Forget "Goodfellas" Forget "King Of New York" Forget "Casino" And YES Forget "The Godfather" The Long Good Friday makes them all look TAME. Without doubt the most convincing and realistic mob movie there has ever been. Bob Hoskins takes total and utter control and the man IS Harold Shand within the first moment you see him. When people ask me what is your favourite movie I have no hesitation when naming The Long Good Friday. Watch it, you'll see what I mean mate.


Bob Hoskins is outstanding as crime boss Harold, in this violent representation of the British underworld. The language is brilliant with a real sense of the cocky, cockney attitude. Easily the best British gangster movie ever made! The Krays... who are they?


Bob Hoskins, Helen Mirren, 80's London !. What more do we want, along with Get Carter, this is one of the finest Gangster movies ever made. His gritty performance as his empire crumbles shows what a great actor Bob Hoskins is. With other great supporting acts this is a film to watch again and again. One scene among all shows his power in the movie : All his enemies hooked up like trussed chickens ! A masterpiece.


John Mackenzie does a masterful directorial job in this movie as does cinematography by Phil Meheux and brilliant script by Barrie Keeffe. Now with that said the movie revolves around Bob Hoskins who in this movie plays one of the toughest movie characters you've ever seen up on the big screen. Bob Hoskins just rocks in this movie! And you might be like "Bob Hoskins... Eddie Valiant from Roger Rabbit plays a tough character????"... and yes after you see Hoskins in this role you will be like Bob is the man! This is one of those awesome rare performances in a movie where an actor just *is* that character (in the same vain as say a Al Pacino as Tony Montana) and makes it into someone we can enjoy and really really be blown away with movie coolness by... all at the same time just completely liking the character they have created.

Helen Mirren is very sexy in this movie and she plays her role perfectly... you never quite can tell where her alliance truly is... and you kind of get the sense she is beautiful girl who got caught in a world she long had dreamed about but once there wished for a way out.

It was cool seeing Razor being played by actor P.H. Moriarty who was Hatchet Harry in the recent great movie "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels." Alan Ford who plays Brick Top in Guy Ritchies latest movie stars here as Jack.

Now be prepared the first 30 minutes of this movie sort of takes you through a maze... a long elaborate set up that sets everything in motion that happens in the movie... which at first is confusing but on repeat viewings you will see how perfect it works for the movie.

Once the movie kicks into gear you as the movie audience become like a right hand man to Bob Hoskins... you are right there with him at every turn as he tries to figure out what is going on. You become so engrossed and involved with the movie you aren't merely watching it your a part of it... your his right hand man... I don't mean this in a literal take it right off the page kinda way... but in that way of explaining in just how involved this movie gets you into it and Bob Hoskins.

Now the ending of the movie just gets my blood pumping. I spent an entire day just thinking about the end of this movie. The more and more I thought about it the more I liked the ending but not in the usual way one would like the ending to a movie. Without ruining the movie lets just say it doesn't have a *Hollywood ending*. I wonder how most people react to the ending especially back when the movie first came out... and what the sorta mood was as people got up out of their seats and left the theater. This is a gangster movie where the bad guys are really really bad and not just sorta or half way bad... but I mean they are gonna do whatever they gotta do to take care of business... they aren't sprinkled with badness they are walking and breathing badness.

I don't think I'll ever forget the ending though. The ending will be carved into my mind for quite some time. It's great to see that Criterion has added this movie to it's collection so if you have a DVD player and some extra money... go out and get this movie to watch (of course the Criterion version is gonna be the best way to see and experience it unless you happen to have your own 35mm print of the movie and a private movie theater in your home). Though if you had a private movie theater in your shower I'd say this isn't a shower kinda movie but a movie that you must watch from beginning to end without any interruptions where for one part of a day or night, you unplug all your phones, computer, turn off your cel phone/pager... and hit play and let the movie magic of this movie unfold.


At date of writing this film has yet to earn 350 votes in the IMDb, meaning it falls short of the top 250 despite it's 7+ score. If you're somehow reading this without having seen the film, then do yourself a large favour: rent it, or buy it.

It's ironic that the production company of the "quiet", peaceful Beatle, George Harrison, should construct such a violent and gritty picture. Bob Hoskins is so perfect as an East-End ganglord that you wonder how he ever got cast out of character as a cod American acting opposite a cartoon rabbit. Is this really the same man who urged the virtues of conversation on behalf of a phone company? Hoskins acts more in the final two minutes of this movie than in the rest of his career put together.

What makes The Long Good Friday so special, (apart from stylish, but not ostentatious, direction and a superb theme score) is its variation on the typical crime theme. Instead of guns and bluster stretched out over an hour and forty minutes we get what is essentially a detective story. Who is planting bombs on Harold's patch? Who is trying to undermine his organisation? And will Harold put the pieces together before the noose around his neck gets too tight? Admittedly, Sherlock Holmes never got his clues by stringing up Moriarty from his ankles in a meat factory, but the narrative principle is the same.

Is it really already the 20th anniversary of this film? What a timely reminder of how powerful the British Film Industry used to be. A must-see movie and quite excellent.


Who said genre films had to be narrow? THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY is a gangster film, and an excellent one at that, exploring old themes of loyalty, betrayal, expansion etc. with verve and excellently choreographed, imaginatively novel violence (and no law in sight).

But it also reveals how versatile genre is, and so we have the best ever critique of Thatcherism (with Harold Shand an embodiment of entrepeneurial culture, beset by the same problems that would dog the Tories (IRA, Americans, drugs etc), but also a hangover from the Welfare State in his misplaced loyalties - this schizophrenia tears him apart); a great London film, with an insightful sense of change and place, and meanings bound up in different spaces; and an extraordinary character study cum love story, which becomes an existential journey in the Bressonian mould.

Final third flags after so much Cagneyesque energy, and older national vices, such as theatricality and stiff upper lip, do briefly intrude, but on the whole, this is a British film of rare ambition.


this could have been an excellent film, but is missing key films in the history of queer cinema - first of all it skips all non-American films only paying mention to a few, but never covering them. secondly, some of the most important films, in terms of public and/or queer sentiment, are overlooked - some of those films are: THE CHILDREN'S HOUR, TEA AND SYMPATHY, REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE, THE BOYS IN THE BAND, PINK NARCISSUS, A VERY NATURAL THING, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, CRUISING, LIQUID SKY, THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK, LONGTIME COMPANION, JEFFREY, NITRATE KISSES, LOOKING FOR LANGSTON, URBANIA, CHUCK & BUCK, HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD to name a few. also, very few of the films are even analyzed or even discussed in any depth.

it's a good introduction to American films with queer sensibilities or subject matter. for that reason i gave it a 7.


I can't say that I agree with the earlier poster who claims the film doesn't represent gay men's films. Hello, John Waters, Don Roos and any number of other participants. There are far more glaring omissions than a few enjoyable mainstream 1990s indies and "The Boys in the Band." How about the entire history of avant-garde gay cinema, pre-1960s?

Regardless, any survey this broad is obviously going to be shallow. You'd need a miniseries to cover the entire history of queer cinema across all eras, countries of origin and genres.

This being an IFC documentary, it focuses on independent cinema. That makes sense.

For a broader historical perspective, albeit a very Hollywood-focused, U.S.-centric one, check out The Celluloid Closet.


I loved this movie. It's about young and rich group of people trying to fit in and simultaneously find themselves. They like to party, the pleasures money and status brings, dress to impress, waste money and waste themselves, but deep down they are searching for understanding, acceptance and... love.

The acting is brilliant, as well as the soundtrack. The actors themselves are attractive and well-dressed, so much eye-candy:) If you liked "Hell" (the French one) and/or "London" you'll probably like this one as well, although this one is put in a less self-destructive way than the mentioned movies.

All in all, definitely worth watching.


In this rehash of Roger Corman's "The Wasp Woman", Bobbie Bresee plays Lynn Roman, an attractive but aging actress whose career is all but over. Desperate to recapture her youth and hopefully rejuvenate her career, she injects herself with a serum devised by mad scientist Emil Zeitman (a weak looking John Carradine). This has the unfortunate side effect of turning her into a murderous insect-like monster.

"Evil Spawn" is basically for those of us who aren't too demanding, or are able to derive enjoyment out of very low budget and low quality genre entertainment. If you can stick it out, the film will reward you with gratuitous nudity (Pamela Gilbert looks very good sans clothes), an overbearing electronic score, a very silly rubber monster, and crude but amusing makeup effects. The acting is exactly as uninspired as you could imagine, although Dawn Wildsmith as Zeitman's evil assistant and Fox Harris as Lynn's agent are a reasonable amount of fun.

Overall, I found it quite agreeable. At least it doesn't waste time in delivering all manner of cheap 'n' cheesy goods. It's over pretty quickly and has a conclusion that's downright hilarious in its ridiculous and clichéd way. It even comes complete with a not exactly subtle message about the dangers of vanity, and is blatantly self-referential, to boot.

Be sure to watch for the fleeting Forrest J. Ackerman cameo as a pool guy.

8/10


An aging actress, Lynn Roman(Bobbie Bresee;who, at 37, had one knock out of a body), desperately desires to retain her past glory by nabbing a major part designed for a 20 year old lead, decides to inject an experimental formula given to her by a mysterious scientist. This scientist, Evelyn Avery(Dawn Wildsmith),an obsessive fan of Roman's, caused the deaths of her boss, Dr. Zeitman(John Carradine; whose role was actually lifted from stock footage of another proposed Fred Olen Ray project, Frankenstein's Brain)and fellow colleague using a formula designed from alien DNA. It is designed to make Lynn look younger, but has a nasty side-effect, when angered, she transforms into a hideous insect monster! Yes, Bresee turns into yet another monster. Anyway, Lynn's biographer, Ross Anderson(Drew Godderis, in a dreadful performance with equally appalling voice over narration that seems to attempt a homage of sorts to Sunset Boulevard)investigates the drug she's been injecting and discovers some disturbing truths. Meanwhile, Lynn's alter-ego, the insect monster, emerges killing her maid, Elaine(Pamela Gilbert), back-stabbing agent, Harry(Fox Harris), and cheating boyfriend, Mark(Mark Anthony).

I believe there's an alternate version out there with extra footage shot by Fred Olen Ray, but the version I viewed gives Kenneth J Hall full credit as director. On this page, several cast members represent characters that aren't in the film I just finished, which was released by Fred's distribution label for DVD. Anyway, the quality for this movie is below par and the camera-work is exceptionally flat and unimaginative. Bobbie Bresee, however, is well cast and gets a chance to flaunt her magnificent naked figure in a gratuitous shower sequence. Unfortunately, the close-ups of her false monster teeth are laughable, although her creepy eye contacts and furious facial expressions work a bit better. The monster costume comes right out of those bad creature features in the 50's which I felt was intentional..a beloved spoof of those films, placed within an 80's modern setting. The film's theme is the longing to remain a vital figure in Hollywood despite the expiration date looming(..again, right out of Sunset Boulevard)and Bresee, despite how yummy her figure is, seems to tap into the rage that befalls older actresses trying to keep up with the much younger gals entering the industry. The sub-plot with Wildsmith, as the diabolical, deranged scientist, really off-sets the tone of the rest of the film, particularly her scenes in her apartment, taping collective photos and clippings of Lynn on the walls. The monster mayhem is(intentionally?)goofy and rather poorly executed because the costume isn't the least bit scary..more likely, seeing it will give you the giggles. Pamela Gilbert(..a tall, athletic figure, with long brown hair), as Lynn's maid, disrobes for the horny male(..and female?)viewers during a swim while her employer is away, eventually falling prey to the monster..told she was too old for the desired lead role she so covets, Lynn's rage causes the beast to rear it's ugly head. The scene with an elderly Carradine, attempting to speak his lines(..and obviously reading from cue cards), looks to be on death's door..it's kind of hard to watch knowing that he wouldn't be with us very much longer and seeing him struggle with his lines, barely being able to breathe, kind of brought about sadness because I'm such a fan of his. The opening of the film, concerning the alien monster who attacks Evelyn's colleague, leads to the film's standout gore scene..the scientist interrupts a couple in a jeep searching for their pooch, ripping the arm off of the man attempting to see if he's okay.


Evil Spawn (1987) was a cheaply produced film that reeks of poverty. You have a good premise but it's faulty execution has no real pay off. A couple of good scenes does not a movie make. Too bad, because the actresses were good looking (especially the brunette) and the idea was solid. Maybe they should have a better story writer and a little more imagination. I saw this movie a few years ago at a Mr. Video store (rest in peace). Back then the cheesy video cover screamed cheap-cheap. I should have listened to my head instead of my eyes. Oh well. Perhaps a film-maker with more on the ball would make a better production.

An aging actress will do anything to look young again (my advice is to stay out of the sun lady). So she comes across a crazy old scientist and his shady associate. He's working on an experimental formula that'll reduce the signs of aging (the good doctor should have used a little dab himself me thinks). But before he can work out all of the "bugs", tragedy occurs but that doesn't stop the old B-Queen from using it.

The story might sound interesting but please stay away unless YOU REALLY like bad movies. Because there is really no need for someone (or anyone) to watch this "movie". Maybe next time they should concentrate more on the adult aspect of the storyline.

Best to avoid.

If it wasn't for the hot brunette this one would get a zero or a negative rating.


Boy, does this astonishingly awful direct-to-video late 80's low budget horror abomination commit all the so-utterly-wretched-that-they're-weirdly-wonderful trash movie vices. For starters, the central premise is basically an ungodly blend of "Sunset Boulevard" and your typically tacky Grade Z 50's type deadly monster picture done with 80's style gore, nudity and profanity to make it seem more "modern": Faded over-the-hill former big film star Lynn Roman (atrociously played by buxom blonde babe Bobbie Bresee of "Mausoleam" fame) takes a special experimental anti-aging serum to make herself look young again. Naturally, there's a nasty side effect: the serum causes Lynn to mutate into a lethal giant humanoid insect beast which predictably bumps off a few folks. Kenneth J. Hall's pathetic (mis)direction, Hall's equally dismal script (Hall is the same genius dreck feature scribe who penned the brilliant screenplay for "Nightmare Sisters"), Christopher Condon's endearingly crude'n'clunky cinematography, the dreadful dialogue ("Aren't they the ones who do those schlocky low budget films in Italy?"), the cheesy gore, nil suspense, sluggish pacing, terrible acting, a laughably hokey some-poor-guy-in-an-obvious-rubber-suit monster, Paul Natzke's annoyingly droning synthesizer score, and even a heavy-handed morale about the perils of vanity ensure that this hilariously horrendous honey is an absolute campy hoot from start to finish. Better still, Bresee takes a steamy shower and the exquisitely ample brunette knockout Pamela Gilbert goes skinny-dipping prior to being killed by the creature. An extremely feeble John Carradine has a very sad cameo as a doddering old fuddy dud of a mad scientist and Forrest J. Ackerman makes a fleeting appearance as a pool cleaner. As Lynn so aptly puts it early on in the movie: "This sounds like something out of a bad science fiction film." And indeed that's exactly what this sublimely shoddy stinker is.


Like all Nite Owl Theater DVDs, this Fred Olan Ray film is a mess of tired special effects, poor acting, and nudity. There's a weak plot about a beautiful aging actress who turns into a six and a half foot tall rubber monster that rips people up here and there. There's a detective or something and a scientist or something..that doesn't really matter if you're just waiting to see a bare body in a following scene because that's all there is here. A cheap soap opera with pathetic monsters. There's alot of entertaining alien films out there..this isn't one of them.


The original EVIL SPAWN was completed and released in the halcyon days of video, when just about anything that was made could find its way onto product hungry rental shelves and turn a profit for all involved. It is an okay low budget horror item. The revised and revamped ALIEN WITHIN inserts new footage with venerable genre stalwarts Richard Harrison and Gordon Mitchell, and twists the storyline in a different direction. The revised ALIEN WITHIN will be of interest to fans of these veteran actors and Fred Olen Ray. I believe Ray was involved with the original film, and ended up with the rights after some litigation, and elected to make the revisions with new footage. ALIEN WITHIN showed on TV and came out on video from a small outfit, MNTX, which also released Brett McCormick's MACON COUNTY WAR (with Dan Haggerty). I prefer the new version, but that's just my opinion.


For some inexplicable circumstances or reasons which are known only to the BBC, this film has never been released to the public. Had I not had the opportunity to see it on PBS Channel WNET in New York several years ago, I would not have known of its existence. It is time that the BBC made some effort to consider their audience and the needs of teachers and students alike - not to mention all the adult persons in the world that are being treated to a declining quality of films and television programs. This film not only carefully and faithfully covers the life and times of Darwin, one of the greatest scientists of all time, but it lays before the viewer a very precise overview of Darwin's theories of species orgins and the principles of evolution. I wonder, as do others, if the disappearance of this film has anything to do with the fanatics of the so-called 'Christian' right that sees the work of science as a threat to their tawdry and ignorant grasp of science and scientific principles. Someone out there: make this film available to any and all who cannot fail to enjoy it and profit from its salutary content. Is anyone listening?


I have heard that the so-called 'christian' right has had something to do with this first-class film biography of one of the world's greatest scientists not being made available to the public. If this is so, why do contributors, like myself, continue to support Public Television if the directors of WGBH, WNET, and the other PBS stations that are constantly begging us for money refuse to have this marvellous six-part series issued as a DVD or VHS?


Video tapes of the series are available on interlibrary loan from Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. As one would expect, the quality of the images after 28 years of sitting on the shelf is not good. Nonetheless, I used copies in my two-quarter course on Darwin and evolution. My course, attended by 50 retired persons from our lifelong learning institute program, gave the series rave reviews. My online search indicates that the series is also available via interlibrary loan from Idaho State University. Like many of you, I'd like to purchase DVD's of the series from Time-Life. Please contact me if DVD's become available.


I have yet to learn why this superb drama has never been taken out of the archives and released on DVD. It has been suggested that it has been kept under wraps because of the risk of facing the ire of the Christian Right. If correct this is not only ridiculous but indicates that the BBC is pandering to pressure from minority groups.

All I can hope is that with the 150th anniversary of the publication of On The Origin of Species coming up next year the BBC will finally do the honorable thing and make this available.

Perhaps we should all petition Sir David Attenborough and Professor Dawkins to add their voices to our request?

Failing that I suppose we could save our pennies and buy the DVDs from BBC Education I believe they are available for a mere £850.00!


Please release this title on video/DVD! It is a wonderful, wonderful account of Charles Darwin's Beagle Voyage, and would be a very helpful addition to the curriculum in many a college course on evolution and/or the history of science. It would be great if local PBS stations would pick up this series and show it from time to time, so that interested viewers could at least tape it (the local museum of television history was the only place I could get access to it). It's a real shame that, because of the religious beliefs of a small minority of people (who could simply elect not to watch), the rest of the TV-watching audience are deprived of excellent programming such as this.


The 4 DVD set, "The Voyage of Charles Darwin", can be purchased through a seller on eBid for a reasonable price (not auction). I despaired of ever seeing this inspiring series again. I had been looking online every few years, but someone recently wrote that it could be found at eBid. After I got mine, I inquired whether the seller could get more, and he replied that he could. What I especially liked about the series was/is the realism: I believe the scenes were shot on location, and the ship certainly looks like how the Beagle must have been (or how I imagined it). Darwin is portrayed by an actor, Malcolm Stoddard, who looks and acts like what I envisioned Darwin would have been like. Enjoy! Finally!


As a gay man, I can honestly say I HATED this film. It does TRY to show a certain type of gay man (obssessed with the gym, high-paying job, can't commit, treats everyone like dirt) but it fails miserably. Crummy cinematography, really pathetic script (I couldn't believe the actors actually SPOKE these words without gagging or barfing), even worse acting, not ONE sympathetic character, and an ending that doesn't make a bit of sense, seeing it just tells us the same things we've been hearing since the beginning of the movie! This film actually makes the characters in "The Boys in the Band" seem like positive gay men! Also, this "group" of people just shows a VERY small portion of the gay society. It also portrays every gay man as a vicious queen. I can't believe a gay man wrote and directed this movie. Talk about "internalized homophobia"! A total waste of time (I can't say talent). DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!!


I wanted to like this movie. I ordered the DVD hoping it was a controversial satire on the superficiality of the gay ghetto, as promised. What I got was a mildly amusing comedy, with nowhere near as much punch as I expected from the premise.

There were problems immediately. Although he has a perfect body, John-Michael Lander as Christopher portrays a character who is so unlikable, it's not possible to warm to him at all, let alone develop an interest in what happens to him as the plot progresses. Some may find him irresistibly attractive, but frankly I wouldn't have given him a second glance no matter how much he masked what a creep he is  perfect abs and all. A bigger problem to me was the character played by David Vincent. The film's premise  the brunt of the "hard-hitting satire" - is the fact that Christopher's boyfriend is supposed to be the opposite of what we've been "conditioned" to find attractive because (gasp!) he doesn't work out in a gym and actually has love handles (horrors!). He also doesn't have a glamorous job (I mean, really, who knows any gay men like that?) and  now here's the most shocking thing I could imagine in a satire on gay values  he sleeps in PAJAMAS! Now I know a few guys in Chelsea who might find this impossible to believe, but despite the love handles and the pajamas, the "out-of-shape, chunky, under-employed geek" turns out to be the most attractive man in the whole film. Somehow I think that some of the people this film was intended for won't quite get that.

I liked what this picture was trying to say  Christopher is shallow, superficial, vain and annoying, and more or less gets what he deserves in the end. It's not his promiscuity that bothers us, but the way he treats his conquests, refusing to ever have a second date, and finding the most ridiculous faults imaginable in each potential suitor. But the telling of the tale just isn't very interesting, or very funny, and if they really wanted to make it a satire, it should have been far more merciless to maintain my interest.

Maybe I'm just old enough to remember when gay men didn't spend all their time in a gym, staring at the mirror to confirm their own beauty. I seem to recall that when I first came out in the early 70's, gym bunnies were few and far between in the gay male community. In those days, you were either skinny, fat or average, and if people judged you by your looks, it was solely on the basis of whether or not you had a pretty face. The main things we used back then to attract people were wit, charm, personality and intelligence, along with keeping ourselves reasonably well groomed. Now all I hear and see everywhere is stats, stats and more stats  numbers for waists, chests, arms, and thighs, together with demands that everyone have a perfect body, perfect clothes and a perfect career, or forget it. I was hoping that this film might raise some serious objections to such values, but when the final credits were rolling I felt I hadn't really seen or heard very much to either provoke meaningful discussion or challenge these attitudes, which is what I expect a good satire to do. Some may find it quite enjoyable, and feel it delivers on its promises, but I was less than satisfied when it was over.


I was extremely bewildered by the purpose of this film, but even more bewildered by the positive reviews a few people have left for it. It truly holds almost no value as a movie or social commentary at all. The acting is static and makes you feel like you are watching the first performance of several understudys. The subplot involving Merle Perkins' character Susan is unrelated and incomplete. The random black and white vignettes featuring the main character "Christopher Bedford" are intrusive and uninformative and I didn't care for a single one of the shallow, archetypical characters we were supposed to relate to.

The fact that people found some scathing commentary on the emptiness of the pretty boy "gym-bunny" gay lifestyle within this contrived film astounds me. Did I miss something? I saw a story about one man who sleeps around, cheats, and ends up lonely...Was that not an obvious conclusion? The emotionally charged ending seems out of place and adds 5 minutes of drama to a film that was an hour and a half of blah blah blah....YAWN


This film is a very good satire of life in the 90's for gay men. The acting is a bit tireless, yet when taken into context of the genre of the satire, then it places well. John-Michael Lander is very convincing as the 'gay-god' that has decided to fall in love and yet can't give up his other life. This film should be on the list of the "Gay Must-See"


This film is awful. The writing is tolerable but the acting is atrocious. The director was so in love with his own infantile pathos that he includes long long shots of guys looking tragic. If this film had a competent editor, it might have achieved mediocre status. As we saw with the Da Vinci Code, when the main actor is flat or bad, no matter what you do the rest of the movie will fail. And the main actor is not just bad, he is utterly inept. Think of the pathetic attempts at dialog in the 12 seconds of every porn film prior to getting down to business--our main actor is as bad if not worse than that.

The only reason I am even bothering to write this review is to talk about the love interest in the film, David Vincent. So far as I can tell, this is his only credit. That's a shame. His performance was subtle and nuanced. If this was his only acting credit, he could have quit his day job and made it as an actor. In the extras on the DVD you can see him reading for another part, the part of the hook up at the very end of the film. That scene in the film is particularly pathetic and tonally wrong; but from the screen test, you can see that if David Vincent had played that part, he could have carried it off with aplomb. Wherever you are, David Vincent, there is no doubt that you could have had a career in film.

As for the rest of the folks, including the director, don't quit your day jobs.


First, I disagree with the commenter's who say this is such a bad movie with bad acting. Maybe these people never knew a screw around guy, a good time charlie, or a sorry roommate. This movie works until the ending. This screw around guy is confronted by one of his tricks who thought he was more than a trick, but he was just another lay that didn't matter. Then the screw around guy punches the trick and suddenly becomes introspective and is sorry for what he has done. What a load of bull. He was one of these jerks who wants a relationship to fill in between the gaps of tricks. The ending should have been the black girl with her new white boyfriend eating with the other gay couple and the screw around guy by himself. Or maybe the screw around guy just saw Stu talking to someone at the grocery store. Then maybe he could just think about what he threw away, instead of suddenly thinking he was a jerk because screw arounds are in for the short haul. Their regrets are few and far between and even if they felt they messed someone over, they just keep on hitting that bar scene every night. It could have ended with him just going to the bar over and over. But the black girl could have easily ended this movie with a good tone, she could have given him something to think about just by resolving her own relationship issues. I don't believe the screw around guy could ever care about the boys he kept bringing home. He just wants his cake - and eat it too!


Just what I needed, a gay "Your Friends and Neighbors." Not. Add to the down, tired material dialogue that sounded as if it were being read off cue cards, boring camera work, dull locales, and endless conversations, often as people plodded along in some park. Ugh! What a disappointment! I kept waiting for it to get better. It didn't.


I saw this flick at Outfest in LA five years ago and was saddened it never gained the audience recognition (or distribution) it deserved. It's the best film on the culture of gay narcissism (the clones of West Hollywood, South Beach, Greenwich Village, Dupont Circle, Midtown, etc.). Then again, maybe THAT's why it never saw light of day. It shows an unpleasant side of gay clone life where a leopard truly cannot change his spots.

Sure the acting borders on amateurish (especially the lead), but the script has so much going for it.


This movie is one of the very best and most vicious satires that I've ever seen. Unfortunately, not many people will appreciate it because the satire can only be understood by a gay audience and gay men typically have little or no sense of humor. Unless it involves smirky or catty lines about how someone is dressed.

On the unlikely chance that you are a gay male who does have a sense of humor and understands satire, please see this movie!! My boyfriend and I saw it at Kendall Square Cinema on opening night and howled with laughter all the way through -- while everyone else sat in stony silence. This movie skewers the pretentious and empty lifestyles of life in Boston's South End, one of America's largest gay neighborhoods. And while the acting is terrible, truly terrible, the writing and direction are first rate.


OK,I know this is cheating, but here's a review from Gemma Files of Eye magazine, who pretty much could sum this up better than I...

"Whenever I watch a particular type of movie, the same two thoughts invariably occur to me: why are there so many boring, self-obsessed people in this world -- straight, gay or otherwise -- and why do so many of them seem to think we're all waiting on pins and needles to see films made out of their boring, self-obsessed love lives? Case in point: writer-director Roland Tec's All the Rage, adapted from his stage play A Better Boy. Chris (John-Michael Lander) is a (debatably) hunky gay lawyer who specializes in drawing up wills and having frequent, meaningless sex with guys whose numbers he immediately loses. Eventually, this slick little toad meets up with a nice guy named Stewart (David Vincent) who doesn't work out, knows about baseball and ballet and sends Chris flowers with sickly-sweet poems attached. Is it love? Will their equally shallow friends let them get away with it? Will Chris cheat on Stewart with the first pair of pants that walks by or will he actually -- heavens to Betsy! -- get a quick evolutionary life lesson by having his heart broken for a change? From a purely technical viewpoint, All the Rage is inept film-making at best: everybody on screen talks and looks almost exactly the same, which doesn't help make the oh-so-predictable plot any less stultifying. Working with next to nothing in the way of funding, Tec apparently wants to trade on the idea that low- to no-budget automatically equals "arty." But this is basically an exploitation film with socio-political pretensions, and all the constant bewailing of loneliness and promiscuity in the world won't make his characters' obsessions with each other's baskets seem any less sleazy.

A waste of time, and pretty much unsalvageable on every level. If the choice is between All the Rage and watching paint dry, save me a seat in front of the nearest wall." -- GEMMA FILES


What an amateurish movie. The acting was uniformly stiff and annoying, and the background music was appalling. This movie benefitted from the current vogue for Indy/Gay Cinema, and had it been a movie about a straight cad, it would not have warranted any attention. Moreover, it would be skewered by critics everywhere, and for very valid reasons. I support gay and independent cinema, but not at the expense of credibility. My gay friend and I were happy we saw this movie, if only to repeat its wooden lines and chuckle. This movie is an embarrassment.


This is a truly awful film. Bad cinematography (I lost count of how many first-year film school rules it broke), bad writing, and an ending that came out of nowhere. The only reason I stayed until the end is that the friend I was with fell asleep.

STAY AWAY! Rent Parting Glances or Beautiful Thing if you need to see a good gay movie.


I was doubtful about this movie when I went to the cinema to watch it last weekend, but after having watched it I reinforce my good opinion about the products made by New Line Cinema. The film is very well done but apart from that, I think it shouldn´t disappoint any fan of horror, it has everything that a good movie of the genre must have, including great amounts of blood, a very good rhythm and effective actors such as Pam Grier(Jackie Brown), the muse of blaxploitation genre from the seventies, a genre which is paid homage in this movie as well as some classics of the genre such as "Hellraiser" or "Reanimator", although the introduction of the comic element paying homage to that movie was for me the weakest element of the whole(it broke the so tenebrous atmosphere).Finally, director Ernst. R.Dickerson who also directed the not so good but entertaining "tales from the Crypt: Evil Knight" assured that this movie had elements from Italian horror cinema, I don´t know but perhaps there is one: The warms.A homage to Lucio Fulci?, I know there is many homages here but it is the same for other movies and the cocktail is far from being so effectively combined as here.I don´t think they are going to make a sequel, but I am looking forward eagerly the next movie from this director and I wish "Resident Evil" was so satisfactory.


This movie is not the worst of horror movies that I have seen, however it is far from the best also. This movie has some pretty decent special effects, and doesn't have a bad story line. Who better to play a drug pusher in the 70's than Snoop Dogg. Snoop is not the best actor in the world but does show a better job in this movie than previous movies. 7 out of 10 stars. Not great, but not bad.


I heard this movie sucked. It did not. It is not great film, but it is good film. The homage to the 1970s was there, the little "film buff" touches that remind one of urban horror's roots as far back as nosferatu.

this movie could easily have been a sell out, with Bones as "Snoop da CROW"

with the vengeance thing, but it did not.

the only "bad horror" gimmick was the last 4 seconds of the film.

I expected a crappy horror movie. This beats urban legend or scream 3.


I watched this with my roommate Saturday night and I must admit that it had me on the edge of my seat, until the very end. The special effects and camera work is very impressive. It is what it is, a fun movie that has some redeeming qualities. Believe me, I've seen worse and some that weren't this fun. This is definately not a keeper but it should be viewed once.


Ahh... the midnight horror movie. Cheesy, silly, and not in the slighest bit scary, its sole purpose is to provide a cheap thrill or induce sleep. As anyone who's read any of my other reviews can see, I like cheap thrills just as much as a good movie, and although Bones certainly was cheap, cheesy, silly, and not in the slightest bit scary, I didn't enjoy it as much as I'd thought I would.

The reasoning for this is that Bones is exactly like any other direct-to-video, midnight cable fare, only at theatrical release, midday pay-per-view pricing. The reason I like other cheap films so much is because they are just that - cheap. I'm biased; I expect a lot more from a movie that I shell out $9 for in a theatre than a $2 5-day rental.

In 1979, Jimmy Bones (Snoop Dogg!) is your friendly neighborhood numbers-runner. A crooked cop, a drug dealer, and his business associate try to convince him to bring crack to the hood. Bones is a numbers-runner with morals and a love for his people, and won't allow it. The business meeting ends with his murder.

In 2001, the neighborhood has gone to hell, especially Bones' old mansion, which is currently haunted by a big black dog with blood-red eyes. A group of teen wanna-be DJ's (who also just happen to be the children of Bones' old associate) decide to fix up the mansion and turn it into a happening nightclub. They discover Bones' skeleton buried in the basement, and a stray dog, whom they name Bones (how original!). This dog just happens to be the same killer incarnation of Jimmy Bones' ghost, and every life he takes adds life to the bones in the basement, until Jimmy is resurrected from the dead, and he sure is angry!

This film, equal parts horror, comedy and blaxploitation, begs you not to take it seriously. If you do, like most films of this type, you'll notice the atrocious acting and cheap special effects. If not, however, you'll be intrigued by bleeding pool tables, talking severed heads, and a climax in the "city of the dead", that is actually well done and far surpasses the rest of the film. Unfortunately, it lacks the campy "charm" of any of the above mentioned three genres.

I knew from the trailers and movie posters not to take this movie seriously. Even taking it as nonseriously as I could, I just couldn't enjoy it; it's a lowbrow wolf of a film trying to pass itself off in theatrical sheep's clothing. Honestly, if I had found this on the back shelf of some cheap video store I would've loved it. In a theatre, I just expect more from films.


The entire concept is great. This movie in no way is horrible, but its not actually a movie in the first place. Instead, it's more of a comedy. It follows along the lines of Snoop Dog entering a room, his adversary saying the cliché of, "no! I'm sorry!," or, "Bones!" (shocked expression). I have got to say that Bones is first-rate comedy. It would be what Troll 2 would have been like if Busta Rhymes and Ice-T were cast.

I ask you, however, what is greater than the concept of Evil Snoop Dogg coming back to earth to feast on human flesh, and wreak vengeance on those who betrayed him. Sure, it's been done in 50% of movies, but at least watch it for its absolute corniness.

By the way, when Snoop was floating across the room with those eyes, I was rolling on the floor. I didn't see the ending, but it probably involves Snoop Dogg unleashing his rap zombies on the world, and feasting on the living, ending Civilization once and for all.


I only recently saw this movie. Basically your standard man gets killed and sometime later comes back to life to get his revenge on his killers. It starts with potential and kept it through about 3 quarters of the film but in the last quarter it choked, stalled, and then died.

All through the movie the blood was any color but the color of blood, I have to wonder if that was supposed to have paid homage to the days when the censorship laws prohibited film makers using blood colored blood, it does in its own way add a kind of sick humor to Bones and there was plenty of dark humor to go around in the first place, really there are parts that are quite funny. Unfortunately there are also parts that are just plain stupid and other parts that are gross just for the sake of being gross. It also has plenty of things that are cliché then there is the racially cliché. A black man has a white lover called Snowflake and a joke about eating fried chicken among other things.

Getting closer to the end the story begins to follow an illogical line, if Jimmy Bones returns from the dead to seek revenge on those that killed him then why did he do so much more damage and why did the movie end the way it did? So that the film makers could get the movie done and leave an opening for a sequel to a movie that never needed one?

I think that the greatest injustice of the movie was that the character of Jimmy Bones was made into the bad guy, vicious and ruthless and completely the opposite of what and who the character was made out to be during flashback scenes that occur throughout the film. Even though this happens Snoop Dogg gives a great performance as Jimmy Bones but the writing of the character and the movie itself could have been handled better, both had potential that was dropped and ended before the full potential was ever reached. Still the movie is fun and that makes it very watchable even if you watch it just the once.


I've read the other comment referring to Snoop Doggs'horror film, Bones....When this first came out it was my favourite horror film but I watched it that many times that it lost its' lustre.

The effects are great and plenty of blood and some gore from the outset. The beginning sets the tone for the rest of the film as it's one of those films that you just NEED to get to the bottom of why it is happening and what actually took place to cause it. It all unfolds at a pace enough to keep your interest as a viewer. This film is still a very watchable and enjoyable film in my opinion, even today.

It was nice to see Snoop in something different and anyone that is a Snoop Fan will enjoy this film all the more.....7 out of 10.


An attempt to make a modern-dress Gothic melodrama that is just not successful. Ernest Dickerson has a good grasp of the iconography of horror films, but he can't put them together well enough to make a good scary movie. He borrows concepts and images liberally from Clive Barker, Dario Argento, and Mario Bava - but all it shows is that he's a good copycat, not that he's a good stylist. From the idea of evil reviving itself by consuming a victim (Barker's "Hellraiser", but cinematic ally dating at least back to Hammer's "Dracula, Prince of Darkness" from 1965), thru the rain of maggots (Argento's magisterial "Suspiria"), to the disembodied hand reaching out of the darkness to torment the dead man's lover (Bava's masterpiece, "Whip and the Body"), there really is nothing here that we haven't seen before and better. The conceit of setting it in a ghetto with an all-black cast promises an interesting variation on your basic "revenge from beyond the grave" scenario, but beyond the music and fashions it's still a pretty clichéd film. One of the problems is that Dickerson just can't seem to leave well enough alone - like the maggot scene. OK, it's raining maggots and it's terrifying, we get it already, is it really necessary to go for the gross-out by showing people EATING them? Or the scene where Maurice is killed - again, the dog-spirit eats Maurice to give form and substance to Bones' cadaver, we get it, it's not necessary to linger on the details of the chow-down. It's never scary - just disgusting. Even his attempts to inject humor are forced and heavy-handed, with the idiotic scenes of Bones carrying the heads of his victims and having them carry on an interminably pointless conversation. And again, he doesn't show it to us once, there's at least three long scenes with the chatty heads so whatever humor there was is pounded into unconsciousness thru repetition. But the most glaring problem with this movie is that we are asked to sympathize with a character who is, at bottom, just as big a bad guy in life as the crack dealers who murder him. Dickerson tries to show us Bones as the protector of his 'hood, but come on - he's exploiting his people just as much with his numbers game, or did it never occur to anyone to ask how Bones got the money for his supah-dupah fly crib when everyone else around him lives in complete poverty? For a MUCH better horror movie that reflects the black urban experience, rent "Tales from the Hood" instead.


This was a very good film if you dig any of the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series (preferably Parts 3 or 4). You can see it has that Freddy Krueger vibe running through its veins. Right down to the colorful shadows, neato killings, and anti-hero villain. But it also stands on its own much more than some similiar Nightmare knockoffs (Leprechaun comes to mind, in fact this film plays like a much more effective Leprechaun 4: Lep in the Hood).

Snoop Dogg does very well in the role of Bones, making lines like, "The Gangster of Love don't need no fried chicken" sound very serious and convincing. Pam Grier once again returns to her roots and I for one am not complaining. Maybe I'm slightly partial to this film because it features Katharine Isabelle from one of my favorite horror films "Ginger Snaps". But beyond that I very enjoyed this ride of movie.


SPOILER CONTAINED

I can't see why everyone is complaining about this movie. The plot was a little weak, but it's a horror movie. say that to yourself while you watch it and you won't hate it so much. Think about it. there is a very small fraction of horror movies made that have 'good movie' components. plus, snoop dogg is in this. that's the first reason to watch it. i realize this doesn't sound like a sound argument to you people that think Traffic was a good movie, but get a life, loosen up, and watch horror movies with the expectation that they'll live up to the legacy of The Horror Movie, not some brainy flick that people superficially latch on to becuase they don't understand it.

anyway, Bones was a good horror movie because it did the job of a series of movies in one installment. usually if there is a lapse in time it's between moves and not in them.

***SPOILER*** I also appreciate how he is never vanquished by the end of the movie. It's a plot twist that is not often used. ***END***

if you liked this go rent Killer Klowns from Outer Space


I thought Bones was okay, and here's why:

The cast are pretty good, the story is simple (but nothing wrong in that), and it makes a change to see a mainstream sort of horror (in the same vein as Scream, or IKWYDLS) with a virtually all black cast - but without resorting, too much, to street-slang and negative stereotypes. There is some flashback in the narrative, but I didn't see this as any attempt at mystery - it's obvious from scene 1 what happened.

On the plus side, the ghost effects were pretty slick - even if the blood was totally unrealistic (like thick paint), and the model/monster effects were only at the Clive Barker level. Which fits with the whole Hellraiser aspect of the movie.

Apart from the paint, my only other quibbles would be the very silly aspect of Snoop's revenge on his two main enemies (more like a comedy sketch), and the way Pam Grier COULD have just got naked to save the day (dammit!)

Yes, the film could have been so much more (scarier, longer and deadlier for three things), but I still enjoyed it, If nothing else, I spent a good 20 minutes chuckling at the outrageous design of the house, and I don't remember 'Kendra' being nearly so beautiful.


"Bones" was a scarefest that scared up the goods. Director Ernest R. Dickerson's last time he taggled a horror movie was "Tales From The Crypt Presents: Demon Knight." On "Bones," he does a better job, but, what I was most impressive from this movie was Snoop Doggy Dogg as Jimmy Bones. He was creepy. There were alot of violence and gore in this movie. But, just the whole movie, from beginning to end, was very good. If you like Snoop Dogg, then you'll love "Bones!"

A+ 13/13 ****** (out of ****** stars)


Hey, don't you think it's kind of odd that someone would stab themselves in the chest with a flick knife and then bury themselves?

If your answer to the above question is "I agree", then you could have been, or may well be part of the team of monkeys that came up with the idea for, wrote and cast this movie. It's a huge shame that stuff like this gets made when there are screenwriters and directors with good ideas and just need some money. Speaking of money, if you want to waste it; Bones is as good a film as any to waste it on. Well, if you like to waste money and you enjoy pain, that is. Bones is notable for one of the most incredible reasons a film can be notable for, and that is that it stars a rapper. The rapper in question is Snoop Dogg (a.k.a. Dogg, Snoopy, Snoop Doggy Dogg, Snoop and just about every other lame variant of the words 'snoop' and 'dogg' that you can come up with). The tired blend of Hellraiser and rubbish movie starring a rapper see Snoop Dogg get to flex his acting muscles, and he proves with his one-note performance in this movie that he is just as adept at the art of acting as he is at the art of music making. If you catch my drift.

To be quite frank, despite his best efforts to look cool; Snoopy Doggy Dogg ends up looking like just as much of an idiot as his name suggests he is. I mean seriously, who goes by the name of 'Snoop Dogg' when they don't have to? Aside from it's star, this film has a number of other problems. It's plot is very tired, and it follows the exceedingly boring and familiar tale of someone who was killed being resurrected and then taking their revenge. The tacky dialogue, duff acting and illogical plotting don't help this, and not even the murders can save the film, as it's easy to say that even they manage to score maximum points on the dull scale. I will never forgive the people responsible for this movie for wasting all that time and money on it, when it could have been put to better use. How about giving one of the more experienced directors who could produce something good, if given a budget? I guess that's one of the many problems with things like rap music; if it sells, it will continue to be made.


Caught this on BET one night. Bones was utterly horrible, but so bad that it was actually funny. And I must say, that while it is a pathetic teen-targeted horror film (and directed even further at Black and probably Hispanic audiences), it was about a zillion times better than most of the pretty white teen "horror" movies I have seen (Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Urban Legend, and all of their nauseating sequels to boot).

This is the story of what I guess was a drug dealer (gee...does Snoop ever do anything different than play a street thug of one sort or another). And his ghost floats around this bizarre, abandoned mansion, that is suddenly claimed by a handful of neighborhood teens who want to turn the pit into a party palace. Bones (Snoop) is terrorizing the people in the house as his ghost floats around in pergatory aiming to take revenge those who stabbed him in a drug deal gone wrong. Why he chose that moment to take his revenge, or why he goes after the teens is unclear. Bone's old woman, played by Pam Grier (a good actress wasted in yet another trashy movie), is psychic and can tell that something bad is brooding in the air.

There was a special effects paradox at work in this film. On the one hand, the production crew goes out of their way with some fantastic, if not innovative, special effects moment (and you need plenty of them with a story so thin as this). And towards the end of the movie, they really take advantage of all of this. On the other hand, for all of the bloodbath scenes, the production crew is very generous with this cheap looking "fake blood," which is nothing more than bright red paint. How stupid. Actually, the whole movie was pretty stupid. But, at least they did try here and there to do something a little different (both in story elements and special effects), although it was still a bad movie. And, at least it was something you can really laugh at whereas the other movies I mentioned can just really make you homicidal, they're so dreadful (in story and special effects).


this movie has a lot of old ideas all mixed into one, yet it doesn't look messy, several teen agers try and open a night club, on "holy ground" without noticing, one of the teenagers finds a girl but her mother is the local "crazy person" they ignore her about this but it was a bad move, when the club is up and running the fun begins, from maggots to wall of dead, its a fun thrill ride that keeps you on the edge of your seat. This movie wasn't one that was supposed to be taken serious, it has snoop dogg so if you came for a serious movie then you are pretty much crazy... It Is a lot of fun to watch, it has a a lot of funny moments, a few sad moments a few scary moments and even some dramatic moments but the main point of the film is to entertain, people are really hard on this film because they expected a masterpiece but if you just want to have a fun time enjoying a movie then this one should do!


Wow! i just caught this movie on a TV channel. This is absolutely an unmeant masterpiece! The story is as useless as it should be in a decent horror film. In the late 70's Mr Bones does not want to be a dealer, gets killed and goes get revenge 20 years later (for reasons still unknown to men). Ironically the house he is killed in is sold to the kids of one the guys that kills him. He regenerates from having a dog kill people and eat crap and then goes to get revenge on his killers. so far so good, it sounds as a crap horror movie should be.

But having Mr Snoop Dogg playing a pimp in the 70's (in flashback scenes) and a murdering pimp in the 90's is so ridiculously cool it hurts. Even though the whole movie doesn't make ANY sense at any point, it's just cool to see Mr Dogg in a pimp outfit. Also the pun of having two token white kids getting killed in the first minute, the cheesy red colour of the blood, the totally unfitting comic relief of 2 talking heads and all skanky girls in the movie being played by white chicks makes this an absolutely excellent movie! I admit, i have a taste for bad movies. Horrible sci-fi and 80's action movies are a must-see in my opinion, it's cheap laughs! this movie is fitting for that so amazingly i'm getting the DVD tomorrow and organizing a 'movie nite' next week to show this (together with 'Alien Sex Party') to some friends. Hilarity guaranteed! So, get a case of beer, some illegal, mind altering substances and a few good buddies that can appreciate bad movies and have a blast with this Snoop Dogg gem! Oh, and the probably totally unmeant Fatboy Slim homage was the cherry on the cake. A DJ kid wearing sunglasses and a cowboy hat (as does Mr Slim in the 'Rockafeller Skank' video) asks another DJ 'can you do a solo performance, i need some time off right about now, funk soul brother'. Comedy gold, right there.


As a horror film I don't think they come any cheesier. The reason I watched the movie was for a good laugh, and it provided just that. Apparently this type of "horror" scares people. They used disgusting ideas and visions to try to get a scare out of you. For me it just made me laugh. However if you want a good laugh check it out, you wont be let down.


While I can't be certain that Bones went under the studio knife for a little test-screening cosmetic surgery, I sure am suspicious. The first two thirds of the movie deliver old fashioned, 80's-style horror goods with decent character development, a nice history lesson as to why Jimmy Bones is so hacked-off, and some juicy gore. This movie even has a good reason for the heroes to stick around in a haunted house (please, no more horror movies about scientific research groups studying the supernatural). By the time Bones awakens and starts killing those who wronged him, the film has settled into a tight, supernatural revenge flick with a nod to the blaxploitation genre.

Then, oh man, then the film goes horribly wrong. All subtlety flies out the window as the relatively creepy 'hood' setting is replaced with a trip to a "city of dead" that looks like an rejected set from the worst Nightmare on Elm Street movie. What's even worse is that there is no allusion to the "city of the dead" in the entire movie until the scene before our heroes bumble into it.

This glaring shift of setting is made worse by the sudden inclusion of corny, corny attempts a humor--talking decapitated heads complaining about their hair?--and a silly ending. In fact, the last twenty minutes even seem like they were directed by someone else. Imagine watching Se7en, with all its creepy direction and atmosphere, only to have it end like it was directed by Joel Schumacher.

Bones is no Se7en but after a healthy start, it deserved better.


Like the first reviewer here said, this is a mess of a movie.

It's really more of a 70's black exploitation type film than anything else. Not a genre I am a fan of.

I should have known it would stink when Snoop Dogg is the lead. The only rapper I have ever liked in a film was "Ice Cube" in "Ghosts of Mars".


I don't think I have ever seen such a terrible movie in my life. Every bit of this movie is horribly acted and well predictable. Who ever gave this movie higher than 2* is an ignorant child, there is absolutely nothing interesting about this movie, except for the gore of course. I don't think that even the most die harder than hard gore fan would be too keen on this waste of film. Mr.Dogg is an ignoramus that does not deserve to be given the privilege of directing, writing, casting etc. If you are smart, you will avoid this movie completely. Save your money, don't rent, buy, or even watch online.

May god help us, thank the lord this movie was made in 2001, and our taste in horror has increased, if you are truly dying to watch a popcorn movie on a late Friday night with the friends, then do yourself a favor and rent 'Valentine', the acting is less bad and the storyline can be accepted. But if you do rent this, I guarantee your wonderful Friday night with your friends and popcorn will go to hell, and they'll leave blaming you.

Good day.


I rented this movie not expecting much, and that is a good thing because this film is a real stinker. The overall idea is not very original, which is okay. Some gangster named Jimmy Bones died and is coming back for revenge, or something or another. Plot does not really matter for a movie like this, you just watch and try to enjoy the ride. Now, this is not near close to the worst movie I have seen, I have seen far, far, far worse, but it is also quite far from the best movies. My main gripe with this flick may sound dumb but...pink blood? What is that? The pink blood really takes a lot out of it...it makes it more unrealistic (though not realistic to begin with) and just looks...bad. I have seen $5,000 budgeted films with better looking blood! And other than the pink blood, the movie is just stupid and annoying to me. I say avoid, but some may like it. Worth a rent, I guess, if you want to see a cool pool table death......with pink blood.


This movie got so much bad press for featuring Snoop Dogg as it's main villain, not too many people took this film seriously. Yeah the acting in this movie is kinda cheesy but I have seen a lot worse! There are some terrific horror images in this movie. The demonic dog, the wall of screaming soles, lots of nasty bloody death, etc. I caught this movie late one night and got a huge kick out of it! There was a lot of tongue in cheek humor thrown into the movie that kinda killed the horror in some parts. I still had a lot of fun watching this movie. The good far outweighs the bad and to skip out on this movie would be to miss out on a lot of really cool moments. This is the perfect movie for horror fans that like to root for the stalker. The effects in this movie are top notch and the kill scenes are nasty! Now that audiences are more familiar with Snoop Dogg as an actor I think this movie should be given a second chance. A few stupid comedy moments aside, this movie is not that bad, certainly better than " I Know What You Did Last Summer" or " Valentine ". If you are a horror B-movie fan and you have not seen this flick yet go rent it now! As for myself, I liked it enough that I am buying the DVD!


Quite possible the worst movie every, seriously. Stay away at all cost. I could go on all night why this one is awful, but as a friend to humanity I must warn all; you may want to kill yourself for having viewed this movie in it's entirity. Yes, it just that bad, I mean for God's sake the blood is orange, and that's not even the tip of the ice burg. The movie has no tone, and the little bit of tone it does attemps to establish is ruined by the last 25 min. or so when tries unsuccessfully to switch over to comedy. This movie is bad all the way around the board, there really not one decent thing about it. I refuse to even say anymore about this trash, I dare not give it anymore attention than this. But this is more of a warning just say no.


This film could have drove it's "point" home a lot better than presented. It should have stayed CLEAR away from the feel of the 70's type "blaxpoitation" films. But this film was not so bad at all.

It tells a story, a story of a big time 70's guy who's soul has not been put to rest. He has a vendetta, dead or not, he needed to see it to its full completion. (Ya know, similar to George W. Bush and his Iraq thing.)

Ernest Dickerson is a darn excellent cinematographer and director of photography. In the 80's I enjoyed his work on "Tales From The Darkside" and I can see he was headed for it here. Trouble is, in feature film, audiences expect more. Progression is the key, and Ernest went for a 70's blaxpoitation thing here instead of just telling the tale as it should be.

Snoop Dog actually did a good job for the material here. If nothing else, this was his audition tape for the feature film: "Starsky and Hutch".

The stereotypical parts for the other actors is what turned me off. (Turned me off in the 70's as well.) which is why this film could have done without it.

But it is an entertaining film. Good for your adult Halloween Party if everyone there is over 35 to recall the movie days of "Foxy Brown", "Blacula" and "Black Cesear".


I rented this movie thinking that it would be scary and suspensful, but it is totally the opposite! It is dumb and boring, I even almost fell asleep. Don't waste money renting this movie, instead if you see it, throw it in the trash.


First of all, I'd like to point out this film features B.S. Dogg, esquire, as a resurrected pimp out for revenge on his murderers (in case you're wondering, B.S. stands for Bigg Snoop). Now, this man actually misspells three-letter words like "big" and "dog". This man is responsible for the creation of words like "izzey", "shizzey" and "my nizzey". I KNOW the kind of quality attached to the name Bigg Snoop Dogg. I rented Bones this Halloween anticipating one of those "so bad it's good" deals. Unfortunately it wasn't so bad it was good. Fortunately - and against all odds - it actually WAS pretty entertaining. Director Ernest Dickerson brings on all your horror clichés, which I don't consider a bad thing, and even slams in some blaxploitation clichés. There were enough references to horror classics to show Dickerson loves the biz-nass he's in. The comic relief in the later half also reminds us (after some darker parts) that this film is not to be taken seriously at all. Snoop delivers as the ghetto "Frank from Hellraiser" or "Jason Voorhees" or "Freddy Krueger" or whatever the f**k. The kids are as believable as you can get with the lines given to them (Lawson and Isabelle look good though). Michael T. Weiss is better than expected as "Loopy-Lou" Lupovich, the crooked cop. Pam Grier is her usual good self as well. But all in all, this truly is Snoop's film. I wish they'd do a franchise on this. After all, the Freddy sequels weren't as successful as the original, but still they made 'em. To me, Jimmy Bones is up there with other boogeymen like Pinhead, Michael Myers and the Candyman.

"The Gangsta of Love don't need no fried chicken!"


Snoop Dogg has proven that he is a great rapper, but he has yet to prove that he is a great actor. He has proved he is better than the average rapper/actor with his performances in films like TRAINING DAY and BABY BOY, though he's still not what most would consider an actual "actor". Here, he plays Jimmy Bones, a gangster who is killed in 1979 and then years later is awakened and out for revenge against the ones who killed him. Think of it as a goofier, more urban version of THE CROW. However, unlike THE CROW this is a good horror movie. Everything you could want in a horror movie is here: plenty of gore, sex, and there's even a scene with a severed talking head! It's actually a lot better then the trailers make it look. **1/2


"Bones," starring Snoop Doggy Dogg and Pam Grier and directed by Ernest Dickerson, is a great horror film with lots of violence and gore. Snoop Dogg was perfect as the main character, Jimmy Bones. The movie also had solid special effects. If you like Snoop Dogg, then you'll love "Bones." Doggy dog brother, doggy dog!!

A+ ****** (out of ****** stars) 13/13


The time is 1979. Jimmy Bones is respected and loved as the neighborhood protector. When he is betrayed and brutally murdered by a corrupt cop, Bone's elegant brownstone becomes his tomb. Twenty-two years later, the neighborhood has become a ghetto and his home a gothic ruin. Four teens renovate it as an after hours nightclub, unknowingly releasing Jimmy's tortured spirit. It's thrills and chills as blood spills when Jimmy's ghost sets about its frightful revenge, his killers unaware of the gruesome fate that awaits them. I thought this movie was great! Everything about it is good. It has excellent camra work and scary lighting. This was no doubt one of the best horror movies of the year 2001. If you have not seen it and like horror movies I would highly recommend you go rent it or even buy it. The DVD is great with some really cool Documentaries and deleted scenes. I give Bones *** stars out of ****. UNLEASH THE DOGG!


I tried really hard to like this film, I promise. I enjoyed Crazy in Alabama and I like Banderas as a person. He is an interesting character. However, this film is a failure. Either that or I didn't get the point at all. Two hours of movie that feel like four, a disjointed script, some supposedly poetic images without any meaning and a bunch of wasted talented actors. It begins decently but as the plot unfolds it drifts away into a hopeless nonsense. I used to think that if I didn't understand a film it was my fault and I had to watch it again making an effort to really comprehend what it meant. Nowadays, I simply believe that if I don't get the point of the movie is just because the director didn't explain it correctly. Sorry, Antonio, try harder next time.


I approached my viewing of this film with trepidation. The preview description I had read filled with me little confidence that I would enjoy it as I was expecting something quite sentimental. Also, films directed by actors often disappoint as their focus is usually on the acting performances and not the appearance of the film. But, to my surprise, what was most impressive about Summer Rain was the strong visual style of the director Antonio Banderas. His use of vibrant colours, striking vistas, dream scapes and powerful, haunting imagery made the film a true delight. Based on a prize winning Spanish novel and set in Banderas' home town, Malaga, it is apparent that the novel resonated deeply with Banderas. His passion for the work is evident in every scene. The cinematography is superb and the use of the widescreen aspect ratio contributes significantly to the rendering of what must have been rich source material. I now long for an English translation of the novel. Based on what I've seen Banderas attempt to do in this film, it seems that the book must have been a challenging adaptation. Voice-over is something I don't care for normally, but the elusive nature of the voice-over text in Summer Rain was a major factor in making this film such a pleasure. Rather than explain actions and motives, the periodic comments by the narrator (called Throat) heightened the atmospherics of the film. The choice of actors was excellent and all turn in performances that serve the themes of the film. Special mention has to go to Victoria Abril, who has played opposite Banderas before so many years ago. She is marvellous and lights up the screen with her evocation of the alluring older woman. I hope Antonio Banderas can find more projects to immerse himself in. His passionate rendering of Summer Rain suggests that he is a director to watch out for.


the acting is great, the cinematography and direction are both Oscar worthy the plot is interesting and the characters are real. as time goes by you get more entouched to the characters involved and that makes this film interactive since you try in any way to guess what is going to happen. antonio baderas is high in my list of today's most promising directors and this film shows the perspectives he has as a director.. any way you should go see this movie and don't let its rating stop you from watching it because it almost did it to me and now i realise how i would have regretted had i not rented this movie instead of an other


Summer Rain , The English road or as the original title say "El camino de los ingleses " is a movie that takes artistic risks and of course that lead to mistakes . In the good part of things we have very good performances of the cast , great photography and a risky director . The screenplay is not conventional and the movie is almost experimental in parts but ... so what ? I agree with some reviews .Sometimes the narrator or voice over is used to much . But I think this movie don't try to fit in the conventional movie storytelling and it's not looking to be the mtv movie awards new sensation. But it's telling the story of young people in Malaga,Spain in the 70s trying to find their place in their world. I give it 7.


This movie tells the story of a group of young friends facing the end of their teen years during a fateful summer.Although it is a Spanish film set in the seventies, the topics and the way they are portrayed make it a whole universal experience (I am Spanish but I can't recall any localism of notice). You can tell that this movie has been made with all guts, heart and soul, or passion if you like, it sparkles all over the frame.The suffering and pain of teen years (and the joy of friendship, love and sex) are portrayed in a very poetical way.Both visual and acoustic poetry (the movie is narrated by the character "el garganta" as if reciting a somewhat complex yet beautiful poem). I've got only good things to say about this second directorial effort of Mr Banderas; lush cinematography, good music, nice pacing, and an ensemble cast whose performances shine like gold. This film is a true joy to your senses, brain and soul.


First of all, this is the first Antonio Banderas film I've ever seen. It never crossed my mind that he could be a great director. I loved his vision; and he gained my respect for making such a beautiful film. I was blown-away, I really was.

The dialogue was sublime and 'clever'; and let's take into account that the screenwriter was Antonio Soler himself, author of the homonymous book, El Camino de los Ingleses. Never thought that the dialogue could be so strongly poetic and passionate and therefore I was touched by it. I think that the voice-over was absolutely necessary and never found it annoying. It didn't bother me, as opposed to others.

The acting was superb. They all were convincing and true to themselves and to the film. They all delivered a great performance; especially Raul Arevalo (Babirusa), which I must admit, he was my favourite of all. He managed to transmit a great feeling to the film. I believed him; **(here's the spoiler)** particularly when he's burning his magazines and he tells Miguelito that they're the type of people who don't forget, that they're the type who get their precious belongings and burn them.** You'll understand it better if you watch this film.

The photography was completely breath-taking and awe-inspiring; the landscape (Malaga--Bandera's place of birth), the use of vivid colors, angles, pretty much everything was magnificent. The music was great, too, and very inspirational. The score was composed by Antonio Melieveo, in case you needed to know.

I felt that El Camino de los Ingleses is, perhaps, the most honest work of the director. I could see that he delivered not only a great work, but passion and the best of intentions.

Hope you enjoy it, (and play close attention). Thanks!

(Uh, this is my first time posting a review for a film, so I hope you forgive me for not writing an exceptional one.)


The beginning was interesting and promising. Dreamy and surreal. Great. BUT as the story progressed, it became an endless free fall. The use of voice over is too extensive (Somebody should teach Mr. Banderas about the value of silence. Not everything has to be blatantly explained) and tiring (even corny sometimes) and the script is simply ridiculous. It pretends to be intense and dramatic but it goes overboard towards the end, stripping it off of any dramatic feeling. It's laughable when it's supposed to be sad and it's unbelievable when it's supposed to be serious. Too bad for the actors, who deliver a good performance, in spite of such awful script. The photography is well done. But these two factors alone won't add up to a decent movie. That's why I rate it 1-awful.


We were delighted to be able to see this at Sundance 2007. Antonio Banderas came to the screening and introduced the film, which was very nice. He was very gracious and we were happy to hear what he had to say about his film. However, the film itself was hard to follow. There were too many characters and it was hard to keep them straight. The main character has a serious illness, which added to the many plot devices. I had a hard time understanding why the title of the film was "Summer Rain" while the Spanish title was "The English Road". I guess maybe they both make sense, but "The English Road" seems to be a little more descriptive.Perhaps it doesn't translate well.This film was just all over the place and a bit too artsy for the "normal" film-goer. I can't see this film attracting a wide audience,sorry to say. The acting was top notch, however! Unfortunately, that wouldn't be enough to recommend this to anyone.


If you want to see a mixture of the '50's and '60's Sci-Fi scripts and special effects with modern techniques, then go see the movie. Probably a low budget movie, since they couldn't afford a better scenario, as it starts with a story of a war (what's new?) between two terrestrial factions and it ends with some 1000 people on a strange planet, starting a new life... The connection between the key elements of the story is weak, the people inside are not interesting (old models of heroes from Star Trek, mostly, some elements of the oldies - "The forbidden planet"; "Time Machine") as well as not original at all, as if the movie-makers discovered the bicycle at the beginning of the 21 century... Sorry to say, no logical story, cheap FX, actors are not convincing at all; and the story is not even funny, to recommend it for kids. If I take into account its complexity, I'd recommend it to 10-11 years old kids. It is one of those movies that made you think why you have spent 2 hours of a lovely night for nothing?


Even if this is not a perfect movie, it's packed with powerful ideas (isn't that what sci-fi is supposed to be) and some spectacular effects and Special FX locations. After an attack by an unknown alien entity on a series of human outposts in the solar system, a crew is thrown thru a time-space portal in an alien world where ancient alien conflicts set the agenda - what's cool (besides really great special FX battle scenes), is how haunting much of the film is, and how different the new world is.

The acting isn't the greatest in all places although some of it is just fine. Wes Stdi seemed not to have a director -probably there could have been a better choice for the lead. Still, independent pictures that have ambition are the heart of an exciting time in movie-land. This film meets that test.

Great concept, great originality.


I have to agree that this was not the most technically advanced film I have ever seen, but it was made 5 years ago and we are used to seeing great effects today, but it is a good story. Wes makes for a very interesting lead and the plot leaves clues and questions that only the planned series could have answered. It was unfortunate that the series was not picked up at the time, but it has left the door open for the remake that is currently in production in Canada/Germany. And with todays CGI, and an industry first from VICON, there are only good things destined for this show. I can see Ice Planet (2001) quickly becoming a new classic in sci fi. thefoxcub . ice-planet.TV


Just saw this one. Although I was really expecting a bad movie, in the beginning I thought I was wrong. Some very well done fx fooled me for a few minutes... It's a shame too. The acting was OK most of the time, the photography is good, the special effects are really decent, and the only thing lacking was a coherent plot that would make sense. The end is *really* incomprehensible and it looks as though it's a pilot movie for a series or something. Not worth watching unless you're really into this stuff.


I will not write anything about the plot here at all.

I think this movie has it's flaws. The budget seems low and the cast is far from excellent.

However, I think the movie is kind of great. The story is a mix of a lot of movies like Alien, Predator and 2001 for instance. But they did a good job with what they had on this movie and I really liked it.

Keep an open mind about actors and budget and you will have a good time. They managed to create a mysterious mood through out the whole thing. One thing that strikes me is that they probably had big problems but still managed to get some of the strange mood you get from the movie "2001".


If not for the special effects and the sets, I would have given this movie not a 3 but a 1. There's hardly any explanation what the story or the plot are about. I have seen the whole movie and I really have no clue why this movie was made. Or what this movie was about.

Weird combination of plot less Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, Star Wars, Galaxy Quest, Stargate, Starship Orion, Starship Troopers and a whole lot of other space opera with space fights, silly uniforms, actors who have no idea what role they are supposed to be playing or what the texts mean they are saying. Technobabble galore... (even the subsonic).

The end was weird, was it an end? What happened there? It was a clueless ending. One thing was clear though: it was supposed to be followed by a TV series. I'm glad it wasn't.

I lost 85 minutes of my life. No idea why I did that.


Recap: A military outpost from earth are attacked without warning by a mysterious and previously unknown enemy. The humans weapons are totally ineffective against this enemy and they must flee. Fortunately a disrespected scientist appears at the last moment picking up the refugees. During their flight they head out to a set of mysterious coordinates that might hold some answers to the attack. Suddenly they experience a jump and end up on an ice planet, way beyond all of known space.

Comments: A bold attempt to make a space opera sci-fi movie, but it fails completely. The effects are not at all up to the task, but not everyone can have a big budget and the effects don't really annoy me. Not when the story is a complete mess and can only be regarded as an embarrassing failure. And with the script and story you can't blame on a little budget, a good story is a good story however the amount of money you put into it. And by the same token, no amount of money can save a poor story.

The story is a incoherent mess. The best description I could give is that it feels like someone has mixed up the pieces of at least five different jigsaw puzzles and then pulls pieces by random. Different scenes after each other more often than not doesn't really connect to each other, it seems like something totally unexplainable or unmotivated seems to happen in some vain attempt to connect them. And in some cases they director simply seem to give up and fades to black, completely resets the story and starts on another thread.

There are numerous different substories, none of which are really resolved. And it is no small questions that each story puts forth, it is aliens, it is the attack, who is the enemy and why did they attack, it is aliens that appear to be able to shift between energy and matter and possess humans, and why do a mysterious tree/computer know ancient Sumerian? Not even the cast seem to be convinced or even aware of what they are acting, in some ways I feel for them. When the writer's poor imagination seem to fizzle some characters just stand around and scream, totally pointlessly. But I'm not even sure that is what annoys me most. It might be the snowboarding, equally lost, American natives that appears on the distant planet mid through the movie, and then just as quickly disappears again. It might be the Han Solo-rip off that completely fails or the energy-being (or whatever it is) that appears like the mother of all Deus Ex Machinas and defeats the enemy by screaming at them. Or it might be that after suffering through the incoherent mess it doesn't even end properly, just with a quote that so begun the Ice Planet Archives.

What I try to say is that this was a miserable attempt of making a sci-fi movie. The effects and props where not bad, actually quite decent, but the story is just a little more comprehensive than a mad man's ramblings. Make sure you're getting paid to watch this.

2/10


Yes, indeed, the acting is abominable and some of the characters are corny, and some of the takes take the speed out of the proceedings.... yes, this is all true, BUT:

The handful of clues (hopefully not RED herrings) strewn throughout the movie gave me the hope that this one - at last - would be the dreamed SciFi movie to top all other movies in the field of such intriguing questions as:

"Where does mankind come from?" And WHY? "are there others out there in the vast universe?" "Do we - both individually and as mankind - have a mission to

complete, and - if so - what is it?" "will all questions mankind ever had be answered someday?"

I would like to know more about Ice Planet and of course I have a burning question: "will this movie ever be followed up by a complete series?"

If anyone knows more about it, please, answer.


Well, not probably, but surely the WORST movie EVER! I can't believe it. The thought of people paying to see this piece of crap sends a chill down my spine... The story is, well, lame, about the race that threatens the human kind, and the chosen few who save the day. The special effects look cheap (I personally think that the special effects in this movie were created using MS PAINT... They couldn't be worth more than 20$),not to mention that the actors' performance is weak.

Don't do make the same mistake I made. If you have to choose between seeing this movie, and stapling your eye lids to a rally car, staple your eye lids...


Well that about says it all. I couldn't agree more with the other commentators on this movie. After watching it for 10 minutes the first thought of pressing the "STOP" button on the remote was triggered.

But being a big SCI-FI buff and not wanting to jump to conclusions after the first minutes of viewing I decided to show mercy and watched it to the end, thinking it might become better as it went along.

Big mistake..

It didn't got better. After the ending I had absolutely no idea what this "movie" was about. The characters are as thin as cardboard and the storyline.. Well, if any of you figure it out feel free to drop me a line.

On second thought let's forget about this movie and speak of it no more.

<Conclusion>

Don't:

A) waste your money buying it.

B) waste your time watching it, and

C) don't say I didn't warn you...

I thought I could digest just about any SF movie, until Ice Planet came along.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen...I didn't know at the end if I had to be angry or to cry for my time spent watching it.The scenary is bad,the actors sucks and the special effects are pathetic.If you really want to watch it you need a brain control.


If you don't have anything to do and you really love to see bad movies without a red line. Well I still wouldn't recommend this. Some movies are so bad that you can laugh at them. But this is so bad you'd probably be more likely to become a serial killer before likening this movie. this is a movie that has OK effects which is sad on such a bad movie. I think it's a waste of space in the video-stores..

Sh*t-planet is a more soothing name for this so called movie.. I would probably recommend it to my wurst enemy...

What ever you do don't watch this movie.. it's not only the wurst Science fiction ever seen it's also the wurst movie ever...


Oh my God! I have never seen anything like this before. The actors are the best thing about this movie - and they perform like high school kids on too much caffeine. The plot is quaint and dosn't really lead anywhere. The whole movie progresses slowly with lots of pointless chit chat and keeps feeding the viewer with questions without ever providing any answers. Big parts of the story makes no sense and seem to be there only to show off special effects - which BTW would seem outdated 15 years ago. This movie is a complete and utter waste of time!


OK, I've seen some doosies in my time, but this one is pretty bad. Continuity is apparently a foreign concept to this writer/director duo. I understood "The Wall" and "Pulp Fiction" right off the hop. Discontinuity was a good tool used in an expert fashion in both those films. This movie however just seems to have randomly placed cuts in which the DVD seems to be faulty and just randomly skips ahead.

The characters have zero depth. You might as well entertain yourself with sock puppets, you'll get more out of it. We spend time with one actor in the finale as he cries over the loss of his son. I had to ask myself, where did he come from and did the camera even land on his son once? Why the play to feel for him? There's no attachment here... just very poor acting.

The good stuff... hmm...Let me see:

Well, I didn't pay to watch it. I stuck it out to the end just to see how bad it would be.

Perhaps if the story was written by a different writer and was spread out over a few good novels, it would be decent.... but it isn't.

Just avoid this one folks, this is fair warning. If you're looking for little known good science fiction you haven't already seen, try "The Quiet Earth" instead.


This was bad. Really bad. Extremely bad. Let's start with the most important element of any movie: the plot. Or actually, the lack of any. If anyone sees the plot, please return it to the filmmakers. Questions... questions... where are the answers? Isn't a movie supposed to give at least one answer? Ah wel... The SFX. Now those were quite good, for a B-movie. Don't really have to complain about those (except perhaps the use, which they don't have) The actors. This movie was poorly acted, the characters stayed as flat as can be. But hey, there was no room for character development, they had to move the 'story' along! The overall feel. If you watch the first three minutes and feel like pushing the 'stop'-button, do it. You won't regret it.

So, my conclusion: a one-way ticket to the trashbin for Ice Planet.


The 44 hour long episodes (all in B&W) of the adventure series "Riverboat" ran from 1959- 1961 on NBC. If you wanted to see a lot of boats in those days your choices were "Tugboat Annie" and "Riverboat".

Set in the 1840's, the title character is "The Enterprise" (a pre-Star Trek version), a 100-foot paddle wheel steamer on the Mississippi River. The Captain is Grey Holden (Darren McGavin) who won the boat in a poker game. Bert Reynolds, fresh off the Florida State University football team, plays the ship's pilot Ben Frazier. Apparently their work together on this series made McGavin and Reynolds lifelong enemies and poor Burt was replaced by Noah Berry (Rockford's dad and Davy Crockett's sidekick) after the first season.

The 15 episodes on this DVD release (which is viewable but not of great quality) are a mix of the two seasons and have some notable guest stars. Each episodes title, original air-date, summary, and notable guest star(s) are detailed below.

Season #1

A Race to Cincinnati: 4 October 1959 Three ruthless men try to block the Enterprise's path so a farmer's crop of peaches will spoil and he won't be able to make the last payment on a valuable plot of land (Anne Baxter). The Unwilling: 11 October 1959 Even though Dan Simpson (Eddie Albert) lost his last cargo, he refuses to give up his dream of building a general store in the West. The river pirates that made $20,000 stealing his merchandise the first time are planning to stage another robbery, in spite of Ben Frazer's precautions (Debra Paget). The Fight Back: 18 October 1959 Seeking cargo for his riverboat, Captain Holden docks in the town of Hampton and discovers that Fowler, the town boss, won't allow the farmers to ship their crops. Desperate for work, Holden agrees to host the wedding of a local townsman. When Fowler's brother dies trying to kill the groom, the boss leads a lynch mob against Holden and his ship John Ireland, Joan O'Brien). Escape to Memphis: 25 October 1959 A woman (Jeanne Crain) kills her brutal husband (Claude Akins) in self-defense and flees her plantation, with the husband's ne'er- do-well brother in pursuit. She takes passage on the Enterprise and meets with an unscrupulous man who has stolen a fortune from his wife and wishes an accomplice to help him evade police pursuit. Witness No EvilA Night at Trapper's Landing: 8 November 1959 The U.S. Army plans to commandeer The Enterprise to launch a punitive expedition against the Indians and avenge the loss of Lieutenant Devereaux (Ricardo Montalban) and his men. Frazer tries to convince the army brass that the local Indian agent and his men are the cause of the Indian uprising. The Boy from Pittsburgh: 29 November 1959 Holden agrees to ship a box full of valuable diamonds, not realizing a pickpocket has already switched the box with the real stones for worthless paste. Complicating matters are a beautiful widow and a young stowaway who wants to become a riverboat pilot. The Blowup: 17 January 1960 A woman (Whitney Blake) with a load of unstable, experimental, gunpowder connives to draw Holden and his men into a barroom brawl and then agrees to bail out the entire crew from jail if the captain will agree to ship her volatile cargo to her father's diamond mine. Path of the Eagle: 1 February 1960 A wealthy but inexperience party of pioneers (Dianne Foster) hire Captain Holden to transport them to Independence, Missouri, so they can join a wagon train for California. One of the group's organizers connives with river pirates to hijack the riverboat and rob the party before they can reach their destination. The Fight at New Canal: 22 February 1960 Charged with building an canal that would shorten the river voyage and avoid rapids, Captain Holden runs into murderous opposition from the freight and stagecoach line that hauls cargo and passengers along the proposed route (Jean Allison). Fort Epitaph: 7 March 1960 In the absence of Captain Holden, Captain Brad Turner takes a cargo of military supplies to an outpost on the Little Missouri River - in the middle of Sioux country and must use the cannon he is delivering to disperse an Indian attack. He discovers the once peaceful Indians have been driven to the warpath by the actions of the fort's commander - a martinet who commandeers "The Enterprise" and its crew to fight the Sioux. The Quick Noose: 11 April 1960 Someone has stabbed the son of Judge Wingate in the back with Carney's knife and unless Captain Holden can find the real murderer, Carney will hang for the crime (Nan Leslie).

Season #2

The Two Faces of Grey Holden: 3 October 1960When a pretty Cajun girl (Suzanne Pleshette) catches Captain Holden's eye, he's naturally interested in a bit of romance, until he learns that the young lady thinks he is her fiancée, who was killed in a riverboat explosion over a year before. Trunk Full of Dreams: 31 October 1960 Captain Holden fishes a pair of actors out of the river and soon the Enterprise is fitting out to become a floating theater (Mary Tyler Moore). Devil in Skirts: 21 November 1960 Knowing Holden is desperate for a cargo, Colonel Ashley offers a profitable load if the Captain of the Enterprise will agree to take along a woman (Gloria Talbott) his son is smitten with. Listen to the Nightingale: 2 January 1961 Desperate for passengers, Holden and Blake agree to transport an opera singer and her musicians (DeForest Kelley) to New Orleans for a share of her concerts' gate receipts.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


This was a very good series. In each town the riverboat stopped in, some little drama would take place, with crew members getting involved in the local intrigue. The plots were always watchable and interesting, with occasional but excellent humor, and the acting was first rate. Darren McGavin was dashing as the captain (think Kolchak minus fifteen years).

Darren McGavin was the star of this series. Yet, on his page, he's credited with being in one episode, and on this page appears not at all. IMDb's television series pages used to be pretty accurate, now a lot of stars show as limited guests on their own shows. What happened?


I have introduced this movie to many of my friends, as it seems no one has really seen it, or heard of it, but it is truly Wonderful and whenever I get anyone to watch they always agree.

A beautiful, bittersweet look at those touching, heart wrenching times in the 40's as the war was beginning and so many young men willingly went to trenches. I love the setting, California along the pacific coast, such extraordinary scenery. Sean Penn in this movie changed the way I looked at him, I realized his depth and sensitivity here. I have loved him ever since.

I have always loved anything about the 40's and this movie offers it up in spades. From the movie theaters, the roller rink, the side jobs every one had,to the shoes Caddie desires, this movie really captures that era. The bowling alley is priceless. Nicholas Cage does an incredible job here, much more so than the overblown, self-conscious acting he acquires later.

Movies I really like all have one thing in common, details. All the little details and extra touches in this movie make it special. From the pool room scene (nerve-racking) to the abortion scene to the treasure map scene, there are so many wonderful moments in this movie I am astonished it did not get more recognition. But I am a fan of movies that move slow and allow you to absorb the characters and background and plot. I hate car chases and fight scenes.

This movie is about people and emotion and feeling and should be a must see for those who care about those sorts of things.