Phillipe Diaz's "The End of Poverty?" pretends to take up the cause of the world's oppressed. According to the short plot summary (written by producer Beth Portello) which appears on the main IMDb page for this film, it was "Inspired by the works of 19th century economist Henry George, who examined the causes of industrial depressions." The fact that the film methodically ignores the contributions of the far more influential and widely celebrated 19th century investigator of industrial depressions and poverty, Karl Marx, is but one indication of this film's intellectually shoddy and ultimately dishonest character.

"The End of Poverty?" is structured as a series of three intermixed components, which goes on for nearly all of a seemingly endless 106 minutes: (1) interviews with impoverished people in the "Third World," which, here, is synonymous with the "South;" (2) interviews with historical, economic and political thinkers (mostly from the "First World") who sketch out some of the history of European colonialism and its effects on the colonized peoples and (3) full-screen white-on-black statistical statements, like "X percent of the world's people consume Y percent of the world's energy" etc. Along the way, some of the commentators point out that the rise of capitalism was based on -- and a large share of its profits continues to be based on -- the ruthless exploitation of the colonial world. Although the talking heads often use the circumspect word "system," references to "capitalism" appear more frequently as the film progresses. Thus, the viewer might reasonably expect the film to culminate with a call for the end (overthrow?) of the system which causes all this misery: capitalism. Don't hold your breath.

The film's portrait of the world's wretched is peculiarly skewed. Most of the interviews with poor people and footage of pitiful living conditions are from South America, notably Bolivia. The time allotted to Africa is a distant second and focuses on Kenya, with a much smaller Tanzanian component. There is precious little footage from -- or mention of -- Asia. Most of the interviewed poor are or were connected to the land in some way. Industrial workers are essentially ignored. Causes of poverty such as war and ethnic victimization are similarly overlooked. "Does poverty exist even within the over-consuming 'North' as well?" one might ask. As far as "The End of Poverty?" is concerned, the latter is invisible. Other viewers might be forgiven for wondering about the effects on poverty of the overthrow of capitalism in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba (the "Second World"?). Again, silence reigns. Thus, as a study of the world's misery, the film is impressively inadequate.

As the film enters its final stage, there is a half-hearted invocation of the long-forgotten U.S. economic philosopher, Henry George. In his 1879 "Progress and Poverty," George proposed that poverty could be eliminated(!) by the abolition of all taxes save one: a tax on land. Not only was this panacea unoriginal (it had been advocated for more than 50 years by the followers of classical British economist David Ricardo), it was wacky. Karl Marx thought that George's theory was "the more unpardonable in him because he ought to have put the question to himself in just the opposite way: How did it happen that in the United States, where . . . in comparison with civilised Europe, the land was accessible to the great mass of the people, . . . capitalist economy and the corresponding enslavement of the working class have developed more rapidly and shamelessly than in any other country!" For Marx, adherents of George's view ". . . try to bamboozle . . . the world into believing that if ground rent were transformed into a state tax, all the evils of capitalist production would disappear of themselves. The whole thing is therefore simply an attempt . . . to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one." (See Marx's letter to F. A. Sorge, June 20, 1881.) The film does not make so bold as to try to resurrect George's single-tax panacea. Instead, it offers an updated version: the "Commons" paradigm. The supporters of this Liberal nostrum believe that the solution for the world's poor is to remove all of the land from private ownership and to hold it in common. Unsurprisingly, they do not explain how to achieve this little miracle.

In the film's last few minutes, some of the commentators raise the specter of the supposed limitations (as judged by what standard -- present-day capitalist production?) of the world's resources and the excessive and unequal consumption of those resources by the "North." Diaz's real aim here is to guilt-trip gullible people in the industrialized countries into adopting moralistic "use less energy" schemes, as if conscience-stricken lowering of consumption in the "First World" will magically increase consumption in the "Third." The accelerating global descent into depression, triggered by the unprecedentedly massive "mortgage securities" fraud perpetrated by the U.S.'s financial sector, will, no doubt, achieve Diaz's aim of lowering consumption in the "North." Does he actually believe this will benefit the world's poor?

For Diaz and Co., the "North" is one undifferentiated entity. Its working class, whose exploitation remains necessary for the survival of the capitalist system and which regularly loses some of its ranks into the maelstrom of poverty, does not figure in their calculations. And this is the most pernicious omission of their retreaded Malthusian ideology. For it is ONLY the working class of the developed countries -- once it becomes conscious of its historic class interests -- which has the social power to reorganize production on a rationally-planned, world-wide, for-need basis, in order to lift itself AND the colonial masses out of the chain of misery. Because "The End of Poverty?" conceals this vital knowledge from anyone who is interested in ending poverty, it is, finally, an obstacle to achieving that goal.

Barry Freed


The dialogue is so bad that one has to give the actors credit for somehow getting through this movie...only this one movie to the director's credit....hmmmm I wonder why! Was Faye Dunaway so desperate? The first few minutes are a stong indication of the absurdity to follow and one does get a perverse twinge of anticipation, can this movie carry on to be so bad? Yes it can...LOL...It is so bad it is good....by all means rent it, I may even buy it now..


I went to see this movie with several co-workers when it first came out in 1988. It was so bad that we were entertaining ourselves poking fun at it and decided to leave before it was over rather than waste our time any further. Ned Beatty's "performance" was especially comical. The manager of the theater was aware of the unintended humor we found in it and when our whole group got up to leave at once, he offered us all free passes to a future movie to entice us to return to his theater.


Wow, having read the good reviews on IMDb, and being a fan of Cusack, I decided to watch this movie with a few friends. I have not seen a movie this slow, boring, redundant, and dull in a long time. It's all about the script - Myrl repeats his "mission" every chance he gets, just as every other character does. It's like the writers were afraid that the viewers wouldn't understand the complicated plot (which can be summarized in one sentence), and so they have the characters reiterate it in every other scene. The characters are as two-dimensional as they come. I guess that's to be expected in a Western, but that adds to the monotony. Every time Myrl opens his mouth, it's the same old thing. Every time Ballard opens his mouth, we know what he's going to say.

Eventually we became joking among ourselves - "hey, maybe something will happen in the next scene!" But usually, nothing did. And I don't mean that I was expecting action scenes - I would have been happy with an interesting dialog, a plot twist, a historical introspection. Nothing.

I should note that the acting and cinematography were great, but that didn't help the boring script.


John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, or anybody else for that matter would not have allowed the nonsense that happened in this movie. This movie was a complete waste of time. Comparing this to be on par with tombstone or ANY John Wayne movie severely discredits both of them. The "hero" in the movie is a fool who let entirely too much go on before taking action. I like John Cusack and pretty much all of his other movies just not this one. You will be disturbed by the ongoings in it and the outcome becomes predictable. You will probably disregard what I am saying until you actually watch the movie.


People shouldn't judge independent films like they would the special Olympics, all movies must be held to the same standards. I watched about a half hour of this crap before becoming so angry that i couldn't continue.

The actors were ugly and talentless and i couldn't identify or empathize with them at all. I don't care if you have a zero dollar budget, you find people who are believable and have some charisma and presence.

The CG was on par with a PC game from 1996, so i don't know why everyone was raving about it.

The direction was the second worst part of the movie (the first being the actors), i guess some people have no artistic vision. That in combination with the shi**y editing made it look like a horrible commercial of sorts.

set design, costumes, and everything else just failed to resemble anything star wars.

Fighting...what fighting? the actors seemed confused here. why are there so many ugly women pretending that they know how to even begin to fight.

I am filled with much anger and disgust, and also filled with thoughts of genocide.


God i wish there was a 0 option in the Vote box. I can't believe that this was a sanctioned movie. People thought that Jar-Jar was heresy. This was 47 min of pure drivel and the makers should be burned at the stake. No matter what the budget, no one should make a Star Wars movie that is this bad. The only difference between this and the bigger budget movies is the writing. The effects are fine but what makes this suck is the writing and bad acting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I just can't believe that any self respecting Star Wars fan would ever make this film. It is god awful and should be buried with anything Carrot Top. Do not see this movie you will fall asleep as i almost did.


While I love the Star Wars universe, as well as independent film, but even understanding that this was clearly a labour of love created by fans, that doesn't exempt it from criticism. And good lord is there a lot to criticize.

Acting. I can honestly say I've seen high-school productions with better skilled actors/actresses than what I was subjected to in this short. I won't make some retarded comment about the actors' physical appearances or aesthetic visual qualities, as honestly that sort of idiocy is completely irrelevant (not to mention infantile). What I will comment on is the fact that there really was no acting in this short, merely people reading lines without even an amateur understanding of the craft itself. I could barely manage to sit through the entire thing without having to fight the urge to turn it off every 5 minutes.

Writing. While the plot itself was passable, the dialogue is "Lucas-esque" in it's quality level. Don't misunderstand though, that's not a compliment. Combined with the acting skills of the cast, the result is nothing short of a train wreck and could quite readily be used as a case study in how not to make a film.

The one redeeming factor is in the visual effects area (specifically in the realm of CGI). It's quite good considering the quality level of everything else in this short. It's certainly not professional level, but could easily be used as a showcase for portfolio material (especially in the rigging and motion criteria).

Overall, I have to give the people involved in this short a hearty pat on the back for effort, especially when you consider the amount of time and effort that they obviously put forth to make something of this nature (something not many can lay claim to). At the same time, time and effort do not equate to quality nor praise when the result is what looks more like a garage play put on by children in capes (with impressive CG).

Sadly, this short is only marginally worse than episodes 1-3.

FB


I saw other movies more bad, anyway for me it's just a cheap try to make a SF movie. Even first Star Wars movies are better. Actors are very ugly and they play like a bunch of kids. Talking about kids play, I remember when I saw "Alien VS Predator", I was very impressed about special effects but very bad impressed about actors. It's like I start myself to do a movie and instead professional actors I use the neighbors from my street. Special effects are good, nothing to comment but the rest???? I like so much SF movies and I don't want to be ruud but this one it's just crap... Am I wrong...... or it's just a parody........

Cornel (Cat Best)


Considering all the praise this movie received, I was deeply disappointed. It doesn't look or feel like a star wars movie at all. I felt like I was watching some cheap 80's excuse of an action movie made in Mexico. One thing that really turned me off is the music. It's not even real music- it's like a midi alternative! I mean it comes up with STAR WARS and a midi sequence of the star wars song. How extremely cheap!

The next thing is the characters. None of them were star wars like at all. The emperor's hand made me nauseous. She looked like some Gothic chick at a local high school. There is nothing to make her look like she is from the star wars galaxy. I know I sound sexist in this next comment but I'm really not. There are too many female roles in this film! Whoever made it must be really up on girl power or something. And the female roles are done poorly. In the star wars movies, they were mainly either politicians or Jedi, all dressed in a very star-warsish way, most of them some other form of aliens. None of them were wearing loads of makeup, kinky clothes, or anything like that. Plus how could you have a female play an evil sith? only a male character would properly fill that role. I don't have anything against women, but it just doesn't produce the right effect. Especially one of those hot-stuff, "I'm a girl with an attitude" kind of characters. They just don't exist in star wars. It's like trying to make a big burly guy play the role of a fairy princess, only without the humor.

ANd there are too many human characters and not enough aliens. put some effort into costumes!

Even Star Wars: Broken Allegience is a better fan-made film than this, and that one sucked too. At least Broken Allegience was pretty on-point as far as the star wars feeling is concerned, but it seemed more like a power-ranger episode as the show progressed. This one was no better.

That was the biggest waste of 20,000 dollars to make it, people, and a waste of download time on my part.


This film is terrible. It's a true abomination to the Star Wars universe. I was really excited when I saw a promo pic and a trailer for it but I was utterly disappointed when I finally confronted the real thing. Words fail me in terms trying to find a level of garbage this movie has reached. The special effects are amazing, I will give credit where it's due. However, like so many other fanfilms, this movie is made just so the special effects team behind it could show off and likely that someone wanted to look cool with a lightsaber. I have been watching the Star Wars movies religiously ever since I was a youngling and I know when someone does credit to the Star Wars Universe (Even if Episodes I and II didn't, lol) and this movie does not. I would advise anyone even thinking of watching this movie to stay away and save yourself the time wasted on this mockery of that which we, the fans, hold so dear to our hearts. Please, if you are a die-hard Star Wars fan and truly love the saga, then I would say don't waste your time. The story is cheap and artificial. The acting is atrocious and the dialogue is even worse. Avoid at all costs!!


Since I don't believe it is possible or fair to consider this film without at least an introduction to the Fan Film Universe, I decided to visit the many Fan Films sites and view as many of the hundreds of fan films as was bearable. In the surprisingly large catalog of this genre, Star Wars Revelations is among the best. One has to cite what most others already have: good costumes, good CG, good sets, a decent core plot idea (unless you are a canonical Star Wars fan) and a very good score by Chris Bouchard. Bouchard uses a few of the standard Star Wars pieces as jumping off points to some fine musical work of his own that nicely weaves known themes throughout in addition to adding excellent new character leitmotifs. One of the things overlooked in some of the other comments is that the director did quite a decent job staging shots, especially in staging the crowd scenes, which is unusual in the Fan Film World, though the fight scenes near the end are weak and the pacing was slow. I do have to agree that the acting is the weak point, but I think one has to be at least a bit forgiving of that, due to this being a production done gratis by a group of Star Wars fans, likely acting in front of a green screen for the first time in their lives. Take a look at Gwyneth Paltrow attempting to act in front of an effects screen in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" to see how difficult or impossible that can be, even for seasoned performers. Far from being a good movie, one should still consider this a good fan film and applaud all involved for their effort. I would also encourage people to view some of the other fan films out there. As has been noted already, there are some very good ones available (look for "Grayson" as one example).


I was going to give it a 2 for the computer graphics, which were the only redeeming quality of this "movie". But, it is just so bad, that I had to give it a 1.

Terrible acting. Unappealing and ugly characters. Boring fight scenes where it was obvious the actors were waiting for the next move of their opponents. And the plot was less interesting than bowling.

It should not get props just because it was an independent, low-budget film. It should be judged solely on its entertainment value. There are sketches on youtube made by 15 year olds with cheap camcorders that are far more entertaining than this pig slop.

Darth Vader's voice was really good though. And the hologram effect was decent. Other than that, it was a major disappointment.


no no no no no no no!!! Oh my what a let down, promising trailer till you hear one of the actors speak, then its worse than your daytime soap. The film ain't much better, on the plus side the CGI effects are first rate, from ships to Lightsabers, the extras in their Stormtrooper costumes look the part (at times), made for 20 grand, doesn't look it, they should really stop boasting about this , there's a lot of film makers who could make a very good feature for the same amount, I'm a star wars fan, and love watching the fan movies, but I've seen far better done with far less. only saving grace is the CG, thumbs up to the production house who done them, and biggest crime is to see the great john Wlliam's music being used. Complete let down. avoid!!! (sorry bout all the bashing)


Sounded interesting, plausible idea, but sadly lacked any merit of an actual Star Wars 'fill in'. You can clearly see that a bunch of star wars conventionists have joined forces to create this farcical 50 minute long drivel. The only thing it has going for it is the CGI, which is on par with the sort of CGI you would expect to see in a PC game dialogue, between levels. The acting is the worst I've seen on the small screen, throw in a few wooden chairs and the film wouldn't have suffered in the least. It was as if the main characters were reading off the Biro marks on the back of their hands with emoticons telling them what sort of expression to pull "Thats. the. bounty. on. my. head. trippled" *Grimmace* Its like a porn style acting but without the porn.. although Cade looks like he should be in one.

You cannot warm to any characters in the film, the Emperor looks like he's piled on the pounds after taking over the galaxy, and glued some green weetabix to his eyebrows in his megalomaniac rage. Taryn Anwar's characters about as believable as Jar Jar Bink's becoming an intellectual and winning some sort of Nobel prize in literature "mesa do doo doo on your head!" Declan looks like he should run a video store on Alderan, knowing off heart all the movies in store of by heart, and have the universes largest collection of Gungan comic books. Cade apart from looking like a failed porn-star could out-scowl the most miffed of people. And finally, Zhanna's got some scary chin issues. Even though its free, its still a waste of 50 minutes of your life, So save your bandwidth and avoid this fanfic. If curiosity is still getting the better of you, watch the first 5 minutes and you'll know what I'm talking about.


Independent film-making has a long and proud history. Lately, online film productions such as Revelations have attracted a lot of publicity, even being publicised as the future of independent film-making. If this is the future of independent film-making, then independent film-making is, quite frankly, doomed. I spent several hours trying to download the ISO DVD image of this fan flick on BitTorrent. Then I gave up on its unrealistic expectations on how I should configure my internet connection and tried FTP instead. It took me a little under a day to download the complete ISO image of the main feature. I wish, having sat through the whole thing, that I had not bothered. The plot is threadbare, the production values non-existent, and the video presentation was unwatchable. About the only thing it has in its favour is the fact that the people who made it did so with next to no money (supposedly), and did so for the sheer joy of making it rather than for commercial gain. Given that commercial gain tends to translate into the Lowest Common Denominator, as the recent Hitchhiker's Guide adaptation proved, this is a strong positive.

The plot, unfortunately, is hardly enough to sustain a forty-seven minute film. It revolves around a device that reads tags a Jedi marked certain apprentices with. He did this on the pretext that tracking failed apprentices and making sure they did not turn to the dark side seemed like a good idea. Now, in the midst of the Sith taking over the galactic government, multiple identities within the galaxy seek to find what amounts to a record of every living Jedi the order has trained. Everyone from Darth Vader to an overweight-looking Emperor's Hand is looking for this database, and our hero is one of the few surviving Jedi who dares to use her skills in public. Not that there is the shortage of Jedi that one would expect from this kind of environment. In fact, there are more light sabers shown in this forty-seven minute short than the entire original trilogy combined. And sometimes one gets the feeling, however small, that the plot took a back seat to this.

When Star Wars: Revelations is showing the nuts and bolts of an exterior universe, it excels apart from one detail I will talk about later. The Star Destroyers do look a little too up-to-date to be in the proper continuity, and there are some deviances from what one would expect from the standard model, but these are well-done enough for it to not matter. The sight of TIE Fighters launching from the Star Destroyers is sufficient to put a big old smile on the face, and the wreckage yard shown near one planet is enough to give the section of the universe displayed in this film a feeling of width. Which was something certain hundred-million-dollar productions definitely lacked. Unfortunately, when one gets into the interior sets, something goes awry. The Emperor looks like someone threw paper maché at his face and left it to stick. Most of the more spaceport-like locations are so undetailed that it makes the next problem look suspicious indeed. And, truth be told, the dialogue is almost as bad as was the case in what I like to call Attack Of The Clods.

The worst aspect of this presentation was the video transfer I encountered on the DVD image I downloaded. While it is not the worst I have ever looked at, it is very much at the bottom of a long list. The image is so dark that aside from our heroes, very little can be made out. In some scenes, skin tones are posterised and macro-blocked, while the grain-like compression effect known as mosquito noise sometimes runs rampant. Since the entire film was recorded digitally, at least as far as I can tell, exactly why the DVD presentation wasn't given the benefit of 16:9 enhancement is beyond me. Then again, more resolution (and yes, a 1.66:1 presentation has more resolution when 16:9 enhanced) means that the flaws in the image are easier to make out. Not that anything is, in fact, easy to make out in this picture. It looks as if it was animated by the old Commodore Amiga pixel-by-pixel painters before being blown up to DVD resolution. A sheer mess, in other words.

While I commend the makers for the independent spirit in which they made this film, I wish they would not state their goal on their web site as being to prove what they can do on no budget. El Mariachi was made on no budget, as was the original Mad Max. To call Star Wars: Revelations an example of the spirit behind El Mariachi or Mad Max is to call a half-baked meat pie in the same spirit as a veal schnitzel with lemon juice and salt. For that reason, I gave Star Wars: Revelations a three out of ten. I certainly hope that what Panicstruck Productions makes next is an improvement.


I don't go in for comic books or their hero's, but this is a real early '04 gem. Original, funny, sad and doesn't take itself too seriously.

With a cute daughter with glasses it hit all the right Coaker/Peck notes.


Harvey Pekar is a comic book writer in reality and fiction. The real Pekar narrates this film, as well as being included in scenes interpolated with the narrative. Paul Giamatti plays Pekar in the narrative. Additionally, there's the comic book dimension, which takes us further into the fictional Harvey Pekar. See, Pekar writes comics about himself; he's egocentric that way. Pekar provides us with a glimpse of his aged, calmed self. Contrastingly, Giamatti gives us a younger, sloven mope. The comics give us varied pictures--it depends who the cartoonist is.

Pekar, as played by Giamatti, is a lackluster protagonist; he's an obsessive-compulsive neurotic who whines about the virtues of the everyman. He's repulsive--his home is a mess and he scratches his head incessantly. He should try new shampoo and conditioner, or perhaps he doesn't wash very often.

I guess the point is Pekar's genius rests in his presentation of ordinary life, or at least the ordinary dork's life. While this doesn't seem a bad idea for comics, I don't read comic books. Robert Crumb was one cartoonist of Pekar's, I gather, underground cultist "American Splendor" series. Watching James Urbaniak's personification of Crumb, I felt the urge to watch the documentary 'Crumb,' again; the medium used there made it seem... well, more real.


Badly written, slow sci-fi animation story. Characters are cardboard which perhaps fits the puppet like animation. Miserable pacing of the story.

Action sequences are not edited well and are difficult to follow. Background animation is miserable and often out of focus. Obviously this is a low budget attempt.

The dialogue is ludicrous. They all seem to talk like Yoda from Star Wars? Why?

There are good ideas here; just poorly executed.

Don't waste your time. Not even worth a rental.


It was a different kind of animation. The story line needed some work. But the background of the story, the floating islands of trees reminds me of a book by Larry Niven called "The Integral Trees" Where a smoke ring around a neutron star supported plant and animal life. The people that lived there were in a constant state of free-fall or zero gravity. They lived on huge trees that were in my minds eye very similar to the floating forests in Aero-Troopers. I liked the bit were the kid made his own glider. And being able to fly under your own power was interesting. How the instructor teaching the cadets had a very eastern way of speaking.


Aero-Troopers was quite obviously never intended as a high-budget blockbuster. From the very beginning monetary restraints become obvious as the animation is poorly rendered with an overly bright 'dream glow' permeating from the background, likely to cover up some of the imperfections. Also, the plot and story are not particularly involving or believable. The one (and i might stress only) reason to see this movie is for its unusually original visuals. Everything looks very vintage mechanical, similar to what films like 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow' portray with their technology. The antagonist is a giant mechanized whale/shark creature while the main character, Joshua, and his people navigate through their sky world in highly stylized mechanical blimps. This is definitely not a movie for anyone expecting a great deal of plot reliability or heart-felt characters. Rather, i can recommend Aero-Troopers solely as an escape into a visual otherworld where unbelievable ideas take precedence over a believable story.


Much of this cinematic waste of time feels like a rip-off of "The Integral Trees", Larry Niven's 1984 masterpiece. Given the possible variety of plant and animal life-forms that could evolve, thrive and be animated in conditions of continual free-fall, all this film does is drop like a stone. Problem is, I really wanted to like this because of the environmental/physical similarities, but the dialog was inane and I suspect the original target audience was actually older than the 7 - 10 year old demographic to which it belongs (due to some fairly graphic violence, e.g., blood spatter). Also, the tone is so preachy I only kept watching so I might see if it could be saved by the insertion of a cute air-bunny or something to provide comic relief (no luck there, just whining pirates). If you can endure the saccharin and the stolen physical metaphors (e.g., worst use of a flying whale as a template for terror), have fun ripping it to shreds (ala MST3000).


I can't understand the comments that give praise to the animation here. Maybe if this film had been produced in the 70's - and was being evaluated in terms of its peers at that time - the praise might make sense. But the expressionless faces and absolutely grotesque grimaces that were supposed to represent smiles were so poorly done I thought I was watching a junior high school media arts production. Aside from the graphics, the bad plot line, and the completely wacky scene transitions, the dialog is another big disappointment. Its no wonder these people were at war - listening to some of these characters would unleash hostility in any society. This is a candidate for CGI hall of shame...


I would have to classify this as one of the least enjoyable movies I've ever watched. There were many wonderful ideas, including imaginative locations and vehicles, and the basic premise of the story had merit, but the execution seemed *miles* off target.

Firstly, the main character looks to me like a little boy, somewhere between 3 and 8 years of age. The opening scenes find him running and playing, with suitable childish glee. I was both startled and disappointed, then, when he began laughing with the voice of a young teenager. The voice felt utterly wrong for the character - like sci-fi scenes where a woman speaks with a man's deep voice. We are also supposed to accept that a considerable amount of time passes over the course of the film, but his character never looks or sounds any older. His childish appearance is made all the more disturbing by the fact that he is given a love interest (whom we are supposed to like, but whom I found to be repulsively creepy).

One of the biggest overall problems with the film, however, is pacing. Things just don't happen at a natural tempo. This is true both in the bigger scope of the story, as well as within the context of particular scenes or camera shots.

A prime example of this would be the many scenes which simply showed two characters doing something and laughing. The purpose of such scenes is to establish that the characters are bonding, and having a good time together. This could be accomplished in about 5 to 10 seconds. Unfortunately for the viewer, these scenes are drawn out to a minute or two in length. At the end of the scene, the characters are still in the some location, doing the same thing, and nothing new has been presented. This extra time does nothing to advance the plot, and very quickly becomes tiresome.

Not only is this laughter hard to justify from a story-telling standpoint, it's also hard to accept it as believable. When people are enjoying an activity, the normal human response is not to laugh, but to smile. People only laugh for extended periods (without anything funny happening) when they are exceptionally tired or drunk, and the laughter in the film didn't seem to be caused by either of these.

In many of the shots, the animation was also just *slightly* too slow to feel natural. Other shots were clearly intended to be slow-motion, but these lost much of their effect and believability, because motion blur wasn't added.

It is also worth mentioning that a substantial portion of the dialog in the film consisted of single words. The characters showed a tendency to say things like "oh" "ah" and "ooh", in response to their environment, to a degree which was excessive, annoying, and rather silly. They also liked to answer questions with single word answers, whenever possible.

If I'd seen the movie more recently, I'm sure I could quickly double the length of these comments. Since it was a few months ago, however, (and I don't plan to watch it ever again,) I shall conclude my ramblings with the recommendation that you go and watch this, as a spectacular example of how *not* to make a CG film.


From the beginning, it is obvious that the writer was a great fan of "Treasure Island". Just as obvious is that he has no talent. The story is plain painful. The execution, on the other hand, is probably worse. The cheapest animation (the original Toy Story looks better), coupled with directing compared to which Mr. Ed Wood would have deserved an Academy Award and editing that hardly deserves the name...this film doesn't even qualify as a waste of time, it's an atrocity against the viewer and the poor, defenseless computers it was rendered on. Literally watching paint dry is more enjoyable than this terrible edifice to the incompetence of untalented filmmakers.


Aha...so this is among the low-budget films of the 90s. In my opinion, believe it or not, this is an OK use of the budget. Not that it's socially-redeeming, or anything, 'cause it ain't. It's just that I kept waiting for a really bad part of the movie to happen...but it didn't. Not that it's good, 'cause it ain't. Half bad 'bout says it. Three cavemen return to what's left of their village to learn via the dying breaths of one victim that the plunderers kidnapped three gals from the settlement. So off go our heroes to rescue the babes. That's the extremely simplistic plot. Like I say, I thought that the ancient beasts were OK. The dialogue was mercifully abbreviated. (Hey - that also describes the attire.) There are at least two things that I could have done without: (1) a narrator; and (2) the blending at the end of the futuristic with the prehistoric. Sexism be damned, but the ladies were pleasing to my eyes. Still, don't expect too much if you view this film - not even a lotta bare boobs - just plentiful skin. Buy it only if that doesn't exceed the cost of a reasonable rental.


This movie is filmed in ambient light with hand held cameras. It's got some pretty women in it, but you can hardly tell because it's lit so badly and the cameras jerk around so much. There's a little nudity but only in the context of degradation and violence, no sex.

If you were looking for a sex comedy with dinosaurs, rent _Dinosaur Island_ (Fred Olen Ray and Jim Wynorski, '94) instead.


'Cry For Bobo' is almost wilfully incomprehensible. Its best gags are ripped off wholesale from The Simpsons' 'Krusty Gets Busted' episode, the remaining gags are insultingly bad, and the casting is ill-judged (note to filmmakers: when the sidekick's funnier than the lead your film's in trouble).

The production values are very high for a short film- the costumes, sets & cinematography are all superb- but this really begs the question: why do funding commissions insist on throwing huge amounts of money at mind-numbing garbage like this?

If you happen to catch 'Cry For Bobo' at a film festival, make better use of the 8 minute running time by going for a toilet break.


College English professor Steve (Director Brett Kelly) plans to propose to his occult-loving, vegetarian girlfriend (and one time student) Amy (Caitlin Delaney). So after he accidentally kills her (in a ridiculous way), he chooses to bring her back with the help of the incantation books she conveniently owned to mixed results. They drive to an out of the way cabin in order to wait for her to 'get better'. But when his friends show up to party at the cabin, Steve has to keep them from figuring out that Amy's now a zombie. Fortunately, his friends seem to be as brain dead as Amy is all dead.

This silly little low-budget number was extremely stupid, yet I cracked a smile once or twice despite myself. Of the three Brett Kelly films I've seen thus far(the Bonesetter Returns, Final Curtain & The Feral Man), I feel it's safe to say that I enjoyed this one the most by far. Not to say that the film is flawless (it has many MANY of them) just that it had a fun atmosphere to it so I could overlook most of them.

My Grade: C-

Where i saw it: Instant Netflix viewing


I would really like to know if this mckenzie-c guy had anything to do with the production, because none of the positive attributes he states in his review are in this boring clichéd nonsenical disasterpiece. Technically it's one step up from The Bonesetter, I'll give Brett Kelly that much. But that's hardly a compliment.

After accidentally running over his girlfriend Amy with his car bumbling everyman Steve uses an ancient spell to revive her. Stop me if you've heard this plot before(like from "My Boyfriend's Back) but Steve then proceeds to hide Amy's current undead state from his friends and family. Therein lies the only joke,and no one's laughing.Ultimately My Dead Girlfriend is done in by bad writing and the amateurish performances. All the actors were friends of the director no doubt. At least Bonesetter had a more original premise.


During some sort of witchcraft party, a group of young adults all decide to have a séance. They summon the witch using a chant they found in some book, but it seems like nothing happens. But something did happen. The main character is possessed by the witch and goes on a murderous killing spree! Of course, since this was a low-budget film made in the early seventies, all the lines are incredibly cheesy and bad. Lines like "I like girls dumb, but you're pushing it!" and stupid things of that nature are said.

I saw this movie because the guy that played Harry was my drama teacher.


This movie had potential in its storyline. Very enthralling basis about a witch who is summoned to the twentieth-century and wreaks havoc upon the descendent of the man who is her lover and persecutor centuries before. While this plot is fascinating, the film itself flounders with typical and hackneyed evil spells and tricks used by the witch, which make the true fiber of the story into a peripheral byline until the very end. I saw this movie in the early eighties and the fact that I can remember so much about the storyline is a testament to what this movie could have been. However, it is a big disappointment and you will kick yourself for having wasted your time to watch it.


I really have to start my review lampooning the decision to make a sequel to Poltergeist, a well crafted ghost story by Tobe Hooper and Steven Spielberg, whilst no classic was well made enough, with some good chills and good effects. But Poltergeist 2 seems to have been made by people who had no idea of what made the original so worthwhile - it ends up a completely unsuspensful mess, and such may well be the worst sequel of all time. We begin by meeting the freeling family after the events of the first movie (homeless and living with jobeth Williams' mother), after an absurd opening featuring shamans and Indians and excavating... until carol Anne sees a mysterious figure at the mall, which turns out to be Reverend Henry Kane, who wants Carol Anne. Add to this mix is an Indian played by Will Sampson, who tries to protect the family. If this sounds jumbled, you should see the movie. The major Problem with this movie is a complete lack of any suspense whatsoever. Any decent horror movie worth its salt has suspense, or tries to utilise it because that is what terror is all about, the long silences waiting for something to happen, the build up to it... Poltergeist 2 simply does not even try in this area,For example when carol Anne sees Kane at the mall, menacing and staring at her, in order to build up the tension, Director Brian Gibson didn't need to show us that Kane was a ghost, any director with any idea of suspense would have let us make up our own minds, as soon as we see Kane walking through people and things we know straight away what he is and any suspense vanishes. as a result pic becomes predictable and boring the effects are hammy and aside from Julian Beck,(who gives the movies only high point with a terrifically creepy performance)Jobeth Williams and Craig T Nelson look bored to death. It says an awful lot that i rated the 3rd instalment higher than this drivel, and believe me that was no classic by any means.


This is one incredibly moronic movie. It begins with magical spirits flying up a man's nose (he looks like a telekinetic coke addict), and then goes down hill from there.

The older daughter from the first movie is missing and no attempt is made to explain her absence. The rest of the family is back, though, headed up by stoner parents JoBeth Williams and Coach (a.k.a Craig T. Nelson, who is painfully bad in this), who both have really bad hair. Once again they're plagued by spirits from beyond. Who do they trust? The annoying Native American guy who sits around their backyard, speaks in half-assed proverbs, and does nothing for about an hour of screen time? Or the silly-beyond-words Reverend Kane, who sings asinine bible songs at the top of his lungs? Who cares? You'll be too busy laughing at this film's unending parade of goofiness.

The first movie was really good- it held your attention, had interesting effects, and had some very scary, eerie sequences. It wasn't perfect, but it was an enjoyable movie. This flick is ridiculous. It has a few okay moments whenever the main monster shows up (He first appears after Coach vomits him up!). He's pretty cool looking, but you don't get to see him much. The rest of the movie's effects sequences are completely preposterous. In one scene a kid is attacked by his own braces. Then Coach sits on a ghost. That's about it.

Pointless scenes drag on, filled with boring dialog about the family's power when they work together, blah, blah, blah, and the characters all become so annoying that you'll wear out your fast forward button. If you make it to the end, you'll be treated to an absurd sequence where the family goes into the spirit world and floats around like Christopher Reeves' Superman. These scenes are so incredibly goofy, I simply cannot do them justice here. If you think you know goofy, just wait. The movie "A Goofy Movie" wasn't as goofy as this movie. The key word here is "goofy".

You will laugh at this movie, but not with it. This movie tries very hard to be funny, but fails miserably. Take for instance the "classic" closing scene: Annoying Native American guy and Coach look at Coach's car. Coach says "How can I make the car happy?" Annoying Native American guy says "It wants to go home with me!" So Coach gives him the keys and he drives away- but then the family realizes that they need a ride home! D'oh! They chase after the car as the credits roll. That's the film's stinger, the scene they thought would cement this movie in the hearts of film goers everywhere. Instead, I'd like to cement it in a crate at the bottom of the ocean, mobster-style.

I hated this movie.


In this follow-up to Poltergeist, the Freeling family call on the big Native American fella from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to help them once again defeat evil malevolent spirits that seem to not like them very much.

As with virtually all sequels this one is inferior to the original. However, the first film wasn't all that great and this one isn't a complete washout either. The story is modified somewhat from the first episode so that now the source of the poltergeist unrest is attributed to the dead followers of a cult leader, as opposed to the dead disturbed by unscrupulous property developers. The change has really only been made so that they can have a sequel to be perfectly honest, however, it does mean that the series is able to introduce the evil Reverend Kane. Kane is probably the best character in the series and his scene where he confronts the Freeling family on their front porch is the scariest and most well-crafted moment in any of the films. Julien Beck is excellent and unforgettable as the skeletal preacher. The rest of the cast play it strictly by numbers, although once again Heather O'Rourke is fab as the little girl. The other daughter is completely written out of this film with no explanation. Although it's a well documented fact that the actress who played her, Dominique Dunne, was murdered shortly after the first film was released, I still don't think it would have trashed her memory to have explained her absence; quite the opposite in fact.

The Poltergeist series was perhaps most famous at the time for its spectacular visual effects and this film is no exception. The demon Kane is a well rendered creation, and there are a number of cool 80's effects throughout. Unfortunately, though, it all ends in a somewhat underwhelming finale where the family enter some vortex or something. I think it would have been better if they had cut back on the special-effects here and simply re-introduced Reverend Kane, as he was much scarier. But I guess having a big effects-laden ending is one of the in-built rules of the Poltergeist movies sadly.

Overall, there's good stuff in this sequel but it's ultimately squandered on a rubbish ending.


After the events that occur in the first film, the Freeling family is living with Grandma. Though, the supernatural forces won't leave them alone and now they're back and they want Carol Anne. So with help with a Indian guide and dead Grandma the family must battle a ghostly cult that was buried under their old block of land in the first film that will stop at nothing to get what they want.

I'm not terribly a big fan of the original, so I wasn't expecting anything big and what I saw was a real mixed bag, just like the original. This film basically sets up what we already saw in the first film, with an opening that's rather interesting, but it suddenly falls into the original's formula with some idea's being changed around (It's no longer the TV, but a toy phone that's the medium to the spiritual world) and a feeling of deja vu. Though, it's not as engaging, it does lack the panache of the original and the special effects aren't as imaginative this time around, but still it's the film's strong point. The technical effects don't take over the plot and aren't overused which is a good thing. The make-up and special effects are visually good and that's especially when it picks up towards the end. It yields great monster designs and superb trick work and illusions are created. While the solid score by the experienced Jerry Goldsmith is another key factor of the film. It's rather haunting in keeping such an alarming mood. As well it was beautifully shot. There are some great scenery shots that overshadow some of the scenes and what's actually going on. What it sorely lacked was atmosphere, but otherwise it's mildly entertaining.

Some problems that the film faced are that there are too much dwelling on what happened in the first film, the film's pace is quite slow, rather humourless, some rather meaningless scenes, a lot of talking that has no real interest and overall it's rather a pointless sequel with no meaning to the narrative when it finally finishes. It's not bad, but it tries too hard and becomes dramatically flat. It lacks the freshness and creativity to make it standout.

In this one we actually see the other dimension and also we see the evil demons or spirits in physical form. It's a slow burner to begin with, as there are interesting theories thrown in and the story is more of mystical journey for the family. Meaning that it's great to be a family and that love keeps them together and stops evil from tearing them apart or something like that. The plot idea is interesting enough, but the story that we get doesn't take full advantage of it. There are some lively action and some mildly evocative and intense moments after 45-minutes or so. These short pockets of thrills go for shock valve (the worm scene). While the final battle against evil turns out to be a disappointing anti-climax and the lacklustre ending was just too sweet and cheesy to comprehend.

The performances are nothing special, but just rather sound. Craig T Nelson, JoBeth Williams, Oliver Robbins and Heather O'Rourke aren't bad, but the family weren't as likable this time around. Zelda Rubinstein isn't as annoying like in "Poltergeist", with a far less eccentric performance, but when on screen she's rather tame. Will Sampson as the spiritual Indian Taylor who helps out the family comes across as being intriguing, but his character comes across as wasted. Julian Beck as the deliciously evil spirit Kane gives a generally creepy and uneasy performance. His character would be the most interesting, but his presence is far and between.

Its running time is rather short in length, but because of that it kept my full interest. It's not a must see, but if you enjoy the original you'll probably find something to like.


This was just plain boring. The worm creature at the end was just laughable, which leads me to wonder how well they studied Mister Giger's original designs...Full of cliches and predictability. Definitely does not do the original movie justice.


Containing none of the chills and thrills of the first this lame movie goes nowhere slowly.The final act is poor too.The cast look as bored as i was.im suprised this ever got to a third movie.a very bad sequal.avoid.1 out of 10


The poor family from the first Poltergeist film think they're safe, after having moved and thrown out the TV. Well, they're wrong. Now living with grandma, they soon discover that the nasty ghosts and goblins are back - led by the nasty reverend Kane, who for some reason wants to get his hands on little Carol Anne.

The original is a classic - this one isn't. It's got quick-cash project written all over it. The effects are less than special, the plot leaves a lot to be desired, and it just feels sloppy and uninspired. Poltergeist managed to be funny, scary, dramatic, and overall entertaining - all at once. The sequel is just boring, albeit we do get to see Craig T Nelson acting all coked up for some reason.

The plot is little more than a thinly disguised allegory over the importance of the concept of family (see how the dad feel's inadequate, starts drinking and literally turns into a different person). All talk about how the family must stick together feels strange considering that one of the kids from the first film isn't in this one, and no explanation is given either (yes, I know the actress was killed shortly after the first one - but still...).

There's also a subplot about psychic powers that just doesn't go anywhere. Most of the film is just talk, talk, talk. Occasionally there's a "cheap" jump scare thrown in there, just to keep people awake. But considering the anticlimactic ending, you might as well stay asleep. [1/10]


There are so many things wrong with POLTERGEIST II that it's not worth listing all of them. Suffice it to say, I find this movie very depressing, mainly because of Heather O'Rourke and her untimely death after making POLTERGEIST III. It's difficult to watch a movie about evil characters trying to kill Heather when you know she died as a kid in real life. The other depressing aspects are everything else in this movie: story & script, acting, special effects, etc. It's bad and nothing works. The scene when Craig Nelson vomits that monster is stupid. The horror elements are totally disjointed and don't make any sense at all. But the worst thing about this sequel, aside from the scenes taking place on the other side, is the fact that this big budget movie is only 87 minutes long and yet if feels like it's three hours long. Such a short running time for such a big studio project is ALWAYS a bad sign (a lot of stuff must have been edited out) and in this case, it's true. Take away the time for the opening and closing credits, and the movie is probably 77 minutes long. That's only 1 hour and 17 minutes. Avoid this mess.


Having revisited POLTERGEIST just recently, I was startled watching this sequel in just how far it deteriorates in overall quality from one film to the next. Native American mysticism and a crazed cult leader spirit desiring to capture Carol Anne are injected into the story of the sequel where we discover that the Freelings were living above a cavern containing the skeletal remains of a group led by Reverend Kane(Julian Beck)proclaiming the end of time was near..seeing that he was wrong, Kane doesn't allow them to leave. Kane and the restless spirits of his cult wish to have Carol Anne back after tasting what life was like with her presence, not ready to go into the light. Kane is now a demon, pure evil, and the Freelings need assistance from a Shaman in order to defeat him. The Freelings' powerful bond of love will ultimately determine their outcome against Kane, The Beast. The special effects sequences almost border on parody, not at all scary, but more unintentionally hilarious, such as when Robbie's(Oliver Robins)braces go amok or when Steve(Craig T Nelson)swallows a "possessed" worm in a Tequilla bottle, with Kane attempting to use him to harm his family, regurgitating it! This worm starts to grow back into Kane's humanly form! It's quite gross and would perfectly fit in a goofier monster flick, but the POLTERGEIST franchise was supposed to be a more sophisticated horror enterprise, and the remaining sequels just mercilessly ravage what made the first film so good. I couldn't help but wonder what JoBeth Williams and Craig T Nelson felt while making this sequel, an obvious decline in all areas from the first film, from the rather embarrassing plot to the dialogue they are forced to endure. The sequences where the family must go into the other side to stop Kane once and for all just buries the legacy this franchise might've had, but perhaps there shouldn't have been another film anyway. There wasn't lightning in the bottle twice.

Heather O'Rourke is still adorable as Carol Anne, Zelda Rubinstein, in a glorifified supporting role, stops by to help the Freelings the best she can(..having delved into the history of what took place in the cavernous dwelling under their house), and Sampson as the Indian shaman is a charming, welcome presence who wishes to bestow wisdom to the family often just confusing poor Steve whose life has fallen on hard times thanks to the spirits which won't leave Carol Anne alone. You have lots of special effects as Kane's supernatural power surfaces when Steve allowed him into the house(..such as an electrical wire and running chainsaw that go berserk)and icky creatures designed by HR Geiger. Geraldine Fitzgerald has a small, but pivitol role as Diane's mother who informs her and Carol Anne that they are all clairvoyant..she serves as a type of protection against Kane.

You can just sense that this sequel should've never taken place, merely a cash-in to repeat the success of the far superior original. Kane(..Julian Beck, whose cancer really brings an extra dimension to his character)is quite a memorable menace and this perhaps saves the film from complete crapdom. All the skeletons that reach out to attack(..including a nightmare dragging Diane underground)are effective.


A lame follow up to the phenomenally successful and tremendously entertaining 1982 spook fest about a normal suburban family terrorized by ghouls.

The same strong leads (JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson) return, and I give this movie credit for not simply making a carbon copy of the first film the way so many sequels do, but this film is DOA. The screenplay is too obtuse and ambitious, working in a bunch of mystical hoo-hah involving Native Americans and a creepy demon who goes door to door like a traveling salesman. Not one moment in the film comes close to rivaling any number of thrilling moments in the first one.

Grade: D


Director Michael Sarne would have the filmgoing public believe that the studios, the actors (in MYRA BRECKINRIDGE in particular), and 'the system' torpedoed his career. But, when one sees his single picture of note, JOANNA, on the big screen in a rare public showing - One discovers that the film world did not lose much. Composer Rod McKuen attended this weekend's American Cinemateque screening and revealed that the title character was a thinly autobiographical substitute for the director himself (Joanna's surname is 'Sarne' after all).

 On paper, it would seem to make an exciting story - Young and handsome teen comes to London; Dresses in chic fashions; Hangs out with the 'in' crowd; Has sex with every other person one meets; Parties every night; Travels to exotic lands etc. How odd then that so much of the film wanders around aimlessly from venue to venue, from person to person, from incident to incident with so little meaning or consequence. It's rare that someone would find his own life so aimless. That aimlessness is certainly a part of what Sarne was after, but almost certainly not to the degree portrayed here.

 To be fair, there are flashes of genuine artistic talent (and some can be mined from MYRA BRECKINRIDGE as well). The opening and closing title sequences are terrific, playful and inspired. Color, sound and editing are experimentmented with in interesting ways. A long sojourn to Morocco is both colorful and meaningful. The middle of the picture is indeed dominated by Donald Sutherland as a rich dude who takes Joanna and some friends to Africa. Affecting a bizarre stuttering accent, one can't help but be entertained, even if one suspects that much of the reaction of modern audiences is the result of familiarity with Sutherland more than the skill of the performance (indeed McKuen insisted that Sutherland's accent came and went so frequently that much of his performance had to be edited around and drowned in his music!).

 Certainly an interesting document of its time (with the 'shocking' inclusion of not one but two interracial romances, free sex, and the intrusion of unnecessary violence into young people's lives - a nod to Vietnam?), JOANNA is a fascinating failure.


I only remembered this movie because I was considering what movies would be on the "all time worst" list. In a packed house of a couple of thousand shut-ins on a Friday night in 1968 (think: famous military school), most people left the theater about half-way through it. These young men (and a few female dates), although mostly conservative-minded, were still eager to absorb the mod culture of the times, and probably had enjoyed movies such as "Alfie". I can still remember what those still left in the theater, towards the end, spontaneously and simultaneously yelled at the screen when Joanna said "I'll be back!" : "NO !!!!!!", throwing things at the screen. It was quite a moment. Never seen anything like it, since.


I'm sure that writer-director Mike Sarne thought he was developing a new cinematic paradigm when he was making Joanna, but the end result is less than satisfying. Genevieve Waite's over-the-top performance only makes sense by the time you reach the film's self-mocking conclusion, and by then you've had your fill of her. Rod McKuen's music is cloying and his singing is, as always, horrendous. Scott Walker's 'When Joanna Loved Me' is wasted during a cringeworthy 'dream' sequence. The excellent Calvin Lockhart (Halls of Anger, Room 222) can't save this film from the wretched performances of Waite and Donald Sutherland, who I've never seen to worse effect in his role as a dying aristocrat. An interesting period piece that has aged very badly.


I get that Joanna is a sort of Candide, an innocent heroine whose adventures are probably meant to give the director an opportunity to comment on aspects of the culture. That she has (or should have) this larger function is the only thing that could justify the big song and dance at the end, which is supposed to show that Joanna's transit through the other characters' lives has turned them around, made them see beauty and sweetness and gentleness and other faux hippie-dippy nonsense that would have made Voltaire scream. Joanna might be interesting if she were a puzzle, but she is a blank, she can barely be said to have any behavior at all. She is a beautiful rag doll, and your only response when she is mistreated is to hope that getting taken for granted or slapped around (and her bleating sorrow that follows) won't mar her features. In a general way, of course, you hate to see a movie doing some of the things to a character that are done to Joanna unless there is some point to be made, and the best point that could be made in this kind of Candide story when, for instance, Joanna's boyfriend philosophizes that women want to be treated rough and then he does just that -- as I'm saying, the best point that could be made from this is that this is the way the world is, here are some of the terrible cracks exposed in the world Joanna lives in. But no, the movie goes along with the troglodyte attitude and Joanna responds the way her boyfriend intends she should. All this might still be fun in an archeological kind of way, i.e., look what passed for social philosophy in the Sixties, if there were any energy in the directing, the writing, the music or, barring all that, in more than one or two of the main performances. Joanna's a dead fish. Donald Sutherland is even worse, but for such a great actor to put in such a poor performance says a lot about the writing and directing (was there a dialect coach anywhere?), but especially the writing. Sutherland's part is easily the worst written of a badly written movie. How could it not be? He is meant to exemplify the psychedelic metaphysics of beauty and oneness that the movie makes pastel stabs at pushing, and he has to spout all this hooey about it and he is supposed to find its embodiment in that shapely potato, Joanna, and then he is supposed to die, which is the best thing he does. Do I need to summarize? When I and my co-workers start talking movies and nominating the worst movies ever made (we do spend more time on good movies than bad) Joanna is high on my list.


I've been working my way through the wonderful DVD box set of Harold Lloyd, and I have to say that his silents are superb and I love them to bits. Until the advent of DVD, the only sound Lloyd I'd seen was 'The Milky Way', which was surprisingly enjoyable. So I figured that Lloyd had made the silent-to-sound transition reasonably well, and was eager to see more of the sound features.

Alas, 'Movie Crazy' is a particular disappointment, probably because it's been hyped as Lloyd's best sound film. Lloyd seems to fall into the same trap that Buster Keaton succumbed to - the lead character has become a dimwit. One of the greatest joys of the Lloyd silents is seeing his character think up some nimble bit of wit to get out of a jam - think hitching an ambulance ride to work in 'Safety Last' or rounding up a gang of crooks to come to prayers in 'For Heaven's Sake' - but this Harold, this audible Harold, is an unrelenting klutz. It's hardly plausible that he couldn't distinguish between Mary in her civilian clothes and in make-up on set; the kid must need glasses... oh.

Maybe it's because the character is moving at the speed of sound, rather than having the slightly fantastic under-cranked zip of silence; maybe it's because this Harold is a stuttering, stumbling, unsure boob rather than the confident, intelligent boy of yesteryear; maybe it's just because Lloyd was running out of ideas; but this is far from his best sound film, let alone being his best film of all. This was the last film with his characteristic young-go-getter persona, although by this time all the go had already got up and gone, and Lloyd himself was a less than youthful 38. Things improved a bit once Lloyd started playing a different kind of role in a different kind of film, in 'Cat's Paw' and 'Milky Way' but it was too late for a full-scale revival of his stardom.

The annoying thing about 'Movie Crazy' is that you can see how the gag sequences could have been shot in a silent film, and would have been much funnier if performed with a bit more pace and without the awkward dialogue. A prime example is the scene towards the start of the film where Harold first smashes up O'Brien's straw boater. It's just too slow and the dialogue is unnecessary. Ditto for the later scene of Harold destroying O'Brien's office - a scene which is very reminiscent of one in Keaton's 'The Cameraman' of 1928.

Apparently the original US release of this film was only 84 mins. The restored DVD version is 98 mins, and I can't help thinking that knocking a quarter of an hour out of it could help a great deal. It may well be that the reason the film has received such exalted praise in the past is because people have hitherto only seen the shorter edit. Lloyd was noted for previewing his films to bring them to perfection, and if he decreed that it should have been trimmed to 84 mins in 1932, it should have been kept that way on DVD.

I'd be keen to see the short version and give 'Movie Crazy' a second chance. This long version wears out its welcome far too quickly, and I can't believe that this cut is what Harold Lloyd wanted audiences to see.


Yet more proof that Harold Lloyd was a much better silent comedian than a sound one.

In "Movie Crazy," Lloyd plays Harold, a star-struck country boy who, due to a case of (sort of) mistaken identity, lands a screen test in Hollywood. He falls for both a starlet (an engaging Constance Cummings) and a sexy Spanish actress, not realizing that the Spanish actress is really Cummings herself playing a character in a movie. The film could have been a major entry in the "movies about making movies" genre, but it instead opts for blandness and convention. It's not very funny; Lloyd and his collaborators seemed to think that there was no place in a sound film for Lloyd's remarkable acrobatics and physical comedy antics, the things that made his silent films so much fun, but they don't replace them with anything but scene after scene of sluggishly paced, wooden dialogue.

Grade: C-


After seeing all the reviews from other users, I was excited when the film was released in Tucson, Arizona. I was also interested in seeing Pepe Bojorquez's first film. I always support young Mexican filmmakers. The cast, it seemed, was phenomenal. You can tell it was a pretty big production for the quality of actors, but some, especially Sonia Braga, let me down. Her witchy character made me feel like I was watching a melodramatic soap opera and not a film. Her acting made no sense to me.

But let me first focus on the positive aspects: the cinematography. You can tell that a lot of care was taken to achieve beautiful shots and that is greatly appreciated.

The elements of the film I thought were hokey include the storyline. Being Mexican and knowing the Latin American cultures, I am fond of the magical realism. Believe me, I have enjoyed films such as Like Water for Chocolate, Santitos, even Woman on Top with Penelope Cruz. All these films, I felt, provided me with a good interpretation of magical realism... but Sea of Dreams was an IN YOUR FACE forced magical realism that became predictable, cliché. It went down the way of the magical realism that we all laughed at when watching films such as Zapata. The story, in itself, could have been more interesting, less predictable ans simplistic.

Also, the dialogs became pathetic. It was all way to spelled out. It seemed as if the screenwriter does not believe the audience has ever seen any other film so they have to tell us EXACTLY what is going on without letting us interpret anything. Again, seemed more like a soap opera.

Finally, what time period is this in? I saw a VW bug, then I saw a Rolliflex camera, and then I saw 1980 print dresses and 1940 type costuming. I was thoroughly confused. This just added to the eye-rolling I experienced when watching the film.

I love Mexican Cinema. I love contemporary Mexican Cinema, but in this case, I was really let down. I have seen that Mexican Cinema has some good films, not dealing with social turmoil and violence, coming out of Mexico, but this is not one of them. I feel this film contributes to Mexico for Export/ Mexican Curios films which is overplayed at this point. I hope Pepe Bojorquez's next film proves to be more engaging and less cliché. Maybe start with a better script?


I agree that the female lead is beautiful and the photography very good, but that's it. This movie is designed for an illiterate, superstitious audience. It's all about silly religious mythology that most religions have outgrown, and doesn't really go anywhere.

The lead as a little girl and an a young teen were also quite cute as were the other young people. The acting was spotty at best. Such things as gold fish, black water, a plethora of beached starfish were all taken as signs from some powerful fairytale entity rather than even considering any natural solution.

This is the kind of movie that could have been metaphorical, an allegory, or a morality tale. I figured that would have been its only saving grace,but it just didn't have any of these as the basis for the story.

The guy in front of us at the theater fell asleep and his wife had to wake him at the end of the movie. I figure he was the fortunate one. Terrible waste of my time.

The only good part was that my girlfriend paid for the tickets as a birthday present for me. I would have hated to throw the admission money away.

Jerry


Godzilla, one of the major monster classics that we all know and love, mainly of course with the old badly dubbed Japenese films. As badly made those films were, they were still incredibly fun because of all the camp. It was just a good time to watch those movies and Godzilla was just freaky looking and scared the heck out of you. So naturally the men who created the big time special effects movies like Independence Day and Stargate would naturally try and re-create the gigantic lizard and you guessed it, put him in today's New York City. Now who are we going to rely on to save us? Arnold Schwartzenegger, Syvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Jackie Chan? Nope, Ferris Bueller, er, I mean Matthew Broderick. He plays a nerd in this movie, so who better to save us? Godzilla is barely recongnizable as he is just a CGI love fest where it seems that the creators were not even close to what Godzilla really looked like in the old films. Oh, this was a bad movie.

A Japanese fishing ship is attacked by an unseen, giant monster that attacks from below the water: only one sailor survives. Traumatized, he is questioned in a hospital by a French scientist as to what he saw. His only reply is Godzilla. Dr. Nick Tatopoulos, an NRC scientist, researching the effects of radiation on earth worms, is interrupted by the arrival of an agent of the U.S. State Department. He is sent to Panama, escorted by the military, to observe the wreckage of the recovered Japanese fishing ship and a set of massive dinosaur-like footprints in the grassy soil. The Frenchman is also there, observing the scene and introduces himself as an insurance agent. Aboard a military aircraft, Tatopolous identifies skin samples he recovered as belonging to an animal "unknown to science". He dismisses the military's theory that the creature is a reawakened dinosaur, theorising that its origins in French Polynesia make it a mutant created by nuclear testing. An old man is seen fishing on the dock. He takes a bite from his fishing rod, and a big wave comes toward him after a few minutes of trying to pull in his line. The big wave happens to be Godzilla, and he emerges from the dock. Godzilla then travels to Manhattan and creates havoc in the city, killing dozens of people. Godzilla is revealed to be a gigantic, bipedal lizard that towers over much of the New York skyline. The city is evacuated and the military attempt to kill Godzilla, first luring it out with a huge pile of fish (the creature's staple diet). It takes the bait, but is scared off by small arms fire, but oddly enough, it's just not working on the giant lizard.

That's pretty much a good enough "summary" of the movie, there's more in the movie than that, but it's kind of pointless to mention as this movie was just pointless to make. It's just badly written, the special effects are way over the top and obvious to anyone, and the actors are just so out of place it's insane. Now is this the worst movie of all time? I wouldn't say so, but it is just a bad movie over all, I wouldn't really recommend it. Godzilla just doesn't belong in America, especially since our government is stupid enough to constantly loose a gigantic lizard in NEW YORK CITY! So I wouldn't recommend this film, it's just a stupid way of killing time, you could be doing more useful things like the dishes.

2/10


I wish sci-fi/action movie producers would hire decent writers and directors; people capable of providing realistic and interesting characters. The effects in this film were somewhat satisfying and engaging, but the main characters (with the exception of Hank Azaria's character) ruined most of the scenes.

Audrey, the "love interest" for Matthew Broderick's role, is perhaps one of most irritating female characters I've ever seen on film - shallow, stupid, totally lacking in judgment, and she runs like "Gloria" from Body Double; a film not known for its satisfying female characters.

What's perhaps most sad, except for the fact that she miraculously manages to triumph (sort of), is that the director tried to make Audrey lovable and appealing to the audience, as a vulnerable, sweet, yet misguided woman, despite her effective ability to alienate the interest and care of most female AND male audience members. How could they not see their blunder and correct it by feeding Audrey to Godzilla at the end? I have never been to a movie wherein I eagerly joined audience members chanting "EAT HER!" We were disappointed.

And why, I wonder, did they think it was a good idea to name 4 or 5 of the French characters "Jean-_____"?

A recommendation to any aspiring directors: make sure the annoying characters get eaten, and if you really insist on naming 80% of your French characters Jean-something, at least have them laugh at themselves for it IN the movie - don't just hope people will notice and think its funny, because they won't.


This movie proves several things: there is no sure thing in life, many very stupid people work in Hollywood, and plot does matter. "Godzilla" was supposed to be the monster hit of 1998, overwhelming audiences with its hype and special effects. But when word got around, it's no surprise that it was quickly forgotten (or at the very least, people TRIED to forget it). The story is a carbon copy of thousands of past movies, the characters are one dimensional cardboard cut outs, the dialogue is completly ludicrous, and the special effects aren't very special. There are only two, slightly original elements of this story: Godzilla shows up in NYC, and it's pregnant. Neither of these is enough to carrying this overblown movie though, especially the NYC angle, which is spoiled because it appears they shot this movie during the monsoon season. Avoid this one if at all possible and rent the original instead; at least its camp is somewhat entertaining, while the remake just disappoints.


What the heck happened to Godzilla? Where is his atomic breath and his none Jurassic Park like personality? Where's Mothra and Gidora and his son, Minilla? Where is everything? This is not the way Godzilla was meant to be.

The acting in this movie is dire. Matthew Broderick as the man character Nick Stutapolis or what ever the heck his name is, is perhaps the worst acting I have ever seen on film. Nothing in the movie is familiar with the Godzilla we all know and love from Japan. Godzilla is portrayed in this film as just another one of them Jurassic Park dinosaurs instead of a kick ass dinosaur that shoots atomic breath.

I hate this movie. It is so bland and boring, and not the way an American movie remake should be. Pass on this film, people, it will make you want to beat your head off a couple of rocks and then stick your head in a microwave while you sit on a grill, because this movie is utter crap!


this movie failed on so many levels. first of all, the story was not great, though a pregnant godzilla was a nice twist.

matthew broderick tried valiantly, but he just could not bring any credibility to his dialogue. he almost sounded embarrassed to be sayiing some of his lines!

the lead actress maria pitillo seemed to try and get by on cuteness rather than any acting talent. a worse cryer i have not seen in a loooong time. she sucked.

besides broderick and the army general or whatever he was, most of the characters were basically bit players. the movie just didn't work.

and then there was godzilla. visually excellent looking. but the evil (sort of), tokyo trashing, soldier eating, building stomping godzilla from the classic movies was reduced to an over sized velociraptor. where the original godzilla took on the military face to face, the new godzilla played a game of cat and mouse. not near as much fun. the movie portrayed godzilla as a crafty but mindless animal, so that when they finally killed him, the audience is saddened rather than happy about it. godzillas eggs and their hatching, stolen directly from aliens, isn't even suspenseful.we all know that as soon as broderick puts his ear up to a shell, it will obviously crack open. and why oh why would the baby godzillas be more attracted to the smell of dead fish on the humans than the dead fish themselves?

this movie sucked. that's all i can say. so many holes in the plot, bad acting, poor story, and illogical plot devices don't even make it worth seeing the fx.

yuck.


$$$$$$

People tend to hate this film for its premise rather than it's film-making qualities. If it was called something else however, it would not have made half as much money. The film itself is poor, a definite thumbs down. No drama, no suspense, no thrills. For a monster film it kind of falls flat on it's face.

It's real crime is that it's called Godzilla. The creature itself has so many differences to the original that it's not right to call it that (Gojira was over 400 feet tall and would tower over the world trade centre). So it's not the actual creature, let alone a remake (it has nothing to do with the plot of the original film either). Just plain fail from Emmerich and co. So the only possible reason for calling it Godzilla must have been to cash in on the name. Thanks but no thanks.


The only thing really startling about this film is that they could be so predictable. Strong strains of Jurassic Park-type ideas were used without any attempt at even a thin veil of originality.

Plot twists were more reminiscent of lazy half spirals as it plummeted to earth in a hurry. The CGI effects were okay but seemed to be done in an effort to distract the viewer from the lack of substance.

For a film of this price it's a bad story with even worse execution: 4/10


This started off so well, with some absolutely beautiful New Mexico scenery, I had high hopes. Unfortunately, they were dashed the rest of the way as director Robert Redford had to shout his Left Wing politics loud and clear in our face.

So what we wind up with is a low-down, dishonest greedy Right Wing big businessman running the poor little guys out of town and only those good-guy liberal activist minorities saving the day. We even get a dose of Christian bigotry here where those poor picked-on-pagan gods are run out by Christians! Well, you just know what side is going to win: yes, those wonderful left wingers, adored by the film industry.

This VHS went into a garbage can where it belonged. Adios!!


When I first read about this film I thought I would enjoy, It looked offbeat and has an excellent cast. I was wrong, what I got was a boring, pointless mess of a movie. I think the problem was actually Redford's directing, everything seemed so boring and out of place. The only unique thing about this film was the casting, not to say that most of the actors werent miscast, because they were but Redford put unknown actors in the lead, and "name" actors in smaller supporting roles, I thought that was an interesting touch. Overall a very lame movie. *1/2 out of *****.


I cannot see how this movie was ever allowed to be seen in any movie theaters. Most spectators would probably want their money back. Robert Redford seems to like "ethnic American" movies like this one and Smoke Signals,which was at least better than Milagro Beanfield War. This movie played into stereotype characters too much but Redford wants to seem like an enlightened man who is sensitive to other cultures. This movie was a bit too racist for me to enjoy and it was not a comedy: the dumb blonde woman stereotype; the backward Mexican peasants; the White-Anglo New England anthropologist having to explain the mixture of pagan/Catholic religious beliefs to a Mexican who should already know this stuff!


I have seen some bad movies in my day, but this is the worst by far. I could find nothing in it to keep me watching it. No suspense, likable characters, engaging plot, nothing. The music is annoying and too loud. I understand this was a low-budget film (less than $20,000), but why bother? I tried to watch this movie with my wife and we had to keep pausing the thing in an attempt to figure out whether a particular scene was a flashback, a dream, or what. Even the premise of the film was confusing. Why worry about serotonin levels when you are making a clone? Transplant a soul?, consciousness? Is all that necessary when making clone?


Perhaps I could get over the generally poor quality of this movie's production standards if it hadn't been for the sound. But the Casio soundtrack is almost the only thing the audience can hear. It drowns out the dialog to the point that there is no chance of actually watching the entire DVD. Naturally there is no captioning either. Even if the sound had been edited properly the fact remains that this would be a D minus movie at best. It has the overall feel of a rejected Sci-Fi Channel Original. The pathetic computer generated graphics put the special in special effects. And I mean special in the Special Olympics sense of the word. They truly resemble the graphics from the original Play Station, yet we are intended to believe that they are footage of the transportation of the future. Again, poor effects can be forgiven, but the thin plot and sad attempt at social commentary cannot. If you can actually sit through the whole thing, you should have yourself checked. You may be a clone genetically engineered to survive the most heinous of tortures, really bad movies. Not even Joel, Crow and Tom Servo could make this one watchable.


One is a good first effort by a novice director. Good acting, excellent special effects and cameos by Cleveland news celebrities make this a relatively painless way to spend a couple hours. The weak points were the script and editing which made the story confusing in some parts and overly simplistic in others. Tomeric shows that he has the technical skill to make a reasonable science fiction movie- it will be interesting to see what he can do with a decent script in a more challenging genre like comedy or drama.


I keep falling for the same crap.... Renting a movie that looks well-done on a tight budget by a first time director or someone new to the scene. When I saw Primer a couple of years ago, I said, "Now that's how to get attention. Awesome flick!" I keep looking for the next sleeper hit and I keep reading the reviews given by extras on the set or others involved with the movie saying it was the greatest movie ever made, blah, blah, blah. I am an idiot! I am going to wait longer to for the REAL reviews to come out (much like this one). The only small, tiny, bit of goodness to this film...you can hit the stop button on your remote any time you want; the one with the filled in square on it.


Despite all the nice things that people have to say about this film, the "plot twist" in it makes it an utter waste of time.

Spoilers follow, although I doubt I can spoil the movie any more than the director already did. Although I doubt it makes a difference because my complaint has to do broadly with the plot of this film, my review is based off the US theatrical release.

It starts off as a fairly standard chainsaw massacre type of flick, which to be completely honest, has never been my favorite genre, and ends as something I didn't think existed: a slasher flick with a plot so awful that it loses any value it may have had as a simple gore fest. It turns out that the main character has multiple personalities and is also the killer, or something to that effect. It's very hard to say exactly what happened in the movie because after that revelation, it is obvious that 99% of the movie must be dismissed as nonsensical.

If this trite twist is done in a clever way, it can make piecing together the plot preceding the revelation an interesting endeavor, but this movie didn't bother with being clever. The main character would have to be in two different places at the same time in the film so many times that there is no point in trying to put it all together. There is a car chase with vehicles driven by different aspects of the personality; one aspect rides to a remote house with her friend, the other drives a souped up murder wagon there. Obvious holes such as one personality getting an injury which persists through the remainder of the film in a car wreck which wouldn't have happened if she were actually in the other unwrecked vehicle the whole time, plague this film.

This is laziest attempt of a director springing a twist on the audience that I have seen. Picture some dimwit introducing their self to you as Chuck, having a conversation with you, then proudly revealing their name is actually Aja and that they really outsmarted you. Yeah, quite a zinger there, Aja. When the rest of a movie becomes completely nonsensical due to the addition of a plot twist, perhaps that twist could have been left out.

The film looks as though they decided to appeal to the psychological thriller market ( a genre where this sort of stunt is painfully common) so they filmed an extra scene or two and tossed it in to let the audience sort it out. It's obvious the director didn't try.

In the end, nothing fits together. The events as depicted in the movie obviously didn't happen the way they were shown to the audience. What did happen? Did anything actually happen or was it a psychopath's delusion? What was the point? A film that leaves itself open to interpretation is not a bad thing in itself, but in this case the audience has nothing to interpret because they are given nothing to work with and there is little incentive to bother.


The film started off okay, the death scene at the beginning was a little silly, but I was willing to let that slide, but the so called twist made no logical sense whatsoever to the point of being beyond stupid.

This is your typical Eurocrap no logic horror movie that, where the gore is turned on full, but major plot holes are turned up even fuller.

I can't believe this has got rave reviews from critics and moviegoers; it baffles me when the same people slag off Paul W Anderson and Uwe Bowl yet praise this pile of donkey shite.

I don't mind a horror film that stretches the logic barrier, I love David Cronenberg's strange and weird tales, but when this film does a Fight Club out of the blue, your left shouting at the screen WHAT??? So it's her then? How???

I would of been impressed if it was the kidnapped girl who was in on it, and wanted her family bumped off, and take her friend on a sick ride, where they eventually kill her, but no lets make it totally illogical and have the friend being chased by errr herself in a car she stole and driving the van AT THE SAME TIME!!!

So she runs herself off the road using the van she's in, and climbs out of the wrecked car that she stole, does this woman have some sort of teleportation device?

Instead of being tense and scared, you just sit there dumb founded at how laughably bad this movie is. This film should be up for ridicule on the MST3K, it's that bad.


This movie sucked. Not all is as it seems, as the plot blurb says. What it seems to be is a really good slasher flick. REALLY GOOD! Until the police get involved. I won't spoil it for you if you are desperate to see it-- no wait... yes i will *******spoiler alert********

how is it possible that she is the killer? unanswered questions to ponder: 1. how does her being the killer explain the piece at the beginning where the killer is masturbating with the head of the previous kill?

2. where the hell does the truck come from? they drove the car to the farm house

3. why have the man chasing the brunette, after it is revealed to be the blonde girl?

4. how did the blonde get all bloodied up if she wasn't actually fighting anyone in the greenhouse?

5. at the beginning, we see the blonde stop the car in the forest, and at the end we see the brunette. having the point of view switch when the cops see the video was not only jolting but bad movie making, because there was no reason beyond confusing the audience with facts that can't possibly fit the film thus far.

had we not seen the killer at the beginning, i would have bought the whole thing. had we not seen him masturbating with a head in the cornfield, this movie would have kicked butt. as it stands someone screwed up, huge.

don't waste your money or your time. pvp


This will contain spoilers not just for this movie, but Fight Club too.

To this film's credit it has some decent atmosphere and once in a while lives up to its title. However, everything that is wrong here far outweighs the good.

On a simplistic level, the language is ridiculous here. Boy-like Marie and her horse-faced friend Alex are off in the country and dubbed horribly into English. But only sometimes. Randomly, some of the movie is in French, which I guess is to give the impression some people really are French and some aren't? Or not. I have no idea, but it doesn't matter. By the time you hear Marie yell "Alex" for the millionth time you'll probably wish the whole thing was dubbed.

The people in the film may as well be replaced with robots that have processors working on about 64K of programming for all the diversity they're showing. I guess they have human emotions, probably, but only insofar as I assume that about everyone human. In this movie, everyone picked 2 emotions out of a sack and had to stick with them for the whole movie.

I have heard people call this movie brilliant and perhaps they did so with a straight face. I have also heard the director valiantly try to explain every one of the incalculable plot holes in the movie. And his explanation works with one caveat. Foe those not in the know, this movie gives us a rehash of a familiar idea, a multiple personality disorder. When the twist is revealed anyone with an ounce of sense will start to question how on Earth it's even remotely possible. And honestly it isn't unless you accept the director's explanation - the whole story is being told as the nut job killer would have told it, so everything makes sense in the nutball killer's head.

Well, guess what? That's dirty pool. Ever read a story where at the end it was all a dream? That's just as lame as what the director did here. If the whole story must be filtered through the insane killer's perspective, and it must be or it doesn't make any sense and can't make any sense, then what's the point of the whole story? There's no ground for it to be structured on, why should I even believe that any character in the movie is real? How can I know what the pick and choose to be real? The only sensible answer is that the stuff that makes sense is real and everything that doesn't make sense is from the killer's whacked perspective. That's also a horribly stupid answer and it's bad story telling. The story couldn't work logically so they made it illogical.

The director also thought he was being clever giving subtle clues that maybe Marie was a little nutty herself and that's great, but it's not clever when the killer is introduced as clearly a totally separate entity. You can't have it both ways. At least in Fight Club you never see anyone speak to both Brad Pitt and Ed Norton at any one time, they are never together with extra people and recognized as separate entities and when the flashbacks show they're the same it makes sense. In High Tension's flashbacks, they avoid the non-sensical moments, like the car chase, like Alex getting the knife, like the entire scene at the gas station, none of which work in the one person scenario unless we accept the director's weak explanation that it's all the killer's perspective.

And if it is all the killer's perspective, why not have a chorus line of dancing goats? We can't trust anything we're seeing anyway, so who cares? In a nutshell, that single flaw is why the movie can't work at all. In an all or nothing reality scenario, High Tension gives you nothing and that's the only way it can make sense.

Possibly worse yet is the fact that this movie may as well be 100 other movies. Cut out the failed attempt at a plot twist and what do you have? Every slasher movie I've ever seen. There's nothing new here and certainly nothing scary with scenes that are obviously inspired by earlier films and nothing but gore to keep it afloat. Well I can mix my own corn syrup and red food coloring at home, thanks, and I don;t have to read subtitles half the time to do it.

The movie tried and it failed. If the director needs to constantly try to explain himself, he failed. The story should work on its own merits and this movie doesn't. It's only worth watching if you want to see how to totally butcher a twist ending into something that makes no sense at all.


This movie was nothing but a lame ass cheap trick. I did not buy it at all. Honestly, they had nothing to sell. A lot of the holes in the plot can be justified by what was going on in the killers mind, except for: WHERE DID THE TRUCK & MURDER WEAPONS COME FROM???? Up until the plot twist, I was enjoying it, but if the twist and ending do not pay off, the movie sucks. End of story. I thought I was in good hands until the twist. This filmmaker conned us into believing we would be taken care of, then f*ck ed us over. Don't get me wrong, there are some excellent films that have crappy plot twists (ie. Fight Club); this is not one of them.


you probably know the story by now: two girls (marie and alex) go to marie's parent's country house to study. a "deranged" french redneck killer appears and starts killing them for no reason, with alex escaping and fighting him. in the end, it turns out ("fight club"-style) that alex is in fact the killer, and that there was no redneck to begin with. whoopieee!!!

if alex is the killer, then 90% of the movie involving alex fighting/running from the redneck didn't happen. makes for a truly satisfying aftertaste.

and how come alex goes out of the blue so completely freakin' insane that she kills 4 people in gruesome ways, yet has been friends with the unsuspecting marie at college for a long time (and, apparently, displayed no symptoms whatsoever)? turns out she's a dyke with a secret crush on marie, which drove her insane. ...and made her cut her mother's fists and kill her little brother with a rifle. ...or something.

anyways, the alter-ego-"fight club" (and X other movies)-like twist in the end serves only to justify the completely unlikely plot and over-the-top bloodshed before and, inadvertently (unlike in "fight club"), makes 90% of what we've seen totally illogical and impossible to have happened. "fight club" works because the protagonist and his alter ego always occupy the same physical space. this does not. here we eg. see alex trying to untie marie, as they both watch the "killer" outside kill marie's younger brother in the cornfield. etc, etc. dear director, the person and its persona cannot occupy two different spaces, performing two different actions at the same time. this only shows that the twist is a poor gimmick that's easy to fall for at first, but when you rewind the movie in your head in light of it, you find it just doesn't work and the whole movie just doesn't make sense.

and if alex killed her killer alter ego in the end (i.e. "cured" herself of "evil"), why does he appear again? cheap.

plus, you've got muse's "newborn" as a score (appears twice). imagine combining the plot above with muse.

self-aware, stylish and cheaply manipulative. for those easily shocked and reluctant to give a second thought about anything.