worst things that is said & mind you these are supposed to be some of the smartest minds of all. "Oh the power is out so there is no way to get up to the other floors, so well why don't we just climb up manually? Wow that's a brilliant idea." I'm not kidding this is actually said. Besides the script even the effects and the acting is wooden. This wouldn't be as bad if it weren't for the fact that you have to endure this for 4 HOURS!!! Well not counting commercials it is probably ONLY 3 hours but even still it is just not watching. Considering the fact this was done better (although outdated) in 1971 makes this version even worse. Please don't waste your time with this snore-worthy mini-series drivel.


Let's see: Some guys in the future have some kind of death organism that they discover can only be controlled by the bacteria that live near mineral-rich undersea vents. So they send a sample of the deadly stuff back in time to us, encased in a bucky-ball package that has instructions written on it in ASCII (not EBCDIC!) about how we shouldn't mine the vents and destroy the anti-virus bacteria. But some military types have a satellite hanging around the worm hole to the future hoping to snag some kind of schrecklichkeit from space they can use for germ warfare. Unfortunately, they snag the bucky-ball and break it open, destroying all the instructions except the name of the stuff and a serial number. The satellite crashes, loosing the virus. Meanwhile, evil big businessmen are preparing to mine the vents. So there are two simultaneous conspiracies, one to use the virus for warfare, the other to make sure the vents get mined. In the end: (1) scientists figure out how to use the vent-bacteria to kill the virus, thus saving the world for the moment; (2) the military conspirators kill each other because some of them have a change of heart; (3) the President decides to go ahead with the vent-mining anyway (4) a cigarette-smoking man saves a sample of the virus in the International Space Station so it will be available for the future.

So...

(1) Where did the virus come from in the first place? Did the Future get it from us, the Past? But in the Past (our Present) the vents get mined and there would be no bacteria for the Future to use to suppress the virus. So the Future could not be telling us how to combat the virus.

(2) Or, we are living in alternative past created when the Future sent the sample back to our universe. In the alternative Future created by our alternative Past, the Future will receive the sample from us, but they won't be able to control it and Time will end. But the real Future doesn't care, because they created an alternative Future (not theirs) that took the fall.

(3) But wait....

(4) And what about those highly favorable reviews posted here that were posted days and sometimes weeks BEFORE the date the show was aired? Are we living in an alternative universe in which the show is a turkey caused by the messages posted by people in the Past sending messages to the Present? If that singularity had not happened, would the show have been as great as they said it was?


Let's review the original 70's movie (since i haven't read the book, which i'm gonna read after this): An infectious but nouvelle agent menacing mankind, a special team with the ultimate technology gathered to solve the problem, the US government eager to finish it the fast (and not always)the smart way. All with the methodic and reasoned approach that a group of scientist will do in the real life. The team of scientist with absolutely nothing in common except for their knowledge, and the boring-not ''pretty people'' looks of all of them (the female character looks like my oldest aunt). That and a believable story behind it...............

All it's gone in the miniseries.......A few points on the plus side: beautiful scenery, the laboratory amazing and realistic, the same for the computer graphics, viral-bacterial culture devices and the electron microscope.

But the story has so many loose ends :the wife and son of the lead scientist has absolutely no purpose at all, not even to influence the actions of Ben's Bratt character; no clear progression around all the Andromeda discoveries; the continuous mutations of the agent ''explaining'' everything (with no sense at all); and the environmental message some screenwriter (a drunken one i'm sure) put with forceps into the story.

And: 'la creme de la creme': a wormhole!!!!!!!!!!!! and a coded information from the future (insert here dramatic music).

It's amazing for me to see how a number of good pictures, series, miniseries are continuously destroyed year after year during the past decade. This one is another example of the trend.

Do yourself a huge favor: if you are capable of being entertained by the Sci-fi genre, only watch the original movie, and you will be safe..........until Hollywood looks up again in the movie database.


Simply horrible: overblown made-for-TV-movie melodrama, poor acting, silly makeup effects and production design, bad direction. And a script that foolishly adds multiple, painfully obvious plot lines to the original story so that the taut and gripping plot of the novel is almost completely obscured. Despite having more running time than the 1971 movie, this soggy mini-series seems rushed to cram in all the stupidity it can.

Watch it at your peril, if you want a satisfying, chilling, and intelligent movie, rent the well-crafted Robert Wise version; it is one of the great SF movies of the 1970s. It is one of the rare movies that really shows science at work, and the scenes of death at Piedmont will always stick with you.


Curious...

1) Why would a highly-classified government agency, under military purview and overseen by a four star general, give this degree of access to what are clearly anti-government civilians--including one with a known tie to a conspiracy nut in the media--AND give them unrestricted communication to the outside world?

2) Especially since the government is willing to covertly murder civilians to protect the project.

3) How can a helicopter fly as fast an an F-16?

4) How do you get a team composed of EXACTLY one Asian, one Latino, one African-American, one white woman and one homosexual?

...and that's just the first hour. It just doesn't pass the common sense test.


Waste of time!

IF the movie was made by a High School Drama Team... then OK... good work. Otherwise, this stinks

Just like all the other "Mini Movies"... which are put together in haste...

Token Asian "brain" guy Token female "hero" chick Token White "bad" guy Token military "evil" guy Token politician "cover-up" guy Token teenage "couple in love" pair

Typical small town Typical... "this is going to end it all for the world" theme

Bad acting, bad casting, and VERY BAD research...

The USAF logo... is a RECRUITING logo for the USAF

There are NO 4-Star Generals except in time of war!

Why have a camouflaged business jet for the "General"? Is he going to land that thing in Iraq?

Where did that response team come from so fast? No-town Utah is suppose to be in the middle of nowhere! Oh... that's right, they were dropped out of the government sponsored UFO!

Since when has ANY "First Lady" looked that good?

And from the very start I just knew that someone would suggest "nuking" the town... which they did suggest. That is how predictable this waste of time is!

Again... if it was done by a bunch of High School drama students... then great! You have some imagination. But if I paid to have a ad during the movie... I would demand a refund!

Speaking of ads.... Ford actually did an ad during the movie based on the movie... I will never buy a Ford!


Everything about this is so truly awful that I actually watched the whole thing. The original movie was unique in that we actually got to see scientific research in action. Here we get to see Hollywood management in action. Add pieces from Alien, Day after Tomorrow, X-Files, recent gore films, even Prince of Darkness plus a reporter on drugs sub-plot, and many other things that have no place in the story. If you cut all that out you will find that the remains last less time than the original film. The final battle against the microbes is sub-SciFi channel. The production looks good but who cares? The acting from the main stars is unbelievably indifferent (give me my paycheck, I'm outta here). Bad bad bad.


Credibility was given the first version for the usual reasons. Is there really anyone who hasn't seen the first one? One of those was that their were gray-hairs in charge of the project and working in the lab. I find it hard to see where the survival of the entire planet would be given to a handful of young scientists. It's more like "The Andromeda Strain for kids". I understand that everyone who does a remake feels compelled to "update" by adding more time and effort to the sub-plots, but really! The original version was tight and tense for it's time. The story was compressed into a normal time slot of approximately two hours. Dragging this story out with unnecessary sub-plots and editing out pertinent data derived from the book is a good example of how to take a good story and ruin it by forcing and expanding sub-plots where they were never needed. Would be a good example for film school on what not to do in a remake.


I cannot believe anybody but dull-witted Hanna Montana fans might like this stupidity. I actually thought the commercial for this movie was better than the movie.

1. How does a guy who is afraid of heights catch a freshly-cut-off flying thumb thrown from a dying homosexual from 30 feet below? I was expecting the token gay lisper to say "Nice catch!" before slipping into the liquid....

2. How many times have YOU been been bit on the butt by a wild rat while crapping in the desert?

3. At least the talking computer didn't say, "Dave, I feel it!"

4. Do eagles frequently drop bloody rats on groups of soldiers?

5. Was the dark-haired female scientist a sapling from the tree of Algore? Because she was about as wooden.

Why is it that Hollywood chooses to remake perfectly good movies and then make them worse when they do? I think they are smart enough to stay away from certain sacrosanct material, such as Casablanca (can you imagine the all-black soul version starring Eddie Murphy as Sam, Ilsa, Rick, and Laslo?), Gone With The Wind (although that stupid sequel Scarlett was bad enough to try), etc. But why even do these idiotic remakes? Have these writers really run out of ideas? Did someone put alcohol in their blood surrogate?

How many unnecessary "luv" sequences are there in this movie? " To boldly go where no man has gone before" oral sex preview; wooden actress and lead scientist; reporter dude and pothead desert chick; even the "don't ask, don't tell" gay reference about not having a date.... come ON! Can you possibly make a movie without gratuitous sexual ANYTHING in it, unless it is the weather report? AND did you notice that the two heroes who die-- the gay guy and the Chinese guy-- are our E-N-E-M-I-E-S? One for the homophobes, one for the xenophobes!!!! The only redeeming feature of this movie were the very cool forward-looking computers.


It's fantastic that the network hired some "social media marketing" team to come in and write 9- and 10-star reviews for this piece of crap. Notice how the first 4-5 reviews are all stellar, and yet the people who actually just finished watching it on the first run of the broadcast schedule are hard pressed to give it even 2 stars.

Bad movie. Some good acting, which was impressive considering the script they had to work with. The other reviews have pointed out the endless inconsistencies and mistakes. The only thing I could add was the painful monologue at the end about how "we misuse technology." Um, no, idiot, Andromeda was from the FUTURE, therefore our technology saved us, it had nothing to do with causing the accident.


Seriously folks, what did you expect? They couldn't make it just like the original novel/movie, because the original is not that obscure, and there isn't any good way to change the story and still make a reasonable production. All the major changes came in the second part, the first part was played almost exactly like the original. This seemed almost deliberate.

In the second part, we get some cursory mention of the two survivors and some theorizing as to why they may still be alive... but then they're simply forgotten and don't even figure in the overall plot. Presumably this was to avoid the obvious ending where the military spray everything with large vat-worths of stomach acid.

Having said that, I do feel that some of the reviewers here were watching a different mini-series. There weren't as many plot-holes as some want you to believe; it actually held up to plot scrutiny pretty well. The acting was about right for this kind of production, the effects were done well. It was just that cheesy rewrite of the original story that I can't get beyond. Time travel paradoxes, wormholes, 'things' sent back from the future? As someone already noted, way too many Star Trek plot-lifts for my liking. But the one thing that the original has in spades, and this has none of..? A spine-chilling sinister, spookiness, that just doesn't sit well and makes your skin crawl. The original, despite its almost complete lack of violence and gore, is every bit horror movie as it is sci-fi. This is just another one of those cheesy updates that will repeat endlessly on the SciFi channel.

The worst part for me was that the nail-biting ladder sequence from the original was wasted and replaced with 10 minutes of mind-numbing stupidity. He's dying because it's a radioactive pool, geddit? The other fella, it was the gravity that got him. We didn't mention the gravity? Darnit! You don't know what I'm referring to? LUCKY YOU!

If you want some advice, rent the original and watch it with the lights turned down, preferably late at night when it's all quiet outside.


Part One was very exciting and well done. It seemed to go along with the book very well (I read the original book over thirty years ago) Tonight I was excited for part two...what a disappointment!...and that's an understatement!!! As previously mentioned by my fellow writers, this movie introduced and brought back some of the things the original movie built on...like epilepsy...PH levels...the baby and the old man...the lower level being incomplete and sealing them off. They did nothing with any of that. To make matters worse they add Dr Stones wife and kid troubles...a brief love encounter...a gay man...all this for no reason and could and should have been left out of the movie entirely.

Stick with the script...did Michael approve of this? Remakes should be better, not worse. Did we not learn anything from the remake of Rollerball?


Yup! It was pretty bad, though I admit I watched it to the end. Sometimes what is more interesting about a remake is how it reflects current cultural thinking. Just as the 1971 movie added a woman who wasn't in the book (And author Michael Chricton has a real problem with women - you would see this if you read his books.) Now the cast is multi-ethnic and gender diverse. Frankly, I think this is good - by now it would be STRANGE to see a group of doctors be all white men.

The conspiracies within conspiracies is more modern too -- all those years of X-files have made their mark.

But this would have been a far better movie if it had been an hour shorter -- cut out the alcoholic wife & troubled son of the main character, the love interest, the government conspiracies, and less of the intrepid reporter trying to get the news and the movie could have been decent.

In the original story, the focus was on the scientists in the lab trying to find a cure for a constantly mutating organism. The remake should have kept the focus there instead of wandering all over with side plots and much too many scenes of Andromeda in action. (I didn't see the "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie" disclaimer at the end, but I think with what CGI can do today, I'm hoping none were.)


The Andromeda Strain is my all time favorite movie and the first time I saw it I was about fifteen and was awed! I actually thought the movie was based on actual events. I've watched the original so many times, I can see it in my head from beginning to end. I eventually bought the book and read it without putting it down. There were a lot of differences between the movie and the book, but it wasn't deviated from too much to spoil either one. The original movie was suspenseful without being over done. Dramatic enough without being sappy. I always believed the ending could have been different, but it still left you with the sense that it was far from over. I always imagined The Andromeda Strain being remade, but with actors I could recognize. From watching the trailer, I could see no familiar cast member that made me want to watch it. I didn't watch the movie so I can't really vote on it fairly, and from reading some of the comments,I probably won't be at a loss! So I'll vote awful simply because I'm afraid they've messed up a great book! Thanks, but I think I'll pass.


...with bad dreams of this pathetic remake of the classic original by Robert Wise. I kept watching, stabbing at the mute so I could avoid watching the same inane, and frequent commercials. It got worse the closer we got to the climax. It's not that the acting was so bad, it's just that the new plot twists were ridiculous and the special effects budget must have been a couple of hundred bucks. When the thumb throw sequence happened, that was it, just way too silly. Or maybe it was the rat bite on the pooping butt? Or was it the cheesy orange wave of Andromeda over the landscapes and in the rivers? Or the red magic marker lines on the faces on the infected? You get the idea.


Did anyone notice the ending included "The Smoking Man" from the original X Files? Once again, he is hooked up with all of the world powers and has access to Andromeda. The series was over-rated, the Ford commercial was stupid. The lab falling apart in second chapter was indeed an old thriller type of stunt. Not at all fresh. I agree that the sub-plots of the President and his wife, staff, drug addictions and family members did not add to the presentation of this predictable storyline. The original was exciting and entertaining. We too are upset that we anticipated so much more from the cast and were ripped off. We are older and have a lot of experience with sci-fi but this did not even make it into that category. Did anyone pay attention to the footage of all the dead birds...a bit of overkill. Sort of like re-watching The Birds by Hitchkock, NOT.


I elected to devote three hours to watching this remake because I am a big fan of the original movie. But this remake was painfully violent and gory. The writers left no stone unturned in thinking up new ways to show people dying in brutally vicious ways.

The original movie did not have this same level of violence and insanity. Yet it still kept an edge-of-your-seat level of suspense. It's too bad the producers of the remake felt that they needed a significant level of blood and guts to attract an audience.

Also, the commercials, which seemed to come every 10 minutes, kept breaking up the flow. It felt as if a full hour of the three was ads! It was hard to get into the story when it was only delivered in small chunks amidst frequent commercials.

There was indeed some good acting, however. Benjamin Bratt and Eric McCormack gave stand-out performances. They were fantastic. I also very much liked Daniel Dae Kim who was perfect in this role. Andre Braugher, however, was a little too over the top in his militarism, and became less than believable.

Summary: go rent the original and enjoy a fantastic adventure that can truly stand the test of time.


It's a shame that A&E chose the Memorial Day weekend to cart out this trash. Memorial Day is a time to honor our fallen heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Instead, A&E decided to air this poor remake of a really good movie. In this version the military is portrayed as nothing more than incompetent, murderous buffoons who are constantly outwitted by a drug-addled journalist. So the message is this -- military BAD, media GOOD. The men and women who wear the uniform and are serving so admirably deserve better than this. I won't go into any more points that make this movie so bad. Just read the other viewers comments...the list is long.


The Andromeda Clichés. Holy moly, just check them off: Govt conspiracy, heroic "journalist", evil military, arrogant humanity, do-gooder environmentalism, blah, blah, blah. This was such a piece of crap it's hard to believe Ridley Scott had anything to do with it. It's such a mishmash of half-assed developed stories, you'd think that it was written in 10 parts, with none of the writers knowing what the others wrote. They must have had some pretty compromising photos of Crichton doing a dead donkey to get him to agree to this abomination. Save your time and dime and just rent the original. It is a straight up presentation of what might actually occur in a "Wildfire" situation, not the sappy, crappy Lifetime special that A&E slapped together.


If I could vote 0 out of 10 I would. I saw the original movie years and years ago, then read Chriton's book. This remake of the movie is so far away from the book I agree with another commenter that Chriton should have sued before he died for Trademark infringement on the title. Remakes are rarely even close to the originals in quality but this is so far at the opposite range quality it falls off the scale.

As much as I was looking forward to a modernization to the book and the original film, I could not have been more disappointed.

I am a huge fan of Chriton but the screen writing of this movie misses not only the atmosphere of the book but is detached entirely from the "Technology vs. Man" theme of Chriton's original.