The general idea of this film is a good one: In the run-up to the Great Depression and stock market crash, and then in their throes and wake, high-level executives have been cutting corners and cooking the books at a financial firm, first trying to get rich and then trying to hide their titanic losses. A city district attorney gets wind of the fraud, and is murdered to halt his investigation. The murder is made to look like the work of a jealous mistress, bringing scandal upon his name. But the new district attorney and a journalist who is his close friend don't believe the conclusions of the police, and set-out to uncover the truth.

But the execution is very poor. This story is full of holes, of pieces that don't really fit, of loose ends.

The story hangs upon people being even less communicative than the typical lack-wits of real-life. For example, this district attorney has basically told no one, in his office or amongst his confidantes, which firm he has been investigating. Eventually a scrap of paper turns-up amongst his effects; but beyond that he seems to have kept no records beyond whatever he might have carried on his person when he was killed.

An initial scene shows a process of repeatedly subcontracting a crime through a series of middle-men, each passing on the job for half of what he receives, so that the immediate perpetrator receives on 5% of the initial payment. Yet it is a sudden and completely unexplained short-circuiting of that intermediation which allows the journalist to develop an idea of who would be the immediate perpetrator. Since the fellow who originally took the assignment gets few of the benefits of intermediation, he might as well have pocketted its cost.

The journalist, in any case, collects sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the immediate perpetrator. But he doesn't give the evidence or information to his friend the new district attorney. (Perhaps by way of an explanation, the journalist does make the insulting insinuation that the new district attorney might participate in the cover-up for personal profit, but the journalist could have talked to the police as well.) Instead, the journalist kidnaps the perpetrator. It's not clear where and how the journalist keeps the fellow.

With the perpetrator removed, the journalist then continues his investigation, and basically learns nothing more. The story is just spinning its wheels as far as he is concerned. The district attorney, in the mean-time, gets a couple of notes-ex-machina, without which his investigation is utterly inert.

Finally, we learn that the some of the killers have been stringing the journalist along, to find out what he knows. Amongst them are the fellow whom he kidnapped, who has escaped as mysteriously as he was being held. Under threat of death, the journalist is persuaded to summon the district attorney, so that the killers can dispatch them both. But the district attorney becomes conveniently suspicious of behavior for which an innocent explanation could easily be produced, and the day is saved.

Meanwhile, the highest official of the financial firm has learned of the fraud, and commits a murder-suicide so that insurance can repay the missing funds. Too bad for the investors in the insurance firm, but apparently: policies for many millions of dollars were written on the lives of just two executives; the insurer didn't grasp the problem of moral hazard, and write the policies to exclude payment in the event of suicide; and the insurer is sufficiently solvent to make a huge payment, even while the rest of the financial structure seems to be in crisis.

The wife of the previous, murdered district attorney is ecstatic that her husbands name has been cleared. Perhaps she looks forward to telling him about it when he gets home.

BTW: This movie is amongst those that perpetrate the notion that "blanks can't hurt you", which notion killed Jon-Erik Hexum. And what Vanderbilt said in full was "The public be damned! I'm working for my stockholders."


According to the DVD sleeve's synopsis, "An investigative reporter uncovers a plot against the District Attorney. The D.A. is about to present a case of white-collar crime against some well-respected Wall Street investors who wish to eliminate the D.A. before it can happen. The reporter races to prevent the murder before it can occur, and also help the D.A. in bringing those responsible to justice." But, nothing about this inappropriately titled film "races". The story proceeds in the dullest possible manner. Mediocrity runs a frightening level (and, this is crime drama, not a horror film). A couple of the kissing scenes are funny. Pat O'Brien (as Andy) sings a little. Please set your "so bad it's good" expectations on very low.

* The World Gone Mad (4/15/33) Christy Cabanne ~ Pat O'Brien, Neil Hamilton, Evelyn Brent


Not really sure what to say about this one, aside from I didn't like it much. The actors were all fine, there were a few laughs here and there. The ending wasn't too bad, but I suppose after the mess of a plot that came before it, that's not a huge feat. Half the time you have no idea what's going on, and by the time you might have a clue, you don't care anymore. This plods along at a pace most snails would be ashamed of, and I found myself fighting to stay awake the whole time. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a slow-paced movie, so long as it keeps your attention. This doesn't. Overall, is this a good movie? No, not really. Could it cure insomnia? I wouldn't be surprised.

3.5/10


Somewhat entertaining. The movie is essentially plot -driven. The plot is incredulous at best but when it has holes in it there isn't much left. The bit with the birds is a major flaw. Homing pigeons "home" to one location only. They will not fly back & forth. In my mind the romance at the end is also totally unbelievable. 4/10


Where to begin? This was supposed to be a movie filled with comedy, suspense, romance and surprises. The only surprises I got out of the experience were reading some positive reviews about it. I was honestly confident that, having being dumbfounded myself at this movie's epic badness, everyone else would have at the very least disliked it. Not so. Ebert gave it 2 1/2 stars. And that's not out of 10. He's been rather unreliable these past few years, so I turned to the 'user comments' section of IMDb to find some sanity amongst my fellow amateur viewers...only to find many of them sick with the same malady. Now, I'm not really that egocentric. I understand that just because I don't happen to like a movie doesn't mean it's a bad movie. But honestly, what can you like about this one?

The plot was absolutely laughable. (***Some Spoilers***) Richard Dreyfuss plays Micah, a magician/thief (sounds like a D&D character) who pulls off a diamond heist in 1977 (Question - Why didn't he wear a mask? Did he want to get caught? And don't get me started about the pure silliness of the balloon angle), then picks up his daughter, and together they bury the diamonds with a photograph in a field. The audience is (very obviously) kept from seeing the photograph until near the end of the movie. Quite why is a mystery, as the photograph holds absolutely no surprises.

Fast forward 25 years. Micah is still in jail, but has a new buddy - Christian Slater, playing Finch. Together they escape (in one of the absolute hands down most moronic escape sequences to make it to film - and I'm only using a little hyperbole), and take on new identities to hide out from the law while retrieving the diamonds. The identity that Slater assumes is that of (dum dum DUM) Cletis Tout, a journalist who videotaped the son of a mob boss killing a prostitute and got whacked by the mob for his trouble. Hilarious hijinks supposedly ensue as the mob now try to kill Slater, thinking he is the real Tout, while Slater tries to get the diamonds. Throw in Portia De Rossi as Dreyfuss's daughter (and the 'I hate him for no apparent reason, no wait, now I love him for no apparent reason' relationship with Slater - and I use the term 'relationship' lightly; Tom Cruise had more chemistry with the fish in 'Jerry Maguire'), a painful cameo by RuPaul, a moderately funny though sadly underused Billy Connolly, a mob boss with all the menacing screen presence of American Pie's Chris Klein, two mob button men more cut out for a Home Alone sequel and a soundtrack that sounds like background music from a computer game, then have almost the entire movie played out as a series of flashbacks that Slater is telling mob hitman Critical Jim (played by Tim Allen, who is constantly quoting classic movies a la Remington Steele) and have the audience needlessly wonder at how much of what Slater is saying is true, if anything, and what kind of plot twist might be in store (needlessly wonder because *Spoiler* it's all true and there is no plot twist), and end it all with a cliched train station finish...

Well, what can I say. There was nothing original or interesting in the script. There was nothing laudable in the acting. There was nothing that made any of the characters either; a) believable, or b) someone the audience might care about. The music was forgettable. The plot succeeded only in confusing me and making me laugh at the wrong moments. Don't buy it. Don't rent it. Don't watch it.


Who is Cletis Tout? After the first 20 minutes of the film, you have already lost interest. Chris Ver Wiel's Who Is Cletis Tout? is weak in just about every way with little to save it from cinematic purgatory. The story lacks intelligence of any form: an escaped criminal with a cockamamie scheme, Trevor Finch, takes on the identity of Cletis Tout, a dude who is wanted by the mob. Lucky for him the mobsters are inept, the police don't investigate until it's too late, and the dangerous professional hit man cares more about a good story than getting paid. The film is no doubt going for some form of quirkiness, but it is also clear that they are going for a serious meaningful angel as well - and neither works in the end.

While the general story is dumb, the dialogue and individual scenes are just as bad, complete with lame attempts at lines and moments of the heartfelt or dark variety. The look and feel of the film suffers along with the script, with Ver Wiel's lazy direction and the low-end lighting. To add insult to injury, Randy Edelman's score is incredibly cheesy and doesn't even fit the film very well.

Most of the cast don't exactly end up hitting the mark either. Christian Slater plays Finch/Tout and is a good lead, managing to make the character likable, and Billy Connolly makes a real good appearance as well. However, Portia de Rossi is as cute as a button but gives a performance that is just bad, RuPaul is gross, Richard Dreyfuss is useless, and it seems as if almost every actor playing a minor character has never acted before. I was hoping that this film would be Tim Allen's shining moment, branching out form his comedic roots to play quirky hit man Critical Jim. Well, Allen does play a hit man, but only in a marginally convincing way. He has the right attitude but the wrong delivery - when Allen is acting with body language he's great, but when he opens his mouth he manages to overdo the already trite dialogue even further. You very much want Allen to be good, and he's so close, but he doesn't quite do it. Who Is Cletis Tout?, with it's bad script, look, and majority of featured performances, is just about good enough to make a great feature for "Movie and a Makeover."


I normally wouldn't even write about a movie I didn't like, but this missed the boat in so many respects, leaving me feeling so disappointed, that I feel compelled to share my thoughts. This film fell down in nearly every respect. What began as a potentially funny hook (the hit man/movie buff) became a crutch used to artificially move the story along. The music was trivial and, at times, laughable. The editor didn't seem to even understand the point of the movie and in a rush to just end it as the sound at FADE OUT (emblematic of the overall editing problem) just dropped as if the editor just couldn't wait to see the thing end. I even have to wonder if the director understood what the movie was about, particularly distressing in this case as the director wrote the script! Though I'm not a big fan of either Christian Slater or Richard Dreyfus, I have to say that they did their jobs and were just fine...which didn't matter because there was no real movie for them to act in.

Worst moments: the fairly direct rip-off of Pulp Fiction by wrapping back around from beginning to end with two somewhat comical criminals having a discussion in a diner, and Tim Allen trying to play the part of the producer listening to a pitch while having no timing for such dialog.

Too bad, I was hoping for at least something that would have me leaving the theatre chuckling.


Even for someone who loves old movies as much as Tim Allen's character, the oh-so-not-threatening hit man Critical Jim, I have to emphatically pan this movie. Obviously trying to mimic the classics in film style / plot formation (Critical Jim actually breaks it down for you every 15 minute, in case you forget), the main difference between the painfully predictable plot of ...Cletis Tout and, say, Breakfast At Tiffany's is that at least in Breakfast..., the acting is decent, costumes are memorable, and you actually care what happens to the characters. The only benefit I derived from seeing this movie was the air conditioned theater during a heat wave, and I'm not sure that having 2 hours sucked out of my life was worth it.


The racism in this disgraceful production amidst breathtaking scenery follows the pattern of similar productions from its source and time. We see hordes of Africans slaughtering innocent whites and are barely spared the scenes of these being fried and eaten. To offset this, we have two official "blacks" whose education, intelligence and kindness beats anything even the best of the latter might have been capable of. We have the heroic, clean, brave Englishman as Captain Curry who in the end kills his crooked and brutal ex-Wehrmacht German subordinate, while the savages mangle the cowardly young French-(Belgian ?) lieutenant. To make the production more acceptable to German audiences, Captain Curry becomes Captain Krüger, barely credible with him being a British stereotype, carrying exclusively equipment of that origin.


I watched this with a good friend of mine. The acting and the characters were sound. The cast is loaded with proven talent. But these do not make up for pedestrian script writing.

The whole movie became cliché loaded upon common cliché in an endless pause of predictable moments and plot setups. Not a single surprise to define the work. In my buddies words, "Has anything happened yet?".


Mad Dog and Glory" don't let the catchy title and blockbuster cast of Robert Deniro, Uma Thurman, and Bill Murray fool you, this is a bad movie from 1993. Yes despite this talent of stars, the movie is a big let down for fans of Deniro's and Thurmans. However Bill Murray gives perhaps one of his comedic/dramatic performances ever. In fact not surprising

As far Deniro goes though, his performance is bloody awful. Some people say an actor acts "effortlessly:" when he gives a good performance, however in Deniro's case that seems to be opposite as their is hardly any acting all. However, this stems from the fact that most of the characters in Mad Dog and Glory are utterly weak and pathetic, with the exception of Murray.

In fact I still found the movie hard to watch despite Murray's performance. The plot of the movie is that bumbling cop (Deniro) name Mad Dog Doobie stumbles onto a robbery in progress. He sees a man holding up a liquor store with a tall man (Murray) as the hostage. Murray's character is a riot, telling Mad Dog to blow away the sucker like Dirty Harry.

Mad Dog doesn't catch the person and the assailant escapes, though I believe he is captured later on though that isn't relevant here.\ Murray's character as we learn is a top and tough Mafia Boss named Frank Milo. Milo is quite a character almost larger than life, he demands respect and if you cross him your dead. Milo though loves Mad Dog as he has just saved his life in this holdup. Milo knowing that Mad Dog is a cop (although not a good one) offers his services as a Mafia boss to Mad Dog.

Dobie refuses using one of the few morals he has, however Milo comes up with another proposition, he wants to be Dobie's "friend". LOL In fact he wont take no for an answer. Dobie accepts for the mean time, not seeing any harm in that. Milo eventually introduces the lame brain cop to his new girl "Glory" (Uma Thurman) an attractive woman who we learn is Milo's main squeeze, however better put, she is a prostitute, she is one of many objects that Milo "owns".

When Dobie sees Glory and Milo offers "Glory's" services (i.e sex). Dobie refuses. It seems this cop ctually lives up to his mom of being clean unlike other corrupt cops or is he? (Some possible spoilers)

Well not exactly, despite Dobie's claim that he is a good cop and he is sworn to upload the law, he breaks his own rules and laws and decides to "borrow" Glory. When he is through with the companionship, he agrees to give her up. Trouble is he doesn't. When Milo comes looking for Glory an altercation erupts that basically sets up the conflict and what happens in the rest of the movie. Milo wants Glory back at any price. He is willing do anything including messing up Dobie's life to do it.

I actually made that sound more interesting that it really is. "Mad Dog and Glory" is essentially a part black comedy and part dramatic film. Problem is it wasn't that funny really in the areas I should of probably because of the set of repugnant characters on screen no matter how dysfunctional and stupid they are.

A cop who despite his own morals decides to break them when it suits em, doesnt obviously appeal to me or audience. Glorys character despite being the "victim" of sorts doesn't always come out. In a couple of scenarios her reactions dont have the reactions that a victim would have.

However as far as performances go I definitely think Uma Thurman did a much better job and any good critic could see that as her character is much more complex that Deniro's.

Still not a great film that I would recommend, the 6.0 average on here is obviously done to amp this subpar film.


MAD DOG AND GLORY sums up with what's been wrong with Hollywood for many years - It tries and makes cross genre movies that appeal to everyone

Robert DeNiro plays Wayne Dobie a cop who's too affable for his own good and who'd rather be a photographer . What he's a cop in a big city and after so many years it's just now struck him he'd rather be doing something else ! I was also curious ( Apart from giving the movie a snappy name ) why he goes by the name " Mad Dog " if he's so mild mannered ?

The reason for this might have been explained on screen but I had a problem trying to keep up with it as it kept switching genres . The opening sequence screams that it's going to be a violent - Very violent - urban thriller , there's bits after this that hints it might be a farcical comedy and then the movie settles down into a rom com . The producers ( One of whom is Martin Scorsese ) might think they're making a movie for everyone but I promise if you like one aspect of how the movie plays out you'll also be very irritated by the other aspects and when you make a movie with something for everyone you're in serious danger of making a movie with something for no one


Comcast cable lists this movie as a comedy. IMDb lists it as comedy/drama. I found no comic moments in it. Yes, the Bill Murray character attempts some stand-up comedy. But his jokes are flat and his delivery too.

It also fails as a drama because we really get no explanation for the behavior of the characters. How did the police crime scene photographer (De Niro) earn the nickname "mad dog"? Is it normal for crime scene photographers to carry weapons and to interact socially with detectives? Why does the mob boss (Bill Murray) attempt to do night club comedy? Why does the mob boss' henchman take his scotch with milk? What's with the mob boss taking advice from a psychotherapist? There are a couple of slug fest scenes between cops and the mob, with kicks to the ribs when someone is down, heads bumped into walls, etc. Yet injuries are only superficial, no broken bones or concussions, just a few cuts.


This is a movie with a nice story, but I've never seen De Niro's wonderful acting totally wasted as in this movie; his performance is good, if he acts to render a shy, dumb, introvert cop/detective that is somewhat involved in a small-mafia situation, but , to be honest, people want to see him cool, outgoing, self-confident..

It's not the role for him, definitely.

Bill Murray fits a little bit better, but it appears unpleasant, most of the time ...

Uma Thurman has the best character, and as a whole, I'd say that the movie is worth a view, but it will seldom make you laugh ...


"Sun Stroke" would be a better title - if not to describe the disorienting feeling of viewing it, then to describe the leading men - who can't seem to stop doing it to each other. The first 30 minutes are plausible, if slow and poorly written, but then the story becomes a muddle of flashbacks, flash forwards and God knows what else. The director admittedly wanted to 'disorient' the viewer (inspired by Bunuel, he claims) and, well, he succeeded! Sadly, the photography is as poor as some of the dialogue. The film looks to be shot on end stock, which is distracting enough. The dialogue is similarly clunky. "You ask a lot of questions," one hunk says three times to a writer whose shacked up in a desert to finish his novel. But not once does the guy have the wit to follow up with "What are you writing, a book?" Although the leads are fairly credible, the few others are not so good, including the actor playing Crispin, the mysterious owner of said shack. By the end of this extremely languid 90 minutes, I had no idea what was what nor did I care. I suggest a sequel set at the McDowell Colony in January. Call it "Frost Bite".


I stayed after the film for a Q & A with the director in the hopes that he could explain the film. In fact, someone even yelled from the rear of the theater, for an explanation. All the filmmaker could say was that he was a fan of surreal films. This was apparently his bow to surrealism. That didn't explain the awkward editing, the jumping from one point in the time line to another, the not knowing what was real and what was imagined, nor the confusing film in general. I will say the two leads acted well, and looked even better. I'd love to see what they could do in another film. While I support new filmmakers and wish them the best, this film needs direction and a new edit.


Sun Kissed looks like a film produced by Andy Warhol and his entourage - during the late 1960's or early 1970's. The story, the actors, the look of the film and the nervous edit of it. Most movies are 90mins or a little longer for a reason. Why do so many inexperienced filmmakers edit or allow such quick & uneven edits of their films? Movies are not commercials.

I won't go into what I think this film is really about and I won't spoil it for you by explaining it all. See it if you love films like I do. That's one of the reasons I watched it, though hesitant, I still viewed it anyway.

Again, this looks like one of those films that Andy Warhol would have produced over 30 years ago because it looks like it was filmed many years ago.


I watched this show for about 5 minutes (I was 15) and joined millions in turning it off. (Funny, I did the same thing to "Caveman" this year.)

The rumor I heard was that the head of ABC actually canceled the show BEFORE the first episode ended. (At 13 minutes into the show, supposedly the head of ABC told someone this was the ONLY episode ever to appear on the network.) That would have to be a record for anyone.

Although, if ABC had any taste they would've done the same for "Caveman."

Alas, poor Tim Conway had found a way to get onto yet another falling rock!


1969, i was a young man of 16 years of age. to claim then, that Turn-On was the worst thing i had seen in my life may not have said as much. So, now, at a suave and silver 53, having seen and experienced such much more, what i'll say has more bearing. all I remember is the show was so fast it was over, and I mean over. It was all we howled about in school the next day. i cannot recall one line from it and aside from the comments listed here, some don't trigger any thoughts. i really wanted to know if IMDb had it listed. well, I found it. thanks, what I do remember was it was'not Laugh-In like, which was the attempt here. thanks again for the listing, of which i'll share with my brother.


The introduction of "The Wig" sets the tone which is dark and mysterious! Apart from a few creepy scenes this movie never gets scary! The idea of this evil wig has quite a potential in fantastic sense (It is interesting to see how the wig was created and why the wig does what it does) and on a psychological level (The effects of wearing a wig can be quite substantial especially on people who have lost their hair because of an illness! It could have some impact on their personality)! But sadly nothing is done with the far more interesting psychological aspects! At least not in the way I hoped for! Except for the brilliant plot twist this movie misses the mark completely! The fact that "The Wig" takes itself too seriously doesn't help much! When the ambiance is this serious you expect to be scared! The problem is that this never happens! It is very difficult to get scared when the wig moves around like it is some sort of pet! It looks so ridiculous that it is painful to watch! It is difficult to say why this movie doesn't work! But it doesn't help that the actors are average,that there are too many plot holes and that the director didn't know what he was doing!


Have you ever seen an Asian horror movie with BLACK HAIR????? I haven't this was the first =D=D=D=D=D.

OK I lied... almost all have the element of long hair doing this and that.

If you're a little teen liking seeing horror movies for the first time in your little life then OK, I do get it.

On the positive side the cinematography is good. This is not a micro-budget -dv movie...

I didn't get scared even once. I thought horror movies were supposed to make feel nausea and scare so that sh*t in your pants.

Not this one... luckily I didn't pay for this one as my friend rented this one \o/.

Next time is my turn.

I think that these horror movies have turned quite a bit more non-scary when I stopped smoking hashish and weed prior to the experience few years ago. For some strange reason I remember what's going on =D.

It's not bad, but it's not great... or maybe I'm a tired man who don't feel nothing no more.

And I do hate christians and religion =D.

I know what is wrong with these movies... the pattern to scare you is always the same. Silence broken by fast movement of some unnatural effect accommodated with lots of bass... the sounds are also so convergent in all these movies. It is like as if these movies don't take risks of any kind and take the people watching for granted...

I mean I'd like to see some really disturbing stuff... I think that I could make a really disturbing movie. Something in the vain of modern Exorcist crossed with old Italo-horror. Also taking utter violence, and making bodies look real... I mean bodies hardly ever look real in movies.

I DEMAND ULTRAVIOLENCE AND UNLIMITEDHORROR NOT SOME TEEN CRAP!!!! =D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D=D WHERE'S THE BLACK METAL FEELING?


I think "The Wig" simply isn't a good movie. There's are many elements that make it what it is...

First thing is the film takes itself way too seriously, while the basic concept the movie is based on is utterly ridiculous. A haunted wig? The idea is just laughable, and the movie isn't original either. Of course, like many other South Korean teen horrors, there's the signature long-haired ghost so obviously ripped from 'Ring' and 'Ju-on'. And overall, the movie isn't very scary (even though we're lead to believe it IS by the trailer): there's a lot of unnecessary gore, and some jump scares that once it's revealed what made you jump, you get mad at the movie for startling you for nothing.

The only worthwhile value I saw in this was the back story going on, and it's a very real and sad one: a woman's sister has terminal cancer, and she takes her home to live with her for the time she has left. The sister goes out everyday to take pictures of her having fun, so she can leave behind good memories... And the movie goes towards it's inevitable ending. The problem with this back story is it casts a depressing shadow over the entire film, and makes it painful to watch. And the ending is one of the saddest endings since that of "A Tale of Two Sisters".

The only redeeming elements are the acting and the music. The acting is good (but at the same time depressing), and the music is beautifully haunting (but once again sad).

If you want scares, you'd be better off with the infinitely better "The Red Shoes (Bunhongsin)". Unless you love being depressed and nothing else, avoid "Gabal" at all costs.

My rating: 4/10


It's too bad that this couldn't have been a year without "The Year Without a Santa Claus" remake.

I'll have a blue Christmas (since I've seen you.) This belongs on the Island of Misfit Remakes. Where's the Burgermeister when you need something burned? Rankin/Bass are probably spinning like the original Snow Miser after this. I let my six-year-old stay up for this...how do I justify letting him stay up past his bedtime for a waste of two hours of his young life. Whoever was approached with this idea should have told the instigator to put one foot in front of the other and walk right out the door.


Acting=bland, storyline=contrived, pacing=dirge-like, charm=none. A live action "Year Without a Santa Claus" seems like a great idea, unless the people involved turn it into a remake of the Salkind's "Santa Claus: The Movie" instead. And that's what happened.

Not everything about this movie is worthless. The first Heat Miser/Snow Miser scene was well done, but then again it's the only thing left over from the original. At least the powers that be recognized the appeal of that number.

Everyone else was just sleepwalking through their parts, which is a shame. I was excited to see John Goodman as Santa, but he wasn't weary enough in the scenes where Santa is weary, and certainly wasn't jolly enough when Saint Nick needed to be his old self. And Delta Burke? Did she really have a part in this? Mrs. Claus was an important part of the original...here she just seemed like an observer.

I was looking forward to this...I'm no purist. I'm open for all kinds of remakes. But this just didn't cut it.

Watch the original instead. It's a classic, despite its age.


A truly depressing piece of dreck, this live action version of the Christmas classic fails on so many levels it's almost funny. (And those are the only laughs you'll get out of this.) It's a shame the movie studios all closed down their TV movie units in the 80s because TV movies need all the help they can get.

All those modern, "hip" touches are rife with jokes that soar over the kid's heads, but sadly not the adults. The humor is, befitting the times, crude and boorish and the story is lame. Bad acting, contrived sentimental situations and flat photography all contribute to a bad time had by all. The heads at NBC must have been high on cough syrup to even think this looked like it would be any good.

Shove this one in the vault and never let it see the light of day again.


This "remake" of the beloved Year without a Santa Clause was the most awful movie I have seen in years. First of all - it was not a kids special. There were scantily clad women and many parts I would find inappropriate for young kids. No wonder it was on at 9 pm. Not that I am opposed to adult oriented movies, I am a horror fan and rarely watch anything that is not rated R, but, as far as Christmas specials go... they are usually geared towards little children. The acting was horrible. Eddie Griffin and the guy from Mallrats as the elves was ridiculous. I could not even get through the whole thing it was so bad. If I could have given it a 0 I would have. The original was great - that I highly recommend.


You really have to wonder what NBC and the creators of this film were thinking adapting the beloved animated special into this live-action film.

Were they hoping to expand the story (adapted from Phyllis McGinley's novel)? Then why is it that the original version accomplished more storytelling in a one-hour special than this movie does in two? This adaptation with a strange credit of teleplay and "television story" by Larry Wilson and Tom Martin goes off on so many tangents and in so many directions it only makes passing reference to the plot of the original novel and Rankin-Bass special it makes one wonder why they bothered to pay royalties to the original creators at all.

Perhaps it was so they could include the famous "I'm Mr. Heat/ Snow Miser" song, but this rare moment of energy in this movie is rather jarring considering that this is not otherwise a musical and the rest of the score is missing.

The cast is excellent across-the-board, though the lovely Delta Burke is way too young for the thankless role of Mrs. Claus, the prime mover of the plot in the original but reduced to looking concerned and expounding exposition here. You know you are in trouble when a film includes John Goodman, Eddie Griffin, Harvey Firestein and Michael McKean (and a scene-stealing Carol Kane) and is still dull.

An almost-complete waste of time and a scouring of a terrific story. Now go and watch the Rankin/ Bass original!


When a "Christmas movie" contains the line "Santa, you suck" and M-rated video game carnage in the first half-hour, you know it's time to check out.

Cheap, tacky sets and costumes, atrocious "in-jokes" about other Xmas specials, and no observable comedy anywhere in sight. When you add in the really inappropriate language and visuals, as well as a complete lack of fun, well even my 4-year-old lost interest very quickly.

Besides, Chris Kattan's disgusting pinkeye infection was making it hard to pay attention to anything else but how inflamed his eye was! Seriously, in HD, you could almost feel the burn yourself!


This was an absolutely awful remake of a holiday classic. There was a movie some years ago called Scrooged (with Bill Murray). In that movie that are producing a version of Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol". The version that they create is absolutely over the top and insane. I think that this remake of "A Year Without a Santa Claus" is that to a "T".

This production was so over the top it completely wrecked the movie. The casting was atrocious...John Goodman as Santa wasn't that bad, but Harvey Fierstein as the Heat Miser and Michael McKean as the Snow Miser...come on are you kidding! Fierstein killed the most memorable song from the original movie. What about the Miser Brother's assistants, any reason they were cast as hot female models (not that I don't appreciate eye-candy)? As for the storyline....why did they create this "new" story? Yeah, it follows the basic idea as the original, but the story was basically completely different.

Please avoid this movie at all costs if you are a fan of the original. This one is too over the top, too long, and too crappy.


I was actually fortunate enough to watch part of the filming of this movie in Natchitoches, LA and never would have believed how bad it was when it hit the screen. I was sorely disappointed for many reasons including the fact that they filmed this during the hottest time of the year expecting the extra's to wear winter coats, sweaters & other items so hot that many were suffering from heat exhaustion...even Santa. The extra's were not even paid extra's. They wanted 1,000 and I think were lucky to get 100 if that but I know not near as many showed up in the 90-100 degree weather sporting their winter attire.

I had TIVO'd the movie for my grand children to watch around the holidays and ended up deleting it before I even watched it all the way through.

The grand kids weren't disappointed at Christmas because I had recorded many of the "good" Christmas specials for them and didn't make them suffer through this one.


We rented this movie based on the title and the comment on the movie, "Family Favorite Based on the Holiday Classic"; however, this movie is FAR from the original.

We made it through about 12 minutes of the movie before shutting it off and taking it back to the rental business.

Within those twelve minutes, there is a scene previewing toys, games, etc. where it showed guys chopping heads off with blood spewing from the neck. Then there was a song sung by a teenager where he sang, "Santa, you suck." I am highly disappointed that our family sat down to watch this with expectations of the sweet Christmas story from Rankin/Bass. Rather, in that 12 minutes they were exposed to things I try to avoid exposing my kids to all year long.


didn't like it at all was not what i expected it ruined a classic and the story was way off as the Iggy's dad was not the mayor and it was in fact Mrs Claus who went to mother nature not Santa himself and the characters were all wrong it did not have one good point in the who thing they even managed to ruin the snow miser and heat miser songs it was a major disaster i changed the channel and never went back too see it may now Hollywood will leave well enough alone but I'm not holding my breath anyways it was a waste of air time some might find it amusing but i did not and it was awful hopefully it will never air again but I'm not holding my breath on that one either


When you watch the original claymation films it's always amazing how much visual impact and story they pack into a relatively short amount of time. This remake had nearly the opposite effect and had the viewer begging to reach the conclusion and put this nightmare behind them. Something tells me this will not be a 'classic' for the entire family to gather around and watch together - year after year.

Delta Burke is a beautiful woman with a gentle spirit and wonderful acting style so it's disappointing to see her grouped with the Zany antics of Carole King and the wanna be sympathetic John Goodman. It may just be me but Mrs. Claus' shy nature and quiet voice almost represented Delta being apologetic for her role in this movie.

The film retells the story of Santa's growing frustration with the commercialization of Christmas and the apparent apathy from children all over the world. Santa decides he's had enough and plans to skip Christmas altogether. Two elves and one reindeer leave the North Pole in search of one child who can sway Santa's heart and reverse his decision. Yada yada yada - eventually all the characters and pieces come together and bring the spirit of Christmas back to life.

This version lacks the charm and timeless wit from the original. The live actors appear to intentionally overact as their feeble attempt to capture the claymation's over-animation. The story has been 'updated' to incorporate a techno-saavy Claus and ELF incorporation - hahaha - wow, that's really clever (pause) NOT. The producers of this film would be smart to bundle the ensuing DVD with the original and offer some kind of bonus features in order to push the 2-pack. I can't imagine too many children or adults wanting to add this to their DVD collection. Next time, remake the little drummer boy - nobody liked that one too much anyway.

In ranking this film we should always start off with a 5 - neutral - then give it 2 pts for costume and effects for a 7, remove 1 point for being a remake for 6 pts and 2 more for remaking a classic, 4 pts, finally lose a point for being absolutely horrible for a 3 out of 10. Why the 3 pts you ask? Because this is so bad that any casual fan of the original claymation/puppet version must watch this for themselves in order to fully appreciate how truly bad this really is. I suppose a live action 'Great Pumpkin' is just around the corner, sad :(


I fondly remember the 1974 Rankin-Bass version of "The Year Without A Santa Claus" and was looking forward to seeing this. I feel let down by it in just about every aspect. The casting was so-so, John Goodman did a fair job as Santa, but Delta Burke as Mrs. Claus wasn't given as much to do as Shirley Booth in the original. Chris Kattan's Sparky became annoying quite quickly, as did the script's constant barrage of in-jokes for adults (since it was shown at the 9PM-11PM time slot they probably thought it was necessary to attract an adult audience.) But the most grievous fault of this film was to fail to capitalize on the most memorable part of the original: the Miser Brothers. Their catchy ragtime theme song was the one thing that people associate with the original. I felt the casting of Harvey Fierstein and Michael McKean was not strong, plus the idea of splicing together the brothers singing instead of having each one sing his version separately diminished the impact of the song. If they were going to stretch it out to two hours, they certainly should have found time for both versions of the song. Carol Kane's Mother Nature seemed to me to be a direct ripoff of her Ghost of Christmas Present in Scrooged. Stick with the 1974 version, this film is a Christmas turkey.


Live-action remake of an animated Christmas classic. I really shouldn't have to go further to explain why this movie was so horrible, but here goes: the plot was barely the same as the original, which was made in 1974. I grew up with the animated story and it was the one movie (besides The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, which none can top) I looked forward to each year. Some years, it wasn't shown. I missed it. Now, however, I would rather watch a reality show than this horrible attempt at a remake. (I loathe reality shows.) Live action. Ugh. The make-up was definitely wanting. Santa's beard was so fake that I could do better, and I certainly am not trained in the art of special make-up. Special effects? Make-up was horrible everywhere. Acting. Ick. What they did to the plot should never have been done. If you've ever seen the first one, you will understand when I say: STOP RUINING A GOOD THING, Hollywood! I miss my classic. My son, who is 12 this year, does, too. I could understand if the "remake" were actually better. That happens sometimes, in cases like The Italian Job and Ocean's Eleven. Hollywood was on the ball with those, but the original movies weren't so hot to start with. This classic has been forever ruined thanks to somebody who just can't keep his/her fingers out of the pie. What, did they just need a cheap project for a lot of stars that had contracted with them, but they didn't have anything better for them to do? I can think of lots of better things they could do, but I won't list them here. They really aren't legitimate jobs, anyway. John Goodman, you should be ashamed. You had to have known what a junk-fest this was going to be when you saw the script. Delta Burke, I'm sorry I actually understand your taking the role of Mrs Santa. You've pretty much vanished from the American consciousness. Some of the actors involved were in the same position, I'm sure. But, you know what??? Sometimes bad press isn't good. Sometimes having your name associated with a horrible mess like this movie hurts your career. I, for one, have a long memory. You remade this movie? Blacklisted. Until you come up with something I couldn't resist, you are no longer anyone I care to see. This movie was THAT bad. Avoid it at all costs.


Yes, I gave this a 2. I wasn't able to pay attention to the whole thing, so I wanted to be fair.

1) Was the dubbing SUPPOSED to be off during the film? If you have ever watched a kung-fu movie, then you have some idea of what the dubbing was like. In the beginning of the movie, the dubbing was twice as bad. The voice over work was TERRIBLE. I think film students could have done better after they've partied all night.

2) The special effects were TERRIBLE. I swear, I could see wrinkles in a few of the back drops. The effects seemed to be very outdated. The elves didn't really have pointy ears either.

3) Skimpy costumes. This was supposed to be a movie for kids, right? Well, black leather and bikinis don't really fit in a Christmas movie, I'm sorry. I would say it had no magic at all.

The TV guide review said that this movie didn't capture the magic of the original. I would say it had no magic. I could go on, but I keep twitching when I think of the movie. It was very slow, and unwatchable. Watch it if you must, but it's not really so bad it's funny. It's just plain bad.


John Goodman as Santa Claus? Pleeease. He gives Santa's from any movie, TV special or mall a bad name. Well for the exception of the movie "Bad Santa". He was even worse than ole Billy Bob's Santa. He was unkempt and resembled a alcoholic version of his character. I think the director and writer were going for the opposite of the animated version, because that is what they got. Too bad John Goodman never saw the original. His comment in an interview was to make him a "grumpy old bastard". How in the spirit of Christmas is that comment. They didn't let Delta Burke use her own southern accent, and yet listen to Goodman, and he is anything unlike has ever been heard from a Santa. The original had Mrs. Claus, Jingle & Jangle more prominent. They should have left it that way and left Goodman's part minimal, very minimal, or just chose someone else to do it. He should stick with animated voices like "Frosty". The character of "Sparky" (Chris Kattan) should have been left out. He was annoying. He & Goodman should have just stayed in their trailers or where ever bad actors go. Eddie Griffin & Ethan Suplee did pretty good for the scripts they had. It is hard to make bad material good, but they did good. Delta's part was way too small but she did do pretty good as well. The producers, director and writers should be a shamed of themselves for putting such crap out their. It is worse than anything I have ever seen.


An abomination so heinous, so repulsive, so reprehensible that the excess amount of bile that my body doesn't process because of my missing gall bladder creeps up my esophagus thinking about it.

I speak of the atrocity that was recently aired on CBS - The Year Without A Santa Clause. Not the beloved Rankin/Bass production, but a live action piece of televised diarrhea. John Goodman as santa, Delta Burke as Mrs Claus? Harvey Fierstien as Heat Miser?!!!! Dear god in heaven what have they done?...... What have they done? ( I was saving that for when the US was nuked ah la Jericho, but this is worse... far worse).

I'll admit that curiosity made me tune in. I'm human. But Randy from My Name is Earl as Jangle? A black Jingle? Dancing girls in the Heat Miser/Cold Miser numbers? When did a bump and grind ( over and above the Victorias Secet Fashion Show) become a part of Christmas tradition? The claymation Misers didn't need it. No they didn't. They were pure entertainment. I'd rather the controversy of devil/angel that kept it off TV for so many years to a musical number from Solid Gold.

Someone needs to bury this, and bury it deep. Its a national disgrace. You want insurgents to surrender- tape their eyes open and force then to watch this over & over. It will make them beg to be degregaded at abul grad.

The tragedy of this is that it was 2 hours. I only watched 20 minutes before I was diving for the puke bucket.


With an all-star cast I would have thought it would have at least been decent, but that is not the case.

The acting was horrific. They strayed from the original in so many ways that the storyline didn't even flow. You in no way felt sorry for Santa like you did in the original. Please please please don't ever let Harvey Fierstein sing again, his portrayal of the Heat Miser was torture.

SPOILER**** The added boxing scene between the Miser brothers was a joke, it wasn't even entertaining. I kept hoping for it to get better, but it never did.


I just got done watching this and boy was it awful.

Another person commented that because they were an extra, they know what a great movie it is. You can be an extra in a film and be somewhat unaware of what a hideous misfire it is. Furthermore, having a bit part in a film often colors your thoughts on the film because few people want to announce to the world that they were in a film that was a complete piece of garbage.

This film exemplifies the things that make these made-for-TV holiday instant classic wannabes the Mr.Hankey-fests that they are. The plot and dialogue were rubbish. The 'updating' of the concept fails where so many others fail equally, by trying to make something sooo modern and sooo faux-clever or jaded that they miss the mark by miles and fail to realize what made those Christmas classics into holiday staples in the first place. It's not just because they're old and people remember them nostalgically, it's because they connect with the audience and actually resonate where the modern TV movie wannabes don't. Ah yes, Santa Inc is corporate and has silly contractual obligations that would put Kattan's elf with delusions of grandeur into position as a potential substitute Extreme Santa when said CEO considers taking the year off. You want to satirize litigious happy America and its corporate culture? Fine, but do so in an entertaining and well-scripted way, don't fall back on the same tired modern cliché jokes that have failed so many other recent productions. There are some talented cast members and a director with some proved past hits, but everything misses the mark this time out. The pranksters over at South Park can make a more endearing family-friendly holiday special than this.

If you are a fan of the classic Rankin Bass 'Animagic' stop-motion animated special of the same name, you will most likely want to avoid this like a bad fruitcake given you by a distant relative. It will only weigh heavy in your stomach afterwards without providing you any real delight or enjoyment. There isn't laughter or a heart-warming smile to be found from watching this, just stomach-churning groans and indigestion. The list of Christmas films in the past decade that might go on to become beloved classics is short indeed. This TV movie has earned itself a place on the other list...to receive a lump of coal on Christmas morning.


Another childhood memory raped and murdered...

Why why why must the Industry rely on reinventing classics instead of creating worthy original material? This live-action retelling of the classic 70s Rankin-Bass stop-motion holiday hit The Year Without a Santa Claus (itself based upon a book by Phyllis McGinley) makes the same mistakes as the live-action "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" movie starring Jim Carrey did in 2000. You just *can't* take a classic and drag it out to feature length! The updated "Year Without a Santa Claus" did not need to be two hours long, nor did it need to be updated *at all*. Even the acting talents of John Goodman, Delta Burke and Carol Kane couldn't save this train wreck of an idea.

Fans of the original--you'll be disappointed. It drags, it changes the story, it has *Chris Kattan* and too many topical references that will make it look dated and quite stupid in years to come, whereas the original has remained timeless.

Stick with the original.


In 1974 Rankin & Bass created a television special called "The Year Without A Santa Claus" that is considered a classic along with their "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" special.

In 2006 NBC decided to remake the classic as a live action movie of the week with John Goodman as Santa Claus. My question to NBC is: "Why did you do this?" The movie did not need to be remade and it does not work as a two hour movie. The story seems just seems like a writer took the story and had to expand it somehow by throwing in some filler to make up the time. NBC has ruined a classic, I hate to think what they will try next year.


Have you ever watched a movie for sixty seconds and realized it was be horrible and had no chance of getting better? This is that movie. I will admit it. I think most movies stink. But even most of these stinkers have good production values, reasonably good acting, but most fail on the fact that they have no story or have one you've seen a million times. This one has a bad story and bad acting and bad.... everything! It's so bad you even notice the bad wardrobe and make-up. Half the characters are washed up has-beens and the other half are from high school drama clubs. I can't believe anyone would attach his or her name to this thing. One more thing, kids won't like it either.

It has to be seen to be believed.


If you've ever seen the movie "Beetlejuise", and remember what the yuppies did to the house....

This is what Hollywood & NBC did to this classic.

A jive-talking elf? a techno heatmiser/snowmiser song, HM/SM turned into pimps complete with trashy girls, Santacorp ala trump......

All this to what was originally a kids movie???? NBC, the producer, AND the writers should all be sued - for violating the Geneva convention in regards to torture. And that is what this movie was "Re-imagined" into my friends - PURE TORTURE! Many people that saw it wound up turning it off by the 30 minute mark. :( I personally would suggest action be taken against NBC - by it a petition, boycott, or flooding their mailroom with angry letters.


I was absolutely disappointed with this remake. The only reason it didn't get a '1' was that I couldn't bring myself to call it completely 'awful.' There were a couple of relatively decent scenes (Heat Miser -- Snow Miser, and Snow in South Town.) Overall, it was way too long. Santa was too bland, Mrs. Claus too whiny. Mother Nature reminded me of a bad Bride of Frankenstein. There seemed to be hundreds of extraneous characters without any real point (look at the cast list.) It was crude and rude without reason. Why must the animal control officer slam beer on the job and burp in a child's face, then show tattooed sayings on his fat belly about being lazy?? Heat Miser couldn't sing, and ALL the other songs are missing -- no "I Believe in Santa Claus", no "I'll Have a Blue Christmas Without You", no "I Could Be Santa Claus." I kept waiting for songs that never came. The last 15 minutes or so are somewhat redeeming, but good luck getting to that point. I toughed it out, but it was a sadly wasted two hours. Since it was televised so late, I recorded it for my kids, but I'm not letting them watch it. Only the classic for them. I can see one good thing about watching it on DVD -- it would be over that much faster without the commercials!


I watched this on TV last night, and I just want to say first and foremost that I am a die-hard Rankin Bass fan. That being said: It wasn't bad in terms of TV special quality (which isn't saying much). The first will always be better; great original Christmas specials can never be made better. But it made three choices that make it OK in my book: 1) It was not remade as a CG feature (who else was creeped out by the bad CG animation remakes these last few years?).

2) It kept at least one of the Rankin Bass songs. I had so prepared myself for the lack of music, which defines the magic of the original... but we do get to hear a live action remake of the Heat Miser / Cold Miser song that I thoroughly enjoyed (with choreographed sexy dancing ladies, for some reason). It's rare to see characters singing anymore in TV or the Movies; even the latest Disney films lack that, so I was surprised and delighted to hear this version.

3) It claims to be based on the original book of the same name that Rankin and Bass based their story on, therefore giving more room for interpretation without necessarily being a remake of the original movie.

Of course, there are noticeable flaws. Overuse of throwbacks to previous Christmas specials and pop culture references, for one. The acting was very stilted, and it was obvious that many of these NBC TV stars were fulfilling an obligation of some sort to the network. The editing, writing, and costuming was often downright confusing (can anyone help explain Carol Kane's getup?).

But did I enjoy myself? Yup. Do I expect to see this on TV again next year? Definitely not. So try to catch it if you can; if not, just pop in the original and have a very merry holiday.


This movie is going to go one of two ways, it will either become a treasured holiday classic and in thirty years film buffs will be the only ones to say "Did you know that there was and original cartoon?" Or it will be quickly forgotten and gain a reputation of the worst Christmas movie idea since Santa Claus Conquers the Martins. and then in thirty years film buffs will say "Did you know that the was a really bad live action version?" every time someone mentions the classic. Now is a chance, before the movie's reputation is sealed to say that this movie is almost right down the middle. This movie tries so hard to be heartwarming, adding in Family problems with the sure fire dad that is always too busy for his kids. Also added in is Sparky Santas elf who wants Christmas to keep up with the times. In fact besides the very very basic plot (Jingle and Jangle go to find Christmas Spirit) this movie takes true liberties with what it is given. The Miser brothers seem almost in the story because they were in the first one. They sing their song in their first appearance in the film, it seems almost to get out of the way. And to be honest, most people are going to watch this movie because the loved the miser song from the first one. And I would have been among the rioters if that had not been in the movie but it didn't fit into this story as it did into the first one. The casting on the other had was next to perfect. John Goodman was born to be Santa and its high time that someone in Hollywood saw that. And Chris Kattan had me laughing out loud in several places. And while this cant replace the original classic, I feel that if it does end up being a bit of film buff trivia then future generations will be missing an enjoyable two hours.


Avoid this piece of crap at all cost. I just sat thru this awful film in a local theatre. I wanted to leave after 15 minutes due to panic attacks and nausea. But i was there with a friend and felt obligated to stay thru-out.

The story is non-existant, the plot is nowhere to be found. There is no conflict (or problem) to be solved. The actors are bad e.t.c....

We follow a little girl called ELINA, her sister, her mother and

a strict schoolteacher (Bibi Andersson). This is a parody on film-making, and a mockery of interesting stories about life.

If the "bad teacher" vs "good student" interests you, I would strongly recommend watching: "Hets", "Ole, Dole, Doff", "Zero de Conduite", instead of this awful movie.

My rating: 0/10 AVOID AT ALL COST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)


The series is supposedly set in Boston, but is about as authentically Bostonian as a Philly cheese steak (I think it's mostly filmed in Toronto - it's DEFINITELY not filmed in Boston). Apart from that, I found it painfully predictable. Some episodes haven't just *blurred* the line between real science and the supernatural, they've plowed up the ground that the line was drawn on and dynamited the underlying bedrock.

In other words, for a show which purports to have a mystery element, the writers simply don't play fair with the viewers.

The show also suffers from more than a tinge of "Providence" syndrome - the heroine is SOOO perfect (albeit in a "bad girl" way), almost always right when she bucks the system (except for a few "very special" plots where she makes a mistake and Learns Something About Herself), and every man is in love with her. Annoying! I did like the characters of Bug and Nigel. They were funny and well-acted. But they don't make up for poor writing and utterly stale plots.


I use to watch this show only because there wasn't anything else interesting on at the time. I feel that Jordans character in this show is completely unrealistic. I mean what is she a cop or a medical examiner. It's the same thing every time. She gets a body, doe's an autopsy & then go's on her own personal crusade to find out who killed the person. She seems to get all kinds of free time to run around questioning potential suspects. She always solves the murder before the cops do & every case she gets seems to have something to do with her mothers death. She should be running the police force in Boston. CSI Miami is a much better show because it's their job to do forensics and they're also police officers at the same time. Jordan is not a cop, she is a medical examiner, she's supposed to tell the cops how people died, thats it. If Jill Hennessey wasn't the good looking, headstrong woman she is, this show wouldn't have lasted it's first full season.


First things first - this is barely real at all. It's classified as a "reality TV program" when in fact Pauly Shore himself admitted a great deal of it is written because he is bored by reality TV.

I hate reality TV too. But then don't create a sitcom and pass it off as a reality show! I can understand the concept looking cool on paper - having a sitcom in the format of reality, shocking viewers - but that's been done before with "The Office" and "Minding the Store" is just a poor man's version.

Essentially Pauly, the once-famous "comedian" from the '80s, inherits the "world famous" Comedy Shop from his mother and takes on the financial aspects.

Of interesting note is that Pauly has grown up. He's older. He's put on weight. He's going bald. He generally looks...normal. He's no longer the skinny babe magnet he was in the '80s (well, he was never a babe magnet I guess, but girls liked him anyway - we might never know why).

This physical transformation alone isn't enough. Pauly's attitude hasn't changed at all. He's still annoying, still dumb, still unfunny. The show details his early life in the opening credits - he grew up in a family of comedians and was raised in the Comedy Store, around many famous stand-ups.

There was just something in his blood, I think, that wasn't right for comedy. He felt obligated to become a comedian but it wasn't natural for him. As a result he achieved brief success on account of his background but the natural instinct for humor was never there; he had to work hard for whatever jokes he landed, whereas a naturally gifted comedian might be able to succeed brilliantly by growing up in such an environment.

I digress. At the end of the day Pauly still hasn't learned his lesson. This show is fake, unfunny, scripted, annoying, and stupid. I was willing to give Pauly Shore another chance, and I've found he's just as annoying and whiny as he was in the '80s and '90s. Grow up, Pauly. Lose the stoner voice. Get some class. Get some good jokes. Try again.


When I first saw this I thought this was either going to be educational or exploitive. Turned out it wasn't really either. I assumed that a documentary about anyone's life would be any more informative than one made about anyone else's life. There are interesting points, like the medical and the fact these people are just as messed up as the rest of us. The youngest boy is normal sized, typical kid. The girl is normal sized and just wants to please her parents. There are the mixed twins, one small. The father is loud and controlling in every aspect except his kids, unless it reflects on him, such as the one's child inability to pass the driver's test. The Mom is just as dominating in her children's life. She is a vicariously living control freak. She flips on the smallest things, be good flips or bad ones A problem with is their lack of understanding of their eldest normal sized son. The Roloffs teach others how to cope with a small person. It's obvious they have no clue about racing a normal sized kid. Their eldest boy is a typical teen, he dislikes school, he's more interested in his friends than his family, and takes a lot of things with usual teen casualness. They try to make him feel like he's the one who is different. If he gets an opportunity the other twin's size prohibits and isn't ecstatic, he's a brat. They forget it isn't his fault they're small and he shouldn't be the one the worker tallees, he isn't Gulliver. What is up with that house? It's such a pig sty.


Another show exploiting children. They pretend that this is to educate people, but sadly what they portray are little people parents who would rather put their kids to work than support them. Matt is constantly using his LP status as an excuse, for drunk driving, for breaking laws for construction, for whining about his alleged miserable childhood, for not having a real job. Jeremy pretends to be about tolerance but spends his myspace time making racist and homophobic comments and taking homophobic pictures. The family trashes poor Jacob because he dares to have feelings, questioning the masculinity of a child. He is also physically abused by his brothers. The "farm" is not that and it's unsafe in many ways. The family cries poverty while adding nearly a million in improvements to the home and taking expensive vacations. They do a gross disservice to LPs everywhere.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but I find this show to be a case of much ado about nothing. I was intrigued with the premise enough to watch a few episodes, but once one gets past the fact that three of the cast members are dwarfs, there is nothing remarkable about this family whatsoever. They seem like a nice enough clan, with their comfortably cluttered house, occasionally bratty kids and a few bothersome health issues... just like pretty much every other family I know. After watching an episode devoted almost entirely to the astonishingly unremarkable task of cleaning the twins' room, I vowed never to waste another 30 minutes of my life in the same manner again. I mean really - if I wanted to see dirty clothes strewn about and dust bunnies under the bed, I could have just gone upstairs. The show is to be commended for attempting to educate viewers about little people and demonstrate how they are essentially "just like you and me", but that is also its downfall - for ordinariness simply hasn't made for compelling TV viewing since the days of "Father Knows Best".


The kids in this show are nice. I'd like to spend time with them, whether in real life or watching them on TV. They all have varied interests and a positive outlook on life.

Unfortunately, the show is almost completely ruined by their parents. They don't run the house with an iron fist--more like titanium. Anytime one of the kids disagrees with them, I half expect a whip to come out as the parents scream at them to get back to whatever their personal pet project of the week is.

If there was someway to concentrate this show completely on the kids, or at least not try and pretend that the parents are "protagonists," I'd definitely be a big fan of the show. As it is, I can barely stand to watch it and flip to another channel whenever I can.


This show is troublesome to say the least. Dwarfism is not a normal human condition, it's in fact a serious genetic ailment with tremendous health consequences, and depending on form can often lead to an early death.

I am not against people having this condition, they can't help being the way they were born. I am completely against, however, two "little people" getting together and having dwarf children out of ignorance of their own conditions. Yes, they had one child which fortunately did not receive the trait, but their other child was not as fortunate.

It is not cute to see a dwarf child! He will face horrific health problems in his future. Dwarfism is not a race, species, or ethnicity of people, it is a terrible genetic disorder which is not to be taken lightly, and should never be purposefully or willfully given to a child!


World of Warcraft gives blizzard a bad name in my eyes. Even though new races and weapons have been added to the Warcraft series it still gets boring and annoying.

World of Warcraft just brainwashes kids (and adults) into nothingness, i mean come on haven't you seen the south park episode.

What was blizzard thinking? they made millions off a stupid game. I can't wait until blizzard come to their senses and make Warcraft IV. Blizzard if you read this take my advice, i'm not the only one that thinks this.

It is so bad i would only recommend it to my worst enemy. Thats a great present for someone you hate. Everyone has an enemy, thats probably where blizzard made all their money off this game.

2/10


I do not blame the game, but myself, for losing hundreds of hours that with ease could have been spent doing something constructive/more fun. It took me a good two years before realizing the complete nonsense of actually devoting even a minute to this game, and at the point of recognizing this fact it took me less than no time to stop playing for good. Why is it nonsense?

The game is horribly linear. Play it through with one character and you've explored all there is to it. Quests come in 3 variations ("Wow!" is pretty far from the first thought that comes to mind when seeing that). Character development comes to a halt at level 20, after which little hope is in sight. At top level all you can do to further build up your character is to grind, grind, and grind some more for equipment that is slightly better than what you already have. Character skills are dead and stale. Exploring non-existent. Character progress is lost. PvP is another means to drain you of yet another couple of hundred hours and dreadfully predictive unless you are a dimwit, reaching ne plus ultra meaning (take a wild guess) better equipment.

At level 70 _everything_ boils down to getting better equipment? For what purpose? To be able to get even better equipment. I would chuckle if I did not feel sorry for everyone still playing. The economic aspect of the game is lacking in so many areas it's painful to even think about it.

Sure, there are a few pros as well. Playing with your friends is fun for a while, but there are better and more intricate games that actually give something in return while doing so. Clearing an end-game instance is fun the first time, after which it gets repetitive. Same with PvP. This game is flawed in so many ways it's a wonder that people continue to play it.

Wow is a hoax and you're all being cheated.


The game has a very simple structure; go around and receive "tasks/quests" from various persons (controlled by other players) and solve these tasks/quests by killing animals and monsters, thus getting rewarded by "items".

The ultimate goal of the game is to gather more and more powerful items and make you character more powerful. To gather all the best items probably takes years(!).

Diablo and Diablo II had both the same structure as World of Warcraft. I liked them both but not World of Warcraft.

There are many reasons why I don't like World of Warcraft:

1)World of Warcraft costs money per month

2)It is very evident that the game is constructed to be as slow as possible so that people never reach the ultimate end. For example every enemy can take 10, or 100, or even 1000 hits to kill (!). Sometimes you have to gather insane amounts of items to solve quests.

3)The action is very slow, and your character can't die (just turns into a ghost for a short time), so there is never any danger to speak of.

10 years into the future everybody will probably hate how much time they wasted playing this garbage.


I cant honestly say that this game is better than a single of the other warcraft games. I could play Tides of Darkness for hours and hours but WoW really was amazingly boring. You do the same thing every level every city every char. Don't really get the game. Don't get how people can play it non-stop for days and not get sick of it. I sold my copy of WoW after 2 weeks. Have seen my friends play and they all have 60's and I cant see any difference from my level 20. There is no change in this game and one must have a simple mind to find it entertaining for a longer period than a week, maybe 2. If I gave this game a 2 than i really would be to nice, so i decided not to.


Brother Orchid is one strange movie that could have been a lot better. I've a feeling some key scenes were left on the cutting room floor and the writers could not have made their minds up about Ann Sothern's character.

Pretty standard stuff for Warner Brothers at first. Edward G. Robinson is a gang leader who runs a protection racket, but he's getting bored with it and just up and quits and leaves the whole shebang to his number two guy Humphrey Bogart. He takes his bundle and tours the world in search of 'class'.

Robinson's his usual tough guy, but what a fathead as well. He should have insisted on Ann Sothern going with him, did he really think she wasn't going to stray, especially with rich western rancher Ralph Bellamy panting after her. And of course Humphrey Bogart was simply going to step aside and let him resume after he told everyone he was through. As Bugs Bunny would say, what a maroon.

So when Robinson puts together a new mob and starts warring on Bogart, he shouldn't have been surprised when Bogart takes him for that last ride. And when Sothern is the one who sets him up, what's there to say.

That's the first half, the second half deals with a group of monks who find a half dead Robinson who wandered to their door and they nurse him back to health. Naturally he's grateful to Donald Crisp and the rest of the brothers. And Robinson gets a way to show that gratitude in the end.

Someone really screwed up though with Ann Sothern's character. We're first made to think she's pulling the doublecross of all time. And then later we're supposed to think she was duped by Bogart as well. I'm still trying to figure it out. It was one incredibly bad piece of writing.

Robinson and Bogart are always great when they get together. This was the last of four films they did at Warner Brothers where Robinson was the good guy. When they did their last joint film, Key Largo they had changed places in the firmament of shimmering stars. Bogey of course was the good guy in that classic.

Brother Orchid is the weakest of the five films that Robinson and Bogart did together, but the fans of both men will probably like it.


OK things I liked about Stargate: The Ark of Truth: + Nice intro. + Nice ending.

Things I didn't like about Stargate: The Ark of Truth: - Poor corny acting with inappropriate comedy I found an issue throughout the entire show(s) Apart from Universe which remain to be seen.

- Low resolution Visual Effects: Low model texturing on that spaceship. Poor weapon effects on the Ori spaceships. Poor giant Stargate models. * Didn't have the money to do better? lacked creativity? *

- Mediocre Script: What's the point of telling a story if it adds nothing to the show credibility. * Quick cash that's the answer. * - Poor props: Super clean village, anyone? Shiny clean million year old artifacts? - Poor customs: * Same team as power rangers? *

- Bad camera work: On sets that clearly were made in one day. Ie that super clean village, dudes if you don't have the money to make something good, hide it with camera angles. * 101 stuff. *

Goodbye SG1, maybe goodbye Atlantis.. All hopes rest with Universe.


I'm seasoned Stargate fan and looked forward to this title being released. In fact one could say it was once my favorite series. Lo and behold I picked up the DVD a few days ago and set aside my night to watch it. The film starts with promise then descends into a banality that is awesome to behold. The first battle between the remains of SG1 and the Ori troops found me cringing with concern in the corner of my couch as perhaps one of the most poorly matched orchestrations ever showed itself. The triviality of the scene was breathtaking. The Ori, a force to be feared are reduced to squabbling school kids. Later the new IOC new recruit is paraded to us and conducts a meaningless interview. Shortly after this the one genuine moment in the film arrives - Tealc gets to show his empathetic side. What follows is a cluster that digs itself deeper and deeper as it goes, culminating in replicator man, a ridiculous and done to death idea, not even worthy of a B grade horror movie. Some where along the away Tealc cops a staff blast then walks a journey over some mountains that would have made Edmund Hillary tired before being healed by an ascended Ancient (what the????). Vala swans around in the Ori home base whilst her brain dead ascended daughter dares her to open the ark and goes on walk about (maybe baking some cookies for afterward). Vala then releases Daniel etc without resistance (where are the priors - at morning tea?). After the Oddesey get multiple Ori ship blasts (which it couldn't survive in either of the previous series) the 20 cent ending is with us. I never thought I would write comments such as this about the Stargate series, but here I am, bewildered and disenchanted at the PC. This movies rates with Dracula 3000 which also has a one star rating. Stargate should have finished at end of Series 7, but some how was allowed to linger and now we have this cash cow. If you must watch this item, I implore you to at least wait until 2 dollar Tuesday - failing that you can probably have mine for the same price.


This was definitely not a good ending for the Ori story. It seemed like they were out of ideas and invented a Deus Ex Machina solution - the Ark of Truth. Which they manage to find because Daniel Jackson has visions about its location! Give me a break!

Moreover, they destroyed the the female characters, both Vala and Carter. It's hard to say what was the use of the Vala character in this movie - she literally does nothing! And Carter was turned from the powerful and smart character in the TV series into nothing but a hard-working supporting character (who bakes cookies and kisses the male hero at the end - bleah).

Finally, the most annoying part of the movie is a prolonged fist fight between Mitchell and a super-mighty replicator-powered bullet-resistant android who would have killed anyone with a single blow. The movie keeps returning to this ridiculous fight scene after scene after scene. Total non-sense.

Definitely not worth buying nor watching, especially if you're a fan of the TV series.


belongs in the category 'better never done'.

dreadful writing, horrible directing and wooden acting. it feels like the actors were wheeled out on stage, given their lines, filmed, and then wheeled off.

i get the feeling most of the fantastic non-acting talent that made the series so wonderful had gone missing from the production. no wonder why.

doesn't come close to any of the great "classic" two-part episodes done in the salad days of the series.

what a disappointment.

well, i guess the only redeeming feature i can think of is that they bring the replicators back. shades of better days!

oh, and the use of arnold's original theme -- nicely scored, if nothing else.


I was immensely disappointed with "The Ark of Truth." The plot was weak, the acting so-so, the story was not engaging and I found myself laughing hysterically at dramatic and/or serious moments. For example, there is a slow motion shot where Cam is leaping away from an explosion that is so over the top that I laughed so hard the movie had to be paused until I recovered. The shot looked more like a poorly-done Baroque painting than an action shot based on a good Sci-Fi show.

One complaint is that Vala seemed to be nothing more than comic-relief. In the past, she has provided support and her skills & resources were useful to the SGC. In "Ark," she was just, sort of...there. Her character was given little substance.

The most grievous offense was what they did to Samantha Carter. For the past 10 years, she has been a strong character who has saved SG-1's and Earth's collective ass many times. In "Ark," her hair was long, even though they had made it clear in previous episodes that Air Force policy required her hair to be short. The writers clearly were trying to feminize her. She did not take initiative and repeatedly emphasized her support role. Sam had no brilliant, save-the-day ideas and in the end, she baked cookies and kissed Cam on the cheek. It was sickening how much they dis-empowered what was previously a truly amazing character. Samantha wasn't just the token woman, she was a smart, strong and essential character. The writers of "Ark" assassinated this character.


Do not buy this piece of crap. I was a loyal fan of all 10 seasons of Stargate SG-1 and stuck through the lower quality Atlantis. This movie was simply unacceptable. There was one scene about twenty minutes into the movie which involves some character development between Teal'c and Tomin which was actually decent but no better than anything from the show. Overall the cinematography, directing, writing, special effects, and plot were lower quality than most made for TV movies. Ben Browder and Michael Shanks also comment on the fact that the movie fails to fill in the gaps in the plot developed over the last ten years and how it really only focuses on seasons 9 and 10. Unfortunately, the only aspects of the story line and character development they did focus on where so overdone that it seemed more like a parody than the conclusion to the series. If nothing else, at least I should give them credit for having the foresight to realize that this had no place in the movie theater. On the other hand, my expectations are so low after watching this that Continuum cannot possibly do worse; well, I shouldn't commit to that. But if nothing else even if Continuum is as much of a disaster as Ark of Truth at least it will show consistency and that is worthy of good mention I suppose.


well I don't watch star gate in general, but watched this crap..... waste of time, the actors sucked the story as well... and what about those "mecano spiders"? U know the old construction set for kids, as most of the movie was about struggle against the toys many of us was building when really young. so why don't show some more fantastic Ori fights instead... fantastic??? nope awful and without spark and temper. I once had a strange feeling to start watching star gate series but now I know... hope I didn't offend some of U that actually like this crap, but for the best of planet earth I rather take Ori as my leader than to see any star gate again. well had a laugh and slept nice =)


Why the *beep* did they cast Ben Browder to play in this movie at all? He can't act, and his voice don't fit the screen or his character. Sure you can say "he was in SG-1!". Let me get this straight. When you get an actor trying to imitate another actors character (guess who) it never EVER works. They would have been better off starting the story with his tragic death... somewhere in the lines of -he cut off his own head while shaving.

Cheesy costumes, childish lines, bad musical score, and overall a whole mess storywise. And I almost forgot to mention the overacting... oh boy...

None of the characters seem real anymore, because their lines worked against them (with the exception of Christopher Judge who did a good job with the piece of crap he was given).

Avoid this one unless you're a die hard SG fan. I'll give this a 2 since Teal'k made at least 6 minutes of the movie watchable.


saw this at a friend's house, but it was not that easy to stay focused.

What a load of cramped, un-original metawhores leaching off of the universe of intelligent storytelling.

I suppose if I HAD seen any SG-1 episodes apart from the very first, I would know what the hell anybody was talking about! But as trivia on this piece says: Should 'ave been final ep in season 7... - sure thing! Anybody being introduced into the universe of the SG-series at s07 would expect to feel left out at least some of the time. Or, as the case was for me, ALL of the time! Why is it that anything bad just goes on and on and on, while good stories are killed in mid-flight: Firefly, Surface, Invasion etc etc etc? "The lowest common denominator" is not a valid explanation. It HAS to be a conspiracy, TV-network-bosses secretly meeting to pool information about their teenage children's progress in the are of independent thinking - if they collectively show an increase in self awareness, TV-mommies and daddies will automatically cancel shows their children like and commission extra seasons of the ones that bore them. To keep them dull and witless...

Hot damn, I am annoyed! This pile of garbage does not even satisfy the cravings of a feverish rainy Synday.

Even if it was pleasant to reacquaint oneself with Mr and miss Farscape. But the director killed their few and funny lines with Humpty-Dumpty off-beat editing, and the scriptwriter obviously did not care about anything but the main story lines and just employed a few stereotypic remarks from the great and unfunny book of one-liners to make it seem as if anyone but the set designers and the stuntmen had anything to do one this show...

No, please - I'm not done yet. There was one good thing about it, yes, most definitely. No, two, actually: The initial flight in-between mountains lasting some 3-4 minutes with no speak or anything was pretty, and... everything was done in colour. Yes. I believe that's it.


This is a b-movie to the smallest detail. Our hero is a former war hero and current race car driver(Can you be more macho?!). When he hears of his brother's troubles, he immediately comes to his aid(As any true man of action would!). And after being caught, beaten up and electrocuted you would think that he's done for. But think again!

Not only does kill half an army, but he manages to turn ordinary students into a guerilla army.

This movie has almost everything a b-movie requires: Dumb violence, heroes & bad guys and the obligatory sex scene between a our hero and a student.

But it needs one liners! It takes itself too seriously, and that is a huge mistake. It makes the movie kind of pathetic when it could have been excellent entertainment.

But hey! If you need to watch something without using your brain this is not a bad idea. Enjoy!


Before I start my review, I must first of all mention that this is not a B.movie, this is Z-grade film-making at its most ridiculous. Anyway Rage To Kill stars James Ryan (Of Kill and Kill again fame)a tough marine (who doubles as a race-car driver) travels to a South African college (Because we all know that South Africa is known for their ivy league schools) to save his brother from a ruthless general who has just recently overthrown the government, however after an (inept) escape, the marine and the college students join the rebels and payback the ruthless dictator with wholesale slaughter. Rage To Kill is utterly ridiculous in its ineptitude. The action sequences are so poorly conducted that it makes the stuff pioneered on Kung Fu theater seem like Rambo. James Ryan also sports an English accent that indicates a sophisticated intelligence which makes it hard to buy that he could be a killing machine at the same time. Oliver Reed is also on hand and he is positively terrible giving a performance so cheesy that he could be smuggled into a Green Bay Packer football game. Overall Rage To Kill is as awful as what you would expect, I mean anyone looking at the names (James Ryan?) knows what they're in for and Rage To Kill is a thoroughly incompetent Rambo rip off. It's also hilarious to behold and makes one wonder how this got passed up by Mystery Science Theater 3000. I mean this movie is perfect for such a skewering. In fact this, ROTOR and Troll 2 are top three titles that must be seen by MST3K if they're ever back on the air. I give this a full star instead of a half star (My lowest rating) because i'm feeling generous.

* out of 4-(Bad)


I am in this film (IMDB, can I have a credit?) You see me run up to the harbour wall and my line, "She's getting away!" is dubbed in a bad Hispanic accent and becomes, "The Condor, she is leaving!" (See, now, I could have done that - bad Hispanic accent and all!)

Henry Cele reprises the role of Shaka, Zulu. James Ryan does standard B-movie tough guy, military-type acting but without precision. Cameron Mitchell seems to be bored. Maxine John is gorgeous, but that's about it.

There is no sense of story placement or detail about Grenada - but, as it appears to have been filmed exclusively in Cape Town, South Africa, I guess that's not surprising. Basic, low-budget tat.

This is, without question, the worst film I have ever seen. It probably beats "Revenge of the Killer Tomatoes".

I absolutely loved it.


Can you say bad acting, ludicrous plot and silly special effects? I couldn't believe the miss-timed explosions and outrageous filming where the good guys can't miss and the bad guys couldn't hit the side of a huge barn in the final battle scene. Anyway if you want a film to avoid, this one is it. Laughable to the max!

1 out of 10. And I'm being generous.


I know that Canadian cinema is noted for its contributions to the Horror genre but this is horrible horror. Don't waste your time.

I had to write 10 lines of commentary to get this comment published. So I am going to fill up 10 lines of commentary to comment on this film. I do this so that I can get my 10 lines published because they won't publish it unless I submit 10 lines of commentary for publication. So here I am writing the 10 lines they demand before I can get it published. Once it is published you will read it. Once you have read it, you will understand. You will understand how boring and pointless this exercise was. And you will have some idea akin to just how horrible and boring this horror flick was. Get it! sorry to have had to waste your time.


I cant believe i was looking forward to this movie! Why Kinski! is it that bad ! The Plot, the acting, the directing .. All fail. Even the shower scene and the sex scene are made up with a fake model! I'm going to think twice before i see another movie for Kinski or Dimster. Uhhhh!


I like Hudson Leick as much as the next guy (and probably more than most of the next guys), but even for her, this movie is just not worth watching. It's just plain terrible from start to finish. Sure, Hudson looks great if that's your interest -- not hard for her to look good in any case -- but even fast-forwarding and just watching her scenes, this one is just a real crapper. Even if you really like Hudson, avoid it.


O'right

We've just seen the movie and OK we bought a copy one 2,5  and really it doesn't worth much more. At the end we had to check on the internet the duration of the movie because we were sure a part were missing... but actually not,

;-) So to summarize, here we go, a sexy girl from a town want to be an actress, and once her boyfriend cheat on her, she and her best friend go to Madrid and spend all their money, buying clothes, making new tits... then she is sad because she can't be an actress so go to her boy friend, and once the figure out that he is still seeing the girl he cheat on her with she go back to Madrid crying, that's more o less the whole movie.

I'm just so glad for not having paid a cinema ticket... I gave it a 3/10

Sorry if my English isn't that good, I'm french ;-)


This film is actually quite bad. Perhaps the only thing I would save it's the OST.. and also I have to say that some things are not easy to understand if u don't know a bit of the ambient where it was actually filmed. I mean, being Spanish helps for that, and of course I guess there is no translation but for the subtitles but.. To sum up, do not waiste your time or money guys. The story is nothing new, this girl discovers the boyfriend cheating on her so she decides to move with her best friend to the big city, where, I have to say, things are not always like they pretend in the film. Actually nothing really happens in there, I mean, there is no exciting story at all . Regarding the actors, the guy is well known in Spain as he is leading a pop band extremely popular with teenagers, and she is a complete unknown-


It was in films like Sagebrush Trail that John Wayne learned his craft, but thank the Deity he got out of doing stuff like Sagebrush Trail.

The Duke has busted loose from jail, he was in the calaboose for a murder he didn't commit. He eludes a posse chasing him, but gets into the clutches of an outlaw gang headed by Yakima Canutt. It's as good a place as any to look for the man who can clear him. He doesn't realize though how lucky he got.

Now granted this was a Lone Star production, not even a B film. But I would have liked to have seen just how Wayne got into the jackpot that landed him jail for murdering the lover of a married woman if he wasn't involved with her. When we do find who the murderer is that's never explained to us.

Since this was for the afternoon kiddie matinée crowd maybe such things weren't delved into even before the Code came in place. Maybe it was a question of sloppy editing also.

I think John Wayne's most devoted fans might like this one, I really wouldn't recommend to others, even other western fans.


In New Zealand, Cliff Robertson (as Judd Pierson) is an semi-unemployed daredevil race-car driver. Mr. Robertson advertises Budweiser beer on his race-car. His traveling companion is mechanic Leif Garrett (as Casey Lee). Mr. Garrett drinks Budweiser beer when he goes out to pick up women. While Robertson and Garrett are trying to make ends meet, Doctor Lisa Harrow (as Christine Ruben) learns a deadly virus has been discovered by some suspicious characters she works with at a laboratory. Ms. Harrow hires Robertson as her driver then, she steals the virus. Robertson, Garrett, and Harrow take off with the virus, in Robertson's "Helldrivers Auto Circus" car. Bad guys like Shane Briant (as Paul Thoreau) will do almost anything to get the virus back

Interestingly, the virus stolen by Harrow destroys the body's immune system, like AIDS. It was discovered accidentally, and Harrow seems correct in her assumption about how her government would use the virus; she doesn't trust New Zealand's military. Why she decides to, instead, deliver the virus to the United States CIA has even co-star Robertson baffled! Despite some warming up, there isn't much characterization. The ending gives the film a lift.

*** Shaker Run (1985) Bruce Morrison ~ Cliff Robertson, Leif Garrett, Lisa Harrow, Shane Briant


Shaker Run is strictly a film for those who like car chases with little plot to get in the way.

Cliff Robertson is down on his luck race driver and Leif Garrett is his mechanic stuck in New Zealand some 8000 miles from America. A deadly virus has been developed in a lab and Dr. Lisa Harrow doesn't trust her own government not to give it to the military. So what does she do? She contacts the American Central Intelligence Agency and of course they're real interested.

Lisa steals the virus and hires Robertson and Garrett to transport it to a designated hand off spot. Of course they have all of New Zealand law enforcement chasing them soon enough without at first Robertson and Garrett knowing why.

On the plus side there is both nice scenic photography of the New Zealand country side and of Auckland and Wellington. There are enough car chases and stunt driving to satisfy the most insatiable junkie for this stuff. Cliff Robertson and the rest of the cast basically walk through their parts, I'm sure Robertson did it for the money and for a nice trip to New Zealand.

I have to agree with another viewer, if you didn't see the police with New Zealand uniforms and didn't hear the Kiwi accents, you'd swear you were watching the American cops dealing with a fugitive with all that weaponry. Foreigners occasionally do more than chide Americans for their obsessive love of guns, yet these cops seem to find they come in handy if ineffective in dealing with a professional race car driver.


The TV guide said this involved " Sex , aliens and killer bees " so I canceled everything to watch it . After doing so I decided the only thing I`d be canceling in future was the TV guide

***** MILD SPOILERS *****

Writing out a brief premise of the plot it reads like something from THE X-FILES : An ultra secret government organization comes across aliens infiltrating the human race , but that`s where any similarities with the classic TV show ends . THE X- FILES was a good show ( At least to start with ) but HELL SWARM is an incomprehensible mess that starts off like an MTV music video , has scenes which led me to believe it was sending itself up , but then becomes utterly dead pan and starts to rip off other superior sources like UNIVERSAL SOLDIER , SECONDS , a bit of DOCTOR WHO and a lot of THE X- FILES . Oh and considering this crap is called HELL SWARM the killer bees only feature very briefly at the end

Sorry but - Unlike THE SWARM - it`s not even good enough to be bad so give it a miss


Why do I keep buying these (admittedly, incredibly cheap) low-budget pseudo-sci fi movies? Because I hope that somewhere in the big pile of crud that is Hollywood (or whoever produces these things), a pearl or a gem will prove to exist. But does it ever? Actually, yes. But it is extremely rare.

This movie is yet another disappointment. In many ways it actually isn't bad. The characters act fairly believably, and except for the ending, which is something of a letdown (yes, *another* one of those), the basic plot isn't too terrible, all things considered. But, for one thing, the execution of the potentially interesting material is boring. Several plot elements are missing (like, what does the Nephilim themselves actually look like?), and the titular swarm hardly plays any role (well, it's the threat they have to stop, but it just isn't in the movie very much). The looks of the actors are somewhat generic; only Amanda Welles is an attractive exception. To be fair, the bad guy isn't that bad, either (I mean, he's *bad*, but he's not bad, IYKWIM!).

Note: The Nephilim are not aliens, but some Earth life form from ancient times that has re-awoken (or something). Also: Billy Sabbath isn't "brought back to life", as in awoken from the dead; he was simply drugged and then revived. There's no supernatural element.

Overall, it was better than I'd feared (though certainly not the gem I'd vainly hoped for), but not by enough to lift it out of the mire of tedium. One wonders why this movie exists, but at the same time I have to say it wasn't anywhere near laugh-out-loud terrible (though some people seem to think so). The worst thing was the ending, with a dull, dull car chase that didn't go anywhere. Also, the whole thing about Sabbath's son could have been handled far more poignantly.

I rate this movie 4 out of 10.