This low budget video snoozer is from the famous director, Ito, an inhabitant of Northern Wisconsin. It's starts out as some sort of winter in the wilderness movie. But things are going bad, occasional spurts over the radio talk about UFOs and diseases. The three guest of a backwood brother-sister duo, Jake and Kate, are scientists investigating...., what? We don't know, strange for a movie consisting of so much talk. We see a diseased man run across the runway, driving off Jake's bush plane. So he lands at a nearby lodge, laid up for the winter, but no gas there. While on the ground, another plane flies over-head, and in a stock sound effect and gasps, we learn that plain crashes. Two of the scientists are so blasé they would rather hang around the lodge and play with the ham radio than check out the crash and maybe save someone's life. There they see the mysterious red light, which is the aliens or something, besides a creepy echo effected radio voice asking leading questions which must be aliens.

So we hear a lot of speculation about this plague, invasion. Occasionally they cut to a TV studio with some locals telling the audience about their UFO encounter. More creepiness, young lovers watching this late night 70's talk show dreck suddenly disappear, kazaam!! Topping off the random cuts from the stranded group is the invasion of Tomahawk by the aliens, meaning about 50 odd friends and family running amok on the streets through red smoke generated by smoke bombs with the towns old fire trucks and AMC Ambassador police car going here and there. For clinchers, there is a couple UFOs that are grade school art projects at best.

Meanwhile, our team of four guys and the lady decline to three as one of the scientists steals the plane but crashes as the red light gets him. Then Jake, our outdoors man, tries to make it to town on the snow mobile but the red smoke bomb gets him cold. Finally, the remaining three trek back to town on foot, they are running out of food and there is no game to hunt. They get separated, one of them freezes, the last two get re-united, in a juvenile Adam and Eve motif that would make you wretch.

This is definitely a Mystery Science Theater 3K film. There is no action or much of a plot and the cut away shots to the rest of the world just add to the confusion. In the last act, out in the cold around a limpid campfire, the wiseacre Scientist reveals the whole mystery concerning Martians burrowing under the earth. You see Mars and Earth were once next door neighbors so the Martians made it to earth, burrowed underground for millenia. So why now, why the plague? How did they get the saucers out of the ground? How did he derive the hypotheses, based on meager data he gleaned from the shortwave? Who knows?


I bought this movie for 99 cents, hoping that it might provide some entertainment to get drunk to. But it wasn't funny, just boring. So, rather than partying the night away with cheap-o aliens, my friends and I mostly just fell asleep.

I stayed awake through all of it, but man was it painful. I don't think anything actually happens in it. All I remember is a bunch of confused guys in a cabin, some echoey voices on the radio (that I think are aliens), some red lights, and at the end everyone falls asleep in the snow (much like my friends, but without the snow).

This movie sucks so much.


A couple of people are trapped in a log cabin during an alien invasion of the Earth. They communicate with the unseen aliens and gradually make it back to civilization after much discussion. Every cliche in the book is used, and the low budget assures terrible special effects. Bad all around. Made in someone's back yard in Wisconsin.


Okay, most of the film is pretty boring: people sitting around in a cabin, listening to an alian invasion, nothing much happening in terms of group dynamics. Special effects are beyond belief. That's something that would not have happened to Ed Wood, he would have made an awful film on the same budget but with much better special effects. However, the film does have its redeeming features. The idea of having radio/TV stations still running while earth is being taken over clearly influenced Romero in Dawn of the Dead. Some dialogue is reasonably funny and some shots are pretty atmospheric. like the deserted airport in the beginning. The final scene is really funny, the last survivors turn into Adam and Eve in a completely over the top scene, and it's not the hunk but the nerd who gets the girls. That's funny. However, the music takes the biscuit. The theme tune is a rip off of The Good, the bad and the Ugly and no one except for the great Ed Wood in Jail Bait has ever used music so completely clueless. 20 or 30 minutes less and the film would have been acceptable.


Once upon a time, I naively believed that a film could be THE WORST simply by its own dubious merit. Years of hearing people describe "Seven Mummies" or "House of the Dead" as THE WORST eventually changed my mind... these are notably bad movies, but are enjoyable enough despite/because of this, and thus cannot possibly be THE WORST. 'No,' I reasoned, 'a movie can only truly be called THE WORST by disappointing its audience. The many sub-subpar giallo attempts must truly be THE WORST for offering a glimmer of tasty material, tricking us with what seems like a tense build-up, and finally, cruelly, robbing us of any payoff.' This philosophy carried me through many a night of terrible-movie-watching.

Then... I saw "THEY".

I had no expectation, unlike my viewings of "Kill, Baby, Kill" or "Silent Night, Bloody Night." Had I been less than entertained, I would have thought nothing of it. I received the movie as part of a 50-movie pack (from Mill Creek) and only put it on to pass the time.

And yet, something happened.

Aside from the plot and effects there was nothing overtly laughable about this movie. The acting was far from the worst I've seen, and the locations were believable if a bit cheap. Nothing immediately sparked my interest (aside from a mention of "bizarre creatures" in the DVD blurb) nor pointed out that this movie would be shockingly, horrifying dull. But this was far from Middle Of The Road bad. It was abysmal. It both terrified and sedated me. I suppose many could have slept through this, saving themselves the trouble of figuring out why such apparently total devastation resulted from such minor vandalism (perpetrated by such teensy, frail saucers). Only the bearded hippie's mind-scrambling "logic" kept me awake long enough to witness the utterly flabbergasting ending. A few questions remain: -What was that light? -What caused the humorous loss of motor control exhibited by various character? -Where was Eric crawling to for half an hour? -Why did God not mercifully strike me down before witnessing the last minute? -Who--dear god, WHO would fund this??

I've been enlightened. This is THE WORST movie I have ever seen, despite my lack of expectations. I'm infected with rage at how bad it was. My girlfriend is literally showing symptoms of poisoning. Even a Torgo couldn't salvage this boring, sniveling, half-assed, hick/hippie-oriented sack of filth.

Goonfactor: practically nonexistent, spiking to extremely high in the last ten seconds.


The very opening shots of They, aka Invasion from Inner Earth, aka The Selected, aka Hell Fire, aka your mama (well, not the last one), has lots of people running around, apocalypse raging. This is obviously from another movie, as the producers of the film rarely have enough of a budget for Wonder bread inbetween the takes for the actors much less staging a big epic cluster-f***. Right after these shots, which look made for a promising movie it cuts to the Wisconsin (or Canadadian?) wilderness, where some guys are flying in a plane. But there's also a crazy guy flying a plane who crashes in the woods. The four guys see this and investigate. But there's more than they bargained for: all communication with the outside world is cut-off, except to a pretty girl with a radio in her cabin one of the guy's knows. Then a red light coming out of a flashlight is buzzing around the room- the alien, of course- and now there are ominous callings on the radio.

Spooky? Moreover inept, really, though it's not without a certain allotment of watchability (unless it's late at night, which might make it a good movie to fall asleep to, or to fool around with the significant other). But it's also so cheaply shot that anything that could possibly be in the script is obfuscated by the meandering take of the material. 'We need aliens' should've been as a protest on t-shirts during the making of the film! Instead it's done in a style that elimintates the middle-man, or middle-martian, so that Ito (yes, a director called Ito, who in reality directed one of the worst films ever Monster-a-go-go) can get many shots of outside in the wilderness and so-so scripted fighting in the cabin. I don't even remember if I made it all the way through to the end. Looks like They don't get very far with this stuff- the filmmakers, I mean. At least the stock music is cool.


It's amazing how often the words 'god-awful' appear in the reviews of this movie - er - on second thoughts, no it isn't. This really is a god-awful movie and the most god-awful part of it - eclipsing the non-script, the non-acting and the execrable un-special effects, is the incredible amount of really bloody awful music in this movie. The soundtrack is a masterpiece of incoherence ranging from tinny renditions of what sounded suspiciously like Morricone's 'The Good The Bad and The Ugly' theme played on a Stylophone to mellow Spanish guitar music, to 10 second loops of synthesised rock - ALL IN THE SAME SCENE! This isn't a soundtrack to a movie. It's a John Cage concert.


invasion of inner earth also known as;they is a extremely bad science fiction movie.we don't see any aliens or flying saucers,not even a pie plate on a string nothing,its a exercise in tedium,but the music on the soundtrack is OK.there are killer flashlight beams however.i don't get it what was directer bill rebane thinking?even the giant spider invasion was entertaining even if it was crappy.and there's no well known actors in this film.is it worth watching?i would have to say no unless you really want to be bored to death.the title does sound promising but really does'nt deliver.this is about 90 minutes ill never get back.but if you like bad dull boring movies then invasion from inner earth is for you,shame on you bill rebane.1 out of 10 awful!


do not watch unless under the influence of strong alcohol......just kidding.....an awful movie worthy of cult classic/torture status. The special effects, were not so special. Smoke bombs in the snow, visible strings on the flying saucers. The dialog was capable of inducing a coma in the unsuspecting. Usuually in this kind of budget flick there is at least some gratuitous nudity. Not in this one. The mysterious aliens, were just a backdrop for bad flannel shirts and cheesy actors trying to look Canadian, but failing miserably. Besides.. Canadians, don't look any certain way, unless they are the mounties. (i guess)I may have missed some of the finer points of the plot, due to lapsing in and out of a stupor-us coma, and scaring my family in the process. If a structureless plot and cruddy cheesball acting are your thing.....give it a go!!!


Unfortunately is is often overlooked in the competition because it's not as much fun to watch as MANOS or PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE but honest, believe me, you won't fail to be disappointed if you watch this. From an alien presence which is, unapologetically, a red flashlight beam sliding across the wall, to the end of the entire world told from the point of view of a single remote cabin in the Canadian woods, to the SPACE ODDESSEY-influenced ending involving a non-sequiter image of naked children frolicking in a meadow, this movie will rock your world. And possibly, tip it over.

Plus there is the amazing disregard of normal attention spans - this plays like an editor's worst nightmare. You can learn a lot about movie-making from watching this movie closely. I think you know what I mean.


Ok, this goes out to my friend Lou who said, "Hey, let's rent this and see if it's really as bad as it looks".

Lou, it was worse.

Good God, I've rarely seen a piece of crap this poorly written; and what was with that ending? Without saying too much, let me comment that the psychodelic tunnel ride in "2001: A Space Odyssey" made much more sense and could even be called "coherant" by comparisson.

Basically, the story is about a guy who looks like "Shaggy" from Scooby Doo, his two friends "Ed Grimly" and "Whiney-Boy", and their hosts in a winter retreat in Manitoba (read someone's hick town in Wisconsin) as they happen to miss out on a smoke-bomb and red-flashlight invasion that eventually catches up with them anyway.

They run around in the wintery woods, get frostbite, vanish one-by-one from a mysterious disease that disintegrates their bodies. Then, the movie ends. For no aparant reason.

AAAAARRRRGH!


The box art for this movie says it all. On the cover are two people (who are not in the movie) in ski gear (which is never seen) looking up at a pink model of the Starship Enterprise (do I *really* need to comment on this?).

The movie is a slogging morass of nonacting that has no real plot, coherence, or semblance of intelligence. Not quite as action-packed as _Manos: The Hands of Fate_, the movie centers around a group of people in a remote cabin who don't know what to do when they get word of some sort of plague (FX supplied by Red Devil red smokeballs) striking the rest of the planet. oddly, the rest of the planet deals with this plague with an odd sort of indifference, punctuated by people running down a street with smoke pots going off around them.

Stuck in the cabin, the people wonder what to do, talk to a mysterious voice on the radio, and disappear one by one. At last, two remain, and stagger into the now-abandoned snow-covered town, and are replaced by two scantily-clad children walking through a spring field.

Now you know what the movie's about, there's no need to suffer through it.


I accomplished my goal for this semester, I have found a movie which is absolutely god awful compared to everything else I have ever seen.

Troll 2, Space Mutiny, Hobgoblins,The Eye Creatures, Night of the Demons, Bogus Witch Project, C.H.U.D 2, Sleepaway Camp, Ghoulies, The Prey, Ghost House, Plan 10....I have seen all of these films and more that I can't remember but NONE come even close to this level of pure trash cinema.

The cover gave it away, an oversized box with a bad drawing of a monster and no description of the movie on the back whatsoever. With a one word title to boot, They. It took me a while to find this movie here on the IMDB.

The film starts out with people talking about a disease that is killing everyone on the planet. You see footage of people running around, then it cuts to a man walking to a cabin, he talks to his sister blah blah. Then the group lands at an airport after someone warns them not too and disappears.

The next hour of the movie is these people sitting in a cabin talking with random images spliced in here and there. The characters look like a bunch of hippies that got bored and decided it would be fun to make a movie.

The "action" sequences are just a plane flying and a guy riding a snowmachine. When the guy rides the snowmachine the music track cuts out for 5 seconds then just loops back to the beginning, several times bad editing makes peoples heads jerk around.

I have yet to watch Manos : The Hands of Fate, that flick is next on my list but unless you want to brag that you have seen the worst movie in existence do NOT watch this, its a real character building flick.

Oh yeah, there is one thing I can't understand, who in their right mind decided to order this film then stock it for rental? Yeesh.


I'm the other bad-movie-loving friend EBA mentioned in his review of this natural disaster of a movie.

He didn't do it justice. Not for lack of trying; it's easily at least as horrid as he makes it out to be, but there's just no way to make it sound as horrible as it really is. He's right when he says that there's no good way to convey through language how abominably bad the movie is. It's the rental video equivalent of the "Ancient Evils" Lovecraft wrote about: it's horrible beyond your imagination, and thus beyond your ability to conceptualize.

I think the portions of my memory pertaining to this film have erased themselves, in a subconscious effort by my mind to stay sane.


This is an excruciatingly bad Sci-Fi film, that's laughably amateurish and cheap, with an extremely dull story, and god awful performances. All the characters are simply awful, and it looks like this was made by a bunch of film fans in someone's back yard, plus This isn't even good in a so bad it's good way. The dialog is wretched,as one of my favorite lines includes "I wonder what Mrs. Murphy's been putting in her chowder", and I thought this was incredibly poorly made and written as well, plus the effects are really laughable. I'm sure the people that made this had a ball filming this, however It's most likely going to be a painful experience for everyone else, and the ending is terrible as well, as it made no sense, plus It was really hard to pay attention because it was so bad, and incredibly dull. I got this in a DVD Horror set called A Taste Of Evil, along with a bunch of other Horror films, and even people who love bad movies will be bored with this one, plus this should be a bottom 100 contender on IMDb. This is an excruciatingly bad Sci-Fi film, that's laughably amateurish and cheap, with an extremely dull story, and god awful performances, and I say Avoid it like the plague, it's not worth the torture. The Directiion is atrocious, one of the worst directing jobs ever. Bill Rebane does an atrocious job here with inept camera work, terrible angles, making everything look cheap and amateurish, and keeping the film extremely dull throughout. The Acting isn't even worth mentioning as it's simply abysmal. Overall avoid it like the plague!. BOMB out of 5


I have, over the years, seen a great many god-awful flix, in pursuit of guilty pleasures and merriment. Like many reviewers here, I have also been a great fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000, being very grateful that they did the work of scouring film libraries for the dregs of the cinema, so I didn't have to. Like many reviewers, I thought that "Manos, The Hands of Fate" would stand for all time as the worst movie I've ever seen, or would be likely to. But no. Incredibly, this film makes "Manos" look well structured and edited. "Invasion from Inner Earth" has all the shortcomings of Bill Rebane's other, better known films like "Giant Spider Invasion" and "Monster a Go-Go" and more, in spades. And for anyone who is worried about a spoiler being present in my review, you needn't be. There is nothing to spoil. There is no plot. This movie is drunk. It is delirious on a bad acid trip; it is stoned out of its mind. No one watching could possibly make heads or tails out of it; I sure couldn't. The parts that didn't bore me confused the hell out of me. The thing I can't understand (apart from every bit of the film itself) is that anyone, having seen one of Bill Rebane's movies, would have given him money to make any more. But apparently he's done quite a few. In conclusion let me just say directly to Mr. Rebane, "I want back all the brain cells your wretched little epic killed in me." On the other hand, maybe it would be beneficial if as many people as possible saw this train wreck masquerading as cinema. Then a great cry would arise from the land for the resurrection of Mystery Science Theater 3000!


Its been a while since I saw a movie that infuriated me like this one. I cannot believe I actually paid for this piece of junk.

About an hour into the movie l couldn't figure out whether it was a bad comedy or horror movie. And I was also certain that the writers had never seen the original night of the demons. The demons don't crack stupid jokes in the first movie, did the writers think they were being funny or original? It wasn't either of those things. If they wanted to make a comedy or spoof then that's what they should of done, and not ruin what could of potentially been a long running franchise. At this point I would gladly give this movie away.

What's harder to believe than how bad this movie was, is the fact that there's a third night of the demons, meaning that this sorry excuse for a movie actually made money.


BwaaaaaaaahhhhhhahahahahahahahaAHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I think that about sums it up. What a trite, pedestrian, ludicrous POS. Might be inspiring for upcoming make-up effects artists, because it's the one thing this stupid movie manages to get right.

Starring your high-school drama teacher as Angela, a demon gently blossoming into middle age.

Featuring stupid characters, including: a perpetually annoyed priest who doesn't allow anyone to complete a sentence while speaking to him; a dry-boxed old penguin who morphs from cheerless octogenarian virgin to yardstick-wielding commando an hour in; mean girls who are also dumb sluts; mullets; tawdry demonology; bad boys time-warped in from the '80s; and a thoroughly despicable wuss-boy hero.

At least Morbid Angel is on the soundtrack, although their music rocks far too hard for this movie.

Watch it for a good laugh.


With a slightly better script, a slightly better cast and a slightly better director (Brian Trenchard-Smith), 'Night of the Demons 2' is an improvement on the lamentable original; but only slightly.

As in the first movie, a bunch of teens visit a possessed house on Halloween and become victims of the nasty spirit that dwells within. A plucky nun and a boy with a knowledge of demonology, armed with holy-water filled super-soakers and balloons, set out to destroy the evil. Also, like the first film, the action takes a good 45 minutes to get going.

Steve Johnson, who provided the gore effects in the first film, also does the make-up FX for this one, and he does a pretty good job; particularly impressive moments include a woman's tits transforming into demon hands and a wonderful snake creature with a huge lashing tail.

And whilst we're on the subject of impressive moments, let's not forget that the film has more than its fair share of hot babes who shed their clothes at every available opportunity. If you're a red-blooded male, and find yourself tiring of the so-so horror content, then the ample charms of Cristi Harris, Christine Taylor and Zoe Trilling should put a smile on your face.


I had to watch this film with a horror-obsessed friend for over one-and-half hours and I think I've seen some of the most nauseating scenes in this film recently. A possessed character's bare breasts turned into two hands and attacked her boyfriend -- I will remember that for a long time.

The film has no storyline, no good actor (although as far as I can tell, Ben Stiller's wife is in it), no horrifying atmosphere or even a decent screenplay. It only has some innovative (yes, indeed) demonic behavior scenes which fans of such movies like my friend might enjoy. I didn't see the prequel, so cannot compare.


Despite being centred around English characters and attitudes and comprising mainly British actors, this off-beat film is set and filmed in Denmark which gives it an intriguing air of quirkiness. The film maintains interest, even if the main character is too prone to making lengthy theatrical speeches. Ultimately though, the film does not satisfy because whatever message the film is putting across is too obscure.

Technically the film is a bit disappointing. Scenes do not flow well and the dialogue sounds as if it was almost entirely post-dubbed (not surprising because the film was shot mainly on location in pouring rain). Other than interior scenes, the dialogue has an unpleasant "dead" studio sound.

Roman Polanski's script has similarities with the dialogue contained in some of his other off-beat films such as Knife in the Water, Cul-de-sac but the direction, by Simon Hesera, lacks the sort of flair and style which Polanski always brings to his films.


"Old School" director Todd Phillips lampoons every cop movie convention and cliché in his new action comedy "Starsky & Hutch," an amusing but anemic annihilation of the tough-minded, 1970s-era, buddy-themed, crime busters television series that paved the way for shows like "Miami Vice." Comedian Ben Stiller of "Meet the Parents" recreates the Paul Michael Glaser role as Det. Dave Starsky, while Owen Wilson of "The Big Bounce" updates the David Soul character Det. Ken Hutchinson. Mind you, Stiller is usually a stellar comic, but his exaggerated, hyperactive performance here is far too epileptic to be palatable. He resembles an anorexic Lou Ferrigno, and he behaves as if he wandered in from another movie. Meanwhile, Owen Wilson plays his usual laid-back slacker self. Wilson goes for comparative subtlety. Sadly, "S & H" lacks any shred of subtlety. What Phillips and co-scenarists John O'Brien of "Cradle 2 The Grave" and Scot Armstrong, who co-scripted "Old School" and "Road Trip" with Phillips, have done to TV's "Starsky and Hutch" is not nearly as appalling as what director Barry Sonnenfeld did to TV's "The Wild Wild West" with his "Wild Wild West." Sadly, this sacrilegious law & order spoof is horrendous enough as it is.

"Starsky & Hutch" TV show fans will feel insulted and humiliated by this contemptible makeover of a venerable series. Phillips & company stand the action formula on its head, pull its pants down, and turn our heroes into moronic misfits. "S & H" shares more in common with the Village People than a straight-up and serious TV cops & robbers show. People who never saw TV's "Starsky and Hutch" may find it easier to laugh at our heroes' buffoonish behavior. Phillips scores points for his broad, imaginative comedy, but he devastates a popular show. Essentially, Phillips & company have ignored the basic rule of remakes: if it ain' t broke, don't fix it. Only Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear, Vince Vaughn as villainous Reese Feldman, and Fred Williamson's Captain Dobey emerge unscathed from this cretinous comedy.

"Starsky & Hutch" gets off on the right foot. Jewish businessman/cocaine dealer Reese Feldman (Vince Vaughn of "Clay Pigeons" with a bandit mustache) has a falling out with one of his accomplices over the loss of a coke consignment and a plane. Out of the blue, Feldman palms a pistol and blows a hole through the argumentative thug, sending him involuntarily backwards over the railing of his yacht and into the ocean. As the wily villain, Feldman has altered the chemical formula of cocaine so drug-sniffing German Sheppard dogs cannot catch any incriminating whiffs from the narcotics. Further, this new cocaine is tasteless, which spins off a great gag with Starsky stirring it into his coffee as if it were sugar. The clever running joke during the expository scene about the drug is the comparison of 'new' coke with 'old' coke. Feldman plans to sell consignments of his wonder drug to a syndicate of drug dealers.

Meanwhile, Bay City Police Captain Dobey (Frank Williamson of "Hammer") makes partners out of polar opposites who have virtually no credibility in the department. Detective Dave Starsky has an anger management problem and is prone to firing his pistol in public at the wrong times. He drives like a maniac and he busts citizens for the least infraction of the law. On the other hand, Detective Ken Hutchinson drop kicked his ethics long ago and moonlights as a robber who hits bookies. Predictably, these dynamic dudes have problems adjusting to each other's idiosyncrasies. One thing Hutch likes about Starsky, however, is his souped-up, red Ford Grand Torino in which they careen recklessly around the streets of Bay City. Anyway, our heroes find a floater who turns out to be the same guy Feldman gunned down on his yacht. (Indeed, Vaughn makes a more believable bad guy than our protagonists make heroes.) In the by-the-numbers, police procedural screenplay, Starsky and Hutch trace the floater back to Feldman. Initially, they have no luck with Feldman and follow another lead: the dragon designs on the corpse's jacket. This takes them to prison where they encounter Big Earl (an unaccredited Will Ferrell of "Elf" with a hair net) who fashioned the designs. Starsky and Hutch ply Big Earl for information, but he proves more an obstacle than they expected. Where the original "S&H" duo would have shattered the glass between them in the prison interview room and beaten him to a pulp, the new "Starsky and Hutch" adopt a different approach. No concession they offer the convict appeals to him, until he asks to ogle Hutch's belly button. Before it's all over, Starsky and Hutch are caught on prison surveillance cams performing "Dumb and Dumber" routines for Big Earl. Like so much of the comedy in "S & H," this scene tickles your funny bone. Unfortunately, it's in the wrong movie. Starsky and Hutch check in occasionally with their number one snitch: Huggy Bear (Snoop Dogg of "Baby Boy") and even persuade him to wear a wire and serve as Feldman's golf caddy in one scene. However, no matter what our heroes do to try and bust Feldman, they always wind up with egg on their face, to the point Capt. Dobey suspends them from the force.

Snoop Dog walks off with the show without breaking a sweat. The producers show greater reverence for his character than any other. The Ford Grand Torino gives a better performance than either lead. Another plus is the classic disco soundtrack with hits from the 70s such as "Afternoon Delight" and a send-up of David Soul's own "Don't Give Up On Us Baby." Altogether, while its boasts several funny scenes, this "Starsky & Hutch" remake doesn't amount to much.


This is one time where the TV series was much more enjoyable then the movie. Ben Stiller is overacting in almost every scene, Owen Wilson is better but not by much. You'd think we were in church with all the references to Jesus. My intelligence was offended when 'Starsky' drives his car, like a maniac, out into the public street does a couple of 'donuts' in front of other police cars and then does a 180º to pick up his new, unwanted, partner. Williams takes his role out of so many other police dramas with a combative chief and a questionable officer, much like Josef Sommer's role in 'Dirty Harry'. The disco dance off was stupid, the biker bar episode was stupid, the scene in the prison trying to get answers from 'Big Earl' was stupid and insulting. I could go on and on. I wonder why I watched the whole thing? The originals, P.M. Glazer and David Soul, made a nice final scene appearance but nothing could help this pathetic drivel, (3; To talk stupidly or childishly). Pretty much anything that Ben Stiller does is of this caliber. But this is just my opinion.


taking this legacy and making it into a movie was a horrible idea. usually the combo of Stiller and Wilson can pull any movie along. But this script was just to horrible. the only scene in the movie worthwhile was the one where the TV characters brought the new car to Stiller. Stiller plays a bunch of different type characters in his movies. This time he plays a hard edge cop that is scared. Wilson plays a con artist who holds a badge. It just doesn't work. These two men generally work well together, but not this time. Snoop plays a wonderful character though, he is the only one that works well in this. Vaughn plays a wonderful bad gay. Juliette Lewis adds some spice and edginess to it also. She generally plays either a crook or a crack whore, hence her roll in this movie. She has talent, would be nice to see her be able to use it once. Thank God this movie didn't do much so that a sequel will come around. The writers need to definitely try harder next time!


Watching this movie made me wonder if the people who made it ever bothered to watch a single episode of the original Starsky and Hutch. They did nothing but take the name (and the car) and paste in on a completely forgettable, witless and insipid little cop movie. Ben Stiller is especially yawn-inducing as Starsky, a character with no personality other than a tendency to whininess. Owen Wilson brings some slight color to his role, almost enough to qualify as a character. Together, they come off as nothing more than a couple of stupid losers driving around in a red Torino. There's not much reason for these two to be in this movie anyway, as it's nothing more than a barrage of failed comedy sketches.

The film offers a couple of chuckles, most notably when the big car jump at the end goes wrong, but it's hardly worth sitting through all the mundane characters and groan-inducing comedy to get to them. The best part - by far - is the '70s music; It at least offers a nice background to the tedium taking place on screen.

It would have been more accurate to title this movie "Dumb and Dumber - With A Badge" or perhaps "Police Academy 8: Cops Without A Clue". But of course, the marketing exec's probably found out that titling it "Starsky and Hutch" would bring in 17% more revenue, so there you go.


Saw a sneak preview of Starsky and Hutch Saturday night. With the talent involved - this should've been a whole lot funnier. Even the parts that are obviously meant to be the memorable comic moments mostly fall flat. How can you have a movie with Vince Vaughn as the main villain and it not be very funny?

This makes Zoolander look like a comic classic, which it certainly is not. An opportunity wasted. 4/10


This Starsky and Hutch caricature just doesn't work as a comedy (or as a caricature). It is off-kilter a few degrees in all respects. One of the many thoroughly forgettable films being churned out steadily these days. The film probably made money which is a non-tribute to the viewing public. The acting, directing, cinematography and editing are all mediocre at best. In a proper world all profits would be given to charity and the people involved would be horsewhipped for about ten minutes and sent off with a warning that the next time the punishment will be much worse. Being that this is not a proper world they will most likely buy a lot of coke and backpat each other around swimming pools.


I have a very good remembrance from the original series. I don't know if those remembers will be destroyed if I'd watch again an episode. But I had preferred the idea of David Soul than this horrible picture. Stiller and Wilson are two of the worst actors I ever watched in a picture. Maybe the first could be an acceptable Starsky, but the second made a very stupid Hutch. At last, this is a very good example about how to destroy a good idea. To tell you the truth, I think the film has many good points. Seventies background, for example, is good: cars, clothes, caracterization of support actors... But the big problem is Stiller and Wilson.


Misguided theatrical version of the hit TV series from the '70s, this "Starsky & Hutch" isn't well-equipped with the right materials to make it successful as updated nostalgia (it's just another brainless cop flick with comedic asides). One thing is certain, the tough-yet-tender-hearted TV cops never engaged in sexual shenanigans like this, nor did they ever freak out on cocaine (at a disco!). This film (with Hutch initially playing both sides of the law) is deliberately cheesy and does manage to get some details right, but it is also muddled, offensive, overlong, and not big on genuine laughs. Ben Stiller does commendable work, Snoop Dogg is good as Huggy Bear, but Owen Wilson is just winging it. It's hard to blame the actors anyway, street-tough crime fighters being way out of fashion. * from ****


I was very worried when I heard Ben Stiller was making this movie and my fears came true. His and Owen Wilson's portrayal of Starsky & Hutch is an insult to anyone who ever enjoyed the show. The weak and whining characters they created along with the sexual overtones they put into place between Starsky and Hutch ruined what could have been tremendous fun. Once again Ben Stiller has proved to be a one-trick pony without any real acting abilities. Owen Wilson has created some entertaining movies, however this certainly is not one of them. The best that Stiller and Wilson can claim is a reasonable physical resemblance to the original stars of the television series. The movie is made even worse with the terrible performance by Snopp Dog as "Huggy Bear". This movie once again proves that Hollywood can take a good budget, a good television show, and produce a waste of time.


This is terrible. One of the worst movies I think I have ever seen. It is bad in every possible way. The original series for its time was actually quite challenging, and exciting. Watching reruns on satellite, I am now enjoying it all over again, and I realise just exactly how awful this film is. One tiny bright spot, Snoop Dogg is a worthy successor to Antonio Vargas. However, the lame script lets him down badly. I expected better of Owen Wilson, but somehow this weak witted stuff is precisely Ben Stiller's level. One question I do have, do the script writers actually believe that shooting a child's pony dead in a garage is in any way amusing? It isn't.


This movie was the worst. There are no laughs to be found. The car stunts are horrible. What's with the animated birds during the cocaine scene? I mean, I loved Owen and Ben in Zoolander, but there is no chemistry and no humor to found in this anemic, poorly directed piece of garbage. If you found this funny, I'd go see the doctor to make sure you're not suffering from a massive brain tumor or a broken funny bone.

Also, if I have to see one more movie where Ben, Owen, Luke, Vince, and/or Will make another set of self-serving cameos, I'm gonna rip all my hair out. Please save yourself the pain and rent something else. Something funny.


I'd waited almost 30 years for this movie as a long time fan of the original series. What did I get, total drivel. I was really disappointed, when I heard that Stiller and Wilson were playing the lead roles, I would have preferred the original actors, even if they are both in their 60's. I'm sure the writers could have worked something out.

I found the movie insulting to the original series. Todd Phillips should have known better, seeing that he worked on the show in the 70's.

The best bit in the whole movie for me is the cameo appearance at the end by Glaser and Soul. Now that is definitely worth the wait.


STARSKY & HUTCH This couldn't have less to do with Starsky & Hutch. They could've named it H.R. Puffinstuff and I still would say it's more like Puffinstuff, in the sense that it makes no sense. Ben Stiller used any excuse he could to make a crime comedy in which he shoots a living, breathing animal. Starsky & Hutch just happened to be the part of the donkey Stiller pinned the tail on.

Speaking of being useless, how bout Snoop Dogg. Like in AOL and Blockbuster commercials, ESPN Football 2004, Racing Stripes, this, being an award show host and everything else he does, this movie doesn't fit him at all. He has no talents, and yet he is casted to do roles suited for pedestrians and other various people with no talent.

I've had a long standing grudge with Stiller ever since I was snubbed for the lead role in Heavyweights. The producers told me he made the final decision and said I was too good looking for the role. I agree with him, but it's called gaining weight for your role, and it's a commitment of acting Hilary Duff seems to be very good at.

VERDICT *1/2 out of ****


During its inauspicious four year run, the TV series "Starsky & Hutch" was never a huge hit; though it did land at an impressive number 15 in the Nielsen ratings its first year (1975-76), the numbers declined steadily thereafter. It was never a particularly good show and in the ensuing years it has never really had much of a cult following (except, maybe, among gay audiences who imagined more in the Starsky-Hutch relationship than was ever intended -- something immortalized in a Halloween episode of "Will & Grace"). Indeed, much of the success of the show could be attributed to the fact that the proverbial pair of mismatched cops it featured drove a tricked out Ford Gran Torino -- an otherwise uncool make of car which somehow became cool because it was given a remarkably ugly red-and-white paint job. Yet, neither particularly admired for its quality nor beloved for its unintentionally humorous mediocrity, the show has lingered in our consciousness, even as many that were far better and more original have faded into oblivion. Even so, it is hard to imagine that there was ever a great demand for it to be turned into a big screen movie.

It does, however, deserve some credit; the show did strive for a bit of grittiness in the style of THE FRENCH CONNECTION. In an era when most TV cop shows were slick and glib and sometimes striving for a touch of glamor, "Starsky & Hutch" moved around in a world of pimps and prostitutes, drug pushers and lowlifes. It tried to maintain a sense of realism, or at least what could pass as realism on network television in the 1970s. Therefore, just as there is no real reason for a Starsky & Hutch movie to exist, it is a further puzzlement that the one quality that gave the TV show any distinction or purpose, it's rough-edged quality, is the one thing the movie version immediately jettisoned.

The film is less about the series than it is about all the untold number of gritty buddy-cop films that have come and gone along the way, from FREEBIE AND THE BEAN to LETHAL WEAPON and even SEVEN. The movie also takes shots at the disco-dazed trendiness of the seventies, a quality that was also never a big part of the series. Thus, the humor in STARSKY & HUTCH is so generic and so broad that it jumps past satire and instead goes directly into parody, ending up little more than an extended version of the type of skits that "The Carol Burnett Show" used to stage. Without the trademark Gran Torino, the characters played by Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson could just as easily have been named Smith and Jones -- or Hope and Crosby. Indeed, the two characters' personas were deemed so inconsequential that essentially Stiller and Wilson opted to simply play themselves -- or at least dust off their well-used screen images -- rather than to even attempt to find something unique about the characters played by Paul Michael Glaser and David Soul on TV.

It may be just as well. But if the original series was so bereft of any distinctive element on which to hang a full length feature, then it only increases the pointlessness of the movie as a whole. Like so many TV-to-movie translations, the film has no real interest in the source material beyond exploiting its pre-sold title and recycling a few trademark bits of trivia as jokes -- like dragging in Glaser and Soul for self-mocking cameos. Otherwise, there's nothing in STARSKY & HUTCH that hadn't already been mocked, and with much greater skill and wit, by Emilio Estevez and Samuel L. Jackson in NATIONAL LAMPOON'S LOADED WEAPON 1, a comedy that had the sense to know that merely repeating clichés is not the same as making fun of them.


I'm a bit embarrassed that I even saw it, but I'll see just about anything, especially if I can see it in a theater. But I should have known! I hated Todd Phillips's Old School. It was sloppy in ever way possible. The guy knew neither how to direct nor write. But the commercials for this film made me laugh, and I love the chemistry between Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson; their bit at the Oscars last week cracked me up. But, damn, if Phillips didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is one of the worst directors in Hollywood right now. The guy has no clue how to construct a joke! If you don't trust me and need proof, then, please, do check out this piece of crap. There are any number of funny situations that are set up, but there is hardly ever pay-off, and the few times when Phillips does come through he doesn't come through nearly enough. For every laugh, and there is a small handful of them, almost anyone on the street could have re-written the joke to be funnier. The only thing that was great was the stunt driving, but I'm probably one of the three people who still go to movies who doesn't go to the movies for that. 4/10.


Sadly, this film is a laugh-less failure (minus the very funny Will Ferrell cameo). When I went to see it the theatre was packed (Edwards in San Diego) but the complete lack of laughs and numerous groans from the crowd led to numerous couples walking out on the film. I admit to staying till the end but left the theatre wishing I had rented the hilarious "Zoolander" or the frenetic "Old School" instead. I was extremely disappointed, what a waste of the talent onboard. Many of the skits were taken from other movies ("Zoolander", "Envy", etc). Shame on Warner Brothers and Dimension for giving away all the good laughs and sequences in the trailer and commercials. A D+ is the final grade, and that is being charitable in every capacity possible.


I was kind of looking forward to this, and I'm sad to say that it's not very funny.

Ben Stiller is once again Ben Stiller, and Owen Wilson has his usual red-eyed-I may have been smoking before they yelled action- delivery that can make some dumb lines kind of funny, but other than that there's not much there there.

Snoop Doggy is actually the scene stealer here. Vince Vaugn seems miscast.

I liked the car a lot, but as I was waiting for it to end I kept thinking that this is what they mean by the January/February movie doldrums.

I'd give it four stars.


Wow, I should have taken jalapeño man's advice and not watched this movie. I only watched it because I went to High School with Corban Allred. The acting done by Corban and Kirby was fine, but the script stunk! It had its funny moments, but they were few and far between. This was made by LDS people, but it's not an LDS film like Singles Ward or the RM. The one thing this show has going for it, is that you don't have to worry about your children walking in during an "uncomfortable moment." It's nice to watch a clean movie, however some brain cell lossage might occur while watching this film. Don't bother, in fact, run the other way! Kirby and Corban are very good in Saints and Soldiers. Go see that instead.


It's bad. It's awful. It's not so bad that it is funny or campy, but it is just plain terrible.

I thought that Out of Step or Pride and Prejudice were the worst of the Mormon cinema sub-genre, but this is worse.

The story can't seem to decide if people are LDS or not. You have two guys on bikes in white shirts and ties (obviously missionaries) who are bug sprayers? You have an Idaho community with everyone being brother and sister, but they are some kind of protestants? You can also see every plot twist coming from a mile away (such as where both guys get their girls in the end). Even when that happens, neither guy kisses either girl! The script sucks.

If you want good, funny LDS cinema, stick to the original Singles Ward or The Best Two Years. Leave this one behind.


The plot is good but is never really expanded. There is a picture of Hungarian officials with Tito of Yugoslavia. Were they planning something against Russia?

Dana Andrews goes to Budapest, Hungary as a newspaper reporter. He is replacing someone at the bureau that has been felled by a heart attack. Andrews is soon arrested and charged with espionage. He is about to be hung until the above picture surfaces. This is used as a bargaining chip to free him. Still, Andrews comes back totally brainwashed and this ends this bad film.

Marta Toren is his love interest and Audrey Totter is totally wasted as another reporter on the bureau in Paris. In addition, the talents of George Sanders are not made use here. He was supposed to be the bureau chief. Both he and Andrews had designs on Ms. Toren.

The writing is the true culprit in this film.


Cocky young reporter DANA ANDREWS gets at the truth of some political funny business in Cold War Hungary. Will this help him in his budding romance with the pretty young émigré he took from improbable good guy GEORGE SANDERS during his ASSIGNMENT Paris?

This is a rather typical Columbia production -- decent actors thrown into a fairly silly plot where the implausibilities keep piling up. The good to this movie is the location shooting (they really are in Paris in the exteriors -- love the scene where it's spitting snowflakes) and George Sanders, gamely taking on the sort of role given to Ralph Bellamy. The bad is a somewhat dumb cold war plot, that assumes that a reporter sent to a cold war country is likely going to be arrested, put on trial, and brainwashed (as opposed to merely deported after a careful search). Also, if a reporter really acted like Dana Andrews in his professional or romantic life, he would have his lights punched out by his victims, and be arrested for stalking.

In other words -- not bad, and if you like George Sanders, it might be interesting to see him tackle a non-sneering part. Be warned, though, that Dana Andrews is seriously annoying in this one.


This TVM takes it upon itself to inform the world what a terrible thing racism is . I had to stop myself from bowing down in front of the TV screen in praise and I'm sure that millions of people who have watched this on late night television are eternally grateful for being told that racism is a terrible thing . Oh yes I'm being sarcastic

The " true " story revolves around Tammy and Brian Schnitzer a Jewish couple who move into a town full of red necks . I said " true " story because I felt this TVM may take a few liberties as to how true things were . Okay it's a TVM which means the television company can't show or say things that would be offensive ( Notice graffiti doesn't contain the F word ) meaning three dimensional racist characters are going to be thin on the ground but the script makes them ridiculous caricatures and we're treated to ridiculous scenes where the racists go into a church and light a cigarette which leads to the black congregation to sing a song containing the lyric " Oh burn me down Lord " and the racists retreat at the fairly impressive chorus line and dancing . As I said ridiculous and this leads to more questions and answers

Racists smoke ? I thought neo Nazis were anti drink and smoking , but it's never revealed if the racists are neo Nazis or plain ignorant racists

Black people are good singers and dancers because they've got rhythm ? Inverse racism on the part of the producers is it not ?

Why is a church exclusively full of black people . Ah well that's because in certain American states churches are segregated something the producers only hint at . No doubt they didn't want to cause offence or start a debate

If you want a film featuring mans inhumanity to man try SCHINDLERS LIST or THE KILLING FIELDS


Made in Italy, and financed on the cheap by Universal, "Raw Wind in Eden" isn't a particularly good-looking movie, but there are some compensations for its tatty look. Esther Williams plays a surly fashion model working in Rome who flies off on a date with a handsome millionaire; forced down on a small island near Sardinia--inhabited by a gypsy girl, her father, and a reclusive American--the couple renovate a boat in hopes of being rescued. Tedious romantic adventure, albeit one with a jaunty pace, has enough tart lines in the script to hold interest in the characters. Performances from both Williams (who gets to swim) and Jeff Chandler aren't too bad, though the filmmakers have no idea how to end this saga, and the hectic last reel is a squashy mess. Still, you have to give Esther credit: even while stranded in the sticks, she manages several changes in her hairstyle and goes through a myriad of colorful outfits. *1/2 from ****


This is a meandering, rather oddball film which hopefully gave its stars a nice vacation in Italy (at a time when production was booming there), but did nothing for their careers. Esther plays a successful model working in Rome, but involved with a wealthy American tycoon back home. He sends word to her via his sleazy European partner and friend Carlos Thompson that his wife will not give him a divorce to marry her. Dejected Esther immediately agrees to go with Thompson on a yachting party thrown by another millionaire off Majorca. Thompson, however, crashes his private plane carrying them in a storm onto a tiny island near Sardinia.

This island is populated only by Eduardo de Filippo, his nubile and soon-to-be of age daughter Rosanna Podesta, and Jeff Chandler, a mysterious beachcomber who is betrothed to Podesta and helps out de Filippo. Rik Battaglia plays a date farmer from the mainland who is Chandler's rival for Podesta's affections. The rest of the film, which keeps a fairly light tone while throwing in bits of melodrama and a badly done attempt at action at the end, involves Williams' and Thompson's efforts to get off of the island while unraveling the mystery of who Chandler is and what he is doing there.

The only real interest the film has is the pretty Mediterranean scenery and the only teaming of Williams and Chandler, who were engaged for a time. Williams later did her best to posthumously trash Chandler's reputation in her autobiography by describing him as a cross-dresser! Not a very gallant thing for her to do, but whether or not it was true at least it might have livened things up a bit if Jeff had modeled some of Esther's frocks in this pointless exercise.


It's really hard to enjoy a movie in which nine out of ten characters speak so softly, whispering and grumbling without any sense. I cannot be engaged in a story built exclusively with environmental and symbolic elements and no suspense at all. I do not want to listen anything about the same old debate concerning catholic education and sexual repression (may be 20 or 30 years ago). I suspect this movie is out of season and out of Martel's range. The '60 and '70 were really good but I am not interested in remakes. Despite the above listed complains, I think Martel is talented but may be she still has to find her own voice. I liked "La Ciénaga", the other Lucrecia Martel's effort. It was less pretentious and more entertaining. In summary: this is a boring, pointless, old-fashioned film. I have watched this kind of story before, better written and executed by many directors, v.g.: Luis Buñuel, Carlos Saura and Peter Weir (Please take a look at "Picnic at the hanging rocks") only to name three of them. All in all it deserves a 3/10.


For someone who has watched a fair amount of foreign films, I am sad to say that I truly am dissatisfied with this picture. I do agree that "La Nina Santa" had many close-up shots; actually, the movie seemed to consist only of close-up and medium close-up shots which seemed to have ruined the film for me. This made it harder for to figure out exactly what was going on, and what the surroundings were. I don't even think I really knew that the convention was being held at a hotel until a conversation was held toward the middle of the movie between Helena and Freddy. I was under the impression it was at an all girl's school especially considering the fact that we witnessed many of the girl's religion classes without really knowing how they ended up there all of sudden. I believe this has a lot to do with the direction of photography because the director obviously wants us to concentrate more on the characters and their interactions involving those around them.

After reading many other reviews this film received, I couldn't help but be excited to watch it. However, my excitement slowly started to diminish. I just wish the director could have brought more beauty to the story. When filming did occur outside it was either quite brief or the camera was considerably close to the character and caused the viewer unable to soak up Argentina's splendor. I could also take this in another direction and say that the director wanted me to focus more on the characters, but I wasn't able to form any kind of relationship to them which is why this film wasn't one of my favorites.


Looking at some of the other user comments, I realize that many sought to extol the purported virtues of this film, professing Lucrecia Martel's artistic brilliance and method for capturing personality and conflict as demonstrated in this, her "ouevre," but as far as I'm concerned, these people must be blind, if not also deranged. This movie is abysmal. It's inert, without direction and a true chore to finish. The first hour and a quarter scarcely set the stage, with the duration moving no quicker or more palatably, and I'm more than patient with artistic efforts that appear to want for plot, but this was pointlessly plot less and otherwise utterly bereft of potentially other redeeming features. The bulk of the acting is mediocre to average, Martel's writing without flair or innovation, and the camera work and editing pretty much boring. Why Almodovar was willing to put his name on this work (and I'm convinced that it was his name and no more, based on the wretchedly lobotomizing slowness of the story, bloviating banality and clear absence of captivating content) is beyond me. And I would like to clarify that this dreadful film school fare should not even be included in the same paragraph, let alone be the subject of any direct comparison (unless it is a profoundly disparate one) to any of the following: Amores Perros or any of Inarritu's work, any actually-Almodovar-created work, the Cuaron Bro.s' Y Tu Mama, Salles' Motorcycle Diaries or Central Station, Meirelles' City of God or even the pretty but anticlimactic Carrera's Crimen del Padre Amaro. And I actually think that the scene settings, character list and cast had real possibility and promise: Mia Maestro (as the young Catholic teacher leading and incessantly lecturing the group of girls in choir practice in sanctimonious catechism-worthy restraint and denial of any sensation or sexual awakening, whom Amalia's friend Jose(fina) claims to have seen making out with a clandestine lover) is pretentiously chaste and overtly uptight but so comely and foreseeably coquettish that I would killed to have seen her character more developed or perhaps the explicit aforementioned trysts; María Alché is sufficiently intriguing, complex and coy that far more could have been done with her, apart from the dilapidated swimming pool and sneaking up on the tragically-boring Carlos Belloso/Dr. Jano; and, well, that's about it. Oh, I almost forgot, I will give Martel this: speaking from the somewhat limited experience as the son of a pathologist and a nurse, Martel DOES manage to capture how deliriously boring and maimingly monotonous a medical convention can be (otorhinolaryngologists no less, their motto would rightly be "fun with phlegm"), particularly when held in a craphole motel (think Leaving Las Vegas' witty "The Whole Year Inn"-cum-"The Hole You're In") and further exacerbated by a tediously planned dramatization of how to conduct a patient interview (a device Martel must have found brilliant since she devotes exponentially more time to this than anything else). Please, if you take nothing else away from my admitted logorrhea, synthesize this: this movie is awful, Martel likely a hack worthy of condemnation rather than scatologicaly-founded praise, and above all else, I implore you, DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME!


A number of reviewers seemed to be blown away by this movie. I didn't find it particularly "brilliant," nor for that matter, very engaging. A middle-aged physician at a medical conference (away from his wife and family) begins a painfully halting flirtation with an attractive divorcée. Yet later, in a crowd scene, he grinds up against a nubile adolescent who turns out to be her daughter. This peculiar set of circumstances can't go anywhere good and sure enough, it doesn't. That in itself seems to provoke interest for some, but the pace is so slow that you get tired of waiting for things to gel and something significant to occur. As a result, most of the film felt unconnected and vaguely irrelevant. In fact, entire scenes could have been cut without affecting the story very much. In the last half hour, matters finally begin to coalesce, but other than an ironic set of tension-producing coincidences at the conclusion, there is really nothing new or unexpected here. In fact, it becomes disappointingly predictable, as if torn from the news. The biggest problem with having pretty Maria Alche' in the lead role is that she looks much older than the script indicates (she was 21 when the film was released) and is obviously not an innocent. It diminishes the sense of immorality(and probable illegality) surrounding the sexual advance made upon her by the physician when that sense is central to the premise and the concluding events.


This film received such critical raves, that I decided to rent it on DVD. What a huge mistake. This isn't even mediocre...it's horrible. The first hour of the picture wasn't even necessary. The "story" (and I use that term loosely) takes shape in the last 45 minutes or so. And then I waited for the ending to possibly make sense of this crap and they just roll credits?! Here's some more good adjectives to describe this film: excruciating, over-rated, and pretentious. One of the worst movies of 2005, and knowing how bad 2005 was, that's saying a lot. The only thing that makes me feel better is seeing other User Comments on IMDb ripping into this film as well.


This is a terrible movie. It was a waste of time. I forced myself to watch the whole thing hoping it would get better. It got worse. Don't waste your time. The other reviewers who claim this is a "masterpiece," are art-house critic wannabees who know nothing about film. They have no knowledge about film, but think anything that looks "artsy" must be a classic. There's a difference between those of us who watch "Eraserhead," and those of us who understand "Eraserhead." Those of us who view "Momento," and understand how complex the film is, and watch it again and again. Each viewing of the film brings a new revelation and understanding of the film. If you get this statement, you'll hate this movie.


I watched this movie on DVD and I almost suffer a cardiac arrest - terrible piece of art!!!. I had watched The Swamp a couple of years ago, which I found even worse, unbearable really!!!.

Lucrecia I'm sorry, but I don't really understand you at all. On top of that, I had the patience to go through all the "making of the movie" and the interviews that the DVD brings, I could not believe all the rubbish I was hearing. Not only you, but everyone who spoke in those interviews looked like complete charlatans. Trying to justify every single bit of the story with silly arguments.

Absolutely pointless to keep wasting my time - please do not watch this crap!

Cheers, Esteban Bernasconi

PS: tried to write in Spanish but the system does not accept it!


When you film a movie you can use your freedom to make whatever you want: you can tell a story or just put the focus on a segment of people's life and nothing more. For example, Lost In Translation is simple. Maybe you don't have a perfect start, middle and end. Just a couple of days of an actor. But its clear and have a drama behind. You feel the ambiance.

La Niña Santa it's a very poor try to use this kind of direction. It's not clear, it's not entertainment, it's not drama. Just people (you do not know who is each one), a place (where?), some relations (incomprehensibles) and little less than two hours boring. Bad idea (if exists one).

Some critics loves this movie. So, first watch it. Later you'll tell me that I'm right.


Yesterday, in my lunch time, I saw this new-released DVD on sale in a store. I had no information about "La Niña Santa", but its cover had the symbols of participation in the Cannes, Toronto and New York Festivals, and four favorable reviews (from "Le Monde", "Premiere", Sergio Rizzo (unknown for me) from the "Folha de São Paulo" and "New York Times"). When I read the name of one of the producers, Pedro Almodóvar, and that this movie was awarded in the "Mostra International de Cinema de São Paulo", I unfortunately decided to buy it.

"La Niña Santa" is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The screenplay is terrible: the viewer can see that the story is in a Latin country (Argentina indeed), but the explanation is only found reading the cover of the DVD. It takes thirteen minutes to understand that the location is a hotel welcoming a conference of physicians and surgeons. The group of gossipy girls in a choir is never explained if they belong to a church or school. The amateurish framing recalled my son, when he was a baby boy and had some trouble to use the camcorder, cutting heads, shoulders, legs of feet in his footages; the same happens along the whole movie. Based on the foregoing remarks, the poor direction is simply terrible. Last but not the least, even the cast composed by ugly actors and actress is not attractive. My advice: although having a great lobby, do not waste your time and money in this crap. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "A Menina Santa" ("The Saint Girl")


The first time I started to watch this movie was after drinking two beers pretending they would be enough to send my stressful day at work into the past and help me indulge in the simple pleasures of idleness.

I couldn't understand anything of the first 20 minutes and falling sleep won the match. I didn't take this loosely the next day, first of all I speak Spanish and the language was not an issue, secondly, if two beers are making me so incompetent, AA in my area will be my next google search.

So I decided to give the movie (and me) a new chance the next night. This time, though, no beer, volume all the way up and the intention of conquering a task with the eagerness that can come only from being defeated at it beforehand.

Nope, still no good. This time I say the whole thing and I must say, this is the Iraq war of movies: A complete mess without justification.

On purpose I will leave aside the cinematic details so I don't sound like a wannabe connoisseur (MS Word corrected this word, BTW) or a reviewer with some clout, I am just a disgruntle customer exposed to this almost comic levels of ineptness portrayed as a Drama film.

Well, the single merit of this thing is that it has more scenes of people lying on beds than a porn movie (but in this case, they are not doing anything, just there and still there. There.forever). Secondly, actors don't do anything (again); they are just Argentinean mannequins whispering some absurd words in an environment that makes no sense with a plot that seems to have been written on the back of the check that founded this idea of a film.

The trite recipe of inserting some shocking scenes on the film so they carry the chore of making the rest of the movie worth something, again, fails. The director shows almost a sadistic delight on keeping the camera 6 inches away from the unanimated character, thinking that this is enough to portray a study of human something (sickness, emotions, whatever because we never know at the end) and give a social commentary of something even more groped by intellectualoids: Religion and Sex. The time goes by and nothing happens, nothing is concluded. This idleness is way better than the one I was expecting from my two beers the day before, but this is not fun, this is a waste.

Blockbuster now remembers me as "the crazy dude that wanted a refund for a bad movie he rented". Well, yes, I returned this movie, made a scene and got my $4.86 back. Is not possible that rubbish like this gets distributed and God forbids, other project got rejected or delayed. I know is not a fair world, but this is testing the limits.

I will always support foreign movies, especially from Latin America, but something I can't support is to perpetuate mediocrity by implying that because the movie was produced in Argentina or that the director is a woman, or that the theme is so controversial, it can get away by overlooking quality, coherence or merit.

The good news is that my drinking is not a health issue (yet). This movie is awful, drunk or sober.


I think that our subtitles weren't right, which is odd, since we rent it from a normal video shop. The conversations weren't going anywhere. Anyone knows what was wrong with the womens eye(?)

I survived 102 minutes of film, glad to never see it again.

What i really thought was annoying, was the lack of ending, it suddenly stops when the 2 girls are swimming...uh.

Let this be a warning for you people. Don't go see this movie, when you don't speak Spanish.

The movie has more than one story lines. None are worked out well as far as I'm concerned.


Simply boring! This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Colombians must have interests on this movie because you MUST take 5 cups of coffee to avoid sleeping. I don't know why the director (she) never uses music in all the film. The dialogs are very strange and th story ends giving nothing but a need to ask for a refund on the video club. The sound on the movie is really awful. I'm tired of seeing productions where you don't know in what year you're talking about. There's a misconception of time in all the movie. The only thing you can save is photography and Moran's acting. Belloso is on of the best actors in Argentina and the role he plays is for a beginner not for THE actor. That's why I think it deserves a 2.


Sorry, but as an Argentinian woman, I can't stop saying that this movie was so bad for me. Like her other movie "La ciénaga", Lucrecia Martel continues without saying anything to me clearly, when I was trying to understand this movie, it ended!!! I don't understand anything of it, and I wasn't the only. What happened with Dr.Jano and Helena?? What it is means the two girls in the swimming pool at the end?? Sorry,maybe this kind of movie is for high level mind or something, but I think that I am intelligent, I like European movies a lot, and Argentinian movies are similar to them,but this movie specially sucks! 0/0


It's movies like this that give "arthouse" movies a bad name. This movie is pure cinematic gibberish. It begins nowhere and ends in the same place (I think). I say, I think, because I didn't stay until the end. My friend walked out about 20 minutes before me. I said I was going to stick it out, but I couldn't take it, and had to get out. This movie is senseless, unbearably so. If there was anything at all, a coherent story, some movement, a sympathetic character, anything, I would have stayed to the end, but this movie has nothing going for it. I must say though, there were some incredible shots of the backs of people's ears, but other than that, nothing.


This is an OK film as long as you aren't expecting much, definitely leave your brain at the door.

The plot is nothing new, no original thought here. The acting is actually quite good although it's sometimes hard to judge the acting when the dialogue is this bad.

The main problem is that all the "surprises" are obvious, you won't be surprised by anything in this film, the plot twists can be see long before they arrive and they have all been used elsewhere.

The plot is also a bit nonsensical with characters behaviour, the villains in particular, not being believable.

The directing is terrible with annoying visual effects thrown in for no real reason.

All that said this is watchable trash if you are looking to kill a bit of time.


Hey, I have an idea for a movie - let's take Robocop, mix it a bit with Dark Angel, and throw in some SciFi Channel B-movie directing skills. Painkiller Jane was written with every worn out tired Hollywood cliché' available. It's like they opened the cliché book and just went to town. Good looking woman gets infected with some funky biological agent and becomes nearly invincible. Throw in a military conspiracy and a foreign bad-guy and you have a recipe for true disaster. The jerky camera shots and silly jogging through the woods sequence just added to my disgust. I can't believe I spent part of an evening watching this garbage. Please. Somebody. Make it go away.


Might end up being the biggest disappointment that I will see in 2009. I seem to be the rare person who disliked Park's Oldboy, but I think that his "Lady Vengeance" and "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" are among the best films I've seen in the 2000's decade. Therefore, I really was looking forward to see this, especially as it got such positive reviews. Instead, I found the film clichéd, and broke little, if any new ground to the vampire genre. And while I can appreciate a bit of gallows humor in movies like this, I felt Park did this at very inopportune times.

Others have compared/contrasted this to "Let the Right One In," and I have to say that "Let the Right One In" was far superior to this one, and was a fresh take on the vampire genre. Sadly, Park's take was a tired one.


For years, I've been a big fan of Park's work and "Old boy" is one of my all-times favorite.

With lots of expectation I rented this movie, only to find the worst movie I've watched in awhile. It's not a proper horror movie; there's no suspense in it and even the "light" part is so lame, that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

I introduced my younger brother to Chan-Wook Park and what a disappointment he got from this. For me, an idol has fallen.

If you loved movies like "Old boy", the Mr & Lady "Vengeance" or even his short films on "Three extremes", don't waste your time, the film's not worth it.


I cant stand watching this show. Its painfully unfunny and I don't know how it lasted for 2 seasons. The jokes are horrible and the plot is rubbish. The characters are so annoying and I don't feel the least bit of entertainment. It just seems that they are trying too hard to be funny, that it backfired. Hopefully this will be a learning experience for them. Well its about Bonnie who is a mother, loving wife (clearly not a funny one) , and TV host of a local talk show. She tries to maintain a public image of the perfect wife and mother when in reality, her life is chaotic (and not funny).I thought I should give it a chance and maybe I just caught the show at a bad episode but I was wrong they are just plain fully uninteresting. They did do their best in to making this show funny but clearly their best wasn't good enough. I gave it a 4 for effort. But I personally find it UNFUNNY.


well it wasn't until i saw MARNETTE PATTERSON on CHARMED that i remember seeing this show. i watched the whole season one shows that came on. its to bad the WB replayed the shows again on Monday night. because they only had eight shows to air from the same season. on top of that when season two got ready to start i didn't see any promos for it. oh well they moved the show around and rating when down. and it ended so i guess you can say that i like the show. but it wasn't something i would rushed to the TV and watch. because in my eyes it was just another mild hit show that came from the WB.just another story base on movie stars right


Dil Se was a huge set back for Mani and it seems that he hasn't come out of that disaster. Yuva doesn't reveal the excellence of Roja and Bombay. Songs in the movie are highly irrelevant and irritating. Ajay Devgan is one of the most improvised actors in industry esp after Company. Vivek was more like a side actor. Abhishek suits in anti role and should continue as a villain. All the heroins were simply pathetic. Rani had some role to play, but she didn't look good. Esha has a short career as neither she looks good nor she acts well. Kareena, like her mother and unlike her sister, overacts. Om Puri is a world class actor. Overall, a below average movie !!


Yuva is a sheer waste of time. Apart from Abhishek's performance, there is nothing to watch. There are too many characters in the movie and which makes it very irritating to watch, especially Kareena. The movie has absolute zero entertainment value and it is filled with unnecessary violence. The movie doesn't even seem motivating in any sense to the youth. The characters look so unreal that many times it made me think that how can someone take this movie seriously. You got to be insane to appreciate this movie as good one. I am rating it as 1 just because I couldn't find any negative ratings in the drop down menu. Otherwise it deserves -5.


This is another Masala flick and a third-rate product from Mani Ratnam. Doesn't help that it was a plagiarized film, about the only thing that Bollywood's really good at.

Unfortunately, saw this right after enjoying Syriana on a widescreen Multiplex. Needless to say, Yuva looked trashy when pitted against an impressive Hollywood original. Lesson learned. In any case, the movie's musical score by Rahman (who else) gets on your nerves. Maybe thats part of the reason for the dislike. And why on earth is it set in Bengal when none of the characters except Prosenjit Banerjee looks or sounds like a Bengali? What were they thinking?? Maybe Om Puri's parts were filmed earlier and at least attempted a Bengali accent, while the others simply had no clue their characters are Bengali!!! Hilarious.

Ratnam, couldn't you have come up with ANYTHING original??? Take a look around. Last time we checked, there are still a few directors honest to their trade who do not copy so brazenly. Seems like Ratnam too lost his way like Maheh Bhatt, etc. Obviously these guys have to pay the bills, put food on the table, like everyone else. Gotta dish out junk just to plain survive. As for the movie, predictable plot. Bad guy (aka ultra-violent freak) tries hard but in the end the good guy wins. What more can one say??

Literally there are HUNDREDS of simple (and complex) stories that could become good plots, things happening to everyday folks in their everyday lives. If only the Bollywood bozos would open their eyes, ears, noses, other sensory organs and pay attention.....

PS: Giving it a 2 out of pity for the film-maker's family. Ratnam, you need to make movies "Dil Se"....


First of all, no offense to anyone, but I hate politics. All the trailors made Yuva seem like a deep romance--yeah, definitely wasn't that. Being a movie that revolves around Indian politics, I wasn't very engrossed in the movie. Even then, I have enjoyed movies with a similar storyline such as Lal Salaam and The Legend of Bhagat Singh. There was just so much unnecessary violence in this film. There was an effort made to shoot the movie to give it a more realistic look, but it was totally screwed up. Abhishek was very irritating. Poor guy, looks like he's never going to have a hit movie. Rani was fresh as always. Ajay Devgan was, well, Ajay Devgan. Esha was barely noticeable. Vivek and Kareena were great. Their story was the only part of the movie I liked. Music was good. Badal, Finaa, and Khuda Hafis are awesome. Kabhi Neem is decent. The other two tracks are good for just background music.


Jeff Ltd is only limited in its own ability to make its viewers laugh or pay attention.

This show is one of the worst travesties ever put on the air.

Even by comedy network standards it is pretty much garbage and whoever put it on TV should be immediately fired.

The main character is annoying and not likable but also doesn't serve to make anyone laugh even once, it is just not a funny show or funny main character. The other characters also are not funny in the least.

Also the guy playing the main Jeff character can't act worth garbage so that's another reason to cancel this travesty.

Jeff Ltd is total garbage that could only make the worst and least intelligent people laugh.


Jeff Ltd is a pathetic show on every level.

It's a comedy that isn't funny first of all. The acting is terrible, the scripts/stories are terrible, the directing and producing in fact the production as a whole is terrible.

None of the characters are likable and that is okay because you can have a comedy show with unlikeable people but the characters aren't funny either. The acting is the big downfall with this show.

I hope it gets taken off the airwaves soon because Jeff Lts is pathetically bad.

1/10


I've watched several episodes of Jeff Ltd., because it can take time for a new series to find its rhythm. Honestly, though, this show started out bad and just got worse.

On the plus side, the look of the show is very slick and professional, but that's not necessarily an asset to comedy anyway. But overall, the characters are dull, passionless, and the tone is too cool and cynical to let any of its lowbrow humour work. It's very hard to imagine a group of TV professionals sitting in a room watching this show and saying, yep, that's funny, that works. Because it really, really doesn't.


Unfortunately I can remember this show. Jeff Ltd. was a terrible show with above all a terrible performance by the lead character that is what I remember most of all about this show. The plots all involved him trying to trick people into giving him money or trying to trick women into sleeping with him or usually both of those things, all he did was con people and it always backfired because he was very bad at it and thought he was a lot smarter than everyone else when he wasn't. The ideas were only half baked and none of the jokes were funny because the performances were so bad and it was just badly written, you could see exactly where everything was going. I am glad this bad show was booted off the airwaves.


when you base characters on prince songs you have a problem. when you throw those characters into a plot that goes nowhere, and you end up with something that is a train-wreck of Uwe Boll proportions. I seriously wanted to find some reason to keep watching, and sadly it starts mucking up the suckiness with boring. the direction, hr mm it feels like the director just REALLY wanted to get to check out a couple of chicks stripping then making out, and somehow even that looks repulsive in this movie I'm sure some high schooler somewhere is having a fit or questioning my sexuality, but REALLY I am serious when I say that this entire movie would have been better as two minutes of music video when the end comes, and I have to note this doesn't happen soon enough by any definition, you're left with absolutely nothing but the fact that you'd just wasted your time and most likely your money hell like the other guy I bought it in a bargain pack, and STILL felt ripped-off.


Anyone with a half a brain can tell this was made by a group of amateurs with a budget that couldn't be more than a couple thousand dollars. I liked the film's use of lighting, as well as the costume design, but other than that there's nothing good I can say. The story's an incoherent mess. It's one of those confusing story lines that goes in many different directions and is hard to follow, yet at the same time it's not worth following. Besides the lighting and costume design, the film is a stylistic mess. It's like one of those student films where the director is simply trying to show the professor all the different things he can do with visuals, but totally ignores the concept of making a "good film." The sound is terrible. There's one scene where we're watching two characters get out of a car, from a distance, and it sounds as if the characters are right in front of the camera (an obvious use of ADR). Some of the camera-work is shoddy as well. In one scene, two of the characters are in an amusement park, and it's shot on a cheesy home video camera. And no, it wasn't a stylistic choice. I guess the filmmakers weren't able to sneak a film camera into an amusement park, so instead they used a mini-camcorder. That's the kind of stuff you can only get away with in film school. And like in many bad films, there's a good deal of nudity. Some of the girls have pretty nice bodies, but the use of nudity is simply a ploy to distract us from the fact that this movie really sucks and doesn't make a lick of sense. Some viewers may be able to interpret something from this micro-budget flick, but I was lost. Then again, I'm not a fan of movies that jump back and forth, nonchalantly, from one reality to another, and there's no surefire way of telling what's real and what's fake ("The Matrix" being a big-budget example). I'm sorry, but I actually like to understand a movie. Is that too much to ask? There are some complicated films that are worth uncovering the mystery in subsequent viewings, but this is not one of those cases. Besides, why should I take any film seriously that's made by a director who doesn't even bother to put any effort into hiring good actors or using good cinematography?


This film is SO Overrated that it just hurts, i didn't get what the "message" of the film is, and neither both of my friends who went to see this thing with me. If Guillermo Arriaga, that snob who specializes on writing pretentious and stupid screenplays where the characters seems to be total idiots with no common sense whatsoever, wanted us to realize that 'love make us do anything' he accomplishes nothing but an endless line of cliché after cliché.

There is the proverbial love triangle between two best friends and the girlfriend of one of them, also including the sister of one of the guys. We never get their motivations or a single sense of explanation for their actions.

The dialogs are SO lame, so plastic, they are heard like cheesy bits from even cheesier love songs and pieces from a night of heavy drinking and weed smoking.

There are characters with nothing to do except get naked in front of the camera (and I don't have a problem with that) but don't try to deceive us by saying that is the 'great performance of their careers'.

The only thing I liked about the film, was the music, which was written by 'The Mars Volta'. Out of that, I don't think there was any other thing to highlight about this.

The phrase that better describes my reaction to this film is "Guillermo Arriaga you're full of crap!"


Guillermo Arriaga, writer of Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel, returns to Mexico to deliver what can easily be called the biggest disaster in Mexican cinema in years, The Night Buffalo, with Diego Luna in the leading role and a plot involving a schizophrenic man (Gabriel Gonzalez), who commits suicide after his girlfriend (Liz Gallardo) cheats on him with his best friend (Luna).

The Night Buffalo, a very promising film, supposedly going to give new light to Mexican cinema fails to impress and even throws our country back a few steps with its awfulness. After the vomit inducing, yet inexplicable box office success KM 31, I was more than ready to experience an upgrade in film-making, what I got was a major letdown, a pointless awkward "drama" filled with unnecessary sex and nudity that was surprisingly close to become a porn flick.

I don't understand Arriaga's screenplay... so, he actually wrote all the sex scenes? Wow, what a pervert. The whole film was completely pointless, if I wanted to see Diego Luna nude and screwing around with the whole cast, well there are better films where you can see that. It appears like the filmmakers made the film for the sole reason of watching everyone naked, the movie was about 2 hours long and one of them was sex. So yeah, there are artistic ways of showing nudity and some scripts need it, but this movie didn't need any, it had an interesting plot itself, but it didn't move an inch from the synopsis, nothing interesting ever happened in the film and even after the rushed and ridiculous ending, I was still waiting for something, ANYTHING, to make my time spent on the theater worth it.

The movie was unfocused, what was it's objective? The main plot was misused, I was interested in the schizophrenic character, but instead of developing him, they show him naked! And apparently that's the answer to every single question in the film, as none of the characters gets any development, not that we care about what happens to them since they are all worth hating, but at least we expect something to occur. The Night Buffalo should have focused in its audience, their need for an interesting, thrilling, suspenseful story, or maybe just focus on the title's premise shall we? Nothing, we get some nonsense lines here and there, but nothing solid ever sees the light.

Diego Luna's role was probably one of the characters I've most hated in all cinema history, how are we supposed to care for a character that betrayed his best friend sleeping with his girlfriend, and then betrayed her, sleeping with his best friend's sister, which is another blow towards his friend, who I can understand wants to kill himself being surrounded by such a disgusting bunch of people. Yuck, this was plain terrible, nothing to save from the film, everything felt awkward and unnecessary, boring as hell and one of the worst movies I've had the displeasure to see. Arriaga has just bought himself a ticket to Crapville, enjoy your stay.


it's an awful film, the story is good but i think the director didn't know what to do with it, the nudity was just there to show naked actors with out justifying it, the style of the movie the camera the acting the music, it did not mesh well it was just a lot of ingredients thrown in the air not coming together at all, the story seems like it has potential but with a better director maybe, or just somebody with the right vision could have done a good job with this... The wolf in the movie has more personality then all the characters in the film and the only believable character is the crazy kids sister who is also in love with the best friend. The ex girlfriends character was just bizarre, she acts crazy for no reason, or at least we never see how good of a relationship she had with the schizo.


I am a European living in USA for 3 years and always exited to watch a non- Hollywood movie. I have seen a lot that involves guys in this movie and around them. Loved almost everything I saw. So I was very eager to see some new work. I have never heard about the book (until I read some other comments) but I hope it was better then this. So what if he is in love, we all are. Are we thinking of going nuts about it? Sometimes. We have seen this kinda staff too many times. And all that nudity. Only good thing about it is that is all natural, which gives us somewhat soft touch. But still did not understand anything the movie tries to tell us.

I never think watching a movie is a waste of time, though this one came close!!!


Dectective Lucas McCarthy (Lance Henriksen) is still haunted by the night he captured the notorious serial killer Max Jenke (Brion James) who has murdered over 110 people, most of them with a meat cleaver. He constantly wakes up in the middle of the night because of the nightmares he has of that fateful night. The night he and his partner Casey (Terry Alexander) tracked Jenke down to a diner. They both split up. McCarthy finds what's left of two cops, Hodges and Osborn in little pieces splattered all over the diner's kitchen. Casey investigates the nearby electricity plant. After realising Jenke isn't in the diner McCarthy heads to the power plant and finds Casey dying with both of his arms cut off. Eventually he manages to capture Jenke, his boss Lt. Hank Miller (Lewis Arquette) stops McCarthy from shooting him. McCarthy has been on a leave of absence ever since that night. He regularly sees a psychiatrist named Dr. Tower (Matt Clark). It's the day of Jenkes execution by electric chair, McCarthy has a front row seat. Jenke is executed but before he dies he says he will be back. Afterwards in the prison morgue a Professor Peter Campbell (Thom Bray) is conducting state funded research on various crackpot theories he has regarding 'electromagnetic evil'. He believes evil in it's simplest form is electricity and that Jenke is pure evil, so he thinks Jenke can move from the material plane and become pure concentrated electric evil who will be able to manipulate reality. Hey, I didn't understand this rubbish either, I mean I didn't write this stuff. He witnesses Jenkes transformation into electricity. He tries to talk with McCarthy, who Campbell thinks Jenke will go after. Will Campbell be able to convince a disbelieving McCarthy in time? Will Mcarthy's family, his wife Donna (Rita Taggart) plus their two children Scott (Aron Eisenberg) and Bonnie (Dedee Pfeiffer) become victims of Jenke and his meat cleaver? And can Jenke finally be put to rest and his reign of terror be ended? Watch it to find out! Apparently there were some behind-the-scenes production problems on this film. The original writer/director David Blythe was fired after a few days and special effects man James Isaac was brought in to replace him. The UK DVD I have on the 'Hollywood DVD' label has Isaac listed as director on the film itself but has Blythe listed as director on the DVD cover artwork, very strange that. Anyway I was really rather disappointed with this. The script by Leslie Boham and 'Alan Smithee'/Blythe is far too dull and plodding. Long stretches of absolutely nothing happen far too often. Too much padding and wandering around. It's also extremely stupid, whoever thought of the term 'electromagnetic evil'? It has a few decent sequences, but nowhere near enough to justify 90 minutes of our time spent watching it. Another problem this film had was with censorship, there is virtually no gore in it whatsoever and I've got the '18' rated British DVD which is slightly longer than the American 'R' rated cut. Jenke's execution scene is quite cool with lots of expanding skin plus bulging and popping veins. There are a couple of severed heads and a guy with no arms, blood and gore wise thats it. Nowhere near enough of the red stuff in it! Generally the film is quite well made, but nothing spectacular. This film also commits the crime of wasting two great leading men, the always watchable Lance Henriksen and the delightfully over-the-top villain Brion James, who's barely in it to be honest. Extremely disappointing film with the most horrible 'happy ending' I've seen since the Kindred (1987) in which even the family's pet cat comes back to life and survives! Avoid, unless you can see it on T.V. for free because of Henriksen and James, and for the one or two decent sequences in it.


so, on we go to round three of the "House" series.we(my sister and i)had watched the first entry all the way through and were underwhelmed,to say the least.the second one lowered the bar for crappiness even further.how bad could number 3 be?it starts off promising enough.after all,it had Lance Henricksen (he should've passed) in it and it looked like it had a bigger budget.however,it soon became apparent that this movie was also a dud.another ridiculous plot,bad acting,bad everything.i think this one made it 40 minutes tops.any longer and my head would have exploded.again,no horror,and no comedy.i must be missing something.i wish i knew what it was. this thing gets a low 1* note:this movie is sometimes referred to as "House 3" including the copy i have.SO,although it may have little or nothing to do with the "House"other than name,i chose to refer to it as "House" 3 in my summary.i hope this clears up any confusion.


They describe this movie as a black comedy about a stand-up comic trying to make it as a comic just like his dad did so successfully, however he fails miserably. As I watched it, I was asking myself why I am watching this movie. It is boring, predictable and misses the mark on being entertaining. Oliver Platt's character was not relatable, likable or fascinating. At the end I didn't care how he ended up or any of the characters for that matter. Nothing stood out as amazing, wonderful or even entertaining. Scenes were too long, dialog was boring and the plot line sounds better on paper than it played out to be on film. This movie totally missed the mark - don't watch it.


First the bad news. This supposed black comedy is totally devoid of black comedy, and any other kind of humor for that matter. What you get are two separate converging stories neither of which is remotely funny. Jumping back and forth, the viewer is totally bored and confused, not a good formula for entertainment. Trucking out endless vaudeville acts may be entertaining to an extremely tiny minority, but to everyone else "Funny Bones" will be unending torture. After one hour of this total nonsense, I most fortunately consulted the DVD case, which informed me that it was 128 minutes long. I had had enough. Now the good news, I ejected this artsy crap, and didn't waste another minute. - MERK


Another Barbie movie. And guess what? Kelly Sheridan is also in this film. Before I ever ran across the Barbie movies, I would have never heard this name, but that is the miracle for being willing to watch any movie out there.

Anyway, its just a Barbie version of the "Prince and the Pauper" that has been done so many times before. Except this is a GGI Barbie version with a twist: somebody is trying to take over the 'Barbie kingdom'. Yes, very exciting.

Overall, except for the two couples at the end, the story followed the traditional format. Not much to see here. "D-"


very bad adaptation of a very good book. the lady who wrote the book (Thea Beckman) said she did not like this movie and i can only agree.

in the book Dolf is a strong person who tries to do sensible things given that he is stranded in the middle ages. in the movie he's a totally uninteresting whiny little brad, mostly concerned with his own superiority over these primitive people.

in the book he eventually resigns himself to being stuck in the middle-ages for the rest of his life, in the movie it is clear all the time he will be rescued, taking away all tension (and i just want to forget about the ultra-clichéd Hollywood-style 'he has to take a pill every day and only has like 5 pills')

In the book Dolf makes friends with some of the people he meets. in the movie the only person of interest is some girl with the brains of a peanut. (it's a kid's movie dammit, which pedophile ever thought they really needed to cram some romance in it?)

in the book he goes back in time out of scientific curiosity, in the movie it's because he can't handle loosing some stupid socker game.

in the book he gets things done with his intelligence, being a leader because he has earned the respect of his comrades, in the movie: no intelligence, no hard earned respect.

I liked almost all of Thea Beckman's books and if this is the way the movie-industry treats them i just hope the rest of her stories will be kept of the screen and in the hands of people who do not feel like reading a book once in a while is to much of an effort.