Move over "Battlefield Earth." Heave to, "Waterworld." I think IMDb needs to make a sequel to its own list: Son of the Bottom 100! And the only movie on the list is "Deep Rescue." I generally love the sci-fi action/adventure. It's possible that my appreciation for the genre makes me more critical than I should be, but this is a giant, space shuttle-shaped turd floating in the toilet bowl of film as we know it.

The script seems to be a race to see how many clichés each character can jam in per shot. The acting/directing looks like they all flunked out of the William Shatner School of Dramatic Emphasis. The most shameful mess was how often the story ripped off other considerably more brilliant deep sea crisis flicks, particularly "The Abyss." It was such a flagrant steal that I expected pretty little water aliens to appear when the romantic leads get stuck in a collapsing DSRV. I imagine the creatures would be queued in right after the couple promises to survive for one another and hang on no matter what even though they fought non-stop for the first 100 minutes of the movie just like Bud and Lindsay. But with an obviously limited special effects budget, someone's nephew would have had to draw the little space angels on overhead transparency and wiggle them around behind a fish tank. Maybe they couldn't even afford a 4th grader, particularly if he was working for scale.

I won't say that "Deep Rescue" is as bad as the 2005 rehash of "Pride and Prejudice," because P&P was actually trying to be literary. But this pretty bloody terrible. I'd love to see MST3k revived just for this monstrosity.


I found the basic premise of this movie to be quite interesting. A craft designed to go into space that ends up sinking beneath the ocean. The special effects were a bit weak, but I found the opening sequence where the mission goes bad and they have to abort to be rather exciting.

Then the talking starts. It seems the one woman crew member gets around NASA pretty well. She is married to a NASA commander who did not fly on this mission, and has told him she wants a divorce. There's some history with the commander of the current mission, and despite the fact that he should be focusing on the crew's survival, all he can think about is getting back together after her divorce is final.

This soap opera is doomed once the focus changes from survival to who Amanda is going to choose to hook up with. And then when her husband climbs into a mini-sub and drops into the shuttle at the bottom of the ocean - all plausibility is completely gone! It's hard to describe how horrible this movie becomes. When you stop caring if the characters live or die and want them to just shut up about their stupid relationship, there's really no point in watching any more. I, like others reviewing this film, want my two hours back. I will never understand how such totally inept, weak movies get made. Who pays for them? And why? And doesn't anybody ever look at what they are doing and realize there's absolutely NOTHING of value getting onto the screen?


The famous physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, once described students physics paper as "It's not even wrong". That describes this movie. Now I don't demand absolute technical accuracy in the movies I enjoy. I'm not one of those who freak out because space ships make noise in the vacuum of space. But when they make a movie about real life things, like the space shuttle for instance, I expect at last half an attempt to make it believable. A summary of glaring inaccuracies. Don't worry, while some may call these spoilers, there's nothing here to spoil...

When the shuttle attempts an RTL (Return to Launch) abort, they do a nose over, a half a barrel roll and then attempt a turn to starboard....uh, with the external fuel tank still attached and the main engines firing. Uh, NO.

When they do jettison the external fuel tank, the main engines continue firing for time and then later shut down. Sorry, the space shuttle doesn't carry any internal fuel.

When they find they can't make it back to launch point, NASA instructs them to do a trans-Atlantic crossing and land in Europe. They inform NASA they can't because they've lost their main engines. What, they were going to fly it across the Atlantic like an airplane? And then there's the ditching in the ocean, and the shuttle sinks to the bottom. Yes, the shuttle is built to be air tight, but its designed to hold pressure in, not out. Put that thing under water and it would get crushed like a beer can.

When it appears that the oxygen supply, which was enough to keep them alive for days in space, will only last a few hours under water, they need a way to escape. So they turn to the satellite they were carrying into orbit. The plan? Get into the satellite, jettison it, and let it take them to the surface. Space and weight are at an absolute premium on satellites. They don't have room for people inside, and even if they did, it's certainly not pressurized with an air supply. Oh, and a ten ton satellite definitely won't float. A friend of mine works for a company that builds satellites. I'll have to ask him how deep they test them under water.

And this all says nothing about the acting, or lack of therein. Dale Midkiff appears to put all his energy into convincing the world that he's a real bad boy. The only thing bad is his acting. The good news is, he's the high point in this stink bomb.

Basically this move is just silly. A total waste of time.

To put in simply, this movie is just silly.


(1) The female love interest {actually quite pretty} has a secret on-board hairdresser who attends to her curls every time she takes off her space helmet. (2) That highly trained professional astronaut commanders would panic and take off their {1960's vintage} restraint harness during a crash sequence, is a laugh and a half. (3) Passwords on the computers??? WHY? (4) An airplane will float if water doesn't get in. Water didn't get in and the shuttle is an airplane. (5) I did like the set a bit. It was a bit better than the "Conquest of Space" (6) Acting not that bad, they did their best with a bad lot. (7) It takes a hell of a long time to put on a space-suit(with help). (8) A spacesuit filled with air at several atmospheres would explode at the depth portrayed as it ascended. They would have to have let air escape at a controlled rate. (9) that's enough *sigh*.


Who gave the information of this biography? this looked to be very doubtful, and the Cubans may easily argue that this is what they simply call a 'folleton'. The Artemisa man Sandoval is a person that, within the time living in a Cuban system, understood that it was not good for his future and life of his family, but to put him as a 'contra' when he was a young man is doubtful. I saw the first half of the film then gave up because this looked to me DOUBTFUL. If you read the book of another Cuban musician Paquito D' Rivera, 'Mi vida Saxual', you will note that Sandoval was friendly with Paquito but not to share the same political ideas during the 70s as it is shown in the film. It is also a non sense to show the people from the Ministry of Culture in Cuba not knowing the musician Chano Pozo at all, and letting Arturo take away Gillespie (without official authorization)in his 'car' once he arrived in Cuba. The only part, which looked to me real was the the talk between Arturo and the American officer at the USA Embassy in London when Arturo wanted to leave Cuba because the officer raised the right questions.


The male leads in 'Hot Saturday' are Cary Grant and Randolph Scott, who -- in real life -- were house mates at about the time this movie was made. Some people have publicly speculated that Grant and Scott had a sexual relationship. I'll comment that there's very little real evidence for this. I saw 'Hot Saturday' at the Film Forum in NYC, and several people in the audience made nudge-wink noises when Scott's character shyly admitted that he's not very comfortable with women. Scott plays a geologist who's holed up in a cave, and he seems to be interested only in catacombs and stalagmites ... not catamites.

'Hot Saturday' is one of those stories (like 'A Village Tale', or the much better known 'Peyton Place') about a small town where everybody knows about everybody else's dirty linen. There are plenty of rumours in this movie, starting with Cary Grant ... who plays a character cried Romer, but everyone pronounces it 'rumour' as if he were the novelist Rumer Godden. Grant makes his entrance in a dazzling all-white outfit with white buck shoes, topped off by a black trilby. Later, Grant plays a scene in white jodhpurs that would have looked quite fetching on one of the FEMALE characters. The town is called Marysville, for some reason.

I found most of this movie quite boring. Good-girl Ruth (Nancy Carroll) is a friend of rock-hopper Scott but she dallies with playboy Grant. Then she's suddenly eager to marry Scott. He glances in the direction of her midriff and suspects that Grant did something to make her anxious to get married in a hurry. Do the maths. Carroll's father, played by William Collier, is named Harry Brock: the same name as the villain in 'Born Yesterday'.

The only scenes in this pre-Code movie that didn't bore me were three very kinky bits. Ruth accuses her kid sister Annie (the very sexy Rose Coghlan) of stealing her knickers. When Annie denies this, Ruth wrestles Annie onto the bed, hoists up Annie's skirt and yanks the underpants off Annie's body. This sequence is amazing! In a later sequence, Ruth wears a very fetching pair of gauntlet cuffs. Later still, she arrives at Randolph Scott's cave soaking wet from a rainstorm and straight away passes out. When she wakens under a blanket, the first things she sees are her own clothes -- including her bra and knickers -- strung out to dry. I guess that Randolph Scott likes girls after all.

The only interesting parts of this movie were those three kinky bits, and very few people are turned on by gauntlet cuffs ... so that leaves just two kinks, and I'm rating this snore-fest 2 out of 10.


This movie is about a radical skateboarding monkey who can skate a half-pipe, I guess? Sounds cool, but did you know that this monkey went on tour? My friend told me this story, but I am sure there were enough people in the audience this day to validate it.

One day my pal went to see the MVP at our local skate park. He was supposed to drop into the half-pipe. I guess they loaded him out of the truck, and he was looking pretty sad, wearing this diaper. He stood on the edge of the pipe for a while, and then just FELL in! When he bailed, he crapped his pants. His trainers grabbed him out of the pipe, hauled him back into the truck, and drove away. Poor dirty monkey.

People shouldn't use monkeys as hilarious gags. It's funnier when humans are doing/saying idiotic things.


The premise of this movie is that "a hockey-playing chimp is chased out of a pro league by jealous human rivals and ends up on the streets, where a homeless boy teaches him how to skateboard. The duo goes on to wow the judges at a national skateboarding competition." First of all, how does a monkey end up on the streets, and why would a homeless kid skip searching for a meal to teach a monkey how to skateboard. While extreme sports have been underexposed for so long, your viewing of this movie along with others of similar themes, will aide to overexpose this great sport. See this weeks issue of sports illustrated on page 38 for more. They include Vin Diesel as a popular extreme sports star drafted by the U.S. government to become a secret agent and infiltrate a crime ring. ???ughhh A hard core surfer played by Sean Penn sells his home so he can trek through the Central American underworld in search of his best friend, a fellow surfer named Captain Zero ??? ugggh NOW THIS. I am not a major skateboarding fan but good Hollywood please leave this sport alone if they are going to churn out crap like this. PLEASE I saw the movie for free at a screening and still want a refund!


I saw this film on a wet day on the Gold Coast in Australia. If it wasn't for the fact that it was pouring down outside and there was absolutely nothing else to do in this tiny town we were stuck in(already had 2 lunches to waste time) we'd have left. Everything about this film is unspeakably bad, the plot, the script, the performances are risible. Whoever thought Alec Baldwin could play leading man in a comic book caper needs their head examining. Just awful!


Although any film based on cartoon or comic characters is meant to be taken lightly this one really is appalling. I actually couldn't finish watching it because I felt I was wasting too much of my life sitting there bored out of my wits. From the opening scene, where Baldwin (who seems to have forgotten how to act) is converted from evil to saviour of the people, you know this isn't going to get much better and it doesn't. Even the wonderful Tim Curry can't save this dross.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever-seen, even with its cast, which is impressing when you hear the all names, but they mean nothing, I doubt even if this had, the perfect cast(A Bond age Sean Connery) and Uma Thurman, even with them the plot would collapse, the cast would help, but not enough. The directions some of the worst I have ever-seen to, and the visual effects are surprisingly cheesy, not to mention that Mongols were not sword wielding samurai, without brains, but were horse folk who trained constantly to be able to ride horses without there hand, so they could fight with bows and arrows, they were far from the samurai this mess portrays, they were very noble people.

If you liked The Shadow(And I hope you don't) you might enjoy, the much better X-Men films, or the equally bad Godzilla.


This must be one of the worst movies of all time. Just the fact that a woman is playing a horny young man proves how pathetic this movie is. There seems to be no humor in this movie. Luckily I saw this movie on TV, so I didn't waste any money on it.


Ok, so the characters were funny in small sketches the Harry Enfield and Chums TV series, but they certainly don't deserve their own movie. It's basically a "How many erection gags can you fit into 100 minutes?" This film should never have been shown at the cinema. It is what the phrase "TV Movie" is for. It's a shame that the British Film industry, which has produced some of the best independent films in recent years, also produces the odd turkey. Save your money - it will probably be shown on BBC1 soon - which is where it should have been shown originally.


This is without a shadow of a doubt the worst movie of all time, and I've seen at least 30 of the bottom 100 here on IMDb. Manos has NOTHING on this movie. It's sadly unfunny. A craptacular knock-off off Bill & Ted (a master-piece in comedy, in comparison), which honestly is mostly funny because it was made quite some time ago and was sort of creative. This movie however is just extremely sad. THERE IS NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT THIS MOVIE WHATSOEVER! I really tried finding it funny how bad it was, but alas, there was nothing funny to be found. Just give two ACTUAL 15-year-olds an expensive video camera, a crew, and dress them up in "funny costumes", and let them run around and act like douche-bags, and you've got this movie in a nut-shell, except more honest seeing as how they would actually be 15 years of age, instead of being a 30-something sorry excuse of an actor/comedian/whateverthe&"¤¤theyweretryingtobe.

I'm sorry, this isn't debatable, this movie has absolutely nothing going for it. It is the pinnacle of awful. Avoid at all costs, or buy it and burn it.

I'm sorry for writing this as a comment, I originally meant to post it in the forums but felt I needed to warn as many as possible about this film.


A friend of mine recommended this movie, and I must say, it was horrible! It may be the worst movie I`ve ever seen. I dont´t know, if the original version contains any esprit in the dialogues, but the german version hasn´t. It was worst trash. Yes, the intention of the author and director, obviously was making a trash movie, but not in this way. I think this movie should be a comedy, but i never smiled during watching it. The so-called jokes, were ... No, better no comment. On the other hand, this movie is that extraordinary bad, you should see it - the only place for this movie is the flop 100 list. 1 of 10 are even too much...sorry!


On the cover of my DVD it says: "Will make American Pie fade in comparison". What? No way. This is absolutely the worst movie ever. If American Pie is a 100, then this one gets a 2. Please don't go and see this, or the producers might think you liked it and make a sequel. And a sequel might mess up the way we watch movies for generations to come...


I hate almost everything about this film. What the hell were people thinking??? They actually cast an old fart and some kind of bird to play two teenage boys who want to go on a shag-athon in Ibiza!!! They look older than Kevin's bloody parents. All of this is made even worse by the 'kids' overdone mannerisms, talk and clothing which are not funny, but plain stupid. All in all I'd have to say that this makes films like Dude where is my car? and The naked gun resemble the works of an intelligent and funny person. The only thing in this film, that looks as if it had been done carefully is the selection of supreme birds that Kevin and Perry can drool over. I'm not sure this deserves a point, but hey

1 out of 10

post scriptum: I realize that is sort of a prolonged sketch and that therefore a chick and an old fart play the teens, but as a film that sort of crap just don't work! Apart from that it just ain't funny.


I used to be a hugh fan of the original Harry Enfield show on english television, but after seeing the apalling excuse for a movie of "Kevin and Perry" last night, I'm definitely having second thoughts. The usually hilarious characters are too over-worked, and simply don't have enough depth to move from a 5 minute TV sketch to a 2 hour movie. The erection jokes weren't funny the second time, and got decidedly boring after the 20th attempt. The film often turned to toilet humour for no conceivable reason other than to make the audience cringe, without actually providing the neccessary laughs to make it bearable. Continuity, originality and direction were terrible. I can't think of single reason why I could recommend anyone to see this ... save your pennys, don't go to see this, put it towards a holiday .... ibiza maybe ?

0/10 ... can we give negative numbers ?


I enjoyed the TV series and Harry Enfield's sketches, but when he came to the big screen, He didn't do as well as i thought he would. It's packed with Ibitza songs which sound pretty good. But the comedy isn't as good and it wears out very early into the film. Not my favourite title of the year.


This film started promisingly, and for about the first 35 minutes was full of riotously funny humour - but then, it appears that the scriptwriters just ran out of the ideas - So what did they do? They just repeated the same old ones over and over and over again to the point of tedium, where you can see the jokes long before they arrive.

A pretty girl walks past Kevin and Perry - and you just wait for one of them to get an erection for the hundredth time - the same joke was done better in Waynes World (schhhhwing!). A few laughs are saved for the last 5 minutes or so, but this just looked like a what would have been funny as a 30 minute TV show, padded and stretched into a movie.

In the UK, this film has been rated '15', which is a shame as a sizeable proportion of the audience that would most likely appreciate the schoolboy humour is too young to see it at the cinema - They'll probably catch it on TV sooner or later, which is where this film belongs.


This is the stupidest, dumbest excuse for a comedy that I have ever seen!!!!

I wasted my time seeing this lame movie out of all the movies I have seen, this is my No.1 worst movie!

man, how i want to punch Kevin and Perry in the face, two of the most perverted ass clowns and weirdest,most annoying retarded characters in history of films

Im gonna give you this warning, don't watch it, avoid this movie at all cost, this is not worth watching and its not even funny it isn't even worth watching even if you were payed to see this crap

I cant believe some people found this funny, they need to get help

this movie is just weak and bad acting

WORST MOVIE EVER!


This movie could have been pretty funny and unique but two things really bothered me. Why oh why did they cast a woman for the character Perry? It's so obvious! And the second thing that bothers me even more is that at least 10 (!) times the micro is visible, which is not very professional and yet not hard to avoid... But still, there are some good laughs if you're not expecting an intelligent movie.


This was a terrible movie! A 40 year old guy and a 30 year old girl playing two teenage boys?! Totally pointless! But one or two jokes made me smile a while. But maybe it`s just not my sense of humor because two of my friend thought it was hysterical amusing, but as I said I thought it was boring. One scene though when Kevin (I think) gets all red in the face, that`s fun! But nothing I recommend, sorry to all you Kevin and Perry fans. //Sofia


Not much to this film. Group of strangers including a handsome, wisecracking paleontologist, a professor and his hot daughter, a grizzled Vietnam vet and his alky, unsatisfied wife, two nude models and their photographer are on a plane which crashes in the 'Valley of the Dinosaurs', where headhunting and cannibalism is still practiced by the resident tribe!! I must point out that well before the plane takes off you've seen all the chicks naked already, this is that type of film. Awesome! But I digress, the survivors of the wreck must walk out of the jungle, avoiding not only the cannibals but also the cruel slavers who would just love to get their hands on some fresh meat... and are picked off by a variety of methods.

Good cheesy fun with plenty of T&A!!


I did not think that Cannibal Ferox 11 was as good as the first film. It is about a man called Michael Sopkiw who hitches a ride to Brazil to dig up some dinosaur bones. Once he is in Brazil he gets in to trouble with the locals and manages to get a ride on a charter flight deep into Amazonia. but he plane crashes deep in the heart of the jungle, leaving Sopkiw, Soares, and two super models on their own to get back home. The group runs into cannibals, and murderous animals. they must face the cannibal tribes sacrifices to stay alive. I thought that this was quite a good cannibal film, but not as good as the first film Cannibal Ferox was, but i did end up enjoying it. 4/10


Michael Sopkiw plays Kevin Hall, a paleontologist who hitches a ride on a plane travelling to Dinosaur Valley, a fossil hunter's paradise deep in the cannibal-infested Amazon jungle. But when the plane crashes en route, he and the other survivors (a photographer and his model, a Vietnam veteran and his wife, and a scientist's daughter) must attempt to reach civilisation on foot, without losing too many body parts on the way.

Although the Italian cannibal craze had pretty much run its course by the mid 80s, a handful of directors tried in vain to scrape a little more meat off an already well-picked carcass, and delivered several offerings that did little to reignite interest in the genre.

Ruggero Deodato, of Cannibal Holocaust fame, directed the fairly enjoyable Cut and Run, an adventure movie with a little gut munching to spice up events, and Mario Gariazzo presented Amazonia, an unexceptional tale (actually about headhunters) that still managed to successfully capture some of that savage vibe that we cannibal fans know and love.

Michele Massimo Tarantini, meanwhile, gave us Massacre in Dinosaur Valley, a trashy (ie. it has plenty of hot nekkid women in it) B-movie style affair that totally misses the mark. With a fraction of the gore that fans have come to expect from the genre (the only memorable moment being a fun piranha attack), particularly dreadful acting, and a group of unlikeable characters you actually look forward to seeing being eaten alive, I found Tarantini's movie to be one of the weakest Italian cannibal films I have seen.

Some viewers seem to have enjoyed this one's general shoddiness, awarding it 'so-bad, it's good' status, but I don't think it manages to pull off that particular trick. In fact, part of me suspects that Massacre in Dinosaur Valley was intentionally made to be bad. Which doesn't make it good. Just bad. Which I guess, would make it a success. Except that I didn't enjoy it that much.

Ah, stuff it..... 4/10 for the quality T&A.


Even in the world of Italian cannibal exploitica, 'Massacre in Dinosaur Valley' is z-grade dross. If you are so inclined, you can enjoy a couple of strapping, greased-up muscleboys wrestling in a bar; live cockfighting; piranha attacks; occasional cannibalism; a weird tribal ritual involving grass skirts and Halloween 'spooky-hands'; and copious amounts of completely unnecessary female nudity, stripping, girl-on-girl action, and the usual titillating 'rape' scenes. The weird drunken Thai hooker lady-boy in the Frank-N-Furter costume who spends most of the movie swigging from a bottle and laughing hysterically at nothing at all is particularly noteworthy.

Unfortunately, the whole thing isn't quite so bad as to give it that laugh-out loud quality of vintage Hershell Gordon Lewis. Nor does it have the irony or sheer balls of early John Waters. A curiosity, to be sure, and the whole thing tries terribly hard to shock, but ultimately succeeds in providing nothing more than soft-core titillation for only the most undiscerning of viewers.


Well, this wouldn't have been an outstanding movie if this had been one of the last z movies to be released on French screens. It was just before the cinema crisis in 1985-86,a crisis which put an end to all these poor quality products.

this film released in France under the title of "Prisoners in the valley of the dinosaurs" is a mixture of adventure (Indiana Jones was quite popular then), erotica and cannibalistic violence. of course, none of these movie genres are successfully adapted. it's just another curiosity for bad movie buffs.


This movie was terrible. The dubbing was terrible but ignorable. The plot was OK, but I had to register an account here because people are saying that Sopkiw's character was the hero. He was not!

First off, sometime in the movie a car breaks down, but we're never told why. In a deleted scene we find out that it was because a chubby guy sat on the bonnet and blew the tyres. Yes, that's plural - "tyres". No, not just two. Four. A guy sits on a car - that he was sitting INSIDE in a previous scene - and blows all four tyres. WTF?

Next, they're in the jungle and there's cannibals around. A guy makes a fire so he can steam off some leeches from one of the women. Another woman yelps because she sat next to a snake. The guy has a go at her because she could give their position away - as the smoke from HIS fire billows everywhere!

So this guy gets half his leg eaten by piranhas. Our 'hero' jumps in the water and nurses the wound! Then some other guy kills the wounded guy because otherwise he'd die a slow and painful death. Our 'hero' didn't like this, he must have wanted the poor guy to suffer, so he starts a fight - and they decide to jump into the piranha water to have this fight...

Later, the two girls have been separated from the rest and kidnapped by cannibals. Our 'hero' catches up and spies from behind a rock. Meanwhile, a cannibal chief has started to cut open one of the girls' chests. Our 'hero' decides that now might be a good idea to do something, so, as we hear the poor girl screaming in the background, he starts to load his gun, taking all the time in the world!

Our 'hero' and the two girls then get taken captive by some evil miners. The 'hero' is tied up in a pig pen as the leader of the miners takes one of the girls into his cabin to rape her. As we hear he screams and the commotion from inside, 'hero' decides that now might be a good time to escape, and escape he does. And hides. That's right, he leaves her in there and doesn't appear until the next day. Nice move. You must really hate these women!

Now for the showdown between the 'hero' and the minor leader. Imagine two men standing ten feet apart, one holding a spear ('good' guy) and one holding a gun with one bullet left (bad guy). There is a rattlesnake next to the man with the gun. "Make your choice", our fearless 'hero' says. Well I don't know about you but if I was the bad guy with one bullet left, I'd step away from the snake and shoot the other guy. This doesn't happen, of course. He shoots the snake and the 'good' guy shoves the spear through his chest.

Finally, and let's overlook that the remaining girl has been put into a cage with 2-foot gaps that she could easily slip through, our 'hero' creates a diversion, sending all the miners out of the camp, bar the main bad guy, whom he kills. Now he can finally rescue the girl, whom he has already let be raped through-out the night, right? Wrong. He decides to spend his time lying dynamite at the entrance to the camp for when the miners return. And return they do, and when they see their leader dead on the ground and the girl still in the cage, they start shooting at her. Bullets ricochet off and split the wooden bars as our 'hero' is casually sitting back next to the detonator. Moments go by and I saw at least two bullets hit inches from her head. We flick back to our 'hero', who is casually sitting back in a chair smoking a cigarette, as we hear more bullets being fired right at the girl, then finally he decides to push the detonator painfully slowly to blow up the remaining bad guys.

At least he releases her from the cage. You'd expect her to be so pee'd off at him now, having let her be raped the entire night, and sat idly by as a dozen men shoot at her, but no, she says she loves him and they kiss!

Man, he must REALLY hate that woman.


Yeah, OK, this may be deliberately cheesy but it's all pretty lousy, and not in a good way. We have a brave "bone hunter" in search of Dinosaur Valley but all the poor guy can find is bad action/adventure movie clichés, like people sinking in quicksand, nude natives, plane crashes, Viet Nam vets, and knock-down drag out fights in piranha infested waters while bleeding. I hope this was intended as a parody because if it wasn't it succeeded pretty well, unintentionally, anyway. There are a couple of nice ladies to look at but beyond that it's all pretty far fetched stuff that manages to be somewhat entertaining but wears thin after a while. There's a bit of cannibal & head-hunter stuff, a bit of lesbian stuff, but the rest is pretty much by-the-numbers action adventure stuff and I'm actually truly sorry I wasted my time on this. Not a fine example of 80's film making & certainly not what I'd refer to as a horror film.....3 out of 10.


*** Contains spoilers ***

There are many interesting K-drama series shown on cable TV, but few are registered here. ROOFTOP ROOM CAT is the best I have seen so far. WINTER SONATA had a weak story, but amazing acting and a nice theme song. HOTELIER and JEWEL OF THE PALACE were on the boring side. MY LOVELY SAMSOON also had weak writing and no chemistry between the actors, although the leading lady had an endearing quality about her.

The latest Korean TV series being offered in the USA is 2004's FULL HOUSE. The previews and promotions for FULL HOUSE advertise it as a fun comedy series. Comedy or not, an unrealistic setup is FULL HOUSE's fatal flaw. The first episode of FULL HOUSE makes BABYLON-5 seem like a documentary series. In FULL HOUSE, the leading lady believes she won a complex international travel package vacation with ZERO documentation. She does not call anyone to verify any details. The leading lady leaves for this one or two week international trip with only a one-way air ticket. Simply incredible. And even worse, the viewer is asked to believe that her real estate, her home, can be secretly sold (within a week's time) without her knowing. Property ownership is 9/10th's of the law. Real estate cannot really be sold from the trunk of a car.

Assuming that a person's house was sold in a scam, any normal person would call the police so the police can come over to begin an investigation, and any normal person would start calling lawyers for help. No normal person would leave their house and physically go to a police station. No normal small unarmed young female would attempt to physically confront the thieves alone.

The setup to FULL HOUSE is bizarre and unrealistic. But if a viewer is to accept the setup as being true, then the stranding in a foreign country and the loss of home, money and all personal property is tremendously sad and tragic. The average viewer wanting to enjoy a fun comedy series is going to be repelled by the major events in the first episode of FULL HOUSE. Also, an average viewer wanting to see a charming romantic story will be displeased by the cold and uncaring way the leading man treats the leading woman. Like MY LOVELY SAMSOON, the leading man shows no appreciation of female beauty. The leading man looks not at, but through, the leading lady with complete disinterest. Unlike J-dramas and programs from any other country, the leading men in MY LOVELY SAMSOON and FULL HOUSE constantly look at their leading ladies with contempt and annoyance and their behavior is cold and arrogant as if all females are unworthy of attention. If you are looking for a warm charming romance, look elsewhere.

One last and less serious problem with FULL HOUSE is that the female that the "famous movie star heart-throb" leading man wants is very much on the nerdy looking side compared to the leading lady and, I am sure, any girlfriend he has ever had in real life. The love triangle is simply not that believable.


Not a big fan of these K-dramas, watch them more with the spouse as a window on the culture. The hammy acting, over-cranked "action", poor girl/rich guy(s), family values, no sex ingredients are all here. But this one is a weak effort, with far far too many minutes of silent angst/introspection by the four leads interspersed by either Han Ji-eun or Lee Yeong-jae storming out of the house they share and then returning for more. Seen on a weekly basis it must have been a hoot to wonder which one would be packing this time. Word to the wise - people have to talk on TV, it is more like radio, the screen is too small for big action or scenery, and there's none of that here, Shanghai and Seoul are seen in dull overcast skies. Watching people stare at walls while soft music tinkles in the background is, well, kind of boring. The story also has to move a bit on it's own, this one lurches ahead by having the two "friends" (...who needs enemies?)appear now and then to prod them on. A rare bit of wit in the script raises the score but overall a snoozer.


One thing about these 'newer' Poirots is that we must expect changes to the source material. Quite often I don't mind the changes if they make sense or add something to the story or if the change is accompanied by some particularly affecting performance. Unfortunately none of these things apply to the changes made to 'Taken At The Flood'. I have to confess that this was never one of my favourite Christie novels. I always found most of the characters fairly unpleasant and here the film manages to make them even more so! It's quite a slow moving story and the film does nothing to hurry it along. A very dark tone is adopted which is appropriate enough I suppose but so many of our misfit characters tip over into caricature and (unlike the vast majority of these adaptations) there are few performances to savour. Elizabeth Spriggs is fun, 'Rosaleen' is sympathetically done but the others are either creatures from pantomime (Kathy, Lionel and especially David who just needs a moustache to twirl) or a Noel Coward play (Jeremy, Frances and Lynn).

Once again those responsible for adapting this particular Christie have felt the need to cram the final denouement with as many extra revelations as they possibly can - each Cloade must have a nasty secret to be uncovered by Poirot, most of which must surely be stabs in the dark! As Rosaleen is saved in this version, the scriptwriters obviously felt that the other deaths in this tale are a little bland and so introduced the dynamite plot to set Poirot's moustaches quivering in righteous anger. I agree of course with all other reviewers who point out that making the deaths of Gordon Cloade and his household domestic murder instead of 'accident' shows a complete lack of understanding of what the book is actually about. This is one of Christie's titles which was carefully thought out and contains all the clues one needs - we are dealing first and foremost with an adventurer and opportunist! I appreciate that as this series seems firmly fixed in the thirties, a war bombing is no longer sensible but the original explanation of the gas explosion worked just as well - why make it murder? We must remember however that the film-makers are aiming to 'make the stories more relevant and accessible to a modern audience' and I suppose that that must explain everything?!?

Easily the worst of the season.


From IMDb: "Hercule Poirot finds himself trying to solve the mystery of the Cloade family. Rosaleen is the young widow of Gordon Cloade who was killed in a gas explosion in his London home. Rosaleen has inherited her late husband's substantial fortune and she and her brother David Hunter are refusing to share it with other members of Gordon Cloade's family. There have been persistent rumors that Rosaleen's first husband, an intrepid explorer, is still alive and as such would nullify her marriage to Gordon. What Poirot learns however is of a far greater deception that will alter everyone's perception of what they believe to their reality."

Taken at the Flood has to be one of my very least favorite of the entire Poirot series (I disliked it so much that I didn't even bother to write my own plot synopsis). I was never a huge fan of the book, but this adaptation has some real weaknesses and problems that I just can't get past. Chief among them is that it never "feels" like an Agatha Christie story. Who decided to sauce up Christie's work with all the sex and talk of abortion? I suppose it was done in an attempt to attract the more modern viewer. What about those of us who watch these movies because they aren't filled with the same garbage you can find in every other modern movie? Beyond the bastardization of Chirsite's novel, the denouement is terribly disappointing. Poirot brings up things about a murder that happened years ago that, not only would Poirot have had no way of knowing, the audience couldn't begin to come up with the solution. Kreskin couldn't have come up with half the things Poirot reveals. And it's not as much fun when you can't play along. I realize that Christie would often spring a surprise or two during one of Poirot's final monologues, but here Poirot offers no proof. Based on the evidence, his accusations seems to be little more than wild speculation.


I think that the new episodes really betray totally the ideas of Agatha Christie and most of all became less logical. The new authors seem only interested in putting homosexuality themes, morbidity, and similar. These don't own at all to Christie. I'm not a puritan, I don't care if I see a movie with these theme in, but why put them here? They have changed lots of lines, and worst of all changed significantly the plots. In this way then the plots don't work anymore, it lacks logic, it's hard to get the motivations of the characters.

In this episode Hunter puts a bomb, Scotland Yard confirms it to Poirot, but... nobody knows it??? Scotland Yard tells it only to Poirot, on request?? Don't you think it's rather absurd? And why did he put the bomb? Because his sister didn't want to share the money with him? It wouldn't be a little more logical to kill the husband and in case next his sister to inherit from her? And why put a scar on his face? The bomb's exploding anyway, just content yourself of the wounds that you get from the explosion... Sorry, I haven't read the book, but I think anyway that the story doesn't work, it's not only a matter of nostalgia or defense of clean Christie's style. It's only, simply, totally WRONG, it's not cinematic!


This is the second Poirot I've put back in the box before finishing. The first was Sad Cypress, and the reason is the same. Both come across as overly melodramatic to me, with the romantic elements so pained that it seemed the character's heads would explode. I like my Poirot in a lighter mode, and these to episodes seem to be spoken in a different language from the rest I've seen. I can imagine people liking this sort of thing, but I find it out of character for the series.

As with someone above, I was bothered by the cuts between segments. A scene ends outside, and you're suddenly in a room and different people are talking already. I understand television breaks, but a few seconds to get you into a new setting would be appreciated. I certainly don't notice it in most Poirots, but the last 2-3 I've seen have had the same problem.

For all of you complaining about changes from the book - do you really want to know what happens next in every scene? How can you watch a mystery when there's no mystery? If I had read the books, I'd certainly want the dramatic version to have new elements to throw me off.


I found the dialogue between David Hunter and Lynn ludicrous and her "I'm just a poor woman" act cringe-worthy. The performance by the actor playing Hunter was so over the top it was from another planet. SPOILER :

So the police knew the Cloade house had been blown up by dynamite but there was no investigation? Please!! The only credit I give the production was to give Tim Pigot Smith so little to do. With an actor of his stature this nearly always means he would be the murderer. Not this time, so well done for that. Otherwise this production was so bad it makes me more annoyed the more I think of it. How can Suchet,supposedly, give approval for the book changes? I can only assume he does not appreciate the meaning of the title.


I've waded through about 50 episodes of Poirot now, from the sublime to the mediocre, but this episode lowers the bar to basement level. I've never seen such a preposterous collection of characters, few of which make a lick of sense. It seems that the producers decided that the story needed sexying up, so they sprinkled vulgar language throughout, and heated kisses at every turn.

Every Poirot has to have an antagonist, but Elliot Cowan's characterization of The World's Biggest Jerk is so far over the top that he turns menace into eye-rolling absurdity. And naturally, since the plot demands it, the most virginal female character just *must* "fall in love" with him, even though she recognizes his purely evil nature. "What am I, a poor, weak female to do?", she sighs, "I'm a slave to love (as of 5 minutes ago)".

And throughout, Poirot subverts his beloved character with hyper-emotional exposition (for no good reason, given his lack of connection to the characters), a hitherto unrevealed religiosity, and a penchant for using 50-cent words that he's never before used, while still forgetting the English words for "thank you" and "yes". Asinine.

I would warn anyone who feels affection for Poirot and the great body of his work before this absurd farce to avoid it at all costs.


Just in case you didn't learn from the first 4000 holocaust films that the holocaust was really bad........Speilberg goes out on a limb and hits you over the head with the fact that the holocaust was really bad. He also did it in a very exploitative pandering manner...to the point of being grotesque. If you didn't learn from those 4001 holocaust films that the Nazis also exterminated gypsies, gays etc.... Well the Nazis wiped out a lot of other groups beside jews too. This sort of thing tows a very dangerous line...that it was more significant not that 6 million plus people were exterminated but that it was 6 million jews....according to the majority of these films and various holocaust memorials the gypsies and gays etc. do not count.

 Where are the numerous memorials documenting the genocide that happened in this country? (native americans...also numbering in the millions) That would make a historically relevant film. You think perhaps if native americans had a very powerful militaristic state that is subservient to u.s. power there would be more native american genocide memorials? Probably. The fact that much of this comes from elite american jewish organizations reeks a bit of hypocrisy, since historically American jews haven't suffered at all at least compared to native and afro americans (and to even suggest to the contrary would be a joke). So how does this film function? One might conclude that it panders to American jews, exploiting guilt perhaps for their lack of sufficient suffering? If you are interested in actual holocaust history (one might be shocked that it has very little to do with american jews). I would suggest reading more serious, less pandering sources. 'the Seventh Million' by Tom Segev, an Israeli journalist, is very good...'the Holocaust Industry' by Norman Finkelstein is very good too. One might be shocked to find that the jews aren't one big group but a bunch of very diverse groups with radically varying histories etc.


The Nazis in Schindler's List are portrayed as evil heartless demons who seem to lack any kind of soul (well, Amon Goeth was pretty evil), while Schindler and other "goodies" are portrayed as saints with hearts of butter; It's time to wake up people! My grandfather who is now 85 served in the war verses the Germans. I've had many talks with him and his war buddys and I can promise you that what you see in this film (and many others that are "based on truth") is purely fictional and shouldn't be allowed to even claim it is based on truth. And if it must it should have to give us a percentage of truth that it is based on, eg: based on 6% truth. Honestly, just take a look at the war on Iraq to see a current example of how the victors completely turn the truth on its head and sell it to the masses; who readily accept it as fact.

Schindler at the end of the film is seen giving away his watch and a few rings (last of his possessions) as to save a few more Jews. Well, truth is Schindler made off with A LOT of money in reality. He profited from the Jews slave labor just as much as they profited off his humanity. I'm not saying that Schindler wasn't a good man for saving the many Jews that he did, I'm just saying lets not go overboard with the exaggeration. And this is just one of the many liberties the director took with this story to spice it up a bit. Some of the scenes which were designed to shock the audience with brutality from the Nazis towards the Jews were so over dramatized and fake they made me want to blow chunks in my popcorn. I don't mind fantasy but for gods sake don't mix it with truth, especially when you have an audience which sadly seem to often refer to this film when they are in a debate about world war 2 or the holocaust, as if it was some kind of historical reference with any credibility.

PS: For a good film about world war 2 and the Nazis, check out "DownFall", a German film which is very, very well made.


Ah, Spielberg's favourite theme: every single Germans pre 1950 was utterly evil and/or calculating and self serving. Still, at least after being bludgeoned around the head with this one note message for the best part of 3 hours, I had stopped noticing that the acting consists of just reading lines and not tripping over the furniture.

The cinematography is admittedly impressive, but the sound is either overbearing or cynically manipulative, and the emotional crecendo at the end is so overdone as to be positively irritating.

And lastly, while the history is substantially correct, there are enough errors or omissions to shove a stick in the spokes of any claim to authenticity. This isn't entertainment, and it's not accurate enough to be documentary, so what does that leave? Sadly, propaganda.


I saw this film, the director's first attempt, when it debuted at the Philly Film Festival in 2002. I found it to be VERY disappointing. Without giving too much away, the director takes a clichéd Bollywoodian approach to very strong themes of sexual abuse, revenge and violence.

In the Q& A period following the film, the director admitted that some of the events were based on his true experiences, he explained as well that he had wanted to avenge a close friend through the story he portrayed. It is quite clear that he was much too emotionally close to resolving his own demons when he made this film. As a result, the film is extremely naive. Being passionate about cinema and world cinema in particular, I walked away incredibly frustrated.


I watched this movie again out of homage to Heath Ledger. I still lament the death of this fine young actor. I trust he would have appreciated anyone sitting through this movie out of respect for him. I also trust that anyone who has seen the original Zoltan Korda's "The Four Feathers" (1939) will concur that this movie does not hold a candle to the original. NOT IN ANY SHAPE MANNER NOR FORM! So, in brief, please watch the 1939 film. You will be amazed at the difference, the grandeur, the historicity, the inspired acting, and the coherent plot. All this and more is lacking in the 2002 version. (I apologize for the harshness of my review to the fans of this movie. But, trust me, if you see the earlier version, you'll see where I'm coming from.)


My husband, who has a liking for epic movies, dragged me to this movie (and I'm sick no less) and when it was over I couldn't believe I'd only been sitting there for only 2hours and 15 minutes. It felt like 3 1/2! The guy next to me left 45 minutes before the movie ended and I wish I had done the same thing.

This movies was full of the same old predicable cliches and boring slow motion camera work to make it all seem even more dramatic than it was.

The only scenes I did like were the ones between Harry and Abou. Those were genuine. The rest was CRAP.

I have already lost some respect for the Academy after giving Russel Crowe the Best Leading Actor for Gladiator, but if anyone from this movie wins even a nomination, then the whole organization is full of it.

Save it for a bad movie rental night. Don't waste your money or time to see it in the theater.


I saw it the day it opened. The print was dirty, scratched, noisy and had numerous dropouts in the audio. Every scene change was preceded by either a dropout or a burst of static. I honestly believe that we got a pre-release work print rather than a finished product. The audio problems were so distracting that the movie lost most of its impact. Lawrence of Arabia it isn't.


I gave it 2 for some attempt at historical detail... To echo another reviewer, all the actors behave as in the 20th/21st centuries, not the Victorian 19th. The actors behave far too freely and with hardly any attempt at the formal dignity, stiff social restraint of the time, and no apparent attempt to represent the social mores and customs of the era. Watch the original version with Ralph Richardson to see what I'm driving at.

Or watch Zulu, Zulu Dawn, or Charge of the Light Brigade for more authentic historical recreation of how people were in those days.

The battle scenes in this version may have been 'fierce', but the pacing was far too 20th-21century. Even warfare was a more 'formal' and 'dignified' affair then than it is today. It took the First World War to change that.

IF you want 20th-21st century romance and military heroics transposed to the 19th century, this film is OK, for anything more historically 'real', best look elsewhere...


With Matthias Hues on the cover and only $3.00, i had to buy it. I enjoyed some moments, like Hawks annoyance with the pleasure droids, but i only really watched to see Matthias Hues' scenes. I particularly enjoyed the showdown at the end. It was a cross between Clint Eastwood's "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" and "For a Few Dollars More" (a 3 man quick-draw showdown, with a musical pocket watch used as the countdown timer). Apart from that, there's really nothing more I can add. The actors gave good performances, (all except the "Assassin Droid" whose performance was nothing outside of comical) but the movie really lacked depth and purpose; simply not enough to fill up 1hour and a half of standard movie time, so we're stuck with the main characters aimlessly wondering around from place to place for an hour or so, until the ball gets rolling. For example, the main character returns to the same strip club about 4 times, taking up two-fifths of the movie.

The scenery really lacked depth and creativity, probably due to the films budget. I don't think we ever did get to see this "perfect city" of New Angeles that was always talked about, in fact, when the main characters finally reached New Angeles, its set in a factory or warehouse full of pipes and walkways; hardly the kind of "kingdom" the owner/creator of an entire city would dwell in. The "super-high security" of New Angeles was also always talked about, but only a total of 15, maybe 20, security guards were counted, even when the alarm went off; not even close to Matthias' approximation of "at least a hundred men out there".

If you are a fan of any of the actors/actresses in this film, then you may want to watch it, simply to "add it to the list". However, if you value 1 and a half hour of your time, or $3.00 of your money, you may want to give this one a miss.


My first thoughts on this film were of using science fiction as a bad way to show naked women, althought not a brilliant story line it had quite a good ending


Cyber zone, as this DVD was sold in Oz, is about the worst B-Grade junk I have seen. Apart from a restrained deadpan act from Singer, indicating he knew how bad the movie was going to be, the other actors sway about genuine attempts at line delivery (Swanson and Quarry) or absurd imitations of classic movies scenes. Mathius Hues makes the most ham-fisted portrayal of dying since Jim Carrey's Mask. All of this with no real thread to suggest an attempt at a spoof by genre, period or any common vein is plain annoying. Don't even try to join the dots with the plot. It is Blade Runner, thinly disguised with no content, actors or scenery due to a very limited budget. "You gets what you pay for" is never more apparent. There is repeatedly annoying re-use of limited sets, with no attention to set dressing and a spew of special effects that would have hit the cutting room floor for Dr Who in 1976. The Helicopter explosion is worth a rewind to demonstrate my point. Of course there are masochists that will lap up this tripe but if you are watching this movie for a bet, make sure you get more than your pay rate. At $2 this DVD will make a cheap and interesting beer coaster.


I was given this film by my uncle who had got it free with a DVD magazine. Its easy to see why he was so keen to get rid of it. Now I understand that this is a B movie and that it doesn't have the same size budget as bigger films but surely they could have spent their money in a better way than making this garbage. There are some fairly good performances, namely Jack, Beth and Hawks, but others are ridiculously bad (assasin droid for example). This film also contains the worst fight scene I have ever seen. The amount of nudity in the film did make it seem more like a porn film than a Sci-Fi movie at times.

In conclusion - Awful film


My two daughters (ages 5 and 2) were the luckiest girls in the world when a friend of mine gave them her original My Little Pony videotapes from the 80s. They watched them over and over again, and to keep my sanity, I let my husband buy some cheap DVDs with My Little Pony Tales, for variation.

That variation I could have done without. Much like other people here, I was disgusted by the superficial and petty characters (even though at first glance the story lines appear to offer some good values). Stripping the beloved horses of all their horse qualities and making them over like some cartoon 90210 for 12-year-olds is a crime.

My girls don't really understand much of the Tales, but they watch them anyway, since they recognize the ponies. So, I let them watch the DVD's anyway and tried to hide how much I hated them.

Until today, that is. Today I forced myself to sit and really watch an episode. It didn't take more than two minutes for one of the horses to say (while eating a carrot, perfectly normal food for a PONY) that she couldn't wait until their synchronized swimming competition was over, so they could all go back to eating "normal food" again!!! No, the storyline of this episode was not about dieting, this was just said to fill out some time. To my dismay I found that every episode of the horrible Tales contain such sneaky comments, creeping into the minds of my precious little girls. I don't' CARE if there's another Tales episode that shows the dangers of dieting, my girls shouldn't even THINK or KNOW about dieting.

Long story short: I'm chucking those DVDs today. And I want to advise everyone reading this to stay FAR away from My Little Pony Tales. We only get one childhood. Fantasy adventures with kind and magical horses give children the escape from reality they need. Don't throw them into the adult world too early.


I think this could have been a good film, but, as others have mentioned, the split-screen 'style' (?) is incredibly annoying over 100-odd minutes of watching, or, in this case, watching TWICE. That adds up to 200-odd minutes of watching five different stories, all while distracting you with camera gimmickry.

In the mid-1960s, a graphic designer from Toronto, Ontario, Canada named Chris Chapman created the split-screen idea for a short film on the Province of Ontario for the provincial government. It was a sensation at Expo '67 in Montreal, and was such a novel idea that Toronto director Norman Jewison (and others) used it in 1960s films.

The idea, predictably, went nowhere. It was trendy, had flair, but was not sustainable over the length of an entire film. Jewison used it sparingly in The Thomas Crown Affair (1968), and it annoyed critics even then. And here, almost 40 years later, we have a director who thinks it would be a great idea to try it again, this time (unlike Jewison, who was far more judicious) over the ENTIRE STRETCH of a movie.

I was astounded that this was done. It defies basic physical laws. The human eye just cannot catch up with a blizzard of jump cuts (and that's what they really amount to) over a feature-length. Instead of intensifying the drama, it instead made me truly irritated.

Repeat: I THINK this could have been a good film. Or is that films, as in plural?


With generosity and patience one could appreciate this movie. However, the director's choice of using split screens throughout is an overwhelming mistake that gets in the way of everything else he is trying to do. It becomes annoying, like receiving text totally underlined and in capital letters: not everything is equally important nor do the images on one side of the screen contribute continuously in any significant way to what happens on the other side nor enhance our grasp of the whole. So, we are regretfully left with a boring and pretentious conceit of the sort that should have been outgrown in film school. Rodrigo Bellott is nowhere near being a Peter Greenaway who can manipulate aspect ratios and split screens to profound dramatic effect, thereby creating effective, well-structured wholes (e.g. The Pillow Book, a film only done full justice on a theatre screen where the diverse aspect ratios which occur throughout the film can be shown.... DVD's can't do it).

Better luck next time.... and I truly hope there is a next time for Mr. Bellott. Forcing oneself to ignore his unfortunate aesthetic choice (and this is hard, for there is no avoiding it for the whole frigging movie) one realizes that Mr. Bellott may indeed have something worthwhile to say. I wish him to try again, preferably with a strong, experienced but sensitive producer at his side.


The Breed starts sometime in '...The Near Future...' where homicide detective Steven Grant (Bokeem Woodbine) & his partner Phil (Reed Diamond) follow up a lead on a particularly nasty serial killer who's running around at the moment. The lead happens to be a stolen van which they find & in a nearby building discover yet another dead body. The mysterious killer is also there, he most definitely resists arrest & even though Grant repeatedly shoots him he kills Phil by biting his neck. Grant survives but the killer disappears into the night... The 'National Security Agency' contacts Grant about the incident, the agencies director says that what he, & Phil, were dealing with was a renegade Vampire. He carries on to inform Grant that there are about 4000 Vampires worldwide & they revealed themselves to 'us' to try & live in harmony together, he also says that Vampires are genetic mutations & feed on a synthetic substitute for blood. Grant is assigned a new partner, a Vampire named Aaron Gray (Adrian Paul) & they are told to work together to discover the identity of the serial killing Vampire who wants to sabotage the peace between the two races...

This American Hungarian co-production was directed by Michael Oblowitz & is average at best. The script by Christos N. Gage & Ruth Fletcher is the real problem here. Too many things just didn't work for me, for a start could a high ranking scientist create a virus that has the potential to wipe out the entire human race without a SINGLE person questioning him or finding out? I mean the guy is even using the 'Nation Security Agency' laboratories for Christ's sake! Considering the Vampire race has been around for 1000's of years it seemed strange that there was only 4000 throughout the entire world & that they had never been noticed before. The central relationship between Grant the human & Gray the Vampire was clichéd & really cheesy, I mean at first they don't don't get on & seem mismatched but by the end they are best of friends & have saved each other's lives, we've seen it all before & done a lot better. The whole story is predictable & I can't believe it took Gray over half the film to figure out the painfully obvious. The whole concept just didn't work as far as I'm concerned & the film spent a good 30 minutes explaining it's own set of Vampire 'rules' as Grant would ask a question like how to kill a Vampire & Gray would tell him thus making sure we, the viewer that is, know as well. The breed also makes a few feeble attempts to say things about racism, trust & acceptance, you know all the clichéd things one would expect.

Director Oblowitz thinks he's making a cross between The Matrix (1999), Lethal Weapon (1987) & Vampires (1998), well no-one told him that you need a budget to pull that off. He films the fight scenes with people 'flying' through the air plus shooting & reloading their guns in a 'cool' way but they come off as looking ridiculous. He films everything with bleached out colours & a greenish tint. As for the films supposed style, you need to do a bit more than tilt the camera, shine a few neon lights & have some mist swirling in every shot. The gore is none existent, one neck biting, a couple of slit throats, a few gunshot wounds & someone explodes CGI style at the end & it looks terrible.

With a really low budget of about $400,000 it shows. The Breed has reasonable production values but it looks cheap throughout & you can tell it was shot in Europe, in this case Hungary. Even though it is meant to be set in the future the cars, clothes & the like suggest otherwise. I found the acting awful, whats with the gay moustache Paul? Woodbine gives a terrible performance & just wasn't right for the role at all. Ling Bai is quite sexy looking whenever she appears.

I was disappointed by The Breed, it's one of those films that make a fantastic trailer when they show ALL the cool bits in the space of two & a half minutes set against some techno music. Unfortunately there's another eighty seven & a half minutes to sit through if you decide to watch it. Personally I didn't think much of it.


Quite frankly, anyone BUT Bookeem Woodbine would have been fine in this role, but his portrayal as Steve Grant left me more than a bit cold. His character is a one-dimensional, whining, cardboard-cutout wannabe gangsta, and he honestly just does not cut it as Grant, which was a serious detriment to this film, as Grant's was a key role. (And what was WITH those short, tiny ties?! Was he wearing a kid's tie?)

Additionally, Adrian Paul as Aaron Gray here was reminiscent of a young, uptight Gomez Addams look-alike. There was nothing wrong with his performance, but his costumer should definitely have gone in another direction with his wardrobe. The pencil-drawn-looking mustache did not help, and neither did the liberal abuse of hair goo. All these elements contributed a certain air of detachment between the audience and his character, which seriously brought down the film. His character was one of those principle characters which needed to enjoy a connection with the audience in order for this film to work.

However, Ling Bai's performance was very compelling, provocative and professional here. You may remember her as Miss East from Wild, Wild West.

Other than that, this was a rather entertaining venture into the future of the vampyric race, in spite of the vastly missed potential. There are certain rules one must follow when in production of a vampire film. Some argue that these rules were created by Universal Studios when they filmed the old 30's, 40's and 50's black and white horrors. Others say these rules come from the legends themselves. Whichever the case, this movie does not seem to be aware of the "vampire rules."

The effects were less than they could have been, but were otherwise passable. The flash-backs, however, were just annoying, and the visuals lacked in creativity.

The musical score was strong and contributed a nice suspense to the production, and moved between action and suspense quite well, even if it was overly techno at times.

There are some good elements, but they seem totally unconnected and even accidental. There is little flow and less continuity. Yet the good elements are enough to keep you watching to the end, which is satisfying. Unfortunately, it's also satisfying that it IS the end.

It rates a 4.2/10 from...

the Fiend :.


I thought that Adrian Paul could improve his chances at the movies since he did a superb job of acting in the Highlander Series, unfortunately I was wrong. I do mean wrong. This movie is the worst thing I've seen since I watched Barney. I couldn't find a single thing to like about it. The plot could've been written better by a child of six years. The entire movie screamed for help. The amount of real dialogue could've been crammed into the first five minutes, anything else said was either cursing of strange things questions on the part of Paul's character. The only good scene in the entire film is the shot of the woman and her daughter laying dead in the snow, for a moment you get a glimpse of an actual movie. Of course it's the scene where everyone is quiet and no one is moving, and Adrian Paul's doing voice overs. I couldn't even stomach thirty minutes of the film with out feeling as if I could cry. It's a shame anyone was allowed to make such a movie. Please do not watch this. Of course I am mostly complaining about Adrian's shift to bad acting, we want more Highlander, but no more movies like Breed.


Wait a minute... yes I do.

The director of 'The Breed' has obviously seen Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' a few too many times and asked himself the question, "If 'Brazil' had been an ill-conceived tale about vampires in the near future, what would it be like?" Well, I'll tell ya, it'd be like 91 minutes of a Swedish whore kicking you in the groin, only not as satisfying. The dialogue was laced with gratuitous curse words and trite one-liners, and whoever edited this piece of crap should be shot. I have no real idea of exactly how the whole thing ended because I'm not really sure what happened during the first part of the film. With so many subplots your head begins to hurt and so much bad acting your head wants to explode this movie should only be viewed with large quantities of beer and at least two other people you can MST3K with. The only thing that made me not stab myself in the eye with a dirty soup spoon was this line: Evil Doctor Guy: "That's it, you are not James Bond, and I am not Blofeld. No more explanations!" Dude From Jason's Lyric: "I'm getting paid scale!" The cinematography was shaky at best and the acting was putrid. Also, what was with all the pseudo-1984 posters and PA announcements? The costumes were from the 50's, the cars were from the 60's, the music was from the 90's and I wish I were dead. This movie sucks.


In the near future, vampire and non-vampire people have a difficult time getting along. Renegade bloodsuckers don't help matters by creating vampire mischief among the tasty humans. In order to help a government plan to integrate vampires into mainstream society succeed, vampire cop Adrian Paul (as Aaron Gray) teams up with human cop Bokeem Woodbine (as Steve Grant). Mr. Paul, who survived Nazis by becoming undead, is a vampire rights proponent. Paul is troubled by flashbacks, and has to avoid bloodlust. Mr. Woodbine has to overcome his prejudices against vampires, when he finds himself falling in love with sexy Chinese vampire Bai Ling (as Lucy Westenra).

Michael Oblowitz' "The Breed" has a good supporting cast, and a stylish look; but, the plot doesn't really dig. Most obviously, the mishmash of symbolism is confusing; and, the movie becomes absurd. The "love story" between Woodbine and Ms. Ling has no teeth; in fact, the shooting of a gay vampire's testicle is played as sexier. Nosferatu and Dracula are obviously referenced. And, so is horror queen Barbara Steele, who co-starred with Adrian Paul in "Dark Shadows", as "Her name is Barbara Steele" introduces the film's most bloody victim.

**** The Breed (2001) Michael Oblowitz ~ Adrian Paul, Bokeem Woodbine, Bai Ling


Like the curate's egg' this film was good in parts, but they weren't very big parts.

I have always enjoyed the twist associated with 'good vampires' and I guess I am still waiting for a film to properly use it.

This film was too outré and grotesque (in the original meaning of the word) for it to have worked as anything other than an over-the-top dance-macabre of a film; a sort of Grand Guinol of the film world. Unfortunately it never really achieved this distinction and instead we are left with a mishmash of themes and failed attempts at being something that it never quite achieved.

The script and the acting were pretty deplorable and the direction was anything but tight, though still one can sort of envisage what was intended; and those stolen fleeting glimpses serve to supply enough motive to keep watching. In the end this continued attention is utterly frustrating, since the ending manages to further let one down and, indeed, the rest of the film.

I don't say 'Don't watch this film!' I would, however, warn you to keep you expectation low, and not to be too surprised if it fails to live up to them.


With a reasonable budget ($4mm, according to IMDb), atmospheric location shooting in Rumania, and an intriguing premise, The Breed should have been a gem of a vampire flick. Instead, it's a contest between screenwriters Gage and Fletcher's comic book dialogue and Bokeem Woodbine's unfathomably inept lead performance to see who can drive a stake through the heart of this mess first.

On the positive side, Adrian Paul convinces as an impressively physical vampire detective. Unfortunately, Ling Bai has zero chemistry with Woodbine, although that's probably not her fault, as nobody seems to. Disappointingly, her beauty gets buried under enough mascara to embarrass Alice Cooper.

Director Michael Oblowitz demonstrates a flair for tense shoot-outs. But each time he cranks up the suspense, it takes only a few words from the relentlessly unconvincing Woodbine to obliterate the mood and return the viewer to Square One. This becomes such a routine occurrence, one is torn between frustration and laughter.

The screenwriters' insistence on sophomoric "in" references only serves to make matters worse. A doctor named Fleming talks of James Bond and Blofeld, and other characters are named (no kidding) Lucy Westernra, Cross, Orlock, Gray, Seward, and Bathory. If that isn't enough, f-bombs drop everywhere.

Needless to say, writers are answerable to directors, directors report to producers, and actors sometimes insist on improvising. So it's hard to know who's to blame for the end result. But ultimately, as another reviewer correctly observed, The Breed can only be enjoyed for what it had the potential to be.


Did anyone else get the vibe, at the start of the movie, that the vampires were a commentary on the Jewish people? Or am I looking too much into a B- movie...? The first glimpse we get of the vampire community is a WW2 style vampire safe house, complete with said period's costumes, and the NSA's costumes are very Nazi-like. And there's the whole 'we fear them because they're a different 'ethnicity'' thing. This may have been a theme started in the movie, but of course, was forgotten as the film underwent several style-changes (by which I mean, it went off on a tangent to rip off some other movies) But yeah, as mentioned above, there were lots of scenes that paid homage to (see...ripped off) Brazil, Blade, The Matrix, Tarantino,..even Highlander. A mucky piece of work, with too many genre stereotypes, and what was with Woodbine's gruff, 'bad boy' voice?


Of what could be one of the worst vampire movies ever made in cinematic history, "THE BREED" could probably take home the trophy for that honor.

"THE BREED" is such a blatant rip-off of films such as "BLADE" and "THE MATRIX". Just about EVERYTHING in this movie was stolen from something else. Of what thread-bare plot existed in this movie, I gathered that there was a small existence of good vampires who team up with humans to extinguish rebellious vampires. The good vampires live on a synthetic substitute to human blood while the rebellious ones go around murdering humans by drinking their blood.

Bokeem Woodbine (one of the worst actors to ever grace our television AND movie screens) is the human cop teamed up with Adrian Paul (of HIGHLANDER fame), the good vampire, sent on a mission to track down an evil vampire who is kidnapping young women and killing them. The setting is in some sort of weird post-Nazi Poland (yet most of the people have American accents) where the fashions and vehicles resemble that of 1941, yet pop culture of today has been blended in to give it that 'unique' flavor (ie. references to 'James Bond', the existence of a hard-core nightclub, leather/dominatrix outfits, etc.) Can someone say "TITUS", you know, that forgettable and noisy artsy trash starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange?

Woodbine spends most of his time running around saying the 'F' word as many times as he can while Paul just looks bored, standing around with too much powder on his face and a glazed expression on his face, delivering every line with a dead-pan approach, it gets very tiresome after awhile. It is the old cliched scenario of pairing up two unlikely cops, one the brazen hero, the other, straight-laced and by-the-books. Except this time, unlike films such as "BEVERLY HILLS COP" and "LETHAL WEAPON", the formula does NOT work. They even drag in Bai Ling who looks absolutely ridiculous as an ancient Asian vampiress who spends most of her time on-screen donning ludicrous outfits (check out the leather head-piece), bad make-up, yellow eye contacts and an almost un-decipherable accent that would make even Stevie Wonder ask, "Could you say that again, please?"

If you thought those cliches weren't bad enough, check out the cardboard cut-out characters including the obvious villain, the obligatory Asian male with platinum blonde hair, the little boy whose life is saved by Woodbine in a climatic scene... I could go on, but I have other things to gripe about.

I could get past the bad acting and the non-existent script, but... okay, maybe I can't. The sets were awful, the usual run-down derelict building with lots of smoke and fog, minimal scenery involving a graveyard shot or 'people running through the forest while being chased by men with guns' visual. NOTHING ABOUT THIS MOVIE WAS ORIGINAL! I can't emphasize this enough!

The most embarrassing scenes was seeing Adrian Paul flying around through the air, 'MATRIX-style', wielding a tommy gun in slow motion as he fires at the bad guys, yet you can see the 'pull-strings' that suspend him through the air, it is too hilarious for words! When the director wants to make the action scenes 'dramatic', he thinks he can fool the audience by filming everything in slow-motion, while adding an 'echo' to nearly every word spoken in the dialogue - it just boggles my mind as to why amateurish garbage such as this still gets financed in today's economy.

I have no idea if this movie is based on a book, comic strip, legend or what, nor do I care. I just pray to God that there isn't a sequel, and if there is, then PLEASE do not release it 'straight-to-cable'. It should go straight into the trash can where this movie rightfully belongs.

My Grade - 'Z minus'


THE BREED could have been a good movie, or at least an average movie. The result, alas, is quite poor. Adrian Paul plays a vampire who, it seems, has been living under a rock because he seems unaware of all the contemporary slangs used by his human partner (who is also a cop). The duo are chasing a vampire serial killer, but there's a conspiracy they aren't prepared for going on in the background.

As a vampire movie, THE BREED borrows heavily from BLADE in look and vibe. The East European setting, with the old buildings and whatnot, provides the movie with its only plus -- it's very nice to look at, even if the fog machine gets a rather strong workout.

As for story, THE BREED attempts to be BRAZIL, and provides allegory to Nazi Germany. There's very little subtlety, and Nazi-inspired signs abound. The filmmakers are so blatant with pushing the whole allegory motif that it becomes rather irritating. Yes, we get it. GET ON WITH THE MOVIE.

3 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other genre and Indie films)


Let's get one thing straight from the start: THIS IS A ROTTEN MOVIE! I know because I'm one of the few people to have seen it, one of the few that will ever see it and because I know a lot of people who worked on it and had to hear their horror stories about how bad the shoot was.

OK, but a bad film shoot experience doesn't necessarily mean a bad end product so I'll stick to JUST the movie review. First of all, it's not a disturbing film because of the material: You hardly see any of the "execution" footage and the characters are so laughable and unconvincing you don't find the premise convincing either. The plot of execution footage for art was the plot of an old episode of "Doomwatch" back in the early 70's. Just rip off Doomwatch, no one will notice..... The script is also littered with inappropriate swear words in the wrong places, much like Spock's "they're not the hell your whales" line in Star Trek IV. "If you think the f*** you can sleep with my wife..." And they try to add a love triangle/quartet plot in there which is frankly, the f***, is hard to believe...as if any of the main characters could find each other attractive.

I mentioned the characters and unconvincing characters are made worse by having inept acting. It's saying something when the two best performances come from "cameos" from Christopher Biggins and Rose Marie. The supposedly "sinister" couple are straight from an amateur dramatics company with the least threatening villain since the con man from "Bodger and Badger" (the gun up the bottom scene raises many unintentional laughs) making threats in a totally wooden delivery. Oh, speaking of wooden, I forgot to mention Jon-Paul Gates. What is with his accent? It's high pitched, whiny and somewhere between the West Country and the land of the Chipmunks. He's supposed to be a virile, dedicated newshound and sex machine and yet....with his strangulated accent and tendency to go cross eyed when he's concentrating, I end up trying to curb my laughter.

The lighting is also all over the place...massively overlit for the most part and with smoke machines pouring out pointless smoke effects through white light to give it that 80's Duran Duran video look. Only it doesn't quite pull it off. I say doesn't quite but I really mean to say it overshoots it and crash lands in a burning, twisted mess.

It's a shame they're not making any more episodes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000 because it's prime fodder for them. Oh, and Dave 777 from London really likes this film so much he's written 3 different reviews of it! And 3 people have voted this movie a 10! And the director's first name is David...wow, what a coincidence.


There are bad movies, then there are truly bad movies. Then there is a lower level of cinematic excrement to which Cold Fish belongs. This pitiful excuse of a film is primarily let down by the actors. The lead played by Jon-Paul Gates (no - I have never heard of him either!) has the charisma and screen presence of a house brick. His dismal wooden acting is not the only thing to make you squirm in this film - wait till you have to endure the 'baddies'! Two more names we've never heard of (I can't imagine why) Conrad Asquith and Nadia Straham play a couple of performance artists who like to shock their audience by showing footage of executions. This in turn gave the director of Cold Fish the excuse to show us the self-same footage. This was cheap and exploitative. I don't think it's the place of popular cinema to use real newsreel footage of executions to titillate the audience. But back to Nadia Straham, who obviously based her performance on the "Rocky Horror Show" as she clearly was from Transylvania, if her accent was anything to go by. This is for British audiences only - but if I tell you that this film also stars Christopher Biggins - and he gives an almost academy award winning performance compared to the leads in this film - then I think you will start to comprehend that this is a complete waste of 91 minutes of your life. There is a reviewer on this page who has given 3 glowing reviews of this film. I can only imagine that he has invested in the film or is related to one of the actors. British cinema is capable of outstanding work - sadly this sorry fare makes the UK a laughing stock.


I had the unfortune to see one of the incarnations of this film (I hear there are many). From start to finish it is bad. The story has been done a million times and a million times better. The main characters are awful. I didn't really care too much for the lead. I wanted him to be caught, plus he was too old for the part. The villians where so hammy. I don't know where Naida's accent came from. The land of "I'll make it up as I go along". Was there a director on set? I think not! And to add to all this the film is overlit (well in the version I saw it was). They was an UFO (eg. Massive Bright Light) just landed in a dark country lane, a building which had it's own shadow in the sky, and a man working a computer monitor, who should of been wearing a wielder's mask. I imgaine that this film will be expelled to straight to video hell. But learn from my mistake and avoid when possible.


I can only regret that I invested some money in this film! I've seen many bad ones, but this one is one of the worst films ever it is just so meaningless, brain dead and badly done! First of all the acting is embarrassing, especially the arty couple is horrendously bad, even worse than average actors in a student film  especially the woman! The main character comes across as a rather big and stupid bloke, but not someone you bother engaging with. His girlfriend is probably the one that gives the best performance (if you can talk about that) but you hardly notice her About the technical side of the film there is nothing special to remark, except the direction of the camera is very student film look a like and simple, but what frustrates me most as the viewer is the story. Because the story is absolutely meaningless, which becomes more and more obvious as it develops also the "real life" killing footage is absolutely tasteless, especially because it is advertised so strongly on the front of the DVD cover No wonder the critics walked out during the screening in Cannes  (I don't think it was because of this films "controversial" qualities)  rather the embarrassment that a film like this could reach Cannes!!! A last remark I would like to make with regards to Cold Fish is the question of who would make a film like this and do it so badly? And why, since the film is originally from 2001, would he or she want to send it out on DVD again in 2005! Are these people completely without any sense of direction and just wanting to make as much money as possibly  if so please change profession because it doesn't look like you have anything to give with regards to films


When I watched Cold Fish, I had heard rumors that when it was first screened people walked out, not because it was bad, but because it was very disturbing. I recently watched this film, and from the opening scene, I knew I would have to have a stomach to digest this film and its images. What made this so? Well, It wasn't the violence or depiction of drug use relative to the story or it's commentary on what is acceptable to the public from media. It was the use of actual video footage of hangings, shootings, terrorist activity and pure murder that shocked me. Although, the use of these images is attached to the characters, The Henleys, who use them to gain acclaim in the Art world, it's the psychological terror that two people can inflict into destroying somebodies life that makes this film an attention grabber. Violent, disturbing but extremely enjoyable!


I am a big Jodie Foster fan and went to see Stealing Home mainly because she was in it. I thought Jodie Foster was great actually,but the movie itself didn't do it for me.

I found it very different then the previews made it out to be and at times it was plodding, as well as being very confusing as well at certain points.(I Really didn't like the flashback theme, that works in certain movies but I didn't think it worked here.) It was also rather dull, at times though, maybe it's because I'm not a major baseball fan either so I wasn't that into that part of it.

I can appreciate the premise of the movie, however, and this is one I know some disagree with me on. The best thing about the movie was Foster. As usual she gives us another unforgettable performance in another unforgettable role. I might watch it again if it was on, just for her performance. Her character was fresh and fiercely wonderful- I wish she'd been in every scene, maybe I would have stayed focused on the movie more if she had been. In fact all the performers were great and I think this movie really did have a certain sweetness to it but I just wish certain things had been done differently and maybe a bit less on the flashback sequences. The previews were also very misleading making it look different then what it actually was. Even though, I can appreciate it's appeal, I didn't enjoy it as much as I had hoped.


I saw this movie about fifteen years ago, and I was shocked at how horrible it was then. Looking back, I wonder why such a frightening movie was released to kids. A summary is as follows: [WARNING, total spoilers] Scruffy is a single birth to a mother dog. Their owners have to move from their house because it's condemned and they can't take the dogs, so they leave them in the yard for a neighbor to pick up. The mother dog is confused and hides in the house, which the demolition team soon sets ablaze.

She climbs the chimney to safety, pup in tow. They are adopted by a firefighter, but soon Scruffy's mom gets wanderlust and the two set off again. In a scene reminiscent of Bambi, Scruffy's mother gets gunned down. Now the poor lost dog is orphaned, lost, and did I mention that it's winter?

While hiding in a park, she meets a hobo who takes her in, and the two live blissfully under a bridge. He teaches Scruffy how to perform tricks, and they manage to make a living off the change people throw at the dog walking on her hind legs. (But how much money does a homeless guy need?) One night, the hobo gets mugged, and is so distraught by the attack that he spills the tonic that he needs to calm himself down. He collapses, an ambulance comes and he dies. Meanwhile, Scruffy manages to fall into the river, and is rescued by a junkyard dog right before she drowns. She lives with them then, one is a drunken Great Dane and one is a Collie who thinks an old boot is her dead puppy. They get into tangles and fights with other junkyard dogs and then eventually wind up in the pound. Just before Scruffy and this other dog are about to be euthanized they are adopted by this family, and I think Scruffy wins a beauty pageant and she also has a big pile of puppies. While it does end OK (I guess, even though it's sort of doggie incest), I personally was disgusted by the unhappy nature of this movie. I will never share it with my children.


Aside from supporting performances by Thelma Todd and Jane Darwell, very few today will recognize the actors in this B-film from Columbia Studios. Likewise, it seems to be the sort of old fashioned film that few would watch today. However, me being an airplane buff and B-movie fanatic, it's a natural I'd see this film.

Although the film begins in WWI, it soon switches to the present (1933) and features folks working with the early airlines. I loved seeing all the great old planes, such as the Ford Tri-Motor, as this is a period in aviation history that it almost forgotten today.

Cute Evalyn Knapp stars as the daughter of one of the pilots killed in the prologue. Now a decade and a half later, she's working as an air hostess (flight attendant) for one of these airlines founded by pals of the dead pilot. The men have sort of adopted Knapp--keeping an eye out for her and protecting her at every turn. Eventually, a bad boy (James Murray) turns up and Knapp marries him--mostly to spite her protectors. The new couple struggle to make ends meet and Evalyn is forced to return to her job as an air hostess. Unfortunately, Murray ends up spending much of the marriage feeling sorry for himself because he is having trouble making a go of his new business idea as well as falling under the influence of the evil vamp (Thelma Todd). Will the marriage last through these strains or will Murray and Todd hurt poor little Knapp? See this one for yourself to find out what happens next.

Overall, this isn't a terribly great film. The plot is awfully familiar and there's not much to make it stand out--unless, as I said above, you are an aviation nut (like me). Not bad, but not especially noteworthy--that is until the dopey ending. In a very contrived twist, the two men who love Knapp have to work together to save her life--she's on a train bound for a bridge that has just washed out and there isn't a second to lose!!! This ending loses a point from the overall score.

By the way, at the beginning of the film you see some footage of WWI air combat. I am not sure which, but the film clips were lifted from either "Hell's Angels" or "Wings" (I am inclined to think "Hells Angels"). I recognized these clips--particularly the scene with the pilot bleeding from the mouth. If anyone can figure out which of the films it was from, drop me a line.

Note--About halfway through the film, Murray gives Knapp a playful little smack on the rump. Such goings on could not have occurred in this film had it come out a year later--after the toughened Production Code was enacted.


Any film directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Al Pacino should be great, but "Serpico" is mediocre at best. Chronicling the true-life story of Frank Serpico, a police officer who exposed corruption in the NYPD, the film comes from that exquisite golden age of cinema, lasting from the late '60s through the late '70s, when paranoia infected the country and our most trusted and honored institutions were becoming suspect. It's got the grainy, neo-realistic feel that so many of the films from that time period had (and as many of Lumet's own films had), yet it never really works. Lumet's pacing is poor; no scene lasts longer than a minute or two. While one would think this would make for a film with some narrative drive to it, just the opposite happens. It's as if in the editing room all of the important parts of each scene got left out, and what we've been given as a final product is an outline of Serpico's story. No characters beyond Pacino's is really developed, and even he struggles to make something substantial out of his role. This came directly on the heels of "The Godfather" from the year before, the film that put Pacino on the map. "Serpico" gives testament to Pacino's abilities and range as an actor; his performance is quite different from that of Michael Corleone. But for me, it's not until his mesmerizing performance in "Dog Day Afternoon" from 1975 that Pacino really flexes his acting muscles and shows what a true cinematic treasure he is. 26 years later, Pacino was to star in "The Insider," another thriller where he played a character who helps to expose corruption, this time in the world of corporate America. My advice is to see "Serpico" for the place it holds in Pacino's career, but then see "The Insider" for a suspenseful, terrific movie.

Grade: C


Very curious, the telling of this story. And very un Lumetlike. Not only is it somewhat non-linear, but it is done in a kind of telegrapheze. The scenes are almost jump cuts of each other. Serpico's mustache-beard becomes the time frame, and as a side bet, his frenetic wardrobe. Has a man ever worn more hats, almost like he is badly in search of a character.

For me, this movie was something of a one trick pony, very tiresome after the first few minutes. Okay, I get the point, you don't like cops on the take, and for the rest of the film mostly you watch them gobble the money, until finally in the last few minutes you go to a newspaper.

Not a single scene I would ever want to see again.

Whereas The Fugative Kind, The Verdict, plenty of those scenes I have watched over and over again.

Though at least this is early Pacino, and he is not trying to yell his fellow actors off the screen.


Because you sure chewed up pretty much all of it.

I love Al Pacino. He is one of my favorite actors ever and I love it when he goes completely over the top like in Heat: "Cause she's got A GREAT ASS! AND YOU'VE GOT YOUR HEAD ALL THE WAY UP IT!!!" But there's a point where that stops being great and becomes just a crazy man yelling his lines. Overwrought doesn't begin to describe the acting in this severely overrated film. I understand that Frank Serpico probably had a very intense life but did he really scream 24 hours a day? If that's the case, no wonder nobody liked him.

Sidney Lumet was a great director and Al Pacino is a fantastic actor. If you want to see a great example of Lumet and Pacino working together at the top of their game, rent Dog Day Afternoon and skip this. Your ears will thank me for it.


I rented this because Max turned it into a high school play in Rushmore. As I watched Serpico, I noted that in the 50 dvds I own, and among dozens of other favorite movies, I don't own a single cop movie. I just never find them even slightly imaginative or engaging. I have no interest in each new benchmark for cop movies, and each new attempt quickly devolves into the same two-hour-plus star vehicle with little room for anything but the male lead; Blow, Traffic, The Departed, Prince of the City, Carlitos Way. These are easily as formulaic as chick flicks. I have no idea why Depp, Cheedle, DiCaprio, Williams & Penn are interested in doing these movies, but maybe we can blame it all on Serpico. At the 40 minute mark I was already irreversibly bored.

Even as a kid I wondered if there was a better person to perform the role of superhero/goodguy Serpico, rather than Al Pacino with his favored expression; the dead-eyed stare. As Serpico he has a gift of alienating both peers and friends. This movie is a catalog of clichés that made a movie and it's characters seem authentic in the 70s, that now seem pretty hoary. The Boston Strangler is just as dated but a better film. Cop movies easily fall victim to self-righteousness and become sanctimonious in the depiction of good, or equally sanctimonious in indulging the actor playing the villain. Do I care that a cop named Serpico tried to clean up the New York Police force? Sure. Do I care that his story was turned into a very conventional attempt at 'serious' film? Nope. the movie was too lost in various Oscar grabs and sanctimony.


Wow, what a waste of cast! Dustin Hoffmann is trying his best but he can't save the mess that is "Moonlight Mile". This is an all around unrealistic drama/romance with some slapstick moments thrown in. Sounds stupid? It is! The dialog is horrible and within the first five minutes it becomes obvious that this movie blows. Do yourself a favor and avoid it.